Religion Swearing oaths; is it wrong?

[Blobbenstein]

36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Matthew 5:36-46 "And do not swear by your head, for you c..." NIV - Online Bible Study

It makes me wonder about things, when people swear on a book that warns against swearing oaths.

Makes me wonder what would happen if a person refused to be sworn in as president.

I read that in court, one can opt out of swearing an oath, by making some other promise, which, from what I read, was due to Quakers not wanting to take oaths due to the implication that that it would mean that they didn't tell the truth the rest of the time.

 

[Second Summer]

I don't know whether it's wrong from a Christian perspective. Clearly, a lot of denominations don't seem to have a problem with oaths. What does the passage really mean? Does it really warn against swearing oaths, or is there some alternative interpretation?

From an non-religious perspective I don't see a problem with oaths.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think the passage means that there is only one answer to some questions, like 'did you steal that goat?'....either yes or no.....you can't use the authority of anything else to change the facts of the matter; you can't use God to change any of the facts in some kind of oath. If yes, or no isn't enough of an answer, why not?.....if you are asked in court, as a witness, whether you will tell the truth, why isn't 'yes' enough of an answer?

Using the bible to swear oaths seems dirty to me...that isn't what the bible was for, that isn't why Jesus came here, and did what he did, as some kind of guarantor of someone's statements, and he didn't agree to punish people, if they lied on oath.

 

[Clueless Git]

.. if you are asked in court, as a witness, whether you will tell the truth, why isn't 'yes' enough of an answer?

For the same reason that when, say, applying for a loan that "yes, I can afford/will make the repayments" isn't enough of an answer.

By asking for someone to swear an oath you are basicaly asking them to declare their guarantor.

33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

I've had to call on readings from Gandhi, buddhism and the Essene Gospels to make an educated guess at what the full context of that passage may be ..

I'm reading it as an admonishment not to call in the reputation of 2nd parties (God, the Earth, etc) as guarantors for our word.

Nor to offer parts of our own bodies (head, eye sight, whatever) as collateral to be forfeited if what we say, rightly or wrongly, is rejected or not believed.

That leaves only personal reputation (a track record that our yes always means yes and our no always means no) as the only acceptable collateral/guarantor we may offer.

The implication of that being that those who have not diligently established irreproachable reputations for always being scrupulously truthfull have no right, when the doo-doo hits the fan, to call upon the reputations of others and no right to be believed.

 

[Amy SF]

There's a congressman from Minnesota named Keith Ellison who's a Muslim. He was sworn into office using a Koran. I don't know if the Koran contains any anti-oath passages. However, the oath that all members of Congress, as well as the POTUS, have to swear is to uphold the US Constitution. I suppose they can use a Superman comic book to swear an oath if they really want, but they swear to uphold the Constitution, not a religious tract.

(And yes, a Muslim congressman swearing an oath on the Koran freaked out some people.)

 

[Blobbenstein]

For the same reason that when, say, applying for a loan that "yes, I can afford/will make the repayments" isn't enough of an answer.

but saying 'yes' is all you can really say.
I suppose you could agree that if you are later found to be telling porkies, that you could have your leg cut off..but that would be an arrangement with the court.

 

[Blobbenstein]

swearing on the bible seems to imply some kind of punishment if the person lies. What right has someone got to demand that God punish them?

 

[Blobbenstein]

For the same reason that when, say, applying for a loan that "yes, I can afford/will make the repayments" isn't enough of an answer.

By asking for someone to swear an oath you are basicaly asking them to declare their guarantor.



I've had to call on readings from Gandhi, buddhism and the Essene Gospels to make an educated guess at what the full context of that passage may be ..

I'm reading it as an admonishment not to call in the reputation of 2nd parties (God, the Earth, etc) as guarantors for our word.

Nor to offer parts of our own bodies (head, eye sight, whatever) as collateral to be forfeited if what we say, rightly or wrongly, is rejected or not believed.

That leaves only personal reputation (a track record that our yes always means yes and our no always means no) as the only acceptable collateral/guarantor we may offer.

The implication of that being that those who have not diligently established irreproachable reputations for always being scrupulously truthfull have no right, when the doo-doo hits the fan, to call upon the reputations of others and no right to be believed.

I think you've got it about right, anyway. That is one perspective on oaths.

 

[Clueless Git]

swearing on the bible seems to imply some kind of punishment if the person lies.

Biblicaly that would be the crime of blasphemy; Taking the lord's name in vain?

The biblical punishments for blasphemy are not implied. They are abundantly clear.

What right has someone got to demand that God punish them?

Again, abundantly biblicaly clear.

Throwing stones at people untill they are dead is a bit of a trivial thing to expect God to have to do himself.

The bible (pre "let he without sin throw the first ...") authorises the 'God fearing' to throw stones at blasphemers with God's blessing on God's behalf.

Allowing people to lay a charge of blasphemy on you is thus an invitation for your accusers to bounce bricks off your head with God's authority and blessing.

 

[Pirate]

I read that in court, one can opt out of swearing an oath, by making some other promise, which, from what I read, was due to Quakers not wanting to take oaths due to the implication that that it would mean that they didn't tell the truth the rest of the time.

I like that idea. I work in a call centre and it's frowned upon to say "To be honest" becuase it implies that you haven't been honest for the rest of the call. Same theory really.

When I did jury duty I affirmed. It was in December so I can't remember what I said, but according to Wiki I said "I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.". Some of the evidence givers did similar rather than swearing on a bible but beats me if I remember what they said.