When God is regarded as binding Himself by an oath, a period has been reached in the repel of Revelation which is comparatively well definea both in respect to the initial and the closing stage of it. There has been an advance when the truth is communicated to man, in such a way as to be believed, that God makes and will without fail keep a promise, that He is spiritual and moral, and has an interest in man. n the other hand, the peculiar externalism of such religious faith is obvious; and it is ΒΕΡΕΣΘΕΙ that only & very limited knowledge of the divine nature is attain- able, in the absence of practical proof of God’s intervention for good in ie exigencies of earthly life. The experience and thought of the period in
uestion are accordingly transcended; trust in hod comes to be based on other ground. When the chosen people were formed into a nation, the warrant and motive for obedience, enforced again and again to the better mind of the Israelites, was the deliverance from Ἔσται bondage, and the known goodness of Jehovah. Not merely because a promise had once been made and confirmed by an oath, but because God had saved the people, loved them, and brought His goodness in the law near to their heart, were they under obligation to serve Him. The old oath is frequently adduced indeed, but the spiritual and moral facts of the nation’s history are mainly rehearsed in attestation of the truth that God was faithful to His oath. In the New Covenant (Jer 315%), and above all in ite completion in Christ, men’s knowledge of the Lord, their trust in Him, rests on His forgiveness of their sin, and on His creation of a new and better righteousness.
On the human side in OT religion man took oath toGod. An oath was ‘a peculiarly solemn confession of faith’ (Driver, Deut. p. 95). Fear from being reprehensible from the religious or moral point of view, the practice was incumbent on the pious, and had the promise of blessing. (‘Every one that sweareth by him shall glory,’ Ps 63%),
OBADIAH
OBADIAH, BOOK OF 577
But it is requisite that one shall swear by Jehovah the true God, shall do so in truth and righteous- ness of spirit, and shall faithfully perform the oath (Jer 4? 1216), It is sinful to swear by them that are no gods, as Baal, and so to acknowledge them, or by images or forms usurping the place of God, as the ‘sin of Samaria’ or the ‘ way ” (under- stood to be the ‘manner’ or ‘ritual’)* of Beer- sheba (Jer 12°, Am 814), Also the double-dealing of those who swear to the Lord and swear by Malcam is severely condemned (Zeph 15).
In the time of Christ, minute arbitrary dis- tinctions had been set up by the scribes and Pharisees in adjuration, such as were plainly destructive of the moral sense and amounted to a profanation of the name of God; and the abuse called forth from Christ the severest denunciation (Mt 231"), An oath which was to all appeariunce most solemn and binding was evaded after all by the methods of casuistry, by the tacit reservation that it had no force, that ‘it was nothing.’ The name of God was invoked to cover deliberate deceit. But our Lord goes further when He lays down the principle in the Sermon on the Mount, ‘Swear not at all’ (Mt 5*-°7; so Ja 5%). Men’s speech is to be ‘ Yea, yea; nay, nay.’ All com- munication between them is to be taken up to the sphere of perfect truthfulness. The introduction of oaths in particular cases implies a claim to some licence in departing from the truth in other cases. The practice which ostensibly promotes morality is thus, in fact, injurious to it.
As the prohibition in Mt 5“ seems absolute, the
uestion arises whether Christ would have sane- tioned the judicial use of oaths. In this connexion His own example may be pointed to when Caiaphas the high priest adjured Him by the living God that He should tell whether He was the Christ (Mt 26%), Jesus answered affirmatively without taking exception to the condition imposed. And St. Paul sometimes calls God to witness for the truth of his assertions (2 Co 1%, Gal 1%). The will of Christ is the supreme and absolute standard of conduct, but the will can be ascertained only when regard is had to the conditions of time, place, and circumstance. The new law in Mt 5% is understood in its context. As compared with the old law which is mentioned in the previous verse, it is a concise, pointed expression of a neces- sary and enduring ὁ peaicinle. ut error is readily incurred by generalizing or by exalting the letter above the spirit, as in the case of the other injunc- tion, ‘give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away’ (Mt 58). Im determining whether and in what cases the use of oaths is in accordance with the mind of Christ, people have to ask what conduces to the advancement of Christian righteousness in the particular situations that are contemplated.
Lireratore.—W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, on oath- taking and kindred practices in primitive Semitic times, esp. BP. 164 ff., 461 f.; art. Covenant in vol. i. of the present work ; he OT Theologies on the subject of Covenant ; Wendt, T'each- ing of Jesus (Eng. tr.), i. p. 269 ff.; Smend, Alttest. Religionsge- schichte2 (see Index, 8. ‘Bund’ and ‘Schwur "ἢ; Benzinger or Nowack, Heb. Archdologie, 8. ‘Eid’; Gore, Serm. on Mount.