Question 101: But may we swear an oath
                        by the name of God
                        in a godly manner?

Answer 101: Yes, when the government demands it
                            of its subjects,
                            or when necessity requires it,
                            in order to maintain and promote
                            fidelity and truth,
                            to God’s glory and for our neighbour’s good.
                     Such oath-taking is based on God’s Word
                            and was therefore rightly used
                            by saints in the Old and the New Testament.

Question 102: May we also swear by saints or other creatures?

Answer 102: No.
                     A lawful oath is a calling upon God,
                           who alone knows the heart,
                           to bear witness to the truth,
                           and to punish me if I swear falsely.
                    No creature is worthy of such honour.

Most people are never put under oath. Why then is so much attention given to this subject? Or do we only need to know about it just in case?

God Is Involved In Society⤒🔗

An oath is not a song of praise. Its purpose is not in the first place to praise God, but quite something else. All attention is focused on earthly and possibly scandalous matters. A witness in a murder case or a corruption scandal is put under oath. A soldier pledges allegiance under oath. A physician swears to practice medicine responsibly. They mention the name of God. He may see to it that they perform their duties diligently, whether as witnesses in a trial, as doctors in a consulting room, or as officers in a fighter plane. Does God consider that an honour? Or is he too high and too holy to want to be involved in such situations? That is what the so-called Anabaptists claim. Therefore, according to them, people were not allowed to swear an oath. Hence the first question: is it respectful to swear by the name of God?

A different matter is whether one should necessarily swear by the name of God. Can it also be done by someone else? That is what the Roman Catholics claimed. They added to their oath (so help me God) the words “and all his saints”.¹ Hence the second question: may we also swear by other creatures?

This brief exploration makes it clear that Lord’s Day 37 addresses a matter that carries importance for all of our society life. Why would God want to be involved with our modern secularized society? His name is mentioned by those who testify to what happened during and after a plane crash, or by those who enter a profession where integrity and reliability are especially important. The mentioning and invoking of God’s name presupposes that he is involved in everything that happens on earth. It is therefore assumed that he is involved in society. That is why he wants the truth of a crime to come out, and for people to practice their profession honestly. Through the oath he is recognized not only in the church but also in society as the supreme judge.

Swearing Outside the Church←⤒🔗

In a church service, no one is put under oath by the raising of two fingers of the right hand. Nevertheless, church members regularly make solemn promises and declarations: ministers at their ordination, parents at their child’s baptism, married couples at the confirmation of their wedding, and baptismal members at their public profession of faith. Such promises always have the force of an oath for the simple reason that they are made in an assembly in which God is officially present and in charge from beginning to end.

During a solemn assembly in a courtroom, a government building or in the barracks, God’s presence is not acknowledged in advance. Those who appreciate his presence to be acknowledged there will have to ask for it explicitly. This is done through the use of the formal oath. In this way one asks God to be present as a witness during an interrogation or when taking on an office. Does he appreciate that? After all, what kind of people are they who take and administer an oath? They are not necessarily Christians. And what are they about? A witness makes what is called a declaration on oath to help clear up a crime. In addition, we know the oath of office or “the solemn oath of promise”. This oath is requested from army officers, ministers, doctors, pharmacists (or assistants), judges, lawyers, notaries, bailiffs, real estate agents, and certain guardians. They solemnly swear that they will perform their duties in accordance with the requirements set out for them. In the past, commercial contracts were also ratified with an oath. It is also conceivable that someone is unable to prove his innocence. In such a situation, an oath on his part can put an end to any persistent mistrust of him. The Catechism speaks of “when necessity requires it, in order to maintain and promote fidelity and truth”.

All in all, people use such oaths for very earthly and sometimes very unpleasant matters. All kinds of declarations and promises of people are solemnly linked to God’s holy name. May we involve him in such matters? Jesus made an important statement about this.

Jesus and the Oath←⤒🔗

The Anabaptists rejected the oath. They relied on a well-known statement that Jesus voiced: “But I say to you, do not take an oath at all” (Matt. 5:34, see also James 5:12). According to them, swearing is therefore never allowed.

In fact, Jesus only forbade the Jews their frivolous manner of swearing. A merchant swore with a straight face by “the earth” or by “his head” that his bad merchandise was of excellent quality. Buyers fell for it. But the merchant did not feel encumbered because he had not used God’s name. He considered that such a light oath had no absolute binding force.

So the Jews thought they were keeping God out of their oaths when they swore by the earth, by heaven, Jerusalem, or their head. Jesus took all these illusions away. He explained that by mentioning the earth, for example, one is calling on the God of the earth. There is no such thing as lightweight oaths.²

Against such sophisticated abuse of the oath, there is only one remedy: stop all that swearing and instead let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”.

The thrust of Jesus’ words, therefore, is that they had to break with their deceitful way of swearing. Other Scriptures confirm that Jesus cannot have meant to issue a general injunction. He allowed Caiaphas to put Jesus under oath when he said, “I adjure you by the living God” to speak the truth.³Bible texts from the time after this confirm that an oath can be “founded on God’s Word”.⁴

The well-known Anabaptist appeal to Matthew 5:34 and James 5:12 does not hold up. The Catechism does not find it necessary to prove this.⁵ A missed opportunity? It would be if these texts were in fact the foundation for their vision. That is not the case. We need to conclude that they only tried to claim their position in retrospect with these two texts. Their aversion to the oath had much more to do with their view of creation.

Anabaptist Motives Against Swearing←⤒🔗

The Anabaptists had a negative view of creation. They blamed it for people not seeking God. Life on earth offers a man all that he naturally desires. God does not belong there. The creation — including man as an earthly creature — is of a lower order and has no need of God. This goes two ways, for on his part the exalted God is not interested in the lower creation either. Fortunately, at the core of his being man has part in the Godhead itself. He can find God, but then he needs to withdraw as much as possible from this lower earthly life. Man has to choose. Those who are pleased and devoted to be carpenters or merchants cannot be true Christians. True believers withdraw as much as possible from society and politics and will form a segregated social entity that lives to the glory of God. According to this view, salvation is not liberation from the power of sin but from earthly existence as such.⁶ In a dualistic view they juxtaposed creation and re-creation as darkness and light, evil and good, world and God. It is clear why the Anabaptists rejected the oath. According to them, God does not want his name to be linked to all kinds of earthly pursuits. He is too exalted above creation to be involved in our earthly — and by definition “unholy” — endeavours.

This view finds no support in the Bible, but what is the alternative?

No World-Avoidance, but then What?←⤒🔗

Psalm 148 calls upon all creation to praise God: sun and moon, sea and sea creatures, lightning fire and hail, snow and mist, fruit trees and cedars, kings and all nations, boys and girls, old and young. God has a special bond with “his people” and “his saints” (v. 14), but he does not exempt a single creature from the obligation to praise him. He insists that all of his creation must praise him.

The earth on which we live and work will not radically disappear to make way for a brand new one. God is not discarding this creation, but he is renewing it. He does not say that he is making all new things, but that he makes all (old) things new.⁷ The “new earth” is the original of Genesis 1, but radically renewed.⁸ To what extent the new earth will exhibit coherence or continuity with the first in terms of size, shape, matter, beauty, etc., is a mystery to believers.

In any case, they believe that “the present form of this world” is in the process of disappearing.⁹ Therefore, they do not cling to the world of today. On the other hand, they do not shun it either. They are not already retreating to the fire escapes in view of the coming world judgment by fire. There is perspective for the earth of our time. God has not written it off. It is not destined to disappear “into thin air” one day. The end result of Christ’s work is a renewed heaven and earth. Therefore, God maintains his claim on this creation and on the public life of commerce, politics and justice. He wants to remain involved in all our earthly affairs. He forbids world-avoidance and demands world-sanctification. Therefore, he wants to be involved in taking the oaths, in the barracks or in the courthouse. Thus one can indeed swear by his name in the public realm in a God-fearing way. Is that even possible in a society that hardly knows God anymore?

Swearing in a De-Christianized Society?←⤒🔗

May any government, Christian or not, require the oath? And may any subject, Christian or not, make the oath? The Catechism speaks indeed without question about the government and its subjects. Something similar stands out in both questions. They begin not with “can I” or “may I,” but — and this sounds particularly impersonal to the Catechism — ”may we also swear...?” (Where “we” is used in the sense of the impersonal “one”). What meaning does an oath still have for a government that calls itself neutral, and for officers and doctors who never pray? Seen from this angle, swearing has lost its basis and threatens to become a vain use of God’s name. Does the third commandment forbid swearing in such a situation?

Those who reason in this way are assuming that the legal force of the oath stands or falls with the faith of the parties involved. They should — however minimally — need to believe in God, otherwise the oath becomes a sham.

In reality, the legal force or validity of an oath does not depend on the faith of either government or subject. Once one officially and solemnly calls upon God as a witness, he is present as a witness. When Caiaphas, as president of the Sanhedrin, put Jesus under oath, he called “the living God” as a witness. Although Caiaphas did not know this God — the Father of Christ — Jesus accepted his oath-taking. What counted was not how Caiaphas thought about God, but whom he called in his capacity as judge: the living God. At that moment this living God was truly present as a witness in the assembly of the Sanhedrin. This validated the taking of the oath. Therefore, Jesus could swear “in a godly manner” before the unbelieving Caiaphas.

Even a neutral government may require its subjects to take the oath in order to thereby affirm fidelity and truth. Whatever one’s conception of God, one officially calls upon the living God as witness. That is what counts. He will punish in case of perjury and offer the help that was called for in the oath formula — “so help me God”. Therefore, we should not insist on abolishing the oath, as long as the government legally guarantees its solemn character. Even in a de-christianized society, the oath continues to contain an incentive to maintain fidelity and honesty. Practice confirms that civil servants, for example, experience taking an oath of office as a means of self-protection against the temptation of corruption.

Honour to Him to whom it is Owing←⤒🔗

Those who swear by God give him a certain honour. One calls upon him as the highest and only judge who knows the heart. One submits publicly to his final judgment and final verdict on what one will testify or promise.

Not everyone who comes with an important statement or begins a certain task takes an oath beforehand. Yet with every statement and every task it comes down to reliability. This is no different for a truck driver or a purchaser at the flower auction than for a witness, a doctor or a real estate agent. God holds all people accountable for their yes or no, even if they never utter a public oath in their lifetime. All people need to be aware that they live and work within the domain of Yahweh. He demands that his name is honoured in the church council room, but no less at the parliament buildings or in the factory hall, in the company, in the lab, in the hospital, during business meetings or whenever a contract is put in place. The earth belongs to him. Our civil law reminds us of this reality as long as it provides opportunity for the oath. Societal shifts do not alter this reality.

The earth is and will remain destined to honour his name. This may be the lasting motive behind the political and social involvement of Christians. They will not disappear from the earth, but they will inherit it. That is guaranteed by the names of Yahweh (I AM) and Jesus (Yahweh saves).