Post by Lee on Apr 13, 2014 2:55:47 GMT
LEGAL OATHS
Dr. Thomas’s father once wrote on the question of whether it was consistent with the commandments of Christ to take an oath in court. He thought it was, and that what Christ condemned was voluntary private oaths. The state of the law is now such that there need be no difficulty in connection with the question. If a brother has a doubt, he need not take the oath, the law now allowing of simple affirmation in case of conscientious scruple: but if another brother feel at liberty to do so for scriptural reasons, the first brother must not judge the second brother. The argument of Dr. Thomas’s father was as follows:—It is scriptural to assent to a solemn adjuration to speak the truth, in token whereof, we either “kiss the book,” or reply as Jesus did to the High Priest when so adjured (Matt. 26:62–64). “Thou hast said,” so also with the phrase, “So help me God,” or “So help me God at His holy dome,” as implying ‘Let this be the condition on which God shall help me at the day of judgment.” In like manner, an affirmation, or negation, that the Deity can attest the truth of what we have spoken, saying in effect, “God is my witness.”
PROOFS
1.—Paul (Rom. 1:9), “For God is my witness, &c.;” (1 Thess. 2:5) “God is witness;” (Gal. 1:20) “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.” (2 Cor. 1:23) “Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.” What less are these than appeals to the Almighty for the truth of what he had spoken? and, as an inspired apostle, is it conceivable that if Christ, in Matt. 5:33, 37; James 5:12, had absolutely forbidden such appeals, he would have made them?
It is to voluntary oaths, and not to oaths taken in courts of judicature, that our Lord’s prohibition “Swear not at all” (Matt. 5:33–37) refers.
He says, 5:33. “Again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” Now where is this written? (Num. 30:1–16; Deut. 23:21–23; Eccles. 5:1–7, &c.). To what does it refer? To oaths in the form of vows, as it is said (Num. 5:13) “Every vow, every binding oath to afflict the soul,” and (Deut. 5:23) “That which is gone out of thy lips, thou shalt keep and perform,” for “Wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands.” Further, oaths not by Jehovah, but only by His creatures, are also forbidden; because such swearing is by implication profane swearing. Thus Matt. 23:16–22, in which the Pharisees are reproved for swearing “by gold of the temple, by the altar, by the heaven itself” which can have no reference to the solemn oaths taken in courts of judicature: and when to this is added in James 5:12, “Neither by any other oath,” the prohibition is subject to similar limitation, as the precept, “but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation,” suggests, being inculcative of truthfulness in private communication, as says Paul (2 Cor. 1:18), “But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay, but in Christ was yea.”
No other Scriptures can be urged as seeming absolutely to forbid swearing of every description, and on every occasion.
When, for example, it is said that Heb. 6:13–17 is no commendation of the practice, it is assuredly an acknowledgment of its existence, a condescension on the part of God to the practice, and by consequence, anything but a commendation of it. Who indeed, that recurs to the oaths taken by Abraham (Gen. 14:22, 23; 24:2, 3; 21:23), or required by him, connected as they are with Jehovah’s own act (Gen. 22:16–18), can imagine disapproval of the practice? Indeed every Scripture against perjury, or false witnessing is a recognition of it: and the import, in part of the third commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” is “Thou shalt not swear to a lie by the name of the Lord” (Deut. 1:34–35).
As bearing upon these particulars let Mark 5:7; 1 Thess. 5:27; Paul’s inspiration, 1 Cor. 1:1; 2:13; 14:37; Gal. 1:1; Rom. 9:1; Matt. 5:34; 2 Cor. 2:17; 12:19; &c., be consulted.
The Apocalyptic Angel’s oath (Rev. 10:6), confirms the foregoing reasoning. For a confirmatory oath is herein employed, and this, as proceeding from a sinless intelligence, is certainly no small proof of its propriety; otherwise, I see not how the conclusion can be very well avoided that angels and Christ, as well as Paul and Christ, are at variance!
1898 Christadelphian: Volume 35. 2001 (electronic ed.) (298–299). Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association.
Dr. Thomas’s father once wrote on the question of whether it was consistent with the commandments of Christ to take an oath in court. He thought it was, and that what Christ condemned was voluntary private oaths. The state of the law is now such that there need be no difficulty in connection with the question. If a brother has a doubt, he need not take the oath, the law now allowing of simple affirmation in case of conscientious scruple: but if another brother feel at liberty to do so for scriptural reasons, the first brother must not judge the second brother. The argument of Dr. Thomas’s father was as follows:—It is scriptural to assent to a solemn adjuration to speak the truth, in token whereof, we either “kiss the book,” or reply as Jesus did to the High Priest when so adjured (Matt. 26:62–64). “Thou hast said,” so also with the phrase, “So help me God,” or “So help me God at His holy dome,” as implying ‘Let this be the condition on which God shall help me at the day of judgment.” In like manner, an affirmation, or negation, that the Deity can attest the truth of what we have spoken, saying in effect, “God is my witness.”
PROOFS
1.—Paul (Rom. 1:9), “For God is my witness, &c.;” (1 Thess. 2:5) “God is witness;” (Gal. 1:20) “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.” (2 Cor. 1:23) “Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.” What less are these than appeals to the Almighty for the truth of what he had spoken? and, as an inspired apostle, is it conceivable that if Christ, in Matt. 5:33, 37; James 5:12, had absolutely forbidden such appeals, he would have made them?
It is to voluntary oaths, and not to oaths taken in courts of judicature, that our Lord’s prohibition “Swear not at all” (Matt. 5:33–37) refers.
He says, 5:33. “Again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” Now where is this written? (Num. 30:1–16; Deut. 23:21–23; Eccles. 5:1–7, &c.). To what does it refer? To oaths in the form of vows, as it is said (Num. 5:13) “Every vow, every binding oath to afflict the soul,” and (Deut. 5:23) “That which is gone out of thy lips, thou shalt keep and perform,” for “Wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands.” Further, oaths not by Jehovah, but only by His creatures, are also forbidden; because such swearing is by implication profane swearing. Thus Matt. 23:16–22, in which the Pharisees are reproved for swearing “by gold of the temple, by the altar, by the heaven itself” which can have no reference to the solemn oaths taken in courts of judicature: and when to this is added in James 5:12, “Neither by any other oath,” the prohibition is subject to similar limitation, as the precept, “but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation,” suggests, being inculcative of truthfulness in private communication, as says Paul (2 Cor. 1:18), “But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay, but in Christ was yea.”
No other Scriptures can be urged as seeming absolutely to forbid swearing of every description, and on every occasion.
When, for example, it is said that Heb. 6:13–17 is no commendation of the practice, it is assuredly an acknowledgment of its existence, a condescension on the part of God to the practice, and by consequence, anything but a commendation of it. Who indeed, that recurs to the oaths taken by Abraham (Gen. 14:22, 23; 24:2, 3; 21:23), or required by him, connected as they are with Jehovah’s own act (Gen. 22:16–18), can imagine disapproval of the practice? Indeed every Scripture against perjury, or false witnessing is a recognition of it: and the import, in part of the third commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” is “Thou shalt not swear to a lie by the name of the Lord” (Deut. 1:34–35).
As bearing upon these particulars let Mark 5:7; 1 Thess. 5:27; Paul’s inspiration, 1 Cor. 1:1; 2:13; 14:37; Gal. 1:1; Rom. 9:1; Matt. 5:34; 2 Cor. 2:17; 12:19; &c., be consulted.
The Apocalyptic Angel’s oath (Rev. 10:6), confirms the foregoing reasoning. For a confirmatory oath is herein employed, and this, as proceeding from a sinless intelligence, is certainly no small proof of its propriety; otherwise, I see not how the conclusion can be very well avoided that angels and Christ, as well as Paul and Christ, are at variance!
1898 Christadelphian: Volume 35. 2001 (electronic ed.) (298–299). Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association.