_THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING. THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE
OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST._
"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven,
nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and
your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment."--ST. JAMES v. 12.
The main portion of the Epistle is already concluded. St. James has
worked through his chief topics back to the point from which he
started, viz. the blessedness of steadfast and patient endurance of
trials and temptations. But one or two other subjects occur to him,
and he reopens his letter to add them by way of a farewell word of
counsel.
One of the leading thoughts in the letter has been warning against
sins of the tongue (i. 19, 26; iii. 1-12; iv. 11, 13; v. 9). He has
spoken against talkativeness, unrestrained speaking, love of
correcting others, railing, cursing, boasting, murmuring. One grievous
form of sinful speech he has not mentioned particularly; and about
this he adds a strong word of warning in this postscript to the
Epistle: "Above all things, my brethren, swear not."
Two questions are raised by this remarkable prohibition--first, the
exact meaning of it, especially whether it forbids swearing for any
purpose whatever; and secondly, its relation to the almost identical
prohibition uttered by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 35,
36). It will be obvious that whatever this relation may be, the
meaning of our Lord's injunction determines the meaning of St. James
in his injunction. It is hardly worth arguing that he did not mean
either more or less than Christ meant.
I. The immediate context of the prohibition is worth noting in each
case; it seems to throw light upon the scope of the prohibition. Jesus
Christ, after saying "Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, ... nor
by the earth.... But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay," goes on
to forbid retaliation of injuries, and to enjoin love towards enemies.
St. James enjoins long-suffering towards enemies, thence goes on to
forbid swearing, and then again returns to the subject of how to
behave under affliction and ill-treatment: "Is any among you
suffering? let him pray." Prayer, not cursing and swearing, is the
right method of finding relief. There is, therefore, some reason for
thinking that both in the Sermon on the Mount and here the prohibition
of swearing has special reference to giving vent to one's feelings in
oaths when one is exasperated by injury or adversity. No kind of oath
is allowable for any such purpose.
But it is quite clear that this is not the whole meaning of the
injunction in either place. "But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay,
nay;" and, "But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay," manifestly
refers to strengthening affirmations and negations by adding to them
the sanction of an oath. There was an old saying, now unhappily quite
grotesque in its incongruity with facts, that "an Englishman's word is
as good as his bond." What Christ and St. James say is that a
Christian's word should be as good as his oath. There ought to be no
need of oaths. Anything over and above simple affirming or denying
"cometh of the evil one." It is because Satan, the father of lies, has
introduced falsehood into the world that oaths have come into use.
Among Christians there should be no untruthfulness, and therefore no
oaths. The use of oaths is an index of the presence of evil; it is a
symptom of the prevalence of falsehood.
But the use of oaths is not only a sign of the existence of mischief,
it is also apt to be productive of mischief. It is apt to produce a
belief that there are two kinds of truth, one of which it is a serious
thing to violate, viz. when you are on your oath; but the other of
which it is a harmless, or at least a venial thing to violate, viz.
when falsehood is only falsehood, and not perjury. And this, both
among Jews and among Christians, produces the further mischievous
refinement that some oaths are more binding than others, and that only
when the most stringent form of oath is employed is there any real
obligation to speak the truth. How disastrous all such distinctions
are to the interests of truth, abundant experience has testified: for
a common result is this;--that people believe that they are free to
lie as much as they please, so long as the lie is not supported by the
particular kind of oath which they consider to be binding.
Thus much, then, is evident, that both our Lord and St. James forbid
the use of oaths (1) as an expression of feeling, (2) as a
confirmation of ordinary statements; for the prohibitions plainly mean
as much as this, and we know from other sources that these two abuses
were disastrously common among both Jews and Gentiles at that time.
That converts to Christianity were exempt from such vices is most
improbable; and hence the need that St. James should write as he does
on the subject.
But the main question is whether the prohibition is _absolute_;
whether our Lord and St. James forbid the use of oaths _for any
purpose whatever_; and it must be admitted that the first impression
which we derive from their words is that they do. This view is upheld
by not a few Christians as the right interpretation of both passages.
Christ says, "Swear not _at all_ (μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως).... But let your
speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." St. James says, "Swear not, neither by
the heaven, nor by the earth, _nor by any other oath_ (μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ
ὅρκον): but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay." In both cases we
have an unqualified prohibition of what is to be avoided, followed by
a plain command as to what is to be done.
But further investigation does not confirm the view which is derived
from a first impression as to the meaning of the words. Against it we
have, first, the fact that the Mosaic Law not only allowed, but
enjoined the taking of an oath in certain circumstances; and Christ
would hardly have abrogated the law, and St. James would hardly have
contradicted it, without giving some explanation of so unusual a
course; secondly, the indisputable practice of the early Church, of
St. Paul, and of our Lord Himself.
In Deuteronomy we read, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; and Him
shalt thou serve, and _shalt swear by His Name_" (vi. 13); and, "to
Him shalt thou cleave, and _by His Name shalt thou swear_" (x. 20).
The Psalmist says, "The king shall rejoice in God; every one that
sweareth by Him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies
shall be stopped" (lxiii. 11). Isaiah says, "He that sweareth in the
earth shall swear by the God of truth" (lxv. 16); and still more
strongly Jeremiah: "Thou shalt swear, As the Lord liveth, in truth, in
judgment, and in righteousness" (iv. 2); and, "If they will diligently
learn the ways of My people, to swear by My Name, As the Lord liveth;
even as they taught My people to swear by Baal; then shall they be
built up in the midst of My people" (xii. 16. Comp. xxiii. 7, 8). An
absolute prohibition of all swearing would have been so surprisingly
at variance with these passages of Scripture that it is difficult to
believe that it would have been made without any allusion to them.
Even the Essenes, who were very strict about swearing, and considered
it to be worse than perjury (for a man is condemned already who cannot
be believed except upon his oath), imposed "terrific oaths" (ὅρκους
φρικώδεις) upon those who wished to enter their community, before
admitting them (Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ II. viii. 6, 7; _Ant._ XV.
x. 4); and we can hardly suppose that St. James means to take up a
more extreme position than that of the Essenes.
But even if we suppose that he does mean this we have still to explain
the _practice_ of those who were well aware of Christ's command
respecting swearing, and certainly had no intention of deliberately
violating it. If the first Christians were willing on certain
occasions to take certain oaths, it must have been because they were
fully persuaded that Jesus Christ had not forbidden them to do so.
When called upon by heathen magistrates to take an oath, the
distinction which they drew was not between swearing and not swearing,
but between taking oaths that committed them to idolatry and oaths
which did nothing of the kind. The latter oaths they were willing to
take. Thus Tertullian says that they would not swear by the _genii_ of
the emperors, because these were supposed to be demons; but by the
safety of the emperors they were willing to swear (_Apol._ xxxii.).
Origen writes to much the same effect (_Con. Celsum_, viii., lxv.).
The oath by the _genius_, or _numen_, or "fortune" (τύχη) of the
emperor was recognized as a formula for abjuring Christianity. Thus
the proconsul presses Polycarp again and again: "Swear by the genius
of Cæsar; swear the oath, and I will release thee" (_Mart. Pol._ ix.,
x.); and the fear of being betrayed into an act of idolatry was one of
the main reasons why the early Christians disliked taking oaths. But
there was also the feeling that for Christians oaths ought to be quite
unnecessary. Thus Clement of Alexandria says that the true Christian
ought to maintain a life calculated to inspire such confidence in
those without that an oath would not even be demanded of him. And of
course, when he swears, he swears truly; but he is not apt to swear,
and rarely has recourse to an oath. And his speaking the truth on oath
arises from his harmony with the truth (_Strom._ vii., viii.).
Pelagius maintained that all swearing was forbidden; but Augustine
contends, on the authority of Scripture, that oaths are not unlawful,
although he would have them avoided as much as possible (_Ep._ clvii.
Comp. _Epp._ cxxv., cxxvi.).
But there is not only the evidence as to how the primitive Church
understood the words of Christ and of St. James; there is also the
practice of St. Paul, who frequently calls God to witness that he is
speaking the truth (2 Cor. i. 23; xi. 31; xii. 19; Gal. i. 20; Phil.
i. 8), or uses other strong asseverations which are certainly more
than plain Yea and Nay (Rom. ix. i.; 1 Cor. xv. 31; 2 Cor. i. 18;
xi. 10). Augustine quotes St. Paul in defence of swearing, but adds
that St. Paul's swearing, when there was weighty reason for it, is no
proof that we may swear whenever we think proper to do so. And in the
Epistle to the Hebrews the fact that men swear in order to settle
disputes is mentioned without any intimation that the practice is
utterly wrong. On the contrary, we are told that God has condescended
to do the same, in order to give us all the assurance in His power
(vi. 16-18).
Lastly, we have the convincing fact that Jesus Christ allowed Himself
to be put upon His oath. After having kept silence for a long time, He
was _adjured_ by the High Priest to answer; and then He answered at
once. The full meaning of the High Priest's words are, "I exact an
oath of Thee (ἐξορκίζω σε) by the Living God" (Matt. xxvi. 63, 64).
Had this been an unlawful thing for the High Priest to do, our Lord
would have kept silence all the more, or would have answered under
protest.
II. It remains to consider the relation of the prohibition of swearing
in this Epistle to the almost identical prohibition in the Sermon on
the Mount. Is St. James quoting Christ's words? and if so, whence did
he derive his knowledge of them?
No one who compares the two passages will believe that the similarity
between them is accidental. Even if such an hypothesis could
reasonably be entertained, it would be shattered by the number of
other coincidences which exist between passages in this Epistle and
the recorded words of Christ. In this instance we have the largest
amount of coincidence; and therefore the discussion of this point has
been reserved until this passage was reached, although numerous other
cases of coincidence have already occurred.
The remark is sometimes made that there are more quotations of
Christ's words in the Epistle of St. James than in all the Epistles of
St. Paul, or than in all the other books of the New Testament other
than the Gospels. It would be better to word the remark somewhat
differently, and say that there are more coincidences which cannot be
fortuitous between this Epistle and the recorded words of Christ than
in all the Epistles of St. Paul; or that there is far more evidence of
the influence of Christ's discourses upon the language of St. James
than there is of any such influence upon the language of St. Paul.
St. Paul tells us much about Christ and His work, but he very rarely
reproduces any of His sayings. With St. James it is exactly the
opposite; he says very little indeed about Christ, but, without
quoting them as such, he frequently reproduces His words. It will be
found that the largest number of these coincidences are between
St. James and sayings that are recorded by St. Matthew, especially in
the Sermon on the Mount. But this does not warrant us in asserting
that St. James must have seen St. Matthew's Gospel or any other
written Gospels. The coincidences, as will be seen, are not of a
character to show this. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful whether any
of the Gospels were written so early as A.D. 62, the latest date which
can be given to our Epistle; and if any earlier date be assigned to
it, the improbability of the writer's having seen a written Gospel
becomes all the greater. The resemblances between the words of
St. James and the recorded words of Christ are such as would naturally
arise if he had himself heard Christ's teaching, and was consciously
or unconsciously reproducing what he remembered of it, rather than
such as would be found if he had had a written document to quote from.
If this be so, we have a strong confirmation of the view adopted at
the outset, that this Epistle is the work of the Lord's brother, who
had personal experience of Christ's conversation, and was independent
of both the oral and the written tradition of His teaching. It will be
worth while to tabulate the principal coincidences, so that the reader
may be able to judge for himself as to their significance. They
suffice to show how full the mind of St. James must have been of the
teaching of Jesus Christ, and they lead to the highly probable
conjecture that in other parts of the Epistle we have reminiscences of
Christ's words of which we have no record in the Gospels.[92] It is
not likely that St. James has remembered and reproduced only those
sayings of which there is something recorded by the Evangelists.
ST. MATTHEW. ST. JAMES.
1. Blessed are they that have Count it all joy, my brethren,
been persecuted for righteousness' when ye fall into manifold
sake: for theirs is the temptations; knowing that the
kingdom of heaven. Blessed proof of your faith worketh
are ye when men shall reproach patience (i. 2, 3).
you, and persecute you, and say
all manner of evil against you Take, brethren, for an example
falsely, for My sake. Rejoice of suffering and of patience,
and be exceeding glad: for the prophets who spake in the
great is your reward in heaven: name of the Lord. Behold, we
for so persecuted they the prophets call them blessed which endured
which were before you (v. 10, 11).
(v. 10-12).
2. Ye therefore shall be perfect, And let patience have its
as your heavenly Father is perfect work, that ye may be
perfect (v. 48). perfect and entire, lacking in
nothing (i. 4).
3. Ask, and it shall be given But if any of you lacketh
you; seek, and ye shall find; wisdom, let him ask of God,
knock, and it shall be opened who giveth to all liberally and
unto you: for every one that upbraideth not; and it shall be
asketh receiveth (vii. 7, 8). given him (i. 5).
4. Blessed are the poor in Let the brother of low degree
spirit: for theirs is the kingdom glory in his high estate (i. 9).
of heaven (v. 3. Comp. Luke
vi. 20). Did not God choose them
that are poor as to the world
to be rich in faith, and heirs of
the kingdom? (ii. 5).
5. Not every one that saith Be ye doers of the word, and
unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall not hearers only, deluding your
enter into the kingdom of own selves. For if any one is
heaven; but he that doeth the a hearer of the word, and not
will of My Father which is in a doer, he is like unto a man
heaven.... And every one beholding his natural face in a
that heareth these words of mirror (i. 22, 23).
Mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish
man, which built his house
upon the sand (vii. 21, 26).
6. Blessed are the merciful: So speak ye, and so do, as
for they shall obtain mercy (v. 7). men that are to be judged by a
law of liberty. For judgment
If ye forgive not men their is without mercy to him that
trespasses, neither will your hath showed no mercy: mercy
Father forgive your trespasses glorieth against judgment (ii.
(vi. 15). 12, 13).
With what judgment ye
judge, ye shall be judged
(vii. 2).
7. Do men gather grapes of Can a fig-tree, my brethren,
thorns, or figs of thistles? yield olives, or a vine figs?
(vii. 16). (iii. 12).
8. No man can serve two Know ye not that the friendship
masters: for either he will hate of the world is enmity
the one, and love the other; or with God? Whosoever, therefore
else he will hold to one, and would be a friend of the
despise the other. Ye cannot world maketh himself an enemy
serve God and Mammon (vi. 24). of God (iv. 4).
9. Whosoever shall humble Humble yourselves in the
himself shall be exalted (xxiii. sight of the Lord, and He shall
12). exalt you (iv. 10).
10. Be not therefore anxious Whereas ye know not what
for the morrow (vi. 34). shall be on the morrow (iv. 14).
11. Lay not up for yourselves Your riches are corrupted,
treasures upon the earth, where and your garments are moth-eaten.
moth and rust doth consume Your gold and your
(vi. 19). silver are rusted (v. 2, 3).
12. Swear not at all; neither But above all things, my
by the heaven, for it is the throne brethren, swear not, neither by
of God; nor by the earth, for the heaven, nor by the earth,
it is the footstool of His feet; nor by any other oath.
nor by Jerusalem, for it is the
city of the great King. Neither
shalt thou swear by thy head,
for thou canst not make one
hair white or black. But let But let your yea be yea, and
your speech, be Yea, yea; Nay, your nay, nay; that ye fall not
nay: and whatsoever is more under judgment (v. 12).
than these is of the evil one
(v. 34-37).
These twelve parallels are by no means exhaustive, but they are among
the most striking. The following are worthy of consideration, although
those which have been quoted above are more than sufficient for our
purpose:--
St. Matthew i. 19 St. James v. 19
" " i. 20 " v. 22
" " ii. 8 " vii. 12
" " ii. 10, 11 " v. 27
" " iii. 17, 18 " v. 9
" " iv. 3 " vii. 8
Let us now consider some coincidences between the language of
St. James and our Lord's words as recorded by the other three
Evangelists.
ST. MARK. ST. JAMES.
13. Whosoever shall say unto If any of you lacketh wisdom,
this mountain, Be thou taken let him ask of God, who giveth
up and cast into the sea; and to all liberally and upbraideth
shall not doubt (διακριθῇ) in not. But let him ask in faith,
his heart, but shall believe that nothing doubting (διακρινόμενος):
what he saith cometh to pass; for he that doubteth etc. (i.
he shall have it (xi. 23). 5, 6).
14. They shall deliver you up Do not the rich oppress you,
to councils; and in synagogues and themselves drag you before
shall ye be beaten (xiii. 9). the judgment-seats? (ii. 6).
15. Know ye that he is nigh, Behold, the Judge standeth
even at the doors (xiii. 29; before the doors (v. 9).
Matt. xxiv. 33).
ST. LUKE. ST. JAMES.
16. Woe unto you, ye that Let your laughter be turned
laugh now! for ye shall mourn to mourning, and your joy to
and weep (vi. 25). heaviness (iv. 9).
17. Woe unto you that are Go to now, ye rich, weep
rich for ye have received your and howl for your miseries that
consolation (vi. 24). are coming upon you (v. 1).
ST. JOHN. ST. JAMES.
18. If ye know these things, Being not a hearer that forgetteth,
blessed are ye if ye do them but a doer that worketh,
(xiii. 17). this man shall be blessed in
his doing (i. 25).
19. If ye were of the world, Know ye not that the friendship
the world would love its own: of the world is enmity
but because ye are not of the with God? Whosoever therefore
world, ... therefore the world would be a friend of the
hateth you (xv. 19. Comp. world maketh himself an enemy
xvii. 14). of God (iv. 4).
It will be observed that these reminiscences of the teaching of Christ
are all of one kind. They are all of them concerned with the morality
of the Gospel, with Christian conduct and Christian life. Not one of
them is doctrinal, or gives instruction as to the Christian creed.
This, again, is what we might expect if the brother of the Lord is the
writer of the Epistle. At the time when he listened to his Divine
Brother's teaching he did not believe on Him. The doctrinal part of
His discourses was precisely that part which did not impress him; it
seemed to him as the wild fancies of an enthusiast (Mark iii. 21). But
the moral teaching of Jesus impressed many of those who rejected His
claims to be the Messiah, and it is this element which St. James
remembers.
Before concluding, let us return to the moral precept contained in the
verse which we have been considering: "Above all things, my brethren,
swear not." The prohibition has not ceased to be necessary, as our
daily experience proves. The vice of profane swearing (and all
swearing about ordinary matters is profane) is a strange one. Where is
the pleasure of it? Where, before it becomes a fashion or a habit, is
the temptation to it? Where, in any case, is the sense of it? There is
pleasure in gluttony, in drunkenness, in lust, in pride, in avarice,
in revenge. But where is the pleasure in an oath? The sensualist, the
hypocrite, the miser, and the murderer can at least plead strong
temptation, can at least urge that they get something, however
pitiful, in exchange for eternal loss. But what can the blasphemer
plead? what does he get in exchange for his soul? In times of strong
excitement it is no doubt a relief to the feelings to use strong
language; but what is gained by making the strong language trebly
culpable by adding blasphemy to it? Besides which, there is the sadly
common case of those who use blasphemous words when there is no
temptation to give vent to strong feeling in strong language, who
habitually swear in cold blood. Let no one deceive himself with the
paltry excuse that he cannot help it, or that there is no harm in it.
A resolution to do something disagreeable every time an oath escaped
one's lips would soon bring about a cure. And let those who profess to
think that there is no harm in idle swearing ask themselves whether
they expect to repeat that plea when they give an account for every
idle word at the day of judgment (Matt. xii. 36).
[92] See Salmon's _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 221, 500, 4th ed., 1889.