The Christian

and
The Oath

by
 Rodney Gray
The Christian and the Oath
Copyright© 1994 by Rodney Gray
All Rights reserved.

Published by
Continental Baptist Churches
P.O. Box 20308
Roanoke, VA 24018
 Introduction

In the context of Bible teaching, "to swear" means to make a solemn

promise concerning the truth or performance of one's words by appealing
to some sacred thing or person as witness, especially God. The word
"oath" refers to the form that such a statement may take, including the
thing sworn and that by which it is sworn.

In the language of the Old Testament, the word that dominates the field
is shaba', "to swear." One of the interesting things about this word is the
form in which it is used. With only one exception, it is either in the
reflexive (niphal stem), meaning to bind oneself by an oath, or less
frequently in the causative (hiphil stem), which means to cause someone
else to swear by an oath. The point is that it almost always implies action
done to you, either by yourself or by someone else. The result was the
same in either case, because by swearing an oath you were placed under
conditions that you were not under before.

Another fact to be reckoned with in connection with this word is its

undeniable relationship with the Hebrew word for the number "seven."
The root letters of the two words are identical. It is generally recognized
that the number seven often suggests a symbolic significance in the
Bible, the idea being that seven is the number of perfection, completion
or fulfillment. Certainly this does not mean that every use of the number
seven suggests a symbolic meaning. But it is significant that this numeral
and the word "to swear" belong to the same family. An example of how
they are related is suggested in Genesis 21:22-34. Abraham and
Abimelech swear an oath to each other, and the oath is sealed by seven
things, in this case seven ewe lambs given by Abraham to Abimelech.
Perhaps it is significant in a similar way that Jacob had to serve Laban
for seven years each for Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29). In the covenant
of Sinai (the Mosaic Covenant) the seventh-day sabbath was made the
sign of that covenant. As the sign of the covenant, it stood for the whole
covenant relationship with all its specific provisions and stipulations. In
addition to the seventh-day sabbath, there was an expanded schedule of
holy days and feast days that were organized around it, all incorporating
the special significance of the number seven in connection with the sign
of the covenant. It may be suggested in passing here that in the Book of
Revelation, God is binding Himself by all kinds of series of "sevens" to

Page 1
faithfully perform everything revealed in the prophecy of that book
(stars, lamp-stands, angels, churches, trumpet Judgments, bowls,
thunders and plagues).

So its association with the numeral "seven" strengthens the binding

character of this word in the Old Testament Hebrew. When someone
swore in this sense, he was giving his solemn word on the matter. This
was a word that he was declaring himself bound to perform or fulfill. He
was declaring himself committed to demonstrating the truth of what was
said. Another word, sometimes used in connection with this one,
emphasized the aspect of the curse that a person called down on himself
if he failed to perform his word of promise.

In the New Testament it is necessary to consider two words that are

used in connection with swearing. The one, omnumi describes the act of
swearing, ie., affirming or denying something by an oath. The other
word, ' orkos, refers to the oath itself. Both words are used in the primary
passages dealing with the subject (Matthew 5:33-37; 23:16-22; James
5:12). The idea is that swearing is done by the means or instrumentality
of an oath.

Page 2
 The Oath in Patriarchal Usage

In our first introductory look at the subject of the oath we tried to get
the pieces of the puzzle on the table face up so that we had an idea of
what we have to do. We identified the prominent words that are used in
the Bible when it deals with the subject. We also noted that the crucial
New Testament passages are James 5:12 and the two sections in
Matthew's gospel which represent the teaching of Christ. The big
problem that is presented in the teaching of James and Jesus is that they
seem to forbid the Christian's taking any oath for any reason under any
circumstances. If we take the position that this is the case, then we have
to account for the presence of oaths in the Bible that clearly have God's
approval, and we have to work out the implications of that principle for
the many forms that oaths may take in our own experience. Should we
take an oath, or not? If, on the other hand, we take the position that this
teaching is not absolute, but relative, then we have to come with a sound
interpretation of the words of our Lord and James that will allow what
the words seem clearly to forbid. And we have to establish some kind of
criteria for what kinds of swearing are permissible and what kinds are
not.

In this segment of our study we want to look into the time of the
patriarchs and the use of the oath during that time. In the period of
history between Noah and Moses, the Bible is chiefly concerned with the
activities of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons. These are the men
whom we refer to as the patriarchs. The references to oath-taking in the
period of the patriarchs are as follows:

Genesis 21;22-34-Abraham and Abimelech (covenant)

Genesis 24;1-9-Abraham and his servant (thigh)
Genesis 25;29-34-Jacob and Esau
Genesis 26:26-31-Isaac and Abimelech (covenant)
Genesis 31:43-55-Jacob and Laban (covenant)
Genesis 47:27-31-Jacob and Joseph (thigh)
Genesis 50:24-26-Joseph and his sons

There are at least two interesting features in these accounts worthy of

special attention:

Page 3
1. In two instances, the oath-taking is transacted in connection with a
physical gesture. One man is putting another man under oath, and in so
doing requires him to put his hand under his thigh. This was evidently a
common enough practice, because nobody seemed to question it or be
surprised about it. Exactly why it was done is not altogether clear, but it
must have had some symbolic reference to the man's offspring. Future
generations are represented as originating from that part of the body. The
patriarchs were very conscious of the importance of the children of each
succeeding generation in view of the promise of the Abrahamic
covenant. The fulfillment of the covenant promise depended on and had
a direct bearing on there always being another generation. Therefore it
seems reasonable to assume that the servant who made the oath with
Abraham, for example, was being asked to acknowledge before him that
the future hope of the promise was involved in the servant's performance
of his word. Likewise, Joseph's word to Jacob was given in view of the
far-reaching scope of the promise of the covenant. Jacob wanted to be
buried in the promised land along with his father. The principle here is
that patriarchal oaths seem to take into consideration the solidarity of the
line of descent, which was the line through which God's promise to bless
the world awaited fulfillment

2. The other important feature is the relationship in certain instances

between oath and covenant. In three of our examples the swearing of the
oath is done in connection with a covenant or treaty. Perhaps it was
common practice in situations in which large numbers of people were
involved to enlarge the sworn agreement into covenant form. This meant
that the agreement to which both parties committed their word of
promise was put in some kind of format that could be referred to as
something both binding and identifiable. A permanent marker or
monument of some sort was erected to designate the place and occasion
of the covenant oath. In subsequent references to this covenant, it is
called the "oath" which the Lord swore and kept (Deuteronomy 7:8;
Psalm 105:9; Jeremiah 11:5).

The idea of the oath taking on the form of a curse becomes especially
significant here. The oath that one swears is always held up as a curse
upon the covenant-breaker. The importance of this is seen
in the covenant of God with Abraham (Genesis 15). Clearly God is
putting Himself under a curse should He fail to fulfill His word to

Page 4
Abraham. That this was a common practice in ancient covenant-making
may be inferred from Abraham's evident understanding of what to do
with the animals God requested, without having to be told. Scholars have
discovered this feature in connection with covenant/treaties in the pagan
culture of that time (Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned, pp. 16ff). It
was a means of illustrating the covenant maker's willingness to suffer the
same dire consequences if He failed to perform His word. It may be that
this explains the "two unchangeable things" of Hebrews 6:16-18 by
which God secured this covenant, because He not only gave His word
but made Himself the guarantor of it by putting Himself under the curse.

Page 5
 The Oath in the Law of Moses

The law of Moses recognized the practice of oath-taking, incorporated

it into its organization and established specific laws to regulate the
practice in Israel. Certainly the third commandment had something to say
about it as a general working principle, and the ninth also addressed the
problem of false speech. Under the administration of Moses and the
establishing of Israel in its nationhood, God was not introducing the
practice of swearing-on-oath, but He was setting up commandments
concerning it that became part of the whole fabric of law under which
Israel's national, social and religious life was to be arranged. Of course as
soon as that step was taken, the response of unbelief was to simply try to
satisfy the letter of the law and produce a righteousness by law works.
The story of Israel under the law is the story of the abysmal failure of
human works to produce a righteousness that God approves.

Three of the most glaring problems that the practice of swearing an

oath presented from God's perspective were all specifically addressed in
the commandments of the law of Moses. These were:

1. Swearing in the name of false gods (Deuteronomy 10:20; cf.

Jeremiah 12:16).
2. Swearing falsely (Leviticus 6:1-5; 19:12).
3. Swearing carelessly (Leviticus 5:4).

In each case specific legislation is given to curb these tendencies and to

lead the people in the direction of truth in all their conversation and
conduct. Truth, of course, must always be related to, and have its origin
in, the God of truth.

Perhaps two of the most often-used oath forms in the period of the old
covenant administration were;

1. "As the Lord lives..." (Ruth 3:13; I Samuel 14:39,45; 20:3,21;

25:26,34; II Samuel 4:9; I Kings 2:24).
2. "May God deal with me, be it ever so severely..." (Ruth 1:17; I Samuel
3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; II Samuel 3:9,35; 19:13; I Kings 2:23;
19:2; 20:10; II Kings 6:31).

Page 6
As can be observed from these references, the two oath forms seem to
have been used at will, and it is difficult to pinpoint a major distinction in
meaning or significance. Perhaps the latter option brought out more of
the curse emphasis than the former. It is probably safe to assume,
however, that such expressions became increasingly common in the life
of old covenant Israel. In the face of the law of Moses, which demanded
as a minimum at least outward conformity to its precepts, it became
increasingly more necessary to invent distinctions between binding and
non-binding oaths by which one could satisfy his conscience in terms of
external obedience to the law. And it was at this hopeless system of
tradition that the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ was aimed.

Page 7
 The Oath in the Teaching of our Lord

We have seen that the law of Moses had specifically addressed the
three problems of swearing in the name of false gods; swearing falsely
by the name of the true God; and swearing carelessly. We must
understand that it was within the framework of these commandments in
the law that Israel was responsible to arrange its conduct as long as the
law of Moses remained in force as a covenant. But the people of Israel to
a great extent failed to take into the account the true nature of sin.
Therefore, as the commandment spoke to them repeatedly about the
matter of oath-taking, their sin showed itself, continued on the increase,
seized every opportunity presented to it by the commandment, and
demonstrated its unwillingness to submit. Everyone knew that the
commandment was holy, righteous and good, and yet everyone had to
face also the harsh reality of ongoing disobedience to the commandment.
Careless and thoughtless oaths filled the language of everyday
conversation. Yet clearly this was forbidden, as was swearing falsely.
What was to be done to make the situation manageable, to pay
lip-service to the law of God and maintain a relaxed pattern of speech at
the same time?

Well, the approach seems to have been something like this; The law
does say, doesn't it, that God's people are to swear in His name only.
Why not reason that only those oaths sworn in His name need to be taken
seriously, while the rest do not? Maybe we could establish a scale of
obligation, so that oaths sworn by things closer to God, or things that
God is more interested in, make us more responsible, and oaths sworn by
things farther from God, or things that He is less interested in, make us
less responsible. This seems to be the context of Matthew 23 :16-22.

In the Sermon on the Mount, it appears to be our Lord's intention to

establish the standard of behavior that prevails in the kingdom of God
among the people of God. Life in the kingdom dictates that the truth be
spoken all the time, because the kingdom is a kingdom of truth. Grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ. Truth should become so characteristically
normative that oath-taking becomes superfluous (Matthew 5:33-37). But
not only this. It is also clear that Jesus is rejecting the concept of false
distinctions between binding and non-binding oaths. There is nothing in
creation that is so far from God that it can be separated from Him. He is

Page 8
interested in everything because everything belongs to Him. Therefore,
an oath sworn by any created object is just as binding as one sworn by
God Himself.

Page 9
 The Oath in the Example of our Lord and the Apostles

One of the factors that makes this subject so hard to manage is that
what appears to be such clear and unqualified teaching in the New
Testament seems to be controverted by the example of Christ and Paul.
In this segment of our study we will be looking at expressions in the New
Testament which should be considered in connection with the subject of
the oath.

Let us begin by thinking about the use of the expression "Verily, verily
(Truly, truly)," so characteristic of our Lord's teaching and conversation.
The N.I.V. translates it, "I tell you the truth..." But what this phrase
represents is a doubled use of the word "amen." Whether this expression
constitutes an oath is perhaps debatable. Nevertheless, it does, without a
doubt, at least appear to indicate something more than "letting your 'yes'
be yes and your 'no,' no." Prefacing one's remarks in this way seems to
have placed an added degree of solemnity, urgency or credibility upon
them. "Amen" refers to truth, and the double amen confirms and
strengthens the affirmation all the more. It points to the certainty and
reliability of the words spoken. In the Old Testament the "amen" appears
sometimes in association with the oath, especially with the oath-curse
(cf. Numbers 5:22; Deuteronomy 27:14-26; Nehemiah 5:13). It was the
means by which assent or solemn agreement was given to the oath under
which one was placed, inviting the curse of it upon oneself if the
provisions and stipulations were not upheld.

If we think of the word in terms of an expression of confidence,

certainty, or dependability, perhaps it can be roughly equated to our
"affirm." So Jesus is saying, "I solemnly affirm this, and you can count
on it that I am telling you the truth when I say it."

We may also note that it could be argued that Jesus allowed Himself to
be placed under oath by Caiaphas in His arraignment before the
Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:63). It was in response to this that Jesus broke
His silence in the face of interrogation.

The apostle Paul employed the "anathema" in at least three instances:

Page 10
 Romans 9.3 - "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off
from Christ for the sake of my brothers..."
I Corinthians 16:22 - "If anyone does not love the Lord - a curse be
upon him. Come, 0 Lord!"
Galatians 1;8,9 - "But even if we or an angel from heaven should
preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him
be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say
again; If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what
you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

Whatever else may be said about these texts, they appear to be framed in
the language of an oath-curse.

Then there are also those examples of calling upon God to witness the
truth of Paul's claims. The form varies from place to place, but the
essence is basically the same; "my witness is God." (cf. Romans 1:9; II
Corinthians 1:23; 11:31; Galatians 1:20; I Thessalonians 2:5).

As a final reference to apostolic witness, we may refer to the important

text in Hebrews 6:16 - "Men swear by someone greater than themselves,
and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument." The
writer then goes on to discuss how God confirmed the truth of His word
of promise to Abraham by means of an oath, thus binding both His word
and His nature, two unchangeable things, to the promise. This saying in
verse 16 would seem to have the flavor of a universal maxim, a principle
generally accepted and approved, which the writer simply employs in
order to make his point. It is difficult to find here that the Scriptures are
making a case in favor of oath-taking. Rather it is a recognition of an
accepted norm.

Page 11
 Thoughts on James 5:12

In our study of the subject of oath-taking we have not said very much
specifically about the text that launched us into it in the first place. Now
that we have surveyed the larger picture, we can perhaps feel more
confident about our understanding of this verse of Scripture.

One of the questions that comes to mind here is prompted by the words
"Above all..." Why does James introduce the subject with this
expression? Does he mean that this is more important than anything else?
Is swearing a more serious issue than stealing, or killing, or adultery? Is
it worse than slander, or exploiting the poor, or selfish ambition?
Certainly we would have to come to the conclusion that this is not the
intention of James' teaching here. And yet he does indicate that this is
something we should consider "before all things." What does this mean,
and how should we understand it?

We must first give attention to the context. This is a basic rule of

interpretation that we must always apply as we read the Scriptures. The
context will always have something to say about the meaning of the text.
In this case, what is the context about? If we regard the immediate
context as beginning with verse 7, we have first of all a discussion of
patience in suffering. It may be sufficient to say that verse 12 serves as a
conclusion to this discussion. This is the most important thing to keep in
mind in circumstances like Job's, for example, when swearing becomes a
temptation that is especially difficult to resist.

Second, there is a factor in the meaning of "Above all, or Before all

things," which is borne out in everyone's experience. People more readily
and easily commit this sin, or sin in this area of speech, than in other
ways. People who would never consider committing adultery, taking a
life or stealing, may be very careless in their speech. Swearing oaths,
whether carelessly in everyday conversation, or in more formal settings,
may come easily to them. So James approaches this as something that
may call for greater attention than anything else.
A third reason why this is so important is that swearing directly
concerns God's name. The nature of it involves calling upon God as
witness, making it an extremely sensitive issue.

Page 12
 Finally, we may note from verse 13 that there is a proper and honorable
way to appeal to God in all kinds of circumstances. We may pray to Him
and we may praise Him, but not swear by Him. The prescribed way of
addressing God or conversing with God is prayer.

Page 13
 Tentative Conclusions

The basic issue at stake in arriving at sound conclusions with regard to

the Christian and oath-taking is whether the teaching of the New
Testament, specifically in Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12, should be
understood in an absolute or a relative sense. That is, does the N. T. say
to Christians that all swearing is absolutely forbidden them, regardless of
the form it may take, the reasons why it may be done, or the
circumstances under which it may be done? Or should we understand the
teaching in some relative sense, so that its meaning can only be discerned
as it is compared with or balanced against other considerations? Many in
the Anabaptist tradition have taken the teaching of Jesus in the gospel not
only as their starting point but as sufficient in itself for them to refuse
any oath in any form. Generally speaking, it could be said that the
Reformed position has been at pains to give equal status to all that the
Bible has to offer on this subject. Thus the idea has been to find a way of
bringing together the equally binding teaching of the law of Moses with
the teaching of Christ in order to present the biblical package. The
contention of Reformed thinking is that the Lord Jesus set about in the
Sermon on the Mount merely to clear away the Pharisaical and Scribal
distortions so that believers could get a good look at the heart of the law
of God that was to be their standard of conduct. The premise here is that
the moral precepts of the law of Moses must be regarded as normative
for Christian behavior. And this premise in turn stands on the shoulders
of the idea. of there being one covenant of grace which is administered
through both Moses and Christ.

One of the problems that has surfaced in our studies of the oath in the
various biblical accounts is its predominance in the patriarchal period
(before the giving of the Mosaic law), and its appearance in the writings
of Paul. There is the related factor of its undeniable association with
covenant-making, which forms the basis of the proposition stated so
clearly in Hebrews 6:16 - "Men swear by someone greater than
themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all
argument." It seems that only the narrowest definition of what it means
to swear an oath could fail to take into account these data. Therefore it
follows that the absolute refusal of all oaths on the grounds of our Lord's
teaching falls short of taking these matters into consideration, while the
Reformed view simply fails to deal with the distinctions between the

Page 14
covenants. Jesus is not simplistically re-stating the law of Moses, but
neither does He seem to be setting up a new law in its place. To chart a
possible alternative course, the following conclusions are suggested:

1. Jesus does not set a new law in place which simply raises the
absoluteness of the Mosaic law one level higher, but He establishes a
new direction for life in the kingdom. The kind of life pursued by His
disciples should be characterized by not-swearing-at-all. Jesus is not
saying,

"Clear away all the human traditions which the rabbis have
attached to the law of Moses, and then do what the law of
Moses said."

Neither is He saying,

"The law taught you that some oaths are binding while others
are not, but I say that all oaths are binding; therefore don't use
any at all."

What He seems to be saying is something like this:

"The law was right when it gave commandments regarding

swearing in God's name only, false swearing, and careless
swearing, regardless of what traditional interpretations have
been attached to it. But I am saying that, because all oaths are
binding upon the person taking them, do not swear any oaths
at all, because you do not have the ability to perform to
perfection the thing promised."

The new direction is away from calling upon God to witness our ability
to perform, and toward a recognition that doing that can only lead to
failure and judgment. This seems to be the implication of "for you cannot
make even one hair white or black" (Matt. 5:36) and "or you will be
condemned" (James 5:12).
2. The use of the oath is not compatible with life in the kingdom of
heaven, where truth prevails. One of the obvious characteristics of the
kingdom is its reflection of the character of its King. Grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ, and His kingdom is a kingdom of truth. When the

Page 15
kingdom comes in its fullness, there will be no falsehood, nor any
possibility of it. The presence of the kingdom of heaven makes the oath
obsolete. While using the oath suggests the introduction of new
conditions under which it is now necessary to do what one would not
otherwise be bound to do, the Christian should realize that he is now a
citizen of a world which knows no other conditions than those which
reflect the character of God Himself. The conditions are always the same
for the people of God, to speak the truth in love.

3. The kingdom of heaven in its present aspect recognizes that its

citizens still live in the world where the evil one continues to operate.
The Lord Jesus took this into consideration when He said, "anything
beyond this comes from the evil one." What did He mean by this? Did
He mean to suggest that, if Christians must add some further
confirmation to their words beyond a simple "yes or no," there was evil
intent in what they were saying, or else it was inspired by the devil? This
is not what He intended to say at all. The point is that this present evil
age in which kingdom citizens now must live occasionally makes
demands on us which the kingdom of heaven does not make. Truth does
not prevail in the kingdom of darkness. Because Christians must move
around in this world, sometimes it becomes necessary, due to the
presence of the evil one, to confirm what is said and so put an end to all
argument. The influence of evil is constantly making incursions into the
life of the kingdom, a situation which explains the constant tension of
decision-making that all Christians must deal with every day. If in
Matthew 26:63 Jesus was submitting to the oath imposed upon Him by
the high priest, perhaps it should be understood in this light. Paul's taking
upon himself a vow (Acts 18:18) may be a similar instance of
accommodation.

4. It may also be suggested that the use of the oath, or swearing, has
reference to, or tends toward, the sphere of the law, sin, condemnation
the curse acrd death. In this there is reason enough for Christians to
avoid the practice, because Christian people live in the sphere of the
Spirit, righteousness, justification, blessing and life. Of course the use of
an oath can never actually bring a curse upon any believer. But the point
is that, because that is true, how much more inappropriate could anything
be than for Christians to use the oath! It has the effect of invoking the
rule of law which brings condemnation. It also tends to reverse the

Page 16
covenantal distinctions about the knowledge of God and being known by
God. In the new covenant the knowledge of God is a given (all of them
will know me, from the least to the greatest). But new covenant believers
are also said to be known by God. There is something unique about this
relationship due to our spiritual union with Jesus Christ. The new
covenant constitutes a new relationship between God and His people, a
relationship of openness, confidence and truth.

5. The use of the oath does not seem to be treated in the same kind of
absolute terminology as the taking of human life, sexual impurity, theft
or lying. The position seems to be that such a practice is clearly unsuited
to life in the kingdom of heaven, but may at times be permitted due to the
presence of evil in the world. It may at times become a part of what it
means to "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority
instituted among men..." (I Peter 2:13), or acknowledging that "there is
no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that
exist have been established by God" (Romans 13: 1). There can be little
doubt that the situation which comes most readily to our minds is finding
ourselves in a court of law being placed under oath to tell the truth in our
testimony. It would seem, in my judgment, that this would be permissible
for a Christian whose conscience does not convict him that it is the
wrong thing to do. The very existence of the state, the court and the
magistrate are due to evil in this present age, and because of this it may
be necessary to swear by someone greater to confirm what is said and put
an end to argument.

Page 17