THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
I. Hebrew Usage.
Two Forms of Swearing (§ 1). Methods of Attestation (§ 2). II. In the Church.
OATH.
New-Testament Teaching (5 1)- Protestant Position (§ 2). III. In Canon Law.
The General Conditions (§ 1).
Judgment in Swearing (§ 2). Justice in the Object (§ 3). Customary Formulas (§4).
The oath is an asseveration, an appeal to something held sacred, in support of the truthfulness of a statement or of sincerity in making a promise or vow. Arising out of the relationship between God and man, its binding force is not due to any legal ordinance, but to the same circumstances as those out of which religion itself springs. Its use is, in general, the discovery of truth in the administration of justice and the ensuring of the fulfilment of moral obligations. For the ethnic and primitive background, see Ordeal.
I. Hebrew Usage: Apart from its use in legal procedure (see Law, Hebrew, Civil and Criminal), the oath was frequent among the Hebrews. Swearing by Yahweh was not at all irreligious (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20); Yahweh himself swears by his life (Gen. xxii. 16). But swearing by other gods was idolatry (Jer. v. 7, xii. 16; Amos viii. 14), and false-swearing is abuse of the name of God (Exod. xx. 7; cf. Matt. v. 33).
Oaths were of two kinds. One confirmed a declaration: " as Yahweh liveth " (Judg. viii. 19), or " Yahweh is witness betwixt me and thee " (Gen. xxxi. 50). The sense in which these forms of swearing were used is shown by the oft-re-
i. Two curring phrase: " God do so and more
Forms of also " (I Sam. xiv. 44) ; it was a con- Swearing, ditional imprecation. Connected with this custom of swearing by Yahweh is the other one of swearing by the life of the king or of the addressed person, " as thy soul liveth " (I Sam. 1. 26). By this the addressed person is placed beside Yahweh or put in Yahweh's place as witness and avenger; cf. the cases where one swears at the same time by the life of God and by that of a man (e.g., I Sam. xx. 3). In the other form of swearing, he who interrogates " adjures " the interrogated in such a manner that he pronounces a conditional curse, hence the phrase " to lay an oath upon one " " to cause him to swear " (I Kings viii. 31), or " to make one swear " " to take an oath of one " (Ezek. xvii. 13). The interrogated then makes his declaration under this conditional curse, he accepts the oath (cf. Matt. xxvi. 63). The fear of later Judaism to pronounce the name of Yahweh on the one hand, and the prevailing custom of using the oath in every-day affairs on the other hand (Ecclus. xxiii. 9 sqq.), brought it about that, in place of the name of God, something sanctified to him, or something that stood in relation to him, was employed. At the time of Christ it was customary to swear by heaven, by the angels, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple and its vessels, by the altar, by the sacrifice, and by one's head (Matt. v. 34 sqq., xxiii. 16-22; Jas. v. 12; Josephus, War, II., xvi. 4). Pharisaic casuistry regarded these oaths not as binding as an oath by God himself, and differentiated among oaths according to the degree of sanctity of the adjured ob-
jects (cf. Matt, xxiii. 16 sqq. and the commentators on that passage).
As to the external forms, the Hebrew terms for
swearing point to the original employment of seven
sacred things. The sanctity of the number seven
is very ancient and wide-spread (see Numbers,
Sacred; Seven, the Sacred Num-
2. Methods ber). Herodotus (iii. 8) tells that the
of Attes- Arabs in making covenants sprinkled tation. seven stones with the blood of those making the covenant (see also Homer, Iliad, xix. 243). Comparing Gen. xxi. 31 with Gen. xv. 10 and Jer. xxxiv. 18, it appears that in solemnly attested promises the attestation was a sacrifice consisting of seven animals (see Smith, Rel. ofSem., pp. 480 sqq.). Another ancient custom is less intelligible. In the history of the patriarchs (Gen. xxiv. 2, xlvii. 29) it is told that he that swore put the hand under the thigh (the seat of generative power) of him that demanded the oath. It is possible that by this was conveyed the idea that the oath concerned also the descendants (see Dillmann on the passage), and also that there is here a remainder from phallic worship in which the genital organs were a symbol of deity. The practise was probably derived from the Canaanites and its significance lost in historical times (see Holzinger on Gen. xxiv. 2). The simplest ceremony of swearing is the uplifting of the right hand or of both hands to heaven (Gen. xiv. 22), a ceremony which in historical time was very general, so that from it a designation for " swearing " is taken: " to lift the hand " is as much as " to swear " (Ex. vi. 8; Num. xiv. 30). In later Judaism it was customary to touch the Tefillin (" phylacteries ") when taking the oath. I. Benzinger.
II. In the Church: The appeal made in the oath is usually to the Divine Being as the holy and righteous, who demands truthfulness and condemns and punishes lying. As God, by whom men swear, is the Almighty in whose power men are, so men declare by oath that their statements are made with a full consciousness of what God is and
i. New- demands, fully aware that in case of an Testament untruth they come under the judg- Teaching. ment of this God, that they even invoke it. Men swear thus (Heb. vi. 16) by God as their superior and ruler. The importance of the oath can be inferred from its simplest form like " I swear by God," or " God is my witness," " God knows it " (Rom. i. 9; Phil. i. 8; Gal. i. 20; I Thess. ii. 5; II Cor. i. 23) ; Paul calls upon God by his soul (II Cor. i. 23), which is known to God and places itself under his judgment. James (v. 12) declares against the use of the oath, and a similar pro hibition is given in the words of Jesus (Matt. v. 33-37). The passage has been differently interpreted; but it can be construed only in one way without destroying its logical articulation. Over against