Oath
VIEW:13 DATA:01-04-2020
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; Php_1:8). So the angel, Rev_10:6. The prohibition "swear not at all" (Mat_5:34; Jas_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 Jas_5:12 is, Swear not through impatience to which trials may tempt you (Jas_5:10-11); in contrast stands the proper use of the tongue, Jas_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).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.
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 Jas_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.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863
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.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.
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).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
ōth (שׁבוּעה, shebhū‛āh, probably from shebha‛, ?seven,? the sacred number, which occurs frequently in the ritual of an oath; ὅρκος, hórkos; and the stronger word אלה, 'ālāh, by which a curse is actually invoked upon the oath-breaker Septuagint ἀρά, ará)): In Mat_26:70-74 Peter first denies his Lord simply, then with an oath (shebhū‛āh), then invokes a curse ('ālāh), 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 (Makkōth 2 3; Shebhū‛ōth 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 Kethūbhōth 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.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
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).
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.
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', אָלָה, and shebuah' שְׁבוּעָה, 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 ὅρκος, and the Vulg. byjuramentum or jusjurandum; while in the last sense we have the rendering ἀρά, maledictio. The two words אלהand שבועה, however, are by no means synonymous. They denote two different modes of swearing, or rather two classes of oaths. Thus אלה(from hא; to lament; to wail, to express woe; or, according to Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 44, 99, akin with אֵל, 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 שבועה(from שבע, 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. צחות, 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 שבועת האלהis 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 (שבועה), which properly denotes seven, and by the verb to swear (נשבע), 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 (יר)ִ, 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!יוצאי יר, 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 Rosenmüller 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 ὄρκια τέμνειν, 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 (או באלה בשבועה), 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 (אמן), or Thou hast said it (σὺ ειπας), 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.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
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 Jas_5:12 is, Swear not through impatience to which trials may tempt you (Jas_5:10-11); in contrast stands the proper use of the tongue, Jas_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).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.
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 Jas_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.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863
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.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.
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).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
ōth (שׁבוּעה, shebhū‛āh, probably from shebha‛, ?seven,? the sacred number, which occurs frequently in the ritual of an oath; ὅρκος, hórkos; and the stronger word אלה, 'ālāh, by which a curse is actually invoked upon the oath-breaker Septuagint ἀρά, ará)): In Mat_26:70-74 Peter first denies his Lord simply, then with an oath (shebhū‛āh), then invokes a curse ('ālāh), 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 (Makkōth 2 3; Shebhū‛ōth 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 Kethūbhōth 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.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
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).
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.
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', אָלָה, and shebuah' שְׁבוּעָה, 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 ὅρκος, and the Vulg. byjuramentum or jusjurandum; while in the last sense we have the rendering ἀρά, maledictio. The two words אלהand שבועה, however, are by no means synonymous. They denote two different modes of swearing, or rather two classes of oaths. Thus אלה(from hא; to lament; to wail, to express woe; or, according to Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 44, 99, akin with אֵל, 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 שבועה(from שבע, 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. צחות, 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 שבועת האלהis 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 (שבועה), which properly denotes seven, and by the verb to swear (נשבע), 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 (יר)ִ, 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!יוצאי יר, 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 Rosenmüller 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 ὄρκια τέμνειν, 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 (או באלה בשבועה), 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 (אמן), or Thou hast said it (σὺ ειπας), 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.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags