Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
But let your communication – Your word; what you say.
Be, Yea – Yes. This does not mean that we should always use the word yea, for it might as well have been translated yes; but it means that we should simply affirm or declare that a thing is so.
More than these – More than these affirmations.
Cometh of evil – Is evil. Proceeds from some evil disposition or purpose. And from this we may learn:
1. That profane swearing is always the evidence of a depraved heart. To trifle with the name of God, or with any of his works, is itself most decided proof of depravity.
2. That no man is believed any sooner in common conversation because he swears to a thing. When we hear a man swear to a thing, it is pretty good evidence that he knows what he is saying to be false, and we should be on our guard. He that will break the third commandment will not hesitate to break the ninth also. And this explains the fact that profane swearers are seldom believed. The man who is always believed is he whose character is beyond suspicion in all things, who obeys all the laws of God, and whose simple declaration, therefore, is enough. A man that is truly a Christian, and leads a Christian life, does not need oaths and profaneness to make him believed.
3. It is no mark of a gentleman to swear. The most worthless and vile. the refuse of mankind, the drunkard and the prostitute, swear as well as the best dressed and educated gentleman. No particular endowments are requisite to give finish to the art of cursing. The basest and meanest of mankind swear with as much tact and skill as the most refined, and he that wishes to degrade himself to the very lowest level of pollution and shame should learn to be a common swearer. Any person has talents enough to learn to curse God and his fellowmen, and to pray – for every man who swears prays – that God would sink him and others into hell. No profane person knows but that God will hear his prayer, and send him to the regions of woe.
4. Profaneness does no one any good. Nobody is the richer, or wiser, or happier for it. It helps no ones morals or manners. It commends no one to any society. The profane man must be, of course, shut out from female society, and no refined conversation can consist with it. It is disgusting to the refined; abominable to the good; insulting to those with whom we associate; degrading to the mind; unprofitable, needless, and injurious in society; and awful in the sight of God.
5. God will not hold the profane swearer guiltless. Wantonly to profane His name, to call His vengeance down, to curse Him on His throne, to invoke damnation, is perhaps of all offences the most awful. And there is not in the universe more cause of amazement at His forbearance, than that God does not rise in vengeance, and smite the profane swearer at once to hell. Verily, in a world like this, where His name is profaned every day, and hour, and moment by thousands, God shows that He is slow to anger, and that His mercy is without bounds!
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 37. Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay] That is, a positive affirmation, or negation, according to your knowledge of the matter concerning which you are called to testify. Do not equivocate; mean what you assert, and adhere to your assertion. Hear what a heathen says on this subject: –
,
‘ , .
Hom. Il. ix. 312.
“He whose words agree not with his private thoughts is as detestable to me as the gates of hell.” See on Jos 2: at the end.
See the subject of swearing particularly considered in the note at the conclusion of De 6.
Whatsoever is more than these] That is, more than a bare affirmation or negation, according to the requirements of Eternal Truth, cometh of evil; or, is of the wicked one – , i.e. the devil, the father of superfluities and lies. One of Selden’s MSS. and Gregory Nyssen, a commentator of the fourth century, have , is of the devil.
That the Jews were notoriously guilty of common swearing, for which our Lord particularly reprehends them, and warns his disciples against, and that they swore by heaven, by earth, by Jerusalem, by their head, c., the following extracts, made by Dr. Lightfoot from their own writings, amply testify: –
“It was customary and usual among them to swear by the creatures. ‘If any swear by heaven, by earth, by the sun, c., although the mind of the swearer be, under these words, to swear by HIM who created them, yet this is not an oath. Or, if any swear by some of the prophets, or by some of the books of the Scripture, although the sense of the swearer be to swear by HIM that sent that prophet, or that gave that book, nevertheless, this is not an oath. MAIMONIDES.’
“If any adjure another by heaven or earth, he is not guilty. TALMUD.
“They swore by HEAVEN, hashsha mayim, ken hu, ‘By heaven, so it is.’ BAB. BERAC.
“They swore by the TEMPLE. ‘When turtles and young pigeons were sometimes sold at Jerusalem for a penny of gold, Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, By this habitation (that is, by this TEMPLE) I will not rest this night, unless they be sold for a penny of silver.’ CHERITUTH, cap. i.
“R. Zechariah ben Ketsab said, ‘By this TEMPLE, the hand of the woman departed not out of my hand.’ –
R. Jochanan said, ‘By the TEMPLE, it is in our hand, &c.’ KETUBOTH and BAB. KIDUSHIN.
“Bava ben Buta swore by the TEMPLE in the end of the tract Cherithuth, and Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel in the beginning, And so was the custom in Israel. – Note this, so was the custom. JUCAS. fol. 56.
“They swore by the city Jerusalem. R. Judah saith, ‘He that saith, By JERUSALEM, saith nothing, unless with an intent purpose he shall vow towards Jerusalem.’ Where also, after two lines coming between those forms of swearing and vowing, are added, ‘Jerusalem, For Jerusalem, By Jerusalem. – The Temple, For the temple, By the temple. – The Altar, For the altar, By the altar. – The Lamb, For the Lamb, By the Lamb. – The Chambers of the Temple, For the chambers of the temple, By the chambers of the temple. – The Word, For the Word, By the Word. – The Sacrifices on Fire, For the sacrifices on fire, By the sacrifices on fire. – The Dishes, For the dishes, By the dishes. – By all these things, that I will do this to you.’ TOSAPHT. ad. NEDARIM.
“They swore by their own HEADS. ‘One is bound to swear to his neighbour, and he saith, Vow (or swear) to me by the life of thy head, &c. SANHEDR. cap. 3.
“One of the holiest of their precepts relative to swearing was 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.’ Tract. DEMAI.” – See Lightfoot’s Works, vol. ii. p. 149.
They did not pretend to forbid ALL common swearing, but only what they term MUCH. A Jew might swear, but he must not be too abundant in the practice. Against such permission, our Lord opposes his Swear NOT AT ALL! He who uses any oath, except what he is solemnly called by the magistrate to make, so far from being a Christian, he does not deserve the reputation, either of decency or common sense. In some of our old elementary books for children, we have this good maxim: “Never swear: for he that swears will lie and he that lies will steal; and, if so, what bad things will he not do!” READING MADE EASY.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
St. James saith much the same, Jam 5:12. Let your ordinary discourse in the world be mere affirmations or denials of things in terms or phrases of the same import with yea and nay, though you do not always use those terms. Let forms of swearing be preserved for special times, when the providence of God calls to you for them to determine strife, and make some weighty matters which you assert credible unto others who will not take your bare assertions. Have such a reverence for the name of God, as not to use it for every trifle; and let not my ordinance for the end of strife be made of no use by your common use of the name of God; for in ordinary discourse and common talk, whatsoever is more than bare affirmations and denials, cometh of an evil heart, or from the devil, or from the corruption of other mens hearts. Some would make the communication mentioned here to be understood as if it were conversation; Let your ways of dealing with men be fitting, without fraud and guile; and so think our Saviour here strikes at the root and cause of so much idle and vain swearing, viz. the common falsehood, frauds, and cozenages of men in their dealings; but it seemeth hard so to interpret in this place, our Saviour especially being speaking concerning words and forms of speech.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
37. But let your communication“yourword,” in ordinary intercourse, be,
Yea, yea; Nay, nayLeta simple Yes and No suffice in affirming the truth orthe untruth of anything. (See Jas 5:12;2Co 1:17; 2Co 1:18).
for whatsoever is more thanthese cometh of evilnot “of the evil one”; though anequally correct rendering of the words, and one which some expositorsprefer. It is true that all evil in our world is originally of thedevil, that it forms a kingdom at the head of which he sits, andthat, in every manifestation of it he has an active part. But anyreference to this here seems unnatural, and the allusion to thispassage in the Epistle of James (Jas5:12) seems to show that this is not the sense of it: “Letyour yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall intocondemnation.” The untruthfulness of our corrupt natureshows itself not only in the tendency to deviate from the stricttruth, but in the disposition to suspect others of doing the same;and as this is not diminished, but rather aggravated, by the habit ofconfirming what we say by an oath, we thus run the risk of having allreverence for God’s holy name, and even for strict truth, destroyedin our hearts, and so “fall into condemnation.” Thepractice of going beyond Yes and No in affirmations and denialsasif our word for it were not enough, and we expected others toquestion itsprings from that vicious root of untruthfulness whichis only aggravated by the very effort to clear ourselves of thesuspicion of it. And just as swearing to the truth of what we saybegets the disposition it is designed to remove, so the love andreign of truth in the breasts of Christ’s disciples reveals itself soplainly even to those who themselves cannot be trusted, that theirsimple Yes and No come soon to be more relied on than the most solemnasseverations of others. Thus does the grace of our Lord JesusChrist, like a tree cast into the bitter waters of human corruption,heal and sweeten them.
Same SubjectRetaliation(Mt 5:38-42). We havehere the converse of the preceding lessons. They were negative:these are positive.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But let your communication be yea, yea,…. That is, let your speech, in your common conversation, and daily business of life, when ye answer to anything in the affirmative, be “yea”; and when ye answer to anything in the negative, “nay”: and for the stronger asseveration of the matter, when it is necessary, double these words; but let no oaths be joined unto them: this is enough; a righteous man’s yea, is yea, and his no, is no; his word is sufficient. Hence it appears, that our Lord is here speaking of rash swearing, and such as was used in common conversation, and is justly condemned by him. The Jews have no reason to reject this advice of Christ, who often use and recommend the same modes of expression. They endeavour to raise the esteem of their doctors and wise men, by saying, that their words, both in doctrines and dealings with men, are “yea, yea” y. One of their z commentators on the word “saying”, in, Ex 20:1 makes this observation;
“hence we learn, that they used to answer,
“concerning yea, yea, and concerning nay, nay”.”
This way of speaking, they looked upon equivalent to an oath; yea, they affirm it was one.
“Says R. Eliezer a, , “nay is an oath; yea is an oath”, absolutely; “nay” is an oath, as it is written, Ge 9:11 and Isa 54:9. But that “yea” is an oath, how does it appear? It is concluded from hence, that “nay” is an oath; saith Rabba, there are that say “nay, nay”, twice; and there are that say “yea, yea”, twice; as it is written, Ge 9:11 and from hence, that “nay” is twice, “yea” is also twice said.”
The gloss upon it is,
“he that says either “nay, nay”, twice, or “yea, yea”, twice; lo! it is “as an after oath”, which confirms his words.”
For whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil: that is, whatever exceeds this way of speaking and conversation, in the common affairs of life, is either from the devil, who is the evil one, by way of eminency; or from the evil heart of man, from the pride, malice, envy, &c. that are in it.
y T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 20. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Dayot. c. 5. sect. 13. z R. Sol. Jarchi, in Exod. xx. 1. a T. Bab. Shebuot, fol. 36. 1. Vid. Maimon. Hilch. Shebuot, c. 2. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “But let your communications by, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:” (esto de ho eogos nai nai ou ou) “Instead let your word be yes, yes, or no, no;” Simple affirmation of truth, without an adjured oath. Simply tell the truth, without compromise or equivocation so that your word is your bond, Jas 5:12; 2Co 1:17-20. This does not preclude or forbid ones raising his hand on the Bible in pledges or oaths of civil affirmation to affirm that one is telling the truth, for even God “sware by himself.” Heb 6:13.
2) “For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (to de perisson touton ek tou ponerou estin) “For anything in excess of these (simple affirmations) is (exists) out of wickedness.” Whatever exceeds this matter of simplicity and truthful integrity, is wicked, out of harmony with what the reputation of a follower of Jesus should be, Jas 5:12. Christians should avoid the tendency to add any word of swearing, even idle slang, to try to convince anyone of the truth of what is being said. For such is wrong and man must give account for it in the day of judgment, Mat 12:36; Ecc 12:13-14; 2Co 5:11. It is vain swearing and frivolous oath-taking that is forbidden in the context of this passage.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
37. But your speech shall be, Yes, yes; No, no Christ now prescribes, in the second place, a remedy; which is, that men act towards each other sincerely and honestly: for then simplicity of speech will have quite as much weight as an oath has among those who are not sincere. Now, this is certainly the best way of correcting faults, to point out the sources from which they spring. Whence comes the great propensity to swearing, but from the great falsehood, the numerous impositions, the unsteady and light conduct, so that hardly any thing is believed? (411) Fairness and honesty in our words are, therefore, demanded by Christ, that there may be no longer any occasion for an oath.
“
Yes, yes; No, no.” This repetition means, that we ought to abide by our words, so that all may be convinced of our honesty. Now, as this is the true and lawful method of proceeding, when men have nothing on their tongue but what is in their heart, Christ declares, that what is beyond these comes from evil I do not approve of the exposition of these words which some have given, that the criminality of swearing ought to be charged on the man who does not give credit to what another says. Christ teaches us, in my opinion, that it originates in the wickedness of men, that they are compelled to swear: for, if honesty prevailed among men, if they were not inconsistent and hypocritical, they would maintain that simplicity which nature dictates. And yet it does not follow, that it is unlawful to swear, when necessity demands it: for many things are proper in themselves, though they have had a wicked origin.
(411) “ D’ou vient une si grande legerete en sermens, sinon qu’entre tout de mensonges, tromperies, inconstance et babil, on ne sait qui croire, ni a qui se fier ?” — “Whence comes so great a lightness about oaths, but that among so many lies and impositions, and so much unsteadiness and trifling, one does not know whom to believe or whom to trust?”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(37) Let your communication.One of the few instances in which our translators seem to have preferred a somewhat pedantic Latin word for the more literal and homely English speech. (Comp. Luk. 24:17.)
Yea, yea.St. James reproduces the precept in Jas. 5:12 of his Epistle, but the phrase is found in the Talmud, and was probably proverbial. In all common speech a mans words should be as good as his oath. Yes should mean yes, and No should mean no, even though there be no oath to strengthen it.
Cometh of evil.The Greek may (as in the Lords Prayer, Deliver us from evil) be either neuter, from evil in the abstract, or masculine, from the evil one. With some hesitation, and guided chiefly by Mat. 13:19-38, I accept the latter as the more probable. These devices of fantastic oaths come not from Him who is the Truth, but from him who when he speaketh a lie, speaketh of his own (Joh. 8:44).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
37. Yea, yea; Nay, nay That is, use in conversation only these simple affimatives and negatives, enforced by no violent adjurations.
Cometh of evil The oath arises from men’s want of conversational veracity, or from an undue excitement of feeling. If men were not false in their simple affirmations no oath would be needed. Hence it is well said the man is the surety of the oath, not the oath of the man. Hence it is only where there is much falsehood that the oaths are needed; so that lying and swearing are twin vices. The habit of oaths also cherishes excited and violent feeling. It is averse to that calm, self-reliant firmness which both Christianity and dignified character require, and which can depend on its own simple affirmation for all the demands of life.
Men are often excited to more violent passion by the very profanity which is produced by passion. Our own violent expression increases our own violent feeling and character. And thus, lying, swearing, and violence are associate vices.
That the oath before the magistrate is not prohibited is plain, for our Lord himself answered under the oath imposed upon him by Caiaphas. (Mat 26:63-64.) As magistracy is instituted by God, so the invocation of his presence has the solemnity of worship, not the irreverence of profanity. The oath, then, is the tie of society and not its dissolution.
And it is to preserve the purity of the authoritative oath that the licentious oath is forbidden.
So also the solemn appeal to God made by the pious man has none of the irreverence of profanity, but, again, a prayer-like solemnity. So St. Paul, (Gal 1:20🙂 “Behold, before God, I lie not;” and, (2Co 1:23🙂 “I call God for a record upon my soul.” (4.) Christian law of conciliation.
The Mosaic law laid down the rule of punishment by the magistrate, to inflict the evil upon the wrong doer, which the wrong doer had committed against a complainant. Exo 21:22. It was life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. This is, no doubt, for the magistrate, the abstract principle of retribution, which must ever be retained in criminal law. But the Jews introduced this principle of retaliation into private life. Each man became judge for himself when and how far it should be inflicted. Thereby the principle of revenge was cultivated, and all conciliation became dishonourable.
Christ enjoins here a different method of dealing with an assailant. Instead of resenting every affront, and retorting every blow aimed, to disarm him by skilful generosity. Our Saviour expresses the principle by symbolic specimens; that is, by strong external instances. But these outward acts are to be understood as mere symbols to express the internal disposition, and mere examples to illustrate the general rule.
Judgment must always be exercised as to when and in what individual cases these laws of conciliation will apply. Certainly they will not apply where it is clear that no conciliation will follow. Our Lord here prescribes a method for an end, which cannot be used where the end could not be attained, and where the method would only produce useless submission to increasing aggression. The law of self-defence then comes in, to be exercised either under the magistrate, or, if necessary, in our own persons.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“But let your speech be, Yes, yes; No, no,
And whatever is more than these is of the evil one.”
So they are to restrict their replies to specific assertions. They are to say, ‘yes, yes’ or ‘no, no’. The point here is either that people will be listening for the oath, ‘yes, I swear by –’ but will rather hear another ‘yes’, or that it represents the firmness with which the disciple of Christ says ‘yes’ and ‘no’ because they speak only the truth (compare Jas 5:12). It is not intended to indicate a special form of oath. The assumption is that under the Kingly Rule of God nothing but the truth will be spoken.
Indeed anything more than such a firm assertion must be seen as being the product of the Evil One (or of an evil heart). The use of tou ponerou is regularly ambiguous, compare Matt 3:39; Mat 6:13; Mat 13:38; 1Jn 5:19. But see Mat 13:19 where it must be translated ‘the Evil One’. Evil and the Evil One are closely connected, and the Devil is specifically linked by Jesus with falsehood. He is the ‘father of lies’ and abounds in falsehood (Joh 8:44). Therefore here we should probably see it as signifying the Evil One. On the other hand in Mat 5:39 it means either ‘the evil person’ in the sense of one who wishes to impose himself on you, or evil itself. But here in Mat 5:37 the Evil One has to be resisted whereas in Mat 5:39, because it is a different kind of ‘evil’, it does not have to be resisted but has to be responded to with a loving response. This brings out the wide ranges of meaning of the term.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 5:37 . Let your manner of asseveration be affirmation or negation, without an oath . The repetition of the and is intended to make prominent the earnest and decisive nature of the assurance. [417] Similar examples of and in the Rabbins, in Lightfoot, and Schoettgen, p. 41. Comp. the in Ausonius, Idyll . 17 : “Si consentitur, mora nulla intervenit est est; Si controversum, dissensio subjiciet non .” As a matter of course, by this representation other asseverations made, however, without an oath are not excluded.
. .] whatever is more than yea and nay ( ), that is swearing .
] Euth. Zigabenus: : auctorem habet diabolum . So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Zwingli, Castalio, Piscator, Wetstein, and others; also Fritzsche, Keim. Comp. Joh 8:44 ; 1Jn 3:8 ; 1Jn 3:12 . Others (Luther, Calovius, Bengel, Rosenmller, Kuinoel, Paulus, Tholuck, de Wette, Baumgarten Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and others) take as neuter , so that it would have to be explained: is in the category of evil , is sinful. Comp. the use of , , etc., Matthiae, p. 1334. But how insipid and devoid of meaning is the closing thought if this be the meaning! how energetic if , Mat 13:19 ; Mat 13:38 , is intended! And by this energetic rejection of the oath amongst the ideal people of God, to whom the completed law applies, there is no opposition to the Old Testament sacredness of an oath. But if under the completed law the mere yea and nay are to have the weight and reliability of an oath, then this highest moral standard and ordinance of truthfulness would be again taken away and perverted by him who nevertheless should swear; while the yea and nay would again be deprived of the guarantee of truthfulness, which, like all opposition to the truth, would be diabolical (Joh 8:44 ). The oath by God could not be rejected by Jesus, in and by itself , as , for it certainly rests upon the divine law; but (in answer to Keim) it has, upon the standpoint of the of the law, given way to the yea and nay, therefore its re-establishment would only be a desertion of these higher stages, a falling away from the moral , up to which Christ means to fulfil the law. This could not proceed from God, but only from the enemy of His will and kingdom. In a similar way, as Theophylact rightly saw, circumcision in the O. T. is ordained of God, and is worthy of honour; but to uphold its validity in Christianity to the injury of faith, and of righteousness by faith, is sinful, devilish; 2Co 11:3 ; 2Co 11:14 . So also with sacrifices, festival days, prohibition of meats, and so on.
[417] In answer to Beza’s erroneous explanation, “let your affirmative discourse be yea , and your negative, nay; ” and, in answer to Grotius (comp. also Erasmus), who takes the second and to refer to the act which corresponds to the assurance, so that the meaning would be: “fidem a nobis praestari debere in promissis etiam injuratis,” see Fritzsche on the passage. According to Hilgenfeld, the original text is said to have been, in accordance with the quotations in Justin ( Apol . i. 16, p. 63) and the Clementines (Rom. 3:55, 19:2): , . Comp. Jam 5:12 ; 2Co 1:17 . Matthew would appear again to introduce an assurance like an oath. Keim also deems the form of statement as given by Matthew to be less correct.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Ver. 37. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay ] That is, as St Basil interpreteth it, yea in speech and yea in heart; nay in speech and nay in heart: or thus, let your common communication be plain, true, and sincere, that your bare word may be taken, without any further asseveration. Not but that asseverations may be lawfully used, as verily, truly, indeed, &c. Sed, parcius ista tamen, not frequently or slightly, but advisedly and seriously, as our Saviour. a If thou be a creditable person and hast made faith of thy fidelity, with Quod dixi, dixi, thy word will be taken. Or if it will not, that credit is dearly bought that is gotten by sin. Christ must be obeyed, though no man will believe us. But a good man’s oath is needless, a bad man’s bootless; for he that feareth not an oath, neither will he scruple a lie, but credit will follow honesty. b While therefore the communication is ours (as Christ here speaketh), that is, in our own power and of our own accord, “let our yea be yea, and nay, nay;” and let it appear that ordinarily and in common conversation our word is as soon to be taken as our oath. But when for the glory of God and clearing of the truth, an oath is required of us, then it is not our communication, but another’s. And in this case, for the manifestation or confirmation of a needful but doubtful truth, an oath may be safely and boldly taken, for an end of controversies and satisfaction of neighbours, Heb 6:16 ; yea, we may lay it up among our best services, and expect a blessing upon it (if rightly taken, according to Jer 4:2 ) as well as upon hearing or reading, because it is an ordinance of God, Deu 10:20 ; Isa 65:16 , &c. Some of the ancients, I confess, as Jerome, Theophylact, Chrysostom, were in the error, that the Lord did only permit swearing in the Old Testament (as he did divorcement that he approved not), and that in this text our Saviour did quite take it away. But Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. God’s holy name is still to be sanctified by taking a religious oath, upon just occasion, sc. when either the magistrate imposeth it, or when some private person will not believe a necessary truth without an oath, and we cannot otherwise demonstrate it. Thus Jacob sware to Laban, Boaz to Ruth, Jonathan to David. And if it be lawful in private between two or more to admit God as a judge, why may he not as well be called as a witness? provided ever, that this be done warily and sparingly, using it not as food, but as physic, to help the truth in necessity. Our King Henry VI was never heard to swear an oath; his greatest asseveration being, Forsooth, forsooth, verily, verily. I myself have used, saith Latimer, in mine earnest matters, to say, Yea, St Mary, which indeed is naught. Among the very heathens, Ex animi sui sententia, In very deed, was instead of an oath.
For whatsoever is more cometh of evil ] That is, of the devil. c That which St Matthew calleth the wicked one, Mat 13:38 ; (the self-same word with that in this text), St Mark calleth Satan, and St Luke the devil. Now can any good come out of such a Nazareth? Swearing is the devil’s drivel, and swearers the devil’s drudges, acted and agitated by that foul fiend: and though they be not always drunk when they swear, yet they are not their own men. “For know ye not,” saith that great apostle, “that his servants ye are to whom ye obey?” His work swearers do (as those Jews did in the Gospel, Joh 8:34 ), and his wages they shall receive, for they fall hereby into hypocrisy, as some copies have it ( ), Jas 5:12 , while they daily pray, But deliver us from that evil one, and yet entertain him by this sin: or rather, as other copies in our translation have it, they fall into condemnation. And at the last day, when the Master of the harvest shall gather out of his kingdom all such botches and scandals ( ), Mat 13:41 ; Mat 13:50 , he will say to the reapers, “Gather ye first the tares, and bind them in bundles” (swearers with swearers, drunkards with drunkards, &c., sinners of a kind with their fellow sinners), “and cast them into the fire, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Good, therefore, is the counsel of St James, “Above all things, my brethren, swear not;” whatever ye do, look to that: it is a senseless sin, and that which maketh the tongue to become, not a city, not a country, but a world of iniquity, Jas 3:6 . It is the devil’s hook without a bait, as having neither profit nor pleasure (many times) to draw to it, and that is no small aggravation. The devils fell without a tempter, and are therefore left without a Saviour. Other sinners usually kill not till provoked, steal not till forced, whore not till enticed. But what hath God done to these monstrous men, that they should thus fly in his face, chop (as much as they may) his heart in pieces, and upon every small occasion shoot such chain shot, as if they would make the windows of heaven to shake and totter? When Naboth was said to have blasphemed, Jezebel proclaimed a fast. When our Saviour was accused of that sin, the high priest rent his garments. When Rabshakeh had done it indeed, Hezekiah fell to his prayers, and humbled himself before God. Did these do thus for others, and wilt not thou do as much for thyself? God hath against thee, and is coming out armed with plagues and power. Oh, meet him upon the way, with entreaties of peace, as Abigail did David; as Jacob did Esau: quench his flames with floods of tears. Learn of Shimei (when he had reproached David, and knew himself obnoxious) to be with God with the first, as he was with the king, 2Sa 19:18-20 ; and as Joseph’s brethren supplicated him for grace, whom they had reviled and misused, Gen 50:17 , do you the like. This do or you are undone for ever. This do, and do it seriously, and God must either forswear himself, or forgive thee thy swearing, if thou forego it.
a Gemina potius affirmatione et negatione utamur, quam Dei nomen usurpemus.
b Non ideo negare volo, ne peream, sed ideo mentiri nolo ne peccem; dixit femina quaedam in equuleo, apud Jerome.
c ’ , that troublesome one, the troubler of the saints: qui negotium nobis facessit, a , , malignus.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
37. ] The similar place, ref. James, admirably illustrates this let these words only be used, and they in simplicity and unreservedness.
] See ref. The gender is ambiguous, as it may constructionally be in the Lord’s prayer, ch. Mat 6:13 , but see note there. It is quite immaterial to the sense , in which gender we understand it; for the evil of man’s corrupt nature is in Scripture spoken of as the work of , and is itself . See Joh 8:44 ; 1Jn 3:8 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
communication = word Greek. logos. Omit “be”. Yea, yea = Yes, [be] yes. Figure of speech Epizeuxis. App-6.
Nay, nay = Nay, [be] nay.
whatsoever = what.
cometh = is.
of = out of. Greek. ek. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
37. ] The similar place, ref. James, admirably illustrates this- -let these words only be used, and they in simplicity and unreservedness.
] See ref. The gender is ambiguous, as it may constructionally be in the Lords prayer, ch. Mat 6:13, but see note there. It is quite immaterial to the sense, in which gender we understand it; for the evil of mans corrupt nature is in Scripture spoken of as the work of , and is itself . See Joh 8:44; 1Jn 3:8.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 5:37. , your conversation) your daily ordinary speech. , . , , yea, yea; nay, nay) Let yea, or, it is, be employed to affirm what is true,-Nay, or, it is not, to deny what is false.[221] Cf. Gnomon on 2Co 1:17-18, and Jam 5:12.-, exceeding, that which exceeds) Excess is faulty.- , of evil); the word is here in the neuter gender, [and signifies evil in the abstract]: see Mat 5:39.
[221] Lit. Let the It is of fact be also the It is in your words: let the It is not of fact be also the It is not in your words.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
let: 2Co 1:17-20, Col 4:6, Jam 5:12
cometh: Mat 13:19, Mat 15:19, Joh 8:44, Eph 4:25, Col 3:9, Jam 5:12
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
CHRISTIAN TRUTHFULNESS
Let your communication be Yea, yea.
Mat 5:37
The main object of our Divine Lord here is to impress upon us the supreme and critical importance of Candour, Sincerity, Transparency, Accuracy, and Truthfulness in all our speech, conversation, and mental attitude. Let your yes mean yes, let your no mean no.
I. The tribunal of conscience.The great and chief happiness of life is to give Conscience her full and absolute sway. The most powerful proof to us of the facts of our holy religion, of God and the soul, and the future life of rewards and punishments, is the undying tribunal of Conscience in our hearts. But to be careless about the strictest conception and expression of truth is a daily violation of this heavenly witness within us. First, let us train ourselves by Gods grace to see things as they really are, without exaggeration, diminution, colour, or prejudice, and then let us equally ask His gracious help to say them as they really happened, as we from the very ground of our hearts believe them to be, without fear or flinching.
II. The habits of the world.This is by no means so easy a task as at first sight it seems. The habits of the world are quite the other way; and many of the children of God are so much influenced by the habits of the world that they become, to their shame, very largely indifferent to this virtue of Candour, Truthfulness, and Accuracy, and thus lose much of the blessing of God and the benignant presence of the Holy Spirit. How seldom it is that worldly people give you the whole reasons for their conduct! How terribly careless people are about repeating scandal and gossip! What a tremendous responsibility lies on that vast body of educated men who make their living by journalism, and who daily purvey to thousands and millions whom they have never seen, the views they are to hold, the things they are to accept as true!
III. Want of candour in party conflict.And then, again, what a temptation to this unchristian want of candour is there in the excitement of political and ecclesiastical parties! How greatly those who are engaged in such struggles need to pray that they may not take up with any other code of morals but the laws of Christ; that they may not have heated, prejudiced, partial views of the questions that are brought forward, or shape their line of action out of deference to some great name, but may try to look at everything in the light of justice and of truth! How instinctively we turn with honour and gratitude to those who always speak out their mind fearlessly, whether we agree with them or not! How inestimably precious and how rare, but how powerful for good, is a statesman or an ecclesiastic who is absolutely honest, truthful, candid, and unprejudiced, to whatever party he may belong!
IV. White lies.Living thus in the midst of exaggeration and unreality, many of us do not see things in their true proportions and colours. We think that there are white lies as well as black lies, and that most lies are white. We fancy that we may tell the white lies, because they do not cause much harm and because they are allowed by the world in general. And we forget that we are not lying with men but unto God, of whose nature truth is an essential element.
Archdeacon Sinclair.
Illustration
Our Lords special object here is to insist on His people practising the habit of absolute truthfulness. which will not need any oath to confirm it, and which is apt to be greatly weakened by the use of such language. The needless taking of oaths tends to lessen a mans sense of truth, and enfeeble his regard for it. Men who swear much by heaven or by earth do not regard such oaths as very binding; and once they have accustomed themselves to untruth in this way, bigger and rounder adjurations will be needed, and will be found equally useless, until the whole soul becomes corrupted with that worst of all rottennessan utterly lying spirit.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
5:37
Yea, yea; Nay, nay means to let the statements be simply that of affirming what is in the positive class and denying the negative. The laws of the state do not require any man to make an oath if he declines to do so, but will accept his affirmation at the same value as an oath. Since that is true, there could be no good reason for wanting to add the oath, which is the reason Jesus said it cometh of evil.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
[Let your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay.] In Hebrew, Giving and receiving [that is, business] among the disciples of the wise men, Let it be in truth and faith, by saying, Yes, yes; No, no; or, according to the very words, concerning Yes, yes; concerning No, no.
“If it be said to a lunatic, Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? and he nod with his head, they try thrice; and if he answer to No, no; and to Yes, yes; they write it, and give it to his wife.”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 5:37. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Not only foolish oaths, like those cited, are forbidden, but also all unnecessary appealing to God. Even judicial appeals to God should not be multiplied. The true oath consists in the simple asseveration uttered under a sense of the presence of God, before Him, and in Him.
Cometh of evil, or of the evil one. The meaning is the same in either case. All strengthening of simple yea and nay is occasioned by the presence of sin, and the power of Satan, in the world.There is no more striking proof of the existence of evil, than the prevalence of the foolish, low, useless habit of profanity. It could never have arisen, if men did not believe each other to be liars. Liars are most profane, and the reverse is true. Ignorance and stupidity increase the habit. Some men swear from want of ideas.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here our Lord prescribes a proper mean and remedy for shunning the occasion and danger of rash swearing; and that is, by using and accustoming ourselves in conversation to a true simplicity and constant plainness of speech; either affirming or denying, according to the nature of the thing; letting oaths alone till we are called to them upon great occasions, for ending strife between man and man.
Learn, That the great end of speech being to communicate the sense of our minds to each other, we ought to use such plainness and simplicity in speaking, that we may believe one another without oaths, or more solemn and religious asseverations.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
5:37 But let your communication be, {t} Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of {u} evil.
(t) Whatever you affirm, affirm it alone, and whatever you deny, deny it alone without any more words.
(u) From an evil conscience, or from the devil.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ "yes, yes," and "no, no," is not the exact terminology He wanted His disciple to use. If He meant that, He would be doing just what He was correcting the rabbis for doing. Rather it means a simple yes or no. The NIV translation gives the sense: "Simply let your ’Yes’ be ’Yes,’ and your ’No,’ ’No.’" The "evil" at the end of the verse may either be a reference to the devil or it may mean that to go beyond Jesus’ teaching on this point involves evil.
Some very conscientious believers have taken Jesus’ words literally and have refused to take an oath of any kind, even in court. However, Jesus’ point was the importance of truthfulness. He probably would not have objected to the use of oaths as a formality in legal proceedings.
"They [oaths in court or oaths of political allegiance] should not be needed, but in practice they serve a remedial purpose in a world where the ethics of the kingdom of heaven are not always followed. Refusal to take a required oath can in such circumstances convey quite the wrong impression." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 216.]
The Bible records that God Himself swore, not because He sometimes lies but to impress His truthfulness on people (Gen 9:9-11; Luk 1:73). Jesus testified under oath (Mat 26:63-64), as did Paul (Rom 1:9; 2Co 1:23; 1Th 2:5; 1Th 2:10).
"It must be frankly admitted that here Jesus formally contravenes OT law: what it permits or commands (Deu 6:13), he forbids. But if his interpretation of the direction in which the law points is authoritative, then his teaching fulfills it." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 154.]