What does Oaths mean in the Bible?

Greek / Hebrew Translation Occurance
ὅρκους that which has been pledged or promised with an oath. 3
תִּשָּׁבֵֽעַ to swear 2
הָאָלוֹת֙ oath. 1
אָל֣וֹת oath. 1
הָאָל֖וֹת oath. 1
הָאָלֹ֥ת oath. 1
שְׁבֻע֖וֹת oath 1
הַנִּשְׁבָּעִ֣ים to swear 1

Definitions Related to Oaths

G3727


   1 that which has been pledged or promised with an oath.
   

H7650


   1 to swear, adjure.
      1a (Qal) sworn (participle).
      1b (Niphal).
         1b1 to swear, take an oath.
         1b2 to swear (of Jehovah by Himself).
         1b3 to curse.
      1c (Hiphil).
         1c1 to cause to take an oath.
         1c2 to adjure.
         

H423


   1 oath.
   2 oath of covenant.
   3 curse.
      3a from God.
      3b from men.
   4 execration.
   

H7621


   1 oath, curse.
      1a oath.
         1a1 attesting of innocence.
         1a2 curse.
      1b oath (of Jehovah).
      

Frequency of Oaths (original languages)

Frequency of Oaths (English)

Dictionary

1910 New Catholic Dictionary - English Post Reformation Oaths
Oaths exacted by the Crown after it had imposed Protestantism on England. The Oath of Royal Supremacy introduced by Henry VIII, 1534, repealed by Mary and revived by Elizabeth, was chiefiy concerned with the succession. The Oath of Allegiance to James I, also called the Oath of Obedience, introduced 1606, doing away with the deposing power of the pope, was objectionably worded, fraudulently intended, and a dishonor to the Holy See; its infiuence was great and its consequences lasting and far-reaching. These oaths fell into temporary desuetude when the Puritans came into power, and the Oath of Adjuration under the Commonwealth, 1643, imposed monstrous penalties on anyone refusing to take it, the refusal branding him a papist; this oath, however, was sparingly enforced. The Test Oath, 1672,1678, also called the Declaration of Attestation Oath, compelling office holders to make a "declaration against Transubstantiation" and other tenets, marks the consummation of English anti-Catholic legislation, as it insured that no Catholic could be admitted to office without renouncing his faith. The Quebec Acts 1771, was the first tolerant measure for Catholics since Mary's reign. The Irish Oath, 1774, was followed by the so-called relief bills, and other tests involving also English Catholics, until, owing to the influence of Daniel O'Connell and the Irish, Catholic Emancipation was granted, 1829, without any tests.
1910 New Catholic Dictionary - Oaths, English Post Reformation
Oaths exacted by the Crown after it had imposed Protestantism on England. The Oath of Royal Supremacy introduced by Henry VIII, 1534, repealed by Mary and revived by Elizabeth, was chiefiy concerned with the succession. The Oath of Allegiance to James I, also called the Oath of Obedience, introduced 1606, doing away with the deposing power of the pope, was objectionably worded, fraudulently intended, and a dishonor to the Holy See; its infiuence was great and its consequences lasting and far-reaching. These oaths fell into temporary desuetude when the Puritans came into power, and the Oath of Adjuration under the Commonwealth, 1643, imposed monstrous penalties on anyone refusing to take it, the refusal branding him a papist; this oath, however, was sparingly enforced. The Test Oath, 1672,1678, also called the Declaration of Attestation Oath, compelling office holders to make a "declaration against Transubstantiation" and other tenets, marks the consummation of English anti-Catholic legislation, as it insured that no Catholic could be admitted to office without renouncing his faith. The Quebec Acts 1771, was the first tolerant measure for Catholics since Mary's reign. The Irish Oath, 1774, was followed by the so-called relief bills, and other tests involving also English Catholics, until, owing to the influence of Daniel O'Connell and the Irish, Catholic Emancipation was granted, 1829, without any tests.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible - Oaths
OATHS. How the need of oaths must first have arisen can be seen in such a passage as Exodus 22:10-11 : ‘If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or a beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing It: the oath of the Lord shall be between them both, whether he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.’ As there is no witness to substantiate the innocence or prove the guilt of the suspected person no man seeing it God is called to witness. An oath is really a conditional curse, which a man calls down upon himself from God, in the case of his not speaking the truth or not keeping a promise. The use of oaths was not restricted to judicial procedure, but was also connected with a variety of everyday matters; to swear by the name of Jahweh was regarded as a sign of loyalty to Him (cf. Isaiah 48:1 , Jeremiah 12:16 , Deuteronomy 6:13 ).
There are two words in Hebrew for an oath; (1) shĕbû‘ah , which comes from the same root as the word for ‘seven’ ( sheba’ ); the Heb. word for ‘to swear’ comes likewise from the same root, and means literally ‘to come under the influence of seven things.’ Seven was the most sacred number among the Hebrews (cf. shâbûa’ , ‘week’ of seven days), and among the Semites generally. Among the Babylonians the seven planets each represented a god. Originally, therefore, there must have been a direct connexion between this sacred number and the oath. (2) ’âlah , which, strictly speaking, means a ‘curse,’ and was a stronger form of oath. The combination of both words was used on especially solemn occasions, e.g. Numbers 5:21 (cf. Matthew 26:72 of Peter’s denial).
There were various forms used in taking an oath, e.g. ‘God do so to me and more also if …’ ( 1 Kings 2:23 ); the punishment called down in the case of the oath not being observed is left indeterminate in this form; this is to be explained from the fact that there was a fear lest the mention of the curse should ipso facto bring it to pass; it is a remnant of animistic conceptions ( i.e . there was the fear that a demon might think his services were required). In later times, however, the nature of the curse is sometimes mentioned, e.g. ‘… saying, The Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire’ … ( Jeremiah 29:22 ; cf. Isaiah 65:15 , Zechariah 8:13 ). Another form was: ‘God is witness betwixt me and thee’ ( Genesis 31:50 ), or, ‘The Lord be a true and faithful witness amongst us, if …’ ( Jeremiah 42:5 ); a more common form is: ‘As the Lord liveth’ ( Judges 8:19 ), which is sometimes varied by the addition of a reference to the person to whom the oath was made: ‘As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth’ ( 1 Samuel 20:3 , cf. 2 Samuel 15:21 ). Another form was: ‘God … judge between us’ ( Genesis 31:53 ). God Himself is conceived of as taking oaths: ‘By myself have I sworn …’ ( Genesis 22:15 ). The usual gesture in taking an oath was to raise the arm towards heaven ( Deuteronomy 32:40 , Daniel 12:7 ), the motive being to point to the dwelling-place of God; to ‘raise the hand’ became an expression for ‘to swear’ ( Exodus 6:8 , Numbers 14:30 ). Another gesture is referred to in Genesis 24:2 ; Genesis 47:29 , viz. putting the hand under the thigh; the organ of generation was regarded as peculiarly holy by the Hebrews.
With regard to the breaking of an oath see Leviticus 6:1-7 ; and for the use of oaths in ratifying a covenant see Genesis 21:27-31 ; Genesis 26:28 ; Genesis 31:53 , Jos 9:15 , 2 Kings 11:4 .
W. O. E. Oesterley.
Holman Bible Dictionary - Oaths
A formal appeal to God or some sacred object as a support to fulfill a promise. Ancient societies lacked laws and documentation as a means of legal enforcement. Binding transactions depended upon the power of a person's word. Without a modern judicial system, the very security of the society demanded that people speak the truth to one another. The oath maintained the obligation to speak honestly.
Solemn oaths in the Bible were binding. Violation of an oath was serious and could not be disregarded (Ezekiel 17:13 ,Ezekiel 17:13,17:16 ,Ezekiel 17:16,17:18-19 ).
The Old Testament and Oaths The making of covenants revealed the binding nature of the oath. See Covenant . The parties made oaths to enforce the awareness that a violator of the covenant would suffer the same fate as the sacrificed animal.
Symbolic acts often accompanied an oath. Oath takers often raised their right hands or lifted both hands to heaven (Genesis 14:22 ; Daniel 12:7 ; compare Revelation 10:5-6 ). Bible writers could even use human images to describe God, saying the Lord swears by His right hand (Isaiah 62:8 ).
Invoking the name of a reigning monarch was another symbolic act joined with oath taking. Using the Lord's name in an oath directly appeals to His involvement regarding testimony and establishes Him as the supreme Enforcer and Judge. To violate the Lord's name was to violate the Lord; therefore, oaths that used God's name carelessly are condemned (Exodus 20:7 ; Leviticus 19:12 ).
The oath reinforced God's promises to His people (Exodus 33:1 ; Deuteronomy 6:18 ; Deuteronomy 7:8 ; Psalm 132:11 ). The oath established boundaries around human speech and set guidelines for human conduct (Numbers 30:1 ; Deuteronomy 23:21 ). Israel ratified their treaties by oaths (Joshua 9:15 ,Joshua 9:15,9:18 ,Joshua 9:18,9:20 ), and the writer of Ecclesiastes reminded his readers that it is better not to make a vow than to make a vow and not keep it (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 ).
The New Testament and Oaths The New Testament raised the oath to a new level of understanding. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus established a different standard of speech, one based not upon oaths but upon simple integrity. A clear yes and no would be sufficient for communication (Matthew 5:33-37 ; compare James 5:12 ). Jesus spurned oaths made by the Temple (Matthew 23:16-21 ). At His trial before Caiaphas, He was silent to the questions until a binding oath was placed upon Him (Matthew 26:63-65 ). Jesus did not condemn oaths, only the abuse of God's name in the taking of oaths.
Other New Testament passages reveal the gravity of oath taking. Peter's denial of Christ was first, a simple refusal to acknowledge Jesus. An oath accompanied his second denial. He issued his final denial in the form of a curse (Matthew 26:69-75 ). The apostle Paul frequently called upon God in the form of an oath to witness to his own sincerity (Romans 1:9 ; 2 Corinthians 1:23 ; Galatians 1:20 ). Hebrews establishes the superiority of Christ's priesthood over the Levitical priesthood because it was promised with an oath whereas the Levitical priesthood was not (Hebrews 7:20-22 ).
Throughout church history, some Christians have insisted that oath taking is a concession to the evil of this present age. Certain Christian groups have refused to take oaths under any conditions. Most Christians do not condemn oaths under any circumstance, but they condemn the abuse of God's name in oaths.
Brad Creed
Webster's Dictionary - Oaths
(pl.) of Oath
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Oaths
OATHS.—Christ’s teaching on the subject of oaths is set forth in one of the sections of the Sermon on the Mount, in which He contrasts His doctrine with that of the earlier dispensation (Matthew 5:33-37). The position of the Law on the subject is summed up in the statement, ‘Thou shalt not forswear thyself,’ but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.’ This is a combination of different passages in the Law (Leviticus 19:12, Numbers 30:3, Deuteronomy 23:22), of which the first deals specially with oaths, the others with vows. But in point of obligation oaths and vows were recognized in the Rabbinical schools as on the same footing (Wünsche, Neue Beitriäge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, p. 57), and the statement in which Christ here represents the position of the Law was, no doubt, the current formula in which, in these schools, the doctrine of the Law on the question was summed up. in opposition to this dictum of the Law, Christ lays down an absolute prohibition, ‘Swear not at all’ Matthew 5:34), and proceeds to draw out the full meaning of the ‘at all’ (ὅλως) by showing that His prohibition covers every appeal to anything beside us in confirmation of our word, and not merely such as expressly introduce the name of Jehovah. The casuists among the scribes made a distinction between more and less binding oaths. The former class consisted of those which invoked the name of God; the latter used such forms as ‘by heaven,’ ‘by earth,’ ‘by Jerusalem,’ ‘by the life of my head.’ An oath by heaven and earth, for instance, was not considered to be binding, because one did not require to think of the Creator; whereas if one swore by one of the letters of the Divine name, or by one of the Divine attributes, that was regarded as binding, and he who treated such an oath lightly was punishable (Wünsche, op. cit. p. 59; Schürer, HJP [1] ii. ii. 122).
Our Lord Himself gives other examples of such casuistical distinctions in the matter of oaths in Matthew 5:16-22. He refers to them here because the full import of His prohibition of oaths might not be realized by those who were familiar with such distinctions. It might be thought that He was merely forbidding a direct appeal to the name of Jehovah. And so He proceeds to show how utterly different is His standpoint on the question of oaths from that of the Rabbinical authorities. They endeavoured to empty the oath of reference to God, so as to narrow the scope of the commandment against perjury. Christ sought to make explicit the reference to God virtually contained in every asseveration, so as to widen the scope of His prohibition of swearing. With this object He takes some of the common forms of oaths which were regarded as less binding, and shows how, though the name of God be not expressly mentioned, they are meaningless unless they involve an appeal to Him. Thus to call heaven or earth to witness our statement is an empty form, unless we be thinking not merely of heaven or earth, but of the Power they suggest, who will punish unfaithfulness (Matthew 5:34-35 a), i.e. God, of whom heaven is the throne and earth the footstool (Isaiah 66:1). To appeal to Jerusalem (Matthew 5:35 b) is meaningless unless we be thinking of the great King, who has made Jerusalem His city (Psalms 48:3). And to swear by one’s head Matthew 23:36) involves an appeal to Him in whose hands our destiny lies, and who alone can bring upon our heads the punishment of perjury. For ourselves, we cannot make one hair black or white. Black hair is here used as the symbol of youth; white, of old age. The very colour of our hair, Christ would say, reminds us that we are in the hands of a higher Power. It is to that Power we appeal when we swear by the life of our head. Every form of asseveration, then, Christ concludes, every appeal to anything beside us in confirmation of our word, is an oath, for it virtually involves an appeal to God. All such forms come under Christ’s prohibition. His command is: ‘Swear not at all; but let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay’ (Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:37).
These last words have received different interpretations. Beza renders them, ‘Let your affirmation be yea, and your negation nay,’—an attempt to bring the present verse into harmony with James 5:12 at the sacrifice of grammar. Equally unjustifiable grammatically is Grotius’ attempt to secure the same object by his translation, ‘Let your yea and nay of speech correspond to a yea and nay of fact,’ with the additional fault that it is questionable whether that is the meaning of the passage in James. The simplest way of taking the words is to regard the ναὶ ναί, οὒ, οὔ, as a repetition, such as was common in actual speech (cf. 2 Kings 10:15, 2 Corinthians 1:17), to confirm a statement. ‘Let your speech,’ says Christ, ‘be a clear and forcible yes or no. For whatsoever is more than these,’ He continues, ‘cometh ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ.’ Again there is difference of opinion as to these last words. Many take them as equivalent to ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλον. But B. Weiss (Matthäusevangelium, ad loc.) contends that such a view is incompatible with the fact that the OT requires oaths (Exodus 22:11), and even puts them into the mouth of God (Genesis 22:16; Genesis 26:3). It is better to take the πονηροῦ as the gen. of the neuter; so that the statement will mean that the oath springs from evil, either in the sense that it is the presence of evil in the world that leads to the oath in confirmation of one’s word, and that in the Kingdom of God, in which truth prevails, the oath must altogether disappear (so Weiss), or that the practice of confirming one’s statement by an oath springs from the tacit assumption that when one does not so confirm it, one is not bound to speak the truth (so Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 210).
Before proceeding to discuss the conclusion to be drawn from the passage, we must note an interpretation of Matthew 5:34-36 which has gained considerable acceptance, but which puts quite a different meaning upon Christ’s prohibition in Matthew 5:34 from what we have given above. It is suggested that the prohibition is not meant to embrace all oaths, but merely the thoughtless swearing of everyday life whereby the name of God is profaned (so Calvin, Ewald, Tholuck, and many others). The ὀμόσαι ὅλως of Matthew 5:34, it is contended, does not include swearing by God; for, as Ewald (Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 267) says, that was done only in courts of law, and Christ is not referring to this at all. If He had meant to forbid oaths absolutely, He would certainly have mentioned the direct oath in which the name of God is expressly invoked. As He has not done so, we must conclude that His prohibition is not meant to apply to it, i.e. that he means to forbid only such thoughtless oaths of common life as He proceeds to exemplify.
This attempt to empty the ὅλως of its meaning does not commend itself. It is evidently inspired by fear of the consequences which seem to ensue from the absolute prohibition Christ lays down, and such a motive does not tend to sound exegesis. It fails to do justice to the original. The only permissible translation of μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως is that which regards it as an absolute prohibition. Only thus does Christ’s position present a proper contrast to that of the Law. The Law forbids swearing falsely; Christ forbids swearing at all. Thus we have a sufficient contrast to, and advance beyond, the position of the Law. But on the present interpretation Christ sets over against the commandment against perjury in the name of God a prohibition merely of frivolous swearing, and that of a kind which does not mention the name of God at all, which is somewhat of an anti-climax. It is true, as the supporters of this interpretation point out, that Christ does not expressly mention the oath by the name of God in the instances He adduces. But it is much more reasonable to suppose that He omits it because it is evident that it is included under the swearing He prohibits, while there may be doubt as to these indirect oaths He specifies, than to argue that, when He prohibits swearing ὅλως, He includes under the prohibition only those forms of oath which were hardly regarded as oaths at all by His contemporaries, and omits the one oath that was universally so esteemed.
We conclude, then, that Christ’s word in Matthew 5:34 is to be understood as an absolute prohibition of swearing, and that it cannot be restricted to the thoughtless, irrelevant oaths of common life. And it remains to consider in what spirit this absolute prohibition is laid down, and what are the conclusions that follow from it. Christ has Himself given the reason for His prohibition of swearing. Whatsoever goes beyond the distinct and forcible affirmation and negation, He says, cometh of evil (Matthew 5:37). As we saw above, this saying may be interpreted in different ways. It may be taken to mean that it is the presence of evil among our fellow-men that necessitates oaths, to convince them of the good faith of the speaker. So Augustine (Sermon on the Mount): ‘Tu autem non malum facis, qui bene uteris juratione, quae, etsi non bona, tamen necessaria est, ut alten persuadeas quod utiliter persuades, sed a malo est illius, cujus infirmitate jurare cogeris.’ But, as Tholuck (Sermon on the Mount, English translation p. 252 f.) remarks, this is open to a twofold objection—first, that in such a case the evil in question rests with him who requires the oath, whereas all the stress of the prohibition is directed against taking oaths; and, second, that on this interpretation the fulfilment of our Lord’s command would be deferred to the realization of that ideal state in which no evil exists, in which case the present command would stand on a different footing from the others of the Sermon on the Mount, which plainly apply to a world in which evil is prevalent. For this reason we accept the other interpretation of the words given above—that whatever goes beyond the plain affirmation and negation cometh of evil, in the sense that behind it is the tacit assumption that, when our word is not confirmed by an oath, we are not bound to adhere strictly to the truth. This brings the present passage into harmony with the general spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. The theme of that Sermon is righteousness of the heart. When Christ opposes His commands to those of the Law, it is to show that He requires more than the Law demanded, that He insists not only upon righteousness of outward conduct, but upon righteousness of the heart. The Law required strict truth whenever an oath was taken. The tendency of the Pharisaic formalism of Christ’s day was to keep the letter of the Law by strict fulfilment of one’s promise and scrupulous adherence to the truth whenever the Divine name was invoked, but to break its spirit by assuming that whenever such an oath was not taken, greater latitude was allowed. Christ insisted upon such a regard for truth that the absence of the oath should make no difference. To feel that one is more bound by an oath than by one’s simple word is to have the spirit of falsehood in one’s heart. In such a case whatsoever is more than the direct yea and nay cometh of evil.
Once we realize what is the spirit in which Christ’s prohibition is given, we are in a position to decide some of the questions raised as to the practicability of the observance of the command in existing social conditions. If the prohibition is absolute, on what ground can the practice of taking oaths in courts of law be defended? The answer is that the spirit in which the oath is taken in such a case is very different from that which our Lord condemns in the present instance. In a court of law we take the oath to convince our fellow-men, who cannot see our heart and judge of our regard for truth, of our good faith. That is a very different thing from thinking that we are not required to speak the truth unless bound by an oath; and it is the latter view that Christ condemns in His dictum upon swearing. We may still keep the spirit of our Lord’s command though we break the letter of it by taking an oath in court, just, as we may keep the spirit of many other injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount, e.g. that with regard to praying in private (Matthew 6:6), though we break them in the letter. Christ Himself, according to the Gospel in which the present passage occurs, did not refuse to answer when the high priest adjured Him by the living God (Matthew 26:63). And though Mark omits the adjuration, so that we cannot with confidence appeal to the conduct of Christ Himself on this occasion, all the Gospels represent Him as frequently strengthening His declarations by the solemn ἀμήν, which in the Fourth Gospel becomes ἀμὴν ἀμήν. In a word, while the prohibition of swearing is absolute, and is on no account to be modified in the manner we have referred to above, we must remember that what Christ is aiming at is not the mere outward oath, but the spirit of evil which inspired it, and regard as an infraction of His command only such conduct as cometh of the evil He seeks to destroy. When we regard the commandment in that light, there is no need to defer the fulfilment of it to an ideal state. It does not describe the conditions which should prevail between the members of the Kingdom of God only in their relations to one another, but lays down a, principle which should guide the member of the Kingdom in his relation to all with whom he comes in contact. And though, owing to the conditions of the society in which he lives, he may have to depart from the strict letter of the precept by taking a solemn oath on occasion, so long as he does not do so from the unworthy motive which inspires the oaths against which Christ contends, he may still claim to remain faithful to the command of Christ.
Literature.—The various Commentaries; Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible , art. ‘Oath’ and Extra Vol. p. 28; PRE [2] 3 [3] , art. ‘Eid’; Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 210–213; Gore, Sermon on the Mount; Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1067; Dykes, Manifesto of the King, p. 265; Martensen, Christ. Ethics, ii. 226. A full list of the relative literature will be found in Tholuck and Rothe.
G. Wauchope Stewart.

Sentence search

Swear - See Oaths
Swearing - See Oaths
Swearing (2) - —See Oaths
Oaths - ...
Solemn Oaths in the Bible were binding. ...
The Old Testament and Oaths The making of covenants revealed the binding nature of the oath. The parties made Oaths to enforce the awareness that a violator of the covenant would suffer the same fate as the sacrificed animal. To violate the Lord's name was to violate the Lord; therefore, Oaths that used God's name carelessly are condemned (Exodus 20:7 ; Leviticus 19:12 ). Israel ratified their treaties by Oaths (Joshua 9:15 ,Joshua 9:15,9:18 ,Joshua 9:18,9:20 ), and the writer of Ecclesiastes reminded his readers that it is better not to make a vow than to make a vow and not keep it (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 ). ...
The New Testament and Oaths The New Testament raised the oath to a new level of understanding. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus established a different standard of speech, one based not upon Oaths but upon simple integrity. Jesus spurned Oaths made by the Temple (Matthew 23:16-21 ). Jesus did not condemn Oaths, only the abuse of God's name in the taking of Oaths. Certain Christian groups have refused to take Oaths under any conditions. Most Christians do not condemn Oaths under any circumstance, but they condemn the abuse of God's name in Oaths
Ods - ) A corruption of God's; - formerly used in Oaths and ejaculatory phrases
Halidom - ) Holiness; sanctity; sacred oath; sacred things; sanctuary; - used chiefly in Oaths
Perjury - Vows and Oaths to perform an act were to be fulfilled (Numbers 30:2 ). See Oaths
Protest - * Note: In 1 Corinthians 15:31 , "I protest by" is a rendering of ne, a particle of strong affirmation used in Oaths
Amulets - (am' yoo lehtss) NAS, RSV translation of rare Hebrew word for charms, Oaths used to describe an ornament women wore (Isaiah 3:20 )
Oath - "The forms of Oaths, " says Dr. ' The forms of Oaths in Christian countries are also very different; but in no country in the world worse contrived, either to convey the meaning, or impress the obligation of an oath or impress the obligation of an oath than in our own. This obscure and eliptical form, together with the levity and frequency with which it is administered, 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, " continues, Mr. Paley, "whether the requiring of Oaths on so many frivolous occasions, especially in the customs, and in the qualification for petty offices, has any other effect than to make them 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. " It is evident that so far as atheism prevails, Oaths can be of no use. "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. 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, Matthew 26:63-64 . The apostle Paul also makes use of expressions which contain the nature of Oaths, Romans 1:9 . Oaths are nugatory, that is, carry with them no proper force or obligation, unless we believe 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. 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. "Promissory Oaths are not binding where the promise itself would not be so. As Oaths are designed for the security of the imposer, it is manifest that they must be interpreted and performed in the sense in which the imposer intends them. " Oaths, also, must never be taken but in matters of importance, nor irreverently, and without godly fear. 15; Burnet's Exposition of the 39th Article of the Church of England; Herport's Essay on truths of importance, and Doctrine of Oaths; Doddridge's Lectures, lect
Formulary - ) A book containing stated and prescribed forms, as of Oaths, declarations, prayers, medical formulaae, etc
Oath - 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. 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. " 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. 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. 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," Matthew 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, Matthew 26:63-64 ; Mark 14:61 . The Apostle Paul also makes use of expressions which contain the nature of Oaths, Romans 1:9 ; 1 Corinthians 15:31 ; 2 Corinthians 1:18 ; Galatians 1:20 ; Hebrews 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. God directed the Israelites to swear by his name, Deuteronomy...
Hebrews 6:13 ; Hebrews 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
Shebah - SHEBAH or Shibeah, "seven" and "oath", Oaths being ratified with sevenfold sacrifices (Genesis 21:28; Genesis 21:31)
Extrajudicial - ) Out of or beyond the power authority of a court or judge; beyond jurisdiction; not valid as a part of a judicial proceeding; as, extrajudicial Oaths, judgments, etc
Oath - ...
The Lord exposed the folly of the tradition that some Oaths were not binding. ...
In the common intercourse of life there should be no Oaths, the simple 'yea' and 'nay' should be enough, "swear not at all," 1618455137_71 ; James 5:12 ; the context of these passages shows that they do not refer to judicial Oaths: cf
Oath - But if the words are taken as referring to Oaths, then their intention may have been to show "that the proper state of Christians is to require no Oaths; that when evil is expelled from among them every yea and nay will be as decisive as an oath, every promise as binding as a vow
Perjure - ) To make a false oath to; to deceive by Oaths and protestations
Fratricelli - ) A sect which seceded from the Franciscan Order, chiefly in Italy and Sicily, in 1294, repudiating the pope as an apostate, maintaining the duty of celibacy and poverty, and discountenancing Oaths
Death (2) - When my spirit departs, if God finds me hymning his praise, I shall hymn it in heaven; if he finds me breathing out Oaths, I shall follow up those Oaths in hell
Bondage - He must resolve not to be brought under the bondage of observing Oaths
Oath - Oaths were sometimes taken before the altar, or by an appeal to Jehovah; "as the Lord liveth. 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. The intention was, as Alford well notes upon Matthew 5:34-37, to show "that the proper state of Christians is to require no Oaths; that, when evil is expelled from among them, every yea and nay will be as decisive as an oath, every promise as binding as a vow
Exactor - He that demands by authority as an exactor of Oaths
Separatists - They discountenanced military service, Oaths, all ceremonies and sacraments in worship, and strove to cultivate an austere piety
Oath - ...
There were various rituals that people followed in swearing Oaths. ...
People could swear Oaths before local judges or at the sanctuary altar (Exodus 22:10-11; 1 Kings 8:31). ...
Wrong practices developed among the Jews concerning the taking of Oaths. 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 God’s 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
Poison - Poisonous weeds illustrated lawsuits springing up from broken Oaths and covenants (Hosea 10:4 )
Oath - " 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. The prohibition "swear not at all" (Matthew 5:34; James 5:12) refers to trivial occasions, not to Oaths on solemn occasions and before magistrates. ...
The Jews held Oaths not binding if God's name did not directly occur (Lightfoot, Hor. "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. In the perfect Christian state all Oaths would be needless, for distrust of another's word and untruth would not exist. 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
Oaths - OATHS. —Christ’s teaching on the subject of Oaths is set forth in one of the sections of the Sermon on the Mount, in which He contrasts His doctrine with that of the earlier dispensation (Matthew 5:33-37). The position of the Law on the subject is summed up in the statement, ‘Thou shalt not forswear thyself,’ but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths. ’ This is a combination of different passages in the Law (Leviticus 19:12, Numbers 30:3, Deuteronomy 23:22), of which the first deals specially with Oaths, the others with vows. But in point of obligation Oaths and vows were recognized in the Rabbinical schools as on the same footing (Wünsche, Neue Beitriäge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, p. The casuists among the scribes made a distinction between more and less binding Oaths. ...
Our Lord Himself gives other examples of such casuistical distinctions in the matter of Oaths in Matthew 5:16-22. He refers to them here because the full import of His prohibition of Oaths might not be realized by those who were familiar with such distinctions. And so He proceeds to show how utterly different is His standpoint on the question of Oaths from that of the Rabbinical authorities. With this object He takes some of the common forms of Oaths which were regarded as less binding, and shows how, though the name of God be not expressly mentioned, they are meaningless unless they involve an appeal to Him. ) contends that such a view is incompatible with the fact that the OT requires Oaths (Exodus 22:11), and even puts them into the mouth of God (Genesis 22:16; Genesis 26:3). It is suggested that the prohibition is not meant to embrace all Oaths, but merely the thoughtless swearing of everyday life whereby the name of God is profaned (so Calvin, Ewald, Tholuck, and many others). If He had meant to forbid Oaths absolutely, He would certainly have mentioned the direct oath in which the name of God is expressly invoked. that he means to forbid only such thoughtless Oaths of common life as He proceeds to exemplify. But it is much more reasonable to suppose that He omits it because it is evident that it is included under the swearing He prohibits, while there may be doubt as to these indirect Oaths He specifies, than to argue that, when He prohibits swearing ὅλως, He includes under the prohibition only those forms of oath which were hardly regarded as Oaths at all by His contemporaries, and omits the one oath that was universally so esteemed. ...
We conclude, then, that Christ’s word in Matthew 5:34 is to be understood as an absolute prohibition of swearing, and that it cannot be restricted to the thoughtless, irrelevant Oaths of common life. It may be taken to mean that it is the presence of evil among our fellow-men that necessitates Oaths, to convince them of the good faith of the speaker. ) remarks, this is open to a twofold objection—first, that in such a case the evil in question rests with him who requires the oath, whereas all the stress of the prohibition is directed against taking Oaths; and, second, that on this interpretation the fulfilment of our Lord’s command would be deferred to the realization of that ideal state in which no evil exists, in which case the present command would stand on a different footing from the others of the Sermon on the Mount, which plainly apply to a world in which evil is prevalent. If the prohibition is absolute, on what ground can the practice of taking Oaths in courts of law be defended? The answer is that the spirit in which the oath is taken in such a case is very different from that which our Lord condemns in the present instance. And though, owing to the conditions of the society in which he lives, he may have to depart from the strict letter of the precept by taking a solemn oath on occasion, so long as he does not do so from the unworthy motive which inspires the Oaths against which Christ contends, he may still claim to remain faithful to the command of Christ
English Post Reformation Oaths - Oaths exacted by the Crown after it had imposed Protestantism on England. These Oaths fell into temporary desuetude when the Puritans came into power, and the Oath of Adjuration under the Commonwealth, 1643, imposed monstrous penalties on anyone refusing to take it, the refusal branding him a papist; this oath, however, was sparingly enforced
Oaths, English Post Reformation - Oaths exacted by the Crown after it had imposed Protestantism on England. These Oaths fell into temporary desuetude when the Puritans came into power, and the Oath of Adjuration under the Commonwealth, 1643, imposed monstrous penalties on anyone refusing to take it, the refusal branding him a papist; this oath, however, was sparingly enforced
Nonjurors - Those who refused to take the Oaths to government, and who were in consequence under certain incapacities, and liable to certain severe penalties
Faithful - ) Firm in adherence to promises, Oaths, contracts, treaties, or other engagements
Promise - Israelites of the Old Testament era made their promises usually in the forms of covenants, Oaths and vows. They therefore understood the promises of God in relation to such forms (Exodus 6:8; Deuteronomy 9:5; Ephesians 2:12; Hebrews 6:13; see COVENANT; Oaths; VOWS). In the New Testament, although the idea of the covenant is present, there is little concerning Oaths and vows
Cameronians - Some of the congregations seceded in 1863 when the Cameronians decided not to inflict any penalties upon members who had taken Oaths or practised civilfunctions
Oaths - Oaths. How the need of Oaths must first have arisen can be seen in such a passage as Exodus 22:10-11 : ‘If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or a beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing It: the oath of the Lord shall be between them both, whether he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution. The use of Oaths was not restricted to judicial procedure, but was also connected with a variety of everyday matters; to swear by the name of Jahweh was regarded as a sign of loyalty to Him (cf. God Himself is conceived of as taking Oaths: ‘By myself have I sworn …’ ( Genesis 22:15 ). ...
With regard to the breaking of an oath see Genesis 31:50 ; and for the use of Oaths in ratifying a covenant see Genesis 21:27-31 ; Genesis 26:28 ; Genesis 31:53 , Jos 9:15 , 2 Kings 11:4
Ashima - Amos 8:14 says Israel swore by or made Oaths by the “sin” (KJV) “guilt” (NAS) or “shame” of Samaria
Dispensation - ) The relaxation of a law in a particular case; permission to do something forbidden, or to omit doing something enjoined; specifically, in the Roman Catholic Church, exemption from some ecclesiastical law or obligation to God which a man has incurred of his own free will (oaths, vows, etc
Oath, - (Genesis 24:2 ; 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. (Genesis 15:10,17 ; Jeremiah 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
Toleration Act - whereby all persons are required to resort to their parish church or chapel, upon pain of punishment by the censures of the church; and also upon pain that every person so offending, shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence; nor the statute made in the 3d year of the late King James, inituled "An act for the better discovering and repressing Popish Recusants;" nor that other statute, intituled ...
"An act to prevent and avoid dangers which may grow by Popish Recussants;" nor any other law or statute of this realm made against Papists or Popish Recusants, shall be construed to extend to any person or persons dissenting from the Church of England, that shall take the Oaths (of allegiance and supremacy) and shall make and subscribe the declaration (against Popery;) which Oaths and declaration the justices of the peace at the general sessions of the peace for the county, or place where such persons shall live, are hereby required to administer to such persons as shall offer themselves to make and subscribe the same, and thereof to keep a register; and likewise, none of the persons aforesaid shall give or pay, as any fee or reward, to any officer belonging to the court, above the sum of sixpence, for his entry of his taking the said Oaths, &c. That every person that shall take the said Oaths and make and subscribe the declaration aforesaid, shall not be liable to any pains, penalties, or forfeitures, mentioned in an act made in the 35th of the late Queen Elizabeth, nor in an act made in the 22d of Charles the Second, intituled "An act to prevent and suppress Seditious Conventicles;" nor shall any of the said persons be prosecuted in any ecclesiastical court for their nonconforming to the Church or England. as aforesaid, shall hereafter be chosen high constable, or petit constable, church-warden, oversee of the poor, or any other parochial or ward officer, and such person shall scruple to take upon him any of the said offices, in regard of the Oaths, or any other matter or thing required by the law to be taken or done in respect of such office, every such person shall and may execute such office by a sufficient deputy, that shall comply with the laws on this behalf. That no person dissenting from the church of England in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, nor any preacher or teacher of any congregation of Dissenting Protestants, that shall make and subscribe the declaration aforsaid, and take the said Oaths at the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held for the county, town, parts, or division where such person lives, which court is hereby empowered to administer the same, and shall also declare his approbation of and subscribe the Articles of Religion mentioned in the statute made in the 13th of Q. that shall subscribe the aforesaid Articles of Religion, except before excepted, and also except part of the 27th article touching infant baptism, and shall take the said Oaths, &c. That every teacher or preacher in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, that is, a minister, preacher, or teacher of a congregation, that shall take the Oaths herein required, and make and subscribe the declaration aforesaid, &c. That every justice of the peace may, at any time, require any person that goes to any meeting for exercise of religion, to make and subscribe the declaration aforesaid, and also to take the said Oaths or declaration of fidelity hereinafter mentioned: in case such person scruples the taking of an oath, and upon refusal, such justice of the peace is required to commit such person to prison, and to certify the name of such person to the next General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, &c
Non-Jurors - They considered William and Mary in the light of regents, rather than sovereigns, since they felt that their Oaths of office had bound them to the Stuart family
Corban - Theophrastus says that the Tyrians forbad the use of such Oaths as were peculiar to foreigners, and particularly of corban, which, Josephus informs us, was used only by the Jews
Oath - God has prohibited all false Oaths, and all useless and customary swearing in ordinary discourse; but when the necessity or importance of a matter requires an oath, he allows men to swear by his name, Exodus 22:11 Leviticus 5:1 . The Oaths forbidden in Matthew 5:34-35 James 5:12 , must refer to the unthinking, hasty, and vicious practices of the Jews; otherwise Paul would have acted against the command of Christ, Romans 1:9 Galatians 1:20 2 Corinthians 1:23 . That person is obliged to take an oath whose duty requires him to declare the truth in the most solemn and judicial manner; though undoubtedly Oaths are too often administered unnecessarily and irreverently, and taken with but slight consciousness of the responsibility thus assumed
Amen - Hence, in Oaths, after the priest has repeated the words of the covenant or imprecation, all those who pronounce the Amen, bind themselves by the oath, Numbers 5:22 Deuteronomy 27:15 Nehemiah 5:13 8:6 1 Chronicles 16:36
Ignorance: of Oneìs Own Heart - A crowd were watching it, in momentary expectation of seeing it fall, while the owner, standing in the midst of them, was cursing God to his face, and pouring out the most horrid Oaths
Religion, Virtue of - are prayer, sacrifice, vows, Oaths, and adoration
Virtue of Religion - are prayer, sacrifice, vows, Oaths, and adoration
Blue - ) Pale, without redness or glare, - said of a flame; hence, of the color of burning brimstone, betokening the presence of ghosts or devils; as, the candle burns blue; the air was blue with Oaths
Sandals, Shoes - In early Israel, legal contracts and Oaths were often sealed with the removal and giving of a shoe by one party (Ruth 4:7 )
Thigh - In the Patriarchal period, Oaths were taken by placing a hand “under the thigh,” a veiled reference to the reproductive organs
Raskolnik - " the Judaizers; the Molokane, who refuse to recognize civil authority or to take Oaths; the Dukhobortsy, or Dukhobors, who are communistic, marry without ceremony, and believe that Christ was human, but that his soul reappears at intervals in living men; the Khlysty, who countenance anthropolatory, are ascetics, practice continual self-flagellation, and reject marriage; the Skoptsy, who practice castration; and a section of the Bezpopovtsy, or priestless sect, which disbelieve in prayers for the Czar and in marriage
Anabaptists - The principal tenets were: ...
(1) rejection of baptism of infants as unscriptural, and its restriction to adults as a sign of Christian belief; ...
(2) restoration of what they considered primitive Christianity, abolition of capital punishment, Oaths, and the magistracy; ...
(3) scripture as a rule of faith; ...
(4) foundation of a new kingdom of God on communistic grounds
Oath - ’ The forbidden Oaths specified in Matthew 5:34-36 are illustrations only-selected, not exhaustive. These evasive or frivolous Oaths are condemned expressly because, in principle, the name of God is involved in them. that vows or Oaths by God must be kept (cf. It is true that Oaths on special occasions encourage a double standard of truthfulness. ), in which it is maintained that Oaths are only a forcible reminder of a duty which applies equally at other times; but the oath actually uttered by witnesses always concerns itself quite specially with the particular case under trial. ...
On this evidence it cannot be held, with any confidence, that Jesus accepted the adjuration, and His example does not, therefore, justify Oaths in law, as distinguished from private conversation. Achelis on early ‘Christian’ Oaths Cathari - Besides directly assailing the doctrines and hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the various tenets of the Cathari, as the denial of the value of Oaths and of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State, while its abhorrence of generation and its commendation of suicide would have meant the extinction of the human race had the Catharist doctrine been triumphant; but by the 14th century it had practically disappeared from France, Germany, and England, while the 15th century saw the disappearance of the heresy in Italy and the Balkan States
Oath - Contrast the "oaths" mentioned in Matthew 14:7,9 ; 26:72 ; Mark 6:26
Cock - ) A corruption or disguise of the word God, used in Oaths
Dispense - So we say, to dispense with Oaths to dispense with forms and ceremonies
Amen - In Oaths those who pronounce the "Amen" bind themselves by the oath (Numbers 5:22; Deuteronomy 27:15-26)
Test Act - 2, which directs all officers, civil and military, to take the Oaths, and make the declaration against transubstantiation, in the Court of King's Bench or chancery, the next term, or at the next quarter sessions, or (by subsequent statutes) within six months after their admission; and also within the same time to receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper, according to the usage of the church of England, in some public church, immediately after divine service or sermon, and to deliver into court a certificate thereof, signed by the minister and church-warden: and also to prove the same by two credible witnesses, upon forfeiture of five hundred pounds, and disability to hold the said office
James, Epistle of - "The Jewish vices against which he warns them are, formalism, which made the service of God consist in washings and outward ceremonies, whereas he reminds them (1:27) that it consists rather in active love and purity; fanaticism, which, under the cloak of religious zeal, was tearing Jerusalem in pieces (1:20); fatalism, which threw its sins on God (1:13); meanness, which crouched before the rich (2:2); falsehood, which had made words and Oaths play-things (3:2-12); partisanship (3:14); evil speaking (4:11); boasting (4:16); oppression (5:4)
Witness - ), 2 ; Oaths
Beersheba - Amos couples it with the shrines of Bethel and Gilgal ( Amos 5:6 ), and Oaths by its numen are denounced ( Amos 8:14 )
Essenes - A sect of the Jews who practiced a strict ceremonial asceticism, discouraging marriage, having community of goods, temperate, industrious, charitable, opposed to all Oaths, slavery, and war, like the modern Society of Friends, and also, unlike t temple of the soul, tinged their deep veneration for Moses' laws, which in every way favor marriage
Apollinaris, Saint And Mart - " As early as 575 it was the custom to take solemn Oaths upon his relics (St
Requirement - Asking that God "require it" is sometimes part of curse formulas for violation of Oaths (Joshua 22:23 ; cf
Hair - Regarding the latter (a) it is used to signify the minutest detail, as that which illustrates the exceeding care and protection bestowed by God upon His children, Matthew 10:30 ; Luke 12:7 ; 21:18 ; Acts 27:34 ; (b) as the Jews swore by the "hair," the Lord used the natural inability to make one "hair" white or black, as one of the reasons for abstinence from Oaths, Matthew 5:36 ; (c) while long "hair" is a glory to a woman (see B), and to wear it loose or dishevelled is a dishonor, yet the woman who wiped Christ's feet with her "hair" (in place of the towel which Simon the Pharisee omitted to provide), despised the shame in her penitent devotion to the Lord (slaves were accustomed to wipe their masters' feet), Luke 7:38,44 (RV, "hair"); see also John 11:2 ; 12:3 ; (d) the dazzling whiteness of the head and "hair" of the Son of Man in the vision of Revelation 1:14 is suggestive of the holiness and wisdom of "the Ancient of Days;" (e) the long "hair" of the spirit-beings described as locusts in Revelation 9:8 is perhaps indicative of their subjection of their satanic master (cp
Profaning, Profanity - Partly, no doubt, for similar reasons, there had grown up in the time of Christ a custom of swearing not by the Divine name, but by heaven or earth or Jerusalem or the Temple (Matthew 5:33-37; Matthew 23:16-22)—though there emerges here, alongside of the desire to avoid the use of God’s name, the consideration that such Oaths were less binding than those in which God was directly invoked (contrast the high priest’s adjuration ‘by the living God’ at the trial of Jesus, Matthew 26:63). That system of diluted Oaths was a miserable piece of casuistry at the best. Make no distinctions among your statements by the use of a graduated scale of Oaths, as if, while you are bound to be truthful in regard to some of the things you say, you are otherwise free to shade off your language into the veriest falsehood by diminishing grades of protestation. See, further, Oaths
Gibeon - the capital city of the Gibeonites, who took advantage of the Oaths of Joshua, and of the elders of Israel, procured by an artful representation of their belonging to a very remote country, Joshua 9
Hand - The ceremony of putting the fight hand on the New Testament in the administration of Oaths, and the ordinary salutation of friends, by the shaking of the hand, are proofs in point
Talmud - ...
In the first part is discussed whatever relates to seeds, fruits, and trees: in the second, feasts: in the third, women, their duties, their disorders, marriages, divorces, contracts, and nuptials; in the fourth, are treated the damages or losses sustained by beasts or men, of things found, deposits, usuries, rents, farms, partnership in commerce, inheritance, sales and purchases, Oaths, witnesses, arrests, idolatry; and here are named those by whom in oral law was received and preserved: in the fifth part are noticed what regards sacrifices and holy things: and the sixth treats on purifications, vessels, furniture, clothes, houses, leprosy, baths, and numerous other articles:-all this forms the Mishna
Mennonites - They are, like the Society of Friends, utterly averse to Oaths and war, and to capital punishments, as contrary to the spirit of the Christian dispensation
Pharisees - The scribes had expanded the law of Moses into a system that consisted of countless laws dealing with such matters as sabbath-keeping (Matthew 12:1-2; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-14), ritual cleanliness (Matthew 23:25; Mark 7:1-9), fasting (Luke 18:11-12), tithing (Matthew 23:23) and the taking of Oaths (Matthew 23:16-22; see also SCRIBES)
Peter - Among these are, his attempt to walk on the water to meet Christ, Matthew 14:29 ; his avowal of the Messiahship and divinity of the Savior, Matthew 16:16 ; his errors as to the design of Christ's incarnation, Matthew 16:22-23 ; his warm attachment to the divine Teacher, John 6:67-69 ; his cutting off the ear of Malchus, John 18:10 ; his boastful determination to adhere to his Master under all circumstances, and his subsequent denial of Him with Oaths, Matthew 26:74 Mark 14:29 John 13:37-38 ; his poignant repentance, Matthew 26:75 , and our Lord's forgiveness, after receiving an assurance of his love, which was thrice uttered as his denial of Christ had been, John 21:15-18
Letter Form And Function - Secular letters frequently concluded with an oath formula such as “I swear by the gods that I will” Such formulas perhaps suggested James' concluding prohibition of Oaths (James 5:12 )
Marcianus, Flavius, Emperor of the East - 13), by which proceedings against the oeconomus or other clerics of the churches in Constantinople were to be taken at the plaintiff's desire either before the archbishop or the prefect of the city, and no Oaths tendered to clerics, who were forbidden to swear by the laws of the church and an ancient canon
Essenes (2) - Further characteristics of their life were that they had no slaves, used no oil for the purpose of anointing, dressed in white, and rigidly prohibited the use of Oaths except on the admission of a new member to the order
Arment - The cursing was not with Oaths but rather it was his curse upon CHRIST, wherein he consigned the Lord JESUS to the wrath of His enemies, and wished for His destruction
Amen - Because God is trustworthy, Isaiah can call him "the God of amen, " in whose name his servants should invoke blessings and take Oaths (Isaiah 65:16 ; see also Revelation 3:14 )
Waldenses - ...
Their rules of practice were extremely austere; for they adopted as the model of their moral discipline, the sermon of Christ on the mount, which they interpreted and explained in the most rigorous and literal manner; and consequently prohibited and condemned in their society all wars, and suits of law, and all attempts towards the acquisition of wealth; the inflicting of capital punishments, self- defense against unjust violence, and Oaths of all kinds
Church, Gallican - A perusal of the horrid massacres of the priests who refused to take the Oaths, and the various forms of persecution employed by those who were attached to the Catholic religion, must deeply wound the feelings of humanity
Denial - Having travelled so far on the downward path, it became well-nigh impossible to turn back, and on being charged by one of the kinsmen of Malchus with having been with Christ in the garden at the moment of the arrest, overcome by fear that he might be called to account for his rash act, he denied his Master for the third time, and backed up his denial with Oaths and curses (John 18:26 f
Diana - She was a goddess of war, of the sea, of roads, of markets and trade, of government, of healing, protectress from danger, guardian of Oaths (by her women were accustomed to swear), goddess of maidenhood, of beauty, of dancing and music
Pharisees - They also trifled with Oaths
Perfection (Human) - It will render Oaths unnecessary (Matthew 5:33-37)
Gods - God forbade the Israelites to swear by strange gods, and to pronounce the names of them in their Oaths, Exodus 23:13
Marriage - The selection of the bride was followed by the espousal, which was a formal proceeding undertaken by a friend or legal representative on the part of the bridegroom and by the parents on the part of the bride; it was confirmed by Oaths, and accompanied with presents to the bride
Pharisees - Some Pharisees refused to take Oaths (Ant 17
Sincerity - Oaths are condemned as likely to take from the severe demands of truthful speech
James, the Letter - Do not take Oaths (James 5:12 )
God, Name of - People call on, pronounce blessings, minister, preach, speak, pray, believe, take Oaths, and wage war in his Name
Euphemius, Patriarch of Constantinople - Anastasius gave the writing under most solemn Oaths, and Euphemius put it in charge of the saintly Macedonius, chancellor and treasurer of the church of Constantinople, to be stored in the archives of the cathedral (Evagr
Names of God - Oaths taken in God's name were considered binding, and battles fought in the name of God were victorious
Sermon on the Mount - Reconciliation with the estranged brother is required (5:21-26); adultery even of the heart brings condemnation (5:27-30); divorce carries severe consequences (5:31-32); Oaths about future undertakings are disallowed (5:33-37); retaliation for alleged wrongs is renounced (5:38-42); and love is extended to one's enemies (5:43-48)
Amen - He plainly expressed His dislike for Oaths (Matthew 5:34), and in Dalman’s view (Words of Jesus, 229)-and no one is better qualified to speak on the subject-He found here the word He needed to give the assurance which usually came from an oath
David - After this, when obliged, by the command of God, to give up some of Saul's family to justice, for the murder of the Gibeonites, he spared Mephibosheth, Micah, and his family, the male descendants of Saul and Jonathan, who alone could have any pretence to dispute the crown with him, and surrendered only Saul's bastard children, and those of his daughter by Adriel, who had no right or possible claim to the throne, and could never give him any uneasiness in the possession of it; and thus showed his inviolable regard for his Oaths, his tenderness to Saul, and the warmth of his gratitude and friendship to Jonathan
Commandments - The law that forbids false swearing requires in the last resort abstinence from all Oaths, and perfect simplicity and truthfulness
Peter - Yet this same Peter, a few hours after that, denied his Master three different times in the high priest's palace, and that with Oaths
Tabernacle - What then is to be done? The covenant was sworn to with the most solemn Oaths
Woe - Matthew 15:14 || Luke 6:39); as, for example, when they subverted truth and justice by the sophistical distinctions they made in regard to the binding nature of different kinds of Oaths (Matthew 23:16-22, cf
Testimony - ...
Furthermore, to invoke God as witness in Oaths and binding agreements in the Old Testament implicitly indicates the participant's complete confidence in God as irreproachable, and thus as utterly reliable
Lord (2) - ‘Perform unto the Lord thine Oaths’ (Matthew 5:33); ‘Tell how great things the Lord hath done for thee’ (Mark 5:19); ‘Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest’ (Luke 10:2)
Peter - But Peter himself; Peter the preacher; had denied his Master with Oaths and curses
Gratianus, Emperor - The heathen senators, though in the minority, were accustomed to offer incense on this altar, and to touch it in taking solemn Oaths (Ambr
Amen (2) - (3) Responsive, when used to express assent to the utterance of another, as in prayers, benedictions, Oaths, etc
Hypocrisy - The seducer must swear false Oaths, the deceiver feign friendship, the tyrant profess care for the commonweal
Paul as a Student - With what a hunger for his books, and with what heavenward vows and Oaths of work, young Saul would set out from Tarsus to Jerusalem! Our own best students come up to our divinity seats with thrilling and thanksgiving hearts, and it is only they who have such hearts who can at all enter into Saul's mind and heart and imagination as he descended Olivet and entered Jerusalem and saw his name set down at last on Gamaliel's roll of the sons of the prophets
Word - Keeping one's word was highly esteemed (Psalm 15:4 ) and an obligation in making vows and Oaths (Numbers 30:2 ; Judges 11:30,36 ); but breaking one's word, especially of promises made to the Lord, was a serious offense holding grave consequences for the offender (cf
Hypocrisy - The seducer must swear false Oaths, the deceiver feign friendship, the tyrant profess care for the commonweal
Forgiveness - With the exception of theft or fraud against one's neighbor (Leviticus 6:1-7 ; Numbers 5:5-8 ), taking careless Oaths (Leviticus 5:4-5 ), and a lesser sexual offense (Exodus 34:6 ), intentional violations of the Torah were not forgivable; the perpetrator was to be killed or cut off
Deluge - They paid no regard to the obligation of Oaths; were insolent, inhospitable, and unmerciful
Quakers - "There are not many of our tenets more generally known than our testimony against Oaths, and against war
Boyhood - 6): ‘When a child is twelve years and one day old, his Oaths are tested; when he is thirteen years and a day, they are valid without further ceremony
Jeremiah - At last Zedekiah yielded to the tide; he broke his Oaths of allegiance to Nebuchadrezzar conduct sternly condemned by Ezekiel ( 1618455137_41 ) as well as by Jeremiah and the Jewish people were launched on a struggle almost as mad as that which it undertook with Rome 650 years later
Abram - About the same time, Abimelech came with Phicol, his general, to conclude an alliance with Abraham, who made that prince a present of seven ewe lambs out of his flock, in confirmation that a well he had opened should be his own property; and they called the place Beer-sheba, or "the well of swearing," because of the covenant there ratified with Oaths
Omnipresence - In the prohibition of Oaths in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ speaks of heaven as ‘God’s throne’ and the earth as His ‘footstool’ (Matthew 5:34)
Trial-at-Law - But the religious administration of Oaths soon yielded to a purely secular process
Ethics (2) - ...
The profoundly irreligious subtlety of the lawyers is also exposed in Jesus’ prohibition of Oaths
Socialism - It is sufficient to allude to the Beatitudes, and to point out how much of the teaching in the rest of the Sermon is still regarded as Utopian, as that about love of enemies (Luke 6:27), Oaths, non-resistance, litigation and property, free giving (Matthew 5:33-48), lending without interest (Luke 6:34-35, money-making (Matthew 6:19), worrying about the future (Matthew 6:24-34)
Law - Commanding not to take the name of God in vain, it enjoins the observance of all outward respect for the divine authority, as well as the cultivation of inward sentiments and feelings suited to this outward reverence; and it establishes the obligation of Oaths, and, by consequence, of all compacts and deliberate promises; a principle, without which the administration of laws would be impracticable, and the bonds of society must be dissolved
Authority of Christ - But there is nothing in this which binds us to take in the letter what Jesus says about Oaths, or non-resistance, or revenge; and still less is there anything to support the idea that His words on these subjects are part of a fanatical renunciation of the world in the region of honour as well as of property,—a literal surrender, in view of the imminence of the Kingdom, of all that makes life on earth worth having
Worship - Laws thus receive a force, which, in other circumstances, they could not acquire, even were they enacted in as great perfection; and the administration of justice is aided by the strongest possible obligation and sanction being given to legal Oaths