"When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: Pay that which thou has vowed." Eccl. 5:4.

The Bible contains several passages like the one quoted above affirming the sanctity of a vow to God. The principle is first pronounced as law through Moses in Deuteronomy 23:21:

"When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: For the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee."

The principle is an absolute one. Neither fraud nor foolishness vitiates a vow unto the Lord. See Joshua 9:19-20 and Judges 11:30,39. The absolute nature of the obligation of a vow unto God is endorsed by the writer of Proverbs when he warned that "it is a snare to the man . . . after vows to make inquiry." Proverbs 20:25. Moreover, the virtue of keeping a vow even to one's own hurt is extolled by David in Psalm 15:

Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill:
2. He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
3. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
4. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
5. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

While Numbers chapter 30 allows for certain limited exceptions favoring minor daughter and a married woman (See Numbers 30:3, and 6), it, too, reminds us that "(i)f a man vow a vow unto the Lord . . . he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. Numbers 30:2. Because of the absolute and sacred nature of the vow unto God, the writer of Ecclesiastes voices his strong opinion:

"Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay." Eccl. 5:5.

Today, witnesses in court cases throughout America are required to take an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God" before they are allowed to testify. This oath before God to tell the truth is rooted in the common law search for an effective means to ferret out the truth in a court case.

While oath-taking in court predated the age of Christianity in England, that practice took on a new significance under the influence of the "new religion" as legal scholar David Mellinkoff has pointed out:

"The Church did not bring heaven and hell to England. They were already there as Old English words: Heofen as the sky and residence of the gods; hell as a place of life after death. Christianity gave a new meaning to both words. Hell became a place of torment, inhabited by devils, oath breakers, and other condemned souls. And it was now understood that a good man might live forever in heaven. This shift of emphasis put considerably more wallop into the oath." D. Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law, 49 (Little, Brown: 1963).

Simon Greenleaf, one of early America's greatest legal scholars, expressed this view in the following language:

"The design of the oath is not to call the attention of God to man; but the attention of man to God; - not to call on Him to punish the wrong-doer; but on man to remember that He will." S. Greenleaf, Evidence, 503 (16th ed. 1899).

The giving of an oath unto God was not confined to court proceedings. In early common law history such an oath was made by a servant to his master:

By the Lord, before whom this relic is holy, I will be to N. faithful and true, and love all the he loves, and shun all that he shuns, according to God's law, and according to the world's principles, and never, by will nor by force, by word nor by work, do aught of what is loathful to him; on condition that he me keep as I am willing to deserve, and all that fulfill that our agreement was, when I to him submitted and chose his will." 1 B. Thorpe, ed., Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, 179 (1840).

When the English people colonized America they brought with them this understanding of the sanctity and of the binding character of an oath before God. Thus, an 'loath of office" was required of the colonial political leaders to insure the lawful and faithful performance of their duties. See, e.g., R. Perry, ed., Sources of Our Liberties, 90 (N.Y.U. Press 1972). The nature of that oath was carefully spelled out in the first truly political constitution in America, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut:

"I N.W. being chosen to be Governor within this Jurisdiction, for the year ensuring, and until a new be chosen, do swear by the great and dreadful name of the everliving God, to promote the public good and peace of the same. . . .so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

By implication an oath requirement such as that in Connecticut made it impossible for anyone other than a Christian to hold office without violating his conscience. Therefore, other colonies added a religious test, as the 1701 Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges did:

"And that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the Word, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Print of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively.

The religious test for office holding was thereafter diluted to an acknowledgment of "the being of a God" in the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution. Yet other of the new states kept both the more strict religious test and the oath:

"That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in Christian religion. R. Perry, ed., Sources of Our Liberties, 350 (Section XXXV of the 1776 Constitution of Maryland.)

The religious test for holding office was explicitly rejected in the United States Constitution and it was gradually eliminated from all but a few of the state constitutions. Such a test has been held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). Nevertheless, the oath requirement (modified by an option to "affirm") was retained. No mention, however, to God was made in the official oath of office of the Presidency:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Even so, from the beginning of the history of America as a nation, presidents, beginning with George Washington, have sworn this oath of office with their left hands on the Bible and with their right hands raised to God in the same way as a witness was sworn in a common law court. As R. J. Rushdoony has pointed out:

"The presidential oath of office, and every other oath of office in the United Sates, was in earlier years recognized precisely as coming under the third commandment, and, in fact, invoking it. By taking the oath, a man promised to abide by his word and his obligations even as God is faithful to His word. If he failed, by his oath of office, the public official invoked divine judgment and the curse of the law upon himself." R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, iii (1973).

The oath of office, then, was considered to be self-executing sanction administered by God, himself. Again, the Bible provided ample evidence that a man who failed to perform his vows before God would be cursed (e.g., Malachi 1:14) regardless of whether he would ever be held responsible for the oath before his fellow man.

---

QUESTIONS

1)   How important is the "law of oaths" to society? How important is a belief in God with respect to one's oaths to the law of that society? Consider the following excerpt:¹

The oath of office, the trustworthiness of witnesses, the stability of a society in terms of a common regard for truth, the faithfulness of the clergy to their ordination vows, of wives and husbands to their marital vows, and much more all hinge on the holiness of the oath or vow. Where there is no regard for truth, when men can subscribe to oaths and vows with no intention of abiding by their terms, then social anarchy and degeneration ensue. Where there is no fear of God, then the sanctity of oaths and vows disappears, and men shift the foundations of society from the truth to a lie. It is significant that prosecutions for perjury are today almost unheard of, although perjury is a daily routine in the courts. But, as Ingram points out, God's law makes clear in the third commandment, "that, whatever man may do in this regard, God will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain."

* * *

Today, in many countries and in some American states, the name of God is removed from oaths of office and from the swearing in of witnesses. This means that, when a man is sworn into office, he is not bound by God to fulfill the constitutional requirements of the office or the law; the man solemnly swears by himself; if it is agreeable to him to alter the law, if he regards his own ideas as superior, then he can move to circumvent the law. The major changes in the American constitution have occurred over a period of time when no fundamental changes have been made in the U. S. Constitution. The reason is that the letter and the spirit of the law now have very little meaning as against the political wills of men and parties.

2)   As the Rushdoony excerpt states, men have punished other men for violating their oath as witnesses to tell the truth in a court case. The crime is perjury and it has been defined by Coke and Blackstone as a willful, absolute, and false statement under oath in a judicial proceeding in a matter material to the issue or point in question. IV W. Blackstone, Commentaries 136-137 (1769). What accounts for the difference of treatment: A man may violate his oath of office without punishment, but a man may not violate his oath as a witness without punishment. Contrast I Samuel 8 with Deuteronomy 19:16-21.

3)   Because of the availability of perjury as an offense, civil government authorities have extended the reach of the oath to "extrajudicial matters." Is this consistent with Scripture? See, e.g., Deut. 23:22 and Leviticus 5:1.

4)   Ought a person decline to swear to tell the truth or to uphold the constitution? Must he only affirm to do so? Consider the following:

Whether the oath had any foundation in Christianity is couched in controversy. Both Jewish and Christian authorities recognize that there is no warrant in the Bible for the requirement of a witness's oath. In fact, several Biblical passages suggest censure. For example, a clear condemnation of oath taking generally is expressed in Christ's words:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths; But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne; Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let you communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.²

St. Paul remains the foremost Christian spokesman for the oath.³ He stressed that God made his promise to Abraham under oath,⁴ and argued that to men "an oath for confirmation is. . . an end to all strife."⁵ Among the Church Fathers, Hieronymous claimed that Christ merely prohibited swearing by heaven, earth, Jerusalem or one's own head, and not oaths in general. This interpretation, which disregards the opening and closing words of Christ's teaching was adopted by Gratianus in his Decretum and, in that form, was approved by the Popes.

Acceptance of the oath in Christianity was achieved only after a considerable struggle, and even then the acceptance was not unqualified. The controversy was compromised by using a distinction made by St Augustine. According to this view, only oaths taken to a falsehood or without necessity (falsum, vel sine necessitate) were prohibited. With this exception, the oath was merely an act of imperfection, not one of iniquity. Abstention from oath taking was recommended not on the ground that the oath was inherently evil but rather because of the dangers it entailed. It was conceded to be a "necessity" or a "medicine," which though disagreeable, was at times indispensable. The canonists urged that the oath should be used only "in dubiis et necessariis," hence only as a subsidiary means of proof. A Decretal of Pope Alexander III disapproved the practice of tendering the oath to a party who had previously established his claim by documents or witnesses, and then deciding in accordance with the oath. In contrast, the Legists, approved the oath, not merely on religious grounds, but because it was found in Roman sources.⁶ H. Silving, "The Oath: I", 68 Yale L. J. 1329. 1343-44 (1959)