KingJimmy writesChrist never forbade taking oaths, though that is the common misinterpretation of what was said in the Sermon on the Mount. If Christ actually did forbid it, then the apostle Paul broke it in his letters (see Romans 1:9). For that matter, God Himself took an oath (see Hebrews 6:16-20) ... and Krispy,There is a difference between a promise and an oath. There is also a difference between an oath and a solemn assertion. The context of Christ's word was probably not the law-court. (BTW in my only appearances in a law court I have chosen to 'affirm' rather than swear an oath on the Bible) Christ's words have to do with the simple fact that our word is our bond and there should be no need to add a statement which says 'this time I am telling the truth'.God certainly took an oath and 'swore by His own name'. This is the essence of an oath that you swear by 'something' which is special to you; 'my mother's grave, my children's life'. I think our court use probably came from the superstition that the physical Bible was 'holy' in some way and that to swear such an oath somehow brought God into the equation. People's fear of consequences thereby guaranteed their truthfulness. Perhaps once it did, but now I doubt it has any significance. In the old days Quaker boys frequently spent their 16th birthday in jail, simply because they were required at that age to 'swear loyalty to the king' and they would not do it. I suspect I would have been among them in those days.There is a phenomena is scripture known as a 'self-imprecatory oath'. Children in the UK still use 'self-imprecatory oaths' when they say 'cross my heart and hope to die'. They are pronouncing a curse upon themselves should they break their word. The solemn covenant oath of making promises in an avenue of slaughtered animals was a 'self-imprecatory oath'. It implied 'if I break my word may I share their fate'.In the Hebrew idiom the 'curse' is not completed but left 'understood' and can then come through as a promise. It is interesting that someone would undergird a promise by threatening a curse upon themselves. This sometimes presents a problem for the translator.\t“So I swore in My wrath,\t“They shall not enter My rest.’|””(Psa. 95:11, NKJV)“Where I sware in Mine anger, ‘If they come in unto My rest — !’”(Psa. 95:11, YNG) Youngs Literal translation shows the Hebrew construction for this 'promise/oath'; it is actually an unfinished self-imprecatory oath, which is why Young has added the hypen to show the sentence is unfinished. The implication is 'if I do not do the thing that I have said, let - happen to me'. The KJV has a marginal variant which says 'Heb. if they enter into my rest'. When this promise/oath is quoted in Hebrews the Greek of Hebrews 3:11 has 'if they shall enter' which is the Hebrew idiom but the translators have gone for the positive promise rather than the negative curse. When they quote the verse again in Heb 4:5 the translators actually revert to the Greek/Hebrew pattern. It is difficult enough to translate from one language to another, but translating from one culture to another is even more difficult. For myself, I will affirm, if legally necessary, but I would not be offended by someone who swore an oath.
