Oath

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

An oath may be defined as an assertion that a statement is true (Germ. assertorischer Eid) or shall be true (promissorischer Eid), or a promise of loyalty and fidelity, made binding by invocation of the Deity, or of some person or thing revered or dreaded. The motive for telling the truth may be regard for what is thus invoked (e.g. the honour of God) or the fear of avenging punishment. It is generally held that the latter thought is dominant and determinative, even when only implicit. In an adjuration one person states the terms of the oath and another accepts it, thus owning the solemn sanction invoked by the first party as the ground and guardian of the truth he vows to tell. The other use of the ambiguous words ‘oath,’ ‘swear,’ viz. for meaningless profanity of speech, does not immediately concern us, in spite of  Mark 14:71 (English Version) (see Encyclopaedia Biblicaiii., article‘Oath’). An oath in the primary sense guarantees truth-telling under necessity, and, like the ‘necessary’ lie (Notlüge), belongs at best to the higher, and too frequently to the lower, casuistry. A NT example of the latter, which Jesus vigorously denounced, occurs in  Matthew 23:16-22. On such casuistry, irreverence is a close attendant. To the present writer it appears that the customary views on this subject need considerable revision if they are to be harmonized with the Gospels, with justice to certain ‘sects’ (Quakers, Mennonites, etc.), with practical experience of the law-courts, and with the possibility that even of a thing which is ‘woven into the common law’ it may be necessary to say, in Milton’s words (Of Reformation touching Church Discipline, 1641, p. 78): ‘Let it weave out again.’

The chief NT passages concerned are  Matthew 5:33-37, where Jesus gives the command, ‘Swear not at all,’ and the parallels in  Matthew 23:16-22 and  James 5:12. It is maintained by Zahn and others, with much probability, that St. James has here preserved the original words of Jesus in a purer form than St. Matthew (T. Zahn, ‘Matt.,’ in Kommentar zum NT, 1903 ff., p. 244). The chief grounds for this view are:-(1) that certain ancient writers quote the first part of  Matthew 5:33-37 as it now stands, but substitute  James 5:12 for St. Matthew’s ending; (2) that some of these writers appear not to have known this Epistle, and therefore they and St. James will have derived these words from a common source, older and better than  Matthew 5:37; (3) that  James 5:12 is free from an apparent inconsistency which attaches to  Matthew 5:37, for Jesus has been urging that His followers should keep to the simplest possible form of affirmation, and ‘yea, yea’ is not strictly that; the second ‘yea’ seems almost a vain repetition. On the other hand,  James 5:12 may possibly be secondary; for instead of ‘Let your “yea” be (a reliable and unadorned) “yea” and your “nay,” “nay,” it may be rendered: ‘Let yours be the “yea, yea,” “nay, nay” (enjoined in Mt.).’ Further, while St. Matthew’s double ‘yea’ can scarcely be defended (but see H. H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, Eng. translation, 1892, i. 269) as securing clearness-for what illumination does the repetition convey?-yet the emphasis added by the second word is by no means extreme, and Jesus may therefore have used it; it falls short of the ‘verily’ which He used so often. However this may be, the two passages yield the common and unmistakable general principle of a characteristic Christian simplicity and moderation of speech. This is further enforced by the words, ‘Swear not at all’ (μὴ ὅλως). Any exceptions to this strongly exclusive phrase must bear the burden of proof, and to apply it strictly in the meantime is the only natural course, and the precise reverse of ‘hair-splitting’ (T. Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. translation, iii. [1877] 314). This strictness is made still more binding by the parallel in St. James: ‘nor by any other oath.’ The forbidden oaths specified in  Matthew 5:34-36 are illustrations only-selected, not exhaustive. The ground of the prohibition is the link with God which in the thoughts of our Lord’s hearers (ch. 5) and also in the teaching of the Pharisees (ch. 23) had been snapped; this He replaces with reiterated emphasis. These evasive or frivolous oaths are condemned expressly because, in principle, the name of God is involved in them. The main appeal in both chapters is, as J. Köstlin (in PRE[Note: RE Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche.]3 v. 239 f.) has already maintained, an appeal to reverence, though this is indissociably combined with the demand for veracity. All false swearing amounts indirectly to profane swearing. For it must be irreverent either because God’s presence is invoked in order to make a lie more credible, or else because men adopt a formula (as in Matthew 5, 23) which seeks to exclude Him while the lie is told. The ‘evil’ which is the source of ‘whatsoever is more than’ a simple affirmation consists of casuistry and irreverence alike.

That Jesus is not attacking untruthfulness alone is further shown by this, that He offers His teaching as a conscious correction of that which had been given to the ancients, viz. that vows or oaths by God must be kept (cf. W. C. Allen, International Critical Commentary, ‘St. Matthew,’3 1912, p. 53). If Jesus meant that the oath by God should be left standing (so Keim, op. cit. p. 311 f.) in the interests of veracity, He only confirmed the OT. Moreover, if that were His only object, then instead of ‘Swear not at all’ (for one cannot evade the reference to God), He would have needed to say, ‘Never let any matter of importance be settled without an oath, and that directly by the name of God.’

Wendt (op. cit. p. 269 f.) and others hold that the oath is ‘of the evil’ because it implies that the truth need not be told on other occasions. But that seems to imply that the oath itself is not ‘of the evil,’ but a highly commendable act of exceptional virtue. It is true that oaths on special occasions encourage a double standard of truthfulness. This is, indeed, denied in a vigorous article by W. C. Magee (CR[Note: R Contemporary Review.]xlix. [1886] 1 ff.), 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. Yet this limitation of the veracity due outside the oath cannot be the chief evil in the oath. That chief evil, so far as it is lying at all, must be lying which is committed in and under the oath; and this is not merely nor chiefly unveracity; by it a despite is done to God which seems to have been, in the judgment of Jesus, an additional and greater sin. Now the admissions of writers of all views show that a very large proportion of those who have strong motives for untruth will not be deterred by any oath that can be devised (cf. Magee, op. cit. p. 3). In any case, their testimony will be false, and thus a certain irreverence will be implied in it, but only remotely; the requirement of an oath will simply make it far more pointed and direct; for it is known beforehand that a large number, if they take an oath at all, will commit perjury; moreover, few of these perjuries will be investigated, and the number punished will be negligible. At the other end of the scale are those who would tell the truth under any circumstances-the earnest Christians whom the oath only forces into a certain lowering of tone, and the high-minded unbelievers who, when the case is over, will have been truthful in everything except in the oath by which their truthfulness is ‘ensured.’ And with both of these undesirable results the name of God will be concerned in a way which is at least indelicate.

The ideal of Jesus is clear. A man is to be so truthful that his possible untruthfulness need not be reckoned with, and therefore he will take no oath, nor be asked to take one. But if men will not always trust him, owing to the general lack of trustworthiness, is he or is he not to submit to this indignity (cf. Clem. Alex. Stromata, vii. 8, and Kant’s epithet ‘State blackmail’ or ‘civil extortion’ [bürgerliches Erpressungsmittel] in Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 1793, p. 226; Eng. translation, 1838), in which he will feel that God is implicated? It may be said that this surrounding ‘evil’ of the world would make only the demanding of the oath to be wrong, not the taking of it. But any submission to or compromise with the ‘evil’ can be regarded as an unworthy surrender, and as itself evil. Another vital point is the shrinking attitude towards God which is taken in the oath by the explicit or implicit invocation of His powers of punishment. The question arises whether that is a Christian or a sub-Christian conception of Him; whether the Christian does not tell the truth, in the ordinary course, from far higher motives; and whether, by suddenly accepting an official injunction to ‘believe and shudder’ before Him whom he is usually permitted to love, he does not do an injustice to God and to himself. Magee admits that the oath has lost its power increasingly with the decline of superstitious dread (op. cit. p. 13 f.), and Köstlin admits that the non-swearing sects have been influenced largely by a reverence and delicacy which lie upon the unspoiled Christian spirit like bloom.

In face of all this, can the oath be re-instated by the actual practice of Jesus or of St. Paul? In the case of the latter, ‘the disciple is not above his master’ (see Barclay, quoted by A. Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount, Eng. translation, 1860, p. 261); and apart from that, the actual examples of asseveration in his Epistles are not very convincing (see H. Weinel, St. Paul, Eng. translation, 1906, p. 358, and C. H. Watkins, St. Paul’s Fight for Galatia, 1914, pp. 108, 159 f.). This is especially evident at  1 Corinthians 1:14-16, which, in view of the ‘I thank God,’ reveals a strange lack of clarity; and, where the witness is himself uncertain, strong expressions of affirmation and invocation can but add to the difficulties.

As to Jesus, it is curious that  Matthew 26:63-65 should be thought so conclusive. There are two important variations in the Synoptic accounts, thus:

Matthew 26:63 ff.	Mark 14:61 f.	Luke 22:67 f.
I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ.	Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?	Art thou the Christ? Tell us.
Thou hast said.	I am.	If I tell you, ye will not believe.

For the adjuration, we have the authority of St. Matthew alone; and an adjuration would not in any case be an ordinary oath. If one who is ‘adjured’ does not, by one explicit word, say that he makes the adjuration his own, it remains the utterance of the other party only, and no one can prove that he answers, or answers truly, because of it (see Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols), article‘Adjure’). The Jewish use of ‘Amen’ in acceptance of an adjuration is often appealed to as if it occurred here (see Tholuck, op. cit. p. 254), but Jesus said no such word. He makes reference only to the question asked Him, not to the adjuration in itself. And is that reply explicit? According to St. Mark, He answers, ‘I am (the Messiah)’; but probably St. Mark is secondary here, for Messianic utterances are usually the more confident the later they are.[Note: Mark’s confidence and emphasis show how far he is from the thought of an unwilling confession extorted solely by an adjuration. He mentions no adjuration, and on his showing the question might have been answered earlier if it had been asked.]Moreover, ‘I am’ can be understood as St. Mark’s interpretation of ‘Thou hast said,’ but not vice versa. J. Weiss has argued with much force that Jesus could not, to any purpose, answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Schriften des NT2, i. [1906] 393 f., 516 f.; cf. W. C. Allen on  Matthew 26:63 [op. cit. p. 283 f.] and Swete on  Mark 14:62 [St. Mark2, 1902]). In St. Luke this evasiveness, or indefiniteness, is patent, but in St. Matthew also the emphatic pronoun (‘Thou hast said’-not I; cf.  Luke 22:70) suggests that a definite answer was refused. That the high priest treated the answer (or perhaps the following prophecy) as a plain self-condemnation proves nothing except that he wished to do so (cf. Swete on  Mark 14:61 and articleConspiracy). The tone of Jesus’ reply is at any rate lofty, and not in the least submissive. Essentially the same reply is given by Jesus to Pilate (who has no interest in making it more definite than it is), and it is not regarded as closing the case ( Mark 15:2,  Matthew 27:11,  Luke 23:3).

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. In Matthew 5 He is not dealing directly with law-courts, but we do not know that He would have exempted them from His prohibition, if questioned.

The expression εἰ δοθήσεται σημεῖον (literally ‘if a sign shall be given’) in  Mark 8:12, if an abbreviated oath-formula, goes far to decide the practice of Jesus. In opposition, however, to Piscator’s Strafmich-Gott-Bibel (Herborn, 1606), and to various commentaries, it must be questioned whether the invocation of God’s punishment, undoubtedly absent from His words, was present to His mind. Nothing could be more foreign to His usual attitude to the Father. Much more prominence has been assigned to His habitual expression ‘Verily’ (= ‘Amen’), which He used in an unprecedented way (G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Eng. translation, 1902, pp. 226-229). It lends some support to the double and thus emphatic ‘yea’ and ‘nay’ in  Matthew 5:37, though the view can scarcely be accepted (see, e.g., E. Klostermann, and cf. H. J. Holtzmann, in loc.) that this doubling constituted not only an emphasis but an oath, for then the whole context makes  Matthew 5:37 impossible, and  James 5:12 must be substituted. Dalman speaks as if Jesus, feeling the need of asseveration, and embarrassed by the recollection that He had said ‘Swear not at all,’ fixed upon ‘Amen’ as an evasive but virtual oath (cf. Achelis on early ‘Christian’ oaths [Christentum, 1912, Excursus 62]). But it is only fair to suppose that Jesus regarded ‘verily’ as differing from the oath in principle; for by it a man neither cringes before God’s punishments, nor presumptuously offers to suffer them on certain conditions of his own.

Regarding  Hebrews 6:13 f.,  Hebrews 7:20 f. and  Revelation 10:5 f., from which the conclusion is often drawn that Jesus cannot have forbidden all oaths, since oath-taking is here ascribed to God and His angels, and commended when practised by men, it may be said: (1) that not all the genuine teachings of Jesus were everywhere known, understood, and practised in the churches of the 1st cent.; (2) that the Divine example, especially in the handling of something dangerous, is not always enjoined upon man. The lex talionis is forbidden to men that it may be left entirely to God ( Matthew 5:44-45,  Romans 12:19,  2 Timothy 4:14). There are also the objections that the ascription of oath-taking to God may be simply anthropomorphic-which is the very opposite of following a Divine example; and that His swearing ‘by Himself’ is irreconcilable with the ordinary definition of an oath (see above), for it avowedly does not include an appeal to a higher power ( Hebrews 6:13), still less the invocation of a penalty.

Exegetically, the best conclusion is perhaps Augustine’s: that to swear falsely is perdition, to swear truly is perilous, and that the only safe course is to leave the oath alone. Practical experience tends in the same direction. Defender after defender admits that perjury is committed constantly, increasingly, and with impunity. This has the most deadening effect on morality and religion alike, and there is a very general desire to limit oaths to a few matters on which truthfulness is specially vital, or to abolish preparatory oaths altogether and accept sworn testimony only to evidence already given. The latter suggestion, however, would have positively bad effects unless witnesses were solemnly reminded beforehand that they would have to take an oath afterwards; otherwise, if they had once uttered falsehood, they would almost certainly not go back on it. On the Continent there is a strong movement within the legal profession to substitute declarations for oaths (cf. F. Paulsen, System der Ethik7, 8, 1906, ii. 208-209); in certain Swiss cantons, where the experiment has been tried, false evidence has not increased. In any case, the best deterrent would be more frequent prosecutions and severer sentences for untrue witness. It would probably be best to lay upon the magistrate the duty of impressing on witnesses the seriousness of their position, but to leave him free to do this when and how he thought best. A set form becomes almost inevitably a formality. Finally, it is necessary to realize that much of the argumentation on this whole subject is double-edged. If, for instance, as the advocates of the oath say, the word ‘verily’ is practically the equivalent of an oath, could they not be satisfied with this equivalent? They could then, perhaps, settle the controversy by accepting as adequate some such words as these: ‘Recognizing the solemn duty of truthfulness, I verily promise that the evidence which I shall give in this case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’

Literature.-Besides the works mentioned in the article, see articles ‘Oath’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols)(G. Ferries), ‘Oaths’ in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels(G. Wanchope Stewart), and ‘Eid (Ethisch)’ in RGG[Note: GG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart.](O. Scheel), with the recent literature there quoted. Reference may also be made to the Commentaries on Matthew, by B. Weiss10 (in Meyer’s Kommentar, 1910), T. Zahn3 (Kommentar zum NT, 1910), E. Klostermann and H. Gressmann (in Lietzmann’s Handbuch zum NT, 1909), H. J. Holtzmann3 (Handkommentar zum NT, 1901), W. C. Allen3 (International Critical Commentary, 1912), A. B. Bruce (Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1897), A. Plummer (1909); on Mark, by B. Weiss8 (in Meyer, 1892), G. Wohlenberg1, 2 (in Zahn, 1910), E. Klostermann and H. Gressmann (in Lietzmann, 1907), H. J. Holtzmann3 (Handkom., 1901), E. P. Gould (International Critical Commentary, 1896), A. B. Bruce (Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1897), H. B. Swete (1902); on Hebrews, by B. Weiss6 (in Meyer, 1897), E. Riggenbach (in Zahn, 1913), H. Windisch (in Lietzmann, 1913), M. Dods (Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1910); on James, by W. Beyschlag (in Meyer, 1897), W. O. E. Cesterley (Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1910), R. J. Knowling (1904), J. B. Mayor (31910). See also the text-books on Ethics by I. A. Dorner (Eng. translation, 1887), C. E. Luthardt (Eng. translation, 1889), H. Martensen (Eng. translation, 1881-85), G. C. A. v. Harless (Eng. translation8, 1868), R. Rothe (21867-71), F. H. R. Frank (1884-87), K. Köstlin (1887), L. Lemme (1905). Nearly all the German work is marked by a strong emphasis on loyal citizenship; see especially Lemme and Frank.

C. H. Watkins.

Charles Buck Theological Dictionary

A solemn affirmation, wherein we appeal to God as a witness of the truth of what we say, and with an imprecation of his vengeance, or a renunciation of his favour, if what we affirm be false, or what we promise be not performed. "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. Amongst the Jews, the juror held up his right hand towards heaven, Psa_144:8. Rev_10:5. (The same form is retained in Scotland still.) Amongst 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. Amongst 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 hand, whilst 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 expressions, ferire pactum; and to our English phrase translated from these, of 'striking a bargain.' 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. 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 the 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, whilst he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right hand upon the Bible, or other book containing the four Gospels, and at the conclusion kisses the book. 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. "

Remove God once out of heaven, and there will never be any gods upon earth. If man's nature had not something of subjection in it to a Supreme Being, and inherent principles, obliging him how to behave himself toward God and toward the rest of the world, government could never have been introduced, nor thought of. Nor can there be the least mutual security between governors and governed, where no God is admitted. For it is acknowledging of God in his supreme judgment over the world, that is the ground of an oath, and upon which the validity of all human engagements depend." Historians have justly remarked, that when the reverence for an oath began to be diminished among the Romans, and the loose Epicurian 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.'  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;  Hebrews 6:17 . 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. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation.

2. It violates a superior confidence.

3. God directed the Israelites to swear by his name,  Deuteronomy 6:13;  Deuteronomy 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. "Promissory oaths are not binding where the promise itself would not be so.

See Promises 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. Paley's Mor. Phil. ch. 16. vol. 1: Grot. de Jure, 50: 11. 100: 13.& 21; Barrow's Works, vol. 1: ser. 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. 189; Tillotson's 22d Sermon; Wolsely's Unreasonableness of Atheism, p. 152. Oath of allegiance is as follows; "I, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, King George. So help me God." This is taken by Protestant dissenting ministers, when licensed by the civil magistrate; as is also the following: Oath of supremacy; "I, A. B. do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."

Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary

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,  Psalms 144:8;  Revelation 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,  Genesis 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,"   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. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation.

2. It violates a superior confidence.

3. 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.

Fausset's Bible Dictionary

 Hebrews 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  Hebrews 7:28. Jesus Himself accepted the high priest's adjuration ( Matthew 26:63). Paul often calls God to witness the truth of his assertions ( Acts 26:29;  Romans 1:9;  Romans 9:1;  2 Corinthians 1:23;  2 Corinthians 11:31;  Galatians 1:20;  Philippians 1:8). So the angel,  Revelation 10:6. 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. 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  James 5:12 is, Swear not through impatience to which trials may tempt you ( James 5:10-11); in contrast stands the proper use of the tongue,  James 5:13.

To appeal to a pagan god by oath is to acknowledge his deity, and is therefore forbidden ( Joshua 23:7;  Jeremiah 5:7;  Jeremiah 12:16;  Amos 8:14), as in swearing to appeal to God is recognizing Him ( Deuteronomy 6:13;  Isaiah 19:18;  Isaiah 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 ( Ezekiel 17:13-20;  2 Chronicles 36:13). Jewish criminal procedure admitted the accused to clear himself or herself by oath ( Numbers 5:19-22;  1 Kings 8:31); our Lord,  Matthew 26:63. Oath gestures were "lifting up the hand" ( Deuteronomy 32:40;  Genesis 14:22;  Isaiah 3:7;  Ezekiel 20:5-6). Witnesses laid their hands on the head of the accused ( Leviticus 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):  Genesis 24:2;  Genesis 47:29; or else because the hip was the part from which the posterity issued ( Genesis 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  Genesis 15:8-17 Abram was there, and God signified His presence by the burning lamp which passed between the pieces ( Jeremiah 34:18). Compare  Judges 19:29;  1 Samuel 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 ( Deuteronomy 19:16-19). Blasphemy was punishable with death ( Leviticus 24:11;  Leviticus 24:16). The obligation in  Leviticus 5:1 to testify when adjured (For "Swearing" Translated "Adjuration," 'Alah ) was that on which our Lord acted before Caiaphas ( Matthew 26:63). Αlah , from 'Εel "God," is used for "imprecations" ( Numbers 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 ( Genesis 21:30).

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

A solemn affirmation accompanied by an appeal to the Supreme Being. 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 . To swear by a false god was an act of idolatry,  Jeremiah 5:7   12:16 .

Among the Hebrews an oath was administered by the judge, who stood up, and adjured the party who was to be sworn. In this manner our Lord was adjured by Caiaphas,  Matthew 26:63 . Jesus had remained silent under long examination, when the high priest, rising up, knowing he had a sure mode of obtaining an answer said, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ." To this oath, thus solemnly administered, Jesus replied that he was indeed the Messiah.

An oath is a solemn appeal to God, as to an all-seeing witness that what we say is true, and an almighty avenger if what we say be false,  Hebrews 6:16 . Its force depends upon our conviction of the infinite justice of God; that he will not hold those guiltless who take his name in vain; and that the loss of his favor immeasurable outweighs all that could be gained by false witness. It is an act of religious worship; on which account God requires it to be taken in his name,  Deuteronomy 10:20 , and points out the manner in which it ought to be administered, and the duty of the person who swears,  Exodus 22:11   Deuteronomy 6:18   Psalm 15:4   24:4 . Hence atheists, who profess to believe that there is no God, and persons who do not believe in a future state of reward and punishment, cannot consistently take an oath. In their mouths an oath can be only profane mockery.

God himself is represented as confirming his promise by oath, and thus conforming to what is practiced among men,  Hebrews 6:13,16-17 . 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. As we are bound to manifest every possible degree of reverence towards God, the greatest care is to be taken that we swear neither rashly nor negligently in making promises. To neglect performance is perjury, unless the promise be contrary to the law of nature and of God; in which case no oath is binding. See Corban , and VOWS.

A customary formula of taking an oath was "The Lord do so to me, and more also;" that is, the lord slay me, as the victim sacrificed on many such occasions was slain, and punish me even more than this, if I speak not the truth,  Ruth 1:17   1 Samuel 3:17 . Similar phrases are these: "As the Lord liveth,"  Judges 8:19 "Before God I lie not,"   Romans 9:1; "I say the truth in Christ,"  1 Timothy 2:7; "God is my record,"  Philippians 1.8 . Several acts are alluded to as accompaniments of an oath; as putting the hand under the thigh,  Genesis 24:2   47:29; and raising the hand towards heaven,  Genesis 14:22,23   Deuteronomy 32:40   Revelation 10:5 .

Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

According to Hebrew thought, when people took an oath they called down a curse upon themselves if they were not telling the truth ( Mark 14:71) or if, after making a promise, they did not keep their word ( 2 Samuel 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 ( 1 Samuel 19:6;  2 Kings 2:2;  Jeremiah 42:5;  Ezekiel 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 ( Jeremiah 34:18; cf.  Genesis 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 person’s thigh ( Genesis 24:2-3;  Deuteronomy 32:40).

People could swear oaths before local judges or at the sanctuary altar ( Exodus 22:10-11;  1 Kings 8:31). A special ritual was available when a woman was suspected of adultery and she wanted to swear her innocence ( Numbers 5:11-31).

When Israelites swore by the name of God, they were to be careful not to swear falsely ( Leviticus 19:12). Under no conditions were they to swear by the name of a false god ( Amos 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 ( Leviticus 5:4-6;  Leviticus 6:5; cf.  1 Samuel 14:24-29).

Even God sometimes bound himself by an oath; for example, in his covenant promises to Abraham ( Genesis 15:5-20;  Genesis 22:16-17;  Luke 1:68-73;  Hebrews 6:13-14), to David ( Psalms 89:34-36;  Acts 2:30), to the messianic king ( Psalms 110:4;  Hebrews 7:15-22;  Hebrews 7:28), and to his redeemed people ( Hebrews 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 ( Hebrews 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 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. Everything a person says should be true and straightforward ( Matthew 5:33-37;  Matthew 23:16;  James 5:12).

Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words

1: Ὅρκος (Strong'S #3727 — Noun Masculine — horkos — hor'-kos, her'-kos )

is primarily equivalent to herkos, "a fence, an enclosure, that which restrains a person;" hence, "an oath." The Lord's command in  Matthew 5:33 was a condemnation of the minute and arbitrary restrictions imposed by the scribes and Pharisees in the matter of adjurations, by which God's Name was profaned. The injunction is repeated in   James 5:12 . The language of the Apostle Paul, e.g., in  Galatians 1:20;  1—Thessalonians 5:27 was not inconsistent with Christ's prohibition, read in the light of its context. Contrast the "oaths" mentioned in   Matthew 14:7,9;  26:72;  Mark 6:26 .

 Hebrews 6:16  Luke 1:73 Acts 2:30

2: Ὁρκωμοσία (Strong'S #3728 — Noun Feminine — horkomosia — hor-ko-mos-ee'-ah )

denotes "an affirmation on oath" (from No. 1 and omnumi, "to swear"). This is used in  Hebrews 7:20,21 (twice),28 of the establishment of the Priesthood of Christ, the Son of God, appointed a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and "perfected for evermore." In the Sept.,   Ezekiel 17:18,19 .

 Acts 23:21Curse.

People's Dictionary of the Bible

Oath. The forms of solemn affirmation mentioned in Scripture are: 1. Lifting up the hand. Witnesses laid their hands on the head of the accused.  Genesis 14:22;  Leviticus 24:14;  Deuteronomy 17:7;  Isaiah 3:7, A. V., but the R. V. reads "he shall lift up His Voice." 2. Putting the hand under the thigh of the person to whom the promise was made.  Genesis 24:2;  Genesis 47:29. 3. Oaths were sometimes taken before the altar, or by an appeal to Jehovah; "as the Lord liveth."  2 Kings 2:2. Comp.  1 Kings 8:31;  2 Chronicles 6:22. 4. Dividing a victim and passing between or distributing the pieces.  Genesis 15:10;  Genesis 15:17;  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.  Exodus 20:7;  Leviticus 19:12. The New Testament has prohibitions against swearing.  Matthew 5:34-37;  James 5:12. It cannot be supposed that it was intended by these to censure every kind of oath. For our Lord himself made solemn asseverations equivalent to an oath; and Paul repeatedly, in his inspired epistles, calls God to witness the truth of what he was saying. 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."

Morrish Bible Dictionary

A solemn asseveration with an appeal to God that what is said is true. The apostle said that among men an oath for confirmation is the "end of all strife" or dispute; and God, willing to show "the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things [His word and His oath] in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation."  Hebrews 6:16-18 . Jehovah swore that the Lord Jesus should be a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.  Psalm 110:4 .

 Leviticus 5:1 has been interpreted as signifying that when the voice of adjuration was heard, persons were compelled to confess what they knew as to any charge. Thus the Lord Jesus when adjured by the high priest answered him. The Lord was under an accusation, and was adjured to say if it was true. He acknowledged that He was "the Christ the Son of God."   Matthew 26:63,64 .

The Lord exposed the folly of the tradition that some oaths were not binding. Matthew 23:16-22 .

In the common intercourse of life there should be no oaths, the simple 'yea' and 'nay' should be enough, "swear not at all,"  Matthew 5:34-37;  James 5:12; the context of these passages shows that they do not refer to judicial oaths: cf. also  Hebrews 6:13,16;  Hebrews 7:21;  Revelation 10:6 .

Webster's Dictionary

(1): ( n.) A careless and blasphemous use of the name of the divine Being, or anything divine or sacred, by way of appeal or as a profane exclamation or ejaculation; an expression of profane swearing.

(2): ( n.) A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with a reverent appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed.

(3): ( n.) A solemn affirmation, connected with a sacred object, or one regarded as sacred, as the temple, the altar, the blood of Abel, the Bible, the Koran, etc.

(4): ( n.) An appeal (in verification of a statement made) to a superior sanction, in such a form as exposes the party making the appeal to an indictment for perjury if the statement be false.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 Deuteronomy 6:13 Jeremiah 4:2 Genesis 16:5 2 Samuel 12:5 Ruth 1:17 Hosea 4:15 Romans 1:9 Genesis 14:22 24:2 2 Chronicles 6:22 Hebrews 6:16-18 Matthew 26:64 Romans 9:1 Galatians 1:20 Philippians 1:8 Matthew 5:34,37

King James Dictionary

OATH, n.

A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Go'ath. (Lowing). A place apparently in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, and named, in connection with the hill Gareb, only in  Jeremiah 31:39.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

(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 ( Nehemiah 10:30;  Exodus 22:10); 2. A Sworn Covenant ( Genesis 26:28;. 2 Samuel 21:7) 3. A Curse or Imprecation ( Numbers 5:21;  Daniel 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 אלה and שבועה , however, are by no means synonymous. They denote two different modes of swearing, or rather two classes of oaths. Thus אלה (from h א ; 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 ( Genesis 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  Numbers 5:21, where an oath with an imprecation is described, the phrase שבועת האלה is 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  Hebrews 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  Genesis 22:16;  Genesis 12:7 compared with 24:7;  Exodus 17:16 and  Leviticus 26:14 with  Daniel 9:11;  2 Samuel 7:12-13 with  Acts 2:30;  Psalms 110:4 with  Hebrews 7:21;  Hebrews 7:28;  Isaiah 45:23;  Jeremiah 22:5;  Jeremiah 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  Genesis 21:23;  Genesis 31:53;  Numbers 14:2;  Numbers 30:2;  1 Samuel 14:39;  1 Samuel 14:44;  1 Kings 2:42;  Isaiah 48:1;  Isaiah 65:16;  Hosea 4:15). So also our Lord himself accepted the high-priest's adjuration ( Matthew 26:63), and Paul frequently appeals to God in confirmation of his statements ( Acts 26:29;  Romans 1:9;  Romans 9:1;  2 Corinthians 1:23;  2 Corinthians 11:31;  Philippians 1:8; see also  Revelation 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 ( 2 Chronicles 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 ( Exodus 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 ( Exodus 23:13;  Exodus 34:6;  Deuteronomy 29:12;  Joshua 23:7;  Joshua 24:16;  2 Chronicles 15:12;  2 Chronicles 15:14;  Isaiah 19:18;  Isaiah 45:23;  Jeremiah 12:16;  Amos 8:14;  Zephaniah 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 ( Genesis 42:15;  2 Samuel 11:11;  2 Samuel 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 ( Matthew 5:33;  Matthew 23:16-22; and see  James 5:12). Yet he did not refuse the solemn adjuration of the highpriest ( Matthew 26:63-64; see Juv. Sat. 6:16; Mart. 11:94; Mishna, Sanh. 3:2, compared with  Amos 8:7; Spencer, De Leg.  Hebrews 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 ( 2 Samuel 15:21;  2 Samuel 19:23) or exacted ( Genesis 24:2-4; Genesis 1, 5, 25;  Joshua 2:12-21;  Joshua 6:26;  Joshua 9:15;  Ezra 10:5); when covenants were concluded ( Genesis 31:53;  2 Kings 11:4;  1 Maccabees 7:15; Joseph. Ant. 14:1, 2); when a solemn asseveration was made ( Genesis 14:22;  Judges 21:1-7;  1 Samuel 14:39;  1 Samuel 14:44;  1 Samuel 19:6); and when allegiance to God, fealty to a sovereign, or obedience from an inferior to a superior was professed ( 1 Kings 18:10;  2 Kings 11:17;  1 Chronicles 11:3;  1 Chronicles 29:24;  2 Chronicles 15:14-15;  2 Chronicles 36:13;  Ecclesiastes 8:2; Joseph. Ant. 1 2:1; 15:10, 4). A vow was in the nature of an oath ( Leviticus 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 ( Exodus 22:10-11;  1 Kings 8:31;  2 Chronicles 6:22). A willful breaker of trust, especially if he added perjury to his fraud, was to be severely punished ( Leviticus 6:2-5;  Deuteronomy 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 ( Leviticus 6:3).

(c) When a wife was suspected of incontinence, she was required to clear herself by an oath ( Numbers 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 ( Leviticus 5:1;  Judges 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 ( Proverbs 29:24; Michaelis, . C. art. 256, vol. iv, p. 109;  Deuteronomy 19:16-19; Grotius, in Crit. Sacr. on  Matthew 26:63; Knobel on  Leviticus 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 ( Exodus 22:11;  Numbers 5:19-22;  1 Kings 8:31;  2 Chronicles 6:22;  Matthew 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. ( 1 Samuel 14:44); "As the Lord liveth" ( 1 Samuel 14:39;  1 Samuel 19:6;  2 Samuel 15:21;  1 Kings 18:10); "As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth" ( 1 Samuel 20:3); "The Lord be between thee and me forever" ( 1 Samuel 20:23); "The God of Abraham judge between us" ( Genesis 31:53). The Jews also swore "by heaven," "by the. earth," "by the sun," "by Jerusalem,?' "by the Temple" (Mishna, Shebuoth, 4:2;  Matthew 5:34;  Matthew 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 ( Genesis 42:15;  1 Samuel 1:26;  1 Samuel 17:55;  2 Samuel 11:11;  2 Samuel 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.  Genesis 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 ( Genesis 24:2;  Genesis 47:29). This practice evidently arose from the fact that The Genital Member, which is meant by the euphemistic expression "Thigh" ( ירִ ), 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 ,  Genesis 46:26;  Exodus 1:5;  Judges 8:30). Hence this creative organ became the symbol of the Creator and the object of worship among all nations of antiquity (comp.  Ezekiel 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 Rosenm Ü ller 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  Genesis 24:2). More unnatural is the explanation of Grotius, that Eliezer put his hand on Abraham's thigh, where the sword was hanging ( Psalms 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 ( Genesis 15:10;  Genesis 15:17;  Jeremiah 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  Judges 19:29;  1 Samuel 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 ( Genesis 14:22;  Deuteronomy 32:40;  Daniel 12:7;  Revelation 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 ( Exodus 6:8;  Psalms 106:26;  Ezekiel 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 ( Numbers 5:19; Mishna, Shebuoth, 3:11; 4:3), explains the reply of our Savior ( Matthew 26:63-64).

On the same analogy witnesses laid their hands on the head of the accused ( Genesis 14:22;  Leviticus 24:14;  Deuteronomy 32:40;  Isaiah 3:7;  Ezekiel 20:5-6; Sus. 5:35;  Revelation 10:5; see Homer, 11. 1 9:254; 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 ( 1 Kings 8:31;.  2 Chronicles 6:22; Godwyn, 1. C. 6:6; Carpzov, p. 654; see also Juvenal, Sat. 1 4:219; 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 ( Exodus 22:11;  Leviticus 5:1;  Leviticus 6:3;  Numbers 5:19-22). Hence the great care exercised in inculcating the sacredness of oaths, and the heavy punishment for perjury or frivolous swearing ( Exodus 20:7;  Leviticus 19:12;  Deuteronomy 19:16-19;  Psalms 15:4;  Jeremiah 5:2;  Jeremiah 7:9;  Ezekiel 16:59;  Hosea 10:4;  Zechariah 8:17; Mishna, Shebuoth, 3:11; 4:3). Whether the "swearing" mentioned by Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 23:10) and by Hosea ( Hosea 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 ( Leviticus 24:11;  Leviticus 24:16;  Matthew 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 ( Leviticus 5:4);

2, Vanum, an absurd self-contradictory assertion;

3, Depositi, breach of contract denied ( Leviticus 19:11);

4, Testinonii, judicial perjury ( Leviticus 5:1; see Nicolaus and Selden, De Juramentis, in Ugolini, Thesaurus, xxvi; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on  Matthew 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 ( Deuteronomy 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 ( Matthew 5:34-36;  Matthew 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" ( Leviticus 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.  Sirach 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 ( Matthew 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.  Matthew 8:9;  Acts 12:19;  Acts 16:27;  Acts 27:42; see also Dionys. Hal. 11:43, and Aul.  Genesis 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  Exodus 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  Matthew 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).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

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   Matthew 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 ( Matthew 26:74 ), or if one fails to keep a promise ( 1 Samuel 19:6;  1 Samuel 20:17;  2 Samuel 15:21;  2 Samuel 19:23 ). It played a very important part, not only in lawsuits ( Exodus 22:11;  Leviticus 6:3 ,  Leviticus 6:5 ) and state affairs ( Ant. , XV, x, 4), but also in the dealings of everyday life ( Genesis 24:37;  Genesis 50:5;  Judges 21:5;  1 Kings 18:10;  Ezra 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 ( Exodus 20:7;  Leviticus 19:12;  Zechariah 8:17 , etc.), and on the other swearing by false gods, which latter was considered to be a very dark sin ( Jeremiah 12:16;  Amos 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 ( Leviticus 5:1;  Leviticus 6:2 ff; compare   Proverbs 29:24 ). Both required a sin offering ( Leviticus 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 ( Genesis 14:22;  Deuteronomy 6:13;  Judges 21:7; Rth 1:17, etc.) was a sign of loyalty to Him ( Deuteronomy 10:20;  Isaiah 48:11;  Jeremiah 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 ( 1 Samuel 1:26;  1 Samuel 20:3;  2 Kings 2:2 ); by the life of the king ( 1 Samuel 17:55;  1 Samuel 25:26;  2 Samuel 11:11 ); by one's own head ( Matthew 5:36 ); by the earth ( Matthew 5:35 ); by the heaven ( Matthew 5:34;  Matthew 23:22 ); by the angels ( BJ , II, xvi, 4); by the temple ( Matthew 23:16 ), and by different parts of it ( Matthew 23:16 ); by Jerusalem ( Matthew 5:35; compare Kethūbhōth  Matthew 2:9 ). The oath "by heaven" ( Matthew 5:34;  Matthew 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 ( Genesis 24:2;  Genesis 47:29 ). The most usual form was to hold up the hand to heaven ( Genesis 14:22;  Exodus 6:8;  Deuteronomy 32:40;  Ezekiel 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 ( Numbers 5:22 ). The usual formula of an oath was either: "God is witness betwixt me and thee" ( Genesis 31:50 ), or more commonly: "As Yahweh (or God) liveth" ( Judges 8:19; Rth 3:13;  2 Samuel 2:27;  Jeremiah 38:16 ); or "Yahweh be a true and faithful witness amongst us" ( Jeremiah 42:5 ). Usually the penalty invoked by the oath was only suggested: "Yahweh (or God) do so to me" (Rth 1:17;  2 Samuel 3:9 ,  2 Samuel 3:35;  1 Kings 2:23;  2 Kings 6:31 ); in some cases the punishment was expressly mentioned ( Jeremiah 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 ( Matthew 26:63 f), and of Paul (  2 Corinthians 1:23;  Galatians 1:20 ) and even of God Himself ( Hebrews 6:13-18 ). Consequently when Christ said, "Swear not at all" ( Matthew 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.

Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature

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 , 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 .

The forms of adjuration found in the Scriptures are numerous. Saul sware unto Jonathan, 'As the Lord liveth' . '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' (, sq.). A common formula is, 'The Lord do so to me and more also' , 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' .

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' . The party addressed is frequently sworn by, especially if a prince: 'As thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman,' etc. . 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' . 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 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 as well as by angels; by the temple , and even by parts of the temple . They also swore by Jerusalem, as the holy city . 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 . 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 . 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' . 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 . 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 .