Isaiah 48:1 - Homiletics

Swearing by the Name of God.

Our Lord's injunction to his disciples is "Swear not at all;" and in a community where all were true Christians, swearing would be superfluous, and the injunction might be carried out to the letter. But in imperfect conditions of society, such as the old covenant contemplated, and such as alone exist under the new, "swearing by the Name of God" cannot be dispensed with. Life and property would be greatly endangered were courts of justice to decide causes on the unsworn evidence of witnesses, the majority of whom might have a very slight regard for truth. "Swearing by the Name of God" is thus lawful—

I. WHEN A WITNESS IS CALLED UPON TO DO SO IN A COURT OF JUSTICE . The Christian Church in all its branches has always allowed and approved of oaths being taken in courts of justice. Only a few sectaries have from time to time so strained our Lord's words as to consider them prohibitive of oaths of this kind. Such persons "have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" ( Romans 10:2 ). It is clear from the context that our Lord's injunction was levelled, not against judicial oaths, but against the habit of strengthening asseverations by oaths in familiar discourse ( Matthew 5:34-37 ). And he himself, when adjured, or put upon his oath, did not rebuke the man by whom he was adjured, but gave an answer to his questioner, though previously he had refused to give one ( Matthew 26:63 , Matthew 26:64 ).

II. WHEN THE CIVIL GOVERNOR CALLS UPON US FOR AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE , OR THE LIKE . The practice of Christian countries in this respect has varied; but where oaths of allegiance are required there would seem to be no reasonable ground for objecting to them. The state is entitled to assure itself of the good will and fidelity of the citizens; and, unless it can be sufficiently assured by a mere affirmation, would seem to be entitled to the better security of an oath.

III. WHEN IN ANY VERY SERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES A VERY SOLEMN ASSURANCE IS REQUISITE , Bandits have captured two friends. One of them is allowed to leave the bandits' stronghold in order to obtain the ransom for both, but is required to swear that in any case he will return, otherwise both will be put to a lingering death. There would seem to be no sufficient grounds for refusing to make oath in such a case. The bandits will not accept a promise. The oath is a concession to their incredulity. It is given solemnly, seriously, almost judicially; since those who tender it possess, under the circumstances, the power of life and death. It cannot be thought the injunction "Swear not at all," was given with reference to such a case any more than with reference to oaths in courts of justice.

The great end is to avoid light swearing, unnecessary swearing, profane swearing. Let these forms of swearing be carefully eschewed, and a Christian man's conscience need not be greatly exercised in respect of the oaths which he is called upon to take as witness, as subject, as friend, as husband, as citizen.