053. Chapter 48: The Third Commandment
------------ CHAPTER FORTY-EIGHT ------------ The Third Commandment This commandment is also presented as a prohibition. It first of all consists of the matter forbidden, followed by a strong and urgent incentive. The Focus of this Commandment: The Name of the Lord
First of all we shall consider the matter forbidden. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." The object here is the name of the Lord. We understand this to refer:
(1) to the words Jehovah, Elohim, Lord, and God;
(2) to God Himself. "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:16);
(3) to God‘s perfections: "And the Lord ... proclaimed the name of the Lord ... merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth" (Exodus 34:5-6); "Save me, O God, by Thy name" (Psalms 54:1); "...I will wait on Thy name" (Psalms 52:9);
(4) to God‘s help: "Through Thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us" (Psalms 44:5); "I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts" (1 Samuel 17:45); "The name of the Lord is a strong tower" (Proverbs 18:10);
(5) to the works of God by which God manifests His glory: "How excellent is Thy name in all the earth" (Psalms 8:1);
(6) to God‘s praise among the people: "Let them also that love Thy name be joyful in Thee" (Psalms 5:11); "... what wilt Thou do unto Thy great name" (Joshua 7:9).
We thus understand the name of God to refer to everything by which God reveals Himself and in which He is either praised or despised. "... to bear my name before the Gentiles" (Acts 9:15). The prohibition "Thou shalt not take ... in vain" pertains to this name. It thus pertains to saying or doing something by which God is neither honored nor acknowledged to be the God who He is, but rather is dishonored. "Vain" has the following meaning: that which is without purpose, unsuitable, thoughtless, irreverent, careless, frivolous, and without a holy objective -- thereby engendering an irreverent impression of God in others.
Secondly, the incentive added to this commandment is extracted from the threat of harm: "I will not hold him guiltless." Man may consider it to be a very insignificant matter, but God deems it to be a very great matter. Even though man is not sensitive to this and does not believe that he has committed a great sin, God considers him guilty and worthy of being punished, and He will also certainly punish him. For it is an act whereby one greatly despises God as well as a clear manifestation that he does not love God -- and thus a direct affront toward God. "... with the froward Thou wilt show Thyself froward" (Psalms 18:26). The Sins Prohibited The first sin prohibited is blasphemy. This occurs:
(1) When one ascribes something absurd to God, and with either words or gestures, despises or ridicules God, causing others to despise and ridicule Him also. "And the Israelitish woman‘s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed" (Leviticus 24:11).
(2) When denouncing the veracity, power, or other attributes of God, and denying and rejecting His providence, preservation, and government. "He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten. ... Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? he hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it" (Psalms 10:11
(3) If one attributes to others that which properly belongs to God alone and which He alone can perform. "But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (Matthew 12:24).
(4) If one despises, ridicules, distorts, and slanders the grace which God has implanted in someone as well as the manifestation of that grace -- that is, if one refers to the godly as hypocrites and to their godliness as hypocrisy. The Jews thus ridiculed Christ‘s confidence in God. "He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now, if He will have Him: for He said, I am the Son of God. Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias" (Matthew 27:43
(5) If one denies and ridicules the truth of God as revealed in the Scriptures. "That there shall come ... scoffers ... saying, Where is the promise of His coming" (2 Peter 3:3-4).
(6) If one has the name of being a partaker of the covenant, but does not live accordingly, thus causing others to blaspheme the doctrine of truth and godliness. "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you" (Romans 2:24); "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (2 Peter 2:2).
Cursing The second sin is cursing; that is, to wish that God, the devil, thunder, or something else would manifest evil upon other people or one‘s self. The saints, inspired by God‘s Spirit and upon God‘s command, have cursed some men (cf. Psalms 35:4
We must not give someone the opportunity to curse, and if someone curses us, we should not be disturbed, for it is not in the power of others to bring a curse upon us. "... so the curse causeless shall not come" (Proverbs 26:2). Rather, God will change the evil curses pronounced upon us into a blessing, as David said concerning the curse of Shimei: "Let him alone, and let him curse. ... It may be that the Lord ... will requite me good for his cursing this day" (2 Samuel 16:11-12). It is indeed our duty: "Bless them that curse you" (Matthew 5:44). The third sin is swearing unnecessarily, when, in general association with others, we swear an oath to confirm our words, without this being necessary and required. The Lord Jesus warned against this: "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. ... Swear not at all" (Matthew 5:37
God governs the lot and permits it to be cast according to His will. This is evident from Proverbs 16:33, "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." Casting the lot is a religious activity. It is the making of a request to God and must be preceded by prayer. "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship. ... And they gave forth their lots" (Acts 1:24-26). In the casting of the lot one expects the outcome to be to the glory of God and the welfare of country and church. It is thus a religious activity and must be conducted with a religious heart. The casting of the lot is only to be done in important controversies and in the event of a significant circumstance upon which the welfare of society is contingent. It is also to be used in matters which otherwise cannot be resolved, or in matters wherein the hand of God must expressly be observed, such as the division of the land of Canaan, the selection of the two goats, and the election of the twelfth apostle. "The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty" (Proverbs 18:18).
It seems that in the Old Testament the lot has also been used to discover the guilty party. In all likelihood Achan was singled out in this manner (Joshua 7:18). This is also true for Jonathan (1 Samuel 14:40-41), and Jonah (Jonah 1:7). However, this is not to be imitated. Even if Achan were singled out by the lot (which is not certain), it nevertheless occurred by divine revelation. Saul‘s behavior cannot be regulative, for he often did that which was not right. Finally, in Jonah‘s case the sailors were Gentiles.
Since the casting of the lot is a religious activity of an extraordinary nature by which important controversies are resolved, one must be fearful of abusing the lot either to satisfy curiosity, discover a secret, or neglect the use of the only rule of God‘s Word. The latter occurs when one asks God by means of the lot what needs to be done in doubtful cases in which he cannot make a decision, such as: whom to marry, the giving of counsel concerning a matter, the choice of a profession, whether or not one should move, etc. This would be a tempting of God and would arouse His wrath -- and rather than answering by means of the lot, He could let the lot fall to your disadvantage and destruction.
Abide by the Word of God and neither tempt nor provoke Him. If you cannot make a decision and are in doubt, then refrain from action, for you may not do anything except by faith.
Games of Chance
It is thus also evident that the abuse of the lot in games, entertainment, and gambling is a dreadful abuse of the providence of God. There are games which are played solely with one‘s skill or strength, and there are games played together with others such as chess, checkers, handball, fencing, shuffle board, etc. These are lawful in and of themselves, but they must be played with a holy objective: to refresh a weary mind, to preserve the health of the body, or to render one more fit for his next task. It must occur neither too frequently nor too long, for then you would fail to achieve the objective. You would waste your time and the heart would be estranged from God and become attached to the game. There are also mixed games which are partly played by chance and partly by skill, such as the game of cards, backgammon, etc. These are as unlawful as games of pure chance, for the casting of the lot also rules such games. If chance is entirely against someone, his skill will be of no avail. Then there are games which are entirely dependent on chance, such as games in which dice only are used, straws are drawn, etc.
It is unlawful to play games of chance, be it all by chance or in conjunction with skill. This is evident for the following reasons:
First, there is neither a command, example, nor argument in God‘s Word from which one can logically deduce the legality of games of chance.
Evasive Argument #1: This can also be said of other games in which use is made of either skill or strength.
Answer: This is not so, for it is founded upon God‘s Word that one may rest, sleep, eat, and drink, and at the same time, may endeavor to keep soul and body in good condition in order to be fit for the service of God.
Evasive Argument #2: A game of chance can also serve that purpose.
Answer: This cannot be so, since it is nothing but sin -- and a soul, if it were sensitive to sin, would be distraught. One may not draw a conclusion by relating that which is founded upon God‘s Word to that which is not founded upon it.
Secondly, the use of the lot is a religious activity governed by the Word of God, which states the circumstances when, the manner in which, and the purpose for which it may be used. It is a religious activity; that is, it is a seeking for guidance from the Lord and a making request that He would reveal His will. Therefore prayer precedes its use (Acts 1:24-26). It must be used in weighty circumstances wherein God‘s hand needs to be observed in an extraordinary manner. This was true for the selection of the two goats, the division of the land of Canaan, and the selection of a twelfth apostle. It must be done in faith, believing that the entire disposal is of the Lord (Proverbs 16:33), that He will reveal His will, and that one must rest in this with delight. It must also be used to settle disputes (Proverbs 18:18). All these dimensions are absent, however, in the game of chance, and it is thus unlawful.
Thirdly, the lot is an extraordinary means by which to discern God‘s will in a situation of extraordinary importance. However, in a game of chance there is neither a weighty matter to be determined, nor a dispute to be settled. One does not endeavor by such a game to know the will of God in order to be subject to it. Thus, to play a game of chance is to tempt God, and is therefore forbidden. "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4:7). To tempt God is to depart from the ordinary way prescribed to us and to desire something extraordinary from God. It makes a mockery of God‘s providence and makes Him a servant of our foolish will.
Evasive Argument: The gambler may say: "I do not even think about this; I am only interested in honor and financial gain."
Answer: It is sinful to have such objectives, and it is even sinful not to think about God. One must think about God in everything. If one does not think about God in the act of lying, is it therefore no sin? Fourthly, the outcome of the casting of the lot -- which the gambler hopes to be to his advantage -- is not in the hands of the player; and yet he is hopeful. In whom does he put his hope -- in the devil? No. Is it fate (which the heathen designate as an idol) as if it were able to bring something about? No. Does one expect it then from the dice? Then one designates them to be his God. It is abominable to expect any happiness from any other source but God.
Evasive Argument: The gambler may say, "I do not expect the outcome from anyone; I only look to the outcome."
Answer: This would be the answer of the atheist; the outcome is ruled by God (Proverbs 16:33). It is thus inherent in the issue itself that one expects happiness from God in an extraordinary way -- this being by a game. This is nothing else but a tempting of and mocking with God, and to make Him a servant of one‘s lust.
Fifthly, games of chance -- not due to chance itself -- inherently engender harmful consequences. They draw the heart from God, which, due to His righteous judgment, is occupied with a bewitching power. If the outcome of the casting of the lot is disappointing, a silent fretfulness toward God arises in the heart, even though this may not be expressly stirred up. From this comes cursing, blaspheming, and displeasure toward the winner. The one loses his goods (be it much or little) and the other receives a profit which is corrupt and contaminated.
Sixthly, add to this the general witness of the godly and scholars of all ages, as well as of synods and imperial decrees. If there is occasionally one who favors games of chance, it is a papist or a worldly person who has no regard for the Bible. Or if there is an occasional scholar who approves, there are those who have refuted them and stopped their mouths. In doing so, such a scholar has brought a blemish upon himself and upon his other writings. Public Lotteries That which has been said also proves that public lotteries, instituted by the government to support the poor or churches, are unlawful.
First, games of chance and lotteries are essentially the same. The one is unlawful, and therefore, also the other. Consider therefore the reasons mentioned above as having been advanced here as well. The government‘s approval of the lotteries does not change the nature of the matter. Governments are not authorized to annul divine commandments and to make an unlawful matter lawful. The legality would supposedly be derived from either the government‘s approbation or from its objective. It cannot be related to the government, for one must obey God rather than man. The objective to support the poor and the churches can no more justify lotteries than Saul‘s objective in sacrificing to the Lord that which he had been prohibited to take. One must not do evil in order that good may come forth from it. A good objective must be attained in a lawful manner. The poor can also be helped in different ways, such as by charity, taxation, or other means which are founded upon God‘s Word. It is not even to the advantage of the poor, but rather to their detriment, for many who can scarcely earn a living, will in this way tend to poverty and must then also be supported.
Evasive Argument: Such ought not to participate in the lotteries.
Answer: They are forced by their landlord to participate in order to improve their circumstances. And if they cannot handle little, they will also not be able to handle much; everyone is obligated to preserve in an appropriate manner that which God has given him.
Secondly, lotteries take away from the one and give to the other, for many need to make a contribution and but few walk away with it -- doing all this without any skill, and apart from an inheritance and other honorable means.
Evasive Argument: The money is not taken from anyone, for they all contribute voluntarily.
Answer: No opportunity ought to be given for subjects to squander their goods, for God has forbidden this. Thirdly, participation in lotteries proceeds from the heart of a person who is not satisfied with his condition, wants to become rich, and consequently falls victim to foolish lusts. Everyone yearns for the highest prize, doing so in a way which has not been commanded in, founded upon, nor exemplified in God‘s Word, which teaches that the casting of the lot is a religious activity and an extraordinary means to ascertain what God‘s will is in a matter of dispute. This is not the objective of lotteries.
Evasive Argument #1: I participate in a religious manner; I am in need and have very limited means, and here is an opportunity to improve my condition. I expect the outcome from the Lord and pray for a blessing.
Answer: All religion is founded upon the Word of God; this is not true for lotteries. They are not a religious activity. One can therefore neither pray in faith nor expect a good outcome from God. It is a tempting of God, for one departs from the ordinary way and seeks it in an extraordinary way.
Evasive Argument #2: I do it religiously, for I give to the poor.
Answer: This is not valid. If you wish to give to the poor, give without expecting anything in return, for the poor will receive no more than a small percentage of your gain. You know in your heart that it is not your intent to give to the poor, but to acquire a good lottery ticket.
Evasive Argument #3: I have promised a good portion to the poor if I receive a favorable return from the lottery.
Answer: This is engaging in a business transaction with God: Give me this and I shall give Thee that in return.
Furthermore, it is nothing more than the price for a dog and the wages of a prostitute. God does not wish to have goods deposited in the offertory-box which have been acquired unlawfully. From these reasons -- together with those advanced against the playing of games of chance -- it is evident that lotteries are unlawful, just as games of chance are.
Fourthly, consider also that if lotteries were lawful, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances would then be permitted to establish lotteries among themselves. Everyone could then deposit something, and thereupon cast the lot as to who will have it all. This, however, would make the godly uncomfortable and the government would not permit it. The government thus admits that the legality of lotteries, which are of a religious issue, is contingent upon their judgment, or that lotteries are inherently either unlawful or detrimental in regard to the affairs of the republic.
We have thus demonstrated which sins are prohibited in the third commandment. The Virtues Enjoined The virtues enjoined in the third commandment are the following: First, to speak (and want to hear others speak) of God and divine things with all humility, reverence of heart, and manifestation of respect. It must become evident how glorious and awe-inspiring God is; and that He is worthy of being feared. Our very conduct must therefore cause others to have such an impression of God. How father Abraham humbled himself when he spoke to God! "Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes" (Genesis 18:27). Even Eglon, the king of the Moabites, showed great respect for God, for when Ehud said to him, "I have a message from God unto thee," he "arose out of his seat" (Judges 3:20). The apostle exhorts us to speak reverently about God and divine things. "In doctrine showing ... gravity" (Titus 2:7); "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11).
Secondly, to confess the Lord holily and boldly; that is, we must confess that He is such a God as He is, that we are loyal to Him, honor and fear Him, put our trust in Him, and that we are loyal to His truth, cause, and children. We must furthermore confess that we are not ashamed of this, but deem it to be the greatest honor to be known for this. "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32); "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ" (Romans 1:16).
Thirdly, to glorify God in all that we say or do. This is to be our objective and must stimulate us to declare His virtues. "But ye are a chosen generation ... that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9); "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him" (Colossians 3:17); "... do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Fourthly, to be zealous for His Name and cause. This was true for Moses (Exodus 23:19-20), Elijah (1 Kings 19:10), and David as a type of Christ. "For the zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen upon me" (Psalms 69:9).
Fifthly, to call upon the name of the Lord; that is, to bow reverently before Him, worship Him due to His glory, and humbly request from Him all that you have need of in every given situation -- privately, or publicly with the church. "Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name; they called upon the Lord, and He answered them" (Psalms 99:6); "...My suppliants ..." (Zephaniah 3:10).
Sixthly, to swear by His Name in a holy manner. We shall dwell upon this a bit more in order that everyone may be instructed as to what an oath is, as well as all that it implies. This will be done so that everyone may examine himself in regard to the oath, and to give instruction, as well as to refute opposing parties. The Oath
We do not understand the oath to be a general reference to all that pertains to religious practice, such as we read in Isaiah 19:18 : "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts." Rather, we speak of it in the narrow sense; that is, the calling on God to be a witness in a certain situation. The Heidelberg Catechism describes the oath as follows: "A lawful oath is calling upon God as the only One who knows the heart, that He will bear witness to the truth, and punish me if I swear falsely." To swear an oath is to call upon God to be a witness. "Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul" (2 Corinthians 1:23); "The Lord be a true and faithful witness between us" (Jeremiah 42:5); "Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth" (Malachi 2:14). The oath is a calling upon God which renders one subject to either a blessing or a curse. "... upon my soul" (2 Corinthians 1:23). Sometimes this condition is not expressed and at other times it is. "So do God to me, and more also" (2 Samuel 3:35). The form differs. At times it is: "As the Lord liveth" (1 Samuel 20:21), and our form is: "So help me Almighty God!" The external form also differs; we raise the first two fingers. [Note: Such is the custom in the Netherlands until this day.] It is as much as if one says, "Oh omniscient, omnipotent, true, and righteous God, who dost delight in truth, whose eyes look for truth, and Thou who hatest all falsehood -- Thou who knowest the truth of this matter, my heart, and this my mouth and my deeds -- I pray Thee that Thou wouldest look down upon me in this case, and hear my voice, and that Thou wouldest be a witness of that which I now say and promise. I pray that Thou wouldest punish me in body and soul as an example to others, if I do not state and strictly adhere to the truth as far as I am acquainted with it (which I promise to do) -- and on the contrary, bless me according to soul and body if I state the truth and am faithful to that which I promise. Let it thus be evident that Thou art an omniscient, omnipotent, true, and righteous God." Who would then not fear to swear an oath?
There are five matters which belong to a proper oath: 1) by whom one must swear; 2) who may swear; 3) the matters which are to be sworn; 4) the manner in which the oath must be sworn, and 5) the purpose for which it is performed.
First, the One who is called upon in the oath and by whom one must swear is the only true God. One may not swear by angels and saints as the papists maintain and do, for 1) they may not be worshiped, as has been shown earlier; 2) they do not know the heart; 3) they have no power to either bless or punish; 4) God is angry with those who swear by something other than the true God, and punishes them. "They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth" (Amos 8:14); "... and them that worship and that swear by the Lord, and that swear by Malcham" (Zephaniah 1:5).
Evasive Argument: Those were idols, and were neither angels nor saints.
Answer: The reason why it was unlawful to swear by those mentioned was because they were not God. This is always applicable, for it makes no difference who is put in the stead of God when swearing an oath.
Objection #1: "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things" (1 Timothy 5:21). Paul swears here by the angels.
Answer: No mention is made here of an oath. Paul certifies Timothy in the presence of the elect angels. We do likewise in general conversation when we say: "I believe it, I confess it, or I say it before all who are here present."
Objection #2: Joseph swore by Pharaoh: "By the life of Pharaoh" (Genesis 42:15).
Answer: One is to conduct himself according to regulations, without which examples cannot be followed. For otherwise, one could conclude from this that we may swear by a living person -- yes, even by a heathen. Furthermore, there is here no calling upon Pharaoh and thus also no oath.
Secondly, those who are permitted to swear an oath may not be children, demented persons, drunkards, angry persons, liars, etc. -- not only because they are not credible, but also because they are not capable of having a right impression concerning God and the oath, and thus they cannot swear in a godly manner. In order to swear an oath rightly, one must be illuminated, regenerate, and godly. Since we cannot judge a person‘s internal state, however, all citizens are rightfully admitted to this. If they do not swear truthfully, they are responsible themselves. One thus accepts the oath of an idolatrous person and of others -- not because of the quality of their oath, but due to the condition which is placed upon them. It also urges them to be faithful, and it settles disputes.
Thirdly, concerning the matters which are to be sworn, the following applies: (1) These matters must be important, and it must be true that they cannot be settled in any other way (Exodus 22:11).
(2) Since the oath is a public testimony, one must be very sure of the matter and be without doubt, so that the oath be in truth (Jeremiah 4:2). "He that ... speaketh the truth in his heart" (Psalms 15:2).
(3) Since these are matters which one promises to do, they must be inherently good. Evil oaths, or oaths to do evil, ought not to be made (Mark 6:23
(4) They must be matters which we can perform, which are within our power, of which we are conscious, and of which we are capable. Thoughtless oaths render us guilty (Leviticus 5:4-5). To this belong also the solemn obligations pertaining to specific promises to be faithful, it being in our power to do so. One can also add to this, promises made at baptism and at the Lord‘s Supper -- which are made upon the condition that the Lord gives grace and strength.
Fourthly, the manner in which one must swear must be as follows:
(1) It must be done out of love for the truth. "Therefore love the truth and peace" (Zechariah 8:19).
(2) It must be done with great respect for God, and while being conscious of His presence, for one speaks to God and by means of the oath calls upon God. "In Thy fear will I worship toward Thy holy temple" (Psalms 5:7).
(3) It must be done thoughtfully. "Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God" (Ecclesiastes 5:2).
(4) It must be done when the government requires this, or even outside the courtroom if an emergency demands it; that is, if there are no other means to settle the dispute -- and thus to engender trust, so that the truth of a matter (which is of the highest significance) can be believed. "An oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife" (Hebrews 6:16).
(5) The oath must be stated clearly and distinctly, without disguising and distorting the matter, and without ambiguity. One may thus not say something which means one thing in his mind and suggests something different to the one who hears it, the words expressed having the meaning which the hearer assumed. These practices are generally referred to as Jesuit pranks, since they promote and make use of such practices. An example of this would be if one were to ask someone: "Have you seen that man?" and if having seen him, he were to answer "no," for he would understand it to refer to having seen him "on that tower," or "flying in the air."
Question: May not one make use of such ambiguous statements when swearing an oath or at other occasions?
Answer: The Papists answer in the affirmative and we in the negative. We do concede, however, that a person may say one truth, and be silent about another truth which is not asked. We also permit the use of words with a twofold meaning, doing so either artistically or to exercise the mind of others. Such are the riddles by which men have tested each other‘s intellect of old. Such riddles we also find frequently in God‘s Word, such as the riddle of Samson, the riddles of the Queen of Sheba to prove Solomon‘s wisdom, as well as the riddle of Jotham, Gideon‘s son, and of others. If, however, we are asked about a certain matter, or if a matter is to be confirmed by oath, we must answer clearly and distinctly in accordance with the intent of the questioner, lest he delude himself by interpreting our answer differently than we had intended, or that we would mislead him. This is evident for the following reasons:
First, to do so is lying, and the portion of liars is in the lake of fire, that is, in hell.
Evasive Argument: It is not a lie, because the words do not contradict the intent of the heart. One interprets it according to the manner in which it is said.
Answer: The circumstances at the making of an oath are such that one may not have a hidden meaning in his words. One‘s meaning must agree with what the words themselves suggest and be consistent with the meaning of the questioner. One not only lies if the words are contrary to what is in the heart, but he also lies if the words do not agree with the matter about which he is asked, and with which he is nevertheless acquainted. The oath is therefore restricted by those words, "without subtlety." If your answer is therefore without subtlety, you are not lying.
Secondly, to speak in this manner is to be deceitful. "The Lord will abhor the ... deceitful man" (Psalms 5:6).
Evasive Argument: One is not deceitful, since he says it as he means it.
Answer: This has already been answered, for it is expressly his intent to deceive. The objective is to mislead another by his words, who accepts that word or oath at face value. Thirdly, it renders oaths unprofitable and useless since one cannot depend on them, the oath being "an end of all strife" (Hebrews 6:16). It creates confusion throughout human society, for then one can believe no one else, and must always think that the person is adding something in his mind, secretly understanding it as such. All fidelity has then been removed.
Fourthly, then martyrs needed not to have suffered for the truth, for then one can answer in the affirmative to all errors, making them all to be the truth if he but gives a different meaning and intent in his mind.
Objection #1: The saints have made use of such ambiguous statements. Abraham said that Sarah was his sister.
Answer: It was the truth, for he was not asked whether she was his wife and thus he could be silent about that.
Objection #2: Samuel made an ambiguous statement when he said that he wanted to go to Bethlehem to sacrifice, since he really went there to anoint a king.
Answer: He was not asked whether he went there to anoint a king, and thus he could be silent about this. He spoke the truth when he said that he went there to sacrifice -- which indeed he did.
Objection #3: Christ made as though He would have gone farther, whereas He really wished to remain with them (the men of Emmaus).
Answer: Here is no verbal ambiguity. Christ, by making as though He would go farther, wanted to give them the opportunity to request Him to enter, upon which the Lord would be willing to do so. Nothing else is meant by this.
Fifthly, the purpose of the oath must be the glorification of God as being omniscient, omnipotent, true, righteous, worthy of worship, and majestic. Its objective is furthermore to promote fidelity and truth and to safeguard human communication. The Oath: Lawful for Christians
Having demonstrated what the nature and the required circumstances of the oath are, the following question presents itself:
Question: May a Christian swear an oath in the manner stated?
Answer: The Anabaptists answer negatively and we affirmatively. Our proof is as follows: First, the oath is a vestige of the law of nature, which is evident from its use among all nations. Secondly, it has expressly been commanded. "Thou shalt ... swear by His name" (Deuteronomy 6:13). Add to this all the cases in which God commands the use of the oath. It will not suffice here to say that this was for the Old Testament only, for it was not a ceremonial practice, but a moral practice, which is obligatory for all times. It has not been abolished anywhere in the New Testament; on the contrary, it has been used.
Thirdly, it has been prophesied that one would swear in the New Testament. "... that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear" (Isaiah 45:23); "... and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth" (Isaiah 65:16).
Evasive Argument: These texts do not refer to the swearing of oaths, but to the spiritual nature of New Testament religion.
Answer (1) The oath can therefore not be excluded, for it is an act of spiritual worship, it being a calling upon God‘s Name.
(2) We deny that especially in the last text mention is made of the spiritual dimension of religion; instead, it expressly speaks of the swearing of an oath. This is conveyed by the words, and the usage of the oath in the New Testament confirms this.
Fourthly, God has sworn (Hebrews 6:17), the angel has sworn (Revelation 10:6), and Paul has sworn (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Thus, the swearing of an oath is a holy and lawful work. Add to this that the apostle determines the swearing of an oath to be a lawful matter: "For men verily swear by the greater" (Hebrews 6:16).
Fifthly, the purpose of an oath always remains the settling of disputes and controversies which cannot be settled in any other way but by oath. "And an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife" (Hebrews 6:16).Oaths, lawful Objection #1: The oath is dreadfully misused.
Answer: The abuse does not negate its use.
Objection #2: "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (Matthew 5:34
Answer (1) It is evident that Christ did not abolish the proper oath, for it is confirmed by the prophecies that one would swear in the New Testament.
(2) Christ refers to those oaths which the Jews were accustomed to swear. They swore by all manner of objects and made a distinction between them. "Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!" (Matthew 23:18); And, "Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty" (Matthew 23:18). Christ is opposed to this swearing and in reference to this He says: "Swear not at all; neither by heaven ... nor by the earth ... neither by Jerusalem ... neither shalt thou swear by thy head" (Matthew 5:34-36). When the Jews swore a solemn oath, they would swear by Jehovah, but in common conversation they immediately had an oath ready for this or that situation. In reference to common communication Christ says, "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." It is evil to go beyond this by adding an oath each time.
(3) There can be circumstances in which one may go beyond "Yea and nay," for Christ frequently uses the word "amen," and "verily," and the opposing party itself goes further than that when they confirm something by saying, "By the very truth of my manhood!" They thus cannot make use of this text here. The same answer also suffices for James 5:12, where almost the identical words are recorded. The Need for Self-Examination due to the Solemnity of the Oath
Many will be rebuked by what has been said thus far about the oath. This is true, in the first place, for careless individuals who can hardly say anything without adding an oath, such as: "By the truth of God!" or "by my soul!" and similar dreadful expressions by which God is provoked.
Secondly, many ought to be convicted of their thoughtless and perhaps false swearing of oaths in giving of testimony. This is true for the prosecutor who summons someone to court and under oath presents evidence, for the defendant who under oath must answer to the presented evidence, as well as for the witnesses. Let me ask you some questions, and answer them before the Lord. Did you indeed have a clear and distinct understanding of what you were going to confirm by oath? And if not, did you take the liberty to ask for the correct meaning of the evidence? Were you sure of your case? Did you proceed uprightly without distortion, ambiguity, or bias? Was the case indeed as you swore it to be? Did you swear with respect for God and out of love for the truth? Did you conduct yourself circumspectly?
Thirdly, many will thus be exposed who have taken the oath of office -- which is true for many who either hold minor or major offices. Were you acquainted with the contents of each article and each word, and did you know what each article required? Were you convinced of your competence to execute all the articles, as well as each one of them individually? Was there a heartfelt determination to fulfil each of them? Did you establish these articles as a rule of conduct from the moment you took the oath, so that they were always clearly before your eyes? Have you been true to your oath in every respect? Examine yourself by these questions, and realize that God knows it. Do not take refuge to this or that excuse, for they will not exonerate you.
Evasive Argument #1: It was my general intent to be faithful.
Answer: That is not sufficient, for with such an oath many would not have been admitted to their office. If the government would have been satisfied with this, it would not have formulated and designated specific articles.
Evasive Argument #2: The oath of fidelity implies a secret condition: as much as possible.
Answer: If you had expressed that condition when you swore your oath, you would not have received your office.
You have fabricated this condition yourself. This was not the intent of the government at all, and you should not have sworn an oath about something unless you knew yourself to be competent. And as soon as you discovered that you were not competent, you should have immediately turned over the office to another.
Evasive Argument #3: The oaths are defined in such a way that it is impossible for someone to be true to them. There is no one who faithfully observes his oath.
Answer: It is true that it is impossible to observe the oath as much as you would like. Furthermore, if it is absolutely impossible, you should neither desire the office, nor have taken the oath; or else you should resign immediately.
Evasive Argument #4: We are all weak men and we sin in all things.
Answer: One must not relegate perjury to the category of daily weaknesses. That which has been confirmed by oath must be within the realm of our competence or else one should not take the oath. The transgression has been committed knowingly and willingly, and by reason of the oath there is solemn onus upon you for punishment -- a punishment which you yourself have sought from the righteousness of God.
Consider the third commandment attentively. "The Lord shall not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." Observe what is written in the following passages: "Or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered" (Ezekiel 17:15); "I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by My name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof" (Zechariah 5:4). Hear furthermore what the Lord says: "And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness ... against false swearers" (Malachi 3:5). Therefore, you who find yourself guilty ought to fear, and make haste to repent before judgment is executed upon you. From now on, observe your oath with diligence, or let go of your office. It is better to be poor and beg for bread than to be guilty of perjury and have abundance. Be fearful of the oath, and if you are called upon to swear an oath, do not hesitate to bear witness to the truth. However, give heed that you do it in a holy manner, lest you have remorse afterwards.