“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” — Matthew 5:37
One final vowel changes the verb from command to prediction. The received text reads ἔστω, “let it be.” A smaller ancient stream reads ἔσται, “it will be.” The Textus Receptus and the modern critical text agree on the imperative.
A command in a chain of commands
Jesus has said, “Swear not at all.” He forbids appeals to heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and one’s own head. Then he gives the positive rule: let your word be yes or no. The imperative completes the movement from false supports to plain speech.
The future form is grammatical and can carry command-like force. Vaticanus supports it. A critic may call it the harder reading and suggest that scribes changed it to an unmistakable imperative, perhaps under the influence of James 5:12.
But ἔστω and ἔσται are easy to confuse by sight or sound. Their first letters are identical; later pronunciation could blur the final sounds. A copying slip can produce difficulty without preserving originality. Sinaiticus, the broad Greek tradition, and the major modern editions retain the command.
“Communication” in the Authorized Version means ordinary speech, not a message platform. Christ forms people whose words correspond to fact and intention. A truthful no may refuse sin; a truthful yes creates a duty to perform.
The command does not forbid every solemn oath. God swears by himself, Paul calls God as witness, and lawful courts may require testimony. It forbids the manipulative habit of making ordinary claims sound reliable by sacred decoration while the speaker’s plain word cannot be trusted.
Textual argument falls under the same rule. Evidence must not be called unanimous when it is divided. A possible scribal cause must not be reported as a known motive. A source must not be quoted beyond what it says.
The imperative has the stronger external case and the exact contextual fit. Christ does not merely predict a truthful community. He commands one. Let the yes be yes, the no be no, and the text be stated as the witnesses give it.
James 5:12 repeats the saying in a church facing suffering, impatience, and careless speech. The parallel may tempt a copyist to harmonize Matthew, but it also shows how the apostolic church received the command. Agreement can arise from literary dependence, shared oral teaching, or the Lord’s repetition. The manuscript must be weighed before one cause is assumed.
The future reading also shows why “harder” needs definition. An unexpected form may be original because scribes smooth authors. It may be corrupt because eyes and ears make mistakes. A one-letter future in a chain of imperatives is not valuable merely for being awkward. Its origin must explain the stronger and wider command form.
Truthful speech finally reaches the apparatus itself. A witness that differs should be named; an inference should be marked; a conclusion should not be inflated beyond its evidence. The verse’s ethic and its textual study meet in the same demand: say what is so.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 5:33–37; 23:16–22; James 5:12; Hebrews 6:13–18.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 5:37.
- Westminster Confession of Faith 22.