That we may understand the purpose and im- portance of oaths among the Hebrews in primitive times, the historical situation requires to be borne in mind. Before there was a collective national
life, with an accepted code of laws and a strong executive, any convention formed among men had to be of the nature of a mutual understanding ; and when the agreement was one of much moment, it was made as binding as the circumstances of the time allowed, by the parties to it subjecting them- selves with all due solemnity to an oath. Ex- amples of oaths between men we have in Gn 9055. 50”, Jos 2! 916. 18, Τῇ conformity with the entire usage, and with the externalism which was its principal feature, strict attention was given to the forms and technicalities employed; a kind of ritual was established in oath-taking. In par- ticular, the custom prevailed of killing an animal in the ceremonial, the symbolism in this case having been both elaborate aud impressive. The practice is described in Gn 15 and Jer 34%, The victim was divided into two pieces, and the per- sons concerned walked between the pieces, in testi- mony of their invocation of the like doom of destruction upon themselves if they proved un- faithful to their oath. The form of walking between the pieces after eating of the sacrifice is held by Haber Smith to have been further indicative of the belief that the parties were taken within the mystical life of the victim. Among the simpler forms used there is the act of ‘ putting the hand under the thigh’ (Gn 9455. 4739) ; the under- lying idea is discussed by Dillmann, in loc. (See also art. THIGH). Or the hand is stretched out to heaven (Gn 14”; οἵ. Dn 12’, Rev 1055), this gesture by its naturalness explaining itself,
The language of adjuration varies greatly. Among the commonest expressions are the phrases, ‘The Lorp do so to me, and more also,’ and ‘As the Lorp liveth,’ or there is the extended form, “As the Lorp liveth, and as thy soul liveth.’ Jacob swears by the fear (102, i.e. ‘the object of his fear’=God; cf. v.“) of his father Isaac (Gn 31°), and Joseph swears by the life of Pharaoh (Gn 42"). In early times the tribal god and an earthly ruler had not been sharply distinguished from each other in men’s thoughts: thus the practice of swearing by the prince or by the life of the prince would be accounted for. On the other hand, even when better things were to be expected after the establishment of ethical mono- theism, abuses were common among the scribes ; there was a declension by easy transitions from the invocation of the Deity to forms of adjuration by some of the familiar objects of earth. Thus one would swear by Heaven, by Jerusalem as the Holy City, by the earth, by his own head (Mt 5“), or again by the temple as the House of God, by the gold of the temple, by the altar, or by the gift on the altar (Mt 2328),
As the Author of the world was invoked in adjuration, the idea prevailed that the oath, once uttered, had objective significance in the sense that it affected the course of nature; a conviction that may be taken to indicate in one aspect of it how even primeval man was feeling after the truth which was afterwards to be revealed, that ‘out of the heart are the issues of life.’ To take an oath was to come under a specified penalty in case of violation of the oath, to expose one’s self to a curse. Accordingly adx=‘oath or curse.’ Thus the princes of the congregation of Israel, having sworn to the Gibeonites to be at peace with them and to let them live, find that they must carry out their undertaking, at least in form, even when it was discovered that the Gibeonites had been de- ceivers, ‘lest,’ they said, ‘wrath be upon us be- cause of the oath which we sware unto them’ (Jos 9). And Saul resolved, in fulfilment of an oath he had uttered, to kill his son Jonathan, who was innocent (1S 14%; cf. Mt 149). In Nu 5 the oath of cursing, administered with the ritual
of the water of bitterness, entails the most terrible consequences on the guilty; and in Zec 5! the flying roll of the prophetic vision represents a curse ‘like a bird of prey’ pursuing the wicked person over the face of the whole earth. In view of the far-reaching consequences invoived in oath-taking, the law placed careful restrictions on the practica in the case of members of a family other than the head (Nu 30).
Perjury on the part of a witness was punished with the same penalty which his testimony, if true, would have involved for the accused persot (Dt 1938),
Oaths as between God and men. At a perioa when every important compact among men was paltiieeaT eg an oath, and when there was no other guarantee for the discharge of their lia- bilities by each of the parties concerned, the con- ception formed of God’s relation to His people was, and could only be, the conception of His making a
romise to them under the sanction of an oath. en God is represented as taking 2 oath to the fathers, it is meant that those with whom He entered into relation gained the assurance that His fidelity to them and to His promise was unalter- able (cf. He 6). His nature was partly understood through the thoughts and practices of the best men of the time; whereas a presentation of His ways and character by means of ideas which were entirely unconnected with the current life of the age would have been meaningless and void of effect. The oath which God took to Abraham, and which is so often referred to, is given in Gn 22!5* ; ‘By myself have I sworn, saith the Lorp .. . that in estae I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multply thy seed as the stars,’ etc.