Skip to content
Translation
King James Version
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
But G1161 let G2077 your G5216 communication G3056 be G2077, Yea G3483, yea G3483; Nay G3756, nay G3756: for G1161 whatsoever is more G4053 than these G5130 cometh G2076 of G1537 evil G4190.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
Just let your `Yes' be a simple `Yes,' and your `No' a simple `No'; anything more than this has its origin in evil.
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.
Ask
American Standard Version
But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’ Whatever is more than these is of the evil one.
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
But let your communication be Yea, yea: Nay, nay. For whatsoeuer is more then these, commeth of euill.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
but let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No, and that which is more than these is of the evil.
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 23,272 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

Matthew 5:37, a pivotal declaration within Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, calls believers to a radical commitment to unvarnished truthfulness in all their communication. It asserts that a Christian's simple affirmation ("Yes") or denial ("No") should be inherently trustworthy, eliminating any need for elaborate oaths or qualifiers. This verse underscores that any deviation from such straightforward honesty, implying a need for external validation, ultimately originates from a realm of spiritual brokenness or even the influence of evil.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: This verse is strategically placed within Jesus' profound exposition on the Mosaic Law, specifically as part of His teaching on oaths, which begins in Matthew 5:33. Jesus systematically reinterprets and elevates the traditional understanding of the Law, moving beyond mere external compliance to address the internal disposition of the heart. Having previously addressed anger, lust, and divorce, Jesus now tackles the misuse of oaths, challenging the common practice of swearing by various entities (heaven, earth, Jerusalem) to lend weight to one's words. Matthew 5:34-36 explicitly prohibits such swearing, setting the stage for verse 37, which offers the positive alternative: a life of such integrity that oaths become superfluous.
  • Historical & Cultural Context: In ancient Jewish society, swearing oaths was a common practice, deeply embedded in legal proceedings, business transactions, and everyday speech. While the Old Testament permitted and sometimes even commanded oaths (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:13), the practice had become corrupted by Jesus' time. People often used elaborate oaths to add credibility to their statements, or, conversely, to subtly evade responsibility by swearing by something they deemed less sacred. The Pharisees, for instance, had developed a complex system of oaths, distinguishing between binding and non-binding vows based on what was sworn by (Matthew 23:16-22). Jesus' teaching here directly confronts this cultural practice, not by abolishing the concept of truth, but by elevating the standard of personal integrity to such a degree that oaths are rendered unnecessary.
  • Key Themes: Matthew 5:37 significantly contributes to several overarching themes within the Sermon on the Mount and the broader Gospel of Matthew. Firstly, it champions Radical Righteousness, a core theme of the Sermon, where Jesus calls His followers to a righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). This verse exemplifies this by demanding an internal integrity that makes external vows obsolete. Secondly, it emphasizes Kingdom Ethics, demonstrating how citizens of God's kingdom are to live in a way that reflects divine truth and transparency, contrasting with the deceptive practices of the world. Finally, it highlights the Supremacy of Truth, portraying truth not as a negotiable commodity requiring external validation, but as an inherent quality of the believer's character, stemming from their relationship with God, who is truth.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • communication (Greek, lógos', G3056): From λέγω (legō, "to speak"), this term encompasses not just spoken words but also the underlying thought, reason, and subject of discourse. In this context, it refers to one's entire verbal output, emphasizing that the essence of what is said, and the intent behind it, should be characterized by truth. It's not merely about avoiding false oaths, but about the fundamental integrity of all one's speech.
  • more (Greek, perissós', G4053): Meaning "superabundant" or "superior" in quantity or quality, this word here denotes anything beyond the simple "yes" or "no." It points to an excess, an embellishment, or an added qualifier designed to bolster a statement. Jesus implies that such additions are not merely unnecessary but indicative of a deeper issue, a lack of inherent trustworthiness that necessitates external validation.
  • evil (Greek, ponērós', G4190): This term describes something "hurtful," "malicious," or "wicked," often referring to the effect or influence of something. While it can denote general moral badness, in Matthew's Gospel, it frequently alludes to the "evil one," Satan, who is the "father of lies" (John 8:44). Thus, the need for oaths, or any communication "more than these," is traced back to a source of deception, untrustworthiness, and ultimately, the realm influenced by the adversary.

Verse Breakdown

  • "But let your communication be,": This introductory phrase sets the imperative tone, demanding a fundamental shift in how believers speak. "Communication" (lógos) here refers to the entirety of one's verbal expression, encompassing all declarations, promises, and responses. The command is for a consistent and unwavering standard of truthfulness.
  • "Yea, yea; Nay, nay:": The repetition of "Yea, yea" (Greek: nai nai) and "Nay, nay" (Greek: ou ou) is a Semitic idiom used for emphatic affirmation. It signifies absolute, unambiguous, and unequivocal agreement or disagreement. Jesus is calling for a radical simplicity and clarity in speech, where a simple "yes" or "no" is sufficient and carries full, unquestionable authority because of the speaker's inherent integrity.
  • "for whatsoever is more than these": This clause refers to any addition, elaboration, oath, or qualification beyond the plain "yes" or "no." It encompasses any attempt to bolster one's words with external validation, whether by swearing by sacred entities, making elaborate promises, or using deceptive rhetorical devices to lend credibility.
  • "cometh of evil.": This concluding, powerful statement reveals the origin and nature of such excessive communication. The phrase "cometh of" (Greek: ek) denotes origin or source. Thus, anything beyond simple, truthful affirmation or denial has its source in "evil" (Greek: ponērós). As discussed in the key word analysis, this "evil" can be understood as general human depravity, a lack of trustworthiness, or even more pointedly, the influence of the "evil one," Satan, who thrives on deceit and broken trust.

Literary Devices

Matthew 5:37 masterfully employs several literary techniques to convey its profound message. The most prominent is Repetition, seen in "Yea, yea; Nay, nay." This is a common Semitic device, not merely for emphasis, but to signify an absolute, unwavering truth or command. It underscores the complete sufficiency and finality of a simple, honest statement. Secondly, the verse utilizes Antithesis, contrasting the straightforward "Yea, yea; Nay, nay" with "whatsoever is more than these." This stark opposition highlights the desired integrity against the corrupted practice of oath-swearing, presenting two mutually exclusive approaches to communication. Finally, the concluding phrase, "cometh of evil," serves as a powerful Consequence or Aetiology, attributing the origin of dishonest or overly complicated speech to a morally corrupt source. This serves as a strong deterrent and a theological explanation for the human tendency towards untruthfulness.

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

Matthew 5:37 profoundly shapes a Christian ethic of speech, grounding it in the very character of God, who is truth itself. It challenges believers to cultivate an internal integrity that renders external vows obsolete, reflecting a life lived in transparent honesty before God and humanity. The theological implication is that genuine faith transforms not only actions but also the very nature of one's communication, aligning it with divine truthfulness. The verse suggests that the need for oaths arises from a fallen world where trust is eroded, and that the Christian's call is to embody a restored trustworthiness that stands in stark contrast to this brokenness, serving as a testimony to the transformative power of the Kingdom of God.

  • James 5:12: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."
  • Colossians 3:9: "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;"
  • Proverbs 11:3: "The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them."

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

Matthew 5:37 is a radical call to integrity that extends far beyond merely avoiding false oaths; it demands a fundamental transformation of our entire communication. In a world saturated with spin, exaggeration, and carefully crafted words designed to manipulate or mislead, Jesus' command for "Yea, yea; Nay, nay" stands as a counter-cultural imperative. It challenges us to cultivate a character so rooted in truth and transparency that our simple word becomes our bond, requiring no embellishment or external validation. This means rigorously examining our motives for speaking, ensuring that our words are always aligned with our intentions and commitments. It calls us to be people of our word, whose reliability is so evident that others can trust our simple affirmations and denials without question. Living out this verse fosters genuine trust in relationships, builds a reputation for honesty, and ultimately reflects the character of God, who is utterly faithful and true.

Questions for Reflection

  • In what areas of my life do I feel the need to "embellish" my words or add qualifiers to make them more believable?
  • How does my communication reflect my internal integrity, or lack thereof?
  • What practical steps can I take this week to ensure my "yes" truly means "yes" and my "no" truly means "no" in all my interactions?
  • How might a commitment to radical honesty impact my relationships, my professional life, and my witness for Christ?

FAQ

Does Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:37 mean that all oaths, even in legal settings, are forbidden for Christians?

Answer: While Jesus' words in Matthew 5:33-37 clearly prohibit the casual, manipulative, or unnecessary swearing of oaths common in His day, the interpretation regarding formal, legal oaths is debated among scholars and denominations. Many understand Jesus' primary concern to be the misuse of oaths, where they are employed to evade truth or to give false weight to an untrustworthy statement, rather than a blanket prohibition against all solemn affirmations. The Old Testament itself includes instances of God swearing oaths (Genesis 22:16) and righteous individuals taking oaths (e.g., Numbers 30:2). The Apostle Paul also used solemn declarations that function similarly to oaths (e.g., Romans 9:1 and 2 Corinthians 1:23). Therefore, many Christians believe that taking a formal oath in a court of law, where one is compelled to affirm truth under penalty of perjury, is permissible, provided it is done with absolute sincerity and a commitment to truth. The core principle remains that one's word should always be trustworthy, whether an oath is taken or not.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

Matthew 5:37 finds its ultimate fulfillment and perfect embodiment in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the very Word (Logos) made flesh, and in Him, there is no shadow of turning or deceit. Jesus' life and ministry were characterized by absolute truthfulness, so much so that He could declare, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). His "yes" was always "yes," and His "no" was always "no," perfectly reflecting the unwavering faithfulness of God the Father. As 2 Corinthians 1:20 proclaims, "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." Christ's integrity was flawless; He committed no sin, "neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). Therefore, for believers, the call to "Yea, yea; Nay, nay" is not merely a moralistic command but an invitation to participate in the very character of Christ, whose life perfectly modeled transparent honesty and whose Spirit empowers us to live truthfully, reflecting the Father's unwavering faithfulness in a world desperately needing to see and hear the 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
Against Praxeas
Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. "Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil."
TertullianAD 220
On the Flesh of Christ
Light is light; and darkness, darkness; yea is yea; and nay, nay; "whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son.
TertullianAD 220
The Prescription Against Heretics
Moreover, they remembered the words): "Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil; " so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.
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.
John ChrysostomAD 407
Homily on Acts 8
Wherefore, with a loud and clear voice, I proclaim to all and testify, that those who are notorious for this transgression, who utter words which come "of the evil one," (for such is swearing,) shall not step over the threshold of the Church. Let this present month be the time allowed you for reforming in this matter. Talk not to me, "Necessity of business compels me to use oaths, else people do not believe me." To begin with this, retrench those oaths which come merely of habit.
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.
Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 430
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(ubi sup.) And he who has learned that an oath is to be reckoned not among things good, but among things necessary, will restrain himself as much as he may, not to use an oath without necessity, unless he sees men loth to believe what it is for their good they should believe, without the confirmation of an oath. This then is good and to be desired, that our conversation be only, yea, yea; nay, nay; for what is more than this cometh of evil. That is, if you are compelled to swear, you know that it is by the necessity of their weakness to whom you would persuade any thing; which weakness is surely an evil. What is more than this is thus evil; not that you do evil in this just use of an oath to persuade another to something beneficial for him; but it is an evil in him whose weakness thus obliges you to use an oath.
Augustine of HippoAD 430
To this, accordingly, reference is made when it is said, Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; this is good, and what is to be desired. For whatsoever is more than these comes of evil; i.e., if you are compelled to swear, know that it comes of a necessity arising from the infirmity of those whom you are trying to persuade of something; which infirmity is certainly an evil, from which we daily pray to be delivered, when we say, Deliver us from evil. Hence He has not said, Whatsoever is more than these is evil; for you are not doing what is evil when you make a good use of an oath, which, although not in itself good, is yet necessary in order to persuade another that you are trying to move him for some useful end; but it comes of evil on his part by whose infirmity you are compelled to swear. But no one learns, unless he has had experience, how difficult it is both to get rid of a habit of swearing, and never to do rashly what necessity sometimes compels him to do.
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
Lest you ask, "How then will people believe what I say?" He says, "They will believe you if you always tell the truth and never swear at all." For no one is disbelieved more than he who is eager to swear that he speaks the truth.

The Lord says that swearing, which is more than "Yea" and "Nay," is of the devil. But, you will ask, is the law of Moses, which bids us to swear, also evil? Learn, then, that at that time it was not evil to swear. But after Christ, it is evil. And so it is with circumcision and, in short, with all the Judaic practices. So also, to nurse at the breast is proper for infants, but shameful for adults.
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 5:37 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.