TRV
Translation
King James Version
Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
American Standard Version
He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
World English Bible Messianic
He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it.
Geneva Bible (1599)
Whosoeuer therefore sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
Young's Literal Translation
`He therefore who did swear by the altar, doth swear by it, and by all things on it;
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 23,939 of 31,102
Study This Verse
Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers . Public domain.
Copy as
Origen of AlexandriaAD 253
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 17
One of the Pharisaical traditions regarded oath taking. Some were swearing by the temple, others by the gold of the temple; some by the altar, others by the gifts of the altar. The Pharisees were teaching that one who swore by the gold of the altar or by the gift of the altar was obligated, whereas one who swore by the temple or by the altar was not under obligation. Our Savior spoke against these traditions. He wished to call them back from human traditions to divine revelation. Those who hand on such traditions are blind and foolish. They do not see that what is placed in the temple is not sanctified through itself but through the Lord of the temple. That which is placed on the altar is judged already as a gift of God, which is why it is placed on the altar. It seems foolish to argue that one who swears in one way is bound and one who swears in another way is not bound. This assumes that what is sanctified is above the one who sanctifies. It seems foolish to argue that one who swears by heaven is less vulnerable than one who swears by God himself. Jesus showed them that it was equally as absurd to swear by heaven as to swear by the temple or by the altar. It is irrational to assume that one avoids punishment because he is not swearing by God but by the throne of God. Thus he spoke to the Jews prohibiting them to follow the Pharisaic tradition. Moreover, he clearly rejected the whole business of swearing at all, as if it were a superior way.
Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 253
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
In like manner the custom which the Jews had of swearing by the Heaven He reprobates. For they did not, as they supposed, avoid the danger of taking an oath by God, because, Whose sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Now an oath is in confirmation of somewhat that has been spoken. The oath here then may signify testimony of Scripture which we produce in confirmation of that word which we speak. So that Divine Scripture is the temple of God, the gold is the meaning which it contains. As the gold which is outside the Temple is not sanctified, so all thoughts which are without divine Scripture, however admirable they may seem, are not hallowed. We ought not therefore to bring any speculations of our own for the confirmation of doctrine, unless such as we can show are hallowed by being contained in divine Scripture. The altar is the human heart, which is the chief thing in man. The offerings and gifts that are hid upon the altar, are every thing which are done in the heart, as to pray, to sing, to do alms, to fast. Every offering of a man then is sanctified by his heart, by which the offering is made. There cannot therefore be a more honourable offering than the heart of man, out of which the offering proceeds. If then one's conscience does not smite him, he has confidence towards God, not by reason of his gifts, but so to speak because he has rightly ordered the altar of his heart. Thirdly, we may say that over the temple, that is over every Scripture, and over the altar, that is over every heart, there is a certain meaning which is called the Heaven, the throne of God Himself, in which we shall be able to see the things that are revealed face to face, when that which is perfect is come.
Hilary of Poitiers (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 367
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
For since Christ is come, reliance upon the Law is vain; for not Christ by the Law, but the Law by Christ, is sanctified, in whom it rests as on a seat or throne; so are they fools and blind, who, overlooking the sanctifier, pay honour to the things sanctified.
Jerome (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 420
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
As by making broad phylacteries and fringes they sought after the reputation of sanctity, and made this again a means of gain, so now He charges them with being teachers of wickedness by their fraudulent pretence of tradition. For when in any dispute or quarrel, or ambiguous cause, one swore by the temple, and was afterwards convicted of falsehood, he was not held guilty. This is what is meant by that, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing, that is, he owes nothing, But if he had sworn by the gold, or by the money which was offered to the Priests in the temple, he was immediately compelled to pay down that by which he had sworn.
Again, if one swore by the altar, none held him guilty of perjury; but if he swore by the gift or the victims or the other things which are offered to God upon the altar, this they exacted most rigorously. And all this they did not out of fear of God, but out of covetousness. Thus the Lord charges them with both folly and fraud, inasmuch as the altar is much greater than the victims which are sanctified by the altar.
JeromeAD 420
Commentary on Matthew
(Verse 16 onwards) Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple is nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is bound by his oath.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, 'Whoever swears by the altar is nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on it is obligated.' Blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore, whoever swears on the altar, swears on it and on all things that are above it. And whoever swears in the temple, swears in it and in him who dwells in it. And whoever swears in heaven, swears on the throne of God and on him who sits on it. Above, as it seemed to us, we have explained what the tradition of the Pharisees meant, saying: Whatever gift is from me will benefit you: now the double tradition of the Pharisees, enticing to one occasion of greed, is condemned, so that they may be proved to do everything for gain and not for the fear of God. For just as in the phylacteries and fringes, by enlarged expectations of holiness, it was trying to capture glory, and was seeking gains through the opportunity of glory, so another tradition found fault with the teachers of impiety. If anyone were to swear in the temple during a dispute, or in some argument, or in a doubtful case, and later be convicted of lying, they were not held accountable for the crime. But if they were to swear on gold and money, which was offered to the priests in the temple, they were immediately compelled to fulfill what they had sworn. Again: If anyone swore upon the altar, no one held him guilty of perjury; but if he swore falsely on a gift, or on offerings, that is, on victims and on fine flour and on the rest, which are offered to God upon the altar, these were most diligently sought after. Therefore, the Lord reproached them both for foolishness and deceit, because the temple is much greater than the gold that is sanctified by the temple, and the altar is greater than the offerings that are sanctified by the altar. But they did it not out of fear of God, but out of greed for riches.
Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 430
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Quæst. Ev. i. 34.) The temple and altar we may also understand of Christ Himself; the gold and the gifts, of the praise and sacrifice of prayer which we offer in Him and through Him. For not He by them, but they by Him, are sanctified.
Pseudo-Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 500
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The temple pertains to God's glory, and to man's spiritual salvation, but the gold of the temple though it pertains to the glory of God, yet does it more so to the delight of man, and the profit of the Priests. The Jews then pronounced the gold which delighted them, and the gifts which fed them, to be more holy than the temple, that they might make men more disposed to offer gifts, than to pour out prayers in the temple. Whence the Lord suitably reproves them in these words. Yet have some Christians at present an equally foolish notion. See, they say, in any suit if one swear by God, it seems nought; but if one swear by the Gospel, he seems to have done some great thing. To whom we shall say in like manner, Ye fools and blind! the Scriptures were written because of God, God is not because of the Scriptures. Greater therefore is God, than what is hallowed by Him.
Glossa Ordinaria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 1274
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(non occ.) And lest their infatuation should go so far, that they should affirm that the gold was more holy than the temple, and the gift than the altar, He argues on another ground, that in the oath which is sworn by the temple and the altar is contained the oath by the gold or by the gift.
(ord.) For whoso swears by the creature that is subject, swears by the Divinity that rules over the creation.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as
Continue studying Matthew 23:20 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
In Matthew 23:20, Jesus continues His scathing indictment of the scribes and Pharisees, specifically dismantling their deceptive casuistry regarding oaths. He clarifies that an oath sworn by the altar is not merely an oath by the physical structure itself, but inherently extends to and includes all the offerings and sacrifices placed upon it, thereby affirming the comprehensive and binding nature of vows made in relation to sacred objects and, by extension, to God Himself. This declaration exposes the religious leaders' attempts to create loopholes that would allow them to evade the full weight of their commitments.
CONTEXT
Literary Context: Matthew 23 is a pivotal chapter, presenting Jesus' most direct and severe public denunciation of the Jewish religious leadership, particularly the scribes and Pharisees. Preceding verse 20, Jesus has already pronounced several "woes" upon them, condemning their hypocrisy, pride, and legalistic distortions of God's law. Specifically, Matthew 23:16-19 sets the immediate stage, where Jesus challenges their teaching that swearing by the Temple or the altar was not binding, but swearing by the gold of the Temple or the gift on the altar was binding. Their intention was to manipulate divine law for personal gain or convenience, creating a hierarchy of oaths that allowed them to selectively honor or disregard their commitments. Jesus systematically dismantles this logic, asserting that the sanctity of the "gold" or the "gift" derives its binding power from the inherent sacredness of the "Temple" or the "altar" itself, which are consecrated to God.
Historical & Cultural Context: During Jesus' time, oaths and vows were common in Jewish society, used to affirm truthfulness or to bind oneself to a commitment. The Mosaic Law itself regulated oaths, emphasizing their solemnity (e.g., Leviticus 19:12). However, by the first century, some religious leaders, particularly the Pharisees, had developed intricate systems of casuistry—legalistic interpretations designed to navigate and sometimes circumvent the spirit of the law. They distinguished between "light" and "heavy" oaths, creating loopholes. For instance, they might argue that an oath made "by Jerusalem" was not binding, but "by the Temple" was, or that an oath "by the altar" was less binding than one "by the offering on the altar." This practice reflected a legalistic mindset that prioritized external compliance and self-interest over genuine integrity and reverence for God. The Temple and its altar were central to Jewish worship, representing God's presence and the means of atonement.
Key Themes: This verse contributes significantly to several major theological and narrative themes within Matthew and the broader New Testament. Firstly, it underscores the integrity of oaths and vows, emphasizing that true commitment is not based on clever legal distinctions but on the underlying truth and the ultimate authority invoked. Jesus' teaching here, and more broadly in Matthew 5:33-37, asserts that all oaths, if genuine, are ultimately before God. Secondly, it highlights the spiritual blindness and hypocrisy of the religious leaders. Their attempts to manipulate divine law for personal gain or convenience reveal a profound lack of genuine devotion and a focus on outward performance rather than inward righteousness, a theme Jesus repeatedly addresses (e.g., Matthew 15:8). Finally, it speaks to the sanctity of sacred objects. The altar, as the place of sacrifice and atonement, was consecrated to God, and by extension, everything placed upon it became holy. Jesus' teaching reinforces that sacred objects derive their holiness from their connection to God, and therefore, an oath involving such an object cannot be trivialized.
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
Jesus employs several literary devices in Matthew 23:20 to expose the Pharisees' hypocrisy. The primary device is Irony, as Jesus uses their own legalistic distinctions to demonstrate the absurdity and spiritual blindness of their system. They attempted to create loopholes, but Jesus turns their logic against them, showing that their distinctions are meaningless because the lesser (the gift) derives its sanctity from the greater (the altar). There is also an element of Logical Argumentation, where Jesus systematically dismantles their flawed reasoning by establishing a clear chain of sanctity: the gift is holy because of the altar, and the altar is holy because of God. This highlights the Principle of Consecration, where an object's holiness extends to what is associated with it. By stating "all things thereon," Jesus uses Hyperbole to emphasize the comprehensive nature of the altar's sanctity, leaving no room for their nuanced evasions.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Matthew 23:20 is a profound statement on the indivisibility of truth and the comprehensive nature of God's holiness. It teaches that one cannot compartmentalize sacredness or manipulate oaths to serve self-interest. The sanctity of an object or a vow ultimately derives from its connection to God, who is absolute truth and holiness. This passage challenges any attempt to create a legalistic system that undermines genuine integrity and reverence, reminding us that God looks beyond external performance to the heart's true intent.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Matthew 23:20 serves as a timeless call for integrity and authenticity in our words and commitments. In a world often marked by casual promises and evasive language, Jesus' teaching reminds us that our "yes" should mean yes, and our "no" should mean no, without the need for elaborate oaths or clever distinctions. This verse challenges us to examine our own hearts, ensuring that our outward expressions of faith and commitment are matched by an inward sincerity and a genuine reverence for God. It cautions against seeking loopholes to avoid responsibility or to deceive others, emphasizing that God values a sincere heart over outward religious performance. Ultimately, this passage calls us to live lives characterized by truth and transparency, reflecting the character of God Himself, who is the ultimate source of all truth and holiness.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
What was the specific "loophole" the Pharisees were trying to exploit with oaths?
Answer: The Pharisees taught that an oath sworn by the Temple or the altar was not binding, but an oath sworn by the gold in the Temple or the gift on the altar was binding. Their logic was that the gold or the gift was consecrated, while the structure itself was not. This allowed them to make oaths that sounded pious but were, in their view, non-binding, unless they involved something of monetary value or direct benefit to them. Jesus exposes this as a self-serving and spiritually blind distinction in Matthew 23:16-19.
Does this passage mean Christians should never take oaths?
Answer: While Jesus' broader teaching in Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12 encourages simple, truthful speech ("let your 'yes' be 'yes,' and your 'no' be 'no'"), the context of Matthew 23:20 is specifically about condemning the hypocritical abuse of oaths. It's not a blanket prohibition on all oaths (e.g., in legal settings), but a condemnation of manipulative and deceptive oath-taking that seeks to avoid truthfulness. The emphasis is on the integrity of one's word, whether an oath is taken or not.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
Matthew 23:20 finds its ultimate Christ-centered fulfillment in Jesus Himself, who is the embodiment of truth and the ultimate "Yes" of God. While the Pharisees sought to compartmentalize holiness and manipulate oaths, Christ reveals a God who is wholly consistent and whose promises are unfailingly true. Jesus is not merely associated with the sacred; He is the source of all holiness, the true Temple (John 2:19-21) and the ultimate sacrifice on the altar of God (Hebrews 9:11-14). His life, death, and resurrection are the definitive "Amen" to all of God's promises (2 Corinthians 1:20). Therefore, for the believer, all oaths and commitments are ultimately made "in Christ" and derive their binding nature from Him, calling us to live lives of unwavering integrity and truthfulness that reflect the character of our Lord, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).