Jesus was against making oaths

JESUS WAS AGAINST MAKING OATHS
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Matthew 5:33-3733"Again, you have heard that it was
said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath,
but fulfill to the LORD the vows you have made.'
34But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all:either by
heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it
is his footstool;or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the
Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you
cannot make even one hair white or black. 37All you
need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No';anything beyond
this comes from the evil one.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
The True Fulfilling Of The Law: Christ's Fourth Illustration
Matthew 5:33-37
P.C. Barker
The considerationof this passage askscarefuland fair understanding of the
correctexpositionof it (for which see also Expositionforegoing). Ver. 37 of
itself, when strictly rendered, and the word "communication" replacedby
"speech,"oreven "conversation,"is sufficient to show that our Lord's

pronouncements here do not refer either to solemn judicial occasions, orto
those supremely solemn instances in which God is representedas "swearing
by himself," or he himself is testified to or his first apostles, as using that
sanctionof asseverationcalledthe 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. Whateverwas the most
unfavourable side of the oath, they had this. And they had the leastof what
was legitimate. They coveredequivocation, promoted familiarity with what
under any circumstances shouldbe reservedfor solemn occasion, and
nourished the deeper distrust betweenman and man. Excepting, therefore,
from condemnation what we have every reasonto believe that Christ did not
mean to include in condemnation, we have his most express discouragementof
all frequent, ordinary, idle use of forms of swearing - nay, of all use of
swearing, exceptsuchas speciallysafeguarded, is therein, and, other things
being equal, to be regardedas authorized. We have the opportunity of a
divinely suggestedglimpse into the moral ethics of Christianity, and are
invited to note of all swearing, that while it proceeds on the very showing,
when betweenmen, that it adds inducement to the faithful performance of the
promise, and confidence to the calm trust of the personto whom the promise
is made, in these very things it carries the reminder of its own discredit. And
the wayis paved for Christ's more excellentversion. 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
TRUSTFULNESSOF THE PERSONWHO HEARS.

IV. WHAT IS MORE THAN SIMPLE ASSEVERATION OR DENIAL
MEANS "EVIL" IN THE ONE PARTY, OR IN THE OTHER, OR IN
BOTH. IT PROCEEDSON THE VERY SUSPICION OF EVIL PRESENT. -
B.
Biblical Illustrator
Swearnot.
Matthew 5:33, 34
The lawfulness and obligation of oaths
J. Lathrop, D. D., J. S. Doolittle, D. D.
I. This preceptdoes 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 assertoryand promissory.
1. It is not uncommon for Scripture to use generalexpressions, whichare to
be understood in a qualified sense.
2. From the reasons ofthe charge and other passagesofScripture. Oaths are
necessaryin 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 swearby
any of God's 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 greaterhardness 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 (Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2).
II. The Christian law of retaliation.
III. Practicallessons. The sin of perjury is said to be growing appallingly
frequent. Whilst technical vows are no longerin harmony with the liberty of
the new dispensation, still the spirit of the vow by which one dedicates himself
to Divine service is as sacredand 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 confessionof
man's 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.)
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(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 (Leviticus 19:12)might be
profaned in other ways, evenwhen it was not uttered; and they expresslyor
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 Matthew 23:16-22)they
selectedsome as binding, and others as not binding, and thus by a casuistryat
once subtle, irrational, and dishonest, tampered with men’s sense of
truthfulness.
MacLaren's Expositions
Matthew
‘SWEAR NOT AT ALL’
Matthew 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 colloquialswearing,
which our Lord specifies, are not to be takenas an exhaustive enumeration of
what is forbidden. They are in the nature of a parenthesis, and the sentence
runs on continuously without them-’Swearnot at all . . . but let your
communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay.’ The reasonappended is equally
universal, for it suggests the deep thought that ‘whatsoeveris more than
these’that is to say, any form of speechthat seeks to strengthena simple,
grave asseverationby 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 acceptedas 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 swornto.
The oaths specifiedare all colloquial, which were and are continually and
offensively mingled with common speechin 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 customof falsehood. Butthese poisonous weeds ofspeechnot only
tended to degrade plain veracity in the popular mind, but were themselves
parents of immoral evasions, forit 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 Matthew 5:33, for, saidthe 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, colloquialones which avoid His name, is in essence
an appeal to God, and has no sense unless it is. To swearsucha 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 betweensuch pieces ofsenseless
profanity as these oaths, or the modern equivalents which pollute so many lips
to-day, and the oathadministered in a court of justice, and it may further be
allowedweightthat Jesus does not specificallyprohibit 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 obligationof 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 weakenthe popular
conceptionof the sin of a lie and the reliance to be placed upon the simple
‘Yea, yea; Nay, nay.’
BensonCommentary
Matthew 5:33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time —
Or rather, was saidto the ancients, Thou shalt not forswearthyself, &c. —
See the margin. The Jewishdoctors affirmed, that oaths were obligatory
according to the nature of the things by which a man swears:Matthew 23:10.
Hence they allowedthe use of such oaths in common conversationas they said
were not obligatory;pretending that there was no harm in them, because the
law, which forbade them to forswearthemselves, andenjoined 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 sayunto you, Swearnot at all — In your common discourse one
with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swearnot by any thing, on the
supposition that the oath will not bind you. “Forall oaths whatever, those by
the lowestofthe creatures not excepted, are obligatory;” because, if they
“have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the greatCreator;
consequentlythey are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath
on such of the creatures swornby as are capable of God’s wrath; and for the

other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case ofyour swearing falsely,
that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in,
or hope from those creatures. Swearnot, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. —
By comparing Matthew 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a
catalogue ofoaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory.
His meaning therefore is, Swearnot at all, unless you have a mind to perform;
because everyoath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some
are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, orby
his ownhead, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty,
who, when calledthereto by lawful authority, swears withan intention to
falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a
magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, becausethatwould have
been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Hebrews 6:16;
and a high actof religious worship, Deuteronomy 6:3; Isaiah65:16; an oath
being not only a solemnappeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which
nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgmentofGod, as the great patron
and protectorof right, and the avengerof 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 assertor deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all.
For whatsoeveris more than these cometh of evil — Εκ του πονηρου, Of the
evil one: in common discourse, whateveris more than affirmation or negation,
ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to
swear, that he may lessenin 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 whichshow the evil nature of this
sin in the strongestlight. The Apostle James expressesthis sentiment thus,
James 5:12, Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay,
therefore, signify the promise or assertion;the secondthe fulfilment.
Accordingly we find the word yea used as a promise, Revelation1:7, where it
is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2 Corinthians
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, 2 Corinthians 1:18-19, that their word is yea and
nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. — Macknight.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
5:33-37 There is no reasonto consider that solemn oaths in a court of justice,
or on other proper occasions, are wrong, provided they are takenwith due
reverence. But all oaths taken without necessity, or in common conversation,
must be sinful, as well as all those expressions which are appeals to God,
though persons think thereby to evade the guilt of swearing. The worse men
are, the less they are bound by oaths;the better they are, the less there is need
for them. Our Lord does not enjoin the precise terms wherein we are to affirm
or deny, but such a constantregardto truth as would render oaths
unnecessary.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
Thou shalt not forswearthyself - Christ here proceeds to correctanother false
interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Leviticus 19:12,
and Deuteronomy23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure
themselves, or to forswear, that is, swearfalsely.
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, andrenouncing his favor if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is
calledperjury, or, as in this place, forswearing.
It appears, however, from this passage,as wellas from the ancient writings of
the Jewishrabbins, that while the Jews professedlyadheredto the law, they
had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which
they by no means consideredto be binding. For example, they would swearby
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 seemedto considerall 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 especiallyswearing by created
things." To do this, he said that they were mistakenin their views of the
sacrednessofsuch oaths. They were very closelyconnectedwith God; and to
trifle with them was a species oftrifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the
earth his footstool;Jerusalemhis specialabode;the head was made by him,
and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or
black. To swearby these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects
createdby 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 swearby 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 almostinfinite, 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 wickedhabit of swearing in
private conversation;of swearing on every occasionand 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, Matthew 26:63-64.
So Paul often calledGod to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by
an oath. See Romans 1:9; Romans 9:1; Galatians 1:20; Hebrews 6:16. Oaths
were, moreover, prescribedin the law of Moses, andChrist did not come to
repealthose laws. See Exodus 22:11;Leviticus 5:1; Numbers 5:19;
Deuteronomy 29:12, Deuteronomy29:14.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary

33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt
not forswearthyself—Theseare not the precise words of Ex 20:7; but they
express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false
swearing (Le 19:12, &c.). This is plain from what follows.
But I sayunto you, Swearnot at all—Thatthis was meant to condemn
swearing ofevery kind and on every occasion—asthe Societyof Friends and
some other ultra-moralists allege—is notfor a moment to be thought. For
even Jehovahis said once and againto have sworn by Himself; and our Lord
certainly answeredupon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest; and
the apostle severaltimes, and in the most solemn language, takes Godto
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 occasionsthat is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed
severelycondemned 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 regardedas 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.Againstall 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);
Matthew Poole's Commentary
This was said Exodus 20:7, and more plainly Leviticus 19:12;the substance
was there said, though the words be not verbatim recited.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said,.... Besideswhathas been
observed, in ver. 21 and 27 you know it has also beensaid,
by, or to them of old time, what is written in Leviticus 19:12. "And ye shall
not swearby my name falsely";which seems to be referred to, when it is said,
"thou shalt not forswearthyself":and is the law forbidding perjury, or false
swearing;and was what the Jews were chiefly, if not only concernedabout;
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", Numbers 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.
Geneva Study Bible
{8} Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt
not forswearthyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
(8) The meaning of the third commandment againstthe perverse opinion and
judgment of the scribes, who excusedby oaths or indirect forms of swearing.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 5:33. Πάλιν] as in Matthew 4:7.
οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις]Doctrinalprecept, according to Exodus 20:7; Leviticus
19:12. It is not to the eighth commandment that Jesus refers (Keim, following

an artificially formed scheme), but the secondcommandment forms the
fundamental prohibition of perjury.
The Pharisaic tradition made arbitrary distinctions betweenoaths 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 Matthew 5:36; Michaelis, Mos. Recht, V. p. 141 ff., upon their loose
principles regarding this matter. The secondhalf of the precept quoted
(formulated after Numbers 30:3; Deuteronomy33:22) was so weakenedby
them, that specialemphasis was laid upon the words τῷ κυρίῳ, and other
oaths were deprived of their obligatorypowers.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 5:33-37. Fourth illustration: concerning oaths. A new theme,
therefore formally introduced as in Matthew 5:21. πάλιν points to a new series
of illustrations (Weiss, Mt.-Evan., p. 165). The first series is based on the
Decalogue. Thoushalt not swearfalsely(Leviticus 19:12), and thou shalt
perform unto the Lord thy vows (Numbers 30:3 : Deuteronomy23:22)—what
is wrong in these dicta? Nothing save what is left unsaid. The scribes
misplaced the emphasis. They had a greatdeal to say, in sophisticalstyle, 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?
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
(γ) Oaths, 33–37.
33. Thou shalt not forswearthyself] The specialreference may be to the third
commandment. Cp. also Leviticus 19:12, “Ye shall not swearby my name
falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” In the kingdom of
God no external act or professionas 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 blessedfor evermore, knoweththat I lie not”
(2 Corinthians 11:31), will prevent Christians observing the letter rather than
the spirit of our BlessedSaviour’s words.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 5:33. Ἀποδώσεις, thou shalt render)[213] Perjury therefore is the
non-performance of promises attestedby an oath. Christ, therefore, especially
forbids promissory oaths, since men by them asseverate concerning future
things, none of which is in their power, see Matthew 5:36. The human oaths
concerning which Moses gives regulations, orwhich holy men have sworn,
have more frequently reference to confirming, more rarely to promising, and
in fact more persons perjure themselves with regardto future, than past
matters. Wherefore the Romans prudently preferred binding with oath their
magistrates atthe conclusion, rather than at the commencement of office.—
ὅρκους, oaths,)sc. things promised by oath.
[213]E. V. “Thoushalt perform.”—(I. B.)
Pulpit Commentary
Verses 33-37. -Oaths. Matthew only; but cf. Matthew 23:16-22. Verse 33. - By
them of old time (ver. 21, note). Thou shalt not forswearthyself (οὐκ
ἐπιορκήσεις). These two words are the substance of Leviticus 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
Deuteronomy 23:23 (cf. Numbers 30:2). (On our Lord's utterance
representing the current form of teaching about oaths, cf. ver. 21, note.) This
current teaching was the logicaldeduction from the statements of the Law,
and yet the Law had a higher aim.

Matthew 5:34 But I say to you, Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
BIBLEHUB COMMENTARIES
(34) Swearnot at all.—Nota few interpreters, and even whole Christian
communities, as e.g. the Societyof Friends, see in these words, and in James
5:12, a formal prohibition of all oaths, either promissory or evidential, and
look on the generalpractice of Christians, and the formal teaching of the
Church of England in her Articles (Art. xxxix.), as simply an acquiescencein
evil. The first impression made by the words is indeed so strongly in their
favour that the scruples of such men ought to be dealt with (as English
legislationhas at last dealt with them) with greattenderness. Theirconclusion
is, however, it is believed, mistaken: (1) Because,were it true, then in this
instance our Lord would be directly repealing part of the moral law given by
Moses,insteadof completing and expanding it, as in the case ofthe Sixth and
Seventh Commandments. He would be destroying, not fulfilling. (2) Because
our Lord himself answered, whenHe had before been silent, to a solemn
formal adjuration (Matthew 26:63-64), and St. Paul repeatedlyuses such
forms of attestation(Romans 1:9; 1Corinthians 15:31;2Corinthians 1:23;
Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8). (3) Because the context shows that the sin
which our Lord condemned was the light use of oaths in common speech, and
with no real thought as to their meaning. Such oaths practicallyinvolved
irreverence, and were therefore inconsistentwith the fear of God. The real
purpose of an oath is to intensify that fear by bringing the thought of God’s
presence home to men at the very time they take them, and they are therefore
rightly used when they attain that end. Practically, it must be admitted that
the needless multiplication of oaths, both evidential and promissory, on trivial
occasions,has tended, and still tends, to weakenawe and impair men’s
reverence for truth, and we may rejoice when their number is diminished. In

an ideal Christian societyno oaths would be needed, for every word would be
spokenas by those who knew that the Eternal Judge was hearing them.
(34-35)Neitherby heaven; . . . nor by the earth; . . . neither by Jerusalem.—
Other formulæ of oaths meet us in Matthew 23:16-22;James 5:12. It is not
easyat first to understand the thought that underlies such modes of speech.
When men swearby God, or the name of Jehovah, there is an implied appeal
to the Supreme Ruler. We invoke Him (as in the English form, “So help me
God”)to assistand bless us according to the measure of our truthfulness, or to
punish us if we speak falsely. But to swearby a thing that has no poweror life
seems almostunintelligible, unless the thing invoked be regardedas endowed
in idea with a mysterious holiness and a powerto bless and curse. Once in use,
it was natural that men under a systemlike that of Israel, or, we may add, of
Christendom, should employ them as convenient symbols intensifying
affirmation, and yet not involving the speakerin the guilt of perjury or in the
profane utterance of the divine name. Our Lord deals with all such formulæ
in the same way. If they have any force at all, it is because they imply a
reference to the Eternal. Heavenis His throne, and earth is His footstool(the
words are a citation from Isaiah66:1), and Jerusalemis the city of the great
King. To use them lightly is, therefore, to profane the holy name which they
imply. Men do not guard themselves either againstirreverence or perjury by
such expedients.

unnecessary.
But I sayunto you, Swearnot at all - That is, in the manner which he proceeds
to specify. Swearnot in any of the common and profane ways customary at
that time.
By heaven; for it is God's throne - To swearby that was, if it meant anything,
to swearby Him that sitteth thereon, Matthew 23:22.
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool - Swearing by that, therefore, is really
swearing by God. Or perhaps it means:
1. that we have no right to pledge, or swearby, what belongs to God; and,
2. that oaths by inanimate objects are unmeaningful and wicked.
If they are realoaths, they are by a living Being, who has powerto take
vengeance. Afootstoolis that on which the feet restwhen sitting. The term is
applied to the earth to denote how lowly and humble an objectit is when
compared with God.
Jerusalem- See the notes at Matthew 2:1.
City of the GreatKing - That is, of God; called the GreatKing because he was
the King of the Israelites, and Jerusalemwas the capital of the nation, and the
place where he was especiallyhonoredas king. Compare Psalm 46:4; Psalm
48:1-2; Psalm87:3.

33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt
not forswearthyself—Theseare not the precise words of Ex 20:7; but they
express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false
swearing (Le 19:12, &c.). This is plain from what follows.
But I sayunto you, Swearnot at all—Thatthis was meant to condemn
swearing ofevery kind and on every occasion—asthe Societyof Friends and
some other ultra-moralists allege—is notfor a moment to be thought. For
even Jehovahis said once and againto have sworn by Himself; and our Lord
certainly answeredupon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest; and
the apostle severaltimes, and in the most solemn language, takes Godto
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 occasionsthat is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed
severelycondemned 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 regardedas 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.Againstall 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);

See Poole on"Matthew 5:36".
But I sayunto you, swearnot at all,.... Which must not be understood in the
strictestsense, as though it was not lawful to take an oath upon any occasion,
in an affair of moment, in a solemn serious manner, and in the name of God;
which may be safelydone: but of rash swearing, abouttrivial matters, and by
the creatures;as appears by what follows,
neither by heaven; which is directly contrary to the Jewishcanons (m), which
say,
"they that swear"by heaven", and by earth, are free.''
Upon the words in Sol2:7, "I adjure you", &c. it is asked(n),
"by what does she adjure them? R. Eliezer says, by the heavens, and by the
earth; by the hosts, the host above, and the host below.''
So Philo the Jew says (o) that the most high and ancient cause neednot to be
immediately mentioned in swearing;but the "earth", the sun, the stars,
"heaven", and the whole world. So R. Aben Ezra, and R. David Kimchi,
explain Amos 4:2. "The Lord God hath swornby his holiness";that is, say
they, "by heaven": which may be thought to justify them, in this form of
swearing;though they did not look upon it as a binding oath, and therefore if
broken they were not criminal (p).
"He that swears by heaven, and by the earth, and by the sun, and the like;
though his intention is nothing less than to him that createdthem, this is no
oath.''

The reasonwhy it is forbidden by Christ to swearby heaven, is,
for it is God's throne; referring to Isaiah 66:1 where he sits, the glory of his
majesty shines forth, and is itself glorious and excellent, and not to be
mentioned in a vain way; and especially, forthe reasonChrist elsewhere gives,
Matthew 23:22 that "he that shall swearby heaven, swearethby the throne of
God, and by him that sitteth thereon";so that they doubly sinned, first, by
openly swearing by that which is God's creature;and then, by tacitly bringing
God into their rash and vain oaths.
(m) Misn. Shebuot, c. 4. sect. 13. (n) Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 10. 4. (o) De
Special. leg. p 770. (p) Maimon. Hilch. Shebuot, c. 12. sect. 3.
Geneva Study Bible
But I sayunto you, Swearnot at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Matthew 5:34-36. Μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως]to swearnot at all (the adverb placed
emphatically at the end, compare Matthew 2:10), dependent upon λέγω ὑμῖν
(comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 59 E, Menex. 240 A), in which the command is implied
(Jacobs, adAnthol. X. p. 200;Kühner, ad Anab. v. 7. 34; Wunder, ad Soph.
O. C. 837), interdicts all kinds of swearing in general;[415]not merely that of
common life, which is at variance with reverence for God (Luther, Calvin,
Calovius, Bengel, Fritzsche, Ewald, Tholuck, Harless, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and
others), nor even merely oaths regarded“ex Judaeorum sensu” (thus
Matthaei, doctrina Christi de jurejur. Hal. 1847). The simple prohibition,—
given, however, to the disciples, and for the life of fellowshipof true
believers,—andin so far not less ideal than the requirements that have

preceded, appears from the words themselves (comp. Jam 5:12), and also
from Matthew 5:37. Christianity as it should be according to the will of
Christ, should know no oath at all: τὸ μὴ ὀμνύεινὅλως ἐπιτείνει μάλιστα τὴν
εὐσέβειαν, Euth. Zigabenus. To the consciousness ofthe Christian, God
should always be so vividly present, that, to him and others in the Christian
community, his yea and nay are, in point of reliability, equivalent to an oath.
His yea and nay are oath enough. Comp. on ὅλως, prorsus (= παντελῶς,
Hesychius), Xen. Mem. i. 2. 35: προαγορεύομεντοῖς νέοις ὅλως μὴ
διαλέγεσθαι, Oecon. Matthew 20:20. Accordingly, it is only in the incomplete
temporal condition of Christianity, as well as in the relation to the world in
which it is placed, and to the existing relations of the department of public
law, to which it conforms itself, that the oathhas its necessary, indeed(comp.
Hebrews 6:16), but conditional and temporary existence. ChristHimself has
sworn(Matthew 26:63 f.); Paul has frequently sworn (Romans 1:9; 2
Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 11:3 f.; Galatians 2:20; Php 1:8); nay, God
swears to His own people (Genesis 22:16;Genesis 26:3;Numbers 14:23;Isaiah
45:23;Luke 1:73; Acts 7:17; Hebrews 6:13). Therefore Anabaptists and
Quakers are wrong in rejecting an oath without any exception, as was already
done by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and other
Fathers. The various but altogetherarbitrary explanations of those who here
recognise no absolute prohibition may be seenin Tholuck. The direct oath, by
God, is not indeed expresslymentioned along with others in what follows;its
prohibition, however, is implied, just as a matter of course, and entirely, first
of all in the generalμὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως, as it is the reference to God which
constitutes preciselythe fundamental conceptionand nature of the oath, and,
as in the doctrine here discussed, Matthew 5:33, the direct oath is contained
not only in οὐκ ἐπιορκ., according to Leviticus 19:12, but also expresslyin
ἀποδώσεις τῷ κυρίῳ, etc. If Christ, therefore, had intended to forbid merely
the oaths of common life, He would, instead of the altogethergeneral
statement, μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως, have made use of a form of expressionexcluding
oaths to be takenin relation to the magistracy(probably by a παρεκτός, as in
Matthew 5:32). It is true, indeed, that in the specialprohibitions which follow,
He mentions only indirect oaths,—consequentlynot those that are valid in a
court of justice,—but just because the prohibition of the direct oath was
already containedin μὴ ὀμός. ὅλως, first of all and before all other kinds of

oaths;and His objectnow is simply to set forth that evenindirect swearing fell
under the generalprohibition of swearing. And He sets this forth in such a
way, that in so doing the prohibition of the direct oath forms the
presupposition of His demonstration, as it could not otherwise be expected
after μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως. What a scantyπλήρωσις of the law—and one
altogetherout of keeping with the ideal characterof the points which
preceded—wouldit have been had Jesus only intended to say: I forbid you
“the wanton oaths of the streets, ofthe markets” (Keim), in all their forms!
μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρ., κ.τ.λ.]not to swearin general, nor (specially) by heaven, nor
by earth. See on μὴ … μήτε, Klotz, ad Devar. p. 709;Kühner, II. 2, p. 828 f.;
Winer, p. 454 [E. T. 612]; also Baeumlein, Part. p. 222.
The kinds of swearing censuredby Jesus were very common amongstthe
Jews;Philo, de Spec. Legg. p. 770 A; Lightfoot, l.c.;Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm.
illustr. p. 58.
θρόνος θεοῦ and ὑποπόδιον… αὐτοῦ](Isaiah66:1; Matthew 23:22).
τοῦ μεγ. βας.] of Jehovah(Psalm 48:2; Psalm95:4; Job 13:18 ff.; therefore the
holy city, Matthew 4:5).
μήτε[416]ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ]Not merely the Jews (Berachoth, f. 3. 2; Lightfoot,
Hor. p. 281), but also the heathen (Eur. Hel. 835), swore by their head.
Dougtius, Anal. II. p. 7 f.; Wetsteinon the passage. Comp. the exposition of
Virg. Aen. ix. 300.

ὀμνύειν is by the Greek writers connectedwith κατά τινος, or with the accus.
(Jam 5:12). Here, as in Matthew 23:16 ff., Jeremiah5:7, Daniel12:7, with ἐν
(in harmony with the idea that the oathcleaves to the objectappealed to,
comp. on ὉΜΟΛΟΓΕῖΝἘΝ, Matthew 10:32), and with ΕἸς (directing the
thought; comp. Plut. Oth. 18), after the Hebrew ‫ִנ‬ ְּׁ ‫ַּב‬ ‫ע‬ ‫.׳ב‬
ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι, κ.τ.λ.]for thou art not in a condition to make one single hair
(if it is black) white or (if it is white) black. There is, of course, no allusion to
the dyeing of hair. Wolf, Köcher, Kuinoel, and others incorrectly render it:
thou canstnot produce a single white or black hair. On such a signification,
what means the mention of the colour? The meaning of the whole passageis:
“Ye shall not swearby all these objects;for all such oaths are nothing less
than the oath directly by God Himself, on accountof the relation in which
those objects stand to God.” In the creature by which thou swearest, its
Creatorand Lord is affected.
[415]Comp. Westin the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 221 ff.; Nitzsch, christl. Lehre,
p. 393 ff.; Werner in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 711 ff.; Wuttke, Sittenl. II. §
277;Achelis in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 436 ff. Jerome had already
remarked, with striking simplicity: “evangelicaveritas non recipit
juramentum cum omnis sermo fidelis pro jurejurando sit.” The emphatic
ὅλως forbids, however, the limitation only to the forms of the oath that are
afterwards mentioned (Althaus in d. Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 504, and
already Theophylact, 1), so that the oath by the name of God would remain
unaffected; in like manner, the restriction of the prohibition to promissory
oaths (Fickerin the same Zeitschr. 1870, p. 633 ff., and already Grotius).
[416]If μηδέ were here the reading (Fritzsche), then the meaning would be:
not even by thy head; see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 196. But this reading is neither
critically admissible—as it has only ‫**א‬ in its favour—nor exegetically
necessary, since the series ofnegations is symmetrically continued with μήτε

ἐν τ. κεφ. ς., which symmetry is not interrupted by ὀμόσῃς, because the latter
does not stand before ἐν τῇ κεφ. ς. Matthew might have written μηδέ (comp.
also Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 27; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 123), but
he was not obliged to do so.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 5:34. ὅλως: emphatic = παντελῶς, don’t swearat all. Again an
unqualified statement, to be takennot in the letter as a new law, but in the
spirit as inculcating such a love of truth that so far as we are concernedthere
shall be no need of oaths. In civil life the most truthful man has to take an
oath because ofthe untruth and consequentdistrust prevailing in the world,
and in doing so he does not sin againstChrist’s teaching. Christ Himself took
an oath before the High Priest (Matthew 26:63). What follows (Matthew 5:34-
36) is directed againstthe casuistrywhich laid stress on the words τῷ κυρίῳ,
and evadedobligation by taking oaths in which the divine name was not
mentioned: by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, orby one’s own head. Jesus points
out that all such oaths involved a reference to God. This is sufficiently obvious
in the case ofthe first three, not so clearin case ofthe fourth.—λευκὴν ἢ
μέλαιναν: white is the colourof old age, black of youth. We cannotalter the
colourof our hair so as to make our head look young or old. A fortiori we
cannot bring on our head any curse by perjury, of which hair suddenly
whitened might be the symbol. Providence alone can blast our life. The oath
by the head is a direct appeal to God. All these oaths are binding, therefore,
says Jesus;but what I most wish to impress on you is: do not swearatall.
Observe the use of μήτε (not μηδέ)to connectthese different evasive oaths as
forming a homogeneous group. Winer, sect. Leviticus 6, endorses the view of
Herrmann in Viger that οὔτε and μήτε are adjunctival, οὐδέ and μηδέ
disjunctival, and says that the latter add negationto negation, while the
former divide a single negation into parts. Jesus first thinks of these evasive
oaths as a bad class, then specifies them one after the other. Away with them
one and all, and let your word be ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ. That is, if you want to give
assurance, letit not be by an oath, but by simple repetition of your yes and no.
Grotius interprets: let your yea or nay in word be a yea or nay in deed, be as
goodas your word even unsupported by an oath. This brings the version of
Christ’s saying in Mt. into closercorrespondence withJam 5:12—ἤτω τὸ Ναί

ναὶ, καὶ τὸ Οὔ οὔ. Beza, with whom Achelis (Bergpredigt)agrees, renders,
“Let your affirmative discourse be a simple yea, and your negative, nay”.—τὸ
δὲ περισσὸν, the surplus, what goes beyond these simple words.—ἐκ τοῦ
πονηροῦ, hardly “from the evil one,” though many ancient and modern
interpreters, including Meyer, have so understood it. Meyer says the neuter
“of evil” gives a very insipid meaning. I think, however, that Christ expresses
Himself mildly out of respectfor the necessityofoaths in a world full of
falsehood. I know, He means to say, that in certaincircumstances something
beyond yea and nay will be required of you. But it comes ofevil, the evil of
untruthfulness. See that the evil be not in you. Chrysostom(Hom. xvii.) asks:
How evil, if it be God’s law? and answers:Because the law was goodin its
season. Godactedlike a nurse who gives the breastto an infant and
afterwards laughs at it when it wants it after weaning.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
34. Swearnot at all] The prohibition must be understood of rash and careless
oaths in conversation, not of solemn asseverationin Courts of Justice.
for it is God’s throne] Such was the prevalent hypocrisy that the Jews ofthe
day thought that they escapedthe sin of perjury if in their oaths they avoided
using the name of God. One of the Rabbinicalsayings was “As heavenand
earth shall pass away, so passethawaythe oath takenby them.” Our Lord
shows that a false oath takenby heaven, by earth, or by Jerusalemis none the
less a profanation of God’s name.
Hypocrisy reproduces itself. Louis XI. “admitted to one or two peculiar forms
of oath the force of a binding obligation which he denied to all others, strictly
preserving the secret, which mode of swearing he really accountedobligatory,
as one of the most valuable of state mysteries.” Introd. to Quentin Durward.
Bengel's Gnomen

Matthew 5:34. Μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως, not to swearat all) The ὅλως, at all, extends
this prohibition to swearing truly as wellas falsely:it does not, however,
universally prohibit all true swearing. The right employment of oaths is not
only like divorce permitted but clearlyestablished by the law, nor is it here
abolishedby Christ; see Matthew 5:17. But the abuse of oaths was extremely
frequent with the Jews ofthat age, to the destruction of their legitimate use, as
is clearfrom the forms of swearing cited in this passage;nor did they think
him guilty of perjury who calledonly creatures to witness in his oath, however
falselyhe might swear. See SamuelPetit,[214]Variae Lectiones, ch. 16. The
following decree of the Jews is to be found in Elle SchemothRabba,[215]
section44, As heaven and earth shall pass away, so shall the oath pass away
which calls them to witness. There is clearly, however, a prohibition, whilst
the prevalent[216]abuse of oaths is forbidden, and their true use restored.
Many of the ancient Christians receivedthis command simply and literally,
and so much the more readily declined the heathen oaths which they were
commanded to take. See however, Revelation10:6;Jeremiah 23:8; Isaiah
45:23, the last of which passagesrefers to Christian times. On the contrary,
there is now-a-days a greatdanger lest a very small proportion of the number
that are made be true, and of the true a very small proportion necessary, and
of those that are necessarya very small proportion free, fruitful, holy, and
joyful. Many are employed for show, for calumny, for silencing just
suspicions.—ἐν, by) That which is sworn by is offered in pledge: it should
therefore be in the power of him who swears.He who swears wrongly
(Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:36) is guilty of sacrilege. Therefore, in this sense a
man ought not to swearby God, because, in case ofhis swearing falsely, he
pledges himself to renounce God. This, however, it is not in his powerto do.
But we must swearin that manner which is sanctionedin the Divine law itself,
so that our oath should be an invocation of the Divine name. Even the
customary formula, So help me God, is not to be takenin the former but in
the latter sense, so that the emphasis should fall upon the word GOD. This
interpretation is at any rate favourable to him who swears, andmakes the
matter rather easier.—τῷοὐρανῷ, by heaven) How much greateris their sin
who swearby God Himself!—θρόνος, throne) How great is the majesty of
God! God is not enclosedby heaven, but His glory is especiallymanifested
there.

[214]A celebratedscholar, born at Nîsmes in 1594, studiedat Geneva, raised
at an early age to the Professorshipof Theologyand of Greek and Hebrew in
that city. Died 1645. A man of vast and profound erudition.—(I. B.)
[215]i.e. “MysticalCommentary on Exodus,” a rabbinical work in high
estimation among the Jews.—(I. B.)
[216]“Grassatus,”a word used of a fiercely raging epidemic—(I. B.)
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 34. - Swearnot at all (cf. James 5:12). Yet, as St. Augustine points out,
St. Paul took oaths in his writings (2 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 11:31);
and our Lord himself did not refuse to answerwhen put upon his oath
(Matthew 26:63, 64). He, that is to say, and St. Paul after him, acceptedthe
fact that there are times when a solemnoath must be taken. How, then, can
we explain this absolute prohibition here? In that our Lord is not here
thinking at all of formal and solemn oaths, but of oaths as the outcome of
impatience and exaggeration. The thoughtlessnessoffervent asseverationis
often betrayed into an oath. Such an oath, or even any asseverationthat
passes in spirit beyond "yea, yea," "nay, nay," has its origin ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ;
cf. Chaucer, "Sweryng sodeynlywithout avysement is eek a gret synne"
('Parson's Tale,'§ 'De Ira'). Martensen, however('Ethics, Individual,' § 100),
takes the prohibition of oaths as formally unconditional and total, in
accordancewith the highest ideal of what man will hereafterbe and require,
and he sees the limitation, which he allows is to be given to these words, in the
present conditions of human society. We have an ideal duty towards God, but
we have also a practicalduty to those among whom we live, and the present
state of human affairs permits and necessitatesoaths. Hence it was that even
Christ submitted to them. Neither by heaven, etc. Our Lord further defines
what he means by an oath. It does not mean only an expressionin which
God's Name is mentioned, but any expressionappealing to any objectat all,

whether this be supraterrestrial, terrestrial, national, or personal. Although
God's Name is often omitted in such cases,from a feeling of reverence, its
omissiondoes not prevent the asseverationbeing an oath. Heaven; Revised
Version, the heaven; for the thought is clearly not the immaterial
transcendentalheaven, the abode of bliss, but the physical heaven (cf.
Matthew 6:26, RevisedVersion). Heaven... footstool. Adaptedfrom Isaiah
66:1, where it forms part of the glorious declarationthat no material temple
can containGod, that "the MostHigh dwelleth not in temples made with
hands" as St. Stephen paraphrases it (Acts 7:48). The greatKing is seated
enthroned in the heaven, with his feet touching the earth.
Matthew 5:37 But let your communicationbe, Yes,
yes; No, no: for whateveris more than these comes of
evil.
BIBLEHUB COMMENTARIES
(37) Let your communication.—One of the few instances in which our
translators seemto have preferred a somewhatpedantic Latin word for the
more literal and homely English speech. (Comp. Luke 24:17.)
Yea, yea.—St. James reproduces the preceptin James 5:12 of his Epistle, but
the phrase is found in the Talmud, and was probably proverbial. In all
common speecha man’s words should be as goodas his oath. Yes should
mean yes, and No should mean no, even though there be no oath to strengthen
it.

Cometh of evil.—The Greek may (as in the Lord’s Prayer, “Deliverus from
evil”) be either neuter, “from evil in the abstract,” ormasculine, “from the
evil one.” With some hesitation, and guided chiefly by Matthew 13:19-38, I
acceptthe latter as the more probable. These devices offantastic oaths come
not from Him who is the Truth, but from him who “whenhe speaketha lie,
speakethofhis own” (John 8:44).
unnecessary.
But let your communication - Your word; what you say.
Be, Yea - Yes. This does not mean that we should always use the word "yea,"
for it might as well have been translated "yes";but it means that we should
simply affirm or declare that a thing is so.
More than these - More than these affirmations.

Cometh of evil - Is evil. Proceeds from some evil disposition or purpose. And
from this we may learn:
1. That profane swearing is always the evidence of a depraved heart. To trifle
with the name of God, or with any of his works, is itself most decidedproof of
depravity.
2. That no man is believed any soonerin common conversationbecause he
swears to a thing. When we hear a man swearto a thing, it is pretty good
evidence that he knows what he is saying to be false, and we should be on our
guard. He that will break the third commandment will not hesitate to break
the ninth also. And this explains the factthat profane swearers are seldom
believed. The man who is always believed is he whose characteris beyond
suspicionin all things, who obeys all the laws of God, and whose simple
declaration, therefore, is enough. A man that is truly a Christian, and leads a
Christian life, does not need oaths and profaneness to make him believed.
3. It is no mark of a gentlemanto swear. The most worthless and vile. the
refuse of mankind, the drunkard and the prostitute, swearas well as the best
dressedand educatedgentleman. No particular endowments are requisite to
give finish to the art of cursing. The basestand meanestof mankind swear
with as much tactand skill as the most refined, and he that wishes to degrade
himself to the very lowestlevel of pollution and shame should learn to be a
common swearer. Any personhas talents enough to learn to curse God and
his fellowmen, and to pray - for every man who swears prays - that God
would sink him and others into hell. No profane person knows but that God
will hear his prayer, and send him to the regions of woe.
4. Profanenessdoes no one any good. Nobodyis the richer, or wiser, or
happier for it. It helps no one's morals or manners. It commends no one to

any society. The profane man must be, of course, shut out from female society,
and no refined conversationcanconsistwith it. It is disgusting to the refined;
abominable to the good;insulting to those with whom we associate;degrading
to the mind; unprofitable, needless, and injurious in society;and awful in the
sight of God.
5. God will not hold the profane swearerguiltless. Wantonly to profane His
name, to call His vengeance down, to curse Him on His throne, to invoke
damnation, is perhaps of all offences the most awful. And there is not in the
universe more cause of amazement at His forbearance, thanthat God does not
rise in vengeance, andsmite the profane sweareratonce to hell. Verily, in a
world like this, where His name is profaned every day, and hour, and moment
by thousands, God shows that He is slow to anger, and that His mercy is
without bounds!
37. But let your communication—"your word," in ordinary intercourse, be,
Yea, yea; Nay, nay—Let a simple Yes and No suffice in affirming the truth or
the untruth of anything. (See Jas 5:12;2Co 1:17, 18).
for whatsoeveris more than these cometh of evil—not "of the evil one";
though an equally correctrendering of the words, and one which some
expositors prefer. It is true that all evil in our world is originally of the devil,
that it forms a kingdom at the head of which he sits, and that, in every
manifestation of it he has an active part. But any reference to this here seems
unnatural, and the allusion to this passage in the Epistle of James (Jas 5:12)
seems to show that this is not the sense ofit: "Let your yea be yea; and your
nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." The untruthfulness of our corrupt
nature shows itselfnot only in the tendency to deviate from the strict truth,
but in the disposition to suspectothers of doing the same;and as this is not

diminished, but rather aggravated, by the habit of confirming what we say by
an oath, we thus run the risk of having all reverence for God's holy name, and
even for strict truth, destroyed in our hearts, and so "fall into condemnation."
The practice of going beyond Yes and No in affirmations and denials—as if
our word for it were not enough, and we expectedothers to question it—
springs from that vicious root of untruthfulness which is only aggravatedby
the very effort to clearourselves of the suspicion of it. And just as swearing to
the truth of what we saybegets the disposition it is designedto remove, so the
love and reign of truth in the breasts of Christ's disciples reveals itself so
plainly even to those who themselves cannotbe trusted, that their simple Yes
and No come soonto be more relied on than the most solemn asseverations of
others. Thus does the grace ofour Lord Jesus Christ, like a tree castinto the
bitter waters of human corruption, heal and sweetenthem.
Same Subject—Retaliation(Mt 5:38-42). We have here the converse ofthe
preceding lessons.Theywere negative:these are positive.
St. James saithmuch the same, Jam 5:12. Let your ordinary discourse in the
world be mere affirmations or denials of things in terms or phrases of the
same import with yea and nay, though you do not always use those terms. Let
forms of swearing be preserved for specialtimes, when the providence of God
calls to you for them to determine strife, and make some weighty matters
which you assertcredible unto others who will not take your bare assertions.
Have such a reverence for the name of God, as not to use it for every trifle;
and let not my ordinance for the end of strife be made of no use by your
common use of the name of God; for in ordinary discourse and common talk,
whatsoeveris more than bare affirmations and denials, comethof an evil
heart, or from the devil, or from the corruption of other men’s hearts. Some
would make the communication mentioned here to be understood as if it were
conversation;Let your ways of dealing with men be fitting, without fraud and
guile; and so think our Saviour here strikes at the root and cause of so much

idle and vain swearing, viz. the common falsehood, frauds, and cozenagesof
men in their dealings;but it seemethhard so to interpret logovin this place,
our Saviour especiallybeing speaking concerning words and forms of speech.
But let your communication be yea, yea,.... Thatis, let your speech, in your
common conversation, and daily business of life, when ye answerto anything
in the affirmative, be "yea";and when ye answerto anything in the negative,
"nay": and for the strongerasseverationofthe matter, when it is necessary,
double these words;but let no oaths be joined unto them: this is enough; a
righteous man's yea, is yea, and his no, is no; his word is sufficient. Hence it
appears, that our Lord is here speaking of rash swearing, andsuch as was
used in common conversation, and is justly condemned by him. The Jews have
no reasonto rejectthis advice of Christ, who often use and recommend the
same modes of expression. Theyendeavour to raise the esteemof their doctors
and wise men, by saying, that their words, both in doctrines and dealings with
men, are "yea, yea" (y). One of their (z) commentators on the word "saying",
in, Exodus 20:1 makes this observation;
"hence we learn, that they used to answer, "concerning yea, yea, and
concerning nay, nay".''
This way of speaking, they lookedupon equivalent to an oath; yea, they affirm
it was one.
"Says R. Eliezer (a), , "nay is an oath; yea is an oath", absolutely; "nay" is an
oath, as it is written, Genesis 9:11 and Isaiah 54:9. But that "yea" is an oath,
how does it appear? It is concluded from hence, that "nay" is an oath; saith
Rabba, there are that say"nay, nay", twice;and there are that say"yea, yea",
twice;as it is written, Genesis 9:11 and from hence, that "nay" is twice, "yea"
is also twice said.''

The gloss upon it is,
"he that says either "nay, nay", twice, or "yea, yea", twice;lo! it is "as an
after oath", which confirms his words.''
For whatsoeveris more than these, comethof evil: that is, whateverexceeds
this way of speaking and conversation, in the common affairs of life, is either
from the devil, who is the evil one, by way of eminency; or from the evil heart
of man, from the pride, malice, envy, &c. that are in it.
(y) T. Bab. MoedKaton, fol. 20. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Dayot. c. 5. sect. 13. (z) R.
Sol. Jarchi, in Exodus 20.1.((a)T. Bab. Shebuot, fol. 36. 1. Vid. Maimon.
Hilch. Shebuot, c. 2. sect. 1.
Geneva Study Bible
But let your communication be, {t} Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoeveris more
than these cometh of {u} evil.
(t) Whatever you affirm, affirm it alone, and whateveryou deny, deny it alone
without any more words.
(u) From an evil conscience, orfrom the devil.
Matthew 5:37. Let your manner of asseverationbe affirmation or negation,
without an oath. The repetition of the ναί and οὔ is intended to make

prominent the earnestand decisive nature of the assurance.[417]Similar
examples of ‫ח‬ ‫ע‬‫ן‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ע‬‫ן‬ and ‫ֹא‬‫א‬ ‫ֹא‬‫א‬ in the Rabbins, in Lightfoot, and Schoettgen, p. 41.
Comp. the ΝΑῚ ΚΑῚ Οὒ ΠΥΘΑΓΟΡΙΚΌΝ in Ausonius, Idyll. 17 : “Si
consentitur, mora nulla intervenit Esther est; Si controversum, dissensio
subjiciet non.” As a matter of course, by this representationother
asseverations—made, however,without an oath—are not excluded.
τὸ δὲ περισς. τουτ.]whateveris more than yea and nay (τούτων), that is
swearing.
ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΠΟΝΗΡΟῦ]Euth. Zigabenus: ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΔΙΑΒΌΛΟΥ:auctorem
habet diabolum. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Zwingli, Castalio,
Piscator, Wetstein, andothers; also Fritzsche, Keim. Comp. John 8:44; 1 John
3:8; 1 John 3:12. Others (Luther, Calovius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel,
Paulus, Tholuck, de Wette, Baumgarten Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, andothers)
take ΤΟῦ ΠΟΝΗΡΟῦ as neuter, so that it would have to be explained: is in the
categoryofevil, is sinful. Comp. the use of ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ἘΜΦΑΝΟῦς, ἘΚ ΤΟῦ
ΕὐΠΡΕΠΟῦς, etc., Matthiae, p. 1334. Buthow insipid and devoid of meaning
is the closing thought if this be the meaning! how energetic if Ὁ ΠΟΝΗΡΌς,
Matthew 13:19; Matthew 13:38, is intended! And by this energetic rejectionof
the oath amongstthe ideal people of God, to whom the completedlaw applies,
there is no oppositionto the Old Testamentsacredness ofan oath. But if
under the completed law the mere yea and nay are to have the weight and
reliability of an oath, then this highest moral standard and ordinance of
truthfulness would be againtaken awayand perverted by him who
nevertheless should swear;while the yea and nay would againbe deprived of
the guarantee oftruthfulness, which, like all opposition to the truth, would be
diabolical(John 8:44). The oath by God could not be rejectedby Jesus, in and
by itself, as ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΠΟΝΗΡΟῦ, for it certainly rests upon the divine law;
but (in answerto Keim) it has, upon the standpoint of the ΠΛΉΡΩΣΙς of the
law, given wayto the yea and nay, therefore its re-establishmentwould only
be a desertion of these higher stages, a falling awayfrom the moral

ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗς, up to which Christ means to fulfil the law. This could not
proceedfrom God, but only from the enemy of His will and kingdom. In a
similar way, as Theophylact rightly saw, circumcisionin the O. T. is ordained
of God, and is worthy of honour; but to uphold its validity in Christianity to
the injury of faith, and of righteousness by faith, is sinful, devilish; 2
Corinthians 11:3; 2 Corinthians 11:14. So also with sacrifices, festivaldays,
prohibition of meats, and so on.
[417]In answerto Beza’s erroneous explanation, “let your affirmative
discourse be yea, and your negative, nay;” and, in answerto Grotius (comp.
also Erasmus), who takes the secondναί and οὔ to refer to the actwhich
corresponds to the assurance, so thatthe meaning would be: “fidem a nobis
praestaridebere in promissis etiam injuratis,” see Fritzsche on the passage.
According to Hilgenfeld, the original text is said to have been, in accordance
with the quotations in Justin (Apol. i. 16, p. 63) and the Clementines (Rom.
3:55, 19:2): ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ, καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ. Comp. Jam 5:12; 2
Corinthians 1:17. Matthew would appear againto introduce an assurance like
an oath. Keim also deems the form of statement as given by Matthew to be
less correct.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 5:37. Ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν, your conversation)your daily ordinary speech.
ναὶ, ναὶ. οὓ, οὓ, yea, yea; nay, nay) Let “yea,” or, “it is, be employed to affirm
what is true,—“Nay,” or, “it is not,” to deny what is false.[221]Cf. Gnomon
on 2 Corinthians 1:17-18, and Jam 5:12.—περισσὸν, exceeding, that which
exceeds)Excessis faulty.—ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, of evil); the word is here in the
neuter gender, [and signifies evil in the abstract]: see Matthew 5:39.
[221]Lit. Let the “It is” of factbe also the “It is” in your words: let the “It is
not” of fact be also the “It is not” in your words.—ED.
Pulpit Commentary

Verse 37. - Your communication. Similarly, the Authorized Version in
Ephesians 4:29, in archaic usage for "talk." Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Christ
permits as far as the repetition of the asseveration. The adoption here by a few
authorities of the phrase in James 5:12 ("Let your yea be yea; and your nay,
nay," τὸ ναὶ ναὶ κ.τ.λ..)is unsuitable; for here the question is not of
truthfulness, but of fervency in asseveration. Whatsoeveris more than these;
"that which is over and above these" (Rheims). There is a superfluity
(περισσόν) in more fervent asseverations, which has its origin ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῖ.
Cometh of evil. So the RevisedVersion margin, "as in ver. 39;6:13.' Revised
Version, is of the evil one (vide Matthew 6:13, note; and cf. 1 John 3:12).
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCEHURT MD
Matthew 5:33 Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU
SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS
TO THE LORD.'(NASB: Lockman)
Greek:Palin ekousate(2PAAI) oti errethe (3SAPI) tois archaiois, Ouk
epiorkeseis, (2SFAI)apodoseis(2SFAI)de to kurio tous orkous sou.
Amplified: Again, you have heard that it was saidto the men of old, You shall
not swearfalsely, but you shall perform your oaths to the Lord [as a religious
duty]. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

NLT: "Again, you have heard that the law of Moses says,'Do not break your
vows;you must carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' (NLT -
Tyndale House)
Philips: "Again, you have heard that the people in the old days were told -
'You shall not swearfalsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord', (New
Testamentin Modern English)
Wuest: Again, you heard that it was saidby those of a previous time, You
shall not perjure yourself but you shall discharge your oaths with reference to
the Lord.
Young's Literal: 33 'Again, ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou
shalt not swearfalsely, but thou shalt pay to the Lord thine oaths;
AGAIN, YOU HAVE HEARD THAT THE ANCIENTS WERE TOLD, 'YOU
SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS: Palin ekousate(2PAAI) oti errethe
(3SAPI) tois archaiois, Ouk epiorkeseis,(2SFAI)apodoseis (2SFAI)
Mt 23:16
Torrey's TopicalTextbook = Oaths
Matthew 5:33-37 The Spiritual Credibility Gap - John MacArthur
Lev 17:12 'And you shall not swearfalselyby My name, so as to profane the
name of your God; I am the LORD.
THOU SHALL NOTT

FORSWEAR!
You have heard (Matt 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43) - First He said to His listeners,
"You have heard"—that's the human standard. Then He said, "But I sayto
you"—that's God's standard.
Jesus gives us the fourth of six illustrations of a righteousness thatsurpasses
that of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt5:20-note)
The ancients were correctin this regardto the "letter" of the Law about
vows. They had simply learned how to worm their wayaround the Law and
thus they perverted the truth inherent in these laws as discussedbelow.
Ancient (744)(archaios from arche = beginning) means old, expressing that
which was from the beginning in contrastto palaiós (3820), old, as having
existed a long period of time. Archaíos reaches back to a beginning, whenever
that beginning may have been.
Archaios - 11x in 11v -NAS renders it as - ancient(2), ancients(2), early(1),
long standing(1), of old(4), old things(1).
Matt 5:21, 33;Luke 9:8, 19;Acts 15:7, 21;21:16; 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet2:5; Rev
12:9; 20:2.
False vows (1964)(epiorkeo from epíorkos as in 1Ti 1:10 = a perjured person
from epí = against, + hórkos = an oath) means to commit perjury, to forswear
self, to swearfalsely, to not fulfill one’s oath. Vine - signifies "to swearfalsely,

to undo one's swearing, forswearoneself" (epi, "against," orkos, "anoath"),
Matthew 5:33 . Cp. epiorkos, "a perjured person, a perjurer," , "false
swearers." (Vine's Expository Dictionaryof NT Words)
Webster's 1828 forswear= (v. i.) To swearfalsely;to commit perjury. (v. i.)
To deny upon oath. (v. i.) To reject or renounce upon oath; hence, to renounce
earnestly, determinedly, or with protestations.
Webster's 1828 perjure = To cause to violate an oath or a vow; to cause to
make oath knowingly to what is untrue; to make guilty of perjury; to
forswear;to corrupt; - often used reflexively; as, he perjured himself.(v. t.) To
make a false oath to; to deceive by oaths and protestations.
King James Dictionary= FORSWEAR,pret. forswore pp. forsworn. See
Swearand Answer. 1. To rejector renounce upon oath. 2. To deny upon oath.
Like innocence, and as serenelybold as truth, how loudly he forswears thy
gold. To forswearone's self, is to swearfalselyto perjure one's self. Thou shalt
not forswearthyself. Matthew 5 . FORSWEAR,To swearfalselyto commit
perjury. As Jesus explains, the issue is not so much about vows per se as it is
about speaking the truth from our heart of integrity.
Charles Simeon - AMONGST persons unaccustomedto hear the peculiar
doctrines of the Gospel, a kind of jealousyis often excited by the very recital
of the text; especiallyif the preacherbe known to be zealous for those
doctrines, and the passage whichhe has selectedevidently inculcates them.
This feeling is manifestly wrong; and every one who loves the Gospelsees in a
moment the evil of indulging it. But is this feeling peculiar to those who are
ignorant of the Gospel? No;by no means: for religious people themselves are
too apt to yield to it, when any text is announced which leads only to the
discussionof some moral subject. But if this feeling be wrong in the

unenlightened part of mankind, it is a thousand times more so in those who
profess to be enlightened, and who ought on that very accountto love every
portion of the sacredvolume, and gladly to hear every truth insisted on in its
season. The subjectof swearing does not seemto promise much edification to
an audience conversantwith the sublimer mysteries of our religion: but, if our
blessedLord saw fit to speak of it so fully in his Sermon on the Mount, we
may be sure that our time cannotbe misspent in investigating, as we purpose
to do (Readthe entire sermon - Matthew 5:33-37 Swearing Forbidden)
Kent Hughes illustrates the desire for truth in the prayer of the chaplain of
the Kansas Senate - "OmniscientFather: Help us to know who is telling the
truth. One side tells us one thing, and the other just the opposite. And if
neither side is telling the truth, we would like to know that, too. And if each
side is telling half the truth, give us the wisdom to put the right halves
together. In Jesus'name, Amen. (Hughes, R. K. Sermon on the Mount: The
Messageofthe Kingdom. CrosswayBooks)
This prayer highlights what we all know to be just as true in America as it was
in Israel in Jesus'day...truth is a vanishing breed. In fact a recent book, The
Day America Told the Truth-What People ReallyBelieve About Everything
That Really Matters
Hughes agrees andgoes onto add that "Todaythere is an urgent truth
shortage!There was a time when westernculture was distinguished from
other cultures by at leasta conventionaloutward sense of obligationto tell the
truth. But now there is a pervasive indifference to truth-telling, and this has
not only infectedday-to-day conversationbut the most solemn pledges of life.
Perjury under solemn oath is epidemic. The sacredvows of marriage are
broken almostas often as repeated. God's name is invoked by blatant liars
who purport to be witnesses to the truth. There is, indeed, a crisis, but we
must not make the mistake of thinking it occurs only out there because it

happens among us too. It is difficult to always tell the truth. The great
preacherand writer George Macdonaldwrote to his son on December6, 1878,
"I always try - I think I do - to be truthful. All the same I tell a greatmany
lies." I identifywith that. I am speaking to someone and suddenly realize that
what I am saying is not the truth. Perhaps you have experiencedthe same.
The difficulty comes from the combination of my own deceitful nature and the
pervasive deceptiveness ofthe surrounding culture. (Hughes, R. K. Sermon on
the Mount: The Message ofthe Kingdom. CrosswayBooks)
BACKGROUND ON
OATHS & VOWS
OATHS - A solemn affirmation accompaniedby an appeal to the Supreme
Being. God has prohibited all false oaths, and all useless andcustomary
swearing in ordinary discourse;but when the necessityorimportance of a
matter requires an oath, he allows men to swearby his name, Exodus 22:11
Leviticus 5:1 . To swearby a false god was an act of idolatry, Jeremiah5:7
12:16. Among the Hebrews an oath was administered by the judge, who stood
up, and adjured the party who was to be sworn. In this manner our Lord was
adjured by Caiaphas, Matthew 26:63 . Jesus had remained silent under long
examination, when the high priest, rising up, knowing he had a sure mode of
obtaining an answersaid, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us
whether thou be the Christ." To this oath, thus solemnly administered, Jesus
replied that he was indeed the Messiah. — — An oath is a solemnappeal to
God, as to an all-seeing witness that what we say is true, and an almighty
avengerif what we saybe false, Hebrews 6:16 . Its force depends upon our
conviction of the infinite justice of God; that he will not hold those guiltless
who take his name in vain; and that the loss of his favor immeasurable
outweighs all that could be gained by false witness. It is an act of religious
worship; on which accountGod requires it to be takenin his name,
Deuteronomy 10:20 , and points out the manner in which it ought to be
administered, and the duty of the person who swears,Exodus 22:11

Deuteronomy 6:18 Psalm 15:4 24:4 . Hence atheists, who profess to believe
that there is no God, and persons who do not believe in a future state of
reward and punishment, cannot consistentlytake an oath. In their mouths an
oath can be only profane mockery.
God Himself is representedas confirming his promise by oath, and thus
conforming to what is practiced among men, Hebrews 6:13,16-17 . The oaths
forbidden in Matthew 5:34-35 James 5:12 , must refer to the unthinking,
hasty, and vicious practices of the Jews;otherwise Paulwould have acted
againstthe command of Christ, Romans 1:9 Galatians 1:20 2 Corinthians 1:23
. That person is obliged to take an oath whose duty requires him to declare the
truth in the most solemn and judicial manner; though undoubtedly oaths are
too often administered unnecessarilyand irreverently, and takenwith but
slight consciousnessofthe responsibility thus assumed. As we are bound to
manifest every possible degree of reverence towards God, the greatestcare is
to be takenthat we swearneither rashly nor negligently in making promises.
To neglectperformance is perjury, unless the promise be contrary to the law
of nature and of God; in which case no oath is binding. See CORBAN. A
customary formula of taking an oath was "The Lord do so to me, and more
also;" that is, the lord slay me, as the victim sacrificed on many such occasions
was slain, and punish me even more than this, if I speak not the truth, Ruth
1:17 1 Samuel 3:17 . Similar phrases are these: "As the Lord liveth," Judges
8:19 "Before GodI lie not," Romans 9:1; "I saythe truth in Christ," 1
Timothy 2:7; "Godis my record," Philippians 1.8 . Severalacts are alluded to
as accompaniments of an oath; as putting the hand under the thigh, Genesis
24:2 47:29;and raising the hand towards heaven, Genesis 14:22,23
Deuteronomy 32:40 Revelation10:5 .
VOWS - A promise made to God of doing some goodthing or abstaining from
some lawful enjoyment, under the influence of gratitude for divine goodness,
of imminent danger, the apprehensionof future evils, or the desire of future
blessings. To fulfill a vow binding one to sin, was to all sin to sin; but no

considerations ofinconvenience or loss could absolve one from a vow, Psalm
15:4 Malachi1:14 . Jacob, going into Mesopotamia, vowedthe tenth of his
estate, and promised to offer it at Beth-el, to the honor of God, Genesis 28:20-
22 . Mosesenactedseverallaws forthe regulationand execution of vows. "If
thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee; that which is gone out of
thy lips thou shalt keepand perform," Deuteronomy 23:21,23 Ecclesiastes
5:4-5 . — — The vows of minors, etc., were not binding without the consentof
the head of the family, Numbers 30:1-16 . A man might devote himself or his
children to the Lord, Numbers 6:2. Jephthah devoted his daughter, Judges
11:30-40;and Samuel was vowedand consecratedto the service of the Lord, 1
Samuel 1:11,27,28 . If men or women vowedthemselves to the Lord, they were
obliged to adhere strictly to his service, according to the conditions of the vow;
but in some casesthey might be redeemed, Leviticus 27:1-34 . These self
imposed services were more in keeping with the ancient dispensation, in which
outward sacrifices andobservances hadso large a share, than with
enlightened Christianity. See CORBAN, and . NAZARITES (American Tract
SocietyBible Dictionary)
RELATED RESOURCESON OATH:
See Interesting Comments by William Barclayon JewishOaths
American Tract Society• Oath
BridgewayBible Dictionary • Oath
Charles Buck Dictionary • Supremacy, Oath of • Oath
Easton's Bible Dictionary • Oath
FaussetBible Dictionary • Oath
Holman Bible Dictionary • Oaths
Hastings'Dictionary of the Bible • Oaths

Hastings'Dictionary of the NT • Oath • Oaths
Morrish Bible Dictionary • Oath
Vines' Expository Dictionary • Oath
WebsterDictionary • Oath • Oathable • Oaths
Watson's TheologicalDictionary• Oath
1911 Encyclopedia Britannica • Oath
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia • Oath
Kitto Biblical Cyclopedia • Oath
McClintock and Strong's Bible Encyclopedia • Oath (2) • Oath
The JewishEncyclopedia • Oath
Nave TopicalBible • Oath
Thompson Chain Reference • Oaths
Torrey's TopicalTextbook • Oaths
BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD: (2SFAI) apodoseis
(2SFAI) de to kurio tous orkous sou.
But - Always stop and query this term of contrast, asking What is being
contrasted(why?, how?, etc), and you will usually be forced to re-read the
previous passageorclause. It is not a bad thing to read the inspired, eternal
Word of God slowlyand deliberately! I think sometimes we read the daily
newspaperStats of our favorite football team with more deliberation and
inquisitiveness than we do the eternal Word of God! Newspaperswill all
BURN someday!Only God's Word endures forever! Readit like you really
believe it! Slowly and judiciously.

Keep in mind that in the Old Testamentvows were encouragedand they were
especiallyencouragedto be in God's Name. However, once the vow was made,
it was final and could not be rescindedwithout consequences.
Exodus 20:7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for
the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain
Leviticus 19:12 You shall not swearfalselyby My name, so as to profane the
name of your God; I am the Lord.
Deuteronomy 5:11 ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,
for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
Deuteronomy 23:23 “You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your
lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God, what you have
promised.
Psalm50:14 Offer to God a sacrifice ofthanksgiving and pay your vows to the
MostHigh;
Spurgeon: And pay thy vows unto the most High. Let the sacrifice be really
presentedto the God who sees the heart, pay to him the love you promised,
the service you covenantedto render, the loyalty of heart you have vowedto
maintain. O for grace to do this! O that we may be graciouslyenabled to love
God, and live up to our profession!To be, indeed, the servants of the Lord, the
lovers of Jesus, this is our main concern. What avails our baptism, to what
end our gatherings at the Lord's table, to what purpose our solemn

assemblies, ifwe have not the fear of the Lord, and vital godliness reigning
within our bosoms?
Psalm76:11 Make (command) vows to the Lord your God and fulfill
(command) them; Let all who are around Him bring gifts to Him who is to be
feared.
Spurgeon: Vow, and pay unto the Lord your God. Well may we do so in
memory of such mercies and judgments. To vow or not is a matter of choice,
but to discharge our vows is our bounden duty. He who would defraud God,
his ownGod, is a wretch indeed. He keeps his promises, let not his people fail
in theirs. He is their faithful God and deserves to have a faithful people. — —
Let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be
feared. Let surrounding nations submit to the only living God, let his own
people with alacrity present their offerings, and let his priests and Levites be
leaders in the sacredsacrifice. He who deserves to be praised as our Goddoes,
should not have mere verbal homage, but substantial tribute. Dread
Sovereign, behold I give myself to thee.
1) To whom vows may be made. Not to man, but God. — — 2) What vows
should be thus made.
Of self dedication. — Of self service. — Of selfsacrifice. — How kept: Vow
and pay. — From duty. — From fear of his displeasure. G. R.
Ecclesiastes5:4 When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for
He takes no delight in fools. Paywhat you vow! 5 It is better that you should
not vow than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not let your speechcause
you to sin and do not say in the presence ofthe messengerofGod that it was a

mistake. Why should God be angry on accountof your voice and destroy the
work of your hands?
Fulfill (591) (apodidomi [word study] from apó = from + didomi = give) means
to pay or give back, implying a debt. This word carries the idea of obligation
and responsibility for something that is not optional. The prefixed preposition
apo (off, awayfrom) makes the verb mean “to give off” from one’s self. To
give back or pay back or to do something necessaryin fulfillment of an
obligation or expectation. The idea is that the one who gives a vow must fulfill
His promise to meet his "obligation".
Fulfill - 48x in 46v- NAS = account*(1), award(1), fulfill(2), gave back(2),
give(3), give back(1), given over(1),giving(1), make (1), paid(2), paid up(1),
pay(2), pay back(4), recompense(1), render(7), repay(10), repayment to be
made(1), repays(1), returning(1), sold(3), yielding(1), yields(1).
Matt 5:26, 33;6:4, 6, 18; 12:36;16:27; 18:25f, 28ff, 34; 20:8; 21:41;22:21;
27:58;Mark 12:17;Luke 4:20; 7:42; 9:42; 10:35;12:59; 16:2; 19:8; 20:25;
Acts 4:33; 5:8; 7:9; 19:40;Rom 2:6; 12:17;13:7; 1 Cor 7:3; 1Thess 5:15;1
Tim 5:4; 2 Tim 4:8, 14;Heb 12:11, 16; 13:17;1 Pet 3:9; 4:5; Rev 18:6; 22:2,
12.
Expositor's Greek Testamentsays that "the Scribes misplacedthe emphasis
(on the significance ofoaths). They had a great dealto say, in sophisticalstyle,
of the oaths that were binding and not binding, (but) nothing about the
fundamental requirement of truth in the inward parts (see Ps 51:6 below)
Behold, Thou dost desire truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part
Thou wilt make me know wisdom. (Ps 51:6).

Spurgeon: Thou dost desire truth in the inward parts. Reality, sincerity, true
holiness, heart fidelity, these are the demands of God. He cares not for the
pretence of purity, He looks to the mind, heart, and soul. Always has the Holy
One of Israelestimated men by their inner nature, and not by their outward
professions;to Him the inward is as visible as the outward, and He rightly
judges that the essentialcharacterof an action lies in the motive of him who
works it.
Ryrie helps us understand how the scribes and Phariseeswere perverting the
Old Testamentpassagesonvows noting that "Oaths taken in the name of the
Lord were binding, and perjury was strongly condemned in the law (Ex. 20:7;
Lev. 19:12; Deut. 19:16, 17, 18, 19). Every oath contained an affirmation or
promise and an appeal to God as the omniscient punisher of falsehoods, which
made the oath binding. Thus we find phrases like "as the Lord lives" (1Sam.
14:39). The emphasis on the sanctity of oaths led to the feeling that ordinary
phrasing need not be truthful or binding. (The Ryrie Study Bible: New
American Standard Translation:1995. MoodyPublishers) (Bolding added)
In other words, when the scribes and Pharisees made an oath in the name of
the LORD, that oath must be kept. On the other hand if one made an oath
without expresslyuse the LORD's name (this is the "catch", the "fine print"
so to speak)this oath was consideredto be of lessersignificance anddid not
demand one to be quite so conscientious aboutkeeping it. And so the practice
had come into vogue of making oaths "by heaven", "by earth", "by
Jerusalem", "bythe Temple", etc. Later in Matthew Jesus againcastigates
the scribes and Pharisees fortheir abuse of oaths declaring "Woe to you,
blind guides, who say, 'Whoeverswears by the temple, that is nothing; but
whoeverswears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.... And, 'Whoever
swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering upon
it, he is obligated." (Mt 23:16,18)

In this example of manipulation of truth by the scribes and Pharisees, they
(illogically) reasonedthat swearing by the temple, did not obligate one to
fulfill their vow, but swearing by the gold of the temple, obligatedthem to
fulfill the vow. Similarly, they hypocritically reasonedthat swearing by the
gift on the altar was binding, but swearing by the empty altar was not. What
they did was value goldabove God since the temple was the house of God.
In the following verse, Mt 5:34, Jesus clearlyforbids such hypocritical
swearing (see below).
Vows (KJV = oaths)(3727)(horkos)"is primarily equivalent to herkos, "a
fence, an enclosure, that which restrains a person;" hence, "an oath." The
Lord's command in Matthew 5:33 was a condemnation of the minute and
arbitrary restrictions imposed by the scribes and Phariseesin the matter of
adjurations (Webster= a solemncharging on oath, or under the penalty of a
curse;an earnestappeal), by which God's Name was profaned. The injunction
is repeatedin James 5:12 . The language of the Apostle Paul, e.g., in Galatians
1:20; 1Thessalonians 5:27 was not inconsistentwith Christ's prohibition, read
in the light of its context. Contrastthe "oaths" mentionedin Matthew 14:7,9;
26:72;Mark 6:26 .Hebrews 6:16 refers to the confirmation of a compact
among men, guaranteeing the discharge of liabilities; in their disputes "the
oath is final for confirmation." This is referred to in order to illustrate the
greatersubjectof God's "oath" to Abraham, confirming His promise; cp.
Luke 1:73; Acts 2:30. (Vine's ExpositoryDictionary of NT Words = Oath)
Kitto - Oath, an appeal to God in attestationof the truth of what you say, or in
confirmation of what you promise or undertake. Cicero correctlyterms an
oath a religious affirmation; that is, an affirmation with a religious sanction.
Hence it appears that there are two essentialelements in an oath: first, the
human, a declared intention of speaking the truth, or performing the action in

a given case;secondly, the divine, an appeal to God, as a Being who knows all
things and will punish guilt. According to usage, however, there is a third
element in the idea which 'oath' commonly conveys, namely, that the oath is
takenonly on solemn, or, more specifically, on juridical occasions.The essence
of an oath lies obviously in the appeal which is thereby made to God, or to
divine knowledge and power. The customary form establishes this, 'So help
me God.'The Latin words (known to have been used as early as the sixth
century), whence our English form is taken, may be thus rendered: so may
God and these holy gospels helpme; that is, 'as I say the truth.' The present
custom of kissing a book containing the Gospels has in England takenplace of
the latter clause in the Latin formula. Oaths did not take their origin in any
divine command. They were a part of that consuetudinary law which Moses
found prevalent, and was bound to respect, since no small portion of the force
of law lies in custom, and a legislatorcanneither abrogate nor institute a
binding law of his own mere will. Accordingly, Mosesmade use of the sanction
which an oath gave, but in that generalmanner, and apart from minute
directions and express words of approval; which shows that he merely used,
without intending to sanction, an instrument that he found in existence and
could not safelydispense with. Examples are found in , where an oath is
ordered to be applied in the case oflost property; and here we first meet with
what may strictly be calleda judicial oath. (For full article see Kitto's Popular
Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature = Oath - as an aside, C H Spurgeonspoke
very highly of Kitto's work.)
WORD STUDY — ON KURIOS
Lord (2962)(kurios from kuros = might or power, related to kuroo = to give
authority) primarily means the possessor,owner, master, the supreme one,
one who is sovereign(e.g., Romanemperors - Acts 25:26+)and possesses
absolute authority, absolute ownership rights and uncontestedpower. Kurios
is used of the one to whom a person or thing belonged, over which he has the
powerof deciding, the one who is the master or disposerof a thing (Mk 7:28)

Kurios has a variety of meanings/uses in the NT and therefore one must
carefully examine the context in order to discern which sense is intended by
the NT author. For example, some passages use kurios only as a common form
of polite address with no religious/spiritual meaning. The reader should also
be aware that in view of the factthat kurios is used over 9000 times in the
Septuagint (LXX) and over 700 times in the NT, this discussionof kurios at
best only "skims the surface" ofthis prodigious, precious word. W E Vine's
summary below gives you a sense ofvariety of nuances of kurios.
W E Vine summarizes Kurios - Noun Masculine — kurios — koo'-ree-os)
properly an adjective, signifying "having power" (kuros) or "authority," is
used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, "'Lord,' 'master,''Master,'
'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide significance, occurring in eachbook of the NT
save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used
(a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33 , cp. Matthew 20:8 ; Acts 16:16 ; Galatians
4:1 ; or of one who has the disposalof anything, as the Sabbath, Matthew 12:8
;
(b) of a master, i.e., one to whom service is due on any ground, Matthew 6:24 ;
24:50 ; Ephesians 6:5 ;
(c) of an Emperor or King, Acts 25:26 ; Revelation17:14 ;
(d) of idols, ironically, 1 Corinthians 8:5 , cp. Isaiah26:13 ;

(e) as a title of respectaddressedto a father, Matthew 21:30 , a husband, 1
Peter3:6 , a master, Matthew 13:27 ; Luke 13:8 , a ruler, Matthew 27:63 , an
angel, Acts 10:4 ; Revelation7:14 ;
(f) as a title of courtesyaddressedto a stranger, John 12:21 ; 20:15 ; Acts
16:30 ; from the outsetof His ministry this was a common form of address to
the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matthew 8:2 ; John 4:11 , and by His
disciples, Matthew 8:25 ; Luke 5:8 ; John 6:68 ;
(g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah('Lord' in Eng.
versions), see Matthew 4:7 ; James 5:11 , e.g., ofadon, Lord, Matthew 22:44 ,
and of Adonay, Lord, Matthew 1:22 ; it also occurs forElohim, God, 1 Peter
1:25 . (Click full definition)
Friberg summarizes kurios as "strictly, a substantive of the adjective kurios
(strong, authoritative); hence, one having legalpowerlord, master;(1) in a
nonreligious sense;(a) one controlling his own property owner, lord, master
(Mk 12.9);(b) one having authority over persons lord, master (Lk 12.43);(2)
as a form of address showing respectsir, lord (Jn 4.11);(3) in religious usage,
as a designationand personaltitle for God (Mt 1.20)and Jesus Christ(Jn
20.18)(the) Lord; translation of the Hebrew adonai, which in the public
reading of Scripture replacedthe tetragrammaton YHWH." (Friberg -
Analytical Lexicon)
JESUS IS — LORD
Lord is used 139 times in the NT of the Godhead (or particularly of Godthe
Father), and 489 times directly of Jesus. Therefore atthe outset should be
noted that in the NT Jesus is referred to as Lord (Kurios) more frequently

than by any other title. Therefore it behooves us to understand the truth
concerning Jesus as Lord and not allow ourselves to become side trackedin
debate over so-called"Lordshipsalvation". The indisputable Biblical facts
are that faith in Jesus savesand Jesus is Lord. This confessionof"Jesus is
Lord" became a direct affront to the practice of emperor worship. Certain
cities even built temples for Caesar-worshipas was the case in Smyrna where
the command was to honor the emperor by confessing "Caesaris Lord". To
declare "Jesus is Lord" became a crime punishable by death, resulting in the
martyrdom. I think the first century believers understood "Lordship" in a
way modern believers would find it difficult to comprehend! (cp Jesus'
"prophetic" warning in Mt 10:22, 23, 24, 25 where "master" is kurios)
Lord is not merely a name that composesa title, but signifies a call to actionso
that every saint should willingly, reverently bow down to Jesus Christ. If
Christ is our Lord, we are to live under Him, consciously, continually
submitting our wills to him as His loyal, loving bondservants ("love slaves"),
always seeking firstHis Kingdom and His righteousness (Mt6:33-note).
According to this practicalworking "definition" beloved we all need to ask
ourselves "Is Jesus Christ my Lord?". "Do I arise eachday, acknowledges
this is the day the Lord hath made?" (Ps 118:24-note)"Do I surrender my
will to His will as I begin eachday?" (cp Ro 12:1-note, Ro 12:2-note)Beloved,
don't misunderstand. None of us have "arrived" in this area of Jesus as Lord
of our lives. And it is preciselyfor that reasonthat Petercommands us to
continually "grow (presentimperative) in the grace (unmerited favor, power
to live the supernatural, abundant life in Christ) and knowledge (not just
intellectual but transformational)of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To
Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." (2Pe 3:18-note)
So do not be discouraged. Don't"throw in the towel" as they say. Keep on
keeping on, pressing (continually = presenttense) "ontoward the goalfor the
prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Php 3:14-note)
Boice adds that...

Citizens of the empire were required to burn a pinch of incense to the reigning
Caesarandutter the words Kyrios Kaisar (“Caesaris Lord!”). It is this that
the early Christians refused to do and for which they were themselves thrown
to the wild lions or crucified. It was not that Christians were forbidden to
worship God. They were free to worship any god they chose so long as they
also acknowledgedCaesar. Romans were tolerant. But when Christians
denied to Caesarthe allegiance thatthey believed belonged to the true God
only, they were executed. (Daniel:An ExpositionalCommentary)
Thayer says kurios is
he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has the powerof
deciding; master, lord.
In classicalGreek, kurios was usedof the false gods, suchas Hermes, Zeus,
etc. Kurios was also usedin secularGreek to identify the head of the family,
who was lord of his wife and children (compare 1Sa 1:8, Ge 18:22 referred to
in the NT - 1Pe 3:6-note where "lord" = kurios)
Detzler writes that kurios
In the earliestGreek this word meant "to have power or authority." Later it
came to describe one who is in control. As classicalGreek developed, it
became a title for men of importance. Since the gods of ancient Greece were
neither creators norlords of their fate, pagan deities were not called"lord"
until much later. By the time of Christ, kings had come to be called"lord."
This was true of the Roman Emperor Caligula (A.D. 37-41). It was also true of
Candace, the fabled queen of upper Egypt (Ac 8:27). So too Herod the Great,

Jesus was against making oaths

Jesus was against making oaths

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was against making oaths

Similar to Jesus was against making oaths (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was against making oaths