Oath

OATH

A solemn affirmation accompanied by an appeal to the Supreme Being. God has prohibited all false oaths, and all useless and customary swearing in ordinary discourse; but when the necessity or importance of a matter requires an oath, he allows men to swear by his name, Exo 22:11 Lev 5:1 . To swear by a false god was an act of idolatry, Jer 5:7 12:16.Among the Hebrews an oath was administered by the judge, who stood up, and adjured the party who was to be sworn. In this manner our Lord was adjured by Caiaphas, Mat 26:63 . Jesus had remained silent under long examination, when the high priest, rising up, knowing he had a sure mode of obtaining an answer said, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ.” To this oath, thus solemnly administered, Jesus replied that he was indeed the Messiah.An oath is a solemn appeal to God, as to an all-seeing witness that what we say is true, and an almighty avenger if what we say be false, Heb 6:16 . Its force depends upon our conviction of the infinite justice of God; that he will not hold those guiltless who take his name in vain; and that the loss of his favor immeasurable outweighs all that could be gained by false witness. It is an act of religious worship; on which account God requires it to be taken in his name, Deu 10:20, and points out the manner in which it ought to be administered, and the duty of the person who swears, Exo 22:11 Deu 6:18 Psa 15:4 24:4. Hence atheists, who profess to believe that there is no God, and persons who do not believe in a future state of reward and punishment, cannot consistently take an oath. In their mouths an oath can be only profane mockery.God himself is represented as confirming his promise by oath, and thus conforming to what is practiced among men, Heb 6:13,16 -17. The oaths forbidden in Mat 5:34-35 Jam 5:12, must refer to the unthinking, hasty, and vicious practices of the Jews; otherwise Paul would have acted against the command of Christ, 1Ch 1:9 Gal 1:20 2Co 1:23 . That person is obliged to take an oath whose duty requires him to declare the truth in the most solemn and judicial manner; though undoubtedly oaths are too often administered unnecessarily and irreverently, and taken with but slight consciousness of the responsibility thus assumed. As we are bound to manifest every possible degree of reverence towards God, the greatest care is to be taken that we swear neither rashly nor negligently in making promises. To neglect performance is perjury, unless the promise be contrary to the law of nature and of God; in which case no oath is binding. See CORBAN, and VOWS.A customary formula of taking an oath was “The Lord do so to me, and more also;” that is, the lord slay me, as the victim sacrificed on many such occasions was slain, and punish me even more than this, if I speak not the truth, Rth 1:17 1Sa 3:17 . Similar phrases are these: “As the Lord liveth,” Jdg 8:19 “Before God I lie not,” 1Ch 9:1 ; “I say the truth in Christ,” 1Ti 2:7 ; “God is my record,” Php 1.8. Several acts are alluded to as accompaniments of an oath; as putting the hand under the thigh, Gen 24:2 47:29; and raising the hand towards heaven, Gen 14:22,23 Deu 32:40 Jer 10:5 .

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Oath

An oath may be defined as an assertion that a statement is true (Germ. assertorischer Eid) or shall be true (promissorischer Eid), or a promise of loyalty and fidelity, made binding by invocation of the Deity, or of some person or thing revered or dreaded. The motive for telling the truth may be regard for what is thus invoked (e.g. the honour of God) or the fear of avenging punishment. It is generally held that the latter thought is dominant and determinative, even when only implicit. In an adjuration one person states the terms of the oath and another accepts it, thus owning the solemn sanction invoked by the first party as the ground and guardian of the truth he vows to tell. The other use of the ambiguous words oath, swear, viz. for meaningless profanity of speech, does not immediately concern us, in spite of Mar 14:71 (English Version ) (see Encyclopaedia Biblica iii., article Oath). An oath in the primary sense guarantees truth-telling under necessity, and, like the necessary lie (Notlge), belongs at best to the higher, and too frequently to the lower, casuistry. A NT example of the latter, which Jesus vigorously denounced, occurs in Mat 23:16-22. On such casuistry, irreverence is a close attendant. To the present writer it appears that the customary views on this subject need considerable revision if they are to be harmonized with the Gospels, with justice to certain sects (Quakers, Mennonites, etc.), with practical experience of the law-courts, and with the possibility that even of a thing which is woven into the common law it may be necessary to say, in Miltons words (Of Reformation touching Church Discipline, 1641, p. 78): Let it weave out again.

The chief NT passages concerned are Mat 5:33-37, where Jesus gives the command, Swear not at all, and the parallels in Mat 23:16-22 and Jam 5:12. It is maintained by Zahn and others, with much probability, that St. James has here preserved the original words of Jesus in a purer form than St. Matthew (T. Zahn, Matt., in Kommentar zum NT, 1903 ff., p. 244). The chief grounds for this view are:-(1) that certain ancient writers quote the first part of Mat 5:33-37 as it now stands, but substitute Jam 5:12 for St. Matthews ending; (2) that some of these writers appear not to have known this Epistle, and therefore they and St. James will have derived these words from a common source, older and better than Mat 5:37; (3) that Jam 5:12 is free from an apparent inconsistency which attaches to Mat 5:37, for Jesus has been urging that His followers should keep to the simplest possible form of affirmation, and yea, yea is not strictly that; the second yea seems almost a vain repetition. On the other hand, Jam 5:12 may possibly be secondary; for instead of Let your yea be (a reliable and unadorned) yea and your nay, nay, it may be rendered: Let yours be the yea, yea, nay, nay (enjoined in Mt.). Further, while St. Matthews double yea can scarcely be defended (but see H. H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, Eng. translation , 1892, i. 269) as securing clearness-for what illumination does the repetition convey?-yet the emphasis added by the second word is by no means extreme, and Jesus may therefore have used it; it falls short of the verily which He used so often. However this may be, the two passages yield the common and unmistakable general principle of a characteristic Christian simplicity and moderation of speech. This is further enforced by the words, Swear not at all ( ). Any exceptions to this strongly exclusive phrase must bear the burden of proof, and to apply it strictly in the meantime is the only natural course, and the precise reverse of hair-splitting (T. Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. translation , iii. [1877] 314). This strictness is made still more binding by the parallel in St. James: nor by any other oath. The forbidden oaths specified in Mat 5:34-36 are illustrations only-selected, not exhaustive. The ground of the prohibition is the link with God which in the thoughts of our Lords hearers (ch. 5) and also in the teaching of the Pharisees (ch. 23) had been snapped; this He replaces with reiterated emphasis. These evasive or frivolous oaths are condemned expressly because, in principle, the name of God is involved in them. The main appeal in both chapters is, as J. Kstlin (in PRE [Note: RE Realencyklopdie fr protestantische Theologie und Kirche.] 3 v. 239 f.) has already maintained, an appeal to reverence, though this is indissociably combined with the demand for veracity. All false swearing amounts indirectly to profane swearing. For it must be irreverent either because Gods presence is invoked in order to make a lie more credible, or else because men adopt a formula (as in Matthew 5, 23) which seeks to exclude Him while the lie is told. The evil which is the source of whatsoever is more than a simple affirmation consists of casuistry and irreverence alike.

That Jesus is not attacking untruthfulness alone is further shown by this, that He offers His teaching as a conscious correction of that which had been given to the ancients, viz. that vows or oaths by God must be kept (cf. W. C. Allen, International Critical Commentary , St. Matthew,3 1912, p. 53). If Jesus meant that the oath by God should be left standing (so Keim, op. cit. p. 311 f.) in the interests of veracity, He only confirmed the OT. Moreover, if that were His only object, then instead of Swear not at all (for one cannot evade the reference to God), He would have needed to say, Never let any matter of importance be settled without an oath, and that directly by the name of God.

Wendt (op. cit. p. 269 f.) and others hold that the oath is of the evil because it implies that the truth need not be told on other occasions. But that seems to imply that the oath itself is not of the evil, but a highly commendable act of exceptional virtue. It is true that oaths on special occasions encourage a double standard of truthfulness. This is, indeed, denied in a vigorous article by W. C. Magee (CR [Note: R Contemporary Review.] xlix. [1886] 1 ff.), in which it is maintained that oaths are only a forcible reminder of a duty which applies equally at other times; but the oath actually uttered by witnesses always concerns itself quite specially with the particular case under trial. Yet this limitation of the veracity due outside the oath cannot be the chief evil in the oath. That chief evil, so far as it is lying at all, must be lying which is committed in and under the oath; and this is not merely nor chiefly unveracity; by it a despite is done to God which seems to have been, in the judgment of Jesus, an additional and greater sin. Now the admissions of writers of all views show that a very large proportion of those who have strong motives for untruth will not be deterred by any oath that can be devised (cf. Magee, op. cit. p. 3). In any case, their testimony will be false, and thus a certain irreverence will be implied in it, but only remotely; the requirement of an oath will simply make it far more pointed and direct; for it is known beforehand that a large number, if they take an oath at all, will commit perjury; moreover, few of these perjuries will be investigated, and the number punished will be negligible. At the other end of the scale are those who would tell the truth under any circumstances-the earnest Christians whom the oath only forces into a certain lowering of tone, and the high-minded unbelievers who, when the case is over, will have been truthful in everything except in the oath by which their truthfulness is ensured. And with both of these undesirable results the name of God will be concerned in a way which is at least indelicate.

The ideal of Jesus is clear. A man is to be so truthful that his possible untruthfulness need not be reckoned with, and therefore he will take no oath, nor be asked to take one. But if men will not always trust him, owing to the general lack of trustworthiness, is he or is he not to submit to this indignity (cf. Clem. Alex. Stromata, vii. 8, and Kants epithet State blackmail or civil extortion [brgerliches Erpressungsmittel] in Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 1793, p. 226; Eng. translation , 1838), in which he will feel that God is implicated? It may be said that this surrounding evil of the world would make only the demanding of the oath to be wrong, not the taking of it. But any submission to or compromise with the evil can be regarded as an unworthy surrender, and as itself evil. Another vital point is the shrinking attitude towards God which is taken in the oath by the explicit or implicit invocation of His powers of punishment. The question arises whether that is a Christian or a sub-Christian conception of Him; whether the Christian does not tell the truth, in the ordinary course, from far higher motives; and whether, by suddenly accepting an official injunction to believe and shudder before Him whom he is usually permitted to love, he does not do an injustice to God and to himself. Magee admits that the oath has lost its power increasingly with the decline of superstitious dread (op. cit. p. 13 f.), and Kstlin admits that the non-swearing sects have been influenced largely by a reverence and delicacy which lie upon the unspoiled Christian spirit like bloom.

In face of all this, can the oath be re-instated by the actual practice of Jesus or of St. Paul? In the case of the latter, the disciple is not above his master (see Barclay, quoted by A. Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount, Eng. translation , 1860, p. 261); and apart from that, the actual examples of asseveration in his Epistles are not very convincing (see H. Weinel, St. Paul, Eng. translation , 1906, p. 358, and C. H. Watkins, St. Pauls Fight for Galatia, 1914, pp. 108, 159 f.). This is especially evident at 1Co 1:14-16, which, in view of the I thank God, reveals a strange lack of clarity; and, where the witness is himself uncertain, strong expressions of affirmation and invocation can but add to the difficulties.

As to Jesus, it is curious that Mat 26:63-65 should be thought so conclusive. There are two important variations in the Synoptic accounts, thus:

Mat 26:63 ff.Mar 14:61 f.Luk 22:67 f.

I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ.Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?Art thou the Christ? Tell us.

Thou hast said.I am.If I tell you, ye will not believe.

For the adjuration, we have the authority of St. Matthew alone; and an adjuration would not in any case be an ordinary oath. If one who is adjured does not, by one explicit word, say that he makes the adjuration his own, it remains the utterance of the other party only, and no one can prove that he answers, or answers truly, because of it (see Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , article Adjure). The Jewish use of Amen in acceptance of an adjuration is often appealed to as if it occurred here (see Tholuck, op. cit. p. 254), but Jesus said no such word. He makes reference only to the question asked Him, not to the adjuration in itself. And is that reply explicit? According to St. Mark, He answers, I am (the Messiah); but probably St. Mark is secondary here, for Messianic utterances are usually the more confident the later they are. [Note: Marks confidence and emphasis show how far he is from the thought of an unwilling confession extorted solely by an adjuration. He mentions no adjuration, and on his showing the question might have been answered earlier if it had been asked.] Moreover, I am can be understood as St. Marks interpretation of Thou hast said, but not vice versa. J. Weiss has argued with much force that Jesus could not, to any purpose, answer either yes or no (Schriften des NT2, i. [1906] 393 f., 516 f.; cf. W. C. Allen on Mat 26:63 [op. cit. p. 283 f.] and Swete on Mar 14:62 [St. Mark2, 1902]). In St. Luke this evasiveness, or indefiniteness, is patent, but in St. Matthew also the emphatic pronoun (Thou hast said-not I; cf. Luk 22:70) suggests that a definite answer was refused. That the high priest treated the answer (or perhaps the following prophecy) as a plain self-condemnation proves nothing except that he wished to do so (cf. Swete on Mar 14:61 and article Conspiracy). The tone of Jesus reply is at any rate lofty, and not in the least submissive. Essentially the same reply is given by Jesus to Pilate (who has no interest in making it more definite than it is), and it is not regarded as closing the case (Mar 15:2, Mat 27:11, Luk 23:3).

On this evidence it cannot be held, with any confidence, that Jesus accepted the adjuration, and His example does not, therefore, justify oaths in law, as distinguished from private conversation. In Matthew 5 He is not dealing directly with law-courts, but we do not know that He would have exempted them from His prohibition, if questioned.

The expression (literally if a sign shall be given) in Mar 8:12, if an abbreviated oath-formula, goes far to decide the practice of Jesus. In opposition, however, to Piscators Strafmich-Gott-Bibel (Herborn, 1606), and to various commentaries, it must be questioned whether the invocation of Gods punishment, undoubtedly absent from His words, was present to His mind. Nothing could be more foreign to His usual attitude to the Father. Much more prominence has been assigned to His habitual expression Verily (= Amen), which He used in an unprecedented way (G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Eng. translation , 1902, pp. 226-229). It lends some support to the double and thus emphatic yea and nay in Mat 5:37, though the view can scarcely be accepted (see, e.g., E. Klostermann, and cf. H. J. Holtzmann, in loc.) that this doubling constituted not only an emphasis but an oath, for then the whole context makes Mat 5:37 impossible, and Jam 5:12 must be substituted. Dalman speaks as if Jesus, feeling the need of asseveration, and embarrassed by the recollection that He had said Swear not at all, fixed upon Amen as an evasive but virtual oath (cf. Achelis on early Christian oaths [Christentum, 1912, Excursus 62]). But it is only fair to suppose that Jesus regarded verily as differing from the oath in principle; for by it a man neither cringes before Gods punishments, nor presumptuously offers to suffer them on certain conditions of his own.

Regarding Heb 6:13 f., Heb 7:20 f. and Rev 10:5 f., from which the conclusion is often drawn that Jesus cannot have forbidden all oaths, since oath-taking is here ascribed to God and His angels, and commended when practised by men, it may be said: (1) that not all the genuine teachings of Jesus were everywhere known, understood, and practised in the churches of the 1st cent.; (2) that the Divine example, especially in the handling of something dangerous, is not always enjoined upon man. The lex talionis is forbidden to men that it may be left entirely to God (Mat 5:44-45, Rom 12:19, 2Ti 4:14). There are also the objections that the ascription of oath-taking to God may be simply anthropomorphic-which is the very opposite of following a Divine example; and that His swearing by Himself is irreconcilable with the ordinary definition of an oath (see above), for it avowedly does not include an appeal to a higher power (Heb 6:13), still less the invocation of a penalty.

Exegetically, the best conclusion is perhaps Augustines: that to swear falsely is perdition, to swear truly is perilous, and that the only safe course is to leave the oath alone. Practical experience tends in the same direction. Defender after defender admits that perjury is committed constantly, increasingly, and with impunity. This has the most deadening effect on morality and religion alike, and there is a very general desire to limit oaths to a few matters on which truthfulness is specially vital, or to abolish preparatory oaths altogether and accept sworn testimony only to evidence already given. The latter suggestion, however, would have positively bad effects unless witnesses were solemnly reminded beforehand that they would have to take an oath afterwards; otherwise, if they had once uttered falsehood, they would almost certainly not go back on it. On the Continent there is a strong movement within the legal profession to substitute declarations for oaths (cf. F. Paulsen, System der Ethik7, 8, 1906, ii. 208-209); in certain Swiss cantons, where the experiment has been tried, false evidence has not increased. In any case, the best deterrent would be more frequent prosecutions and severer sentences for untrue witness. It would probably be best to lay upon the magistrate the duty of impressing on witnesses the seriousness of their position, but to leave him free to do this when and how he thought best. A set form becomes almost inevitably a formality. Finally, it is necessary to realize that much of the argumentation on this whole subject is double-edged. If, for instance, as the advocates of the oath say, the word verily is practically the equivalent of an oath, could they not be satisfied with this equivalent? They could then, perhaps, settle the controversy by accepting as adequate some such words as these: Recognizing the solemn duty of truthfulness, I verily promise that the evidence which I shall give in this case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Literature.-Besides the works mentioned in the article , see articles Oath in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) (G. Ferries), Oaths in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels (G. Wanchope Stewart), and Eid (Ethisch) in RGG [Note: GG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart.] (O. Scheel), with the recent literature there quoted. Reference may also be made to the Commentaries on Matthew, by B. Weiss10 (in Meyers Kommentar, 1910), T. Zahn3 (Kommentar zum NT, 1910), E. Klostermann and H. Gressmann (in Lietzmanns Handbuch zum NT, 1909), H. J. Holtzmann3 (Handkommentar zum NT, 1901), W. C. Allen3 (International Critical Commentary , 1912), A. B. Bruce (Expositors Greek Testament , 1897), A. Plummer (1909); on Mark, by B. Weiss8 (in Meyer, 1892), G. Wohlenberg1, 2 (in Zahn, 1910), E. Klostermann and H. Gressmann (in Lietzmann, 1907), H. J. Holtzmann3 (Handkom., 1901), E. P. Gould (International Critical Commentary , 1896), A. B. Bruce (Expositors Greek Testament , 1897), H. B. Swete (1902); on Hebrews, by B. Weiss6 (in Meyer, 1897), E. Riggenbach (in Zahn, 1913), H. Windisch (in Lietzmann, 1913), M. Dods (Expositors Greek Testament , 1910); on James, by W. Beyschlag (in Meyer, 1897), W. O. E. Cesterley (Expositors Greek Testament , 1910), R. J. Knowling (1904), J. B. Mayor (31910). See also the text-books on Ethics by I. A. Dorner (Eng. translation , 1887), C. E. Luthardt (Eng. translation , 1889), H. Martensen (Eng. translation , 1881-85), G. C. A. v. Harless (Eng. translation 8, 1868), R. Rothe (21867-71), F. H. R. Frank (1884-87), K. Kstlin (1887), L. Lemme (1905). Nearly all the German work is marked by a strong emphasis on loyal citizenship; see especially Lemme and Frank.

C. H. Watkins.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

OATH

A solemn affirmation, wherein we appeal to God as a witness of the truth of what we say, and with an imprecation of his vengeance, or a renunciation of his favour, if what we affirm be false, or what we promise be not performed. “The forms of oaths, ” says Dr. Paley, “like other religious ceremonies, have in all ages been various; consisting, however, for the most part, of some bodily action, and of a prescribed form of words. Amongst the Jews, the juror held up his right hand towards heaven, Psa_144:8. Rev_10:5. (The same form is retained in Scotland still.) Amongst the Jews, also, an oath of fidelity was taken by the servant’s putting his hand under the thigh of his lord, Gen_24:2. Amongst the Greeks and Romans, the form varied with the subject and occasion of the oath: in private contracts, the parties took hold of each other’s hand, whilst they swore to the performance; or they touched the altar of the god by whose divinity they swore. Upon more solemn occasions it was the custom to slay a victim, and the beast being struck down, with certain ceremonies and invocations, gave birth to the expressions, ferire pactum; and to our English phrase translated from these, of ‘striking a bargain.’ The forms of oaths in Christian countries are also very different; but in no country in the world worse contrived, either to convey the meaning, or impress the obligation of an oath or impress the obligation of an oath than in our own. The juror with us after repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to confirm, adds, ‘So help me God;’ or more frequently the substance of the oath is repeated to the juror by the magistrate, who adds in the conclusion, ‘So help you God.’

The energy of the sentence resides in the particle so; so, that is, hac lege, upon condition of my speaking the truth, or performing this promise, and not otherwise, may God help me. The juror, whilst he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right hand upon the Bible, or other book containing the four Gospels, and at the conclusion kisses the book. This obscure and eliptical form, together with the levity and frequency with which it is administered, has brought about a general inadvertency to the obligation of oaths, which both in a religious and political view is much to be lamented: and it merits public consideration, ” continues, Mr. Paley, “whether the requiring of oaths on so many frivolous occasions, especially in the customs, and in the qualification for petty offices, has any other effect than to make them cheap in the minds of the people. A pound of tea cannot travel regularly from the ship to the consumer without costing half a dozen oaths at least; and the same security for the due discharge of their office, namely, that of an oath is required from a churchwarden and an archbishop, from a petty constable, and the chief justice of England. Oaths, however, are lawful; and, whatever be the form, the signification, is the same.” It is evident that so far as atheism prevails, oaths can be of no use. “

Remove God once out of heaven, and there will never be any gods upon earth. If man’s nature had not something of subjection in it to a Supreme Being, and inherent principles, obliging him how to behave himself toward God and toward the rest of the world, government could never have been introduced, nor thought of. Nor can there be the least mutual security between governors and governed, where no God is admitted. For it is acknowledging of God in his supreme judgment over the world, that is the ground of an oath, and upon which the validity of all human engagements depend.” Historians have justly remarked, that when the reverence for an oath began to be diminished among the Romans, and the loose Epicurian system, which discarded the belief of Providence, was introduced, the Roman honour and prosperity from that period began to decline. “The Quakers refuse to swear upon any occasion, founding their scruples concerning the lawfulness of oaths, upon our Saviour’s prohibition, ‘Swear not at all.’ Mat 5:34. But it seems our Lord there referred to the vicious, wanton, and unauthorized swearing in common discourse, and not to judicial oaths; for he himself answered when interrogated upon oath, Mat 26:63-64. Mar 14:61. The apostle Paul also makes use of expressions which contain the nature of oaths, Rom 1:9. 1Co 15:31. 2Co 1:18. Gal 1:20. Heb 6:13; Heb 6:17. Oaths are nugatory, that is, carry with them no proper force or obligation, unless we believe that God will punish false swearing with more severity than a simple lie or breach of promise; for which belief there are the following reasons:

1. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation.

2. It violates a superior confidence.

3. God directed the Israelites to swear by his name, Deu 6:13; Deu 10:20. and was pleased to confirm his covenant with that people by an oath; neither of which it is probable he would have done, had he not intended to represent oaths as having some meaning and effect beyond the obligation of a bare promise. “Promissory oaths are not binding where the promise itself would not be so.

See PROMISES. As oaths are designed for the security of the imposer, it is manifest that they must be interpreted and performed in the sense in which the imposer intends them.” Oaths, also, must never be taken but in matters of importance, nor irreverently, and without godly fear. Paley’s Mor. Phil. ch. 16. vol. 1: Grot. de Jure, 50: 11. 100: 13.& 21; Barrow’s Works, vol. 1: ser. 15; Burnet’s Exposition of the 39th Article of the Church of England; Herport’s Essay on truths of importance, and Doctrine of Oaths; Doddridge’s Lectures, lect. 189; Tillotson’s 22d Sermon; Wolsely’s Unreasonableness of Atheism, p. 152. Oath of allegiance is as follows; “I, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, King George. So help me God.” This is taken by Protestant dissenting ministers, when licensed by the civil magistrate; as is also the following: Oath of supremacy; “I, A. B. do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

oath

The calling upon God to witness the truth of a statement. As an appeal to the testimony of God, it is an act of religion. An oath may be:

assertory, whereby God is called to witness the truth of an assertion of fact, past or present

promissory, whereby God is called upon as a witness to a resolution, a vow, or an agreement made with another party, and as a “guaranty and pledge of future fulfillment

To have a valid oath there must be the intention, at least virtual, of invoking the testimony of God, and a word or sign by which such an intention is manifested. Such a word or sign is contained in the formulas, “God is my witness,” “I swear by God,” “May God destroy me if,” etc. Other expressions such as “By my conscience” or “As God lives” are; at most doubtful. To make an oath lawful it is necessary that what one swears be true or at least beyond a prudent doubt or, in the case of a promissory oath, be sincerely intended and not unlawful. Moreover there must be a sufficient reason for taking an oath. Such sufficient reason is had when an oath is ordered by lawful authority or required for God’s honor or our own or our neighbor’s good.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Oath

(JEWISH), an appeal to God, or to authorities recognized by the respective adjurers, or to anything esteemed sacred, in attestation of an assertion or in confirmation of a given promise or a duty undertaken. The following statement as to Hebrew oaths gives the ancient information with whatever light modern research has thrown upon it. SEE SWEARING.

I. Scriptural Terms. Oath is the rendering in the A. V. of two Hebrew words, alah’, , and shebuah’ , each of which is used in the three significations: 1. A n oath as an appeal to God in attestation of the truth of a statement (Neh 10:30; Exo 22:10); 2. A sworn covenant (Gen 26:28;.2Sa 21:7) 3. A curse or imprecation (Num 5:21; Dan 9:11). In the first of these senses, which answers to our word oath, the Sept. renders both words by , and the Vulg. byjuramentum or jusjurandum; while in the last sense we have the rendering , maledictio. The two words and , however, are by no means synonymous. They denote two different modes of swearing, or rather two classes of oaths. Thus (from h; to lament; to wail, to express woe; or, according to Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 44, 99, akin with , God) properly means the invocation of woe upon one’s self, and shows that the mode of swearing which it describes was connected with an invocation of divine vengeance on the party, if the asseveration made were not true; while (from , seven) literally signifies to seven one’s self, to produce seven, i.e. to make a declaration confirmed by seven victims, or before seven witnesses, because, as Ibn-Ezra (comp. , p. 41 a), who is followed by most modern expositors and lexicographers, rightly remarks, seven animals were used in ancient times when mutual promises were given and when alliances were effected (Gen 21:28-30). This -is moreover confirmed by the practice of the ancient Arabians, who, in pledging their faith, drew blood by an incision made in their hands, and smeared it on seven stones (Herod. 3:8). The primary distinction, therefore, between the two oaths is, that in the case of the former an imprecation was used, while in the latter no imprecation was employed. Hence in Num 5:21, where an oath with an imprecation is described, the phrase is used, and the formula of imprecation is forthwith given.

II. Nature and Sanction of Oaths. The term jusjurandumn is defined by Cicero (De Offciis, 3:29) as an affirmation vouched for by an appeal to a divinity. To these two elements which every oath contains

1, an affirmation or promise;

2, an appeal to God as omniscient and the punisher of falsehoods a third is commonly added, a solemn or judicial occasion. To these three requisites the canon law refers when it enumerates judicium, veritas, justitia, as entering into the constitution of an oath. An oath is accordingly a religious undertaking either to say (juramnentum assertoriumn) or to do (juramentum. promnissorium) something entered into voluntarily with the customary forms. Being a religious undertaking, the appeal will vary according to the religion of him who makes it. In some instances it will be an appeal immediately to God.; in others, to objects supposed to have divine power; and by a natural declension, when men have left the only true God, they may appeal in their oaths even to stocks and stones. Accordingly the Romans swore by their own heads or those of their children, or by the genius of the emperor. We shall find similar errors and abuses among the Jews.

The essence of an oath lies obviously in the appeal which is thereby made to God, or to divine knowledge and power. The customary form establishes this, So help me God. The Latin words (known to have been used as early as the 6th century), whence our English form is taken, run thus: Sic me Deus adjnvet et haec sancta Evangelia, So may God and these holy Gospels help me; that is, as I say the truth. The present custom of kissing a book containing the Gospels has, in England and the United States, take in the place of the latter clause in the Latin formula.

1. The cardinal principle on which an oath is held to be binding is incidentally laid down in Heb 6:16 viz. as an ultimate appeal to divine authority to. ratify an assertion (see the principle stated and defended by Philo, De Leg. Alleg. 3:73; 1:128, ed. Mang.). There the Almighty is represented as promising or denouncing with an oath, i.e. doing so in the most positive and solemn manner (see such passages as Gen 22:16; Gen 12:7 compared with 24:7; Exo 17:16 and Lev 26:14 with Dan 9:11; 2Sa 7:12-13 with Act 2:30; Psa 110:4 with Heb 7:21; Heb 7:28; Isa 45:23; Jer 22:5; Jer 32:22). With this divine asseveration we may compare the Stygian oath of Greek mythology (Homer, I1. 15:37; Hesiod, Theog. 400, 805; see also the Laws of Men, ch. viii, p. 110; Sir W. Jones, Works, 3:291).

2. On the same principle that oath has always been held most binding which appealed to the highest authority, both as regards individuals and communities.

(a) Thus believers in Jehovah appealed to him, both judicially and extra- judicially, with such phrases as The God of Abraham judge; As the Lord liveth; God do so to me and more also; God knoweth, and the like (see Gen 21:23; Gen 31:53; Num 14:2; Num 30:2; 1Sa 14:39; 1Sa 14:44; 1Ki 2:42; Isa 48:1; Isa 65:16; Hos 4:15). So also our Lord himself accepted the high-priest’s adjuration (Mat 26:63), and Paul frequently appeals to God in confirmation of his statements (Act 26:29; Rom 1:9; Rom 9:1; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 11:31; Php 1:8; see also Rev 10:6).

(b) Appeals of this kind to authorities recognized respectively by adjuring parties were regarded as bonds of international security, and their infraction as being not only a ground of international complaint, but also an offense against divine justice. So Zedekiah, after swearing fidelity to the king of Babylon, was not only punished by him, but denounced by the prophet as a breaker of his oath (2Ch 36:13; Ezra 17:13, 18). Some, however, have supposed that the Law forbade any intercourse with heathen nations which involved the necessity of appeal by them to their own deities (Exo 23:32; Selden, De Jur. Nat. 2:13; see Livy, 1:24; Laws of Men, ch. viii, p. 113; Smith, Dict. of Antiq. s.v. Jus Jurandum).

3. As a consequence of this principle,

(a) appeals to God’s name on the one hand, and to heathen deities on the other, are treated in the Scripture as tests of allegiance (Exo 23:13; Exo 34:6; Deu 29:12; Jos 23:7; Jos 24:16; 2Ch 15:12; 2Ch 15:14; Isa 19:18; Isa 45:23; Jer 12:16; Amo 8:14; Zep 1:5).

(b) So also the sovereign’s name is sometimes used as a form of obligation, as was the case among the Romans with the name of the emperor; and Hofmann quotes a custom by which the kings of France used to appeal to themselves at their coronation (Gen 42:15; 2Sa 11:11; 2Sa 14:19; Martyr. S. Polycarp. c. ix; Tertull. Apol. c. xxxii; Sueton. Calg. c. xxvii; Hofmann, Lex. s.v. Juramentum; Michaelis, On Laws of Moses, art. 256, vol. iv, p. 102, ed. Smith).

4. Other objects of appeal, serious or frivolous, are mentioned: as, by the blood of Abel (Selden, De Jur. Nat. v. 8); by the head; by heaven, the Temple, etc., some of which are ,condemned by our Lord (Mat 5:33; Mat 23:16-22; and see Jam 5:12). Yet he did not refuse the solemn adjuration of the highpriest (Mat 26:63-64; see Juv. Sat. 6:16; Mart. 11:94; Mishna, Sanh. 3:2, compared with Amo 8:7; Spencer, De Leg. Heb 2:1-4).

III. Occasions when Oaths were taken. From time immemorial the Hebrews used oaths both in private intercourse and public transactions.

1. In private intercourse, or on extra-judicial occasions, oaths were taken or demanded when promises were made (2Sa 15:21; 2Sa 19:23) or exacted (Gen 24:2-4; Genesis 1, 5, 25; Jos 2:12-21; Jos 6:26; Jos 9:15; Ezr 10:5); when covenants were concluded (Gen 31:53; 2Ki 11:4; 1Ma 7:15; Joseph. Ant. 14:1, 2); when a solemn asseveration was made (Gen 14:22; Jdg 21:1-7; 1Sa 14:39; 1Sa 14:44; 1Sa 19:6); and when allegiance to God, fealty to a sovereign, or obedience from an inferior to a superior was professed (1Ki 18:10; 2Ki 11:17; 1Ch 11:3; 1Ch 29:24; 2Ch 15:14-15; 2Ch 36:13; Ecc 8:2; Joseph. Ant. 12:1; 15:10, 4). A vow was in the nature of an oath (Lev 5:4).

2. Public or judicial oaths were demanded by the Mosaic law on the four following occasions:

(a) When goods deposited with any one were stolen or destroyed, the depositary was to take an oath that he was not guilty in the loss, and the proprietor was bound to accept it without restitution (Exo 22:10-11; 1Ki 8:31; 2Ch 6:22). A willful breaker of trust, especially if he added perjury to his fraud, was to be severely punished (Lev 6:2-5; Deu 19:16-18).

(b) When one was suspected of having found or otherwise come into possession of lost property, he was to take an oath, and thereby vindicate himself of the charge (Lev 6:3).

(c) When a wife was suspected of incontinence, she was required to clear herself by an oath (Num 5:19-22).

(d) When a theft was committed or an injury sustained, and the offender remained undetected, a judicial oath was to beimposed upon the whole community, or every one was adjured to make known the criminal; and if any one knew the culprit and refused to make him known after hearing this public adjuration, he bore the guilt (Lev 5:1; Jdg 17:2).

(e) It appears that witnesses were examined on oath, and that a false witness, or one guilty of suppression of the truth, was to be severely punished (Pro 29:24; Michaelis, . c. art. 256, vol. iv, p. 109; Deu 19:16-19; Grotius, in Crit. Sacr. on Mat 26:63; Knobel on Lev 5:1, in Kurzg. Exeg. Handb.).

It will be observed that a leading feature of Jewish criminal procedure was that the accused person was put upon his oath to clear himself (Exo 22:11; Num 5:19-22; 1Ki 8:31; 2Ch 6:22; Mat 26:63).

IV. As to the forms of oaths, the Jews appealed to God with or without an imprecation in such phrases (cited above) as God do so and more also if, etc. (1Sa 14:44); As the Lord liveth (1Sa 14:39; 1Sa 19:6; 2Sa 15:21; 1Ki 18:10); As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth (1Sa 20:3); The Lord be between thee and me forever (1Sa 20:23); The God of Abraham judge between us (Gen 31:53). The Jews also swore by heaven, by the. earth, by the sun, by Jerusalem,?’ by the Temple (Mishna, Shebuoth, 4:2; Mat 5:34; Mat 23:16; Berachoth, 55; Kiddushin, 71 a; Maimonides, Jad ha-Chezaka, Hilchoth Shebuoth, xii); by the angels (Joseph. War, 2:16, 4); by the lives of distinguished persons (Gen 42:15; 1Sa 1:26; 1Sa 17:55; 2Sa 11:11; 2Sa 14:19).

V. The external manner observed when taking an oath was one of the following:

1. Originally the oath of a covenant was taken by solemnly sacrificing seven animals, or it was attested by seven witnesses or pledges, consisting either of so many animals presented to the contracting party, or of memorials erected to testify to the act, as is indicated by one of the Hebrew names for oath (), which properly denotes seven, and by the verb to swear (), which means to seven, to produce seven (comp. Gen 21:28-31; Knobel, Comment. on Genesis ad oc.).

2. Another primitive custom which obtained in: the patriarchal age was that the one who took the oath put his hand under the thigh of the adjurer (Gen 24:2; Gen 47:29). This practice evidently arose from the fact that the genital member, which is meant by the euphemistic expression thigh (), was regarded as the most sacred part of the body, being the symbol of union in the tenderest relation of matrimonial life, and the seat whence all issue proceeds, and the perpetuity so much coveted by the ancients (comp. the phrase! , Gen 46:26; Exo 1:5; Jdg 8:30). Hence this creative organ became the symbol of the Creator and the object of worship among all nations of antiquity (comp. Eze 16:17; Jerome, Comment. in ilos. iv; Nork, Etymologisch-symbolisch- mythologisches Real- Worterbuch, s.v. Phalluscultus; Pauly, Real- Encyklopadie d. classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, s.’ v.Phallus); and it is for this reason that God claimed it as the.sign of the covenant between himself and his chosen people in the rite of circumcision. Nothing, therefore, could render the oath more solemn in those days than touching the symbol of creation, the sign of the covenant, and the source of that issue who may at any future period avenge the breaking of a compact made with their progenitor. To this effect is the explanation of the Midrash, the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan ben-Uzziel, Rashi, and the oldest Jewish expositors, though it simply specifies the covenant of circumcision. Further from the point is the opinion of Aben-Ezra, followed by Rosenmller and others, that it is used as a symbol of submission on the part of the servant to his master. It appears to me more probable, says Aben-Ezra, that it was the custom of those days for a servant to place his hand on his master’s thigh; and the meaning of the phrase is, Now if thou art under my subjection, put thy hand on my thigh. The master sat with [the servant’s] hand on his thigh, as if saying, Behold my hand is in subjection to thee to execute thy will. And this custom still obtains in India (Comment. on Gen 24:2). More unnatural is the explanation of Grotius, that Eliezer put his hand on Abraham’s thigh, where the sword was hanging (Psa 45:3), as much as to say, If I falsify my word, may I perish by thy sword; or that of Michaelis, that it alludes to a supposed custom of pressing blood from the hand by putting it under the thigh.

3. A less usual form of oath or ratification was dividing a victim and passing between or distributing the pieces (Gen 15:10; Gen 15:17; Jer 34:18). This form was probably used to intensify the imprecation already ratified by sacrifice according to the custom described by classical writers under the phrases , fledus ferire, etc. We may perhaps regard in this view the acts recorded in Jdg 19:29; 1Sa 11:7; and possibly in Herod. 7:39.

4. The more general custom, however, was to lift up the right hand towards heaven, pointing to the throne of him who was invoked as witness to the truth and avenger of falsehood (Gen 14:22; Deu 32:40; Dan 12:7; Rev 10:5-6). Hence the phrase, to lift up the hand, came to denote to swear, to take an oath, and is even applied to the Deity (Exo 6:8; Psa 106:26; Eze 20:5). These practices chiefly refer to oaths taken in private intercourse, or on extra-judicial occasions. The manner in which a judicial oath was taken is thus described in the Jewish codes: The oath-taker held the scroll of the Law in his arms, stood up and swore either by the name of God or by any one of his attributes, with or without an imprecation ( ), uttering it either by himself or repeating it after the judge; and this judicial oath, according to the enactment of our rabbins, had to be taken in the Hebrew language. If he pronounced the oath by himself, and without an imprecation, he said, I swear by Jehovah, the God of Israel, or by him who is merciful, or by him who is compassionate, that I owe nothing to this man;’ and if with an imprecation he said, Behold I am accursed of Jehovah, or of him who is merciful, if I possess anything belonging to this man.’ And if the judges spoke the oath, they said to him, We adjure thee by Jehovah, the God of Israel, or by him who is merciful, that thou hast nothing which belongs to that man.’ To which he replied, Amen!’ Or they said, Behold A, the son of so-and-so, is accursed of Jehovah, the God of Israel, or of him who is merciful, if he has any money in his possession and does not confess it to the owner;’ and he responded, Amen!’ (Maimonides, Jad ha-Chezaka, Bilchotl Shebuoth, 11:8-10). Instead of holding the Law, the oath-taker was also allowed to touch the phylacteries (Maimonides, ibid.). This simple response, Amen (), or Thou hast said it ( ), which was all that was required to constitute an oath in case any one was adjured (Num 5:19; Mishna, Shebuoth, 3:11; 4:3), explains the reply of our Savior (Mat 26:63-64).

On the same analogy witnesses laid their hands on the head of the accused (Gen 14:22; Lev 24:14; Deu 32:40; Isa 3:7; Eze 20:5-6; Sus. 5:35; Rev 10:5; see Homer, 11. 19:254; Virgil, En. 12:196; Carpzov, Apparatus, p. 652).

Oaths were sometimes taken before the altar, or, as some understand the passage, if the persons were not in Jerusalem, in a position looking towards the Temple (1Ki 8:31;. 2Ch 6:22; Godwyn, 1. c. 6:6; Carpzov, p. 654; see also Juvenal, Sat. 14:219; Homer, II. 14:272).

VI. Sanctity of an Oath. The only oath enacted in the Mosaic code is a clearance oath, i.e. the prosecutor is not to be put on his oath to prove the guilt of the accused, but the defendant is to swear and thereby clear himself of the charge or suspicion (Exo 22:11; Lev 5:1; Lev 6:3; Num 5:19-22). Hence the great care exercised in inculcating the sacredness of oaths, and the heavy punishment for perjury or frivolous swearing (Exo 20:7; Lev 19:12; Deu 19:16-19; Psa 15:4; Jer 5:2; Jer 7:9; Eze 16:59; Hos 10:4; Zec 8:17; Mishna, Shebuoth, 3:11; 4:3). Whether the swearing mentioned by Jeremiah (Jer 23:10) and by Hosea (Hos 4:2) was false swearing, or profane abuse of oaths, is not certain. If the latter, the crime is one which had been condemned by the Law (Lev 24:11; Lev 24:16; Mat 26:74).

From the Law the Jews deduced many special cases of perjury, which, are thus classified:

1, Jusjurandum promissorium, a rash inconsiderate promise for the future, or false assertion. respecting the past (Lev 5:4);

2, Vanum, an absurd self-contradictory assertion;

3, Depositi, breach of contract denied (Lev 19:11);

4, Testinonii, judicial perjury (Lev 5:1; see Nicolaus and Selden, De Juramentis, in Ugolini, Thesaurus, xxvi; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Mat 5:33, vol. 2:292; Mishna, Shebuoth, 3:7; 4:1; 5:1, 2; Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. v, Juramentum).

The Jewish canons enacted that when the demand of the prosecutor is very trifling, the defendant’s simple denial is sufficient, and he cannot be compelled to take the judicial oath to clear himself (Mishna, Shebuoth, 6:1- 3). For the same reason it is enacted that when the complainant is deaf and dumb, silly, or a minor, the defendant need not take the oath, because such people not being able to appreciate the solemnity of an oath, may multiply swearing on too trivial grounds; and that a minor is not to be asked to take an oath (Shebuoth, 6:4). Women, though forbidden to bear witness on oath (Deu 19:17 with Mishna, Shebuoth, 4:1), may take the clearance oath (Mishna, ibid. v. 1). If one simply says to another, I adjure thee, the oath is valid; but if any one swears by heaven, earth, or Jerusalem, or any other creature, the oath is invalid (Mishna, Shebuoth, 4:13). As this oath could be taken with impunity, it became very common among the Jews, who thought that, because it involved nothing, it meant nothing. Hence the remarks of our Savior (Mat 5:34-36; Mat 23:16-22). If any one swears frivolously, which is defined by the Jewish canons as follows: If he swears that something is different from what it is known to be, e.g. if he says that a stone pillar is gold, that a woman is a man; or if it is about anything impossible, that he saw a camel flying in the air; or if any one says to witnesses, Come and give testimony to what you have seen, and they say, We swear that we will not bear witness (Lev 5:1).; or if one swears to transgress a commandment, e.g. not to make a tabernacle, or not to put on phylacteries, this is a frivolous oath, for which, if taken deliberately, the man must be scourged (Mishna, Shebuoth, 3:8). So great was the sanctity with which the pious Jews, prior to the days of Christ, regarded an oath, that they discountenanced swearing altogether (comp. Sir 23:11, etc.; and especially Philo, De decem oraculis, sec. xvii, in Opp. 2:194, etc., ed. Mang.). The Pharisees took great care to abstain from oaths as much as possible (comp. Shebuoth, 39 b’; Gittin, 35 a; Midrash Rabba onl Numbers 22), while the Essenes laid it down as a principle not to swear at all, but to say yea yea, and nay nay. How firmly and conscientiously they adhered to it may be seen from the fact that Herod, who, on ascending the throne,’ had exacted an oath of allegiance from all the rest of the Jews, was obliged to absolve the Essenes from it (comp. Joseph. Ant. 15:10, 4; Ginsburg, The Essenes, their History and Doctrines [Lond. 1864], p. 34). Whether our Savior’s prohibition of swearing (Mat 5:33-37) refers to the same total abstinence from all judicial oaths, or to profane and careless oaths, is a matter of dispute.

VII. Oaths of contemporary and later Nations. The stringent nature of the Roman military oath, and the penalties attached to infraction of it, are alluded to, more or less certainly, in several places in the N.T., e.g. Mat 8:9; Act 12:19; Act 16:27; Act 27:42; see also Dionys. Hal. 11:43, and Aul. Gen 16:4. SEE SACRAMENT.

The most solemn Mohammedan oath is made on the open Koran. Mohammed himself used the form, By the setting of the stars (Chardin, Voy. 6:87; Sale’s Koran, lvi, p. 437).

Bedouin Arabs use various sorts of adjuration, one of which somewhat resembles the oath by the Temple. The person takes hold of the middle tent-pole, and swears by the life of the tent and its owners (Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. 1:127 sq.; see also another case mentioned by Burckhardt, Syria, p. 398).

The Christian practice in the matter of oaths was founded in great measure on the Jewish. Thus the oath on the Gospels was an imitation of the Jewish practice of placing the hands on the book of the Law (P. Fagius, on Onkel. ad Exo 23:1; Justinian, Nov. c. viii, Epil.; Matthew Paris, Hist. p. 916). Our Lord’s prohibition of swearing was clearly always understood by the Christian Church as directed against profane and careless swearing, hot against the serious judicial form (Bingham, Antiq. Eccl. 16:7, 4, 5; Aug. Ep. 157, c. v. 40); and thus we find the fourth Council of Carthage (c. 61) reproving clerical persons for swearing,’ by created objects. SEE PROFANITY.

VIII. Literature. The Mishna, Tractate Shebuoth; Maimonides, Jad ha-Chezaka, Hilchoth Shebuoth, 3:1 sq.; Lightfoof, Hebrew and Talnmudical Exercitations on Mat 5:33; Frankel, Die Eidesleistung der Juden in- theologischer und historischer Beziehung (2d ed. Breslau, 1847); by the same author, Der gerichttlche Beweis nach:losaisch- talmudischem Rechte (Berlin, 1846), p. 304 sq.; Saalschiltz, Das JIosaische Recht (Berlin, 1853), p. 608 sq.; Ewald, Die Alterthumer des Volkes Israel (Gottingen, 1854), p, 15 sq. SEE PERJURY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Oath (2)

(Anglo-Saxon, ath) may be defined (see above) as an expressed or implied solemn invocation of a superior power, admitted to be acquainted with all the secrets of our hearts, with our inward thoughts as well as our outward actions, to witness the truth of what we assert, and to inflict vengeance upon us if we assert what is not true, or promise what we do not mean to perform. Almost all nations; whether savage or civilized, whether enjoying the light of revelation or led only by the light of reason, knowing the importance of truth, and willing to obtain a barrier against falsehood, have had recourse to oaths, by which they have endeavored to make men fearful of uttering lies, under the dread of an avenging Deity. The antiquity of oaths seems almost coeval with man’s existence. The absence of the practice in any people is one of the clearest proofs of a want of conception of the existence of God. Indeed, it is a noticeable fact that in the earliest state of civilization the belief of the special interference of the Deity in the affairs of men was a prevailing and all but universal idea. Man, it was thought, by certain mystic forms and hallowed ceremonies could compel the interference of the Divinity either to establish. innocence or to detect guilt. Hence came ordeals and trials by battles and by lot; hence the belief that by the eating of bread or by the drinking of water by walking barefoot over burning plowshares, by thrusting the hand amid poisonous serpents, or throwing the accused, bound hand and foot, into water, amid prayers and the imposing forms of antique superstition, God would manifest the truth by a miraculous violation of the laws of nature. So extensively diffused was. this idea, that it was alike believed by the polished Athenian on the banks of the Ilissus, Western Israelite amid the hills of Judaea, the African dwelling under the burning heat of the torrid zone, and the Scandinavian worshipper of Thor or Odin amid the fastnesses of the North. All nations, barbarous or just. emerging from barbarism, have resorted to the Divinity for the decision of disputed questions with somewhat similar ceremonies, and undoubtedly with like success. Part and parcel with ordeals, whether of bread or of water, of poisons or of plowshares, whether of Grecian, Jewish, Hindf, or Scandinavian form and origin, based upon the same principle, involving the same leading idea, is the oath by which divine vengeance. is imprecated upon falsehood, and by the use of which ceremony, if it be effective, the Deity is, specially and for that cause, bound to inflict the requisite and appropiate punishment in case of its violation. As the analogies traceable amid the radical words of different languages all point to a common origin a primal language so the innumerable resemblances discernible amid the elemental forms of jurisprudence among nations diverse in their local habitations, with varying customs and sympathies and languages, would equally seem to indicate a common source, from which at some point of time; now uncertain or lost in the darkness of a remote antiquity, they originally sprang. (For an inquiry into the origin of oaths; and an acute disquisition on oaths generally, see Heineccius, Exercit. xviii, De Lubricitate, etc.)

Among Christians an oath is a solemn appeal for the truth of our assertions, the sincerity of our promises, and the fidelity of, our engagements, to the one only God, the Judge of the whole earth, who is everywhere present, and sees and hears and knows whatever is said or done or thought in any part of the world. Such. is the Being whom Christians, when they take an oath, invoke to bear testimony to the truth of their words and the integrity of their hearts. Surely, then, if oaths be a matter of so much moment, it well behooves us not to treat them with levity, nor ever to take them without due consideration. Hence we ought, with the utmost vigilance, to abstain from mingling oaths in our ordinary discourse, and from associating the name of God with low or disgusting images, or using it on trivial occasions, as not only a profane levity in itself, but .tending to destroy that reverence for the Supreme Majesty which ought to prevail in society and to dwell in our own hearts. Perhaps all excesses in this case are caused by the extravagant, profuse, and wasteful, use of oaths among us, so utterly at variance with the command, swear not at all, making the oath so powerless for good and so potent for evil.

To develop clearly the use of oaths in early and modern times, we will here briefly notice the purposes for:which and the occasions on which they have been taken, their different forms and ceremonies, the various punishments for their violation, the theory which justifies and requires their adoption as a sanction for truth, and their real force and efficiency in the administration of judicial affairs. (We rely mainly on Appleton’s Rule of Evidence Stated and Discussed [Phila. 1860, 8vo], ch. 16). For the usages among the Jews, see the preceding article.

Perjury, by the Mosaic law, was an offense against the civil law; to God alone was left its punishment. The civil magistrate had no jurisdiction of the offense charged, except in the case of a false charge of crime, when punishment was to be inflicted upon the person falsely charging it. The perjurer might expiate his guilt by making the prescribed and predetermined trespass offerings. The misunderstanding or misinterpretation of this may in later times have led to the Romish doctrines of absolution and the sale of indulgences; for it is difficult to perceive much difference in principle whether the offerings made to escape the punishment of the Deity be in certain specific articles or in certain money payments.

The form of swearing among the Greeks was by lifting up the hand to heaven or touching the altar, adding a solemn imprecation to their oaths, for the satisfaction of the person by whom the oath was imposed, as well as to lay a more inviolable obligation upon the person taking it in terms something like this: If what I swear be true, may I enjoy much happiness; if not, may I utterly perish. In judicial proceedings the oath was administered to the witness before an altar erected in the courts of judicature, and with the greatest solemnity. The parties were likewise sworn the plaintiff that he would make no false charge, the defendant that he would answer truly to the charge preferred.

An ancient form among the Romans was for the juror to hold a stone in his hand, and imprecate a curse upon himself: should he swear falsely, in these words: If I knowingly deceive, while he saves the city and citadel, may Jupiter cast me away from all that is good, as I do this stone. Among the Greeks and Romans, the oath was not merely used. to induce faith in judicial proceedings, but the gods were invoked as witnesses to contracts between individuals and treaties between nations.

When the shrine of Jupiter gave place to that of St. Peter; when the innumerable gods and goddesses of ancient superstition were converted into the equally numberless saints and saintesses of Catholicism; when the Poutifex Maximus of consular and imperial, became the Pontifex Maximus of papal Rome, without even the change of his sacerdotal vestments; when the rites and ceremonies the whole ritual of the pagan worship were transferred bodily to the worship of the papacy, the oath, which was essentially a religious ceremony, was adopted as it had heretofore been administered, except so far as was required by, the alteration in the name of the object of worship, and in its purposes and its beliefs. As before this change the altar, or the sacred things upon it, were touched or kissed, as the more gods one swore by the stronger the oath, so we find after this change similar forms and ceremonies were adopted, with slight variations. The very form of the imprecation used is of pagan origin. So help me Jupiter and these sacred things became So help me God and these sacred relics, or these holy Evangelists. The flamen of Jupiter, from the sacredness of his office, was not compelled to take an oath, and the word of the priest, verbum sacerdotis, in conformity with the old superstition, has sufficed. Justinian prescribes the following form: I swear by God Almighty, and by his only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the Holy Ghost and by the glorious St. Mary, mother of God, and always a virgin,. and by the four Gospels which I hold in my hand, and by the holy archangels Michael and Gabriel, etc., closing with an imprecation upon his head of the terrible judgment of God and Christ, our Savior, and that he might have part with Judas and the leper! Gehazi, and that the curse of Cain might be upon him. Besides oaths on solemn and judicial occasions, the ancients were in the habit of making use of them, as nowadays, as the supplemental ornament of speech as expletives to plump the speech, and fill up sentences; swearing by the patron divinities of their cities. as in later days by patron saints; by all manner of beasts and creeping things, by the fishes of the sea, and by stones and mountains.

Per Solis radios, Tarpeiaque fulmina jurat

Et Martis frameam, et Cirrhaei spicula Vatis;

Per calamos Venatricis pharetramque Puellse,

Perque tuum pater AEgaei Neptune tridentem;

Additet Herculeos arcus, hastamque Minervse,

Qulidquid habent telorum armamentaria coeli.

Indeed, the common profane oath of the English is but a translation of the Dii me perdant of classical antiquity. But the oaths of the ancients, however absurd or ridiculous, were infinitely exceeded in absurdity by the exuberant and grotesque profaneness of the Christians of the Middle Ages. They swore by Sion and Mount Sinai, by St. James’s lance, by the brightness of God, by Christ’s foot, by nails and by blood, by God’s arms two they swore

By the saintly bones and relics

Scattered through the wide arena;

Yea, the holy coat of Jesus,

And the foot of Magdalena.

Menu, the great lawgiver of the East, the son of the Self-existent, as he is termed in the sacred books of the Hindus, ordains that the judge, having assembled the witnesses in the court, should in the presence of the plaintiff and defendant address them as follows:

What ye know to have been transacted in the matter before tus, between to parties reciprocally, declare at large and with truth, for your evidence is required.

The witness who speaks falsely shall be fast bound under water in the sinaky cords of Varuna, and he shall be wholly deprived of power to escape torment during a hundred transmigrations; let mankind give therefore no false testimony.

Naked and shorn, tormented with hunger and thirst, and deprived of sight, shall the man who gives false testimony go with a potsherd to beg bread at the door of his enemy. Headlong and in utter darkness shall the inmpious wretch tumble into hell, who, being interrogated in a judicial inquiry, answers one question falsely.

The priest must be sworn by his veracity; the soldier by his horse, or elephant, or weapons; the merchant by his kine, grain, and gold; the mechanic, or servile man by imprecating on his head, if he speak falsely, all possible crimes.

In this code the guilt of perjury varies in intensity according to the subject- matter of testimony.

By false testimony concerning cattle in general, the witness incurs the guilt of killing five men; he kills ten by false. testimony concerning kine; he kills a hundred by false testimony concerning horses; and a thousand by false testimony concerning the human race.

But what is human life compared with gold, or with land? The scale rises, the atrocity increases:

By speaking falsely in a cause concerning gold, he kills, or incurs the guilt of killing, the born and unborn; by speaking falsely concerning land, he kills everything animated. Beware, then, of speaking falsely concerning land. Marking well all the murders which are comprehendied in the crime of perjury, declare the whole truth as it was heard and as it was seen by thee.

Notwithstanding all this, pious falsehood for instance, perjury to save life which would be forfeited by the rigor of the law is not merely allowed, but approved, and eulogistically termed the speech of the gods.

To a woman on a proposal of marriage, in the case of grass or fruit eaten by a cow, of wood taken for a sacrifice, or of a promise made for the preservation of a Brahmin, it is no deadly sin, to take a slight oath.

Somewhat famous has been the lubricity of lovers’ oaths. The lover swore, indeed; but, as was said by the Greeks, oaths made in love never enter into the ears of the gods. This, probably, is the only code not only allowing and approving falsehoods by lovers, but by others. Various are the modes of administering an oath. A cow is sometimes brought into court, that the witness may have the satisfaction of swearing with her tail in his hand; the’ leaf of the sweet basil and the waters of the Ganges are swallowed; the witness holds fire, or touches the head of his children or wife; while the less orthodox followers of Brahmin, those of the jungle tribes, impressed with the belief that if they swear falsely, they shall be food for tigers, are sworn in the skin of one. Among the Mohammedans the oath is administered with the Koran on the head of the witness; but it is not binding illness taken in the express name of the Almighty, and then it is incomplete unless the witness, after having given in his evidence, again swears that he has spoken nothing but the truth. The oath is not worthy of credit unless taken in the name of God; and the swearer must corroborate it by reciting the attributes of God, as, I swear by the God besides whom there is no other righteous God, who is acquainted with what is hidden, etc.

Much of the judicial proceedings of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors rested upon oaths, and the punishment for their violation was severe. The perjurer was declared unworthy of the ordeal, was incompetent as a witness, denied Christian burial, and classed with witches, murderers, and the most obnoxious members of society. Oaths were administered to the complainant in criminal proceedings, and to the accused. The oath of the complainant was as follows: In the Lord, I accuse not N either from hate, or art, or unjust avarice, nor do I know anything more true; but .so my mind said to me, and I myself tell for, truth that he was the thief of my goods. The accused swore as follows: In the Lord, I am innocent, both in word and deed, of that charge of which P accused me. The oath of the witness was: In the name of Almighty God, as I stand here a true witness, unbidden and unbought, so I oversaw it with mine eyes, and even heard it in my ears, what I have said. From this it would appear that, in those early days before the inveterate chicanery of Norman jurisprudence had cursed English soil, it was usual to swear the parties those who knew something about the matter. The different oaths of modern Europe ordeal oaths, oaths of compurgators, decisory oaths, oaths of calumny, oaths military and masonic-might well deserve attention; but we have already, perhaps, occupied too much attention in reverting to the forms and usages of the past. There are but two instances of nations among whom oaths have not been adopted in judicial proceedings. Among the Chinese no oath is exacted by the magistrate upon the delivery of testimony. When they question each other’s testimony, appeals to the gods are only made by cutting off the head of a fowl and wishing they may thus suffer, or blowing out a candle, and wishing they may thus be extinguished, if they do not speak the truth. The other instance is to be found in the code of laws formed with great judgment and much discrimination by the missionaries at Tahiti, where, we believe, oaths have for the first time been abolished by Christian people (comp. Ellis, Polynesian Researches, p. 150).

The form of oaths in Christian countries varies greatly, but in no country in the world are they worse contrived, either to convey the meaning or impress the obligation of an oath, than in Great Britain and America. The juror with us, after repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to confirm, adds, So help me God; or, more frequently, the substance of the oath is repeated to the juror by the magistrate, who adds in the conclusion, So help you God. The energy of this sentence resides in the particle so that is, hac lege, upon condition of my speaking the truth or performing this promise, and not otherwise, may God help me! The juror, while he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right hand upon a Bible, or other book containing the Gospels, and at the conclusion kisses the book. This obscure and elliptical form, together with the levity and frequency of oaths, has brought about a general inadvertency to the obligation of them, which, both in a religious and political view, is much to be lamented; and it merits public consideration whether the requiring of oaths upon so many frivolous occasions, especially in the customs and in the qualification of petty offices, has any other effect than to make such sanctions cheap in the minds of the people. A stranger among us would imagine it was a precept of our religion to swear always, at all times and on all occasions. Not an executive officer, from the president to a marshal, from a governor to a constable; not ajudicial officer, from the chief-justice to the lowest magistrate known to the law; not a member of our numerous legislative assemblies not an officer of the army or navy; not a soldier or sailor enlisting, but is sworn in certain set and prescribed formulas.

A sworn assessor is required to assess our taxes, a sworn collector to collect, and a sworn treasurer to receive the money collected. Not a lot of land is levied upon without the intervention of oaths. The whole custom-house department is rife with them. As has been well said, Not a pound of tea can travel regularly from the ship to the consumer without costing half a dozen oaths at least. Through all the innumerable gradations of life official, civil, military, executive, and judicial the oath is the established security by which, in their respective spheres, they are all bound to the performance of their several duties-and that, too, by a people, one of the clearest precepts of whose religion is Swear not at all; and when, in many of the above instances, the violation of the several duties sworn to be done and performed is not punishable as perjury. Nor are these the only cases in which the oath is used. No testimony is received in any judicial proceeding until after its administration.

As a security for official faithfulness, or as a preventive of official delinquency, it is notoriously worthless and inoperative. What may be its value in the preserving and promoting of trustworthiness of testimony we propose to consider. Those who advocate the use of oaths should bear in mind that for the purpose of justice it is perfectly immaterial whether the testimony uttered be sworn or unsworn, provided it be true. Before considering the supposed efficiency of an oath,’ it may be advisable to see what other and how powerful securities for testimonial veracity are attainable without resort to this supernatural agency… Truth is the naturial language of all it is the general rule; falsehood the rare and occasional exception: Even of those least regardful of veracity, truth is the ordinary and common language. The greatest liar, no matter how depraved he may be, usually speaks the truth. And why? Invention is the work of labor. To narrate facts in the order of their occurrence, to tell what has been seen or heard, is what obviously occurs to any one. To avoid doing this is a work of difficulty. Falsely to add to what has occurred, carefully to insert a dexterous lie, requires ingenuity, greater or less, according to the greater or less degree of skill with which the lie is dovetailed among the truths that surround it. No matter how cunning the artificer, the web cannot be so woven that the stained and colored thread cannot be seen. Love of ease, fear of labor, the physical sanction, are always seen cooperating with truth. Any motive, however slight and even infinitesimal, is or may be sufficient to induce action in a right direction, except when overborne by other and superior motives in a sinister direction. By a sort of impulse, by the very course of nature, the usual tendency of speech is in the line of truth. Regard for public opinion, the pain and shame universally attendant upon the ignominy attached to falsehood detected, the disgrace of the liar in other words, the moral and popular sanction, with but rare and accidental exceptions is found tending in the same direction.

Much the greater part of what is known, is known only from the testimony of others. Our necessities, the necessities of others and of social intercourse, require that, for our own preservation as well as for that of others, the truth should be told. Hence among all nations, barbarous and civilized, and among civilized in proportion to their advancement, the term Liar has been one of deep reproach, never used without inflicting pain on the person to whom it is applied. However great the disgrace, it is immeasurably increased when the occasion upon which the falsehood is uttered is a judicial one. The more important the occasion, the greater the public indignation and scorn attached to its violation. The law regarding veracity, which is peculiarly desirable in judicial investigations, may impose severe penalties for false testimony mendacity penalties varying in degree of severity according to the aggravation of the offense, and thus may furnish additional sanction to and security for testimonial trustworthiness. It may happen that the statement of a witness, while true in part, may be defective in detail, either by the omission of true or the utterance of false particulars. Correctness and completeness are both included in perfect veracity. Incorrect in part, incomplete to any material extent, the evils of such incompleteness and incorrectness, when not the result of design, may be as great as those of deliberate and intentional falsehood, How best to attain those indispensable requisites is the problem, the solution of which becomes so important in the practical administration of the law. How best to compel the reluctant an d evasive witness; how to quicken the careless and indifferent; how to check and restrain the rash and presumptuous; how to convict the deliberately and wilfully false; how to extort from reluctant lips the truth, and nothing but the truth by what processes these results may be attained, is the great question; Interrogation and cross- interrogation rigid, severe, and scrutinizing-under a proper system of procedure, confirmed and strengthened by the sanctions already alluded to, are the securities upon which all real and substantial reliance must be placed. The ordinary motives to veracity, without the aid of cross- examination, and unaccompanied by fear of punishment in case of falsehood, are found sufficient in the common affairs of life to produce veracity. The extraordinary security afforded by punishment, compulsory examinations and cross-examinations, would seem to suffice in the case of evidence judicially given. As, however, testimony is judicially given only updn and after the ceremony called an oath, it is only punishable, if false, after the oath has been legally administered. This is not necessarily so; for, if the legislature should so will, the temporal punishment might as well be inflicted without as with an oath.

Having briefly considered the temporal securities for truth, it now remains to ascertain the real significance and true value of the oath as a preventive of testimonial mendacity.

What is universally understood by an oath,’ says lord , Hardwicke, is that the person who undertakes imprecates the vengeance of God upon himself if the oath he takes be false.’ An oath,’ says Michaelis, is an appeal to God is a surety and the punisher of perjury; which appeal, as he has accepted, he of course becomes bound to vindicate upon a perjured person irremissibly.’ Were not God to take upon himself to guarantee oaths, an appeal to him in swearing would be foolish and sinful. He undertakes to guarantee it, and is the avenger of perjury, if not in this world, at any rate in the world to come.’ By the use, then, of this ceremony, the Deity is engaged, or it is assumed that he is engaged, in case of a violation of the oath, to inflict punishment of an uncertain and indefinite degree of intensity at some remote period of time, in some indefinite place, according to the varying and conflicting theological notions of those holding this belief notions varying according to the time when and place where they are entertained, and the education and character of those entertaining them. It cannot be questioned that the Deity will punish for falsehood, whether judicially or extra-judicially uttered; nor that such punishment, whatever it may be, whensoever, wheresoever, or howsoever inflicted, will be junstitting, and appropriate. Were the ceremony not used, were unsworn testimony delivered, subject to temporal punishment, were all oaths abolished, false testimony, so far as this world is concerned, would be as injurious as if uttered under the sanction of an oath.

The injurious effects in the administration of justice would be the same. The unsworn witness would be amenable to the penalties of the law, as the sworn witness is now. Now, what is accomplished by the oath? The falsehood and its disastrous effects to the course of justice are the same whether the oath has been taken or not, the temporal punishment is or maybe made the same. The oath, if effective, therefore, is only effective so far as future punishment is concerned, which, inconsequence of its administration, will thereby be increased or diminished-for if the future punishment were to remain the same, then nothing would have been effected; the oath would be a mere idle ceremony-telumque imbelle sine ictu. That punishment hereafter will thereby be diminished, no one will pretend, certainly not those who repose confidence in the efficacy of this sanction. If it be increased, then, and then only, is the ceremony effective then only is a valid reason given for its adoption. The falsehood being the same, whether the testimony be sworn or unsworn, the punishment for the falsehood itselfmust necessarily be the same. For if falsehood be a proper subject of punishment, when the effects are the same, the lie will be punished without as well as with any ceremony preparatory to its utterance. If, then, an increase of punishment will be inflicted, it must be for the profanation of the ceremony, and nothing else.

All that is alleged, then, to have been accomplished is that an increased amount of punishment is to be inflicted simply for the violation of a ceremony, and entirely irrespective and regardless of any evils flowing from the falsehood. No sanction for truth is really obtained. But in what does the binding force of oan oath consist? When Jephthah, returning in triumph, was met by his daughter with timbrels and dances, was Jephthah under any obligation to perform the vow he had made, to offer up for a burnt offering whatsoever should come forth from the doors of his house to meet him? If yea, such obligation arose not from the rightfulness or propriety of the matter vowed, for that was a dark and atrocious murder, for she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter.’ The performance, if required, was required solely in consequence of the vow, For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and cannot go back.’ If nay, if the vow was not to be performed, then does it not follow that it is the fitness of the thing sworn to be done or not which is the basis of the obligation, and upon which its binding force rests? When Herod, pleased with the dancing of the daughter of Herodias,’ promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would,’ and when she requested the head of. John the Baptist in a charger, was he thereby bound to give it to her? Mohammed says, when you swear to do a thing, and afterwards find it better to do otherwise, do that which is better, and make void your oath. The very definitions of an oath show that, by reason and in consequence of an oath, the Deity becomes bound to punish a perjured person irremissibly.

History, too, shows that obligations upon man, and so, too, upon the Deity, arising from the oath, varied, or were supposed to vary, in intensity, according to the changing forms and circumstances attendant upon its administration. When Robert, the pious king of France, abstracted the holy relics from the cases upon which the oath was taken, and substituted therefor the egg of an ostrich, as being an innocent object, and in capable of taking vengeance on those who should swear falsely, he might have been correct as to the incapacity of the egg; but did he thereby save his subject from perjury, or avert the punishment of the Deity? When Harold, shuddering, saw the bones and relics of saints and martyrs, real or fictitious, upon which he had unconsciously sworn, were the obligations he had assumed increased by their unknown presence? Or was it the unreasoning fear of abject superstition which led him to believe that he had thus immeasurably increased the dangers of superhuman punishment? Indeed, when men consider they are under obligation to utter the truth or not, as they stand upon a tiger’s skin or hold in their hand the tail of a cow; as they have their hat on or off; as certain spurious relics of fictitious saints are closed in the pyx or not; as the lips touch the thumb or the book; as the book has, or not, a cross upon it who is there so wise as to affirm that the person so swearing does not believe that the virtue resides, or is considered by those believing, to reside in the ceremony, and in that alone? that the thing sworn to be done or not done, and its propriety, are not even matters deemed worthy of thought? Or, as Mr. JunLin has aptly said, No one pretends that the material of a book the leather, the paper, the cord, the ink is God, and yet many, hei; the book (Bible) is used, lift their thoughts no higher.’ (This position has, however, been questioned by the editor of the Princeton Review, Jan. 1846, p. 176 sq.) Now, can it be possible that by acts of idolatry the obligation to utter truth is increased? Is not truth eternal and immutable? Is not the duty to utter the truth, and nothing but the truth, paramount and prior to all oaths?

The oath may be the same, so far as the ceremony is concerned, either to utter the truth or a falsehood, but is the .obligation the same? If the obligation rests on, the oath, each alike must be performed as sworn. If it rests on the rightfulness of the thing to be done, then why add the oath? The oath is not without its accompanying evils. By imposing punishment only when it has been administered, it lessens the iniportance of and the respect due to truth, in. statements uttered extra-judicially, and gives an implied license to falsehood out of court. The truth seems only to be specially requisite in the case of an oath, otherwise it is comparatively immaterial. Charles Lamb, in his quaint and quiet way, and with great humor and truth, says, The custom of resorting to an oath in extreme cases is apt to introduce into the laxer sort of minds the notion of two kinds of truth: the one applicable to the solemn affairs of justice, and the other to the common proceedings of daily intercourse. As truth, bound upon the conscience by an oath, can be but truth, so, in the common affirmations of the shop and the market, a latitude is expected and conceded upon questions wanting this solemn covenant. Something less than the truth satisfies. It is common for a person to say, You do not expect me to speak as if I were upon my oath. Hence, a kind of secondary or laic truth is tolerated when clerical truth, oath truth, is not required: A Quaker knows none of these distinctions.’ Not very dissimilar was the idea of St. Basil, that it is a very foul and silly thing for a man to accuse himself as unworthy of belief, and to proffer an oath for security.’ The oath, too, is a disturbing force in giving the just degree of weight to testimony. It tends to place all testimony upon the same level, to cause equal credence to be given to all, because all have passed through the same ceremony. The attention of the court or the judge is withdrawn from the just appreciation, of the grounds of belief or disbelief in the evidence. The same ceremony for all, the tendency is to believe that its force is the same upon all, and thus the bad receive undue credence, while the good are reduced to the standard of the bad.

In what does the difference consist between judicial and extra-judicial falsehood? The consequences of the latter may be more or less injurious than those of the former; the injury greater, the loss in the latter case of property, reputation, or even life, in the former of a few shillings, it may be; is the falsehood judicially uttered the greater offense? To suffer the same by the utterance of the same words in court or out of court, in the street or on the stand, with or without assenting with upraised hand to certain words, in what is the difference to the loser, or the general injury to the community? Why in one case punish, in the other exempt from punishment? Does it not degrade the general standard of veracity? does it not create the notion that truth is not expected on ordinary occasions, but is only required as a sort of court language? What are the lessons of experience? To determine the real value of this sanction, one must abstract all those concurring and cooperating securities which alone are of real importance, but which, not being estimated at their value, give this an unnatural and undeserved efficiency.

Take away public opinion; let falsehood be regarded with as much indifference as among the Hindus; remove all fear of temporal punishment in case of testimonial falsehood; abolish the test of crossexamination; leave the willing or unwilling witness to state more or less, according to the promptings of his inclination, and you then see the measure of security for trustworthiness derivable from the oath. When the oath-sanction is in accordance with the other securities of trustworthiness, its weakness is not perceived. Let the religious cease to be in conformity with the popular sentiment or even with convenience, and its violation is looked on with indifference or even complacency. If you wish,’ says Bentham, to have powder of post taken for an efficacious medicine, try it with opium and antimony; if you wish to have it taken for what it is, try it by itself.’ Definite, certain, immediate punishment alone is powerful to restrain or coerce. The future, enshrouded in darkness, yields to the present. The fear of punishment hereafter to he imposed for falsehood, without oath, or with oaths, so far as it may be increased thereby, is a motive of little strength. The uncertainty whether any will be inflicted, the unalterable ignorance as to what the amount may be, or when in time or where in space it is to be inflicted, render it a security untrustworthy and powerless in its action upon even the most intelligent and conscientious, while unaided and unsupported by other sanctions. The oaths of Oxford University have been taken by the most cultivated minds of Europe; by those who, in after-life, attained the highest dignities of the Church or the State; by those who, from their station, their education and intelligence, would be least likely to disregard their obligation. These oaths required obedience to statutes framed centuries ago by and for a set of monks, and are about as consonant with the present state of society as the monkish costume would be to a general-in-chief at the head of his army. Consequently, they are not merely not observed. but their observance would be a matter of astonishment to all, equally to those sworn to observe and those sworn to require their observance. Another habitual violation of oaths has been seen in the conduct of English judges and juries in the administration of the criminal law. The English code was written in blood.

Draco would have shuddered at the multiplicity of its bloody enactments. Death was inflicted in case of larceny dependent upon .the value of the thing stolen. With greater regard to the dictates of humanity than to their oath obligations, juries, at the suggestion of the court, and for the express purpose of evading the law, have intentionally returned the article stolen as of less than its true value, to avoid the punishment of death, which otherwise would have been the penalty in case of conviction. Unanimity, too, is required in juries. A difference of opinion exists; in most contested cases of much complexity it is likely to exist. The really dissenting minority yield to the majority. The court aid or advise, and if advice will not serve, compel agreement by partial starvation; thus bringing physical wants to their aid to coerce real opinion. The open and profligate violation of custom-house oaths has attracted so much attention that in England they have been abolished. In this country a bill to that effect, with the approbation of the late John Quincy Adams, was introduced, but we believe it was defeated.

A committee of the British Parliament, in their report on the judicial affairs of British India, recommended the abolition of oaths, on the ground that their moral sanction does not add to the value of native testimony, Hindu or Mohammedan; that the only practical restraint on perjury is the fear of punishment, imposed by law for that offense, and that the fear of consequences in a future state, or the loss of character or reputation among their own countrymen, has little effect upon the great majority of the people in securing true and honest testimony, when they may be influenced by the bias of fear, favor, affection, or reward.

The legal exclusion consequent upon, and caused by the oath, affords an unanswerable argument against its use. Most nations, in the spirit of religious bigotry and barbarian exclusiveness, so characteristic of unenlightened legislation, have excluded as witnesses those whose faith differ from their own. The government, determining what shall be the faith, decrees that dissidents shall be branded as infidels. The term infidel expresses merely dissent or disbelief, without reference to the truth Or falsehood of the thing disbelieved. It is the epithet which majorities apply to minorities, and consequently one of reproach. Justinian excluded infidels. Hindus and Mohammedans excluded infidels, because of their infidelity, and, by way of reprisal, they in their turn were excluded by Christians for the same cause. Such was the common law, as drawn from its purest fountains from Fileta and Bracton. Coke, its greatest expounder, excludes them as unworthy of credit; for, says he, they are perpetual enemies as between them, as with the devils, whose subjects they are, and Christians, there is perpetual hostility, and can be no peace; for, as the apostle said, And what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel. It was not until the East India Company commenced that splendid career of conquest by which they acquired dominion over millions of subjects, and it was seen that an urgent necessity required the testimony of the natives, that the court, overruling the well-established law of ages, threw Bracton and Fleta overboard, because they were papists, and because in their day little trade was carried on but the trade in religion; and in the suit of Omichunld, the great Hindu banker, whose melancholy fate reflects little credit on British faith, against Baker, by an act of judge- made law, decided that all infidels, without reference to their religion, might be received and sworn, according to the customs of their respective countries; not because such was the law, but because to exclude them would be a most impolitic notion, and would tend at once to destroy all trade and commerce.’ Even judicial optics, with dim and beclouded vision, saw that if the whole population of a country were excluded as infidels, proof might be deficient; but as it was thought to be to the advantage of the nation to carry on trade and commerce in foreign countries, and in many countries inhabited by heathens,’ it was judged advisalle to trample the law under foot. A judicial caveat, however, was at the same time entered against giving the same credit, either by court or jury, to an infidel witness as to a Christian; provided only the wrath of God be imprecated, whether Vishnu or Fo, or any other of the innumerable gods of heathenism. But in none of them does the Christian repose faith. The witness imprecating the vengeance of false gods, of gods who will not answer, what is the belief of the Christian?

That the true God will as much hear and punish in consequence of the use of this ceremony, and for its violation, as if the adjuration had been in his name. If so, then are the magic virtues of the oath more enhanced, being compulsory upon the Deity, even when his name is not invoked? If not, then why swear the witness in the name of false gods? Why give a judicial sanction to superstition and idolatry by invoking false gods? why not rather let testimony be delivered under the pains and penalties of perjury, and let that suffice? Yet, by the common law, the swearer by broken cups and saucers, or he who thinks truths obligatory only when he has held the tail of the sacred cow, was heard when the oath was administered; while the intelligent and pious Quaker, who, in the simplicity of his heart, was so heretical as to believe that the command, Swear not at all,’ meant what its obvious language imports, was excluded, because he believed the divinity of the command he was anxious to obey. He was thus left without protection to his person or property, unless he should be able to find a witness outside the pale of his sect by whom his legal rights could be established. But by that patchwork legislation so eminently distinguishing all law reform, an act was passed, and the law so amended that a Quaker, when property was endangered, was admitted to. testify but in cases of property alone, his testimony not being admissible in criminal cases. In this country, however, the legislature has removed the disqualification entirely; the absurdity is that it should ever have existed. These limited reforms do not afford a complete remedy for the evil. The incorrectness of religious belief is not the ground of exclusion; for, if so, one would think Hinduism sufficiently erroneous for that purpose. The theological jurist view’s with more complacency the worst forms of paganism than a question alle variety of Christianity or entire unbelief. The only required qualification, in his view, is belief in future punishment, of which, in some aspect, there must be a recognition. If, believing the general doctrines of Christianity, the person sworn is so unfortunate as to believe that the cares and sorrows and misfortunes of this life are a sufficient punishment for transgressions here committed, and that God, in his infinite goodness and mercy, will hereafter receive all into a state of happiness, the common law excludes his testimony.

The judicial dabbler in theology in this country has generally followed the lead of transatlaitic jurisprudence. But whether the Universalist be a witness or not, all authorities agree that he who disbelieves in the existence of God, who, in the darkness of his beclouded reason, sees no God in the earth, teeming with its various and innumerable forms of animal or vegetable life, sees him not in the starry firmament nor yet in the existence of man, the most wonderful of his works is excluded. Atheism is always rare, yet we have, three times in one country, known the attempt made to exclude for that cause. The general bad character of the witness for truth and veracity affords no ground for exclusion, however much it may be for disbelief in testimony; but even if it did, it would not have been established in those cases. Erroneous belief was the only reason urged. The error of such belief, or want of belief, may not merely be conceded, but the entertaining of such sentiments may be deemed the misfortune of one’s life. But because one of the securities for truth may be wanting, it is difficult to perceive why, all others remaining in ill force and vigor, the witness should not be heard; and why after, not, as the common law does, before such hearing, some judgment should not be formed by those who are to decide upon the matter in dispute of the truth or falsehood of his statements. He is rejected only because he is disbelieved. If he is to be believed when the truth uttered would expose him to reproach and ignominy, why not hear him under more favorable circumstances when the rights of others may be involved, and then judge? Exclude him, and any outrage may be committed upon him his property may be robbed, his wife may be violated, his child maybe murdered before his eyes and the guilty go unpunished, if he be the only witness; not because he cannot and will not tell the truth, but because the law will not hear him. Practically, the law is that, provided a man’s belief be erroneous, anybody whose belief is better and it matters little what it be, Hinduism or Fetichism may inflict any and all conceivable injuries on his person and property, and the laws will permit such a person to go unpunished, unless there happens to be a witness whose belief should comport with the judicial idea of competency. Let the witness testify under the pains and penalties of perjury, and the great argument for the wholesale exclusion of testimony by the law is done away with. No intelligent judge or juryman ever relied upon the security of an oath alone. Judge of the witness by his appearance, manner, answers, the probability of his statements, comparing them with the lights derivable from every source. Punish falsehood injuriously affecting the rights of others in proportion to the wrong done, not with one uniform measure of punishment, as if the offense were in all cases the same. Tolerate not two kinds of truth, the greater and lesser, else both are lost. Elevate the standard of veracity by requiring it on all occasions, and in this way public morality is increased, and the real securities upon which the social fabric rests are strengthened.

It may be added in defense of those who approve of the practice of judicial swearing, that such look upon the oath as a reminder of the obligation to tell the truth only, a duty which they claim man is too prone to forget.’ The object of all forms of adjuration, they teach, should be to show that we are not calling the attention of man to God; that we are not calling upon him to punish the wrong-doer, but upon man to remember that he will (Tyler, p. 14). In this sense the oath should be defined as an outward pledge given by the juror that his assertion or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. Those who approve of oaths teach that God will punish false swearing with more severity than a simple lie or breach of promise, and assign for their belief the following reasons: 1. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation. 2. It violates a superior confidence. 3. God directed the Israelites to swear by his name (Deu 6:13; Deu 10:20), and was pleased to confirm his covenant with that people by an oath; neither of which, it is probable, he would have done had he not intended to represent oaths as having some meaning and effect beyond the obligation of a bare promise. SEE PERJURY. Promissory oaths, it is generally agreed, are not binding where the promise itself would not be so. SEE PROMISES. As oaths are designed for the security of the imposer, it is manifest that they must be interpreted and performed in the sense in which the imposer intends them.

Refusals to take the oath have been frequent in modern times, but mainly in English-speaking countries. Of Protestants, the Anabaptists were the first to teach that oaths should not be taken. The Mennonites also held thus. Like them, the Quakers and the Moravians, applying literally the words of Christ (Mat 5:34), regard all oaths as unlawful. But other, communions generally restrict this prohibition to ordinary and private discourse, and find in Rom 1:9; 2Co 11:21; Gal 1:20; Php 1:8; and 1Th 2:5, full warrant for the lawfulness of oaths in judicial and other solemn use. From some passages of the fathers it appears that they had scruples as to the lawfulness of swearing (comp. Browne, Exposition of the XXXIX Artices, p. 840-843); but those Christians who advocate the ceremony explain the writings of these fathers as for the most part referring to the oaths required of Christians by the pagans, which generally involved a recognition of particular pagan divinities; and that they condemned these pagan oaths, rather as involving, or even directly containing, a profession of the popular paganism, than as unlawful in themselves. The Christians of the later ages may perhaps be said to have multiplied in an opposite degree the occasions of oaths, especially of what were called purgatorial oaths, in which, a party charged with a crime justified himself by swearing his innocence. These oaths were commonly accompanied by some imprecatory form or ceremonial, and were often expected to be followed by immediate manifestations of the divine vengeance upon the perjurer. The common instrument of attestation On oath was the Bible, or some portion of it; but oaths were sometimes sworn on the relics of saints, or other sacred objects; sometimes simply by raising the hand to heaven, or by laying it upon the breast or the head. In canonical processes the oath was often administered to the party kneeling. The forms varied very much, the most general being that which the English oath still retains (Sic me Deus adjuvet). Divines commonly require, in order to the lawfulness of an oath, three conditions (founded upon Jer 4:2), viz. truth, justice, and judgment; that is to say,

(1) that the asseveration, if the oath be assertive, shall be true, and that the promise, if the oath be promissory, shall be made and shall be kept in good faith,

(2) that the thing promised shall be objectively lawful and good;

(3) that the oath shall not be sworn without due discretion and deliberation, nor without satisfactory reasons founded on necessity, or at least on grave and manifest utility.

Hence the person who is a witness must have sufficient understanding to know the nature and obligations of an oath; and on this ground young children are incompetent to be witnesses. Another condition or qualification required in the party who takes an oath as a witness is, that he has a competent sense of religion; in other words, he must not only have some religious knowledge, but some religious belief. He must, in substance, believe in the existence of a God, and in the moral government of the world; and though he cannot be questioned minutely as to his particular religious opinions, yet, if it appear that he does not believe in a God and future state, he will not be allowed to give his evidence, for it is assumed that without the religious sanction his testimony cannot be relied upon. So long, however, as a witness appears to possess competent religious belief, the mere form of the oath is not material. The usual practice in the United States and in Great Britain is for the witness, after hearing the oath repeated by the officer of court, to kiss the four gospels by way of assent; and in Scotland the witness repeats similar words after the judge, standing and holding up his right hand, swearing by Almighty God, as he shall answer to God at the great day of judgment, but without kissing any book. Jews, if they so desire, are sworn on the Pentateuch, keeping on their hats, and the oath ends with the words, So help you Jehovah. A Mohammedan is sworn on the Koran; a Chinese witness has been sworn by kneeling and breaking a China saucer against the witness- box. Thus the mere form of taking the oath is immaterial; the witness is allowed to take the oath in whatever form he considers most binding upon his own conscience the essential thing being, however, that the witness acknowledge some binding effect derived from his belief in a God or a future state. The policy of insisting upon the religious formalities attending the taking of an oath has been much discussed of late years, and it has been disputed whether atheists, who avow an entire absence of all religious belief, should be entirely rejected as witnesses (as is sometimes the case), and justice be thereby frustrated. See Paley, Moral Philosophy, vol i, ch. xvi; Grotius, De Jure, I, ll, c. 13, 21; Barrow, Works, vol. i, ser. 15,; Burnet, Exposition of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, p. 475, 515 sq.; Herport, Essay on Truths of Importance and Doctrine of Oaths; Doddridge, Lectures, lect. 189; Tillotson, 22d Sermon; Wolsely, Unreasonableness of Atheism, p. 152; Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. iii; Junkin, The Oath a Divine Ordinance (N.Y. 1845); Tyler, Oaths, their Origin, Nature, and History. On the casuistry of oaths: Sanderson, De Jurament. Oblig. Prcelect. (ed. 1688). See also Literature in Malcom, Theol. Index, s.v., and Notes and Queries, Jan. to June, 1860, and Dec. 1859.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Oath

a solemn appeal to God, permitted on fitting occasions (Deut. 6:13; Jer. 4:2), in various forms (Gen. 16:5; 2 Sam. 12:5; Ruth 1:17; Hos. 4:15; Rom. 1:9), and taken in different ways (Gen. 14:22; 24:2; 2 Chr. 6:22). God is represented as taking an oath (Heb. 6:16-18), so also Christ (Matt. 26:64), and Paul (Rom. 9:1; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8). The precept, “Swear not at all,” refers probably to ordinary conversation between man and man (Matt. 5:34, 37). But if the words are taken as referring to oaths, then their intention may have been to show “that the proper state of Christians is to require no oaths; that when evil is expelled from among them every yea and nay will be as decisive as an oath, every promise as binding as a vow.”

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Oath

Heb 6:16; “an oath for confirmation is the end of strife (contradiction).” Therefore, Christianity sanctions oaths, but they are to be used only to put an end to contradiction in disputes and for confirmation of solemn promises. God, in condescension to man’s mode of confirming covenants, confirmed His word by oath; by these “two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.” And “because He could swear by no greater, He sware by Himself”: also Heb 7:28. Jesus Himself accepted the high priest’s adjuration (Mat 26:63). Paul often calls God to witness the truth of his assertions (Act 26:29; Rom 1:9; Rom 9:1; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 11:31; Gal 1:20; Phi 1:8). So the angel, Rev 10:6. The prohibition “swear not at all” (Mat 5:34; Jam 5:12) refers to trivial occasions, not to oaths on solemn occasions and before magistrates. In every day conversation your simple yea or nay suffices to establish your word.

The Jews held oaths not binding if God’s name did not directly occur (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb.). “Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths” meant in the Jews’ view, which Christ combats, if not sworn to the Lord the oath is not binding. Jesus says on the contrary, every oath by the creature, heaven, earth, etc., is by the Creator whether His name be mentioned or not, and is therefore binding. In the perfect Christian state all oaths would be needless, for distrust of another’s word and untruth would not exist. Meantime, they are needed on solemn occasions. But men do not escape the guilt of “taking God’s name in vain” by avoiding the name itself, as in the oaths, “faith!” “gracious!” “by heaven,” etc. The connection in Jam 5:12 is, Swear not through impatience to which trials may tempt you (Jam 5:10-11); in contrast stands the proper use of the tongue, Jam 5:13.

To appeal to a pagan god by oath is to acknowledge his deity, and is therefore forbidden (Jos 23:7; Jer 5:7; Jer 12:16; Amo 8:14), as in swearing to appeal to God is recognizing Him (Deu 6:13; Isa 19:18; Isa 65:16). An oath even to a pagan king is so binding that Jehovah’s chief reason for dethroning Zedekiah and giving him over to die in Babylon was his violating his oath to Nebuchadnezzar (Eze 17:13-20; 2Ch 36:13). Jewish criminal procedure admitted the accused to clear himself or herself by oath (Num 5:19-22; 1Ki 8:31); our Lord, Mat 26:63. Oath gestures were “lifting up the hand” (Deu 32:40; Gen 14:22; Isa 3:7; Eze 20:5-6). Witnesses laid their hands on the head of the accused (Lev 24:14).

Putting the hand under the thigh of the superior to whom the oath was taken in sign of subjection and obedience (Aben Ezra): Gen 24:2; Gen 47:29; or else because the hip was the part from which the posterity issued (Gen 46:26) and the seat of vital power. In making (Hebrew “cutting”) a covenant the victim was divided, and the contracting parties passed between the portions, in token that the two became joined in one. (See COVENANT.) In Gen 15:8-17 Abram was there, and God signified His presence by the burning lamp which passed between the pieces (Jer 34:18). Compare Jdg 19:29; 1Sa 11:7, where a similar slaughter of the oxen of any who should not follow Saul is symbolized.

The false witness was doomed to the punishment due to the crime which he attested (Deu 19:16-19). Blasphemy was punishable with death (Lev 24:11; Lev 24:16). The obligation in Lev 5:1 to testify when adjured (for “swearing” translated “adjuration,” ‘alah) was that on which our Lord acted before Caiaphas (Mat 26:63). Alah, from ‘Eel “God,” is used for “imprecations” (Num 5:23). “Shaba,” from sheba’ “seven” the sacred number, is the general word “swear”; compare the seven ewe lambs given by Abraham to Abimelech in covenanting (Gen 21:30).

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

OATH

According to Hebrew thought, when people took an oath they called down a curse upon themselves if they were not telling the truth (Mar 14:71) or if, after making a promise, they did not keep their word (2Sa 3:8-10). In swearing by the name of God, they were inviting God to take decisive action against them should they be false to their oath (1Sa 19:6; 2Ki 2:2; Jer 42:5; Eze 17:18-19; see CURSE).

There were various rituals that people followed in swearing oaths. Where two parties bound themselves to a contract by oath, they sometimes carried out a ritual where they passed between portions of slaughtered animals, calling down the fate of the animals on themselves should they break their oath (Jer 34:18; cf. Gen 15:9-20). A person might, in swearing an oath, raise one hand above the head or, if swearing to another, place one hand under the other persons thigh (Gen 24:2-3; Deu 32:40).

People could swear oaths before local judges or at the sanctuary altar (Exo 22:10-11; 1Ki 8:31). A special ritual was available when a woman was suspected of adultery and she wanted to swear her innocence (Num 5:11-31).

When Israelites swore by the name of God, they were to be careful not to swear falsely (Lev 19:12). Under no conditions were they to swear by the name of a false god (Amo 8:14). If they swore a rash oath and later regretted it, they could ask forgiveness through presenting a guilt offering and making any compensation that may have been necessary (Lev 5:4-6; Lev 6:5; cf. 1Sa 14:24-29).

Even God sometimes bound himself by an oath; for example, in his covenant promises to Abraham (Gen 15:5-20; Gen 22:16-17; Luk 1:68-73; Heb 6:13-14), to David (Psa 89:34-36; Act 2:30), to the messianic king (Psa 110:4; Heb 7:15-22; Heb 7:28), and to his redeemed people (Heb 6:16-17). Although he had no need to take an oath (since his word is always sure), in his grace he confirmed his promise by an oath, so that believers might be doubly certain of their ultimate salvation (Heb 6:17-20).

Wrong practices developed among the Jews concerning the taking of oaths. Some considered that if, in swearing an oath, they did not actually use the name of God, they were not bound by that oath. They felt no guilt if they swore by heaven, by earth, by Jerusalem or by the head and then broke their promise, for such oaths did not use Gods name. Jesus told them that if they were truthful and honest in all their day-to-day behaviour, they would not feel the need to swear oaths at all. Everything a person says should be true and straightforward (Mat 5:33-37; Mat 23:16; Jam 5:12).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Oath

oth (, shebhuah, probably from shebha, seven, the sacred number, which occurs frequently in the ritual of an oath; , horkos; and the stronger word , ‘alah, by which a curse is actually invoked upon the oath-breaker Septuagint , ara)): In Mat 26:70-74 Peter first denies his Lord simply, then with an oath (shebhuah), then invokes a curse (‘alah), thus passing through every stage of asseveration.

1. Law Regarding Oaths:

The oath is the invoking of a curse upon one’s self if one has not spoken the truth (Mat 26:74), or if one fails to keep a promise (1Sa 19:6; 1Sa 20:17; 2Sa 15:21; 2Sa 19:23). It played a very important part, not only in lawsuits (Exo 22:11; Lev 6:3, Lev 6:5) and state affairs (Ant., XV, x, 4), but also in the dealings of everyday life (Gen 24:37; Gen 50:5; Jdg 21:5; 1Ki 18:10; Ezr 10:5). The Mosaic laws concerning oaths were not meant to limit the widespread custom of making oaths, so much as to impress upon the people the sacredness of an oath, forbidding on the one hand swearing falsely (Exo 20:7; Lev 19:12; Zec 8:17, etc.), and on the other swearing by false gods, which latter was considered to be a very dark sin (Jer 12:16; Amo 8:14). In the Law only two kinds of false swearing are mentioned: false swearing of a witness, and false asseveration upon oath regarding a thing found or received (Lev 5:1; Lev 6:2 ff; compare Pro 29:24). Both required a sin offering (Lev 5:1 ff). The Talmud gives additional rules, and lays down certain punishments for false swearing; in the case of a thing found it states what the false swearer must pay (Makkoth 2 3; Shebhuoth 8 3). The Jewish interpretation of the 3rd commandment is that it is not concerned with oaths, but rather forbids the use of the name of Yahweh in ordinary cases (so Dalman).

2. Forms of Swearing:

Swearing in the name of the Lord (Gen 14:22; Deu 6:13; Jdg 21:7; Rth 1:17, etc.) was a sign of loyalty to Him (Deu 10:20; Isa 48:11; Jer 12:16). We know from Scripture (see above) that swearing by false gods was frequent, and we learn also from the newly discovered Elephantine papyrus that the people not only swore by Jahu (= Yahweh) or by the Lord of Heaven, but also among a certain class of other gods, e.g. by Herem-Bethel, and by Isum. In ordinary intercourse it was customary to swear by the life of the person addressed (1Sa 1:26; 1Sa 20:3; 2Ki 2:2); by the life of the king (1Sa 17:55; 1Sa 25:26; 2Sa 11:11); by one’s own head (Mat 5:36); by the earth (Mat 5:35); by the heaven (Mat 5:34; Mat 23:22); by the angels (BJ, II, xvi, 4); by the temple (Mat 23:16), and by different parts of it (Mat 23:16); by Jerusalem (Mat 5:35; compare Kethubhoth Mat 2:9). The oath by heaven (Mat 5:34; Mat 23:22) is counted by Jesus as the oath in which God’s name is invoked. Jesus does not mean that God and heaven are identical, but He desires to rebuke those who paltered with an oath by avoiding a direct mention of a name of God. He teaches that such an oath is a real oath and must be considered as sacredly binding.

3. The Formula:

Not much is told us as to the ceremonies observed in taking an oath. In patriarchal times he who took the oath put his hand under the thigh of him to whom the oath was taken (Gen 24:2; Gen 47:29). The most usual form was to hold up the hand to heaven (Gen 14:22; Exo 6:8; Deu 32:40; Eze 20:5). The wife suspected of unfaithfulness, when brought before the priest, had to answer Amen, Amen to his adjuration, and this was considered to be an oath on her part (Num 5:22). The usual formula of an oath was either: God is witness betwixt me and thee (Gen 31:50), or more commonly: As Yahweh (or God) liveth (Jdg 8:19; Rth 3:13; 2Sa 2:27; Jer 38:16); or Yahweh be a true and faithful witness amongst us (Jer 42:5). Usually the penalty invoked by the oath was only suggested: Yahweh (or God) do so to me (Rth 1:17; 2Sa 3:9, 2Sa 3:35; 1Ki 2:23; 2Ki 6:31); in some cases the punishment was expressly mentioned (Jer 29:22). Nowack suggests that in general the punishment was not expressly mentioned because of a superstitious fear that the person swearing, although speaking the truth, might draw upon himself some of the punishment by merely mentioning it.

Philo expresses the desire (ii. 194) that the practice of swearing should be discontinued, and the Essenes used no oaths (BJ, II, viii, 6; Ant., XV, x, 4).

4. Oaths Permissible:

That oaths are permissible to Christians is shown by the example of our Lord (Mat 26:63 f), and of Paul (2Co 1:23; Gal 1:20) and even of God Himself (Heb 6:13-18). Consequently when Christ said, Swear not at all (Mat 5:34), He was laying down the principle that the Christian must not have two standards of truth, but that his ordinary speech must be as sacredly true as his oath. In the kingdom of God, where that principle holds sway, oaths become unnecessary.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Oath

Oath, an appeal to God in attestation of the truth of what you say, or in confirmation of what you promise or undertake. Cicero correctly terms an oath a religious affirmation; that is, an affirmation with a religious sanction. Hence it appears that there are two essential elements in an oath: first, the human, a declared intention of speaking the truth, or performing the action in a given case; secondly, the divine, an appeal to God, as a Being who knows all things and will punish guilt. According to usage, however, there is a third element in the idea which ‘oath’ commonly conveys, namely, that the oath is taken only on solemn, or, more specifically, on juridical occasions.

The essence of an oath lies obviously in the appeal which is thereby made to God, or to divine knowledge and power. The customary form establishes this, ‘So help me God.’ The Latin words (known to have been used as early as the sixth century), whence our English form is taken, may be thus rendered: so may God and these holy gospels help me; that is, ‘as I say the truth.’ The present custom of kissing a book containing the Gospels has in England taken place of the latter clause in the Latin formula.

Oaths did not take their origin in any divine command. They were a part of that consuetudinary law which Moses found prevalent, and was bound to respect, since no small portion of the force of law lies in custom, and a legislator can neither abrogate nor institute a binding law of his own mere will. Accordingly, Moses made use of the sanction which an oath gave, but in that general manner, and apart from minute directions and express words of approval; which shows that he merely used, without intending to sanction, an instrument that he found in existence and could not safely dispense with. Examples are found in Exo 22:11, where an oath is ordered to be applied in the case of lost property; and here we first meet with what may strictly be called a judicial oath (Lev 6:3-5).

The forms of adjuration found in the Scriptures are numerous. Saul sware unto Jonathan, ‘As the Lord liveth’ (1Sa 19:6). ‘A heap and a pillar’ were for a witness between Laban and Jacob, with the ensuing for a sanction, ‘The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge betwixt us. And Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac’ (Gen 31:52, sq.). A common formula is, ‘The Lord do so to me and more also’ (Rth 1:17; 1Sa 14:44), which approaches nearly to our modern form, ‘So help me God,’ and is obviously elliptical. Reference appears to be had to the ancient custom of slaying some animal in confirmation of a treaty or agreement. The animal thus slain and offered in a burnt offering to God became an image or type, betokening the fate which would attend that one of the two contracting parties who failed in his engagement; subsequently the sacrifice was in ordinary cases omitted, and the form came in itself to have the force of a solemn asseveration.

An oath, making an appeal to the divine justice and power, is a recognition of the divinity of the being to whom the appeal is made. Hence to swear by an idol is to be convicted of idolatry. Such an act is accordingly given in Scripture as a proof of idolatry and a reason for condign punishment. ‘How shall I pardon thee for this? Thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods’ (Jer 5:7; Jer 12:16; Amo 8:14; Zep 1:5).

Other beings besides God are sometimes added in the form of an oath: Elijah said to Elisha, ‘As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth’ (2Ki 2:2; 1Sa 20:3). The party addressed is frequently sworn by, especially if a prince: ‘As thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman,’ etc. (1Sa 1:26; 1Sa 17:55; 1Sa 25:26; 2Sa 11:11). The Hebrews as well as the Egyptians swore also by the head or the life of an absent as well as a present prince: ‘By the life of Pharaoh’ (Gen 42:15). Hanway says that the most sacred oath among the Persians is ‘by the king’s head.’

The oath taker swore sometimes by his own head (Mat 5:36); or by some precious part of his body, as the eyes; sometimes, but only in the case of the later Jews, by the earth, the heaven, and the sun (Mat 5:34-35); as well as by angels; by the temple (Mat 23:16), and even by parts of the temple (Mat 23:16). They also swore by Jerusalem, as the holy city (Mat 5:35). The Rabbinical writers indulge in much prolixity on the subject of oaths, entering into nice distinctions, and showing themselves exquisite casuists.

We have already intimated that it was usual to put the hand under the thigh (Gen 24:2; Gen 47:29). The more usual employment of the hand was to raise it towards heaven; designed, probably, to excite attention, to point out the oath-taker, and to give solemnity to the act (Gen 14:22-23). In the strongly anthropomorphitic language of parts of the Scripture, even God is introduced saying, ‘I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live forever’ (Deu 32:40). It can only be by the employment of a similar license that the Almighty is represented as in any way coming under the obligation of an oath (Exo 6:8; Eze 20:5). Instead of the head, the phylactery was sometimes touched by the Jews on taking an oath.

The levity of the Jewish nation in regard to oaths, though reproved by some of their doctors, was notorious; and their conduct in this respect was severely censured by Christ himself in language which seems to forbid the use of oaths altogether (Mat 5:34-37; Jam 5:12).

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Oath

A solemn asseveration with an appeal to God that what is said is true. The apostle said that among men an oath for confirmation is the “end of all strife” or dispute; and God, willing to show “the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things [His word and His oath] in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation.” Heb 6:16-18. Jehovah swore that the Lord Jesus should be a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Psa 110:4.

Lev 5:1 has been interpreted as signifying that when the voice of adjuration was heard, persons were compelled to confess what they knew as to any charge. Thus the Lord Jesus when adjured by the high priest answered him. The Lord was under an accusation, and was adjured to say if it was true. He acknowledged that He was “the Christ the Son of God.” Mat 26:63-64.

The Lord exposed the folly of the tradition that some oaths were not binding. Mat 23:16-22.

In the common intercourse of life there should be no oaths, the simple ‘yea’ and ‘nay’ should be enough, “swear not at all,” Mat 5:34-37; Jam 5:12; the context of these passages shows that they do not refer to judicial oaths: cf. also Heb 6:13; Heb 6:16; Heb 7:21; Rev 10:6.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Oath

A solemn qualification.

Used in solemnizing covenants:

– Between Abraham and the king of Sodom

Gen 14:22-23

– Between Abraham and Abimelech

Gen 21:22-23

– Between Isaac and Abimelech

Gen 26:26-29; Gen 26:31

Instances of:

– Abraham requires oath of his servant Eliezer

Gen 24:2-3; Gen 24:9

– Esau confirms the sale of his birthright by

Gen 25:33

– Jacob confirms the covenant between him and Laban by

Gen 31:53

– Laban requires Joseph to swear that he would bury him with his fathers

Gen 47:28-31

– Joseph requires a like oath

Gen 50:25

– Rahab requires an oath from the spies

Jos 2:12-14; Jos 6:22

– The Israelites confirm the covenant with the Hivites

Jos 9:3-20

– Moses covenants with Caleb by

Jos 14:9

– The elders of Gilead confirm their pledge to Jephthah by

Jdg 11:10

– The Israelites swear in Mizpeh

Jdg 21:5

– Ruth swears to Naomi

Rth 1:17

– Boaz swears to Ruth

Rth 3:13

– Saul swears to Jonathan

1Sa 19:6

– Jonathan and David confirm a covenant by

1Sa 20:3; 1Sa 20:13-17

– David swears to Saul

1Sa 24:21-22; 2Sa 21:7

– Saul swears to the witch of En-Dor

1Sa 28:10

– David swears not to eat until the sun goes down

2Sa 3:35

– Joab confirms his word by

2Sa 19:7

– David swears to Bath-Sheba that Solomon shall be king

1Ki 1:28-29

– Solomon confirms his word by

1Ki 2:23

– Shimei confirms his word by

1Ki 2:42

– Elisha seals his vow to follow Elijah by

2Ki 2:2

– King of Samaria confirms his word with an

2Ki 6:31

– Gehazi confirms his lie by

2Ki 5:20

– Jehoida requires an oath from the rulers

2Ki 11:4

– Zedekiah violates

2Ch 36:13

– Ezra requires, of the priests and Levites

Ezr 10:5; Ezr 10:19

– Nehemiah requires, of the priests and Levites

Neh 5:12-13

– Zedekiah swears to Jeremiah

Jer 38:16

– Gedaliah confirms his word by

Jer 40:9

– Peter confirms his denial of Jesus by

Mar 14:71

Attributed to God

Gen 22:16; Psa 89:35; Psa 95:11; Psa 105:9; Psa 132:11; Isa 14:24; Isa 45:23; Jer 11:5; Jer 22:5; Jer 49:13; Jer 51:14; Luk 1:73; Heb 3:11; Heb 3:18; Heb 4:3; Heb 6:13-14; Heb 6:17; Heb 7:21; Heb 7:28; Rev 10:6

Unclassified scriptures relating to

Exo 20:7; Deu 5:11; Exo 22:10-11; Exo 23:1; Lev 6:2-5; Lev 19:12; Num 5:19-24; Deu 6:13; Deu 10:20; 1Ki 8:31-32; Psa 15:1-2; Psa 15:4; Ecc 8:2; Isa 48:1; Jer 4:2; Jer 5:2; Jer 5:7; Jer 7:8-9; Jer 12:16; Dan 9:11; Dan 12:7; Hos 4:15; Mat 5:33-37; Mat 14:3-12; Mar 6:26; Mat 23:18-22; Mat 26:63; Act 23:12-14; 2Co 1:23; Gal 1:20; Heb 6:16; Jas 5:12; Rev 10:5-6 Covenant; False Witness; God, Name of, Not to Be Profaned; Perjury

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Oath

Oath. The forms of solemn affirmation mentioned in Scripture are: 1. Lifting up the hand. Witnesses laid their hands on the head of the accused. Gen 14:22; Lev 24:14; Deu 17:7; Isa 3:7, A. V., but the R. V. reads “he shall lift up his voice.” 2. Putting the hand under the thigh of the person to whom the promise was made. Gen 24:2; Gen 47:29. 3. Oaths were sometimes taken before the altar, or by an appeal to Jehovah; “as the Lord liveth.” 2Ki 2:2. Comp. 1Ki 8:31; 2Ch 6:22. 4. Dividing a victim and passing between or distributing the pieces. Gen 15:10; Gen 15:17; Jer 34:18. As the sanctity of oaths was carefully inculcated by the law, so the crime of perjury was strongly condemned; and to a false witness the same punishment was assigned which was due for the crime to which he testified. Exo 20:7; Lev 19:12. The New Testament has prohibitions against swearing. Mat 5:34-37; Jam 5:12. It cannot be supposed that it was intended by these to censure every kind of oath. For our Lord himself made solemn asseverations equivalent to an oath; and Paul repeatedly, in his inspired epistles, calls God to witness the truth of what he was saying. The intention was, as Alford well notes upon Mat 5:34-37, to show “that the proper state of Christians is to require no oaths; that, when evil is expelled from among them, every yea and nay will be as decisive as an oath, every promise as binding as a vow.”

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Oath

Oath. The principle on which an oath is held to be binding is incidentally laid down in Heb 6:16, namely, as an ultimate appeal to divine authority, to ratify an assertion. On the same principle, that oath has always been held most binding which appealed to the highest authority, as regards both individuals and communities. As a consequence of this principle, appeals to God’s name on the one hand, and to heathen deities, on the other, are treated in scripture as tests of allegiance. Exo 23:13; Exo 34:6; Deu 29:12; etc.

So also the sovereign’s name is sometimes used as a form of obligation. Gen 42:15; 2Sa 11:11; 2Sa 14:19. Other forms of oath, serious or frivolous, are mentioned, some of which are condemned by our Lord. Mat 6:33; Mat 23:16-22 and See Jam 5:12. (There is, however, a world-wide difference between a solemn appeal to God and profane swearing). The forms of adjuration mentioned in Scripture are —

Lifting up the hand. Witnesses laid their hands on the head of the accused. Gen 14:22; Lev 24:14; Lev 17:7; Isa 3:7.

Putting the hand under the thigh of the person to whom the Promise was made. Gen 24:2; Gen 47:29.

Oaths were sometimes taken before the altar, or, as some understand the passage, if the persons were not in Jerusalem, in a position looking toward the Temple. 1Ki 8:31; 2Ch 6:22.

Dividing a victim and passing between or distributing the pieces. Gen 15:10; Gen 15:17; Jer 34:18.

As the sanctity of oaths was carefully inculcated by the law, so the crime of perjury was strongly condemned; and to a false witness, the same punishment was assigned, which was due for the crime to which he testified. Exo 20:7; Lev 19:12.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Oath

is primarily equivalent to herkos, “a fence, an enclosure, that which restrains a person;” hence, “an oath.” The Lord’s command in Mat 5:33 was a condemnation of the minute and arbitrary restrictions imposed by the scribes and Pharisees in the matter of adjurations, by which God’s Name was profaned. The injunction is repeated in Jam 5:12. The language of the Apostle Paul, e.g., in Gal 1:20; 1Th 5:27 was not inconsistent with Christ’s prohibition, read in the light of its context. Contrast the “oaths” mentioned in Mat 14:7, Mat 14:9; Mat 26:72; Mar 6:26.

Heb 6:16 refers to the confirmation of a compact among men, guaranteeing the discharge of liabilities; in their disputes “the oath is final for confirmation.” This is referred to in order to illustrate the greater subject of God’s “oath” to Abraham, confirming His promise; cp. Luk 1:73; Act 2:30. Cp. the verbs horkizo, and exorkizo, under ADJURE.

denotes “an affirmation on oath” (from No. 1 and omnumi, “to swear”). This is used in Heb 7:20-21 (twice), Heb 7:28 of the establishment of the Priesthood of Christ, the Son of God, appointed a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and “perfected for evermore.” In the Sept., Eze 17:18-19.

Note: For anathematizo in Act 23:21, AV, “have bound (themselves) with an oath,” see CURSE.

Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words

Oath

a solemn invocation of a superior power, admitted to be acquainted with all the secrets of our hearts, with our inward thoughts as well as our outward actions, to witness the truth of what we assert, and to inflict his vengeance upon us if we assert what is not true, or promise what we do not mean to perform. Almost all nations, whether savage or civilized, whether enjoying the light of revelation or led only by the light of reason, knowing the importance of truth, and willing to obtain a barrier against falsehood, have had recourse to oaths, by which they have endeavoured to make men fearful of uttering lies, under the dread of an avenging Deity. Among Christians, an oath is a solemn appeal for the truth of our assertions, the sincerity of our promises, and the fidelity of our engagements, to the one only God, the Judge of the whole earth, who is every where present, and sees, and hears, and knows, whatever is said, or done, or thought in any part of the world. Such is that Being whom Christians, when they take an oath, invoke to bear testimony to the truth of their words, and the integrity of their hearts. Surely, then, if oaths be a matter of so much moment, it well behoves us not to treat them with levity, nor ever to take them without due consideration. Hence we ought, with the utmost vigilance, to abstain from mingling oaths in our ordinary discourse, and from associating the name of God with low or disgusting images, or using it on trivial occasions, as not only a profane levity in itself, but tending to destroy that reverence for the supreme Majesty which ought to prevail in society, and to dwell in our own hearts.

The forms of oaths, says Dr. Paley, like other religious ceremonies, have in all ages been various; consisting, however, for the most part of some bodily action, and of a prescribed form of words. Among the Jews, the juror held up his right hand toward heaven, Psa 144:8; Rev 10:5. The same form is retained in Scotland still. Among the Jews, also, an oath of fidelity was taken by the servant’s putting his hand under the thigh of his lord, Gen 24:2. Among the Greeks and Romans, the form varied with the subject and occasion of the oath; in private contracts, the parties took hold of each other’s hands, while they swore to the performance; or they touched the altar of the god by whose divinity they swore: upon more solemn occasions, it was the custom to slay a victim; and the beast being struck down with certain ceremonies and invocations, gave birth to the expression, ferire pactum; and to our English phrase, translated from this, of striking a bargain. The form of oaths in Christian countries is also very different: but in no country in the world worse contrived, either to convey the meaning or impress the obligation of an oath, than in our own. The juror with us, after repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to confirm, adds, So help me God; or, more frequently, the substance of the oath is repeated to the juror by the magistrate, who adds in the conclusion, So help you God. The energy of this sentence resides in the particle so: So, that is, hac lege, upon condition of my speaking the truth, or performing this promise, and not otherwise, may God help me! The juror, while he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right hand upon a Bible, or other book containing the Gospels, and at the conclusion kisses the book. This obscure and elliptical form, together with the levity and frequency of them, has brought about a general inadvertency to the obligation of oaths, which, both in a religious and political view, is much to be lamented; and it merits public consideration, whether the requiring of oaths upon so many frivolous occasions, especially in the customs, and in the qualification for petty offices, has any other effect than to make such sanctions cheap in the minds of the people. A pound of tea cannot travel regularly from the ship to the consumer, without costing half a dozen oaths at least; and the same security for the due discharge of their office, namely, that of an oath, is required from a churchwarden and an archbishop; from a petty constable and the chief justice of England. Oaths, however, are lawful; and whatever be the form, the signification is the same. Historians have justly remarked, that when the reverence for an oath began to diminish among the Romans, and the loose epicurean system, which discarded the belief of providence, was introduced, the Roman honour and prosperity from that period began to decline. The Quakers refuse to swear upon any occasion, founding their scruples concerning the lawfulness of oaths upon our Saviour’s prohibition, Swear not at all, Mat 5:34. But it seems our Lord there referred to the vicious, wanton, and unauthorized swearing in common discourse, and not to judicial oaths; for he himself answered, when interrogated, upon oath, Mat 26:63-64; Mar 14:61. The Apostle Paul also makes use of expressions which contain the nature of oaths, Rom 1:9; 1Co 15:31; 2Co 1:18; Gal 1:20; Heb 6:13-17. The administration of oaths supposes that God will punish false swearing with more severity than a simple lie, or breach of promise; for which belief there are the following reasons:

1. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation.

2. It violates a superior confidence.

3. God directed the Israelites to swear by his name, Deuteronomy

Heb 6:13; Heb 10:20; and was pleased to confirm his covenant with that people by an oath; neither of which, it is probable, he would have done, had he not intended to represent oaths as having some meaning and effect beyond the obligation of a bare promise.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary