Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:34
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
34. Swear not at all ] The prohibition must be understood of rash and careless oaths in conversation, not of solemn asseveration in Courts of Justice.
for it is God’s throne ] Such was the prevalent hypocrisy that the Jews of the day thought that they escaped the sin of perjury if in their oaths they avoided using the name of God. One of the Rabbinical sayings was “As heaven and earth shall pass away, so passeth away the oath taken by them.” Our Lord shows that a false oath taken by heaven, by earth, or by Jerusalem is none the less a profanation of God’s name.
Hypocrisy reproduces itself. Louis XI. “admitted to one or two peculiar forms of oath the force of a binding obligation which he denied to all others, strictly preserving the secret, which mode of swearing he really accounted obligatory, as one of the most valuable of state mysteries.” Introd. to Quentin Durward.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But I say unto you, Swear not at all – That is, in the manner which he proceeds to specify. Swear not in any of the common and profane ways customary at that time.
By heaven; for it is Gods throne – To swear by that was, if it meant anything, to swear by Him that sitteth thereon, Mat 23:22.
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool – Swearing by that, therefore, is really swearing by God. Or perhaps it means:
1.That we have no right to pledge, or swear by, what belongs to God; and,
2.That oaths by inanimate objects are unmeaningful and wicked.
If they are real oaths, they are by a living Being, who has power to take vengeance. A footstool is that on which the feet rest when sitting. The term is applied to the earth to denote how lowly and humble an object it is when compared with God.
Jerusalem – See the notes at Mat 2:1.
City of the Great King – That is, of God; called the Great King because he was the King of the Israelites, and Jerusalem was the capital of the nation, and the place where he was especially honored as king. Compare Psa 46:4; Psa 48:1-2; Psa 87:3.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 34. – 35. Neither by heaven, c.] It was a custom among the Scythians, when they wished to bind themselves in the most solemn manner, to swear by the king’s throne and if the king was at any time sick, they believed it was occasioned by some one’s having taken the oath falsely. Herod. l. iv.
Who is there among the traders and people of this world who obey this law? A common swearer is constantly perjuring himself: such a person should never be trusted. When we make any promise contrary to the command of God, taking, as a pledge of our sincerity, either GOD, or something belonging to him, we engage that which is not ours, without the Master’s consent. God manifests his glory in heaven, as upon his throne; he imprints the footsteps of his perfections upon the earth, his footstool; and shows that his holiness and his grace reign in his temple as the place of his residence. Let it be our constant care to seek and honour God in all his works.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Doth our Saviour here oppose himself to the law of God, which saith, Deu 6:13; 10:20, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and swear by his name? Doth he condemn Abraham, who sware his servant by the Lord God of heaven and earth? Gen 24:3. Doth he destroy such a useful means for the end of strife? Heb 6:16. None of all these. We must consider that our Saviour is here opposing himself to the corruptions of that age brought in by the Pharisees, who had taught people that swearing was nothing, if they did not forswear themselves; or at least swearing by the heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by their head, or in suchlike forms, was no sin, if they forbore the name of God; that they were only obliged to swear by the name of God in public courts of justice, but they were not tied up to it at other times. To these and such like corruptions our Saviour opposeth these words, I say unto you, Swear not at all; not at all voluntarily, but where it is necessary for the end of strife; not at all in your common discourse, Jam 5:12; and so it is expounded in the next verse. The law doth not only forbid false swearing, but common and ordinary swearing, needless swearing, which speaks a great want of reverence in the heart of the name of God. And let not your teachers cheat you, in telling you God, or the name of God, is not concerned, in your swearing by heaven: is not heaven the throne of God? Or by earth: is not that the footstool of God? Or by Jerusalem: is not that the city of God? Or by your head: is it not God that hath given you your life and bodily members? Is it in your power to make a hair of your head white or black? So as the great thing here forbidden, is common and ordinary swearing, where God calleth us not unto it for the determination of strife. Do not only think that false swearing, but be assured that ordinary, common, needless swearing, is forbidden by God.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But I say unto you, swear not at all,…. Which must not be understood in the strictest sense, as though it was not lawful to take an oath upon any occasion, in an affair of moment, in a solemn serious manner, and in the name of God; which may be safely done: but of rash swearing, about trivial matters, and by the creatures; as appears by what follows,
neither by heaven; which is directly contrary to the Jewish canons m, which say,
“they that swear , “by heaven”, and by earth, are free.”
Upon the words in So 2:7, “I adjure you”, c. it is asked n,
“by what does she adjure them? R. Eliezer says, by the heavens, and by the earth by the hosts, the host above, and the host below.”
So Philo the Jew says o that the most high and ancient cause need not to be immediately mentioned in swearing; but the “earth”, the sun, the stars, , “heaven”, and the whole world. So R. Aben Ezra, and R. David Kimchi, explain Am 4:2. “The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness”; that is, say they, , “by heaven”: which may be thought to justify them, in this form of swearing; though they did not look upon it as a binding oath, and therefore if broken they were not criminal p.
“He that swears by heaven, and by the earth, and by the sun, and the like; though his intention is nothing less than to him that created them, this is no oath.”
The reason why it is forbidden by Christ to swear by heaven, is,
for it is God’s throne; referring to Isa 66:1 where he sits, the glory of his majesty shines forth, and is itself glorious and excellent, and not to be mentioned in a vain way; and especially, for the reason Christ elsewhere gives, Mt 23:22 that “he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon”; so that they doubly sinned, first, by openly swearing by that which is God’s creature; and then, by tacitly bringing God into their rash and vain oaths.
m Misn. Shebuot, c. 4. sect. 13. n Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 10. 4. o De Special. leg. p 770. p Maimon. Hilch. Shebuot, c. 12. sect. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Swear not at all ( ). More exactly “not to swear at all” (indirect command, and aorist infinitive). Certainly Jesus does not prohibit oaths in a court of justice for he himself answered Caiaphas on oath. Paul made solemn appeals to God (1Thess 5:27; 1Cor 15:31). Jesus prohibits all forms of profanity. The Jews were past-masters in the art of splitting hairs about allowable and forbidden oaths or forms of profanity just as modern Christians employ a great variety of vernacular “cuss-words” and excuse themselves because they do not use the more flagrant forms.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “But I say unto you, swear not at all;” (ego de lego humin me omosai holos) “Yet, on the other hand, I tell you all not to swear at all,” in the manner and matters here specified or pledged as security of your word, for these things do not belong to you in the first place. Have or hold too much respect and reverence for truth to swear by things that are not yours.
2) “Neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:” (mete en to ouranon hoti thronos estin tou theou) “Neither by the heaven, because it is (exists as) the throne of God,” and doesn’t belong to you, as an honest basis for a pledge or vow for the truth of your commitment, see? The heavens belong to God, not man; Therefore man cannot swear by or pledge them as pledge chattel, mortgage or pledge for the honesty of his word, Psa 8:3.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
34. Swear not at all Many have been led by the phrase, not at all, to adopt the false notion, that every kind of swearing is condemned by Christ. Some good men have been driven to this extreme rigor by observing the unbridled licentiousness of swearing, which prevailed in the world. The Anabaptists, too, have blustered a great deal, on the ground, that Christ appears to give no liberty to swear on any occasion, because he commands, Swear not at all But we need not go beyond the immediate context to obtain the exposition: for he immediately adds, neither by heaven, nor by the earth Who does not see that those kinds of swearing were added by way of exposition, to explain the former clause more fully by specifying a number of cases? The Jews had circuitous or indirect ways of swearing: and when they swore by heaven, or by earth, or by the altar, (Mat 23:18,) they reckoned it to be next to nothing; and, as one vice springs from another, they defended, under this pretense, any profanation of the name of God that was not openly avowed.
To meet this crime, our Lord declares that they must not swear at all, either in this or that way, either by heaven, or by the earth Hence we conclude, that the particle, at all, relates not to the substance, but to the form, and means, “neither directly nor indirectly.” It would otherwise have been superfluous to enumerate those kinds: and therefore the Anabaptists betray not only a rage for controversy, but gross ignorance, when they obstinately press upon us a single word, and pass over, with closed eyes, the whole scope of the passage. Is it objected, that Christ permits no swearing? I reply: What the expounder of the law says, must be viewed in connection with its design. His statement amounts to this, that there are other ways of “taking the name of God in vain,” besides perjury; and, therefore, that we ought to refrain from allowing ourselves the liberty of unnecessary swearing: for, when there are just reasons to demand it, the law not only permits, but expressly commands us to swear. Christ, therefore, meant nothing more than this, that all oaths are unlawful, which in any way abuse and profane the sacred name of God, for which they ought to have had the effect of producing a deeper reverence.
Neither by heaven It is a mistake to explain these words as meaning, that such forms of swearing are condemned by Christ as faulty, on the ground that we ought to swear by God only. The reasons which he brings forward tend rather to the opposite view, that we swear by the name of God even when we name the heaven, and the earth: because there is no part of the world on which God has not engraved the marks of his glory. But this statement appears not to agree with the precept of the law, in which God expressly commands us to “swear by his name,” (Deu 6:13😉 and likewise with so many passages of Scripture, in which he complains, that injury is done to him, if we swear by creatures. I reply: It is a corruption allied to idolatry, when we appeal to them either as having a right to judge, or authority to prove testimony: for we must look at the object of swearing. It is an appeal which men make to God to revenge falsehood, and to uphold truth. This honor cannot be transferred to another, without committing an outrage on the divine majesty.
For the same reason the Apostle says, that we do not swear in a right manner, unless we swear by the greater, and that it belongs to God alone to swear by himself, (Heb 6:13.) Thus any one who, in ancient times, swore by “Moloch,” (Lev 18:21,) or by any other idol, withdrew something of what belonged to God; because they put that idol in the place of God, as possessing an acquaintance with the hearts, and as the judge of the souls of men. And in our own times, those who swear by angels, or by departed saints, take from God what belongs to him, and ascribe to them a divine majesty. The case is different, when men swear by heaven and earth, with a view to the Creator himself: for, in that case, the sanctity of the oath is not founded on creatures, but God alone is appealed to as a witness, by bringing forward the symbols of his glory.
Heaven is called in Scripture (Isa 66:1) the throne of God: not that he dwells in heaven alone, but to teach men to raise their minds upwards, whenever they think of him, and not to form any low or earthly conceptions of him. Again, the earth is called his footstool, (v. 35,) to inform us, that he fills all things, and that no extent of space can contain him. The holiness of Jerusalem (v. 35) depended on his promise. It was the holy city, (Isa 52:1 🙂 because God had selected it to be the seat and residence of his empire. When men swear by their head, (v. 36,) they bring forward their life, which is a remarkable gift of God, as a pledge of their sincerity.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(34) Swear not at all.Not a few interpreters, and even whole Christian communities, as e.g. the Society of Friends, see in these words, and in Jas. 5:12, a formal prohibition of all oaths, either promissory or evidential, and look on the general practice of Christians, and the formal teaching of the Church of England in her Articles (Art. xxxix.), as simply an acquiescence in evil. The first impression made by the words is indeed so strongly in their favour that the scruples of such men ought to be dealt with (as English legislation has at last dealt with them) with great tenderness. Their conclusion is, however, it is believed, mistaken: (1) Because, were it true, then in this instance our Lord would be directly repealing part of the moral law given by Moses, instead of completing and expanding it, as in the case of the Sixth and Seventh Commandments. He would be destroying, not fulfilling. (2) Because our Lord himself answered, when He had before been silent, to a solemn formal adjuration (Mat. 26:63-64), and St. Paul repeatedly uses such forms of attestation (Rom. 1:9; 1Co. 15:31; 2Co. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Php. 1:8). (3) Because the context shows that the sin which our Lord condemned was the light use of oaths in common speech, and with no real thought as to their meaning. Such oaths practically involved irreverence, and were therefore inconsistent with the fear of God. The real purpose of an oath is to intensify that fear by bringing the thought of Gods presence home to men at the very time they take them, and they are therefore rightly used when they attain that end. Practically, it must be admitted that the needless multiplication of oaths, both evidential and promissory, on trivial occasions, has tended, and still tends, to weaken awe and impair mens reverence for truth, and we may rejoice when their number is diminished. In an ideal Christian society no oaths would be needed, for every word would be spoken as by those who knew that the Eternal Judge was hearing them.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(34-35) Neither by heaven; . . . nor by the earth; . . . neither by Jerusalem.Other formul of oaths meet us in Mat. 23:16-22; Jas. 5:12. It is not easy at first to understand the thought that underlies such modes of speech. When men swear by God, or the name of Jehovah, there is an implied appeal to the Supreme Ruler. We invoke Him (as in the English form, So help me God) to assist and bless us according to the measure of our truthfulness, or to punish us if we speak falsely. But to swear by a thing that has no power or life seems almost unintelligible, unless the thing invoked be regarded as endowed in idea with a mysterious holiness and a power to bless and curse. Once in use, it was natural that men under a system like that of Israel, or, we may add, of Christendom, should employ them as convenient symbols intensifying affirmation, and yet not involving the speaker in the guilt of perjury or in the profane utterance of the divine name. Our Lord deals with all such formul in the same way. If they have any force at all, it is because they imply a reference to the Eternal. Heaven is His throne, and earth is His footstool (the words are a citation from Isa. 66:1), and Jerusalem is the city of the great King. To use them lightly is, therefore, to profane the holy name which they imply. Men do not guard themselves either against irreverence or perjury by such expedients.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
34. Swear not at all Neither in his prohibition of swearing nor of violence (38-42) is our Lord giving any law for the magistrate or the governmental regulations, but for private conduct. The officer of government has still a right to use force, and the magistrate to administer an oath. In fact, to forbid these things in private life secures that they may be done magistratively with better effect.
None of the oaths which our Lord adduces as specimens are judicial oaths. The Orientalists are great profane swearers, and the secondary oaths here forbidden by our Lord are just the ordinary profanities of their conversation. Dr. Thomson (vol. i, p. 284) says: “This people are fearfully profane. Everybody curses and swears when in a passion. No people that I have ever known can compare with these Orientals for profaneness in the use of the names and attributes of God. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or, what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.” Our Lord’s caution not to forswear is given because the people held that to violate these minor oaths of conversation was no perjury. Our Lord not only pronounces it to be forswearing, but forbids the swearing at all.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“But I say to you, do not swear oaths at all.”
Once again we have Jesus’ authoritative “I say to you.” He again claims to speak with unique authority. Jesus is here probably referring to general oaths which had become a common feature in a society which was lax with the truth (as the need for a multitude of oaths proved). He probably did not have in mind specific oaths made in court, especially those required in the fulfilment of legal ritual as prescribed by the Old Testament (e.g. Exo 22:11; Num 5:19; 1Ki 8:31). Nor was He forbidding them to make oaths of loyalty to their rulers. He was not inviting persecution for them. (It would be different once idolatry became involved in such oaths). In fact the disciples would be in no position not to respond to such oaths. Jesus Himself responded to a court oath before the High Priest (Mat 26:63-64), and all were called on at times to swear fealty to king and emperor, in the case of Jews accompanied by the offering a sacrifice for him in the Temple. This distinction is further demonstrated by the type of oaths that He now describes.
Thus Jesus is lifting His disciples above both the general Old Testament environment, and the environment in which they were then living, into a higher sphere of truthfulness. His basic point is that God had not required oaths in the general course of life, which was therefore a demonstration of what His will really was (Deu 23:22), so that under the Kingly Rule of Heaven they were unnecessary, for that was a sphere where truth was all.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
“Neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet,
Nor towards Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Nor shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.”
The type of oaths that He is speaking of is now made clear. They are those which are not directly made in the Name of the Lord (as court oaths mainly would be, for solemn emphasis) but those which used circumlocutions. Oaths made ‘by Heaven and earth’ were later seen as not being made ‘in the Lord’s Name’. Those ‘towards’ Jerusalem were, but that was determined later. But such would not anyway be a solemn oath in court in terms of the requirements of the Old Testament (and thus ‘the Law’). It will be noted that He makes no reference to oaths actually made in the Name of the Lord. This helps to confirm that Jesus is not referring to solemn court oaths.
Jesus then gives His reasons why they should not use such oaths. All of them are the equivalent of being ‘in the Lord’s Name’; an oath ‘by Heaven’, because Heaven is the throne of God, an oath ‘by earth’ because it is His footstool, an oath ‘towards Jerusalem’ because that is the city of the Great King, and an oath ‘by my head’ because it is God who created it and is its Overlord as is demonstrated by the fact that they cannot alter their age, making themselves white-haired and therefore older, or black-haired and therefore younger. They may dye their hair all they like, and hair dyes of a kind were known at the time, (hair dying was certainly practised in Egypt), but they could not alter what they essentially were. God was in total control of that.
Here Isa 66:1 ‘Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool’ and Psa 48:2 ‘Mount Zion in the far north, the city of the great King’, are in mind. Note the emphasis in each case on God’s Kingly Rule. Both Heaven and earth are in the throne room, the One the symbol of His sovereign power, the other the symbol of His worldwide authority (compare Mat 28:19). Jerusalem is His city and therefore the scene of His Kingly Rule, and He has absolute and acknowledged sovereignty over His disciples’ ‘heads’ and therefore over their lives. So those who are His and under His Kingly Rule will not debase what is His by calling on them in unnecessary oaths. They will rather give due honour to their King. Nor do they need to do so for they will always speak as those who are in the presence of the King.
Here then we have a picture of the whole Kingly Rule of Heaven, the throne room with its throne and footstool, the King’s city and the King’s ‘heads’, His men and women. In the Psalm the great King is God Himself, but here there may well be the thought that it includes Jesus, even though His kingship has not yet been spoken of openly in front of the disciples. They will learn of it in the future (Mat 16:16; Mat 16:27-28; Mat 17:5; Mat 17:25-26; Mat 19:28; Mat 20:21; Mat 21:5; Mat 24:30; Mat 25:31-46). Note how in the parables in Mat 18:23-35; Mat 22:2-13, the King is His Heavenly Father (e.g. Mat 18:35) while by Mat 25:31-46 the King is Jesus Himself. In the words of Paul, ‘we have been transferred (from the tyranny of darkness) into the Kingship of His beloved Son’ (Col 1:13). The reader, however, knows all about the emphasis on His kingship from previous chapters.
The combining of their ‘heads’ with the other three symbols of royalty is an indication that Jesus is speaking to those who acknowledge His rule within the Kingly Rule of Heaven. Their heads also are royal, with their hoary crown or otherwise, as given by God. Note how in the Psalm the Jerusalem spoken of is very much an exalted Jerusalem, ‘beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth’, all tremble before it, and it is very much God Who has exalted it. It is the symbol of Heaven on earth. Note also the contrasts here, Heaven with earth, the exalted royal Jerusalem with their heads. God rules over all.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 5:34-36 . ] to swear not at all (the adverb placed emphatically at the end, compare Mat 2:10 ), dependent upon (comp. Plat. Phaed . p. 59 E, Menex . 240 A), in which the command is implied (Jacobs, ad Anthol . X. p. 200; Khner, ad Anab . v. 7. 34; Wunder, ad Soph. O. C. 837), interdicts all kinds of swearing in general; [415] not merely that of common life , which is at variance with reverence for God (Luther, Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, Fritzsche, Ewald, Tholuck, Harless, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and others), nor even merely oaths regarded “ ex Judaeorum sensu ” (thus Matthaei, doctrina Christi de jurejur . Hal. 1847). The simple prohibition, given, however, to the disciples, and for the life of fellowship of true believers, and in so far not less ideal than the requirements that have preceded, appears from the words themselves (comp. Jas 5:12 ), and also from Mat 5:37 . Christianity as it should be according to the will of Christ, should know no oath at all: , Euth. Zigabenus. To the consciousness of the Christian, God should always be so vividly present, that, to him and others in the Christian community, his yea and nay are, in point of reliability, equivalent to an oath. His yea and nay are oath enough. Comp. on , prorsus (= , Hesychius), Xen. Mem . i. 2. 35: , Oecon. Mat 20:20 . Accordingly, it is only in the incomplete temporal condition of Christianity, as well as in the relation to the world in which it is placed, and to the existing relations of the department of public law, to which it conforms itself, that the oath has its necessary, indeed (comp. Heb 6:16 ), but conditional and temporary existence. Christ Himself has sworn (Mat 26:63 f.); Paul has frequently sworn (Rom 1:9 ; 2Co 1:23 ; 2Co 11:3 f.; Gal 2:20 ; Phi 1:8 ); nay, God swears to His own people (Gen 22:16 ; Gen 26:3 ; Num 14:23 ; Isa 45:23 ; Luk 1:73 ; Act 7:17 ; Heb 6:13 ). Therefore Anabaptists and Quakers are wrong in rejecting an oath without any exception , as was already done by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and other Fathers. The various but altogether arbitrary explanations of those who here recognise no absolute prohibition may be seen in Tholuck. The direct oath, by God , is not indeed expressly mentioned along with others in what follows; its prohibition, however, is implied, just as a matter of course, and entirely, first of all in the general , as it is the reference to God which constitutes precisely the fundamental conception and nature of the oath, and, as in the doctrine here discussed, Mat 5:33 , the direct oath is contained not only in ., according to Lev 19:12 , but also expressly in , etc. If Christ, therefore, had intended to forbid merely the oaths of common life, He would, instead of the altogether general statement, , have made use of a form of expression excluding oaths to be taken in relation to the magistracy (probably by a , as in Mat 5:32 ). It is true, indeed, that in the special prohibitions which follow, He mentions only indirect oaths, consequently not those that are valid in a court of justice, but just because the prohibition of the direct oath was already contained in . , first of all and before all other kinds of oaths; and His object now is simply to set forth that even indirect swearing fell under the general prohibition of swearing. And He sets this forth in such a way, that in so doing the prohibition of the direct oath forms the presupposition of His demonstration, as it could not otherwise be expected after . What a scanty of the law and one altogether out of keeping with the ideal character of the points which preceded would it have been had Jesus only intended to say: I forbid you “ the wanton oaths of the streets, of the markets ” (Keim), in all their forms!
., . . .] not to swear in general, nor (specially) by heaven, nor by earth. See on , Klotz, ad Devar . p. 709; Khner, II. 2, p. 828 f.; Winer, p. 454 [E. T. 612]; also Baeumlein, Part . p. 222.
The kinds of swearing censured by Jesus were very common amongst the Jews; Philo, de Spec. Legg . p. 770 A; Lightfoot, l.c. ; Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. illustr . p. 58.
and ] (Isa 66:1 ; Mat 23:22 ).
. .] of Jehovah (Psa 48:2 ; Psa 95:4 ; Job 13:18 ff.; therefore the holy city, Mat 4:5 ).
[416] ] Not merely the Jews ( Berachoth , f. 3. 2; Lightfoot, Hor . p. 281), but also the heathen (Eur. Hel . 835), swore by their head . Dougtius, Anal . II. p. 7 f.; Wetstein on the passage. Comp. the exposition of Virg. Aen . ix. 300.
is by the Greek writers connected with , or with the accus. (Jas 5:12 ). Here, as in Mat 23:16 ff., Jer 5:7 , Dan 12:7 , with (in harmony with the idea that the oath cleaves to the object appealed to, comp. on , Mat 10:32 ), and with (directing the thought; comp. Plut. Oth . 18), after the Hebrew .
, . . .] for thou art not in a condition to make one single hair (if it is black) white or (if it is white) black . There is, of course, no allusion to the dyeing of hair. Wolf, Kcher, Kuinoel, and others incorrectly render it: thou canst not produce a single white or black hair . On such a signification, what means the mention of the colour? The meaning of the whole passage is: “Ye shall not swear by all these objects; for all such oaths are nothing less than the oath directly by God Himself, on account of the relation in which those objects stand to God.” In the creature by which thou swearest, its Creator and Lord is affected.
[415] Comp. West in the Stud. u. Krit . 1852, p. 221 ff.; Nitzsch, christl. Lehre , p. 393 ff.; Werner in the Stud. u. Krit . 1858, p. 711 ff.; Wuttke, Sittenl . II. 277; Achelis in the Stud. u. Krit . 1867, p. 436 ff. Jerome had already remarked, with striking simplicity: “evangelica veritas non recipit juramentum cum omnis sermo fidelis pro jurejurando sit.” The emphatic forbids, however, the limitation only to the forms of the oath that are afterwards mentioned (Althaus in d. Luther. Zeitschr . 1868, p. 504, and already Theophylact, 1), so that the oath by the name of God would remain unaffected; in like manner, the restriction of the prohibition to promissory oaths (Ficker in the same Zeitschr . 1870, p. 633 ff., and already Grotius).
[416] If were here the reading (Fritzsche), then the meaning would be: not even by thy head; see Hartung, Partik . I. p. 196. But this reading is neither critically admissible as it has only ** in its favour nor exegetically necessary, since the series of negations is symmetrically continued with . . ., which symmetry is not interrupted by , because the latter does not stand before . . Matthew might have written (comp. also Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 27; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 123), but he was not obliged to do so.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
Ver. 34. Swear not at all ] Not at all by the creatures. a (which the Pharisees held no fault), nor yet by the name of God in common talk, lightly, rashly, and irreverently; for such vain oaths the land mourneth. Oaths, alas, are become very interjections of speech to the common people, and phrases of gallantry to the braver. He that cannot swear with a grace, wanteth his tropes and his figures befitting a gentleman. Not to speak of those civilized complements of faith and loyalty (which are counted light matters), who hears not how ordinarily and openly ruffianly oaths and abhorred blasphemies are darted up with hellish mouths, against God and our Saviour, whom they can swear all over, and seldom name, but in an oath? How can these pray, “Hallowed be that Name,” that they so daily dishallow? b Some cannot utter a sentence without an oath, yea, a fearful one, an oath of sound, if enraged especially. Oh the tragedies, the blusters, the terrible thunder cracks or fierce and furious language, interlaced with oaths, enough to make the very stones crack under them! Yea, to such a height and habitual practice hereof are some grown, that they swear and foam out a great deal of filth, and perceive it not. Had these men such distemper of body as that their excrements came from them when they knew not of it, it would trouble them. So it would, I dare say, did they believe the Holy Scriptures, threatening so many woes to them, yea, telling them of a large roll, ten yards long and five yards broad, full of curses against the swearer, yea, resting upon his house, where he thinks himself most secure, Zec 5:2-3 “Brimstone is scattered upon the house of the wicked,” saith Job, Job 18:15 as ready to take fire if God but lighten upon it. They walk, as it were, upon a mine of gunpowder, and it may be just in God they should be blown up, when their hearts are full of hell, and their mouths even big with hellish blasphemies. Surely their damnation sleepeth not; God hath vowed he will not hold them guiltless, sworn these swearers shall never enter into his rest, Exo 20:7 ; Psa 95:11 . And for men, those that have but any ingenuity abhor and shun their company. The very Turks have the Christians blaspheming Christ in execration, and will punish their prisoners sorely, when as through impatience or desperateness they burst out into them. Yea, the Jews, as their conversion is much hindered by the blasphemies of the Italians (who blaspheme oftener than swear), so in their speculations of the causes of the strange success of the affairs of the world, they assign the reason of the Turks prevailing so against the Christians, to be their oaths and blasphemies, which wound the ears of the very heavens. They can tell that swearing is one of those sins for the which God hath a controversy with a land, Hos 4:2 ; Jer 23:10 . And I can tell what a great divine hath observed, that the stones in the wall of Aphek shall sooner turn executioners than a blasphemous Aramite shall escape unrevenged. So much doth a jealous God hate to be robbed of his glory, or wronged in his name, even by ignorant pagans (how much more by professed Christians!) whose tongues might seem no slander. Those that abuse earthly princes in their name and titles are imprisoned, banished, or hanged as traitors. And shall these go altogether unpunished? Hell gapes for such miscreants, &c.
Neither by heaven ] As the Manichees and Pharisees did, and held it no sin. But God only is the proper object of an oath, Isa 65:16 ; Jer 12:6 . The name of the creature, say some, may be inferred, the attestation referred to God alone. But they say better that tell us that the form of an oath is not at all to be indirect or oblique, in the name of the creature. Albeit I doubt not but he that sweareth by heaven sweareth by him that dwelleth in heaven, &c. And forasmuch as God clotheth himself with the creatures, Psa 104:1-2 , is it fit for us to spit upon the king’s royal robes, especially when they are upon his back? But forasmuch as we must shun and be shy of the very show and shadow of sin, they do best and safest that abstain from all oaths of this nature, 1Th 5:22 . They do very ill that swear by this light, bread, hand, fire (which they absurdly call God’s angel), by St Ann, St George, by our Lady, &c., by the parts of Christ, which they substitute in the room of God. The barbarous soldiers would not break his bones, but these miscreants with their carrion mouths rend and tear (oh cause for tears!) his heart, hands, head, feet, and all his members asunder. Let all such consider, that, as light a matter as they make of it, this swearing by the creature is a “forsaking of God,” Jer 5:7 , a provocation little less than unpardonable; an exposing God’s honour to the spoil of the creatures, which was the heathen’s sin, Rom 1:23 ; and abasing themselves below the meanest creatures, “for men verily swear by the greater,” Heb 6:16 . And the viler the thing is they swear by, the greater is the oath, because they ascribe thereto omniscience, power to punish, justice, &c., Amo 8:14 ; Zep 1:3-5 ; besides a heavy doom of unavoidable destruction denounced against such. They that speak in favour of this sin allege 1Co 15:31 . But that is not an oath, but an obtestation; q.d. my sorrows and sufferings for Christ would testify, if they could speak, that I die daily. And that, Son 3:5 , where Christ seemeth to swear “by the toes and hinds of the field.” But that is not an oath either, but an adjuration: for he chargeth them not to trouble his Church; or if they do, the roes and hinds shall testify against them, because they do what those would not, had they reason as they have. In like sort Moses attesteth heaven and earth, Deu 32:1 ; and so doth God himself, Isa 1:2 . And for those phrases, “As Pharaoh liveth,” “As thy soul liveth,” &c., they are rather earnest vouchings of things than oaths. c And yet that phrase of gallantry now so common, “As true as I live,” is judged to be no better than an oath by the creature, Num 14:21 ; cf. Psa 95:11 . And we may not swear in jest, but in judgment, Jer 4:2 .
For it is God’s throne ] We must not conceive that God is commensurable by a place, as if he were partly here and partly there, but he is everywhere all-present. The heavens have a large place, yet have they one part here and another there, but the Lord is totally present wheresoever present. Heaven therefore is said to be his throne, and he is said to inhabit it, Isa 66:1 , not as if he were confined to it, as Aristotle and those atheists in Job conceited it; d but because there he is pleased to manifest the most glorious and visible signs of his presence, and there in a special manner he is enjoyed and worshipped by the crowned saints and glorious angels, &c. Here we see but as in a glass obscurely, his toe, train, hind parts, footstool. No man can see more and live; no man need see more here, that he may live for ever. But “there we shall see as we are seen, know as we are known,” see him face to face, Isa 6:1 ; Isa 60:13 ; Isa 66:1 ; Exo 33:23 ; 1Co 13:12 . Oh how should this fire up our dull hearts, with all earnestness and intention of endeared affection to long, lust, pant, faint after the beatifical vision! How should we daily lift up our hearts and hands to God in the heavens, that he would send from heaven and save us; send his law, and command deliverance out of Sion; yea, that himself would break the heavens and come down, and fetch us home upon the clouds of heaven, as himself ascended, that when we awake we may be full of his image, and as we have borne the image of the earthly, so we may bear the image of the heavenly! St Paul, after he had once seen God in his throne, being rapped up into the third heaven (like the bird of Paradise), he never left groaning out, Cupio dissolvi, ” I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, which is far far the better.” e And Pareus, a little before his death, uttered this swan song,
” Discupio solvi, tecumque, o Christe, manere:
Portio fac regni sim quotacunque tui.
Oh that I were in heaven! Oh that I might
Be ever with the Lord! Oh blissful plight!
Thus must our broken spirits even spend and exhale themselves in continual sallies, as it were, and egressions of thoughts, wishings, and longings after God, affecting not only a union, but a unity with him. f St Austin wished that he might have seen three things, Romam in flore, Paulum in ore, et Christum in corpore: Rome flourishing, Paul discoursing, and Christ living upon the earth. But I had rather wish, with venerable Bede, “My soul desireth to see Christ my King upon his throne, and in his majesty.” g
a
b Sunt qui altius linguas suas in Christi sanguine demergunt, quam illi olim manus.
c Non est forma iuramenti, sed asseverationis seriae, et obtestationis domesticae; q.d. quam vere vivit Pharao, &c. Alsted.
d Job 22:14 . Docuit Aristoteles providentiam Dei ad coelum lutae usque protendi, non ultra.
e . A transcendant expression, like that 2Co 4:17 .
f Mi sine nocte diem, vitam sine morte quietam,
Dei sine fine dies. Vita, quiesque Deus.
g Anima mea desiderat Christum regem meum videre in decore suo. Beda.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
34, 35. ] Compare ch. Mat 23:16-22 . Archbp. Trench observes (Serm. on Mount, p. 55), ‘Men had learned to think that, if only God’s name were avoided, there was no irreverence in the frequent oaths by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by their own heads, and these brought in on the slightest need, or on no need at all; just as now-a-days the same lingering half-respect for the Holy Name will often cause men, who would not be wholly profane, to substitute for that name sounds that nearly resemble, but are not exactly it, or the name, it may be, of some heathen deity.’ Observe that the predicates, , , , being placed for emphasis before the copul, are without articles: it would be , &c.
For the allusions see reff. Isa. and Ps.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
34 .] . is a Hebraism: the classical usage is with and a gen., or simply with an acc.; see reff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 5:34 . : emphatic = , don’t swear at all . Again an unqualified statement, to be taken not in the letter as a new law, but in the spirit as inculcating such a love of truth that so far as we are concerned there shall be no need of oaths. In civil life the most truthful man has to take an oath because of the untruth and consequent distrust prevailing in the world, and in doing so he does not sin against Christ’s teaching. Christ Himself took an oath before the High Priest (Mat 26:63 ). What follows (Mat 5:34-36 ) is directed against the casuistry which laid stress on the words , and evaded obligation by taking oaths in which the divine name was not mentioned: by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or by one’s own head. Jesus points out that all such oaths involved a reference to God. This is sufficiently obvious in the case of the first three, not so clear in case of the fourth. : white is the colour of old age, black of youth. We cannot alter the colour of our hair so as to make our head look young or old. A fortiori we cannot bring on our head any curse by perjury, of which hair suddenly whitened might be the symbol. Providence alone can blast our life. The oath by the head is a direct appeal to God. All these oaths are binding, therefore, says Jesus; but what I most wish to impress on you is: do not swear at all. Observe the use of (not ) to connect these different evasive oaths as forming a homogeneous group. Winer, sect. Lev 6 , endorses the view of Herrmann in Viger that and are adjunctival , and disjunctival , and says that the latter add negation to negation, while the former divide a single negation into parts. Jesus first thinks of these evasive oaths as a bad class, then specifies them one after the other. Away with them one and all, and let your word be , . That is, if you want to give assurance, let it not be by an oath, but by simple repetition of your yes and no . Grotius interprets: let your yea or nay in word be a yea or nay in deed , be as good as your word even unsupported by an oath. This brings the version of Christ’s saying in Mt. into closer correspondence with Jas 5:12 , . Beza, with whom Achelis ( Bergpredigt ) agrees, renders, “Let your affirmative discourse be a simple yea, and your negative, nay”. , the surplus, what goes beyond these simple words. , hardly “from the evil one,” though many ancient and modern interpreters, including Meyer, have so understood it. Meyer says the neuter “of evil” gives a very insipid meaning. I think, however, that Christ expresses Himself mildly out of respect for the necessity of oaths in a world full of falsehood. I know, He means to say, that in certain circumstances something beyond yea and nay will be required of you. But it comes of evil, the evil of untruthfulness. See that the evil be not in you. Chrysostom (Hom. xvii.) asks: How evil, if it be God’s law? and answers: Because the law was good in its season. God acted like a nurse who gives the breast to an infant and afterwards laughs at it when it wants it after weaning.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
at all. Figure of speech Synecdoche (of Genus), App-6;. not lightly. The particulars given in verses: Mat 5:35, Mat 5:36.
by. Greek. en.
God’s. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
34, 35.] Compare ch. Mat 23:16-22. Archbp. Trench observes (Serm. on Mount, p. 55), Men had learned to think that, if only Gods name were avoided, there was no irreverence in the frequent oaths by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by their own heads, and these brought in on the slightest need, or on no need at all; just as now-a-days the same lingering half-respect for the Holy Name will often cause men, who would not be wholly profane, to substitute for that name sounds that nearly resemble, but are not exactly it, or the name, it may be, of some heathen deity. Observe that the predicates, , , , being placed for emphasis before the copul, are without articles: it would be , &c.
For the allusions see reff. Isa. and Ps.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 5:34. , not to swear at all) The , at all, extends this prohibition to swearing truly as well as falsely: it does not, however, universally prohibit all true swearing. The right employment of oaths is not only like divorce permitted but clearly established by the law, nor is it here abolished by Christ; see Mat 5:17. But the abuse of oaths was extremely frequent with the Jews of that age, to the destruction of their legitimate use, as is clear from the forms of swearing cited in this passage; nor did they think him guilty of perjury who called only creatures to witness in his oath, however falsely he might swear. See Samuel Petit,[214] Variae Lectiones, ch. 16. The following decree of the Jews is to be found in Elle Schemoth Rabba,[215] section 44, As heaven and earth shall pass away, so shall the oath pass away which calls them to witness. There is clearly, however, a prohibition, whilst the prevalent[216] abuse of oaths is forbidden, and their true use restored. Many of the ancient Christians received this command simply and literally, and so much the more readily declined the heathen oaths which they were commanded to take. See however, Rev 10:6; Jer 23:8; Isa 45:23, the last of which passages refers to Christian times. On the contrary, there is now-a-days a great danger lest a very small proportion of the number that are made be true, and of the true a very small proportion necessary, and of those that are necessary a very small proportion free, fruitful, holy, and joyful. Many are employed for show, for calumny, for silencing just suspicions.-, by) That which is sworn by is offered in pledge: it should therefore be in the power of him who swears. He who swears wrongly (Mat 5:34; Mat 5:36) is guilty of sacrilege. Therefore, in this sense a man ought not to swear by God, because, in case of his swearing falsely, he pledges himself to renounce God. This, however, it is not in his power to do. But we must swear in that manner which is sanctioned in the Divine law itself, so that our oath should be an invocation of the Divine name. Even the customary formula, So help me God, is not to be taken in the former but in the latter sense, so that the emphasis should fall upon the word GOD. This interpretation is at any rate favourable to him who swears, and makes the matter rather easier.- , by heaven) How much greater is their sin who swear by God Himself!-, throne) How great is the majesty of God! God is not enclosed by heaven, but His glory is especially manifested there.
[214] A celebrated scholar, born at Nsmes in 1594, studied at Geneva, raised at an early age to the Professorship of Theology and of Greek and Hebrew in that city. Died 1645. A man of vast and profound erudition.-(I. B.)
[215] i.e. Mystical Commentary on Exodus, a rabbinical work in high estimation among the Jews.-(I. B.)
[216] Grassatus, a word used of a fiercely raging epidemic-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Swear: Deu 23:21-23, Ecc 9:2, Jam 5:12
heaven: Mat 23:16-22, Isa 57:15, Isa 66:1
Reciprocal: Lev 19:12 – ye shall Num 30:2 – swear Deu 5:11 – General Psa 11:4 – the Lord’s Eze 43:7 – and the place Dan 4:26 – the heavens Mat 5:22 – I say Mat 23:22 – by the Mat 26:72 – with Mar 6:23 – he Act 7:49 – Heaven Act 17:24 – seeing
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5:34
As to whether an oath is true or false is not the question with Jesus, for he forbids his disciples to make any oath at all. When a man makes an oath he backs it up by the authority of some power supposed to be great enough to make the oath good. That is why Jesus mentions various things by which men might pronounce an oath. The Jewish people had come to think they should not swear by the name of God, but Jesus shows it is as bad to swear by heaven since that is God’s throne.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
[Swear not at all.] In the tract Demai are some rules prescribed to a religious man: among others, That he be not too much in swearing and laughing. Where the Gloss of R. Solomon is this; “means this, Be not much in oaths; although one should swear concerning things that are true: for in much swearing it is impossible not to profane.” Our Saviour, with good reason, binds his followers with a straiter bond, permitting no place at all for a voluntary and arbitrary oath. The sense of these words goes in the middle way, between the Jew, who allowed some place for an arbitrary oath; and the Anabaptist, who allows none for a necessary one.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 5:34. That ye swear not at all, lit., not to swear at all. The reason is given, in Mat 5:37. The prohibition is absolute for private and social life, and also for the kingdom of heaven, for which alone Christ legislates here. Civil governments, on account of the fearful amount of falsehood in the world (comp. Mat 5:37), must require judicial oaths as a guarantee of veracity. That these are not referred to we infer from the example of our Lord (chap. Mat 26:63-64), and of His Apostles (Rom 1:9; Gal 1:20; 1Co 15:31). Objection to them often becomes a species of Pharisaism. Yet such oaths are not to be lightly administered. The next examples refer to the habit, so silly and sinful, of swearing in ordinary conversation.
Neither by the heaven. An oath then used, and considered allowable.
For it is the throne of God. To swear by heaven, is to swear by God Himself. Otherwise the oath is senseless. A condemnation of many phrases which are corrupted forms of actual oaths, and are used by those who scruple to swear outright
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 34
Swear not at all; that is, on ordinary occasions, in the common intercourse of society. All the precepts of this discourse relate to the conduct of individuals in the private relations of life; and as Matthew 5:39-42 do not forbid the resistance and punishment of wicked men, by civil governments, neither does this prohibit calling upon God to witness the truth of declarations made in the administration of public justice, or on other solemn occasions. For the example of the apostles, see Romans 1:9.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Jesus cut through all the casuistry by saying that if oaths that God intended to guarantee truthfulness in speech become the instruments of deceit, it is better to avoid oaths altogether. Again Jesus got below the external act to the real issue at stake that had been God’s concern from the beginning. The way to dispense with false swearing is to avoid all swearing. Righteous people should not need to confirm their statements with an appeal to a higher authority. Their word should be enough (cf. Jas 5:12).
Jesus explained that whatever a person may appeal to in an oath has some connection with God. Therefore any oath is an appeal to God indirectly if not directly. To say that one could swear by one’s own head, for example, and then break his vow, because he did not mention God’s name, was shortsighted.