Skip to content
Translation
King James Version
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
Neither G3383 shalt thou swear G3660 by G1722 thy G4675 head G2776, because G3754 thou canst G1410 not G3756 make G4160 one G3391 hair G2359 white G3022 or G2228 black G3189.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
And don't swear by your head, because you can't make a single hair white or black.
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
Nor should you swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
Ask
American Standard Version
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can’t make one hair white or black.
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
Neither shalt thou sweare by thine head, because thou canst not make one heare white or blacke.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
nor by thy head mayest thou swear, because thou art not able one hair to make white or black;
Ask
See on the biblical-era map
All Matthew Sites (Jerusalem)
All Matthew Sites (Jerusalem) View full PDF
All Matthew Sites (Levant)
All Matthew Sites (Levant) View full PDF
All Matthew Sites (Eastern Mediterranean)
All Matthew Sites (Eastern Mediterranean) View full PDF

Map © Biblica Open Bible Maps · CC BY-SA 4.0

In the KJVVerse 23,271 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

In Matthew 5:36, Jesus continues His radical reinterpretation of the Law, specifically addressing the practice of oath-taking. He prohibits swearing by one's own head, asserting the profound truth that human beings lack ultimate control over even the most minute aspects of their existence, such as the color of a single hair. This seemingly simple prohibition serves as a powerful reminder of God's absolute sovereignty over all creation, including humanity, and underscores the imperative for believers to live with such unwavering integrity that their simple "yes" or "no" is inherently trustworthy, rendering oaths unnecessary in daily discourse.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: Matthew 5:36 is an integral part of Jesus' profound discourse on the true meaning of righteousness, commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount. Specifically, it falls within His teaching on oaths, which begins in Matthew 5:33. Jesus is systematically addressing and correcting prevailing interpretations of Mosaic Law, moving beyond mere external adherence to an internal transformation of the heart. His teaching on oaths, like His earlier statements on murder (Matthew 5:21-26) and adultery (Matthew 5:27-30), aims to expose the spirit of the Law and call His followers to a higher standard of truthfulness and integrity that reflects God's own character, culminating in the call to be perfect as the Father is perfect in Matthew 5:48.
  • Historical & Cultural Context: During Jesus' time, Jewish legal and religious traditions had developed a complex system of oaths, largely based on interpretations of Old Testament commands like Leviticus 19:12. While swearing by God's name was considered binding, a hierarchy of oaths emerged, where swearing by lesser entities—such as heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one's own head—was often considered less binding or even a way to circumvent a solemn vow. This created loopholes, allowing individuals to make statements with an appearance of truthfulness without necessarily intending to fulfill them, or to avoid the severe consequences of breaking an oath sworn directly by God. Jesus' teaching directly challenges this casuistry, dismantling the false distinctions and emphasizing that all creation belongs to God, making any oath sworn by it ultimately an oath before God.
  • Key Themes: This verse powerfully contributes to several overarching themes in Jesus' teaching. Firstly, it highlights God's Ultimate Sovereignty over all creation and human life. By pointing out humanity's inability to alter even a single hair, Jesus underscores that all things, including our very bodies, are under God's exclusive dominion, not our own. This directly opposes any human presumption of self-ownership or ultimate control. Secondly, it reinforces the theme of Integrity of Speech. Jesus' prohibition against swearing by one's head, and by extension, any created thing, implies that a person's word should be inherently truthful and reliable, without needing external guarantees or embellishments. The need for an oath suggests a deficiency in one's character or trustworthiness, a standard far below what Jesus demands of His disciples, as further clarified in Matthew 5:37. Thirdly, it represents a Rejection of Legalistic Loopholes, exposing the superficiality of a religious system that sought to categorize and manipulate oaths rather than cultivating genuine truthfulness from the heart.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • swear (Greek, omnýō, G3660): This verb signifies to make a solemn declaration or promise, often with an appeal to a divine power or sacred object as a witness. In the context of Jesus' teaching, it refers to the common practice of taking oaths in everyday conversation to lend weight to one's words. Jesus' prohibition challenges the very necessity of such oaths, implying that a believer's word should be inherently trustworthy.
  • head (Greek, kephalḗ, G2776): Literally referring to the physical head, this word is used here in a metonymic sense, standing for one's very life, person, or existence. Swearing by one's head was a common oath, essentially pledging one's life or well-being as a guarantee. Jesus' point is that one does not even own or control one's own head or life to make such a pledge.
  • canst not make (Greek, dýnamai and poiéō, G1410): The combination of dýnamai ("to be able, possible") and poiéō ("to make or do") emphatically conveys human impotence. It highlights the absolute inability of a person to exert control over even the most trivial biological processes, such as changing the color of a single hair. This serves as a powerful, tangible illustration of humanity's finite nature and complete dependence on God's sovereign power.

Verse Breakdown

  • "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,": This clause directly forbids the practice of using one's own head as the object of an oath. In Jewish culture, this was a common form of oath, essentially pledging one's life or being as a guarantee. Jesus' prohibition here is not merely against a specific type of oath, but against the underlying presumption of self-ownership or ultimate control that such an oath implies. It challenges the human tendency to use external guarantees instead of relying on inherent truthfulness.
  • "because thou canst not make one hair white or black.": This explanatory clause provides the profound reason for the prohibition. Jesus uses a simple, undeniable biological fact—the inability of a person to change the color of their hair—to illustrate humanity's fundamental lack of control over their own existence. This rhetorical question highlights human limitation and dependence, contrasting it sharply with God's absolute sovereignty over every detail of creation, including our bodies. Since one cannot even control such a minor detail, how can one swear by one's head as if it were entirely one's own to pledge?

Literary Devices

Matthew 5:36 employs several potent literary devices to convey its message. The most prominent is Hyperbole, used in the phrase "make one hair white or black." While literally true that one cannot instantly change hair color, the hyperbole emphasizes the absolute and undeniable nature of human powerlessness over even the smallest, most personal aspects of life. This exaggeration underscores the futility of swearing by something over which one has no ultimate control. Metonymy is also present, as "thy head" stands in for one's entire being or life, the common object of such oaths. Furthermore, the phrase "white or black" functions as a Merism, a figure of speech where two contrasting parts are used to represent a whole (i.e., all possible hair colors or states). This merism vividly illustrates the comprehensive lack of human agency in this domain, reinforcing the theological point about God's exhaustive sovereignty.

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

Matthew 5:36 deeply embeds itself in the broader biblical narrative of God's absolute sovereignty and humanity's dependent creatureliness. It serves as a stark reminder that all of life, down to the most minute biological details, is under divine control. Theologically, this verse dismantles any human pretense of ultimate self-ownership or autonomy, redirecting our focus to the Creator who sustains all things. It underscores that truthfulness is not merely a moral virtue but a reflection of God's own unchanging character, and therefore, human speech should mirror this divine attribute, requiring no external validation. The prohibition against swearing by created things, even one's own body, implicitly recognizes that all creation is God's property, and to swear by it is to swear by its Creator, whether intended or not. This calls believers to a radical integrity where their simple word is sufficient, rooted in a heart that honors God's truth and sovereignty.

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

Matthew 5:36 challenges us to cultivate a profound integrity in our communication, one that stems from a deep reverence for God's sovereignty and a humble recognition of our own limitations. It calls us to be people whose "yes" means yes and whose "no" means no, not out of fear of breaking an oath, but out of an inherent commitment to truthfulness that reflects the character of God. This principle extends beyond formal oaths to every aspect of our daily speech, urging us to avoid exaggeration, equivocation, or any form of deception. When we acknowledge that we cannot even control the color of a single hair, it fosters humility and reminds us that our lives are not our own, but belong to the One who knit us together. This perspective should lead us to speak with genuine sincerity, knowing that our ultimate accountability is to God, who sees and knows all.

Questions for Reflection

  • In what areas of my life do I tend to rely on external guarantees or embellishments rather than simply letting my "yes" be "yes"?
  • How does acknowledging God's sovereignty over even the smallest details of my life (like hair color) impact my sense of humility and dependence on Him?
  • What practical steps can I take to cultivate greater integrity and truthfulness in my everyday conversations, avoiding even subtle forms of deception?
  • How might a consistent practice of radical honesty build trust in my relationships and better reflect the character of Christ to others?

FAQ

Does Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:36 forbid all oaths, even in legal settings?

Answer: While Jesus' words in Matthew 5:33-37 are a strong prohibition against casual or manipulative oath-taking in daily conversation, they are generally not interpreted as an absolute ban on all forms of oaths, particularly in formal, legal contexts. The primary thrust of Jesus' teaching is against the flippant use of oaths to lend false weight to one's words or to create loopholes for dishonesty. In situations where an oath is required by a legitimate authority (e.g., in a court of law, as seen in Jesus' own example before the high priest in Matthew 26:63-64), it is understood as a solemn appeal to God for truth, not a means of avoiding it. The core principle is that a believer's word should always be true, making oaths in everyday life unnecessary.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

Matthew 5:36, by highlighting humanity's utter lack of control over even a single hair, powerfully points to the absolute sovereignty of God, a sovereignty perfectly embodied in Jesus Christ. While we cannot change our hair color, Christ, as the Word made flesh, is the very agent through whom all things were made and in whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). His words are not merely true; they are truth itself (John 14:6). Unlike humanity, who must be reminded of their limitations, Jesus never needed to swear by anything, for His "Yes" was always absolute, and His "No" was always final. As [2 Corinthians 1:20](/2_corinthians/1-20 "God's Promises are "Yes" in Christ") declares, "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him." He is the living embodiment of perfect integrity and truthfulness, making oaths unnecessary because His very nature is faithfulness. Therefore, our call to radical honesty in Matthew 5:36 is not simply a moral command but an invitation to reflect the character of Christ, whose every word and action perfectly aligned with the Father's will and truth.

Copy as

Commentary on Matthew 5 verses 33–37

I. II. Main points1. 2. Sub-points(1.) (2.) Details

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

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

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

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

Now the mind of Christ in this matter is,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 33–37. Public domain.
Copy as
TertullianAD 220
On the Apparel of Women Book II
What "grace" is compatible with "injury? "What "beauty" with "impurities? "Shall a Christian woman heap saffron on her head, as upon an altar? For, whatever is wont to be burned to the honour of the unclean spirit, that-unless it is applied for honest, and necessary, and salutary uses, for which God's creature was provided-may seem to be a sacrifice. But, however, God saith, "Which of you can make a white hair black, or out of a black a white? " And so they refute the Lord! "Behold!" say they, "instead of white or black, we make it yellow,-more winning in grace.
Hilary of Poitiers (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 367
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Otherwise; They who live in the simplicity of the faith have not need to swear, with them ever, what is is, what is not is not; by this their life and their conversation are ever preserved in truth.
Chromatius of AquileiaAD 406
TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 24.3.1-4
These words of the Lord whereby he forbids us to swear by these different elements invite a double explanation.First, he wanted to draw us away from the use of oaths and the customs of human error, lest each of us through swearing by these elements accord a creature the honor of divine veneration or believe one has impunity in swearing falsely if one swears by the elements of the world.…
It can also be explained in this way: When one swears by heaven and earth, one swears by him who made heaven and earth, as the Lord himself declared elsewhere: “He who swears by the altar swears by it and by all things that are on it; and he who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it.” Jesus goes on to say, “nor by Jerusalem,” for it is the city of the great King, that is, the symbol of Christ’s body, which is the spiritual and heavenly church. “Neither shall you swear,” he says, “by your head,” for according to the apostle, “the head of every man is Christ.” Therefore the one who swears by these things makes reference to him who is the author of all these things.
John ChrysostomAD 407
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 17
"Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, swear not at all."

Why did He go straightway not to theft, but to false witness, passing over that commandment? Because he that steals, doth upon occasion swear also; but he that knows not either swearing or speaking falsehood, much less will he choose to steal. So that by this He hath overthrown the other sin likewise: since falsehood comes of stealing.

But what means, "Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths?" It is this, "thou shalt be true in swearing." "But I say unto you, swear not at all."

Next, to lead them farther away from swearing by God, He saith, "Neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King:" still speaking out of the prophetical writings, and signifying Himself not to be opposed to the ancients. This was because they had a custom of swearing by these objects, and He intimates this custom near the end of His Gospel.

But mark, I pray thee, on what ground He magnifies the elements; not from their own nature, but from God's relation to them, such as it had been in condescension declared. For because the tyranny of idolatry was great, that the elements might not be thought worthy of honor for their own sake, He hath assigned this cause, which we have mentioned, which again would pass on to the glory of God. For He neither said, "because Heaven is beautiful and great," nor, "because earth is profitable;" but "because the one is God's throne, the other His footstool;" on every side urging them on towards their Lord.

"Neither by thy head," saith He, "because thou canst not make one hair white or black."

Here again, not as wondering at man, hath He withdrawn him from swearing by his head (for so man himself would be worshipped), but as referring the glory to God, and signifying that thou art not master even of thyself, and of course therefore not of the oaths made by thy head. For if no one would give up his own child to another, much more will not God give up His own work to thee. For though it be thy head, yet is it the property of another; and so far from being master thereof, thou shalt not be able to do with it, no not the least thing of all. For He said not, "Thou canst not make one hair grow;" but, "Not so much as change its quality."

"But what," it may be said, "if any one should require an oath, and apply constraint?" Let the fear of God be more powerful than the constraint: since, if thou art to bring forward such excuses, thou wilt keep none of the things which are enjoined.

Yea, for first with respect to thy wife thou wilt say, "what if she be contentious and extravagant;" and then as to the right eye, "what if I love it, and am quite on fire?" and of the unchaste look, "what then, if I cannot help seeing?" and of our anger against a brother, "what if I be hasty, and not able to govern my tongue?" and in general, all His sayings thou mayest on this wise trample under foot. Yet surely with regard to human laws thou darest not in any case use this allegation, nor say, "what then if this or that be the case," but, willing or unwilling, thou receivest what is written.

And besides, thou wilt never have compulsion to undergo at all. For he that hath hearkened unto those former blessings, and hath framed himself to be such as Christ enjoined, will have no such constraint to endure from any, being held in reverence and veneration by all.

"But let your yea, be yea; and your nay, nay: for that which exceedeth these cometh of the evil one."

What is it then that "exceeds yea" and "nay"? it is the oath, not the perjury. For this latter is quite acknowledged, and no man needs to learn that it is of the evil one; and it is not an excess, but an opposite: whereas an excess means something more, and added over and above: which kind of thing swearing is.

"What then," saith one, "was it of the evil one? and if it was of the evil one, how was it a law?" Well, this same thing thou wilt say concerning the wife also; how is that now accounted adultery, which was before permitted?

What now may one reply to this? That the precepts then uttered had reference to the weakness of them who were receiving the laws; since also to be worshipped with the vapor of sacrifice is very unworthy of God, just as to lisp is unworthy of a philosopher. That kind of thing accordingly was now laid down to be adultery, and swearing to be of the evil one, now that the principles of virtue have advanced. But if these things had been, from the first, laws of the devil, they would not have attained to so great goodness. Yea, for had those not been forerunners in the first place, these which we now have would not have been so easily received. Do not thou then require their excellency now, when their use is past: but then, when the time was calling for them. Or rather, if thou wilt, even now: yea, for now also is their virtue shown: and most of all for the very cause, by reason of which we find fault with them. For their appearing such now, is the greatest commendation of them. For had they not brought us up well, and made us meet for the reception of the greater precepts, they would not have appeared such.

Therefore as the breast, when it hath fulfilled all its part, and is dismissing the child to the more manly diet, after that appears useless; and the parents who before thought it necessary for the babe, now abuse it with ten thousand mockeries (and many even not content with words of abuse, anoint it also with bitter drugs; that when their words have not power to remove the child's unseasonable propensity towards it, the real things may quench their longing): so also Christ saith, that they are of the evil one, not to indicate that the old law is of the devil, but in order that with most exceeding earnestness He might lead them away from their ancient poverty.

But if the old law had belonged to the devil, it would not have led people away from idolatry, but rather would have drawn them on and cast them into it; for this did the devil desire. But now we see the opposite effect produced by the old law. And indeed this very thing, the oath, was ordained of old for this cause, that they might not swear by the idols. For "ye shall swear," saith He, "by the true God." They were then no small advantages which the law effected, but rather very great. For that they came unto the "strong meat," was the work of its care.

"What then," it may be said, "is not swearing of the evil one?" Yes, indeed it is altogether of the evil one; that is, now, after so high a rule of self-restraint; but then not so.

"But how," one may say, "should the same thing become at one time good, at another time not good?" Nay, I say the very contrary: how could it help becoming good and not good, while all things are crying aloud, that they are so: the arts, the fruits of the earth, and all things else?

See it, for example, taking place first in our own kind. Thus, to be carried, in the earliest age of life, is good, but afterwards pernicious; to eat food that hath been softened in the mouth, in the first scene of our life, is good, but afterwards it is full of disgust; to be fed upon milk and to fly to the breast, is at first profitable and healthful, but tends afterwards to decay and harm. Seest thou how the same actions, by reason of the times, appear good, and again not so? Yea, and to wear the robe of a child is well as long as you are a boy, but contrariwise, when you are become a man, it is disgraceful. Wouldest thou learn of the contrary case too, how to the child again the things of the man are unsuited? Give the boy a man's robe, and great will be the laughter; and greater the danger, he being often upset in walking after that fashion. Allow him to handle public affairs, and to traffic, and sow, and reap, and great again will be the laughter.
John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 407
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Note how He exalts the elements of the world, not from their own nature, but from the respect which they have to God, so that there is opened no occasion of idolatry.

Or; of evil, that is, from their weakness to whom the Law permitted the use of an oath. Not that by this the old Law is signified to be from the Devil, but He leads us from the old imperfection to the new abundance.
JeromeAD 420
Commentary on Matthew
(Versed 34 onwards) But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor should you swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your word be 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything more than this comes from evil. The Jews have always had this wicked habit of swearing by the elements, as the prophetic word often accuses them (Isaiah 65). Whoever swears, worships, or loves the one by whom they swear. In the law it is commanded that we do not swear, except by the Lord our God (Deut. VI and VII). The Jews, by swearing by angels, and by the city of Jerusalem, and by the temple, and by the elements, honored and worshipped creatures and earthly things with the honor and worship due to God. Finally, consider that here the Savior did not prohibit swearing by God, but by heaven, and earth, and Jerusalem, and by your own head. And this was granted in the law as if to little children, so that just as they would sacrifice animals to God and not to idols, they would be allowed to swear by God: not that they would do this rightly, but because it was better to offer this to God than to demons. However, evangelical truth does not require an oath, since every faithful statement is considered as if made under oath.
Jerome (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 420
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
This was allowed under the Law, as to children; as they offered sacrifice to God, that they might not do it to idols, so they were permitted to swear by God; not that the thing was right, but that it were better done to God than to dæmons.

Lastly, consider that the Saviour does not here forbid to swear by God, but by the Heaven, the Earth, by Jerusalem, by a man's head. For this evil practice of swearing by the elements the Jews had always, and are thereof often accused in the prophetic writing's. For he who swears, shows either reverence or love for that by which he swears. Thus when the Jews swore by the Angels, by the city of Jerusalem, by the temple and the elements, they paid to the creature the honour and worship belonging to God; for it is commanded in the Law that we should not swear but by the Lord our God.

Therefore Evangelic verity does not admit an oath, since the whole discourse of the faithful is instead of an oath.
Pseudo-Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 500
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
For no man can swear often, but he must sometimes forswear himself; as he who has a custom of much speaking will sometimes speak foolishly.
Rabanus Maurus (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 856
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Having forbidden swearing, He instructs us how we ought to speak, Let your speech be yea, yea; nay, nay. That is, to affirm any thing it is sufficient to say, 'It is so:' to deny, to say, 'It is not so.' Or, yea, yea; nay, nay, are therefore twice repeated, that what you affirm with the mouth you should prove in deed, and what you deny in word, you should not establish by your conduct.
Theophylact of OhridAD 1107
God alone swears by Himself as He is not subject to anyone or anything. Since we do not have authority over ourselves, how can we swear by our own head? It is the property of another. But if you think your head is your own, then change one hair of it if you can.
Glossa Ordinaria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 1274
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(non occ.) The Lord has hitherto taught to abstain from injuring our neighbour, forbidding anger with murder, lust with adultery, and the putting away a wife with a bill of divorce. He now proceeds to teach to abstain from injury to God, forbidding not only perjury as an evil in itself, but even all oaths as the cause of evil, saying, Ye have heard it said by them of old, Thou shall not forswear thyself. It is written in Leviticus, Thou shalt not forswear thyself in my name; (c. 19:12.) and that they should not make gods of the creature, they are commanded to render to God their oaths, and not to swear by any creature, Render to the Lord thy oaths; that is, if you shall have occasion to swear, you shall swear by the Creator and not by the creature. As it is written in Deuteronomy, Thou shall fear the Lord thy God, and shall swear by his name. (c. 6:13.)
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 5:36 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.