Third Century Christian Writers on Oaths and Swearing

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.'[1]

 

In the Stromata, written c. 203 CE, we see Clement’s philosophical approach to the saying. In Book 5, in a chapter[2] 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 [11^th Plato] book of the Laws: “Let praise and an oath in everything be absent.”[3]

Clement actively notes that the saying is a strong prohibition of oaths[4] 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.[5] 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.”[6]

 __________________________________________

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.”[7] 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.[8]

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?”[9] It is possible, as some have suggested[10], 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.[11] 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.”[12] 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,”[13] and that “Christ prescribes there to be no swearing.”[14] 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.[15] 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.[16] 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.”[17]

 

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, [18]  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,[19] 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”[20] in the imminent eschaton.[21] He lists a number of vices: avarice, ambition, anger, lust, pride and so on, comparing them to weapons (iacula eius et tela[22]: “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.[23] 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.[24]

In his third book of Testimonies against the Jews,[25] Cyprian expounds Christian doctrine and ethics by using scriptural excerpts to defend a doctrinal thesis, compiling a total of 120 theses. His twelfth thesis[26] is simply “no swearing.”[27] 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 10^th 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.”[31] 

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.[33] 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,”[34] something widely practiced and widely condemned in the early Christian period.[35] 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."[36]

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."[37]

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,”[38] 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.” [39]

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] 

 

---

[1] Paedagogus, 3.11. Clement of Alexandria. Fathers of the Church, Volume 23: Christ the Educator, p. 259. Baltimore, MD, USA: Catholic University of America Press, 1954.

[2] Stromata 5.14

[3] Stromata 5.14.14. [ANF 02:468]

[4] ὀμόσαι ἀπαγορεύσει [PG 9:149]

[5] Stromata 7.1.2

[6] Stromata 7.8. ANF 02:538. ταύτῃ δὲ οὐδὲ ὄμνυσιν ὅρκον ἀπαιτηθεὶς οὐδὲ ἔξαρνός ποτε γίνεται, ἵνα μὴ ψεύσηται, κἂν ἐναποθνήσκῃ ταῖς βασάνοις. [PG 9:473]

[7] Apology 1 [ANF 03:17]

[8] Apology 32 [ANF 03:43]

[9] Apology 28 cf. Apology 30

[10] See: F. C. Conybeare, The Apology and Acts of Apollonius: And Other Monuments of Early Christianity (Swan Sonnenshein & Co., 1894). p. 32-33. Also see discussion of the Acts here[Insert Link]

[11] 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].

[12] Apology 32 [ANF 03:43]

[13] On Idolatry 11 [ANF 03:67]. In relation to covetousness in trade.

[14] On Idolotry 23 [ANF 03:75]. In relation to written contracts.

[15] De Principiis 4.19. [ANF 04:368]

[16] Exhortation to Martyrdom, 7. Origen. 1979. Origen, p. 45-46. Translated by Rowan A. Greer. Paulist Press.            

[17] Homily 5.12 on Jeremiah. Origen. Fathers of the Church, Volume 97 : Homilies on Jeremiah and 1 Kings 28, p. 53-54. Translated by John C. Smith. Baltimore, MD, USA: Catholic University of America Press, 2010.

[18] Commentary on Matthew, 17 (Latin translation numbering). Simonetti, Manlio. 2002. Matthew 14-28, p. 174-175. InterVarsity Press.

[19] Commentary on Matthew 110 (Latin translation numbering), PG 13: 1757-1758. Also note that there is a summarised version of this passage in Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea on Matthew 26, which has English translations. See: Aquinas, Catena Aurea. "Commentary on the Four Gospels." Trans. John Henry Newman, Vol. 1, Part 3, p 925.

[20] Treatise 7.2. “qui Deo militat” PL 4:584

[21] Treatise 7.2. “Regnum Dei, fratres dilectissimi, esse coepit in proximo.” PL 4:584

[22] Treatise 7.4. PL 4:585

[23] Treatise 7.4. “compelleris iurare quod non licet.” PL 4:585

[24] Treatise 9.16

[25] Each book is addressed from Cyprian to Quirinius, though it is sometimes attributed to Novatian. Regarded by most scholars to be Cyprian’s work.

[26] To Quirinius: Testimonies against the Jews, 3.12. In some collections this is given as treatise 12 (Treatise 12.3.12)

[27] “NON IURANDUM.” [PL 4:741]

[28] Basil of Caesarea, Letter 207, To the Clergy of Neocaesarea. Basil of Caesarea. 1955. Fathers of the Church, Volume 28 : Letters, Volume 2 (186-368), p. 84-85. Translated by Agnes C. Way. Baltimore, MD, USA: Catholic University of America Press.

[29] Saint Gregory (Thaumaturgus). St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works, p.139. Translated by M. Slusser. Catholic University of America Press, 1998. C.f. Qoh. 8:2 (NRSV):  Keep the king’s command because of your sacred oath.

[30] Saint Gregory (Thaumaturgus). St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works, p.141. Translated by M. Slusser. Catholic University of America Press, 1998. C.f. Qoh. 9:2 (NRSV):  Everything that confronts them is vanity, since the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to those who sacrifice and those who do not sacrifice. As are the good, so are the sinners; those who swear are like those who shun an oath.

[31] Acts of Saint Eugenia, 10. Conybeare, F. C. 1894. The Apology and Acts of Apollonius: And Other Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 170-171. Swan Sonnenshein & Co.

Conybeare notes: “[T]here is the extreme simplicity of the dogmatic teaching, and the stress laid on the moral teaching of Christ. Eugenia does not instruct her monks to believe in the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary, or in the Trinity. Humility and abstention from use of oaths are the staple of her teaching.” Conybeare, p. 154.

[32] Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 6.5.5.

Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea. 2005. Ecclesiastical History, Books 6–10 (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 29), p.14. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. Reprint (1955). CUA Press.

[33] μὴ ἐξεῖναι αὐτῷ τὸ παράπαν ὀμνύναι διεβεβαιοῦτο· Χριστιανὸν γὰρ ὑπάρχειν καὶ τοῦτο ἐμφανῶς ὁμολογεῖν. [PG 20:533].

[34] Conybeare, p. 194.

[35] See: Croix, Geoffrey de Ste. Christian persecution, martyrdom, and orthodoxy. OUP Oxford, 2006, Chapter 4, “Voluntary Martyrdom in the Early Church.”

[36]  Acts of Saint Codratius, 15-16. Conybeare, p. 210

[37] Eusebius (H.E. 6.43.18). Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea. 1955. Ecclesiastical History, Books 6–10 (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 29), p.85. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. Reprint (2005). CUA Press.

[38] Refutation of All Heresies, 5.18. ANF 05:69

[39] Refutation of All Heresies, 5.22. ANF 05:73

[40] Augustine, Letter 137. Ramsey, Boniface, ed. The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century/Letters 211-270, 1-29 (Epistulae), p. 138. Vol. 4. New City Pr, 2005.
[41] Second Book of Jeu, 43 (Jeu 2.43). Schmidt, Carl, and Violet MacDermot, eds. The Books of Jeu and the untitled text in the Bruce codex, p. 102. Vol. 13. Brill Archive, 1978