Is it wrong to swear to God?

Many of the old church fathers like Justin, Irenaeus, Origen and Jerome, understood the Lord's words, "swear not at all," to mean that a Christian ought not to take an oath under any circumstances. In addition many sects like the Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses reject the taking of any kind of oath. It is therefore understandable that children of God repeatedly ask, "Is a Christian allowed to swear?"

If the oath only serves as confirmation of ones own words, because one fears that they are not believed, it is not allowed. As children of God, we should always speak the truth (Eph. 4:25). This should not need any additional confirmation.

Deuteronomy 23:21-23 plainly warned Israel that once a vow was made it was binding. They were not required to make such oaths, but If they did, no excuse could be allowed for failure to fulfill it. But the Lord Jesus forbids the making of oaths. Swearing an oath involved a vow to do a certain thing in the future. Often God's name Was invoked in these oaths (1Sam.30:15; 1Kings 17:1); but reticence as to using God's name had led to the use of heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and even one's head; and this in turn led to swearing in vain with no intention of keeping a promise.

Christianity has no place for 0aths, whether sworn seriously or in vain. Israel's law had proven man in the flesh to be untrustworthy: they had vowed to keep the law, but had consistently broken it; therefore we must not dare to emphasize the dependability of our word: rather we should depend utterly on the truth of the word of God. This is the effect of grace.

The simplicity of speaking facts - "yea" or "nay" - without the emphasis of oaths of any kind is only normal for those who have been delivered from the bondage of law and saved by pure grace. More than this comes from the evil of man's natural pride.

"Again ye heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not swear falsely, but shalt render to the Lord thine oaths. But I say to you, Swear not at all; neither by (in) the heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his feet's footstool; nor by (toward) Jerusalem, for it is the great King's city. Nor shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your word be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; but what exceedeth these is of evil (or, the evil one)."

Thus the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He prohibits swearing altogether in the intercourse of daily life. Our word therein is to be, Yea, yea, or Nay, nay. That which is more than these has no sanction from God, and is therefore of evil, or the evil one, the enemy of God and man. All such asseveration as the Lord illustrates from the facts of Jewish habit arose from the constant experience of men in deceiving or evading. They therefore resorted to such means of insuring the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves; for we know from a reliable Jewish contemporary of the N.T. inspired writers that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, and the entire universe, were not counted binding. Only those obliged the conscience which were by God's name direct and express; nay others might be transgressed. As the Lord supposed in those He addresses poverty of spirit and purity of heart, He proscribed absolutely all such swearing as offensive to God and incompatible with the place of His sons.

Then another snare is connected with this for avoidance: "Above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." What has the apostle in view here? The oath before a magistrate? In no wise does scripture slight that solemn obligation. The Lord Himself respected the adjuration of the high-priest; and in no passage whatever do we see a depreciatory allusion to a judicial oath in the sermon on the mount, or, in what James says here, or in any other part of the Bible, but the contrary. The Lord was addressing Jewish disciples, James writes to the twelve tribes of Israel who are in the dispersion; but what they both set their faces against was the habit of bringing in religious asseverations for the purpose of confirming their word every day, besides the profaning of the Lord's name in matters of this life. This in point of fact weakens instead of establishing what is said; for it is evident that whatever is uncalled for gives no strength to an assertion, but is just a fruit and proof of weakness. Where there is simple truth, nothing is needed but the quiet statement of the fact.

There were no people so prone to ordinary swearing as the Jews. Accordingly, I have not the slightest doubt that what our Lord and His servants reprobated was the introduction of an oath in common conversation; and this, it is plain, does not apply to an oath administered by a magistrate. Indeed, it seems to me in itself sinful for a man to refuse an oath (supposing its form otherwise unobjectionable) if required to do so by proper authority. It would be to me a virtual denial of God's authority in civil government here below. I believe, therefore, that it is the bounden duty of every man to whom an oath is put, to take it in the fear of the Lord. I admit it must be put by competent authority. Therefore we are not to assume that the passage in Matthew 5, or this portion of James, has the smallest reference to judicial swearing. How could one think that those who indulge in such thoughts show any real intelligence as to the word of God? They certainly exhibit a certain care for conscientiousness. This is not in the least denied. But we have to take care that we are guided of God in this, which is important in the present day when we know that the spirit of the age is endeavouring to blot out God in all that touches man here below. The Lord was silent till adjured by the high-priest: was not His conduct thus perfectly consistent with His own teaching? An oath, therefore, should not be refused when put by a magistrate. I am supposing, of course, that there is nothing in the terms of the oath that would involve false doctrine or countenance a superstition. For instance, in a Roman Catholic country there might be reference to the virgin, or angels, or saints. Such an oath I do not think that a Christian man would be at liberty to take. But I am supposing now that a person is required in the name of God to declare what he believes to be the truth in a matter of which he is a witness, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It appears to me that so far from his being at liberty to refuse this, he is on the contrary guilty, through ignorance, of no small sin in cavilling about the matter.

The next case (vers. 33-37) brings us into a different order of things: it is the use of the name of the Lord. Here the reference is not a judicial oath, i.e., an oath administered by a magistrate. In some countries this might savour of heathenism or popery, and no Christian ought to take such an oath. But if the declaration be simply God's authority, introduced by the magistrate to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I do not see that the Lord in any wise absolves the Christian's obligation to this. But the matter here relates to communication between man and man. "Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black." They were simply the asseverations of common life among the Jews. If our Lord had meant to forbid the Christian from taking judicial oaths, would He not have instanced the oath that was usual in the courts of those days? But the oaths that He brings before us were what the Jews were in the habit of using when their word was questioned by their fellow-men, not what was employed before the magistrate. So far from thinking that a Christian is doing right in refusing a judicial oath, I believe he is doing wrong not to take it when the magistrate requires his testimony, when there is nothing to offend conscience in the form of the oath. If the magistrate does not acknowledge God in the oath, still the Christian is bound to acknowledge God in the magistrate, who is, to the Christian, a servant of God in the outward things of this world. Even the Assyrian was the rod of God, all the while that he thought only of carrying out his own purposes against Israel. Much more the magistrate, let him be who or what he may, represents the truth of God's external authority in the world, and the Christian ought to respect this, more by far than the men of the world; and therefore the oath, which simply demands the truth on ground of that authority, is a holy thing and not to be refused. The Christian, doubtless, has no business with prosecuting another himself. On the contrary, he owes it to Christ and His grace to let the world, if it will, abuse him — he may protest by word against it, and then leave it with the Lord. When our Lord Himself was dealt with unrighteously, He convicts the person of it, and there it ends, as man would think, for ever. There is no such thing as seeking to get present reparation of His wrongs. So should it be with Christians. There may be the moral conviction of those that do the wrong, but the taking it patiently is acceptable with God.

If an oath is required by the government or before a court, it is different. In the world, lying is nearly the order of the day. It is therefore very understandable if, for example in court, evidence is given under oath. This underlines in a serious way the search for the truth. Even if the government does not acknowledge God, the Christian ought to respect the powers that be as coming from God (Rom. 13:1ff). In such a case a Christian may take an oath.

A vow, which civil servants or soldiers may have to make, should be considered in the same way. When our Lord stood before the council, He did not reply to any of the false accusations made against Him. But when the High Priest put Him under oath with the words, "I adjure Thee by the living God," He was no longer silent, but submitted to the authorities ordained by God and testified of the truth, "Thou hast said" (Matt. 26:63ff; cf. Lev. 5:1).

But we must carefully remember, that our Lord in no way forbids an oath before the magistrate or judge. This is not of evil; but of good, being of divine authority. For men swear by a greater, and the oath is a term to all dispute as making matters sure. To refuse it is to deny God's authority in any who represent Him in earthly things, and hence called by His name and translated "judges," as in Ex. 21:6, Ex. 22:8-9, 28. See also Ps. 82:1, 6. The principle is asserted in Lev. 5:1, to which the Lord, far from setting aside on the mount, bowed when adjured by the high priest (Matt. 26:63-64), though silent before.

In like manner James 5:12 with marked earnestness forbids swearing either by heaven or by earth. These were not judicial adjuration, which does not fall under people's swearing. It was rather being sworn in God's name. Nor did our Lord any more than His servant prohibit such appeals to God as in Rom. 1:9, 1 Cor. 15:31, 2 Cor. 1:23, Gal. 1:20, or the like. The scruple of Friends or Separatists has no foundation in scripture.

213 The Lord Himself said, "Swear not at all" so we should not voluntarily take an oath, that is, of our own choice and will. But the Lord Himself when He stood before the high priest, the moment He was adjured, took the oath and answered when He had been silent before. It is not evil before a magistrate to swear, but good; it comes of evil otherwise. I should deny God in the magistrate if I did not answer when he adjured me. But to take an oath of my own will is to bring in God for nothing at all, that is, profanely. So the sin here in this verse is not uttering, that is, withholding evidence. In Exodus 21:6 (and twice in chapter 22:9, and once in chapter 22:8), "judges" is "elohim" - God, and this because the magistrate is for God: "the powers that be are ordained by God." We are to submit to them.

As for the manner of taking an oath, the king holds up his hand to take the oath: it is the commonest way of taking it. You are bound by that as much as by anything else. Whatever binds is enough. Only I am adjured by God, because the magistrate represents God. There are questions of swearing which present more difficulty; as for instance going into court and swearing to recover a debt for yourself. This is just a case of conscience; but I make no rules for anybody: people are not entitled to do so.

Swearing — (vers. 33-39). I was once in a position where I refused to swear. I was a very young christian then, and thought I was acting on this scripture in faith. I do not think I displeased the Lord, though afterwards I learnt I had made a mistake. Paul used a very strong asseveration when he wrote, "I call God to witness upon my soul," and no doubt it was necessary on that occasion — the expression is only once used in scripture. Then again, take that verse in James 3, "earthly, sensual, devilish." That word is only used once. Because it is so used it is no warrant for us to be constantly using it. When the high priest put the Lord on an oath, the Lord spoke; and so if the powers that be require us to take an oath (unless that oath is wrong in itself) it is due that we obey, and meet what they require. But in our ordinary conversation we cannot be too simple. Let our words be always with grace seasoned with salt; it is evidently grace that is to govern.

The third commandment forbids the taking of God's name in vain. An oath invoking God's name is a most serious matter. Elijah made such an oath to Obadiah, “As the Lord of hosts lives, before whom I stand” (1 Kings 18:15), and that oath was kept. But men would dare to use God's name often when not even intending to keep their word, thus totally in vain, which is gross evil. We know that people today swear by God with no concern about what they are doing. In fact, the Lord Jesus goes further than the law, by telling us “do not swear at all” (Matt. 5:33-37). For man had been proven by the time the Lord Jesus came, to be so untrustworthy that his promises concerning what he would do in the future were of no value. It would be different to swear to the truth of something that has already taken place, when one knows the facts.