THE THIRD COMMANDMENT

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 7, 1858

THE THIRD COMMANDMENT.

It is an established principle that the greater offense of any given class, includes all the lesser of the same kind; and any command which prohibits the greatest offense, extends its prohibition equally over all minor offenses of the same nature. Now it will be noticed that the ten commandments expressly forbid the greatest offense in each class; and it is this fact, that the greater includes the lesser, which gives to these commandments the exceeding breadth of which the Psalmist speaks, and that constitutes their "our rule of life—man's whole duty."

The third commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain," forbids all light and irreverent use of any of the names by which God has revealed himself to us. The common swearer and the open blasphemer who will call down the bitterest curses on themselves or others, either in mirth or malice, are the first objects that present themselves to the mind upon reading this commandment. But we can easily perceive that the command extends still further, and forbids all trifling with the nature of the Deity, his perfections, his services and his government. Thus there are those who will make light of the services of piety and those who perform them. But they should ask themselves, Are these things in accordance with a divine command? They certainly are. Then they should consider, that, inasmuch as they ridicule them, they are making light of God's authority which enjoins them, and so far despising his name. And there are those who will trample on and rail at the observance of the Sabbath, as enjoined by the fourth precept of the decalogue, who should understand that they are thereby breaking two commandments instead of one. There are others still, who upon any little surprise will exclaim in an unthinking way, "Good Lord!" "Lord bless us!" &c., whom we can but regard as using language not lawful to utter in a trifling, careless manner.

According to the principle laid down at the head of this article, the third commandment must include all oath-taking which is unlawful in its nature; and should we find any practice existing under that name, which cannot be shown to be a violation of that commandment, we must consider it unexceptionable and unforbidden. A question naturally comes up in this connection upon which some remarks may be here expected. We refer to the subject of judicial oath-taking. Is it lawful or unlawful? right or wrong? As the mind of the reader will doubtless rest at once on the testimony of our Saviour, and of the apostle James, as containing an answer to this query, their declarations shall first claim attention. Says the Saviour, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all: neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King: neither shalt thou swear by thy head; because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil." Matt. v, 33-37.

We are doubtless all agreed that there are different kinds of oaths. Now in order to ascertain whether this testimony is applicable to the case in hand, we must look at the nature of a judicial oath, and also at the nature of the oaths to which Christ refers. A judicial oath, then, is defined to be, "A solemn action, whereby we call upon God, the searcher of hearts, to witness the truth of what we affirm." Cruden. "A solemn declaration or affirmation, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed." Webster. With these definitions concur the Union Bible Dictionary, and the Religious Encyclopedia; so that we may readily perceive what is universally understood by a judicial oath: it is calling upon God to witness to the truth of what we affirm. Every man who is qualified to testify on any point, knows whether he speaks the truth in regard to it or not. If there is anything which he does not know, anything of which he is uncertain, or ignorant, to this of course he cannot testify. But of things of which he has knowledge, he knows whether he speaks the truth or not; and to give solemnity to his declarations in the ears of those who hear, he appeals to God, who knows the secrets of all hearts, for the truth of what he utters. Let this, the nature of a judicial oath, be carefully borne in mind.

We next inquire, is this the kind of oaths to which our Saviour referred, in his declaration, Swear not at all? To endeavor to make a distinction, as some do, between swearing and affirming, and then contend that the former is wrong and the latter right, we consider altogether unwarrantable. To swear judicially, and to affirm in like manner, are alike in their nature. It is essentially the same act, though different terms are employed. If one is wrong, so, beyond all question, is the other. Further: To contend, in palliation of oaths, that our Saviour prohibited only certain kinds of swearing, and that we may swear by any kind that he has not enumerated, we consider also very fallacious. Of this class was Milton. He says that the injunction "does not prohibit us from swearing by the name of God,—we are only commanded not to swear by heaven, &c." Christian Doctrine, p. 582. But to this the Scriptures furnish a direct answer; for they tell us that whosoever "shall swear by heaven sweareth by the throne of God, and by Him that sitteth thereon." Matt. xxiii, 22. It must be evident to all that every form of oath, of the class to which the Saviour refers, is prohibited by his testimony; therefore the only question we raise on this point, is in regard to the nature of the oaths to which reference is made. Were they the same as we now understand by a judicial oath? An examination of the testimony will doubtless satisfy us on this point.

The subject is introduced by referring to what was said by them of old time. "It hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths; but I say unto you, Swear not at all," &c.; that is, do not make any oaths of this kind. Mark that word, PERFORM. It is very significant. It reveals to us at once the nature of the oaths referred to, and shows us that it is something to be performed. Let us refer to "them of old time," for testimony concerning it.

Num. xxx, 2. "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." To vow a vow, and to swear an oath to bind the soul with a bond, seem to be one and the same thing. It must be to this text, and others like it, that Matt. v, 33 refers; for doing, or performing, is inseparably connected with the swearing. From this it appears that under the former dispensation people were permitted to vow, or bind themselves with an oath, to perform certain services unto the Lord, to do certain works, or confer certain gifts. If they performed these things according to their oath, all right; but if they did not perform them, then they forswore themselves according to the intent of the language quoted by the Saviour: "Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform," &c.

This kind of swearing was simply permitted, not commanded, under the former dispensation. See Deut. xxiii, 22. "But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee." But when they did vow, they were commanded, according to verse 21, not to be slack to pay it; for the Lord would require it of them, and it would be sin in them.

With many other things, the Jews had also overloaded and abused this privilege, if it may be called such, by their traditions. This the following testimony will show.

"That the Jews were notoriously guilty of common swearing, for which our Lord particularly reprehends them, and warns his disciples against, and that they swore by heaven, by earth, by Jerusalem, by the head, &c., the following extracts made by Dr. Lightfoot from their own writings, amply testify.

"It was customary and usual among them to swear by the creature. 'If any swear by heaven, by earth, by the sun, &c., although the mind of the swearer be, under these words, to swear by Him who created them, yet this is not an oath. Or if any swear by some of the prophets, or by some of the books of the Scripture, although the sense of the swearer be to swear by Him who sent that prophet, or gave that book, nevertheless this is not an oath.' Maimonides."

"They swore by the temple. 'When turtles and young pigeons were sometimes sold at Jerusalem for a penny of gold, Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, By this habitation (that is by this temple) I will not rest this night, unless they be sold for a penny of silver.' Cheruth, chap. i." The above is found in Clark's note on Matt. v, 37, where also may be found instances (which we have not space to transcribe) of their swearing by heaven, by Jerusalem, by the altar, by the chambers of the temple, by the Lamb, by the Word, by the sacrifices, by the shelter, and by their own heads. Our Lord also rebukes them for their traditions on this subject in Matt. xxiii, 16-22. The cases of Jephthah [Jud. xi, 30-40,] and Saul, [1 Sam. xiv, 24,] furnish us with examples of rash oaths of this kind.

Against all this our Saviour interposes his. Swear not at all. Bind not yourselves by any oath to any performance. The reason of this is that circumstances over which we can have no control may hinder our accomplishing our purposes; and, besides, we have no right to offer as a pledge, what is not our own. Thus he says, "Neither by heaven, for it is God's throne." We have no right to pledge heaven for any service of ours; for we know not what we shall be able to perform; we have no control whatever over any event to cause it to come to pass. For the same reason we should not swear by the earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by our own head. But why not by our own head? The Saviour tells us: "Because thou canst not make one hair white or black." That is, we have no power over it, nor over ourselves. We cannot add a cubit to our stature, nor make a hair white or black. We are not our own, and therefore have no right to offer our life as a pledge. Take an instance and see what it would have led to, had the individuals fulfilled their oath. We refer to those forty Jews, and over, who banded together and "bound themselves under a great curse," that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul, Acts xxiii, 12-14. Here is an oath, we think, of precisely the same nature as those referred to by the Saviour on the mount. Now, had the object of these conspirators been a good one, they had no right to place themselves under such an oath; for they thereby offered their life as a pledge for an act which they did not know that they would ever be able to perform. And so it happened; for God's providence interposed and saved Paul; and then what a dilemma those villains were placed in:

they must either break their oath or starve to death!

Thus far on Matt. v, 33-37, we have simply endeavored to show a distinction between judicial oaths, as now understood, and those referred to in this scripture—a distinction easily discernible by all, since all can see the difference between appealing to God as a witness to the truth of what we say and binding ourselves under oath in regard to certain acts which we are to do. In the one case we have absolute and perfect knowledge, and therefore run no risk in making it never so strong, and appealing to the highest Being in the universe for its truth. In the other the performance is entirely beyond our control. And we make this distinction under the firm conviction that it is warranted both by the language of the Saviour, and the passages of the Old Testament to which he refers.

Further remarks on this portion of Scripture, together with an examination of some other passages, time and space compel us to defer to another paper.

(To be Continued.)