Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1912-05-24

In continuing His enunciations of
the principles which should govern
the subjects of the Kingdom. Jesus cut
deeply into the practices prevailing at
that ime regarding oaths. He called
attention to the fact that in olden days
the emphasis had been placed upon not
breaking an oath. but He placed the
emphasis on not making an oath. In
the days in which He lived, people had
gotten to use oaths with very little
provocation; they would swear by
heaven, or by earth, or by Jerusalem.
or by the temple, or by their own
heads, not considering that they had
no control over any of these. Jesus
said to those who were subjects of
the new Kingdom that they must not
swear at all, and called attention to
the fact that the heaven is Gods
throne, the earth His footstool, Jerusa-
lem the city of the King, and that
they could not make so much as one
hair on their heads white or black.
Their speech was to be yea, yea, and
nay, nay.
What did He mean by this? Would
He eliminate the legal oath? Was He
giving an explanation of the way they
should live in the face of the great
tendency to break the third command
animation of His own life and of other
scriptures will show that He was not
decrying the practice of making a
proper oath, but the abuse of it. Paul
called God to witness several times.
God Himself swore by Himself, seeing
that there was no greater by whom He
could swear. Even Jesus allowed the
High Priest to swear Him when He
was tried before the Sanhedrin al
IL g
that we see that He was not decrying
against the practice, but against the
abuse Matthew 23:16, gives us an in
teresting sidelight on the customs of
the time, and the abuse of swearing
which had grown up under the influ-
ence of the Phariseesf. They had made
all kinds of distinctions amongst oats;
those which were binding, and those
which were not. A man might swear
by the temple and not be bound by it,
but if he swore bw the gold of the
temple he was bound. He might swear
by the altar and not be bound by it;
but if he swore by the gift on the
altar, he was bound.
He might swear by Jerusalem and
not be bound by 1t, but if he looked
toward Jerusalem when he swore by
Jerusalem he was bound. The over
laying of all these distinctions which
hau DSSh uldue ny the THdIlseeS was
not only absurd, but demoralizing.
Jesus called attention to their hy-
pocrisy in this matter. and insisted
that the subjects of the Kingdom
should not be guilty of the same
abuses He laid down the principle
to govern them, that their lives should
be so true that a simple yes or no
from them would be sufficient.
WHAT is TRUTH?
There is danger in an oath; it is this:
1t tends to create in the mind of people
generally the supposition that there are
two kinds of truth-one kind of truth
which a man will tell when he is under
an oath. and another kind of truth
which he will tell when not under an
oath. Is this possible? Is it possible
to have two kinds of truth? Is truth
of such a nature that it is capable of
duplicity2 The answer TO this question
/ leads US to another; the question which
\ PLATE asked Jesus, and which was
never answered in words-What is
I truth2
In the Old Testament the word which
is translated truth has as it's root
meaning building upon" Trustwor-
| thy or dependable would be synona-
nous terms with the root idea of this
| Old Testament word In the New
| Testament the word translated truth
means without concealing." Think of
these words which the Holy Spirit has
selected to convey his idea OF us, and
see if you can give a definition of truth,
and an answer to Pilates question.
For a statement to be true it must
| conform absolutely with the reality;
/ the thought must conform with the
| fact: the subjective with the objective
Before going further with our defini-