Second Century Christian Writers on Oaths and Swearing

Second Century Christian Writers on Oaths and Swearing [First Draft]

________________________________________________________

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr gives us one of the two earliest references to the prohibition of oaths outside of the New Testament.[1] In his first apology, c.155 CE, addressed to Antoninus Pius, Emperor of Rome, Justin details Christian philosophy and doctrine and defends it against various criticisms. In chapters 15-17, he wishes to “recall a few of the teachings of Christ,”[2] which are held by those who follow him and expounds on the teachings of Jesus, based heavily on sayings found in Matthew. It is widely held that this section is not various quotations picked by Justin himself, but an appropriation of a primitive Roman catechism, a “post-synoptic harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke”[3] centred on the Sermon on the Mount, available to Justin. In 16.5, Justin, explains the Christian prohibition of swearing.

He commanded us never to swear, but always to tell the truth: "Do not swear at all, but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; for whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one.”[4]

In the conclusion of the primary precepts of Christ, Justin gives a harsh condemnation of those who do not follow them:

May they who are not found living according to His teachings know that they are not Christians, even though they profess with their tongues the teaching of Christ, for He said not those who only profess his doctrines, but those who put them into practice, shall be saved. […] "Depart from Me, you workers of evil.” Then there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when the just shall shine as the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in My name, dressed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but who inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their works you shall know them. Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire.” And we ask that you also punish all those who call themselves Christians, but are not living according to his teachings.[5]

While we have a large gap of 50-80 years between the New Testament writings and Justin’s apology speaks of the Christian practice of not swearing at all as if it is already well ingrained in the custom of his Christian community. Interestingly, Justin, or his source, has a significantly shorter form of the prohibition than that which is found in either Matthew or James, a form which appears to be based on Matthew’s negative command not to swear, along with Matthew’s condemnation, but with James’ reading of the positive command regarding speech wedged in between. 

For Justin, and the community he represents, this form of the saying represents the nucleus, the entire principle of the saying, which gives two commands, a negative followed by a positive: (1) Do not swear at all and (2) Always speak the Truth. The consequences of not following the commands are “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” in the “everlasting fire.” This was the way they intended to live their lives. It was simple, yet profound. It, for Justin, like all of Christ’s commandments, was “brief and concise, for He was not a sophist”, but was “the power of God.”[6]

 

Ptolemy the Gnostic

Around 155 CE, the same time as Justin is writing, Ptolemy, a student of Valentinus, wrote a letter to a follower named Flora, transcribed in Epiphanius’ Panarion, 1.2.33, 3.1-7.10. In this letter he expounds on his teaching of the Law. He breaks the law into three parts: one part fulfilled by the saviour; one part destroyed by the saviour; one part changed from the literal to the spiritual by the Saviour. In Flora 4.1 (Panarion 1.2.33.6.1) Ptolemy discuss the part of the Law which was fulfilled, he describes the following:

“Thus even the Law which is acknowledged to be God’s is divided into three—into the part which is fulfilled by the Savior (for “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness” are included in his prohibition of anger, lust and oaths).[7]

It is clear from this that Ptolemy is familiar with the Matthean Sermon on the Mount and views Jesus’ commands as strict prohibitions, including swearing, showing that this prohibition took, at least in this case, some early favour in sects outside of orthodoxy.

Irenaeus of Lyons

Around 180, Irenaeus of Lyons relays the prohibition, in Adversus Haereses, 2.32.1. In a general anti-Gnostic tirade (no specific sect mentioned), Irenaeus counters the heresy that all forms of actions should be conducted by a Christian such that one increases in knowledge by appealing to the many negative commands of Christ, one of which is his prohibition of swearing. Irenaeus presents the teaching as follows:

“And [Jesus] enjoined them [his disciples] not only not to swear falsely, but not even to swear at all”[8]

While Irenaeus does not quote Jesus, the allusion to the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is clear. The way he words it: “sed nec jurare præcepit,” ensures his understanding as a precept against all swearing, a total prohibition. He commanded them not to swear. How then can it be said that all things must be enjoyed by Christians, if some things, swearing included, are prohibited by Him. To Irenaeus, this is nonsense.

Later in Adversus Haereses, 4.13.1 Irenaeus quotes a shortened form of the saying in a group of sayings from the Sermon on the Mount in order to counter the Marcionite view that the Law has been abolished. Irenaeus says, no, Christ fulfilled the Law with these precepts, not abrogated it. However, if the Marcionite doctrine on the Law is anything like that of the Valentinian doctrine found in Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora, it may be the case that it is a moot point as the Marcionite already accepts this.

How Irenaeus shortens the saying is interesting. He removes the qualifying oath formulas that Matthew presents, by heaven, earth, Jerusalem and the hair on one’s own head, and removes the condemnation leaving a saying with a similar yet distinct nucleus to that of Justin. He quotes:

“It has been said, You shall not forswear yourself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay.”[9]

Whereas, Justin’s formulation was intended as a Christian precept, containing a positive and negative command along with a condemnation, Irenaeus, presents the teaching as an emboldening and strengthening of an ancient precept from the Law. There is no indication here that he interprets any other way than a total prohibition.

Relayed in Eusebius, HE 5.20.2, we find an adjuration concerning the transmission of the work from a manuscript of Irenaeus’ no longer extant work “De Ogdoade” in the possession of Eusebius which he finds useful.

I adjure thee, who shalt transcribe this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by His glorious appearing, when He comes to judge the living and the dead, that thou compare what thou hast transcribed, and be careful to set it right according to this copy from which thou hast transcribed; also, that thou in like manner copy down this adjuration, and insert it in the transcript.[10]

Whether Eusebius considers this note as from Irenaeus himself or by a later scribe, he does not tell us. Assuming this is indeed from Irenaeus, it may indicate a certain allowance of at least adjurations, if not oaths by Irenaeus, or indeed a distinction between an oath and an adjuration as seen in dictum found in the 6th century Cassiodorian Commentary on 1 Thessalonians: "Adiurare licet, iurare non licet [PL 68:646]", or in the epistle of Peter to James found in the fourth century Pseudo-Clementine Homilies: “and should make him, not swear—for that is not lawful—but to stand by the water and adjure [ANF 08:216].”

Acts of Apollonius

The Acts of Apollonius comes down to us in two manuscripts, one Armenian from the fifth century, the other Greek from the eleventh century. Unfortunately, I have access to neither manuscript or published text, so I am working with English translations, the Armenian by F.C. Conybeare and the Greek by H. Musurillo. For this examination I will be working primarily from Musurillo’s translation of the later Greek manuscript as the text is longer, flows better and is in the language it was composed in, though I will note the differences between the Armenian.

In the account of his martyrdom, Apollonius is on trial around the year 185, and he is asked by the proconsul Perennis to "swear by the Genius [“Fortune” in Armenian[11]] of our lord the emperor Commodus."[12] Apollonius responds with a compromise as follows:

Further, we have been ordered by Him never to swear and in all things to tell the truth. It is already considered a great oath when truth is affirmed by a ‘yes’; hence it is wicked for a Christian to swear; for from deceit comes distrust, and through distrust in turn comes the oath, Would you want me to swear that we pay honour to the emperor and pray for his authority. If so, then I should gladly swear, calling upon the one, true God, the one existing before all the ages, who was not fashioned by human hands, but rather appointed a man among men to be ruler over the earth.[13]

He will not swear by the Genius of Commodus, but will compromise and swear by God that Christians “pay honour to the emperor”, even though Christians have been ordered “never to swear” and “it is wicked for a Christian to swear.”[14].

While Apollonius certainly presents himself as a Greek philosopher as much as a Christian apologist, it is difficult to see if this is meant as a typical philosophical treatise on oaths that we see in many contemporary Greek philosophers; or a Christian apologetical compromise given to persuade the Roman court to cease all martyrdoms, given the Christian’s willingness to compromise; or simply, given the situation, an attempt to compromise for his own life.

For the moment however; it is sufficient to say: Apollonius knew of the command not to swear at all and would have held to it in his day to day life, however, in the situation of a trial for his life he was willing to compromise. Yet his compromise was not accepted and Apollonius is not recorded as having sworn. If all that was asked of Apollonius was to swear, it may well have been accepted, but he was also asked to sacrifice to the Roman gods and to the Emperor’s image and to recant his Christianity. This he refused and was martyred for it.

Other Oaths

Christian oaths appear in a few late Second century apocryphal works such as the Protevangelium of James, 13 and the Acts of John, 28.

---

Notes

---

[1] The other being the Letter to Flora by Ptolemy the Gnostic, recorded in Epiphanius’ Panarion.

[2] Saint Justin Martyr, The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy Or The Rule of God (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 6), trans. by Thomas B. Falls (CUA Press, 2010). p. 47.

[3] Arthur J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, (E.J. Brill, 1967). p. 140

[4] Saint Justin Martyr. p. 50-51. Greek: περὶ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ὀμνύναι ὅλως, τἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν ἀεί, οὕτως παρεκελεύσατο· Μὴ ὀμόσητε ὅλως· ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί, καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. [PG 6: 353]

[5] Saint Justin Martyr. p. 51

[6] Saint Justin Martyr. p. 47

[7] Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (sects 1-46), 2nd and Revised Ed., p. 220. (BRILL, 2009). Greek: Οὕτως γοῦν καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι νόμος ὁμολογούμενος εἰς τρία διαιρεῖται, εἴς τε τὸ πληρούμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος (τὸ γάρ «οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις» ἐν τῷ μηδ' ὀργισθῆναι μηδὲ ἐπιθυμῆσαι μηδὲ ὀμόσαι περιείληπται)·[PG 41:565]

[8] ANF 01:408. Greek no longer extant: non solum non pejerare, sed nec jurare præcepit. [PG 7:826]

[9] ANF 01:477. Greek no longer extant: Dictum est: Non perjurabis. Ego autem dico vobis, neque jurare in totum. Sit autem vobis sermo, etiam etiam, non non. [PG 7: 1007]

[10] ANF 01:568. Greek: Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο , κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ , ἧς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς , ἵνα ἀντιβάλης ὃ μετεγράψω , καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο , ὅθεν μετεγράψω, ἐπιμελῶς· καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς , καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ. [PG 7:1225].

[11] F. C. Conybeare, The Apology and Acts of Apollonius: And Other Monuments of Early Christianity (Swan Sonnenshein & Co., 1894). p. 37.

[12] Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). p. 91.

[13] Musurillo. p. 93.

Conybeare, p. 37-38, translating from the Armenian gives the following: “It is best to swear not at all, but in all things to live in peace and truth ; for a great oath is the truth, and for this reason is it a bad and an ill thing to swear by Christ ; but because of falsehood is there disbelief, and because of disbelief there is swearing. I am willing to swear in truth by the true God that we, too, love the Emperor, and offer up prayers for his Majesty."

[14] This bears a striking resemblance to the argument found in Tertullian’s Apology 32:1-3. Conybeare. p. 32-33, notes that this work may have influenced Tertullian’ Apology. However; it stands in stark contrast to Origen’s argument in Exhortation To Martyrdom, Chapter 7.