Third Century Christian Writers on Oaths and Swearing
__________________________________________
Clement
of Alexandria
In the second of his great trilogy, Paedagogus,
written around 190 CE, Clement expounds on the ethical practice of the
Christian when trading. Clement exhorts that oaths should not be part of a
Christian trade, nor indeed should there be any oath at all, citing the
commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain as the reason.
Then, when buying or selling, let no one name two
prices for the things he is purchasing or selling, but speak plainly and
honestly. If he lose on something, he will at least gain in truth, and be the
richer by an upright disposition. There should not be any intensive advertising
of, or any oath about what is being sold (nor should there be any oaths about
other things). Let the merchants and hucksters reason in this way: 'Thou shalt
not take the name of the Lord in vain; for the Lord will not cleanse him who
takes His name in vain.'
In the Stromata, written c. 203 CE, we see Clement’s
philosophical approach to the saying. In Book 5, in a chapter devoted to showing the
dependence of Greek philosophy on the Hebrews, we find a short passage on the
connection of Plato with Christian moral doctrine.
Again, with the Lord’s saying, “Let your yea be yea,
and your nay nay,” may be compared the following: “But to admit a falsehood,
and destroy a truth, is in nowise lawful.” With the prohibition, also, against
swearing agrees the saying in the tenth [11th Plato] book of the Laws:
“Let praise and an oath in everything be absent.”
Clement actively notes that the saying is a strong
prohibition of oaths and embraces the
philosophical agreement.
In Stromata 7.8, Clement devotes an entire chapter to the philosophical
rejection of oaths. He refrains from using Christian scripture to prove his
point, as is the case in all of book seven of the Stromata, in favour of
relying on philosophical argument.
He argues that a pious man is far from swearing. One who requires an oath is
unfaithful. One dedicated to truth needs no oath, but shows his truthfulness by
the way he lives. A pious man does not swear but affirms with a yes or a no.
His life should inspire confidence in others of his truthfulness, not an oath.
The Gnostic would swear truly, but is far from swearing. He who lives
truthfully needs no oath. He who does not swear cannot perjure himself, and so
on drawing from various philosophical strains. His most potent line is the
final one:
“And so he swears not even when asked for his oath; nor does he ever deny,
so as to speak falsehood, though he should die by tortures.”
__________________________________________
Tertullian
Around 197 CE,
Tertullian, a recent Christian convert from Carthage and the first major Latin
Christian writer, pens his Apology, addressed to the “Rulers of the Roman
Empire.” In this apology,
Tertullian attempts to put forward reason for Christian doctrine and to
persuade Roman aristocracy to recognise Christianity as a friend of Rome, not
an enemy. In Chapter 32, he addresses the requirement to swear fealty to the
Caesars. Tertullian acknowledges the respect due to Caesars from Christians as
leaders of State, but refuses to swear by their “genius” as required, but
offers instead that Christians swear by Caesars safety.
More than this, though we decline to swear by the
genii of the Cæsars, we swear by their safety [salutem: lit. health], which is
worth far more than all your genii.
With no explanation for the distinction between the
two oaths, other than the complaint that these “genii” are “daemones,” it is
difficult to ascertain his reasoning for this specific course of action. It may
be that he is unaware or dismissive of the Jesus’ saying on oaths given that he
has only recently converted. It may be that he does not view the Jesus saying
as prohibiting all oaths, even though the opposite is the case later in life. It
may be that he sees swearing by the genius of Caesar as idolatry and that he pays no heed to the Jesus saying concerning
oaths, given the circumstance of life and death in a Roman court, led by the
philosophy of “is not any living man better than a dead one?” It is possible, as some
have suggested,
that Tertullian’s Apology was influenced by the Acts of Apollonius, where Apollonius
is said to have refused the requirement to swear by the Genius of Caesar, but
yet will swear allegiance to the Emperor by the “True God,” even in the light
of Jesus’ command not to swear at all. It is equally possible that Tertullian
is drawing on the tradition of Joseph’s oath “by the heal
th of Pharaoh” in
Genesis 42.
I would suggest it is a combination of these factors as well as the idea of
giving respect to the State: “we are lending our aid
to Rome’s duration.” Without
further information, there is no certainty.
Later, in the period shortly following his embrace of
Montanism, between 208 and 213 CE, Tertullian certainly does teach a
prohibition of oaths within Christianity. In On Idolatry, while not quoting the saying against oaths, does
acknowledge that “swearing is not lawful,” and that “Christ
prescribes there to be no swearing.” While both of these
comments are within the context of trading and contracts, within the wider
context of idolatry in the Greco-Roman world, his wording would suggest a
universality, that all oaths are prohibited. This presents a contrast with his
allowance of swearing in his earlier Apology. It is unclear whether this
represents a development of thought, possibly influenced by Montanism, where
Tertullian teaches a prohibition of oaths when he once did not; or whether both
ideas are congruent, with the allowance in his Apology being a compromise under
Roman rule.
Tertullian more often uses Matthew 5:37 as a
commandment to uphold truth, see: Adversus Praxeam, 9; De Praescriptionibus
Adversus Haereticos, 26; De Carne Christi, 23.
__________________________________________
Origen
Between 230 CE and 240 CE Origen of Alexandria leaves
us with numerous references to the Jesus saying regarding oaths. In De
Principiis, he maintains that the command not to swear is to be literally
observed to the letter. In his Exhortation to
Martyrdom, in contrast to what is found in Tertullian’s Apology, argues that if
it is a sin to swear given Jesus’ command “Do not swear at all,” it is even more
so to swear by the Fortune of Caesar. In his Commentary on
Jeremiah, on verse 4:2, he argues that the Old Testament exhortations to swear are
necessary so that they are fulfilled by a “worthy person may come not to swear
at all, but to have a ‘yes’ which needs no witnesses to be this, to have a ‘no’
which needs no witnesses for it to be truly no.”
Around 248 CE, Origen completes his monumental and
influential 25 volume Commentary on Matthew. Unfortunately, the section which
contained the Sermon on the Mount is no longer extant, however; he does refer to
the prohibition of oaths in two extant sections of his commentary, first on the
Woe regarding oaths in Matthew 23 and secondly on the high priest’s adjuration
of Jesus in Matthew 26, both extant in a Latin translation.
On Matthew 23, Origen argues that the Pharisaical casuistry
regarding oaths is foolish and that Jesus “clearly rejected the whole business
of swearing at all, as if it were a superior way.” On Matthew 26, Origen argues that while
there are many instances of adjuration in the Law, one who lives according to
the Gospel should neither swear nor adjure given Jesus command not to swear. He
argues that Jesus did not respond to the high priest’s adjuration, but turned
his own words on him by saying: “You say it.”
__________________________________________
Cyprian
of Carthage
Around 252 CE in his treatise On Mortality, written
during a time of persecution and plague, Cyprian expands on the concept of a
Christian as of a Soldier of Christ, one who “wars for God” in the imminent eschaton. He lists a number of
vices: avarice, ambition, anger, lust, pride and so on, comparing them to
weapons (iacula eius et tela: “darts and arrows”) used
by the devil to assault people on a daily basis, even more so in the increased
adversity of his time. The final weapon of the devil that Cyprian lists is
swearing, which he expressly acknowledges as unlawful. Also worth noting is
Augustine’s use of this passage in Against Two Letters of the Pelagians,
4.10(27).
Around 256 CE, in his treatise On the Good of Patience,
Cyprian argues that without patience one cannot endure the virtues expected of
a Christian, such as forgiveness, loving one’s enemies and so on, the first of
which he mentions is not swearing.
In his third book of Testimonies against the Jews, Cyprian expounds
Christian doctrine and ethics by using scriptural excerpts to defend a
doctrinal thesis, compiling a total of 120 theses. His twelfth thesis is simply “no swearing.” To defend this thesis, he
uses Sirach 23:11, Matthew 5:33-37 and Exodus 20:7.
__________________________________________
Gregory
Thaumaturgus
The revered wonderworker
of Neocaesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus left us with few writings, fewer still on
the subject of oaths. However, Basil, when admonishing the clergy of
Neocaesarea on their failure to live up to the virtuous example left to them by
Gregory, notes the following:
“[Gregory] avoided oaths, that pure soul, worthy
of fellowship with the Holy Spirit, being satisfied with 'yes' and 'no' because
of the command of the Lord, who said: 'But I say to you not to swear at all.’”[28]
In one of the few works that is extant
from the hand of Gregory is his Metaphrase on Ecclesiastes, a
Christianised rewriting of Qoheleth, he works in the Christian avoidance of
oaths.
In Metaphrase on Ecclesiastes, 39, we see the
following redaction of Qoh. 8:2:
“One must always pay
close attention to the words of the king, but by all means avoid an oath,
especially one made in the name of God.”[29]
In his rewriting of Qoh.
8:2, Gregory diminishes the reverence due to the king and separates it from the
sacred oath. He goes on to admonish the complete avoidance of oaths.
In Metaphrase on Ecclesiastes,
44, we see the following redaction of Qoh. 9:2:
“For when the unjust and
the good, the one who commits perjury and the one who completely avoids an
oath, could hope to reach the same end, the false impression may arise that all
are treated alike when they die. But now I know that these were fool’s opinions,
both erroneous and misleading.”[30]
In his rewriting of Qoh.
9:2, Gregory attempts to minimise the seeming ambivalence of Qoheleth regarding
the judgment of the righteous and the wicked. He widens the divide given by
Qoheleth as “those who swear are like those who shun an oath” by
strengthening the avoidance of oaths for the righteous and by strengthening the
wrongdoing of the wicked by changing the swearing of an oath to perjury. In
doing so, while Gregory seems to applaud the rejection of oaths, he lessens the
rhetorical polarity of those who swear and those who don’t given by Qoheleth,
which would have served his purpose better rather than by introducing perjury
as the opposing vice.
__________________________________________
Other
Oaths
In the 10th chapter of the Acts of Saint
Eugenia, written around 280 CE, the core of Eugenia’s teaching is recorded. One
of her teachings was as that she “would exhort and advise them continually not
to say anything to anyone under oath, but to use sober speech.”
Eusebius, in his Historia
Ecclesiastica, records the martyrdom of a certain Basilides, an Alexandrian
soldier who had converted to Christianity around 205 CE.
After no long
time had passed, Basilides for some reason was asked by the soldiers to swear,
and he strongly maintained that it was not at all possible for him to swear,
for he was a Christian and he openly confessed this. At first for a time he was
thought to be joking, but, when he steadfastly held to it, he was led away to
the judge. When he confessed in his presence to his opposition [to the oath],
he was committed to prison.[32]
The
strength of his refusal to swear suggests the embrace of the command not to
swear at all.
The phrase, “for he was a Christian,” shows the growing concept of the refusal
to swear as becoming a Christian identifier. A Christian is one who does not
swear. It was a “shibboleth,” a simple test for the Romans to use to identify
Christians.
The
Acts of Saint Codratius contains one of the very few recorded instances of a
Christian swearing in the Ante-Nicene period. Codratius (Quadratius) was a
Christian in Nicomedia in 251 CE. He made himself known to the Consul as a
Christian and intentionally provoked his own persecution in an effort to “hasten
to the Lord,”
something widely practiced and widely condemned in the early Christian period. In an attempt to provoke
the Consul, Codratius swears the following oath in response to the torture he
had received:
"I
swear by my Saviour Christ, that Jesus Christ my Lord hath mastery over one
still worse, and not over one only, but over all his host. To Him be glory
everlasting."
Upon
hearing this the Consul was angered and ordered two other Christians who were
with Codratius to be flayed and hung from a tree.
Eusebius,
in his Historia Ecclesiastica, records a letter from Pope Cornelius to Fabian, the Bishop of Antioch, written
c. 251- 253 CE, which details the supposed oath which Novatian required of his
followers:
Then
he [Cornelius] adds something else to this, the worst of all the man's
[Novation] offences, saying thus:
'When
he had made the offerings, and as he distributes to each his part and gives it,
he forces the wretched men to swear instead of giving a blessing, holding in
both of his hands those of the one who had received, and not releasing them
until they say under oath (for I shall use the man's words):
"Swear
to me by the Blood and Body of our Lord Jesus Christ never to desert me and
turn to Cornelius."
And
the miserable person does not taste until he first has called down a curse upon
himself, and as he receives that bread, instead of saying Amen, he says,
"I will not return to Cornelius."
In his Refutation of All Heresies, Hippolytus of Rome
tells us of the Gnostic heretic Justinus and his followers. He alledges that
Justinus “binds his followers with horrible oaths,” as the initiation rite of the sect, which is recorded as
follows:
“I swear by that Good One who is above all, to guard
these mysteries, and to divulge them to no one, and not to relapse from the
Good One to the creature.”
This oath is similar to
the alleged fourth century Priscillianist dictum “Swear, perjure yourself,
but do not disclose the secret.”[40] In contrast, another Third century Gnostic
sect, known from the Books of Jeu, demanded a basic list of moral laws
to be upheld prior to the revealing of the Gnostic mysteries, including Jesus'
command not to swear at all.
And before all things, command him to whom you
will give these mysteries not to swear falsely, nor to swear at all, nor to
fornicate, nor to commit adultery, nor to steal, nor to desire anything, nor to
love silver, nor to love gold, nor to invoke the name of the archon, nor the
name of their angels, over any matter, nor to steal, nor to curse, nor to
accuse falsely, nor to slander, but to let their yea be yea, and their nay be
nay. In a word, let them fulfil the injunctions which are good.[41]
Compare “non per
genios Caesarum, ita per salutem eorum [Caesarum].” [ Apol. 32, PL 1:447] with
“per salutem Pharaonis” (Gen. 42:15-16)[Biblia Sacra Vulgata].
