Swearing an oath.

[Guyonthestreet]

I was reading my Bible last night and came across this:

James 5:

12Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.

Now I have taken several oaths in my day.

Is this passage saying one must not swear an oath to anyone or anything, lest he be condemned.

 

[LilyM]

Some oaths are necessary - doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, the President takes the Oath of Office, people swear on the Bible in court etc. In such serious and rare circumstances it’s ok to take an oath. In fact it can be a good thing - it reminds us of the solemn responsibilities we have on such occasions.

The passage is to remind us not to take oaths LIGHTLY - there are people who a) will swear to anything whenever they want people to take them seriously and b) do not take these oaths seriously and perjure themselves or break their sworn oaths at whim.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Some oaths are necessary - doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, the President takes the Oath of Office, people swear on the Bible in court etc. In such serious and rare circumstances it’s ok to take an oath. In fact it can be a good thing - it reminds us of the solemn responsibilities we have on such occasions.

The passage is to remind us not to take oaths LIGHTLY - there are people who a) will swear to anything whenever they want people to take them seriously and b) do not take these oaths seriously and perjure themselves or break their sworn oaths at whim.

Thanks LilyM. The problem I have is the passage doesnt seem to be reminding us not to take oaths lightly. James catagorically says not to make oaths. Period. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Period. Can you point me to any commentary that expands on the explaination you gave. Please dont think Im nitpicking with you. Im not. Im thankful for your reply. But it doesnt seem to match what James is saying. He’s pretty cut and dry on the issue. Thanks.

 

[Godfollower]

You’ll actually find a similar passage in the gospel:

33 Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. 34 But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: 35 Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king:
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

Matthew 5:33-36.

Remember, Jesus on occasion used hyperbole to drive home a point. So it’s possible to read this passage from that understanding and realize that he means don’t swear lightly.

That being said, I understand your feeling that you should not take oaths. Most courts and other institutions allow you to take an “affirmation” instead; simply tell whoever it is that you prefer to affirm than swear. You will then be asked whether you “affirm” to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (or affirm to defend the Constitution and laws, or well and truly try the case, or whatever the oath is for). Legally, the oath and affirmation are equivalent; you’ll notice, for example, that the original U.S. Constitution mentions them:

Before he [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

U.S. Constitution, art. II, sec. 1.

The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights also requires that warrants be supported “by Oath or affirmation” – so it’s a long-standing right.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was reading my Bible last night and came across this:

James 5:

12Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.

Now I have taken several oaths in my day.

Is this passage saying one must not swear an oath to anyone or anything, lest he be condemned.

Jesus forbids it. James forbids it. Therefore, Christians are not to do it. If Christians don’t try to ratiomalise abortion, which is not forbidden, why try to rationalise this, which is explicitly forbidden, not once, but twice ?​

I’m in the fortunate position of never having had to swear any oaths I hope that I never shall be.

Besides, if one’s word needs the confirmation of an oath, this suggests that otherwise one might not speak truly. But if one is prepared not to speak truly, why should one be impressed by an oath ? Someone bent on lying will do so, oath or no oath. So that defence doesn’t stand up.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Jesus forbids it. James forbids it. Therefore, Christians are not to do it. If Christians don’t try to ratiomalise abortion, which is not forbidden, why try to rationalise this, which is explicitly forbidden, not once, but twice ?​

I’m in the fortunate position of never having had to swear any oaths I hope that I never shall be.

Besides, if one’s word needs the confirmation of an oath, this suggests that otherwise one might not speak truly. But if one is prepared not to speak truly, why should one be impressed by an oath ? Someone bent on lying will do so, oath or no oath. So that defence doesn’t stand up.

I agree. I have sworn oaths in the past. I’m not likely to be in a position to do so again, except maybe for jury service, in which case I will insist on making an affirmation.

I never knew it was forbidden by the Bible itself until now. Every day’s a school day

 

[Pug]

The Church allows oaths in the right circumstances. From the CCC:

**2154 **Following St. Paul, the tradition of the Church has understood Jesus’ words as not excluding oaths made for grave and right reasons (for example, in court). “An oath, that is the invocation of the divine name as a witness to truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice.”

So, you might naturally ask, what is this about Paul? Perhaps they are talking about the passage where Paul seems to take an oath in Galatians:

RSV Galatians 1:20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

It is an oath and not a mere affirmation because it is before God, I presume.

EDIT: I thought of another place in Paul, too: RSV 2 Corinthians 1:23 But I call God to witness against me – it was to spare you that I refrained from coming to Corinth.

 

[LilyM]

The Church allows oaths in the right circumstances. From the CCC:

So, you might naturally ask, what is this about Paul? Perhaps they are talking about the passage where Paul seems to take an oath in Galatians:

RSV Galatians 1:20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

It is an oath and not a mere affirmation because it is before God, I presume.

EDIT: I thought of another place in Paul, too: RSV 2 Corinthians 1:23 But I call God to witness against me – it was to spare you that I refrained from coming to Corinth.

There ya go - good work finding those references.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I’m still confused. Jesus’ own words were ‘‘But I say to you - do not swear at all, … neither by heaven … nor by earth’’

Then we have Paul making what appears to be an oath. Then we have the church saying well actually, so long as you dont swear lightly, it’s acceptable in certain circumstances.

Wouldn’t it be better to take Jesus at His word.

I’m not disputing the catholic churches teaching in the catechism. Im just confused by the clearly conflicting messages, and how the church settles on an interpretation.

 

[LilyM]

I’m still confused. Jesus’ own words were ‘‘But I say to you - do not swear at all, … neither by heaven … nor by earth’’

Then we have Paul making what appears to be an oath. Then we have the church saying well actually, so long as you dont swear lightly, it’s acceptable in certain circumstances.

Wouldn’t it be better to take Jesus at His word.

I’m not disputing the catholic churches teaching in the catechism. Im just confused by the clearly conflicting messages, and how the church settles on an interpretation.

So do we take Him at all His words, and literally cut off our hands when we sin with them, or pluck out our eyes, or cultivate literal hatred for parents, family etc because He said we should ‘hate’ them??? Or not bury our dead because He said ‘let the dead burty the dead’?

Jesus DID speak in hyperbole numerous times in the Gospels, this is another instance. One way in which we KNOW that it is a hyperbolic statement is that we see how the Apostles lived - Paul knew His teaching as well as anyone, and clearly didn’t take it literally.

The Church settles on the interpretation by realising that ALL of scripture is inspired, not just the Gospels, and realising that where there is an apparent contradiction the true teaching usually lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

So do we take Him at all His words, and literally cut off our hands when we sin with them, or pluck out our eyes, or cultivate literal hatred for parents, family etc because He said we should ‘hate’ them??? Or not bury our dead because He said ‘let the dead burty the dead’?

Jesus DID speak in hyperbole numerous times in the Gospels, this is another instance. One way in which we KNOW that it is a hyperbolic statement is that we see how the Apostles lived - Paul knew His teaching as well as anyone, and clearly didn’t take it literally.

The Church settles on the interpretation by realising that ALL of scripture is inspired, not just the Gospels, and realising that where there is an apparent contradiction the true teaching usually lies somewhere in the middle.

Gotcha.

 

[jcrichton]

If Christians don’t try to ratiomalise abortion, which is not forbidden, why try to rationalise this, which is explicitly forbidden, not once, but twice ?

So “thou shall not kill” does not forbid killing a human being in his or her mother’s womb?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’m still confused. Jesus’ own words were ‘‘But I say to you - do not swear at all, … neither by heaven … nor by earth’’

Then we have Paul making what appears to be an oath. Then we have the church saying well actually, so long as you dont swear lightly, it’s acceptable in certain circumstances.

Wouldn’t it be better to take Jesus at His word.

I’m not disputing the catholic churches teaching in the catechism. Im just confused by the clearly conflicting messages, and how the church settles on an interpretation.

…you must read the whole passage… why is Jesus forbidding them from taking an oath?

Jesus also tells His disciples that they should not imitate the hypocrites; that they should pray to their Father, who is in Heaven, from the privacy of their abode… did that Commandment deemed group or public prayer obsolete? What of St. Paul’s words against taking other Christians to court? Was his concern only to keep Christians from taking part of some sort of “oath?”

Jesus prays to the Father and tells Him that He does not desire Him to remove His disciples from the world… only that He keeps them safe… we are part of the world and there will be situations that will require us to take an oath; do we refuse to take the oath or do we tell the truth regardless of having to take an oath or not?

Maran atha!

Angel