Matthew 5:33

We have here an exposition of the third commandment, which we are the more concerned right to understand, because it is particularly said, that God will not hold him guiltless, however he may hold himself, who breaks this commandment, by taking the name of the Lord in vain. Now as to this command,

I. It is agreed on all hands that it forbids perjury, forswearing, and the violation of oaths and vows, Mat 5:33. This was said to them of old time, and is the true intent and meaning of the third commandment. Thou shalt not use, or take up, the name of God (as we do by an oath) in vain, or unto vanity, or a lie. He hath not lift up his soul unto vanity, is expounded in the next words, nor sworn deceitfully, Psa 24:4. Perjury is a sin condemned by the light of nature, as a complication of impiety toward God and injustice toward man, and as rendering a man highly obnoxious to the divine wrath, which was always judged to follow so infallibly upon that sin, that the forms of swearing were commonly turned into execrations or imprecations; as that, God do so to me, and more also; and with us, So help me God; wishing I may never have any help from God, if I swear falsely. Thus, by the consent of nations, have men cursed themselves, not doubting but that God would curse them, if they lied against the truth then, when they solemnly called God to witness to it.

It is added, from some other scriptures, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths (Num 30:2); which may be meant, either, 1. Of those promises to which God is a party, vows made to God; these must be punctually paid (Ecc 5:4, Ecc 5:5): or, 2. Of those promises made to our brethren, to which God was a Witness, he being appealed to concerning our sincerity; these must be performed to the Lord, with an eye to him, and for his sake: for to him, by ratifying the promises with an oath, we have made ourselves debtors; and if we break a promise so ratified, we have not lied unto men only, but unto God.

II. It is here added, that the commandment does not only forbid false swearing, but all rash, unnecessary swearing: Swear not at all, Mat 5:34; Compare Jam 5:12. Not that all swearing is sinful; so far from that, if rightly done, it is a part of religious worship, and we in it give unto God the glory due to his name. See Deu 6:13; Deu 10:20; Isa 45:23; Jer 4:2. We find Paul confirming what he said by such solemnities (Co2 1:23), when there was a necessity for it. In swearing, we pawn the truth of something known, to confirm the truth of something doubtful or unknown; we appeal to a greater knowledge, to a higher court, and imprecate the vengeance of a righteous Judge, if we swear deceitfully.

Now the mind of Christ in this matter is,

1. That we must not swear at all, but when we are duly called to it, and justice or charity to our brother, or respect to the commonwealth, make it necessary for the end of strife (Heb 6:16), of which necessity the civil magistrate is ordinarily to be the judge. We may be sworn, but we must now swear; we may be adjured, and so obliged to it, but we must not thrust ourselves upon it for our own worldly advantage.

2. That we must not swear lightly and irreverently, in common discourse: it is a very great sin to make a ludicrous appeal to the glorious Majesty of heaven, which, being a sacred thing, ought always to be very serious: it is a gross profanation of God's holy name, and of one of the holy things which the children of Israel sanctify to the Lord: it is a sin that has no cloak, no excuse for it, and therefore a sign of a graceless heart, in which enmity to God reigns: Thine enemies take thy name in vain.

3. That we must in a special manner avoid promissory oaths, of which Christ more particularly speaks here, for they are oaths that are to be performed. The influence of an affirmative oath immediately ceases, when we have faithfully discovered the truth, and the whole truth; but a promissory oath binds so long, and may be so many ways broken, by the surprise as well as strength of a temptation, that it is not to be used but upon great necessity: the frequent requiring and using of oaths, is a reflection upon Christians, who should be of such acknowledged fidelity, as that their sober words should be as sacred as their solemn oaths.

4. That we must not swear by any other creature. It should seem there were some, who, in civility (as they thought) to the name of God, would not make use of that in swearing, but would swear by heaven or earth, etc. This Christ forbids here (Mat 5:34) and shows that there is nothing we can swear by, but it is some way or other related to God, who is the Fountain of all beings, and therefore that it is as dangerous to swear by them, as it is to swear by God himself: it is the verity of the creature that is laid at stake; now that cannot be an instrument of testimony, but as it has regard to God, who is the summum verum - the chief Truth. As for instance,

(1.) Swear not by the heaven; "As sure as there is a heaven, this is true;" for it is God's throne, where he resides, and in a particular manner manifests his glory, as a Prince upon his throne: this being the inseparable dignity of the upper world, you cannot swear by heaven, but you swear by God himself.

(2.) Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool. He governs the motions of this lower world; as he rules in heaven, so he rules over the earth; and though under his feet, yet it is also under his eye and care, and stands in relation to him as his, Psa 24:1. The earth is the Lord's; so that in swearing by it, you swear by its Owner.

(3.) Neither by Jerusalem, a place for which the Jews had such a veneration, that they could not speak of any thing more sacred to swear by; but beside the common reference Jerusalem has to God, as part of the earth, it is in special relation to him, for it is the city of the great King (Psa 48:2), the city of God (Psa 46:4), he is therefore interested in it, and in every oath taken by it.

(4.) "Neither shalt thou swear by the head; though it be near thee, and an essential part of thee, yet it is more God's than thine; for he made it, and formed all the springs and powers of it; whereas thou thyself canst not, from any natural intrinsic influence, change the colour of one hair, so as to make it white or black; so that thou canst not swear by thy head, but thou swearest by him who is the Life of thy head, and the Lifter up of it." Psa 3:3.

5. That therefore in all our communications we must content ourselves with, Yea, yea, and nay, nay, Mat 5:37. In ordinary discourse, if we affirm a thing, let us only say, Yea, it is so; and, if need be, to evidence our assurance of a thing, we may double it, and say, Yea, yea, indeed it is so: Verily, verily, was our Saviour's yea, yea. So if we deny a thing, let is suffice to say, No; or if it be requisite, to repeat the denial, and say, No, no; and if our fidelity be known, that will suffice to gain us credit; and if it be questioned, to back what we say with swearing and cursing, is but to render it more suspicious. They who can swallow a profane oath, will not strain at a lie. It is a pity that this, which Christ puts in the mouths of all his disciples, should be fastened, as a name of reproach, upon a sect faulty enough other ways, when (as Dr. Hammond says) we are not forbidden any more than yea and nay, but are in a manner directed to the use of that.

The reason is observable; For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil, though it do not amount to the iniquity of an oath. It comes ek tou Diabolou; so an ancient copy has it: it comes from the Devil, the evil one; it comes from the corruption of men's nature, from passion and vehemence; from a reigning vanity in the mind, and a contempt of sacred things: it comes from that deceitfulness which is in men, All men are liars; therefore men use these protestations, because they are distrustful one of another, and think they cannot be believed without them. Note, Christians should, for the credit of their religion, avoid not only that which is in itself evil, but that which cometh of evil, and has the appearance of it. That may be suspected as a bad thing, which comes from a bad cause. An oath is physic, which supposes a disease.

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

Mat_5:33-34

Swear not.

I. Profane swearing is always the evidence of a depraved heart.

II. No man is believed any sooner in common conversation because he swears to a thing.

III. It is no mark of a gentleman to swear.

IV. Profaneness does no man any good. It is degrading, etc.

V. God will not hold the profane swearer guiltless. There is not in the universe more cause of amazement at Gods forbearance. (Dr. A. Barnes.)

I. It is mean to swear.

II. It is rude to swear.

III. Swearing is the sign of an empty head.

IV. Swearing is wicked. (J. N. Norton.)

In order to keep us at the greatest distance from all profanation of the sacred name, Christ warns us here to avoid oaths of every kind.

(1) Except in cases of necessity.

(2) How trifling soever they may seem to us.

(3) As implying an appeal to God contrary to the reverence we owe Him, and to that simplicity of speech which becomes those who fear Him.

II. Let the general probity of your character and known regard to the truth be such that your bare word may be credited. Whether it is or not, resolve to go no farther, for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil. (Thomas Admire.)

The lawfulness and obligation of oaths

I. This precept does not absolutely forbid all use of oaths. An oath is a solemn appeal to God, as a witness of the truth of what we declare, and of our sincerity in what we promise. Oaths are assertory and promissory.

1. It is not uncommon for Scripture to use general expressions, which are to be understood in a qualified sense.

2. From the reasons of the charge and other passages of Scripture. Oaths are necessary in civil society: they are of Divine institution; St. Paul used them; God swears by Himself.

II. Christ condemns-

1. Perjury.

2. Customary swearing in common conversation.

3. As we may not use the Divine name wantonly so neither may we swear by any of Gods creatures.

4. He forbids all rash imprecations.

5. All scoffing at religion, contempt of the writings of God, and all sporting with Scripture. Profane language is a sure evidence of a bad disposition of mind. It tends to produce greater hardness and to extinguish all reverence: it is most pernicious in its consequences:it is unreasonable yet infectious; it heaps guilt upon the soul. (J. Lathrop, D. D.)

I. The Christian Jaw in regard to oaths (Lev_19:12; Num_30:2).

II. The Christian law of retaliation.

III. Practical lessons. The sin of perjury is said to be growing appallingly frequent. Whilst technical vows are no longer in harmony with the liberty of the new dispensation, still the spirit of the vow by which one dedicates himself to Divine service is as sacred and as useful as ever. Avoid using expressions that are in the nature of an oath without having its technical form. Outright profanity is a terrible sin, as useless as it is hardening. What a confession of mans proneness to lie, is his habitual appeal to God as a witness of the truth! The law of retaliating love laid down by Christ shows Him to be the one and supreme Teacher. (J. S. Doolittle, D. D.)

Language

1. Language should be the simple expression of the heart.

2. Christianity seeks to simplify human communications.

3. Exaggerated expressions lead to an untrue life.

4. Christs law of speech will regulate our social intercourse. (W. W. Whythe.)

Profane Swearing

This sin is awfully prevalent.

I. The excuses usually made for it. Ignorance, custom, example, surprise, passion, confirmation of what is said, meaning no harm, inconsistencies of professors, etc. (2Sa_12:14; Eze_36:20; Rom_2:24; 2Pe_2:2).

II. The evil consequences of it. Destroys the little remains of the fear of God. Leads to the disobedience of all His commands. Such a horrid example to others, especially to the young, etc.

III. The powerful arguments against it. God hears. He is holy and jealous. Before His bar the swearer must appear. He is able to punish, and declares He will (2Ki_19:22; 2Ki_19:28; Isa_37:23; Isa_37:36; Isa_37:38; Eze_20:27; Eze_20:33; Eze_35:12-14). (A. Tucker.)

The Sin of Swearing

I. Explain the sin in question.

1. One branch of this sin is cursing and swearing.

2. Another branch is the familiar introduction of oaths into common conversation.

3. A mingling religious language in our common discourse without any corresponding feelings in our heart.

II. Its aggravated guilt.

1. It is a gratuitous sin.

2. It is a wilful sin.

3. It is a presumptuous sin.

III. The awful state of those who practise this sin.

1. Awful because God has denounced His vengeance against them.

2. It is a state of fitness for destruction.

3. It is a sure sign of an unregenerate condition. (E. Cooper.)

Profane exclamations

Charlie Harold, speaking to his grandmother about something he did not like, exclaimed, By thunder I … Hush I said the old lady, you must not swear, my dear. Dont you know that Jesus said, Swear not at all! … . Did:He? Well, I didnt know it was swearing to say By thunder, or By golly. Is it, grandma? … All such expressions, my dear, in which by is used, partake of the nature of swearing, and a boy who wishes to be good will never let them fall from his lips. Charlie sat silent for several minutes, in grave thought, and then said, Grandma, what makes the newspaper swear every morning? … Does it, inquired the old lady, looking over the top of her spectacles with curious eyes. Yes, it says, By telegraph. The old lady could not help laughing, but she explained to Charlie the difference between an exclamation such as By thunder, used to give emphasis to a remark, and an incomplete sentence such as By telegraph. The little boy determined that he would not offend in this way again, and I have told you the story, hoping that you may make the same wise rule. (J. N. Norton.)

Keep from Swearing

A lad in Boston, rather small for his years, worked in an office as errand boy for four gentlemen who did business there. One day the gentlemen were teasing him a little about being so small, and said to him: You never will amount to much, you never can do much business, you are too small. The little fellow looked at them. Well, said he, as small as I am, I can do something which none of you four men can do. Ah, what is that? said they. I dont know as I ought to tell you, he replied. But they were anxious to know, and urged him to tell what he could do that none of them were able to do. I can keep from swearing! said the little fellow. There were some blushes on four manly faces, and there seemed to be very little anxiety for further information on the point.

Swear in the Gaelic tongue

A lady travelling from Edinburgh to Glasgow was much annoyed by a young officers conversation in the carriage being interspersed with oaths. She sat uneasy till she could no longer keep silence. Sir, she said to the officer, can you talk in the Gaelic tongue? To this he replied in the affirmative, seemingly with great pleasure, expecting to have some conversation with the lady in that dialect. She then politely requested that if he wished to swear any more, it might be in that language, as the practice of swearing was very offensive to herself and the rest of the company. The officer was confounded at this reproof, and no more oaths were heard from him during the remainder of the journey.

The tongue and the temper

1. The language of irreverence.

2. The language of retaliation.

3. The language of revenge. (Sermons by Monday Club.)

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

Mat 5:33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time — Or rather, was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. — See the margin. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that oaths were obligatory according to the nature of the things by which a man swears: Mat 23:10. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law, which forbade them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only as were of a binding nature. It is this detestable morality which Jesus condemns in the following words. But I say unto you, Swear not at all — In your common discourse one with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swear not by any thing, on the supposition that the oath will not bind you. “For all oaths whatever, those by the lowest of the creatures not excepted, are obligatory;” because, if they “have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the great Creator; consequently they are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath on such of the creatures sworn by as are capable of God’s wrath; and for the other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case of your swearing falsely, that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in, or hope from those creatures. Swear not, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. — By comparing Mat 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. His meaning therefore is, Swear not at all, unless you have a mind to perform; because every oath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his own head, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty, who, when called thereto by lawful authority, swears with an intention to falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Heb 6:16; and a high act of religious worship, Deu 6:3; Isa 65:16; an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great patron and protector of right, and the avenger of falsehood.” But let your communication be yea, yea — Avoid the use of all such oaths, as of those in which the name of God is directly expressed, and maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words as will merit the belief of your acquaintance; so that, in common conversation, to gain yourselves credit, you need do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil — Εκ του πονηρου, Of the evil one: in common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen in them, and in all who hear them, a due reverence of the Divine Majesty, and by this means lead them, at length, to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations which show the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. The Apostle James expresses this sentiment thus, Jas 5:12, Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay, therefore, signify the promise or assertion; the second the fulfilment. Accordingly we find the word yea used as a promise, Rev 1:7, where it is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2Co 1:10, where we are told that the promises of God are all in Christ, yea and amen. On the other hand, concerning those whose actions do not correspond to their promises, it is said, 2Co 1:18-19, that their word is yea and nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. — Macknight.

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

Mat 5:33-37.

Oaths

The third example (see on "Mat 5:21"), by which our Lord illustrates the superiority of the morality he enjoins, is the subject of Oaths. (Mat 5:33-37)

Mat 5:33. Again. With this term of transition is resumed the full phrase of Mat 5:21. By—or to—them of old time, or, the ancients. See on "Mat 5:21-22". Forswear thyself, or perjure thyself. This refers immediately to Lev 19:12, ’Thou shalt not swear by my name falsely.’ But the expression in the Third Commandment (Exo 20:7 Deu 5:11) is substantially equivalent, viz., literally, ’Thou shalt not lift up (utter) the name of the Lord thy God unto vanity (for falsehood).’ But shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. This is an addition which the Jewish teachers seem to have been accustomed to make to the commandment, corresponding to those in Mat 5:21 and Mat 5:43, and was probably derived by them from Deu 23:21 Num 30:8, where the reference is specially to vows. The verb here rendered ’perform’ is translated by ’pay’ in Mat 5:26, and Mat 18:25-34; ’recompense’ in Mat 6:4, Mat 6:6, Mat 6:18, Rev. Ver.; ’render’ in Mat 16:27, Rev. Ver.; Mat 21:41, Mat 22:21; and signifies to give back, or to give in full, and hence to repay or to pay off.[1] The idea here is that an oath becomes a debt to the Lord, and we must be sure to pay it. This conception is especially appropriate to a vow. (Same Greek term in Deu 23:21 Ecc 5:4 f.) Compare the representation of sin in general as a debt, in Mat 6:12.—The Jewish teachers correctly interpreted the law as prohibiting false swearing. Every assertion accompanied by an oath must be true; every promise accompanied by an oath must be kept. But this cannot be if men use many oaths; and they sought to evade the difficulty in their usual fashion by a quibble of interpretation. The Third Commandment spoke of swearing in the name of Jehovah; and the law elsewhere (Deu 6:13) expressly required that they should "swear by his name," i. e., not by the name of any false deity. So the Rabbis held that the law made binding only those oaths which contained some name or peculiar attribute of God, or something else that was eminently sacred. (Mat 20:16 ff.) Other oaths, not naming or directly suggesting God, they held to be not binding. The Talmud expressly declares that such oaths as ’by heaven,’ ’by the earth,’ do not bind at all. And though some teachers set themselves against this (see on next verse), they were borne down by the majority. Accordingly the Jews were remarkable for their frequent use of oaths in ordinary conversation, swearing by the temple, by the altar, by the lamb, by the dishes, by the law, by Moses, by the prophets, by the life of the Rabbis, as well as the oaths here mentioned and countless others, and reckoning such oaths to be ’nothing.’ (See on "Mat 23:16 ff.") So common was the practice, that even among those who became Christians it continued as a great evil; and James, writing to Jewish Christians, condemns it with special emphasis: "But above all things, my brethren, ’swear not.’ " (Jas 5:12 ; compare Jas 3:9 f.) Many of the same forms of oath are now used in Syria. (Thomson.)

[1] Tyndale’s ’perform’ is retained by all early and most later English Versions. McClellan ’pay,’ and so Com. Vet. in Deu 23:21; where Sept. has the word here used.—Tyndale and Geneva have ’God’ instead of ’the Lord,’ but without authority, and their reason for introducing it does not appear.

Mat 5:34. But I say unto you. ’I’ emphatic, see on "Mat 5:22". Swear not at all. The true way to avoid false swearing is not to swear at all; the Rabbinical distinction would not hold, for even oaths which did not contain the divine name involved some sort of reference to God which made them solemn and obligatory—otherwise they would not be used as oaths. Strike at the root of the matter; do not swear, and you will never swear falsely. In this, as in the previous examples, our Lord is enjoining, not merely an outward and literal obedience to the law, but that regard be had to the principle involved; and he will thus ’complete’ the law. (Mat 5:17) The command not to swear falsely was a great restriction upon the familiar use of oaths: Jesus does not abrogate that command, but goes farther in the same direction.—Yet as the prohibition of killing and of anger is not to be taken without any exception, it being lawful to kill and to be angry, upon sufficient occasion (see on "Mat 5:22"), so, we might conclude by parity of reasoning, must be the case here. And accordingly we find our Lord himself consenting to speak when formally put upon oath before the supreme court (see on "Mat 26:63"); and the Apostle Paul repeatedly using, where there was special occasion, such expressions as ’God is my witness,’ ’I call God for a witness upon my soul,’ ’Before God I lie not,’ (Rom 1:9, 1Co 1:23; Rev. Ver., Gal 1:20), which are strong oaths; and the angel in Rev 10:6, swearing a very solemn oath. So in the O. T., men being accustomed to swear ’As Jehovah liveth,’ God himself is said to swear, ’As I live’; (Eze 33:11) and the Epistle to the Hebrews appeals to God’s oath ’by myself’, (Gen 22:16) as given to strengthen our confidence in the faithfulness of his promise. (Heb 6:15 ff.) An oath, therefore, is not inherently and necessarily wrong, and there are occasions which justify its use, as in judicial proceedings (our Lord’s example), and where some very solemn asseveration in speech or writing is required by the circumstances. (Paul’s example.) But as anger, even when legitimate, is in great danger of becoming sinful (see on "Mat 5:22"), so with oaths, which are often administered in courts of justice with such irreverence as to be highly sinful, and which in individual assertions or promises ought to be confined to very rare and solemn occasions, and to be used, as the apostle does, in the most reverential spirit.—The object of explaining that, in this and the other examples treated by our Lord, there may be exceptions to the absolute prohibition, is not to weaken those prohibitions, but partly to exhibit their accordance with other passages which might seem to be in conflict with them, and partly to show that these are no unpractical and impracticable theories, as so many superficially consider them, but when properly understood are rules for our actual guidance in life.—The utter condemnation of all oaths, which has been made by Waldensians, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Quakers, etc., is found already in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Chrys., Jerome, and other Fathers; yet oaths were sometimes employed by the early Christians, and gradually became common, especially after the union of Church and State. (See Smith’s "Dict. Christ. Antiq.")

Neither by heaven, etc. The Jews usually maintained, as above shown, that an oath was not binding unless it contained the name of God, or mention of one of his attributes. But anything used as an oath must have some sort of relation to God, and this makes it binding, and so it ought not to be used—i. e., used as if not really an oath. Compare Mat 23:22. A few of the Jewish teachers took a similar view, one of them being recorded in the Talmud as saying, "If a person swears another by heaven and earth, does he not also swear him by him to whom heaven and earth belongs?"But most held otherwise, as shown by Philo, the Talmud, and Maimonides (Light., Wet.). Philo states that some were in the habit of saying simply "By the, "without adding anything, so as to avoid making it distinctly an oath; and he suggests that one might add, "not indeed the supreme and revered First Cause, but the earth, the sun, the stars, heaven, the universe." And Maimonides (twelfth cent.), commenting on the Talmud, goes still further: "If any one swears by heaven, by the earth, by the sun, etc., even though it be the intention of the swearer under these words to swear by him who created these things, yet this is not an oath." We see that here, as with reference to adultery and divorce, a few of the Jewish teachers were rigorous while most were lax, and that Jesus confirms the view of the rigorous few, and goes still farther. Some fancy that this is a reproach to our Lord, as detracting from his originality. But he did something better than to be original in ethics; for by authoritatively settling actual questions of truth and duty, he showed that the tendency of his teachings is thoroughly practical. (Compare on Mat 7:3-5, and on Mat 12:10)

Mat 5:35 f. These are further specimens, similar to that just given, of oaths which the Jews were accustomed to use habitually as not binding, and which our Lord explains to have really a sacred element, so that such use of them is wrong. His footstool, or, the footstool of his feet.[1] This and the preceding expression are quoted from Isa 66:1. ’The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.’ So in Psa 48:2, Jerusalem is called ’the city of the great king.’[2] These objects would never have come to be employed in strengthening an affirmation, had they not been somehow regarded in their higher character, as related to God; and though a man swearing by them, particularly after the expression has become trite, might not have such an idea distinctly present to his mind, yet it is really and necessarily involved, when they are used in the way of an oath. Alexander: "He who swears by the earth either swears by God, or does not swear at all."

[1] Tyndale shortened the phrase to ’his footstool,’ and was followed by Great B., Geneva, and Com. Ver. There is of course no substantial difference, but the expression ought to be given in full. Persons who ridicule the pleonasm in Rev. Ver., ought to remember that they are ridiculing the sacred writers.

[2] In ’by Jerusalem,’ margin ’toward,’ literally ’unto’ the preposition is not the same as in the preceding and following phrases, but the substantial meaning does not differ.

Mat 5:36. Neither shalt thou swear. The form changing to the singular, as in Mat 5:23, thus making the application more personal and pointed. By thy head. A very common oath among the Greeks and Romans, as well as the Jews; probably founded on the idea that a man would stake his head upon the assertion, would be willing to lose his head if it should not prove true. But his life belongs to God and not to himself, and he is not able to change the colour of a single hair of that head, which he so lightly engages to cast away. The reference is of course to the change of colour in growing old, which depends on the divinely directed course of nature (Weiss). Notice that the specimens mentioned descend gradually to the lower kinds of oath, heaven, earth, Jerusalem, the head. An expression often heard among us, "by my life," or "my life on it," is sinful on the same principle as "by my head."

Mat 5:37. But let your communication—or- speech.[1] The term naturally suggests that he is now referring to the use of language in general, to ordinary conversation. The repetition, yea, yea; nay, nay, seems designed to indicate that the proper mode of strengthening an assertion is simply to repeat the affirmation or negation. Compare our Lord’s ’verily, verily.’ Paul’s expression (2Co 1:17) has a different bearing. The Rabbis frequently doubled these panicles (Talmud), as we do. Edersheim. says that in the Midrash on Ruth it is mentioned as characteristic of the pious, that their yea is yea, and their nay., (Jas 5:12) though manifestly referring to our Lord’s discourse, states the thing in a slightly different way. ’Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay’; let the simple affirmation or negation suffice, without needing to be strengthened by oaths. Maimonides, "Let the disciples of the wise be always truthful and trustworthy; saying simply, yes, yes, and no, no," may have really borrowed from the New Testament; for the Jewish writers adopted whatever they approved, from any source. Cometh of evil—or, is of the evil one. The Greek is ambiguous, as in Mat 6:13, where see note. In this passage it is interpreted ’the evil one’ by Chrys. (and his followers Theoph. and Euthym.), Zwingli, Beza, Wetstein, Fritzsche, Meyer, Keim, Grimm, Mansel, Plumptre; and ’evil’ by Luther (though not in the first ed. of his trans.), Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck, De Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Stier, Weiss, Archelis, Keil. Taken in the former and somewhat more probable sense, the expression means, has its origin in Satan, as in Mat 13:19, Mat 13:38. Taken in the other sense it means, is of evil origin. The general thought is in either case the same. The necessity, real or supposed, for using oaths, originates in evil, or in Satan; for it is due to the fact that men do not always faithfully keep their simple word. And like all the consequences of sin, this practice reacts to strengthen its source; for not only do men thereby become less careful as to the truthfulness of assertions unattended by an oath, but even oaths tend gradually to lose their solemn force by frequent, and especially by heedless and irreverent repetition (compare on Mat 23:16). And so the observance of our Lord’s prohibition would give to oaths a much greater value in those cases in which they are really necessary and proper. Compare Hierocles (Platonist of the fifth cent.), "Reverence an oath, and be not swift to use it, that you may be accustomed to swear truly, from not being accustomed to swear." Add (Wet.) Philo: "Not to swear is highly becoming and advantageous, and is accordant with a rational nature, so instructed to speak truth on every occasion that words are reckoned oaths." Epictetus: "Avoid oaths, altogether if possible, but if not, as far as you can." Quintilian: "To swear at all, unless where it is necessary, is unbecoming a grave man."

[1] ’Communication’ is from Tyndale, followed by Great B., Geneva, and Com. Ver. The Revised Ver. retains it in Luk 24:17 (yet see margin), but has ’speech’ in Eph 4:29 Col 3:8. In 1Co 15:33, Phm 1:6, the Greek is different.—The authorities for ’shall be’ (margin) are few; the sense is substantially the same.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 5:33. Perjury—its nature, causes, evil consequences, remedies. Chrys.: "If to swear is of the evil one, how great the penalty which false swearing will bring."—Mat 5:34. Profanity—different kinds, swearing, cursing, other kinds—evils of profanity, and of all irreverence.—Cursing is always and essentially wrong, since no one has a right to imprecate eternal ruin upon another, unless by explicit divine direction, like the prophets. There is much profane language which is neither cursing nor swearing, as when one speaks in any wise irreverently of God, his word, worship, or anything sacred. Preachers often speak of God too familiarly, in public discourse and conversation. And there are phrases in which the name of God is either omitted or disguised, so that persons fancy they are not wrong, which yet involve the essence of profanity."My gracious I" means "My gracious God." "Bless your soul," is "God bless your soul." "Zounds" is "God’s wounds." One may plead that he does not mean this in using such phrases, but so could the Jews have said as to the expressions which Jesus condemns; nay, the excuse of "not meaning anything by it" is often given by persons who use profanely the most solemn oaths. Any one who observes for a little while the language of those about him, or his own language, will be apt to encounter many phrases which, though not distinctly so deranged, are yet in direct violation of what our Lord has here taught, and should therefore be carefully avoided. The charge of profanity also applies to all irreverent citations or ludicrous applications of the language of Scripture, a very common fault even in Christian society.(Compare on Mat 12:36 f.)

Mat 5:37. Self-respecting veracity will command respect from others. What a compliment when it is said: His word is as good as his bond. Æschylus: "Not oaths gain credence for the man, but the man for the oaths." Josephus ("War.," 2, 8, 6), says of the Essenes: "Every word they say is weightier than an oath, and swearing they shun, regarding it as worse than perjury." —Habitual accuracy of statement, as opposed to prevalent exaggerations. The positive degree may really signify more than the superlative.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matthew

‘SWEAR NOT AT ALL’

Mat 5:33-37.

In His treatment of the sixth and seventh commandments, Jesus deepened them by bringing the inner man of feeling and desire under their control. In His treatment of the old commandments as to oaths, He expands them by extending the prohibitions from one kind of oath to all kinds. The movement in the former case is downwards and inwards; in the latter it is outwards, the compass sweeping a wider circle. Perjury, a false oath, was all that had been forbidden. He forbids all. We may note that the forms of colloquial swearing, which our Lord specifies, are not to be taken as an exhaustive enumeration of what is forbidden. They are in the nature of a parenthesis, and the sentence runs on continuously without them-’Swear not at all . . . but let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay.’ The reason appended is equally universal, for it suggests the deep thought that ‘whatsoever is more than these’ that is to say, any form of speech that seeks to strengthen a simple, grave asseveration by such oaths as He has just quoted, ‘cometh of evil’ inasmuch as it springs from, and reveals, the melancholy fact that his bare word is not felt binding by a man, and is not accepted as conclusive by others. If lies were not so common, oaths would be needless. And oaths increase the evil from which they come, by confirming the notion that there is no sin in a lie unless it is sworn to.

The oaths specified are all colloquial, which were and are continually and offensively mingled with common speech in the East. Nowhere are there such habitual liars, and nowhere are there so many oaths. Every traveller there knows that, and sees how true is Christ’s filiation of the custom of swearing from the custom of falsehood. But these poisonous weeds of speech not only tended to degrade plain veracity in the popular mind, but were themselves parents of immoral evasions, for it was the teaching of some Rabbis, at all events, that an oath ‘by heaven’ or ‘by earth’ or ‘by Jerusalem’ or ‘by my head’ did not bind. That further relaxation of the obligation of truthfulness was grounded on the words quoted in Mat 5:33, for, said the immoral quibblers, ‘it is “thine oaths to the Lord” that thou “shalt perform,” and for these others you may do as you like’ Therefore our Lord insists that every oath, even these mutilated, colloquial ones which avoid His name, is in essence an appeal to God, and has no sense unless it is. To swear such a truncated oath, then, has the still further condemnation that it is certainly an irreverence, and probably a quibble, and meant to be broken. It must be fully admitted that there is little in common between such pieces of senseless profanity as these oaths, or the modern equivalents which pollute so many lips to-day, and the oath administered in a court of justice, and it may further be allowed weight that Jesus does not specifically prohibit the oath ‘by the Lord,’ but it is difficult to see how the principles on which He condemns are to be kept from touching even judicial oaths. For they, too, are administered on the ground of the false idea that they add to the obligation of veracity, and give a guarantee of truthfulness which a simple affirmation does not give. Nor can any one, who knows the perfunctory formality and indifference with which such oaths are administered and taken, and what a farce ‘kissing the book’ has become, doubt that even judicial oaths tend to weaken the popular conception of the sin of a lie and the reliance to be placed upon the simple ‘Yea, yea; Nay, nay.’

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:33-37 Jesus here summarizes the Old Testament teaching on oaths (Lev 19:12; Num 30:2-4; Deut 23:21-23; Ps 50:14; Zech 8:17). The Pharisees had degrees of commitment for oaths—for example, ones that did not mention God were not as binding. Jesus shows that because God is related to all things (heaven, earth, Jerusalem, my head; see also Matt 23:16-22), breaking any oath breaks God’s command (see Exod 20:7). The point is that one must be altogether truthful. Jesus’ righteousness elevates the disciple’s everyday yes and no to the level of binding oath. Oaths become superfluous to the honest person (Jas 5:12).

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

Mat 5:33. Ἀποδώσεις, thou shalt render)[213] Perjury therefore is the non-performance of promises attested by an oath. Christ, therefore, especially forbids promissory oaths, since men by them asseverate concerning future things, none of which is in their power, see Mat 5:36. The human oaths concerning which Moses gives regulations, or which holy men have sworn, have more frequently reference to confirming, more rarely to promising, and in fact more persons perjure themselves with regard to future, than past matters. Wherefore the Romans prudently preferred binding with oath their magistrates at the conclusion, rather than at the commencement of office.—ὅρκους, oaths,) sc. things promised by oath.

[213] E. V. “Thou shalt perform.”—(I. B.)

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

Mat_5:33. Πάλιν] as in Mat_4:7.

οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις] Doctrinal precept, according to Exo_20:7; Lev_19:12. It is not to the eighth commandment that Jesus refers (Keim, following an artificially formed scheme), but the second commandment forms the fundamental prohibition of perjury.

The Pharisaic tradition made arbitrary distinctions between oaths that were binding (by Jehovah) and those that were not binding (comp. also Philo, de Spec. Legg. p. 770 A). See Lightfoot, p. 280; Eisenmenger, II. p. 490; Wetstein on Mat_5:36; Michaelis, Mos. Recht, V. p. 141 ff., upon their loose principles regarding this matter. The second half of the precept quoted (formulated after Num_30:3; Deu_33:22) was so weakened by them, that special emphasis was laid upon the words τῷ κυρίῳ, and other oaths were deprived of their obligatory powers.

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.

Mat 5:33-37 . Fourth illustration: concerning oaths . A new theme, therefore formally introduced as in Mat 5:21 . πάλιν points to a new series of illustrations (Weiss, Mt.-Evan., p. 165). The first series is based on the Decalogue. Thou shalt not swear falsely (Lev 19:12 ), and thou shalt perform unto the Lord thy vows (Num 30:3 : Deu 23:22 ) what is wrong in these dicta ? Nothing save what is left unsaid. The scribes misplaced the emphasis. They had a great deal to say, in sophistical style, of the oaths that were binding and not binding, nothing about the fundamental requirement of truth in the inward parts. Again, therefore, Jesus goes back on the previous question: Should there be any need for oaths?

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

The meaning of the third commandment against the froward opinion and judgment of the Scribes, which excused by oaths or indirect forms of swearing.

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

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself--These are not the precise words of Exo 20:7; but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Lev 19:12, &c.). This is plain from what follows.

But I say unto you, Swear not at all--That this was meant to condemn swearing of every kind and on every occasion--as the Society of Friends and some other ultra-moralists allege--is not for a moment to be thought. For even Jehovah is said once and again to have sworn by Himself; and our Lord certainly answered upon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest; and the apostle several times, and in the most solemn language, takes God to witness that he spoke and wrote the truth; and it is inconceivable that our Lord should here have quoted the precept about not forswearing ourselves, but performing to the Lord our oaths, only to give a precept of His own directly in the teeth of it. Evidently, it is swearing in common intercourse and on frivolous occasions that is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed severely condemned in the teaching of the times. But so narrow was the circle of them that a man might swear, says LIGHTFOOT, a hundred thousand times and yet not be guilty of vain swearing. Hardly anything was regarded as an oath if only the name of God were not in it; just as among ourselves, as TRENCH well remarks, a certain lingering reverence for the name of God leads to cutting off portions of His name, or uttering sounds nearly resembling it, or substituting the name of some heathen deity, in profane exclamations or asseverations. Against all this our Lord now speaks decisively; teaching His audience that every oath carries an appeal to God, whether named or not.

neither by heaven; for it is God's throne--(quoting Isa 66:1);

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 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself] They dishonour the great God, and break this commandment, who use frequent oaths and imprecations, even in reference to things that are true; and those who make vows and promises, which they either cannot perform, or do not design to fulfil, are not less criminal. Swearing in civil matters is become so frequent, that the dread and obligation of an oath are utterly lost in it. In certain places, where oaths are frequently administered, people have been known to kiss their thumb or pen, instead of the book, thinking thereby to avoid the sin of perjury; but this is a shocking imposition on their own souls. See Clarke on De 4:26; "De 6:13".

Perform unto the Lord thine oaths] The morality of the Jews on this point was truly execrable: they maintained, that a man might swear with his lips, and annul it in the same moment in his heart. Rab. Akiba is quoted as an example of this kind of swearing. See Schoettgen.

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

(33) By them of old time.—Read, to them of old time, as before. Here, again, the reference is to the letter of the Law as taught by the Rabbis, who did not go beyond it to its wider spirit. To them 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 (Lev_19:12) might be profaned in other ways, even when it was not uttered; and they expressly or tacitly allowed (See Philo, De Special. Legg.) 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 and in Mat_23:16-22) they selected some as binding, and others as not binding, and thus by a casuistry at once subtle, irrational, and dishonest, tampered with men’s sense of truthfulness.

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

(γ) Oaths, 33–37.

33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself] The special reference may be to the third commandment. Cp. also Lev_19:12, “Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” In the kingdom of God no external act or profession as distinct from the thought of the heart can find a place. But such words as those of the Apostle, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not” (2Co_11:31), will prevent Christians observing the letter rather than the spirit of our Blessed Saviour’s words.

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.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said,.... Besides what has been observed, in ver. 21 and 27 you know it has also been said,

by, or to them of old time, what is written in Lev 19:12. "And ye shall not swear by my name falsely"; which seems to be referred to, when it is said, "thou shalt not forswear thyself": and is the law forbidding perjury, or false swearing; and was what the Jews were chiefly, if not only concerned about; little regarding the vanity, only the truth of an oath: for they took swearing vainly, to be the same as swearing falsely; wherefore so long as what they swore was truth, they were not careful whether it was of any importance or not: moreover, these men sinned, in that they swore by the creatures, which they thought they might do, and not sin; and when they had so done, were not under obligation to perform; because they made no use of the name of God, to whom only vows and oaths were to be performed, "but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths", Num 30:2 which they understood of vows only made to the Lord, and not to others; and of oaths, when in his name, and not by others; which they did do, and yet thought themselves not obliged by them.

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

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Ver. 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself] An oath is ορκος quasi ερκος, a hedge which a man may not break. It must not be taken without necessity. Hence the Hebrew נשבע nishbang, is a passive, and signifieth to Be sworn, rather than to swear. For if the doubt or question may be assoiled, or ended by verily or truly, or such naked asseverations, we are, by the example of our Saviour, to forbear an oath. But having sworn, though to his hurt, a man must not change, Psa 15:4, upon pain of a curse, yea, a book full of curses, Zec 5:3-4. It is not for men to play with oaths as children do with nuts; to slip them at pleasure, as monkeys do their collars; to snap them asunder, as Samson did his cords. It was an impious and blasphenmus speech of him that said, "My tongue hath sworn, but my mind is unsworn." η γλωσς ομωμοχ, η δε φρην ανωμοτος. (Euripides.) And who can but detest that abominable doctrine of the Priscillianists of old, and their heirs the Jesuits of late:

" Iura, periura, secretum prodere noli."

God will be a swift witness against perjured persons, Mal 3:5, as those that villanously abuse his majesty, making him an accessory, yea, a partner in their sin, thinking him like themselves, and therefore calling him to justify their untruths. Had Shimei peace, that brake his oath to Solomon? Or Zedekiah, that kept not touch with the king of Babylon? Or Ananias and Sapphira, that but uttered an untruth, swore it not? God punisheth perjury with destruction, man with disgrace, saith a fragment of the Twelve Tables in Rome; periurii poena divina exitium, humana dedecus. The Egyptians and Scythians punished it with death. So did Philip, Earl of Flanders, and others. But where men have not done it, God hath hanged up such with his own hands, as it were, as our Earl Godwin; Rodolphus, Duke of Suabia, that rebelled against his master Henry, Emperor of Germany, to whom he had sworn allegiance; Ladislaus, King of Bohemia, at the great battle of Varna, where the raging Turk, provoked by his perjury, appealed to Christ; Michael Paleologus, Emperor of Constantinople, who for his perjury, and other his foul and faithless dealings, lieth obscurely shrouded in the sheet of defame, saith the history. Richard Long, soldier at Calais, deposing falsely against William Smith, curate of Calais, shortly after, upon a displeasure of his wife, desperately drowned himself. And within the memory of man, Feb. 11, 1575, Ann Averies forswore herself at a shop in Wood Street, London, and praying God she might sink where she stood if she had not paid for the wares she took, fell down speechless, and with a horrible stink died soon after. Thus God hangeth up evildoers in gibbets, as it were, that others may hear and fear, and do no more so. Alterius perditio tua cautio.

But shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths] As David, "I have sworn, and I will perform," &c., Psa 119:106. And yet David was not always as good as his oath, as in the case of Mephibosheth, &c. Nor did Jacob for a long time perform his vow, Gen 28:21, though once, at least, admonished, Gen 31:13, till he was frightfully aroused by the slaughter of the Shechemites, and his own apparent danger, to go up to Bethel and do as he had promised. {a} The font in baptism is Beersheha, the well of an oath, there we solemnly swear ourselves to God, which St Peter calleth the stipulation of a good conscience, 1Pe 3:21. This oath we renew when we come to the other sacrament; and often besides, when the Lord layeth siege to us by some disease or other distress, what promises and protestations make we, as Pharaoh and those votaries! Psa 78:43-51 But sciapato il morbo, fraudato il Dio, as the Italian proverb hath it; the disease or danger once over, God is defrauded of his due. See it in those, Jer 34:8-22, who forfeited their fidelity, though they had cut the calf in twain, and passed through the parts thereof (a most solemn way of sealing up covenants), and are sorely threatened for it, that Ged would in like sort cut them in twain and destroy them, which was the import of that ceremony. Virgil viii.

{a} Iacob pater votorum nuncupatur. Pareus.

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.

Thou shalt not forswear thyself - Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Lev 19:12, and Deu 23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.

Perform unto the Lord - Perform literally, really, and religiously what is promised in an oath.

Thine oaths - An oath is a solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favor if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury, or, as in this place, forswearing.

It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. “It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things.” To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt. It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, “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, and 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.”

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mat 26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Rom 1:9; Rom 9:1; Gal 1:20; Heb 6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exo 22:11; Lev 5:1; Num 5:19; Deu 29:12, Deu 29:14.

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

This was said Exo 20:7, and more plainly Lev 19:12; the substance was there said, though the words be not verbatim recited.

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

(3.) Christian law of oaths.

33. Forswear — Perjure. Shalt perform — Shalt not commit perjury by breaking thy vows and solemn affirmations.

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

Vers. 33-37. Oaths. Matthew only; but cf. Mat_23:16-22.

By them of old time (ver. 21, note). Thou shalt not forswear thyself (ouk epiorkhseiv). These two words are the substance of Lev_19:12, which itself (cf. Rashi, in lee. ) includes a reference to the third commandment. To them our Lord joins but shalt perform, etc., which is the substance of Deu_23:23. (cf. Num_30:2) (On our Lord"s utterance representing the current form of teaching about oaths, cf. ver. 21, note) This current teaching was the logical deduction from the statements of the Law, and yet the Law had a higher aim.

Vers. 33-37. The true fulfilling of the Law: Christ"s fourth illustration.

The consideration of this passage asks careful and fair understanding of the correct exposition of it (for which see also Exposition foregoing). Ver. 37 of itself, when strictly rendered, and the word "communication" replaced by "speech," or even "conversation," is sufficient to show that our Lord"s pronouncements here do not refer either to solemn judicial occasions, or to those supremely solemn instances in which God is represented as "swearing by himself," or he himself is testified to or his first apostles, as using that sanction of asseveration called the oath. In like manner, due weight must be faithfully given to the four examples of the verbal swearing manifestly in vogue, and requiring particular denunciation. Whatever was the most unfavourable side of the oath, they had this. And they had the least of what was legitimate. They covered equivocation, promoted familiarity with what under any circumstances should be reserved for solemn occasion, and nourished the deeper distrust between man and man. Excepting, therefore, from condemnation what we have every reason to believe that Christ did not mean to include in condemnation, we have his most express discouragement of all frequent, ordinary, idle use of forms of swearing nay, of all use of swearing, except such as specially safeguarded, is therein, and, other things being equal, to be regarded as authorized. We have the opportunity of a divinely suggested glimpse into the moral ethics of Christianity, and are invited to note of all swearing, that while it proceeds on the very showing, when between men, that it adds inducement to the faithful performance of the promise, and confidence to the calm trust of the person to whom the promise is made, in these very things it carries the reminder of its own discredit. And the way is paved for Christ"s more excellent version. Notice

I SIMPLE ASSEVERATION OR DENIAL THE RULE OF CHRISTIAN LANGUAGE.

II SIMPLE ASSEVERATION OR DENIAL THE BEST HONOUR TO THE CHARACTER OF THE LIP THAT SPEAKS.

III SIMPLE ASSEVERATION OR DENIAL THE BEST CREDIT TO THE TRUSTFULNESS OF THE PERSON WHO HEARS.

IV WHAT IS MORE THAN SIMPLE ASSEVERATION OR DENIAL MEANS "EVIL" IN THE ONE PARTY, OR IN THE OTHER, OR IN BOTH. IT PROCEEDS ON THE VERY SUSPICION OF EVIL PRESENT. B.

Vers. 33-37. Profanity.

In the words before us our Lord brings out the very spirit of the third commandment. We have to distinguish

I THE SWEARING THAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN. This is of two kinds, viz. religious and civil spiritual and judicial.

1. Spiritual swearing.

(1) The Persons of the blessed Trinity are bound by a conditional oath to redeem and save mankind. This is the covenant of God, in which he swears by himself because he can swear by no greater. (see Gen_22:16 Psa_105:9 Luk_1:73 Heb_6:18, Heb_6:14)

(2) We have to eater into God"s covenant in order to be saved. Swearing to God is, therefore, of the very essence of religion.

(3) Hence this most solemn swearing is positively enjoined: "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God thy covenant God shall swear by his Name". (see Deu_6:13 Deu_10:20 Jer_4:1, Jer_4:2) This is in effect, "Thou shall engage thyself in his covenant to have no God beside him." It implies that we bind ourselves to worship and serve him only. It means also that we take him for a Witness to all our actions.

(4) Christ came not to destroy this Law, but to bind it more closely up by the cords of love. Hence, referring to these gospel times, God says, I have sworn by myself; the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear". (see Isa_45:23 Isa_65:16)

2. Judicial swearing.

(1) Swearing in this sense was prescribed in the Law. The "oath of the Lord" was imposed. (see Exo_22:11 Num_5:19) It does not appear that Hebrew witnesses were in the first instance sworn, but in matters of important testimony they might be adjured. (see Lev_5:1)

(2) This our Lord does not forbid. It is being sworn rather than swearing. Jesus submitted to adjuration. (see Mat_26:63, Mat_26:64) In Christian courts of law "an oath for confirmation" remains "the end of all strife". (Heb_6:16)

II THE SWEARING FORBIDDEN IS THE PROFANE.

1. False swearing is emphatically such.

(1) It is dreadful impiety towards God. It is taking the Name of God in vain. So "hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity" is explained by "nor sworn deceitfully". (Psa_24:4) When God is called in as a Witness, as he is when vows are made to men, as well as when they are made expressly to God, these must be "performed unto the Lord". (cf. Ecc_5:4, Ecc_5:5)

(2) It is injustice to man. Few men will perjure themselves before a court but for dishonest design. In cursing evils are imprecated. In broken vows the imprecation returns upon the head of the swearer.

2. Promissory vows are especially to be avoided.

(1) These are the oaths that may be "performed" particularized here.

(2) Such oaths trifle with contingencies. The affirmation of a fact, with whatever solemnity, is comparatively simple, for truth is immutable. A promise pledging the future may fail through strength of temptation, through pressure of unlooked-for claims, through forgetfulness, through surprise.

3. Habitual swearing is profane.

(1) This is a habitual breaking of the third commandment. The irreverent use of the Divine Names breeds a contempt of God which is fearful irreligion.

(2) This sin, from its gratuitousness, is the more devilish. Being wanton it has no excuse. It is the unmistakable sign of a graceless heart.

(3) "The Lord will not hold him guiltless." He will have to answer for this immediately to God.

III EQUIVOCAL SWEARING IS PROFANE.

1. The elders disputed this.

(1) They admitted that it is incumbent upon men to "perform unto the Lord their oaths." But they interpreted that only to be an oath in which the Name of the Lord was mentioned.

(2) Thus Philo forbids men to swear by the Supreme Cause; but directs them, if necessary, to call to record the earth, sun, or heavens. So Maimonides, "If any man swear by heaven or by earth, yet this is not an oath." In "Elle Schemoth Rabba" (sect. 44), "As heaven and earth shall pass away, so an oath taken by them shall pass away." This is a sample.

(3) Hence the distinction which the Pharisees made between serious and slighter oaths. Kindred to this is the distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins. The simplicity of truth knows no such differences. "He that committeth Sin is of the devil.

2. Our Lord insists upon it.

(1) He teaches that swearing "by heaven" is virtually swearing by God. For heaven is God"s throne. It would be no heaven but for his presence. Swearing by heaven is staking a man"s hope of heaven.

(2) He teaches that swearing" by the earth is virtually swearing by God. For it is his footstool, under his eye, subject to his providential rule. (see Psa_24:1) His "footstool," viz. at which his mercy is supplicated. Swearing by the earth is staking a man"s hope of mercy.

(3) He teaches that swearing by Jerusalem is virtually swearing by God. For that which made Jerusalem to the Jew a matter of appeal was its sacredness as the place of the temple and Shechinah. It was "the city of the great King". (see Psa_46:4 Psa_48:2) The swearer here staked his interest in the kingdom of Messiah.

(4) Swearing by the head, or "by the life of the head," as the rabbins phrased it, is still swearing by God. For so little power has a man over his head that he cannot change the colour of a hair. God"s property in a man"s head is infinitely more than the man"s. God is in truth the Life and the Lifter-up of the head. (Psa_3:3)

(5) The principle underlying all this is that men should see God in everything. That the creature cannot be separate from the Creator.

Therefore that calling any creature to witness is virtually calling God. All equivocal swearing is consequently profane. "The knave who kisses his nail instead of the book, thinking to release his false testimony from the crime of perjury, fearfully deceives his soul.

IV TRUTH IS PERFECT IN SIMPLICITY.

1. Christ therefore requires it in speech.

(1) Let it be yea or nay simple affirmative, simple negative. And if greater solemnity be required, then let the yea or nay be emphatic. Emphasis was given in repetition by the Hebrews. Our Lord"s emphasis was "Verily, verily.

(2) But the yea must be yea. There must be no equivocation. There must be no deception. Even Homer says, "He whose words agree not with his private thoughts is as detestable to me as the gates of hell" ("I1.," 9:312).

(3) Truth is best pledged in simplicity. A true man"s word is his bond. A true man loves truth for its own sake. To require more than a word from such a man would be an insult to his honour. His self-respect will shrink from adding anything to his declaration.

2. lie attributes to evil what is added to simplicity.

(1) It comes from the evil in the nature of man. Oaths have their origin in man"s propensity to deceive. They are encouraged by vanity. They tend to a contempt for sacred things. A common swearer is a habitual perjurer. He that swears will lie. He that lies will steal.

(2) It comes from the evil one. Satan is the father of lies. He is the father of liars of perjurers- of profane swearers of every order. J.A.M.

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

Our Lord here refers to the promise made to the pure in heart of seeing God in all things, and points out a false doctrine of the scribes, which arose from their not thus seeing God. What he forbids is, the swearing at all, 1, by any creature, 2, in our ordinary conversation: both of which the scribes and Pharisees taught to be perfectly innocent. Exod. xx, 7.

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

An illustration from the Second Commandment:

v. 33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.

v. 34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;

v. 35. nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.

v. 36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

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

Jesus introduces the subject as before, referring to the customary reading of the Law and the accompanying teaching. The implication of Christ is that the people were really kept under a false impression, by being permitted to draw the conclusion that they were listening to the exact words of Moses. The words as stated are indeed found in the Law, Lev 19:12; Num 30:3; Deu 23:22. But the interpretation left much to be desired. It placed no emphasis upon the inner truthfulness of the heart. If that is missing, what object have all oaths? All the careful distinctions as to degrees of oaths, and therefore of perjury, were a yoke on the necks of the Jews that did not affect their hearts. And it was a matter of mere sophistical quibbling that permitted all manner of affirmations in which the divine name was not mentioned directly, Deu 6:13, and thus evaded the obligation of the oath. There is not the slightest difference between an oath in the name of God and such asseverations as substitute the names of holy things, heaven, or such over which God alone has control: His city, Jerusalem, the earth, His footstool, a man’s head or life. All these oaths involve a reference to God. And all of them, as He distinctly specifies them, one after the other, are superfluous where the heart is pure and truthful. The Lord distinctly condemns the incessant, frivolous calling upon the Deity in all kinds of garbled forms. He does not imply that oaths, under circumstances, are not altogether lawful and right. "In civil life the most truthful man has to take an oath because of the untruth and consequent distrust prevailing in the world, and in so doing he does not sin against Christ’s teaching. Christ Himself took an oath before the high priest. " His demand is absolute truthfulness and straightforwardness in the dealing of people with one another. There the affirmation shall have the full value and force of the Yea, and the denial the simple power of the Nay, that there may be an unhesitating dependence upon all statements, without the support of an oath. Anything that goes beyond this simple definition is of evil, even savors of the influence of the evil one, the devil, the father of lies. Jesus expressed Himself mildly with a purpose, and did not deny the necessity of oaths in, a world full of falsehood. "I know, He means to say, that in certain circumstances something beyond yea and nay will be required of you. But it comes of evil, the evil of untruthfulness. See that the evil be not in you."

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

The next commandment which our Saviour expounds and vindicates, is the third, which requires a reverent use of God’s name.

Now the Pharisees taught that perjury was the only breach of this commandment; and that swearing was nothing, if they did not forswear themselves; and that persons were only obliged to swear by the name of God in public courts of justice, but in their ordinary and common discourse they might swear by any of the creatures.

Now, in opposition to these wicked principles and practices, Christ says, Swear not at all: that is,

1. Swear not profanely in your ordinary discourse.

2. Swear not unduly by any of the creatures; for that is to ascribe a deity to them.

3. Swear not lightly upon any trifling or frivolous occasion; for oaths upon small occasions are great sins. So that an oath is not here forbidden by our Saviour, but restrained.

For though light and needless, common and ordinary swearing, be a very great sin, yet to take an oath upon a solemn occasion, when adjured by the high-priest, did answer upon oath. But he forbids all voluntary oaths in common conversation, and in our ordinary discourse; because an oath is an act of religious worship; therefore to trifle with it is an horrid provocation.

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

33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself. (See Lev. 19:12; and Num. 25:2.) The Jews held that this only prohibited swearing falsely and by the name of God.

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.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus continues to teach about how he has come to fulfill the Old Testament law. Here he begins to speak about swearing oaths.

General Information:

Jesus is talking to a group of people about what they as individuals should and should not do. The "you" is plural in "you have heard" and "I say to you." The "you" and "your" are singular in "Do not swear" and "carry out your oaths," but in some languages they may need to be plural. (See: Forms of You)

Again, you

"Also, you" or "Here is another example. You"

it was said to those in ancient times

This can be expressed with an active verb. AT: "God said to those who lived long ago" or "Moses said to your ancestors long ago" (See: Active or Passive)

Do not swear a false oath, but carry out your oaths to the Lord.

"Do not swear that you will do something and then not do it. Instead do whatever you have sworn to the Lord that you will do"

But I say

Jesus agrees with God and his word, but he does not agree with the way the religious leaders have applied God's word. The "I" is emphatic. This indicates that what Jesus says is equally important to the original commands from God. Try to translate this phrase in a way that shows that emphasis. See how you translated this in Matthew 5:22.

swear not at all ... city of the great King

Here Jesus means that when people make a promise or when they say that something is true, they must not swear by anything. Some people were teaching that if a person swears by God that he will do something, then he must do it, but if he swears by something else, such as by heaven or earth, then it is less offensive if he does not do what he swore to do. Jesus says that swearing by heaven or earth or Jerusalem is just as serious as swearing by God because those things all belong to God.

swear not at all

"Do not swear at all" or "Do not swear by anything"

it is the throne of God

Because God reigns from heaven, Jesus speaks of heaven as if it were a throne. AT: "it is from here that God rules" (See: Metaphor)

it is the footstool for his feet

This metaphor means the earth also belongs to God. AT: "it is like a footstool where a king rests his feet" (See: Metaphor)

for it is the city of the great King

"for it is the city that belongs to God, the great King"

translationWords

oath

throne

God

footstool

Jerusalem

king

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

(γ) Oaths, 33–37

33. οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις. The special reference may be to the third commandment. Cp. also Lev 19:12, ‘Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.’ In the kingdom of God no external act or profession as distinct from the thought of the heart can find a place. But such words as those of the Apostle, ‘The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not’ (2Co 11:31), will prevent Christians observing the letter rather than the spirit of our Blessed Saviour’s words.

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.

33-37.] Fourth example. The law of oaths.

33,

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

33-37. Third illustration.

(E L) Again, ye heard that it was said to the ancients, Thow shalt hot swear falsely, but shalt pay thy oaths to the Lord. But I say to you. Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, because it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, because it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. And swear not by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea, Nay, nay: and whatever gœs beyond these (comes) of what is evil.]

For the whole passage, cf. Secrets of Enoch 49:1: “For I swear to you, my children; but I will not swear by a single oath, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God made. God said, There is no swearing in Me, nor injustice, but truth. If there be no truth in men, let them swear by a word, yea, yea, or nay, nay,” and the passages from Philo cited in Charles’ note.

οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις] Cf. Lev 19:12.—ἀποδώσεις—τοὺς ὅρκους σου] Cf. Deu 23:21, Psa 50:14, Num 30:3.—θρόνος] Cf. Isa 66:1.—ὑποπόδιον] A late word found in Lucian, Athenæus, LXX., Egyptian Papyri; cf. Deissm. Bib. Stud. 223. Cf. Isa 66:1, Lam 2:1.—Ἱεροσόλυμα] Cf. on 2:1.—πόλις ἐστὶ τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως] Cf. Psa 47:3. ὀμνύειν ἐν is common in the LXX. For the interchange of εἰς and ἐν, cf. Blass, p. 123, and for swearing, cf. 23:16-22, Jas 5:12. In its present connection the sequence of thought is confused. “Thou shalt not swear falsely, but shalt pay to the Lord thy oaths,” must, as a reference to Num 30:3 shows, mean, “If you bind yourself by an oath, you must carry out your promise.” The emphasis is here clearly not on the way in which the promise is made, whether by an oath or otherwise, but on the necessity of fulfilling promises made to God. That is to say, the “swearing” is merely incidental. “Promise” or “pledge yourself” would be equally in point. But “swear not at all” lays all the emphasis on ἐπιορκήσεις, and neglects altogether the second half of the clause. Again, it seems improbable that Christ should have found in the incidental references to swearing in connection with religious vows in the Old Testament, a text upon which to hang His “swear not at all”; because it is clear that His utterance has in view not the solemn use of oaths in religion, but the casuistical distinctions made by the Jews between different formulas in swearing. In other words, His teaching here is opposed to Jewish tradition, instead of being, as we should here expect, interpretative of Scripture. It seems probable that the editor has adapted words traditionally ascribed to Christ, vv. 34-37, to this context by providing for them an artifical antithesis from the Old Testament, v. 33. Leaving v. 33 out of consideration, the meaning will be that Christ’s disciples should avoid as far as possible the use of unnecessarily strong expressions of affirmation. The Jews avoided swearing by the divine name, and used equivalents for it. The Christian disciple should aviod these. For him Yes and No should be sufficient. His ungarnished statements should carry with them the authority of truthfulness. The necessity for supporting simple statements of fact by artifical formulas of swearing, arises from the evil in life which obscures truth. The Talmud Sanhed 36a discusses the question whether Yes and No are oaths, and decides that they are oaths if repeated twice. Here we should expect a simple ναί and οὐ. They seem to be repeated to add emphasis. Jas 5:12 has the saying in a slightly different form: “Let your Yes be Yes.” that is, let your statements carry with them the assurance of their accuracy. And the saying is not infrequently quoted in this form in early writers Cf. Resch. Paralleltexte, ii. 96 ff. Zahn thinks that James represents Christ’s words more closely than the Gospel. But it may be questioned whether the construction in the Epistle is not due to a grecising of the original.

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