Jesus said, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:33-7.
But this warning on how to speak the truth in your personal life, if taken to the extreme and applied to all contexts, even courtrooms and the covenantal contexts, of course, would deny oaths altogether. Jesus was speaking to the misuse of oaths, like "I swear on a stack of bibles that I'm telling you the truth!" Jesus said to not do that. You're trying to enhance your word, which apparently has little credibility with the people you're speaking with, either because of their evil cynicism or your bad reputation for not telling the truth.
The third commandment does not mean you never swear. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Exodus 20:7. It also doesn't refer primarily to "cussin." It refers to calling upon God's name, and it means that you can't do it a wrong way or a right way. Invoking God's name rightly requires a right purpose, an appropriate venue, and lawful authority.
Deuteronomy 19:15-21 explains the case of the false witness who accuses his neighbor of a crime falsely. If the statement was not sworn testimony in a court context, then it would be slander or gossip. Instead, that type of false witness, as in the false witness stated in the Ninth Commandment, is a criminal offense in itself, calling for a just sentence. Joshua in Joshua 7:19 demands a confession from Achan in the taking of the stuff from Jericho. He uses the words "give glory to God" as an expression of demanding the truth before God. When Jesus faced the kangaroo trial in Matthew 26, he felt no obligation to answer their questioning until the high priest used these words: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Matthew 26:63. Then Jesus spoke because He always spoke the truth in His duty before God and before the law of God. Moses commanded Israel to swear: "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen. Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude. Deuteronomy 10:20-22.
In his economic commentary on the book of Deuteronomy, Gary North explains the significance of the Deuteronomy passage dealing with the importance of truthful testimony. "The court is God's court: the State is acting as the prosecutor on God's behalf. The witness for the prosecution becomes an agent of this court. God delegates to the State the authority and requirement to execute people convicted of capital crimes. God identifies the witnesses as the primary agents of execution." Free Books from the Institute for Christian Economics, "Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy," by Gary North, Chap. 43, The Penalty for Perjury, http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm, accessed on March 29, 2014. Therefore, the authority for the witness to call upon God to uphold his word is within the court which represents the judgment of God on the earth. The purpose is justice, and the venue is the authorized court.
The church and the courtroom are where the Ninth Commandment applies the most. The church because that is where we swear to the God of the bible that we will serve Him only - in baptism mainly, and in the courtroom because truth and justice are critical to a biblical society. In the courtroom, you're facing the justice system of the state in its most fundamental, delegated, God-ordained capacity (Romans 13). When it is possible that people can lie and perhaps get away with it because there's no evidence to the contrary, it is right and appropriate to demand that they swear to tell the truth before God, knowing His ability to judge the false testifier in this life and the next. The state, as a covenantal institution with the responsibility of justice before the God who ordained it, can and should demand your oath to tell the truth.
The Church, another covenantal institution, "the pillar and foundation of the truth," and the one charged with the more important task of guarding the keys of the kingdom, also has the right to demand it. It demands it of its ministers, of those entering into marriage, and of those at baptism, who implicit swear to follow the Head of the Church to death if necessary to show their faith in Him.
Ray Sutton, whom I mentioned earlier wrote the book on the covenant, posited five points to a covenant: Authority, Historical Prologue, Law, Sanctions, Continuity. These elements are essential to a covenantal institution. What are the covenantal institutions - family, church, and state. Each involves an oath - the family's oath appears in the wedding vows, the church's oath appears in baptism and the vows of the ordained ministers and appointed servants of the church, and the state's oath is in the oath of office of each elected official. If you lack any particular element, then the institution is weakened, even destroyed.
Consider for example the family. If there is no authority over marriage, then it would simply be a matter of living together and breaking up if needed. What is the history behind marriage? How would we define it? Wouldn't it be malleable into just about anything as time went by? Without a law to determine the boundaries of marriage, then sexual fidelity would mean very little unless there was personal preference by the participants for such fidelity. If there was not punishment for violating the rules of marriage, then the law of marriage would be impotent. The continuation of life itself is dependent upon marriage. The value of children, loyalty, love, support, etc. All of this flows from marriage and the family, and it does or does not continue based on the governing elements of the covenant.
These elements are obvious in the operation of the state. A history of the people and the formation of their government; a hierarchy; law; punishment for violating that law; and how to sustain the future of that people, their elected officials and their successors, and their form of government. The U.S. Constitution incorporates these five elements. "We the People" are the sovereign, and we all know the history - fight against royal tyranny, violation of the rule of law, no taxation without representation, a constitution should rule not a king. The legislature creates laws, and the executive enforces those laws with sanctions against those who violate the law. Elected officials are elected for terms, and the Constitution with amendments continues as the foundation of the nation.
The Constitution does not state what the law should be. There are historical examples and tidbits, like capital punishment for treason and impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, but the Constitution is a foundational document, not the law itself. The Constitution says nothing about the law being God's law, based on the bible, or Christian in origin. Some argue it is implied. Is it?
Israel was given laws by God through Moses. One fundamental instruction was that the king, the ruler of the nation, would have to be an Israelite. Deuteronomy 17:14-17. Was this an anti-immigrant law? Remember Israel was supposed to be a light to the nations, a special people who would show forth the truth of the true and living God. But to have that religious separation, it required geographic separation because geography in the ancient world determined political, social, and religious loyalty. Immigrants could become Israelites. Witness Rahab in Joshua 6. See also Heb. 11:31; James 2:25. The problem was religious loyalty, not ethnicity or nationality.
Who are your rulers to be - Christians or non-Christians? Yes, we don't have kings, but we have officials that we elect to rule us. Those we elect are the equivalent of kings, only their power is dispersed instead of concentrated. Do you want the "foreigner" ruling? That is, the foreigner in covenant, the foreigner in faith, the foreigner to God and His law. Is that what we've gotten to in forgetting God's word on civil government? We don't care who rules a Christian people?
But that's just the first element of a covenantal institution. What about the others?
Oaths are involved in the punishment element because the oath calls down God's curse upon the one who violates the oath. Oaths today aren't taken seriously these days, probably because God Himself isn't taken seriously. But it is God who ensures that oaths are kept, either by the person making the oath or by issuing consequences for the person who fails to keep his oath.
So, the first element is the authority governing the institution. Is "We the people" the authority in a Christian republic? What about God? What kind of oath would a person serving in the institution of civil government make if they are to serve a Christian republic? Does the official swear to serve the American people as the sovereign . . . even if they defy the God of the bible? What law? Will any law do? Only those not entirely contradictory to the law of God?
Let's keep our obedience to God as minimal as possible. Let's keep ourselves the supreme authority. Let's ignore God's law. Let's take oaths that don't matter, and let's call our society Christian. Really now?! Could we get any more humanistic?
