James 5:12Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

What is excessive in the words, "yes, yes," and "no, no"? An oath is not for perjury. No one should know this perjury, because it is from the evil one. It is superfluous and even contrary. The superfluous and the greater thing is the oath.

We answer: the fear of God is stronger than the violence of the one who compels. Another, having the old law in mind, will be perplexed in this way.

If the old law approves of one who swears by the name of the Lord, how does grace forbid doing this?

We answer: the old law commanded the Jews to swear by God in order to turn them away from swearing by idols. Similarly, it commanded them to offer sacrifices to God in order to draw them away from offering sacrifices to idols.

But when it had sufficiently taught the Jews piety, it also abolished sacrifices as useless. It began to require as sacrifice not the slaughter of animals, but a contrite soul.

What kind of soul is this? One that through humility is wholly consumed by the fire of love, like Paul, who was exceedingly inflamed when some of the faithful were scandalized (2 Cor 11:29).

Let your affirmation be firm in what is firm, and let your denial be the same. Or again: let the testimony of your life be firmer than an oath.

If some shameless person, not respecting your life, insistently demands an oath from you, then instead of an oath let you have “yes, yes” and “no, no.”

Therefore those who swear by heaven and earth and the other creatures sin in two ways. First, they swear by something as though it were higher than themselves. This is impiety and sin, because man is higher in dignity than all sensible creatures.

Second, instead of the name of God, they bring forward the names of creatures and lay them as the foundation of the oath to assure their words.

Thus they raise creatures to the honor and dignity of God, which is impious, as Saint Theophylact interprets together with Oecumenius.

Therefore the Lord, in agreement with His holy brother James, decisively decreed: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall render your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all. Neither by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be, 'Yes, yes,' and 'No, no'; whatever is more than this is from the evil one" (Mt 5:33-37).

In another place He said: "He who swears by the altar swears by it and by Him who is upon it. He who swears by the temple swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. He who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it" (Mt 23:20-22).

Just as the Lord forbade not only murder and adultery, but also vain anger and adulterous looking, so He forbade not only perjury, that is, false oaths, or the breaking of true oaths, but absolutely forbade anyone to swear.

The Old Testament, being imperfect, forbade those kinds of oaths. Here the New Testament forbids them as final and perfect.

The former forbade only the completion and result, that is, the act of sin. The New Testament forbade also the beginning of sin, that is, evil thoughts and inward desires of the heart.

For whoever does not guard himself from the beginning of sin, and from evil thoughts and words, easily slides down to its completion, that is, to the deed itself.

Thus both the Lord and here His brother consequently forbade Christians to swear absolutely, so that this would not become a habit and they would not fall into perjury, which is an open denial of God.

The perjurer denies God by breaking the words given to Him. Gregory the Theologian said in his quatrains: "A false oath is a denial of God."

But the one who does not swear at all will never fall into perjury.

Therefore Saint James with great care proclaims here to Christians before all else not to swear at all. It is as if he says to them: Christians, strive to guard nothing else so strongly, among all that I have told you, as this, that you do not swear at all.

For perjury follows oaths, and perjury is heavier than every other sin because it bears within itself the denial of God.

What can one who has denied his Creator and God still do in order to be made worthy of salvation?

Therefore he added, "lest you fall into judgment," that is, under condemnation that sends one into endless torment. Divine Mitrophanes reads and interprets this saying so.

Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others read, "lest you fall into hypocrisy," and interpret that the one who swears falls into hypocrisy.

He thinks that he is truthful because of his external so-called oaths. Inwardly, however, he works falsehood and falls into the sin of hypocrisy, because he is one thing within and appears another outwardly.

Take heed, beloved. If the brother of God here forbids Christians to swear absolutely by external creatures, how much more does he forbid swearing by God?

In other sources the reading is: "lest you fall into judgment."

According to Saint Theophylact and Oecumenius, the reason the Old Testament allowed oaths was to hinder the imperfect Jews from swearing before idols, and to turn them away from idolatry and service to false gods.

For this reason a condescension was made for them, and they were permitted to offer oaths to the true God. It was also permitted that they offer sacrifices to the true God, to prevent them from sacrificing to false gods.

But when they had been sufficiently trained in honoring the true God, the New Testament prohibited both sacrifices and oaths.

Yet even the Old Testament prophet Hosea did not allow the Jews to swear, saying: "Do not swear, 'As the Lord lives'" (Hos 4:16).

We note that not only those who swear sin, but also those who force others to swear because they do not believe their words. Gregory the Theologian says in his couplets: "It is very evil both to give an oath and to demand an oath. In both cases you insult truth."

Divine Chrysostom forbids giving oaths to others in two sayings: "If you see that a man is truthful, do not bring the matter to an oath. If you see that he lies, do not compel him to swear."

Gregory the Theologian also says: "Avoid every oath. But by what shall one assure others? By word and by life, which gives assurance to the word. A false oath is a denial of God. Why do you need to call God as mediator? Make your good manners your mediator" (Thoughts Written in Quatrains).

The radiant light of Alexandria, Cyril, says the following: "Let an oath be wholly absent from our language, because of hasty and thoughtless words, and also because of changes that sometimes necessarily occur. Truly, everyone will say that it is worthy of every emulation to have a cautious tongue, one that seldom inclines toward what is improper. Since this is difficult to attain, the word of God itself has shown us this, for 'no one can tame the tongue' (Jas 3:8), as it says. Let us speak words without oaths. Then, if circumstances compel us to transgress something, the guilt will be less and the fault will receive a lighter accusation" (Commentary on the Gospel of John, vol. 2, book 9).

The light of Thessalonica and of the whole Church, divine Gregory Palamas, beautifully interprets this saying: "Let your yes be yes, and your no, no, lest you fall into hypocrisy."

He says that if the matter is "yes," that is, true, then the word must agree with the matter, and the man should say yes.

If the matter is "no," that is, false, then here too the word should agree by saying no.

If the matter is "yes," that is, true, but the word pronounced is "no," that is, false, or the reverse, then such a man falls into hypocrisy.

So too, if the matter is "no," that is, false, but the word pronounced is "yes," as though true, he falls into hypocrisy. Thus he speaks of truth while the matter is false.

He also acts hypocritically if he says that the matter is false while it is true. Therefore truth without hypocrisy, as Gregory the Theologian shows us, is this: "To say what is present is true; what is not present is falsehood and contention" (Longer Rules).

Divine Chrysostom urges Christians to say, instead of oaths, "Believe me": "Knowing this, let us avoid oaths, and let our mouth learn to say continually, 'Believe me.' This will be the foundation of all piety, because the tongue, once it has learned to say this one word, is ashamed and blushes to utter shameful and improper words" (vol. 2, part 1, Homily 8).

He also says that "to swear is worse than to kill" (ibid., Homily 15).

Therefore the expression "nor by any other oath" should be rendered, "nor by any other oath-object," such as Jerusalem, the temple, the altar, the gift on the altar, the gold of the temple, or one's own head. Compare Mt 5:33-36; 23:16-22.

The common feature of all these objects is that they are created. In promises or assurances they were named with this thought: the one promising or assuring is ready to lose these things and never see them again if insincerity or falsehood appears in his words.

But does a Christian swear by God with such a thought? No, with an entirely different one.

When he says, "I promise and swear by Almighty God," he means that God sees and hears him. He means that God will help him fulfill the promise and will punish him if he does not fulfill it.

God is not an oath-object like created objects. In oath-promises He is invoked as witness, helper, and rewarder. Therefore He can in no way be meant by the expression, "nor by any other oath."

When deniers of the oath extend the Apostle James's prohibition to swearing by God, they thereby place God on the same level as heaven, earth, and Jerusalem.

They do not wish to know that the reverent invocation of God is always pious, since it is prayer and expresses the lifting up of mind and heart to God. A true oath by God is not different from this.

By contrast, to swear by such objects as heaven and earth is either senseless or directly impious. One cannot pray to them. One cannot invoke them for help, since they are soulless and powerless.

Nor can one present them as some pledge, since they are not in our power. Compare Mt 5:36.

What is meant is an empty oath, or idle swearing. Those who abused it did not consider themselves absolutely bound to fulfill it. Yet fulfillment is required by the very nature of a true oath. See Deut 6:13; Deut 10:20 and parallels.

"Nor by any other oath." Such oaths were probably used in everyday life. They were as empty as swearing by heaven and earth.

An oath by the name of God, prescribed by God Himself in the Old Testament for certain important occasions in life, is abolished neither by Christ nor by the apostle. It must be used. See the note on Mt 5:37.

"That you may not fall under condemnation." According to another reading of the Greek text, it is, "lest you fall into hypocrisy," as in the Slavonic translation. Both senses and translations agree with the context of the discourse.

According to the first interpretation and translation, the one who swears thoughtlessly is threatened with God's judgment, just as those who complain against one another were threatened above. See Jas 5:9.

A thoughtless oath truly brings condemnation, since it comes from the evil one. See Mt 5:37.

According to the latter translation and interpretation, the nearest danger from thoughtless swearing is indicated: hypocrisy. For this also, the one who swears is threatened with God's judgment.

It is self-evident that one who swears an empty oath, whose fulfillment he does not consider binding, acts hypocritically and deceives his neighbor, at least in most cases.

"By hypocrisy he means either the condemnation that will overtake those who swear without restraint and, through habit, come to perjury, or hypocrisy itself, which is one thing and appears as another.

How does one who swears fall into hypocrisy? In this way: as one who swears, he is regarded as affirming the truth. But when the oath is broken, he is shown to be an actual liar.

The apostle forbids swearing by God in order to avoid perjury. He forbids swearing by heaven and other things so that divine honor may not be assigned to them. For all who swear swear by what is greater. See Heb 6:16" (Theophylact).

Yet the oath is forbidden so that every word of the speaker may be an oath, a witness to the truth of what is said.

Every word must be spoken with awareness and with the feeling of the Lord's omnipresence, who sees all and hears all.

From this view of truth it follows directly that before a court, see Mt 26:63, and in other cases, see Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 2:17; 2 Cor 11:10; 1 Thess 2:5, 10, it is permitted to call God as witness.

This is done in the sense that it serves to persuade others."

The Apostle spoke somewhat indefinitely about the oath: "Men swear by one greater than themselves." That is, they swear by what is higher and more important than man.

Probably he had in mind the custom of his time, when people swore not only by the name of God, but also by heaven and earth, the temple and the altar.

Yet all these forms of oath, according to the explanation of Christ the Savior Himself, have one true meaning. Directly or indirectly they refer to God, and in Him and in His name they have their power and importance.

"He who swears by the temple swears by it and by Him who dwells in it; and he who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it" (Mt 23:21-22).

But how do we dare to use the holy and fearful name of God in our assurances and promises? Is this boldness permissible? In what cases is it permissible?

The answer to all these questions can be found in one apostolic saying: "In every dispute the oath is final for confirmation." That is, an oath is the final and extreme means of assurance in every case where dispute must be ended or doubt removed.

Therefore, if a dispute or doubt arising in relations between men is not so important that it requires strengthened measures to remove it, one should not resort to an oath.

Nor should one do so if there are simple and nearer means for this purpose, found in the properties and circumstances of matters and relations.

If one can be content with incomplete assurance without great harm, especially public harm, then ordinary prudence will not advise resorting to the extreme means of assurance.

In such cases, a pious feeling should not permit an oath by the name of God.

For example, you may want people to believe your word in conversation, or your promise in common life. In the multitude of such cases, which are mostly of little importance, resorting to an oath would be as bold as it is unnecessary.

For the degree of assurance needed here, there are simple and nearer means. Always speak the truth precisely and without evasiveness, and your simple word will be believed as an oath.

Do not make promises when you are not sure they can easily be fulfilled. Fulfill the promises you have made unwaveringly, and your simple promise will be believed as an oath.

To such cases belong both the ancient commandment, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" (Ex 20:7), and Christ's commandment, "Do not swear at all" (Mt 5:34).

The Apostle's exhortation also belongs here: "Do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath. Let your yes be yes, and your no, no, lest you fall into hypocrisy" (Jas 5:12).

But there are cases of another kind, in which ordinary means are insufficient for removing doubt and attaining assurance. Failure to attain assurance would bring extreme harm, not only private but also public.

From this arises the necessity, and from necessity the duty, to attain the "final confirmation" with the utmost effort. One must resort to the extreme means of assurance that is possible.

The sovereign and the state require faithfulness from subjects in general, and in particular services, offices, and commissions. Firm assurance in this faithfulness is absolutely necessary.

Without it, public order would not be secured, and public safety itself would not exist. By what then is faithfulness to be secured?

By laws? But for laws to have full force and effect, strict faithfulness is needed in their application. Therefore the proposed question is not resolved here, but only takes on a particular form.

By what is faithfulness in the application of laws to be secured? By what then? By honesty known beforehand?

It is easier to find time and means for this in the limited circle of private relations than in the boundless expanse of state relations.

Authority undoubtedly uses its nearest and most important instruments with prior testing and inquiry, insofar as the limited human gaze can reach and penetrate.

But can testing and inquiry decisively determine the honesty of each of thousands and countless people before using them as instruments of the state?

Again the question returns: by what is faithfulness to be secured? By a word of honor?

A word of honor can be accepted as security only from the mouth of a man whose honesty has been tested. Where prior full testing of honesty is difficult to accomplish, a word that proclaims itself honorable does not secure anything.

Who does not know that the so-called word of honor is also given by those who have not secured its fulfillment even for themselves, and do not even think about fulfilling it?

By what then is faithfulness to be secured? By fear of punishments?

How unpleasant it would be, if it were even possible, to establish general peace on general fear alone. But this is not possible.

There can be violations of faithfulness which human insight cannot discover and human justice cannot pursue. Fear of punishment is necessary and useful for restraining those inclined to crimes.

But it is not sufficient for forming the quality of faithful subjects. Thus the insufficiency of nearer and ordinary means for securing faithfulness leads to the extreme means.

This is the sealing of promised faithfulness with the great and fearful name of God. Thus each man may honor faithfulness as he reveres God.

Thus whoever would dare to touch his promise would inevitably meet the name of God. This name is not merely a sound pronounced, but the invoked power of God.

It penetrates souls, tests hearts, blesses the faithful, and punishes the unfaithful.

That this "final confirmation," this extreme means of assurance among men, is not simply a human institution can easily be seen. An oath is not only an invention of the art of governing peoples.

The heavenly kingdom itself accepts, confirms, and sanctifies this support of the earthly kingdom. This is clear from the fact that God Himself swears.

"By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord" (Gen 22:16) to Abraham. The Apostle explains this word of the Lord precisely as an image of God's oath.

"When God made a promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater by whom to swear, He swore by Himself" (Heb 6:13).

There is no doubt that by condescension God here gives His promise the form of human assurance. Yet there is also no doubt that God takes into His hands only those earthly instruments which are pure and worthy of heaven.

An oath by the name of God in the faithful performance of public service, or in the faithful fulfillment of a public task, is needed both to assure authority and society, and to strengthen the one who binds himself to faithfulness.

Does faithfulness not often require not only self-denial, but also self-sacrifice? Does it not meet temptations?

Sometimes these are crude temptations, which are not always as easy to repel as they are to notice. Sometimes they are subtle temptations, in which one can become entangled almost imperceptibly.

A self-confident man will rely on himself in this. Yet he will hardly be an exception to the prophetic judgment that "every man is a lie" (Ps 115:2), that is, outside the help of God.

But a man with greater self-knowledge would not be at rest from doubt about himself, unless he fled to God and established his hope in Him.

"O Lord, faithful in Thy words and holy in all Thy works" (Ps 144:13), bless the faithfulness of my word and the holiness of my work.

Show me truth and righteousness. Grant me readiness for self-sacrifice for their sake, firmness to stand against the assaults of powerful falsehood, and foresight not to become entangled in the nets of cunning or partiality.

Thus it is natural for the heart of a man to speak when he sincerely desires to preserve faithfulness in public service or a public task.

Thus also the form of the oath prescribed by law from the days of our forefathers commands one to say: "May the Lord God help me in soul and body."

May the thought of unfaithfulness to the oath be far from us. But so that it may be more surely removed, strike it as with an arrow by the dread word of God: "The Lord will not hold guiltless him who takes His name in vain" (Ex 20:7).

If "the Lord will not hold guiltless him who takes His name" in vain, uselessly, frivolously, and without need, what should he expect who, giving an oath before God, would use God's name with evil intent?

What should he expect if he uses it sacrilegiously, to cover the uncleanness of his unfaithfulness with its holiness?

"Thou shalt destroy all who speak falsehood" (Ps 5:7). But, Lord, wilt Thou not destroy before others those who speak falsehood before Thy name and before Thy face?

They lie, like Ananias and Sapphira, not to men, but to Thee, O God. When the Apostle Peter exposed Ananias with these very words, "You have not lied to men, but to God," Ananias heard these words, fell down, and expired.

Then Sapphira, after a similar rebuke, "immediately fell down at his feet and expired" (Acts 5:4-5, 10).

This example, and many examples outside sacred history, show that falsehood before the name of God and before the face of God, perjured falsehood, seems to bring heavenly Justice to impatience.

It draws down the fearsome and sudden blows of destiny.

To these reflections on the importance of the oath, I hope you will add, even without my assistance, reflection on the importance of the matter for which you give the oath.

Upon those whom you choose will depend no small share of public order, the peace of many, and especially the peace of those who depend on you and are entrusted to your care.

Sometimes, perhaps, the peace of some of you will also depend on them, as well as the maintenance of the dignity of your exalted estate.

Choose in such a way that you will not later reproach yourselves, and that you will not anger God. Find worth if it is hidden. Know how to attract it if it withdraws.

On the contrary, place a barrier before the ambition of unworthiness. Do not place yourselves below the unworthy by allowing them to outwit your action.

Justify the generous confidence of the autocratic Authority toward you. May purity of intention and action draw God's blessing upon the electors, the election, the elected, and the consequences of the election. Amen.