Again, ye have heard that it has been said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt render to the Lord what thou hast sworn.
Jesus returns to a rule the crowd knew well: keep your oaths and never swear falsely. He does not soften it — He raises the standard so high that the oath itself becomes unnecessary.
The rule Jesus quotes rests on older ground:
The moral basis for the command not to swear falsely — that is, not to commit perjury — lay in two commandments. The third says, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." The ninth says, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." But other passages in the Old Testament warn the people of Israel about thoughtless swearing. Leviticus 19:12 says: "You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God."
The same writer shows the other side. Under the law, some occasions called for an oath:
On the other hand, the law required an oath on several occasions. In such cases God asked His people to swear by His name. The oath then did more than confirm the truth. It was also a solemn vow, made in the knowledge that Jehovah was present — the Jehovah who had once Himself taken an oath before Abraham.
The second half of the verse speaks plainly of vowing — promises made to God. Those promises had a long and unhappy history:
There had been great abuse of vowing, as Israel's history makes clear. Men did not hesitate to vow recklessly to God at the prompting of their pride and passion and self-will. Then they found themselves trapped by what now seemed their duty. Careless profanity followed close behind, and people profaned God's name with casual appeals to it on every occasion.
Swearing by heaven, earth or Jerusalem was not extra reverence. It was a way of sounding solemn while staying free:
So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word there is to be Yes, yes, or No, no. Anything more than these has no sanction from God... All the strong affirmations the Lord illustrates from Jewish habit arose from men's constant experience of deceiving and evading. So they resorted to such means of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. A reliable Jewish writer from New Testament times tells us that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars and the whole universe were not counted binding. Only oaths that used God's name outright bound the conscience. Others could be broken.
So does this rule out an oath in a court of law?
The question here is not in the least a judicial oath. The Lord is dealing with how His disciples behave as individuals, not with their relation to the governing authorities. It is a matter of ordinary conversation, not an oath before the magistrate. Heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and a man's own head were ways of swearing in the everyday talk of Jews. They were not the kind of oath used when someone brings in God's authority to bring out the truth in matters of fact. That is why the Lord Himself, though silent before, answered when the high priest put Him under oath by the living God.
The distinction turns on where the oath comes from:
The same principle that stops me swearing on my own makes me take an oath before a magistrate. In one case I bring in God lightly. In the other I own Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self... I judge a man to be wholly at fault if he does not take the oath a magistrate imposes. He disowns God's authority in the magistrate.
Piling up assurances weakens what is said:
Whatever is uncalled for gives no strength to an assertion, but is simply a fruit and proof of weakness. Where there is simple truth, nothing is needed but the quiet statement of the fact.
If the vow was a promise of my strength, grace removes the need for it:
To bring the vow into Christianity is out of place, and worse. Talk of covenant-vows or baptismal vows goes against the simplicity of Christ's arrangements for us, and against the grace which we know is our only strength. The vow has wholly passed away, but it has gone to make room for Christ's strength to rest on us, and for our very weaknesses to be gloried in for that reason. God's oath is sworn to us, that His abundant grace shall be our sufficiency.
- Root — The ban on false swearing rests on God's name and honest witness. Casual oaths profane both.
- Ruin — Reckless vows trapped those who made them, and dragged God's name into everyday talk.
- Ruse — Swearing by heaven, earth or Jerusalem was a loophole. It sounded solemn, but no one counted it binding.
- Range — The target is voluntary swearing in daily talk. An oath before a magistrate is different: there you own God's authority.
- Remedy — The vow gives way to grace. God swears to us; our part is a yes that means yes.
But *I* say unto you, Do not swear at all; neither by the heaven, because it is [the] throne of God;
Jesus has just quoted the old rule about oaths: don't swear falsely, and keep what you vow to the Lord. Now He sets a higher standard. How far does "do not take an oath at all" reach? And why does swearing "by heaven" fail as a way of leaving God out?
The old command dealt with false oaths. Jesus deals with the whole habit. His hearers had already sorted their oath-formulas into binding ones and non-binding ones.
So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word there is to be, Yes, yes, or No, no... The Lord draws His examples from Jewish habit. All such strong assertion grew out of men's constant experience of deceiving and evading. So they used these means to guarantee the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. We know from a reliable Jewish writer of New Testament times that no one counted oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, or the whole universe as binding. Only an oath that named God outright bound the conscience. Men might even break the rest.
"By heaven" was one of those safer-sounding formulas. Jesus gives a reason: heaven is God's throne. That one reason pulls down the whole system of substitutes.
It was wrong to think a man could freely use these substitute phrases, as long as he did not mention the name of God. Heaven is God's throne, the earth is God's footstool (Isa. 66:1) and Jerusalem is the city of God and of His King (Psa. 48:1-2). A man who swore by his head was offering his own life as security for the oath. He should remember well that God alone is Lord over life and death. He does not even have the power to change the colour of one hair of his head.
The ban rests partly on what a man cannot do. God's own oath stands in a different class.
Man cannot even change the colour of a hair. That shows his utter weakness fully and simply, and it forms (at least in part) the basis of the prohibition. God might swear, for He could carry it out, and He knew all the consequences of what He pledged Himself to. We see Him do this beautifully when He wants to reassure His creature, who is so quick to doubt even the perfect faithfulness of his God.
If the oath goes, something must hold the weight of a promise. The commentators put that weight on ordinary speech lived out in God's presence.
It is quite enough that in our dealings with fellow believers or with other people, our yes should be yes and our no, no. "Anything more than this comes from evil." The believer is as responsible to speak as to act as in the presence of God. This is his regular privilege and safeguard... The evil one is a liar and the father of lies. He would gain a real opening if the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed such extra words before people believed him.
Some have read this verse as a ban on testifying under oath in a courtroom. Commentators here draw a line between an oath a man volunteers and an oath a lawful authority puts to him.
The same principle that stops me swearing on my own account makes me take what is called an oath before a magistrate. In the one case I bring God in lightly; in the other I acknowledge Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self... When a magistrate imposes an oath, he is putting me under oath by his authority. I judge a man to be wholly at fault if he refuses that oath. He disowns God's authority in the magistrate.
Jesus' own trial shows the same distinction. He stayed silent until the high priest put Him under oath.
Notice how our Lord acted before the high priest. It is practical proof of the distinction drawn here. He was silent until the high priest put the oath to Him; then at once He answers. Who can doubt that He shows us the right pattern there?
- Throne — Heaven is not a neutral thing to swear by; it is where God sits, so the oath reaches Him whether or not His name is said.
- Dodge — The graded oath system let men swear and still feel free to break their word; Jesus cancels the whole ladder of substitutes.
- Weakness — God can swear because He can deliver what He promises; a man who cannot change one hair's colour has no such standing.
- Word — What replaces the oath is speech spoken as in God's presence, where a plain yes and no need no reinforcement.
- Court — Commentators read the ban as covering oaths that come from self, not the oath a lawful authority puts to you — the pattern being Christ, silent until adjured, then answering.
nor by the earth, because it is [the] footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is [the] city of the great King.
Jesus has just quoted the old rule about keeping oaths. Now He strips away the substitutes people used to avoid naming God. Heaven, earth and Jerusalem all belong to God already. So can any oath be casual? And do His words also rule out oaths in court?
The habit Jesus addresses started as caution. People avoided God's name and swore by other things instead.
Deuteronomy 23:21-23 plainly warned Israel that a vow, once made, was binding. They did not have to make such oaths, but if they did, no excuse could cover a failure to keep one. The Lord Jesus, though, forbids the making of oaths. To swear an oath was to promise to do something in the future. People often used God's name in these oaths (1 Sam. 30:15; 1 Kings 17:1). But holding back from God's name led them to swear by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and even their own head. And that in turn led to empty oaths, made with no intention of keeping them.
The three replacements are not neutral objects.
It was a wrong idea to think one could freely use these substitute phrases, as long as one did not mention the name of God. Heaven is God's throne, the earth is God's footstool (Isa. 66:1) and Jerusalem is the city of God and of His King (Psa. 48:1-2).
The same reasoning reaches ordinary speech today.
Men also think little of swearing by heaven. Many use the word "heavens" as an exclamation. But heaven is God's throne, so such swearing means swearing by Him who sits on the throne. All of this shows how little people recognise the supreme honour that belongs to God.
People invented these lesser oaths to sound more believable.
Men were forever deceiving or evading each other. All the strong oaths the Lord points to in Jewish habit grew out of that. People turned to them as a way of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. A reliable Jewish writer from the time of the New Testament tells us that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars and the whole universe were not counted binding. Only an oath that named God directly bound the conscience; the rest could be broken. The Lord assumed poverty of spirit and purity of heart in those He addressed. So He forbade all such swearing. It offends God, and it does not fit the place of His sons.
The verse gives Jerusalem a royal title, and commentators read that title as pointing forward.
Significant here is the description of Jerusalem as the city of the great King. This will be during the millennial reign. When the kingdom has come, praise will be heard in the heavens, in the earth and in Jerusalem. Now the earth is full of swearing and wicked words. But in that coming day the offences will be gathered out of the kingdom.
The title carries a sharp irony, given what that city did to its King.
To Jerusalem alone belongs this title, and it is no empty distinction. The great King Himself, the Judge of Israel, was struck on the cheek there and nailed to the cross. Scripture had to be fulfilled that way. For its sin that same city became a byword and a curse among the nations. Yet it is to be known as the joy of the whole earth, because the same Messiah will be present there in majesty. His glory was once turned to shame, when men wrote over the head of the crucified Son of God, in cruel and mocking scorn, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
Commentators differ. Some read the command "Do not take an oath at all" (ESV) as absolute.
Many of the old church fathers — Justin, Irenaeus, Origen and Jerome — understood the Lord's words, "swear not at all," to mean that a Christian should never take an oath. Groups such as the Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses also refuse every kind of oath.
Others limit the command to everyday speech.
The question here (as in James) is not in the least a judicial oath. The Lord is dealing with how His disciples behave as individuals, not with their relation to the governing powers. Heaven, earth, Jerusalem and a man's own head were ways of swearing in everyday Jewish talk. They were not the oaths used when God's authority is called in to draw out the truth about facts. That is why the Lord Himself, though silent before, answered when the high priest put Him under oath by the living God (Matt. 26:62-64).
- The dodge. People avoided God's name and swore by heaven, earth and Jerusalem instead. That opened the door to promises nobody meant to keep.
- The dodge fails. Every substitute belongs to God. Heaven is His throne, earth His footstool, Jerusalem His King's city. Nothing is left to swear by that is not His.
- The exposure. Casual oaths by "heaven" name the One seated on the throne. They show how little people honour Him.
- The demand. Nobody treated these oaths as binding anyway. So Jesus cancels the whole system for people marked by poverty of spirit and purity of heart.
- The horizon. He names Jerusalem by its kingdom title. The city that crucified Him is still the city of the great King, and will be the joy of the whole earth.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
The Lord has just set aside the phrases people swore by to sound more believable — heaven, earth, Jerusalem. Now He comes to the last one, the one a person keeps closest: his own head. Why should the colour of a single hair be enough to settle the question of whether we may swear at all?
To swear by your head is to put your own life behind your promise. One writer shows why that offer is empty:
It was a mistake to think one could freely use these substitute phrases, as long as one did not mention the name of God. Heaven is God's throne, the earth is God's footstool (Isa. 66:1) and Jerusalem is the city of God and of His King (Psa. 48:1-2). A man who swore by his head wanted to put down his own life as security for his oath. He ought to remember that God alone is Lord over life and death. He himself does not even have the power to change the colour of one hair of his head.
These substitute oaths were not slips of the tongue. They served a purpose:
The Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the ordinary dealings of daily life. Our word in them is to be Yes, yes, or No, no. Anything more than these has no sanction from God, and is therefore of evil, or of the evil one, the enemy of God and man. The Lord draws His examples from Jewish habit. All such strong affirmations arose because men were forever deceiving or evading. So they resorted to such means of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. A reliable Jewish writer from New Testament times tells us that people did not treat oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, or the whole universe as binding. Only oaths that named God in plain, direct words bound the conscience. The rest they might even break.
A man cannot govern even the colour of one hair. So he cannot govern the future he is swearing about. One writer sets that weakness against the one Person who can swear safely:
The Lord sweeps into His prohibition all these evasions of the third commandment, putting them into the same category with what was once permitted. Man's utter weakness is shown fully and simply by his inability even to change the colour of a hair. That weakness is, at least in part, the basis of the prohibition. God might swear, for He could carry it out, and He knew all the consequences of what He pledged Himself to. It is beautiful to see Him do it. He does it to assure the soul of His creature, who is so ready to doubt the perfect faithfulness even of his God.
The same inability shows up far outside the courtroom. Writing on Israel trapped at the Red Sea, one commentator uses this very phrase to describe what faith does with a wall of difficulties:
Faith, on the contrary, raises the soul above the difficulty, straight to God Himself, and enables one to "stand still." We gain nothing by our restless and anxious efforts. "We cannot make one hair white or black," nor "add one cubit to our stature."
Removing oaths does not leave a gap. It moves the weight from our reliability onto God's:
Christianity has no place for oaths, whether sworn seriously or in vain. Israel's law had proved that man in the flesh cannot be trusted. They had vowed to keep the law, and they broke it again and again. So we must not dare to stress how dependable our own word is. Instead we should depend completely on the truth of the word of God. This is the effect of grace.
Does this command also rule out an oath before a judge? One writer separates the courtroom from everyday speech:
Here the reference is not a judicial oath, that is, an oath administered by a magistrate… The matter here relates to communication between man and man. … Suppose our Lord had meant to forbid the Christian from taking judicial oaths. Would He not have used as His example the oath that was usual in the courts of those days? … If the magistrate does not acknowledge God in the oath, the Christian is still bound to acknowledge God in the magistrate, who is a servant of God in the outward things of this world.
Whatever one decides about courts, the daily habit is clear:
In our dealings with fellow believers or with anyone else, it is quite enough that our yes should be yes, and our no, no. … The believer is as responsible to speak as to act in the presence of God. This is his constant privilege and safeguard… The evil one is a liar and the father of it. Suppose the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed extra words before people would believe him. That would give him no small opportunity.
- The pledge. Swearing by your head puts your own life down as security for your promise — but life and death belong to God, not to you.
- The proof. One hair is the measure: a man who cannot change its colour cannot guarantee the future he is swearing about.
- The contrast. God may swear, because He can carry out what He pledges — and He did swear, to steady souls slow to trust Him.
- The exchange. Man's word proved untrustworthy, so grace shifts the weight off our reliability and onto the word of God.
- The habit. Anything added to a plain yes or no admits our bare word is not trusted, and gives the liar his opening.
But let your word be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; but what is more than these is from evil.
The verse closes the Lord's teaching on oaths with a rule short enough for a child to keep: let "yes" mean yes and "no" mean no. Behind that simple rule lie two hard questions: why does anything added to plain speech come "from evil," and does this ban an oath in court?
Older translations read "Yes, yes; No, no." The repeated word asks one thing: that a person's speech match the fact.
If our words are honest and true, they need no other confirmation than "yes" or "no." The sense of this double mention of yes and no becomes clear from a very similar passage in James 5:12: "Yes" should really mean "Yes," and "No" should really mean "No." All that is more than that is only a sign that one generally does not take the truth too seriously, and therefore "comes of evil."
Piling on words does the opposite of what the speaker intends. It advertises the weakness it was meant to hide.
This in fact weakens what is said instead of establishing it. Whatever is uncalled for clearly gives no strength to a statement. It is just a fruit and proof of weakness. Where there is simple truth, nothing is needed but the quiet statement of the fact.
The swearing the Lord bans grew out of a culture where people constantly deceived and dodged. It also came with a way out.
So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word in these things is to be, Yes, yes, or No, no. Anything more than these has no sanction from God, and is therefore of evil, or the evil one, the enemy of God and man. All such strong wording, which the Lord draws from Jewish habit, grew out of men's constant experience of deceiving or evading. So they turned to these ways of guaranteeing the truth. But the efforts defeated themselves. A trustworthy Jewish writer from New Testament times tells us that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, and the whole universe were not counted binding. Only oaths that used God's name openly bound the conscience; the rest men felt free to break. Since the Lord assumed poverty of spirit and purity of heart in those He addressed, He banned all such swearing outright, as offensive to God and out of keeping with the place of His sons.
Commentators read the closing phrase in two connected ways. Some point to the source outside us.
The believer is as responsible to speak as to act in the presence of God. This is his habitual privilege and safeguard. It may be forgotten by others, or by himself to his loss. The evil one is a liar and the father of it. It would be a great opportunity for him if the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed such extra words before people would believe him.
Others point inside the speaker, to pride: "More than this comes from the evil of man's natural pride" (Leslie M. Grant).
The law allowed oaths and banned only false ones. That allowance assumed a strength in man that man does not have.
The law, with that recognition of human strength which as law it necessarily implied, condemned only the false swearing, while permitting the swearing. But man's powerlessness has now been shown in full. The Lord teaches that our everyday speech must now recognise it — the speech of people who "cannot make one hair white or black." How closely faith, the theme here, is joined to the complete giving up of self-confidence that faith assumes!
Commentators differ. Some read the ban as total: "Christianity has no place for oaths, whether sworn seriously or in vain" (Leslie M. Grant). Others limit it to everyday talk, and point to how the Lord Himself acted at His trial.
It is below our calling, then, to indulge in affirmations beyond the simple statements of truth. It is worth noting, as a practical proof of the distinction drawn here, how our Lord acted when He was before the high priest. He was silent until the high priest put the oath to Him; then at once He answers. Who can doubt that He shows us the right pattern there?
- Yes means yes. Honest words need no backing; the doubled "yes, yes" asks that speech simply match fact.
- Extra words expose weakness. Whatever is uncalled for adds no strength to a statement — it only proves weakness.
- The source is evil. Anything beyond plain speech traces back to the liar behind lies, and to human pride wanting more weight than it owns.
- Faith drops self-confidence. Under the law men swore and still failed. A person who cannot change one hair's colour cannot guarantee anything.
- Court oaths debated. Commentators differ. Some read the ban as absolute. Others note that the Lord stayed silent until the high priest put Him under oath, then answered.