Oath-taking by Eld. S. Pierce

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 27, 1864

Oath-taking.

By Eld. S. Pierce

BY ELD. S. PIERCE.

MANY of the most conscientious, doubtless have sincerely believed that Matt. v, 34, and James v, 12, are universal prohibitions of every kind of oath-taking. This would be so, if it could be shown that none was elsewhere authorized by the Bible. But as one kind, at least, is authorized, and its practice recorded for our learning, such scriptures as show this, either limit, qualify or restrict, such sayings as, "Swear not at all, Neither by any other oath;" &c., or else the teachings of Christ and James were designed to abrogate what was established and practiced in the Old Testament, and what was practiced by Jesus himself, and Paul, as recorded in the New.

If the last of the above instances is so, then the teachings and the practice of our Lord are at variance; and some of Paul's declarations are somewhat at variance with the teachings of our Lord and James, both. For Matt. xxvi, 63, 64, shows conclusively that Jesus answered the questions of the high priest after he had put him under oath. If any doubt this, let them ascertain the precise meaning of the word adjure, by reading carefully 1 Sam. xiv, 24-28, and also by consulting Webster's unabridged dictionary.

As proof of one point stated above, the reader will see by an examination of Rom. i, 9; 2 Cor. i, 18, and Gal. i, 20, that Paul, as a witness, did not hesitate to call on the name of the great God to confirm the truth of what he was about to publish for the benefit of future generations. Now if the teachings of Jesus and James were designed to abolish this kind of oath-taking established in the Old Testament, then the practice of Jesus and Paul would not have been as shown above. As our Lord remained silent when not under oath, while they accused, questioned, and even threatened him; as soon as the oath was administered, we do not see why he should then reply, if it were directly contrary to his own teaching.

We find this kind of oath-taking enjoined in Deut. vi, 13, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Also chap. x, 20: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. This is associated with the most excellent moral principle in both instances. Therefore this kind of swearing can be no species of profanity; else, in one paragraph, God has enjoined upon us to do good and evil: but we rather conclude it to refer to the testimony of a witness in relating some important truth; the true import of which, without the slightest deviation, is of great consequence, either in a judicial tribunal or elsewhere, as the case may be.

Some may wish to ascertain whether there is any evidence that the oath enjoined in Deut. vi, 13, and x, 20, is a judicial oath. We find in Num. v, 19, 21, thirty-nine years previously, that the judicial was positively instituted, and this is collateral evidence that the oath enjoined was a judicial oath. The latter scripture referred to, shows also that the rightful authority to administer this oath, especially in case of alleged criminality, was the priest, the same that administered it to the Son of God, which case all must understand was a judicial trial for his life. As the Jewish Sanhedrim was the highest tribunal of that nation to decide civil as well as ecclesiastical cases, of course it belonged to the high priest to administer the oath to witnesses, as was done in the case above. And that alleged criminals, in Jewish courts were put under oath as witnesses in their own case, we can find in Num. v, 19-21. Besides the judicial oath as already seen, we have a variety of scriptures to show that oaths of allegiance were administered by magistrates, and also that oaths of confirmation were freely engaged in by the parties. We now will introduce a few instances of the oath of allegiance: 1 Sam. xiv, 24. And the men of Israel were distressed that day, for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening; so none of the people tasted any food. 1 Kings ii, 42-43. And the king sent and called for Shimei and said unto him, Did I not make thee swear by the Lord, and protested unto thee saying, Know for a certain on the day thou goest out, thou shalt surely die? Why then hast thou not kept the oath of the Lord and the commandment I have charged thee with? Speaking of Zedekiah, 2 Chron. xxxvi, 13, He also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear by God; but he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart from turning unto the Lord God of Israel.

In this instance as in the cases of Shimei and the people in Saul's day, the oath of allegiance was required and administered; and it is seen by these scriptures, that as far back as those days, the nations generally made use of such oaths.

There are other instances of the like in the Bible. Ezra x, 5: Then arose Ezra and made the chief priests the Levites and all Israel to swear that they should do according to this word. And they swear again. Neh. xii, 25. And I made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons nor take their daughters unto your sons or for yourselves. Nehemiah was governor, and Ezra a priest, consequently authorized to bind any of the people with an oath to a discharge of any important national duty. There is another class of scriptures which do not describe the kind of oath alluded to, but they show clearly the innocence of those who engaged in them. Ps. xv, 4. He that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not. Whoever will take pains to read this whole psalm will see that this is the man who will abide in the Lord's tabernacle and dwell in his holy hill; and also that he is one that walketh uprightly; and worketh righteousness, that speaketh the truth in his heart, and other good works which show that he keeps all of God's commandments. Again, Ps. xxiv, 4, shows us that the man that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity nor sworn deceitfully, will attain to the same blessed destiny.

Isaiah lxv, 16, is a scripture which is peculiar. "He who 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; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes." This scripture has within itself strong evidence that it is fulfilled in the world to come, and its connection following, which is prophetic of the new creation, adds to the strength of this evidence. Truly if the inhabitants of that world into which there shall in no wise anything enter, that defileth or worketh abomination, can engage in any kind of oath-taking where it might seem to our finite minds there was no necessity for it; why should it be thought so wrong for us in this poor sinful world where it frequently becomes really necessary in order to do justly by our fellow men.

We see by the foregoing evidences drawn from the Bible, that the Lord gave the judicial oath by Moses, if it had not been in use before; Num. v, 19-21; and that the oath of allegiance existed in the days of Saul and Solomon and doubtless long before; and the oath of confirmation as far back as Abraham. Gen. xiv, 22.

But it will doubtless be urged by those who disbelieve, that if Christ and James prohibited all these, we have now nothing to do with them. This we admit. But before we admit that they did; we will briefly examine our Lord's teachings on this point. Thou shalt not forswear thyself but perform unto the Lord thine oaths. Prof. Whiting has "forswear," in his margin,—"violate thine oath." This throws great light upon this scripture.

To forswear oneself, is to swear falsely; to perjure oneself. Webster. Many considering the definition have thought it must especially refer to judicial testimony. But Mr. Whiting's translation of the text, and especially his marginal reading, relieves us from this necessity. Even more than this; it would be an impropriety in the use of language to apply his margin to the judicial oath at all; unless it were applied at the brief moment of testifying. To make this plain to all, we ask, How can we possibly violate a judicial oath before we testify? Every one must answer, It is impossible. Again, if we ask how we can violate such an oath after we testify; the answer must be the same. It stands there unalterable, and none of our future acts can in any way at all affect it. But we can violate an oath

of performance, at any time subsequent to the time set for its performance, by neglecting or refusing to perform according to the oath. Again, the word perform, which immediately follows in the scripture above quoted, could with still less propriety be applied to judicial testimony, although we may not be able to make this appear so evident to readers generally. How we can go to work to perform unto the Lord a judicial oath, I am unable to conceive; since there is nothing to be done in the matter, but just to testify. We cannot with propriety say, we performed to testify; or that we performed to speak the truth. All these would be a violation of the principles upon which the construction of language depends. Hence we see the word perform itself, prevents in this instance, the possibility of our Lord's teachings, having any reference to the judicial oath. Furthermore, the French translation, "Thou shalt render unto the Lord that which thou hast promised by oath;" which harmonizes fully with the English and also the Greek, must make it so plain to every class of minds, that there can be no necessity for introducing further argument upon this point.

We will now take up all our Lord's comments upon this subject, and see if in his sweeping declaration, "Swear not at all," any allusion is made to the oath enjoined in Deut. vi, 13; x, 20. "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."

In all these examples, he has not brought one, that in the least infringes upon the oath of allegiance, confirmation, or the judicial oath. We have brought already examples from the Bible to show that in all these oaths, they swore by the name of the exalted Creator; whereas in all the examples our Lord has given for the illustration of his subject of prohibiting oaths, not one refers to that great name; but instead of that, all refer to the name of some created object. Thus all can see, there is no fitness in bringing these teachings as an argument against those kinds of oaths which the word of God had long before instituted, and confirmed by frequent historical accounts of their being practically in use, both in the Old and New Testaments. If he meant to abrogate them, why was there not something either in his illustrations or language to show this?

Therefore the reasonable conclusion is, that our Lord by these four illustrations, refers to a loose, rough and profane manner, in addressing our fellow men in common conversation, and to oaths binding people to certain performances. These kinds of oaths in all their multiplied variety and forms, are here expressly prohibited.

The great reason why he prohibits profanity, is because the third commandment prohibits it. One great and good reason why he prohibits oaths of performance, is on account of the uncertainty of man's ability to perform what he purposes in the future. The Infinite Creator may take such an oath, because he has all ability to perform: but not so with finite man. This oath of performance is also with us, a breach of the third commandment. The reason why is, if we swear by that great name, and fail to perform, we in the most emphatic sense, take the name of God in vain. If we do not swear by the name of the Lord, it must come under a head similar to one of the four examples our Lord gave. Hence all the above examples are a violation of the third commandment, and not of the ninth.

It may not, at first, appear evident that any of them come under this commandment; but when we discover that our Lord was, from the 17th to the 37th verse, magnifying the law and making it honorable, according to Isa. xlii, 21; and that he had already so wonderfully magnified the 6th and the 7th commandments, as to show a variety of sins and wrongs coming under the breach of them, which doubtless never would have been discovered, without the aid of inspiration; we may also discover that in his teachings on swearing he has magnified the third commandment; although this part of his discourse was introduced in a more obscure manner than the other.

All of us, doubtless, have always believed that the third commandment prohibited all kinds of profane swearing. And our Lord makes it appear that there were many kinds which we had not before thought of.

They nevertheless all come under the same prohibition. Now these additional kinds of swearing cannot be made to rank under the ninth commandment. That was given to guard us against all false testimony and lying. But all can see that Jesus' sweeping declarations were not directed against falsehood but swearing. And an additional fact to the point is, that there is no civil oath or any other, having any connection with that commandment, the form of which harmonizes with any of the examples there given; but they all harmonize with the injunction, to swear by his name. Therefore it is hard to believe that our Lord in his comment here, meant to couple these two commandments; given for different purposes, and so apply his sayings to them both indiscriminately, as to establish the one and abolish the other. This would look like too disorderly a work for divine wisdom to perform. Might we not rather, therefore, conclude, that the Lord, in his expression "Swear not at all" and James by the phrase "By any other oath," did not even allude to the ninth commandment! If they did, then that command in its most primary sense is virtually abrogated.

If so then we Sabbath-keepers who have always professed to have ten, have only nine commandments. The same number the Catholic church would have, if she had not divided the tenth: and the same that Protestants have, after rejecting the fourth. If any wish for this position they are at liberty to take it: but many would wish to be excused. Having that position we will see what the result would be by supposing a case.

We will suppose on a certain day a murder occurs in a certain town; and circumstances appear to be altogether against Bro. A. a Sabbath-keeper.

Now it is known by all that men are more generally condemned and executed, by the strength of circumstantial than positive evidence. Therefore the case of Bro. A. looks very dubious if not nearly hopeless. At the same time Brn. B. C. and D. know of circumstances in the case, that would show conclusively to any impartial court, that Bro. A. is innocent. But he is arrested, imprisoned, and brought to trial.

Brn. B. C. and D. begin to feel in great trouble about the safety of Bro. A., and begin to talk the matter up between themselves; knowing that their testimony might secure him: but they cannot go into court hold up their right hands, and take solemn oath to the truth they know in the case: which the law requires they should do in order to become witnesses.

So poor Bro. A. is brought to court, has an ex-parte trial, is condemned, sentenced, and executed.

Dear, innocent, Bro. A. has died an ignominious death; his useful life is lost; his helpless family is left in want; and worst of all, a great reproach is brought on the cause of truth. At whose hands will all this be required?

From the above illustration, it is not difficult to see, that if our Lord meant to prohibit the judicial oath, and consequently destroy primarily the ninth commandment, it must also in many instances, prevent his followers from obeying the second great commandment of the law;—"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Who could wish for such a hindrance in their way as this? None could wish knowingly thus to mutilate the law of God unless it be those who do not delight in it.

Oh that his people might be saved from such a hurtful error.

There is another class of evidences found in the Bible, which should be introduced, to show us what heavenly examples we have as a defense for this institution. The Infinite One in a number of instances confirmed his promise with an oath. And it is said "Because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself." Being willing to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel. That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us. It is said in the same connection, "Men verily swear by the greater; and an oath of confirmation is to them an end of all strife." See Heb. vi, 13-18. We wish to know why inspiration left these scriptures on record if all kinds of oaths had been abolished more than thirty years previous? Since "whatsoever was written aforetime, was written for our learning," why was God's and man's manner of oath-taking both here described? Who can have the least disposition to believe that Paul here encumbered the word of God with a mere superfluity? May we not rather think there was something here for our instruction in both instances?

1. In the first instance we have the example of the infinitely wise, and good; and inspiration, through Peter, enjoins on us,—Be ye followers of God as dear children. We are also informed that Enoch walked with God three hundred years. Shall we understand by this, that he followed God so closely, that it might with propriety be said he walked with him? In moral virtues he doubtless imitated his divine example.

It has already been proved by Matt. xxvi, 63, 64, and by the definition of the word adjure, that our Lord when here on earth, gave in his testimony in relation to himself, after being put under oath by the proper authority, in a judicial tribunal.

Now within the history of his course here, we find seventeen times recorded, the injunction, "Follow me." In view of this, what must our conclusion be? Is this within the limits of moral action? And if so, are we at liberty to follow him in this respect when the wants of our fellowmen require, and our knowledge of facts enables us so to do? Let us decide this as candid professed followers of God and his Son.

But an objection has here been raised by some, that he does prohibit our following him in some respects, such as governing and judging:

True we should not attempt to follow him in his prerogatives, which are the consequence of his distinguished or infinite capabilities. We have nothing to do in these; but follow him in everything so far as moral action is concerned.

We read of those of whom it was said, "They wholly followed the Lord." Num. xxxii, 12; Deut. i, 36. But this expression, we might suppose, is restricted to moral, virtuous action, only.

Now if it is morally good for the great God to swear by himself for the benefit of men; and for his Son to testify after being put under oath by human authorities, as our example; why is it not good for man to do the same when there is a prospect of benefiting others by it, by bringing about the execution of justice between man and man?

We now come to the family of Heaven,—the holy angels. Dan. xii, 7, will show us whether they have ever had anything to do in this matter: And I heard the man clothed in linen which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto Heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever, that it shall be for a time, times and an half. This shows, that one, at least, of the higher, yet subordinate order of intelligences who keep God's commandments, did take oath to the truth of what he then revealed.

Again, Rev. x, 5-6, gives a similar instance. And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea, and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to heaven and sware by him that liveth forever and ever, that there should be time no longer.

Here is another example of a holy angel taking oath to the truth of what he said, even down in the gospel age, more than sixty years since it was supposed that every kind of oath was forever abolished by a twofold authority of divine inspiration.

Is it to be inferred that the family on earth are required to be more holy than the family in Heaven? Can any one reasonably come to such a conclusion? Does not a part of the Lord's prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven," impel us to a different belief? Angels do his commandments, hearkening to the voice of his word. Can we do better than they? It is in vain for us to try to be more holy than the great God, his Son, and the holy angels; or even than the blessed Bible requires us to be.

Roxbury, Vt.