THE THIRD COMMANDMENT by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 14, 1858

THE THIRD COMMANDMENT.

By Editor

(Concluded.)

THE testimony adduced last week upon this subject showed that all unlawful oath-taking must come within the limitation of the fourth commandment. It showed also a wide distinction between judicial oaths, and the oaths referred to by the Saviour, Matt. v. 33, &c. If this is so, his language can have no bearing on, and consequently do nothing towards showing the unlawfulness of, judicial oath-taking. That it has no reference to this subject is further shown by the specifications which the Saviour has mentioned; for if the language is designed simply to forbid christians taking oaths in courts of judicature, a great part of the testimony is superfluous. Thus he says, Swear not at all, neither by heaven. But no judicial regulation, that we know of, requires an oath in this form. Nor can we find testimony that such ever has been the case. Then why is this prohibition? Much less are we required to swear by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by our head. Why then, we ask again, are such prohibitions specified, if the language is designed to regulate our action in reference to judicial oaths?

But some one may say, “Does not the Saviour’s language include all oaths of every kind? Does he not say, Swear not at all? Have you any right, then, to limit that language to a particular kind of swearing which was designed to cover all swearing”? We reply, he only introduces us to the subject of his remarks, a particular kind of swearing—oaths of performance. Would it then be proper or reasonable to suppose that he suddenly and without intimation, gives his language a universal application, so as to cover more in his conclusion, than he introduced as his subject? When he speaks of a particular kind of swearing—a kind permitted in the old dispensation, but which he wishes to prohibit in this, and tells us in regard to it to swear not at all, how can we give his language a wider extent than the subject of which he is speaking? Swear not at all in this manner; take no oath of this kind. But that it is sometimes proper and necessary to limit words which are apparently absolute, the Bible furnishes direct proof. An instance comes to mind in Rom. xiv, 5. “One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” There, says the opponent of the Sabbath, the Apostle speaks of every day without qualification, and without limitation, and tells every man to be persuaded in his own mind, whether to esteem one above another or not; hence the keeping of the Sabbath is an immaterial matter; to be observed or not, as a man may feel disposed. But we tell them that the Apostle’s subject demands a limitation of that phrase, “every day.” Why? Because he is talking of feast days, not of the Sabbath; hence his language must be limited so as to except that day. By reference to Ex. xvi, 4, 28–30, we find the very same expression, “every day,” similarly used. But the Sabbath is excepted, and the phrase is limited to secular time. So with the Saviour’s, Swear not at all; it is limited to the kind of swearing of which he was speaking.

That the common, irreverent swearing then prevalent among the Jews, according to the quotation given last week, was what our Lord particularly represented, is further shown by his closing testimony on this subject: “Let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay,” &c. Testimony or evidence as given in a court of justice, could hardly be called “your communication.”

Before leaving Matt. v. 33–37, we wish to call attention to one more idea. We have noticed the fact that the kind of swearing here alluded to, was only permitted, not commanded, under the former dispensation. There was a kind which was commanded.

See Deut. vi, 13. “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt swear by his name.” Judicial swearing must here be meant; for all common profanity and blasphemy was forbidden by the third commandment; vows or oaths of performance, were, under the twilight of that dispensation, permitted; but here we find a form of swearing which is commanded; and this must cover the only remaining kind, which is judicial. Now as the third commandment must include all oath-taking unlawful in its nature, the question here arises, Can judicial swearing be a violation of that command? In other words, did God give two conflicting commands, within a short period of each other, to be both in force during the same dispensation? No one can for a moment think it. Then a judicial oath is no infringement on the third commandment, and, hence, if the principles with which we started are correct, it is unexceptionable and unforbidden. We may inquire, further, referring to the positive precept, “Thou shalt swear by his [God’s] name,” did Christ come to destroy any of the direct and positive requirements of the Father?

If, now, Matt. v. 33–37, is surrendered, as containing no prohibition of judicial swearing, appeal will perhaps be made to James v, 12: “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any other oath.”

Here, as in Matt., we are to consider the context with which this passage stands, and the subject upon which the Apostle is speaking. We believe all are pretty well agreed that the book of James is addressed to the church of the last days—the remnant, living when the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Then this testimony would be subject in a great measure, to the same objections, as that in Matt., if we apply it to judicial swearing; namely, a great part of it is superfluous: for we are not required to swear by heaven, nor by the earth. If James simply meant to caution the remnant against taking a judicial oath, he certainly would not specify two forms of oaths by which he foresaw the remnant would never be required to swear.

What, then, does he mean? Well, he directs particular attention to Job. What about Job? He passed through a fiery ordeal, (something like which perhaps awaits the remnant)—so fiery, that though he lost not patience himself, his wife did for him, and advised him to curse God and die. Job ii, 9. What! says one, you do not think James refers to common swearing? that he would address a letter to the remnant, and exhort them against profane swearing? What need could there possibly be of that? Well, let us see. Turn back to chap. iii, 9, 10. Speaking of the tongue he says: “Therewith bless we God even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.”

Is it then a fact that those whom James can call brethren, are liable to speak out of the same mouth, cursing, as well as blessing? Ought they not then to be cautioned against it? Above all things, should they not be cautioned against it? By all means. So in chap. iii, 10, he tells them it ought not to be so; in chap. v, 12, he exhorts them, “above all things,” not to let it be so.

Chapters v, of both Matthew and James, contain the only testimony, we believe, which is urged against judicial swearing. Those passages we have now examined, and found them, in our own mind at least, insufficient for the burden which is placed upon them. Some other points yet remain for consideration.

It is objected against oaths, that the appeal to God which they contain, implies that the person taking the oath, imprecates his vengeance, and renounces his favor, if his declaration is false. And this, it is claimed, gives them their unlawfulness. To be sure, there would be no solemnity in an appeal to God for the truth of an assertion, were it not understood that he would take cognizance of the affair, and punish the deliberate perjurer. But in case of a declaration, the truth of which we know, (and concerning no other of course could we swear,) should we, when we appeal to God as a witness of its truth, invoke upon ourselves the heaviest penalty conceivable in case of its falsity, what hazard do we run? None. To bind ourselves under oath to do any act, or acts, is altogether different, and is forbidden, as we have shown.

But we must not pass over “apostolic example.” We believe that the apostle Paul involved himself in every essential feature of a judicial oath, in more instances than one according to the following quotations: Rom. i, 9, “For God is my witness . . . that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers.” Here is an appeal to God as witness of the truth of his assertion. Chap. ix, 1. “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not,” &c. 2 Cor. i, 18. “But as God is true, our word,” &c. Verse 23. “Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul.” Gal. i, 20. “Now the things which I wrote unto you, behold, before God, I lie not,” &c. Phil. i, 8. “For God is my record,” &c. It is objected that these expressions of Paul’s, do not constitute oaths, because no mention is made of the penalty. Thus Dymond in his “Essays on Morality,” p. 151, speaking of 2 Cor. i, 23, says: “In order to show this to be an oath it will be necessary to show that the Apostle imprecated the vengeance of God, if he did not speak the truth.” This is surprising. A sufficient answer is found in the fact that no mention is made of the penalty in any oath before a Justice. But if, according to the definition of an oath, the penalty is implied in the appeal to God, what man of common understanding will undertake to prove that the penalty is not implied in that appeal when made by Paul, just as much as when made by any other person? If we may be allowed to offset the testimony of man against testimony of the same kind, the following extracts from Dr. Clarke, will be in place: On Rom. ix, 1, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not,” he remarks: “This is one of the most solemn oaths a man can possibly take. He appeals to Christ as the Searcher of hearts, that he tells the truth.” On the words, “I call God for a record upon my soul,” [2 Cor. i, 23,] he says, “The Apostle here . . . in the most solemn manner calls God to witness, and consequently to punish, if he asserted anything false,” &c.

We have this testimony of Paul’s with those who may still be disposed to dispute the lawfulness of judicial oaths. We see not how they can avoid something of a trial with the venerable old Apostle, without yielding their position.

It remains that we notice a prophecy or two applicable in the gospel dispensation, and at its close, and touching upon this very subject.

1. Isa. lxv, 15, 16. Verse 15 contains a prophecy of the transfer of the gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles. “God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name.” Many parallel passages might be named; we will refer to only one: Matt. xxi, 43. Jesus says to the Jews, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Then the testimony of verse 16 applies in this dispensation, or under the new covenant. What is it? “That he that blesseth himself in the earth, shall bless himself in the God of truth, and he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear by the God of truth.”

2. Mal. iii, 5. This third chapter of Malachi, no believer in the Third Message is at a loss where to apply. It belongs undoubtedly to the closing up of this dispensation. Mark then the testimony of verse 5: “And I will come near to you to judgment, and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers,” &c. “Now, if the Lord will be a swift witness against false swearers, what is the plain inference? It is that those who swear truly, will not thereby lose his favor.

To sum up the evidence on this question, we have found,

That the third commandment must prohibit all unlawful oath-taking.
That judicial swearing could not be a violation of it; for a command thus to swear was promulgated at very nearly the same time with it, and was in force in the same dispensation.
That there is a wide difference between the oaths forbidden by the Saviour, and judicial oaths.
That the testimony of James also refers to a subject entirely distinct from judicial swearing.
That the apostle Paul in several instances voluntarily took upon himself a judicial oath.
That a plain prophecy, relating to the close of the present dispensation, enumerates false swearers, in the list of transgressors, thereby showing that true swearing is not embraced in the catalogue of sins.

Let it be remembered that we have endeavored to treat this subject simply, and exclusively in a Bible point of view. Of the objection, therefore, which some endeavor to find against oaths in their inefficiency to bind the knave and the liar, we have nothing to say; nor of their unlawful frequency and consequent abuse, as required in this country from the petty constable all the way up to the supreme magistrate of the United States, and in our various custom house transactions. We have endeavored only to ascertain in what light the Bible holds this subject, and whether the perfect law of the Lord is prohibitory or permissive as touching it. This we have felt called upon to do, in view of the repeated solicitations of correspondents for enlightenment on this point; and having done this, we must frankly avow the conviction to which we have been led, that in taking a judicial oath, we violate neither the commandments of God nor the faith of Jesus.