CHAPTER THREE: The Revelation of God's Law (part 2 of 4)
The Second Commandment
You shall not make for yourself any carved image or likeness of anything that is in heaven above, on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not worship or honor them.
As in the preceding commandment God declared himself to be the only God, besides whom we must neither possess nor imagine another, so here he shows more clearly what he is and how he ought to be worshiped, lest we form any carnal conception of him.
The purpose of the commandment is that God will not allow the rightful honor we owe him to be profaned by superstitious observances. In short, he recalls and withdraws us from all carnal forms of worship devised by our understanding after it has conceived of God according to its own dullness. He consequently directs us to the rightful worship due to him—worship that is spiritual and instituted by God himself.
He identifies the most conspicuous vice in this matter: outward idolatry. Yet the commandment has two parts. The first restrains our presumption, lest we attempt to subject the incomprehensible God to our senses or represent him by any image. The second forbids the religious adoration of any images.
The reason for the first part is stated by Moses:
“Remember that the Lord spoke to you in the valley of Horeb. You heard his voice, but you saw no form. Therefore, take heed that you make no likeness of him,” etc.
Isaiah frequently employs the same argument: that it dishonors God’s majesty to represent by corporeal matter or a visible, senseless image him who is spiritual and invisible and who gives motion to every creature. Likewise, it dishonors him to compare his infinite essence to a small piece of wood, stone, gold, or silver.
Saint Paul makes the same argument in his address to the Athenians:
“Since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to suppose that his divinity is like gold or silver or carved stone, or anything fashioned by human skill.”
—Acts 17
From this it is evident that every statue made to represent God is altogether displeasing to him as an insult to his majesty.
It is true that God has sometimes manifested his presence through certain signs so clearly that he is said to have been seen face-to-face. Yet all such signs likewise demonstrated that his essence is incomprehensible, for he almost always appeared in a cloud, flame, or smoke. This signified that human sight cannot penetrate so far as to behold him clearly.
Therefore, Moses, to whom God revealed himself more intimately than to anyone else, could never obtain permission to see his face. Instead, he was told that man is incapable of beholding such great brightness (Exodus 33).
Even the mercy seat, through which the Lord manifested the power of his presence, was constructed to signify that the best view we can have of his divinity is to marvel at it as something surpassing our understanding. The cherubim covered it with their wings, a veil concealed it, and the place itself was so secluded and obscure that it was sufficiently hidden by its own arrangement.
It is therefore evident that those who defend images of God and the saints by appealing to the cherubim that God commanded to be made are not in their right minds. For what did those images signify except that no image is capable of representing the mysteries of God? They were fashioned so that, by covering everything with their wings, they restrained the curiosity of the human eye from attempting to behold God.
Moreover, we must observe that every likeness is forbidden no less than a carved image. This refutes the foolish distinction made by the Greeks. They imagine that they have acquitted themselves if they do not carve God with hammer and chisel, while displaying greater superstition toward painted images than any other people.
But the Lord does not merely forbid a sculptor to fashion his likeness; he permits no image of him at all, because every such representation falsifies him and insults his majesty.
Furthermore, the text specifies the forms by which the pagans customarily represented God. By the things in heaven, he means the sun, moon, and stars, and perhaps also birds. For in Deuteronomy 4, when explaining his intention, he names both birds and stars. I would not have mentioned this except that I see some referring these words to angels. I pass over the remaining categories because they are sufficiently clear.
The second part of the commandment follows, concerning adoration. Such adoration is wicked when directed toward any image of God and doubly execrable when directed toward images of male or female saints.
These, then, are the stages of idolatry. First, the human understanding, swollen with pride and presumption, dares to imagine God according to its own apprehension. But because it is filled with dullness and ignorance, it conceives in God’s place nothing but vanity and a phantom.
Then follows a second act of presumption: man attempts outwardly to represent God as he has inwardly conceived him. Thus the understanding conceives the idol, and the hand gives birth to it.
The example of Israel shows that idolatry originates in man’s inability to believe that God is near unless he has some bodily representation of his presence. The people said to Aaron:
“We do not know what has become of this Moses. Make us gods who shall go before us.”
They certainly knew that he was God whose power they had experienced in so many miracles.
But they did not believe that he was near them unless they could see some bodily representation with their eyes as a testimony that God went before them. Therefore, by means of an image preceding them, they wished to be assured that God was guiding them on their journey.
We also see this daily by experience: the flesh is never at rest until it has found some fabrication resembling its own nature, in which it may delight as though it were an image of God. Consequently, in nearly every age since the world began, men, following this desire, have fashioned images to assure themselves that God was near whenever they possessed some visible sign of him.
And because they imagined that they saw God in such images, they worshiped him there. Finally, fixing all their sight and thought upon them, they became still more brutish. As though some divinity resided within the stone or wood, they were moved to reverence and wonder.
It is therefore evident that man never begins to worship images without first conceiving some carnal and perverse fantasy. This is not because he regards the images themselves as gods, but because he imagines that some divine power resides within them. Therefore, whether a person intends an image to represent God or some creature, when he bows before it to render honor, he is already steeped in superstition.
For this reason, the Lord not only forbade the making of statues to represent him but also the consecration of pillars or stones before which reverence might be offered.
Let those, then, who seek empty excuses to defend the execrable idolatry by which religion was corrupted and destroyed for so many years direct their ears and minds to this point.
“We do not regard images as gods,” they say.
But neither were the Jews so entirely senseless that they had forgotten there was a God who delivered them from Egyptian bondage before they fashioned the calves. Indeed, when Aaron, after making the calves, summoned them to worship the gods who had delivered them from Egypt, they readily agreed. By this they signified that they intended to remain devoted to the living God who had delivered them, provided they could possess a representation of him in the calf.
Likewise, we must not suppose the pagans were so ignorant that they failed to understand there was some god other than wood and stone. For this reason, they changed their images whenever they pleased while always retaining the same gods in their minds. Moreover, they made many images of the same god without imagining that they were different gods. Finally, they consecrated new statues every day without supposing that these were new gods.
What, then, did they do? Certainly, all idolaters, both Jews and pagans, entertained the fantasy we have described. Not content with a spiritual knowledge of God, they imagined that by making images they would obtain a more certain knowledge of him.
Once this false and perverse representation of God was introduced, there was no end to the corruption. Adding error upon error, they finally imagined that God manifested his power through his images.
Nevertheless, the Jews believed that in worshiping images they were honoring the eternal God, Creator of heaven and earth. The pagans likewise believed that they were worshiping the gods whom they imagined to dwell in heaven.
Anyone who denies that the same thing was formerly done, and is still done under the papacy, speaks falsely. For why do they kneel before images? Why do they come before them to pray, as though by doing so they approached nearer to the ears of God?
Why is there such a great distinction between images of the same God, so that one is altogether neglected or only lightly honored while another is held in the highest esteem and veneration? Why do they undertake pilgrimages to visit idols whose likenesses they possess in their own homes?
Why do they fight for them today as though they were defending their wives, children, and very lives—so that they would more readily suffer God himself to be taken from them than their images?
And yet I have not even begun to recount the gross superstitions of the common people, which are almost infinite and deeply rooted in the hearts of the greater part of the world. I merely indicate in passing what they allege when they seek to defend themselves and clear themselves of idolatry.
“But,” they say, “we do not call images our gods.” Neither did the ancient Jews or pagans. Yet the Prophets, and indeed all Scripture, continually reproach them for committing spiritual adultery with wood and stone for no other reason than that which moves those today who boast of being Christians: they worshiped God carnally through representations of stone and wood.
Their final refuge is to say that images are “the books of the unlearned.” Even if we granted this—although it is false, since throughout the papacy images are possessed for the sake of worship —I still cannot see what benefit the unlearned can derive from images in which God is portrayed in a manner that can only make them Anthropomorphites, that is, cause them to conceive of God as corporeal.
Let them read what Lactantius and Eusebius wrote on this subject. They do not hesitate to conclude that all who can be represented by images must have been mortal men. Saint Augustine does not differ greatly from them, declaring that it is wicked not only to worship images but even to erect any representation of God.
As for images intended to portray male and female saints, what purpose can they serve except as examples of pomp and indecency—and such examples that anyone who imitated them would deserve to be whipped? It is shameful to say, but true, that prostitutes in a brothel are dressed more chastely and modestly than the images of virgins displayed in churches. The attire of the martyrs is no more appropriate.
Let there at least be some decency in their images, so that their falsehood may not be quite so shameless when they claim that these are books of holiness.
Yet we further answer that this is not the manner in which Christians ought to be taught in the church. God has willed that his people should be instructed by a doctrine far different from such rubbish. He ordained that the preaching of his Word and the administration of his sacraments should be presented to all as their common instruction. Those who have leisure to cast their eyes here and there contemplating images show little affection for that doctrine.
What purpose, then, would there have been in erecting so many crosses of wood, stone, silver, and gold if this truth had been properly impressed upon the people: that Christ was crucified for our sins, bearing our curse upon the cross and blotting out our transgressions? The simple would have profited more from that one statement than from a thousand crosses of wood or stone. As for those of gold and silver, I acknowledge that the covetous will take greater delight in them than in any word of God.
Finally, I ask them: whom do they call “the unlearned,” whose ignorance can be instructed only through images? Certainly, our Lord has declared that every member of his church shall be taught by his Spirit and his Word, so that they may be known as disciples of God. There is the extraordinary benefit that proceeds from images—a benefit that can never be adequately repaid!
To declare more expressly how detestable all idolatry is to the Lord, the commandment consequently adds:
“For I, the Lord your God, am mighty and jealous,” etc.
This is as though he said that he alone is the one upon whom we must depend. To lead us to this, he displays his power, which he cannot permit to be despised. He then calls himself jealous, signifying that he cannot tolerate a rival.
Third, he declares that he will avenge his majesty and glory if anyone transfers them to creatures or idols. Nor will this be a simple act of vengeance, but one extending to the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who imitate the impiety of their forefathers. Conversely, he promises his mercy and kindness to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his law.
It is not unusual for the Lord to assume toward us the relation of a husband. For the union by which he joins us to himself, receiving us into the fellowship of the church, is like a spiritual marriage requiring mutual faithfulness.
Therefore, as the Lord always and everywhere fulfills the office of a faithful husband, so he requires us to preserve for him the love and chastity of marriage. That is, our souls must not abandon themselves to the devil and the sinful desires of the flesh, which is a form of spiritual adultery.
For this reason, when he reproves the Jews for their unfaithfulness, he complains that they have committed adultery and broken the covenant of marriage. Just as a good husband, the more faithful and loyal he is, becomes all the more indignant when he sees his wife turning toward an adulterer, so the Lord, who has betrothed us to himself in truth, declares that he is moved with extraordinary jealousy whenever we despise the chastity of his marriage and defile ourselves with evil desires.
This is especially so when we transfer elsewhere his glory, which above all things must be preserved whole and entire for him, or pollute it with any superstition. For in doing this, we not only violate the faith pledged in marriage but also defile our souls with adultery.
We must consider what he means by the threat that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation. For besides the fact that it would be inconsistent with the equity of divine justice to punish the innocent for another person’s fault, the Lord himself declares that he will not permit the son to bear the father’s iniquity.
Nevertheless, this statement is frequently repeated: the sins of the fathers shall be punished in their children. Moses often speaks in this manner:
“Lord, Lord, who repays the iniquity of the fathers upon their children.”
—Exodus 34; Numbers 14
Jeremiah likewise says:
“Lord, who shows mercy to a thousand generations and repays the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children.”
Some, unable to resolve this difficulty, understand it as referring to temporal punishments, which children may fittingly suffer on account of their fathers since such afflictions are often beneficial to them. This is certainly true. For Isaiah declared to King Hezekiah that because of the sin he had committed, the kingdom would be taken from his children and they would be carried into a foreign land (Isaiah 39).
Likewise, the households of Pharaoh and Abimelech were afflicted because of the injury their masters had done to Abraham. Many other similar examples could be cited. Yet this is an evasion rather than a true interpretation of the passage. For the Lord here announces a punishment so severe that it cannot be restricted to the present life.
We must therefore understand the statement in this manner: the curse of God not only falls upon the head of the wicked man but is also spread over his whole family.
When this occurs, what can be expected except that the father, being forsaken by the Spirit of God, should live wickedly; that the son, likewise abandoned by God because of his father’s sin, should follow the same path to destruction; and that the grandson and later descendants, being the accursed offspring of wicked men, should proceed into the same ruin?
First, let us consider whether such punishments conflict with God’s justice. Since the entire nature of mankind is deserving of condemnation, it is certain that ruin awaits all those to whom the Lord does not communicate his grace. Nevertheless, they perish through their own iniquity and not through any unjust hatred on God’s part. Nor can they complain that God does not assist them by his grace unto salvation as he assists others.
When, therefore, this punishment comes upon wicked men for their sins—that their households are deprived of God’s grace for many years—who can condemn God for it?
“But,” someone will say, “the Lord declares, on the contrary, that the child shall not suffer punishment for the father’s sin” (Ezekiel 18).
We must observe what is being addressed in that passage. The Israelites, after long suffering various calamities, had a common proverb that their fathers had eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth were set on edge. By this they meant that their ancestors had committed the faults for which they themselves endured so many evils without deserving them, and that this proceeded from God’s excessively harsh anger rather than from measured severity.
The Prophet declares that this is not so. Rather, they suffer for their own faults, and it is inconsistent with God’s justice that a righteous and innocent child should be punished for his father’s sins. But no such thing is stated in the present passage.
For the visitation spoken of here is fulfilled when the Lord withdraws from the household of the wicked his grace, the light of his truth, and every other aid to salvation. When the children, abandoned by God to blindness, follow the course of their forefathers, they bear the curse of God. But when God afterward punishes them both with temporal calamities and eternal death, he does so not for the sins of others but for their own.
On the other hand, a promise is given that God will extend his mercy to a thousand generations of those who love him. This promise is frequently found in Scripture and is included in the solemn covenant God makes with his church:
“I will be your God and the God of your offspring after you.” —Genesis 17
Solomon had this in view when he said that after the death of the righteous, their children shall be blessed. This is not only because good nurture and instruction contribute greatly to a person’s wellbeing, but also because of the blessing God has promised to his servants: that his grace will abide perpetually upon their families.
This brings singular consolation to believers and ought greatly to terrify the wicked. For if the memory both of righteousness and of iniquity retains such power before God after a person’s death that the blessing of the former extends to his descendants, and likewise the curse of the latter, then much more will the person who has lived well be blessed by God forever, and the person who has lived wickedly be cursed.
This is not contradicted by the fact that good children sometimes proceed from the offspring of the wicked and, conversely, wicked children from the offspring of believers. For the Lord did not intend here to establish an invariable rule that would derogate from his election. It is sufficient both to console the righteous and to terrify the sinner that this declaration is neither empty nor frivolous, even though it is not fulfilled in every instance.
The temporal punishments God sends upon some are testimonies of his wrath against sin and signs of the future judgment that shall come upon all sinners, although many remain unpunished in the present life. In the same way, when the Lord gives an example of this blessing by continuing his grace and goodness toward the children of believers on account of their fathers, he bears witness that his mercy abides eternally upon his servants.
Conversely, when he pursues the father’s iniquity as far as the son, he demonstrates the severity of the judgment prepared for the wicked because of their own sins. This is his principal purpose in the present statement.
Moreover, he intended in passing to signify the greatness of his mercy by extending it to a thousand generations, while assigning only four generations to his vengeance.
The Third Commandment
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
The purpose of this commandment is that the Lord wills the majesty of his name to be holy and sacred to us. Its substance, therefore, is that we must not profane it through contempt or irreverence. Corresponding to this prohibition is the positive command that his name should be held by us in singular esteem and honor.
Therefore, both our hearts and our mouths must be trained to think and speak of God and his mysteries only with reverence and great sobriety. Likewise, when considering his works, we must conceive nothing that does not tend to his honor.
We must carefully observe these three points. First, whatever our minds conceive of God or our tongues speak concerning him must be consistent with his excellence and the holiness of his name and must tend to exalt his greatness.
Second, we must not recklessly misuse his holy Word or pervert his mysteries to serve our avarice, ambition, or follies. Rather, because the dignity of his name is imprinted upon his Word and mysteries, we must always hold them in honor and esteem.
Finally, we must not speak evil of his works or disparage them, as certain wicked people customarily do with contemptuous speech. Instead, we must ascribe the praise of wisdom, righteousness, and power to everything we acknowledge that he has done.
This is what it means to sanctify the name of God. Whenever we act otherwise, his name is wickedly polluted because it is diverted from the lawful use to which it was consecrated. Even if there were no other evil, it is diminished in dignity and rendered contemptible.
If it is so wicked to employ God’s name too lightly and recklessly, it is a far greater sin to direct it toward an altogether evil use, as in sorcery, necromancy, unlawful incantations, and similar practices.
Nevertheless, the commandment speaks especially of oaths, in which the abuse of God’s name is more detestable than in anything else. This is intended to produce in us a greater horror of every other form of its abuse.
We must first understand what an oath is. An oath is an appeal to God as witness in order to confirm the truth of our words. Open blasphemies uttered to defy God are not worthy of being called oaths.
Scripture shows in many passages that such an appeal, when properly made, is a form of glorifying God. Thus, when Isaiah says that the Assyrians and Egyptians shall be received into God’s church:
“They shall speak the language of Canaan and swear by the name of the Lord.”
—Isaiah 19
That is, by swearing in the Lord’s name, they shall declare that they acknowledge him as their God.
Likewise, when Isaiah speaks of the enlargement of God’s kingdom:
“Whoever asks for prosperity shall ask it in God, and whoever swears shall swear by the true God.”
—Isaiah 65
Jeremiah similarly says:
“If the teachers instruct my people to swear by my name, as they formerly taught them to swear by Baal, I will cause them to prosper in my house.”
It is rightly said that by invoking God’s name as witness we testify to our religious devotion toward him. For in this manner we confess him to be eternal and immutable truth. We call upon him not merely as a competent witness to the truth, but as the one to whom alone it belongs to uphold truth, bring hidden things to light, and know the human heart.
When human testimony fails us, we take God as our witness, particularly when we must affirm something concealed within the conscience. Therefore, the Lord is bitterly angered against those who swear by foreign gods and regards such an oath as a sign that they have renounced his name:
“Your children have forsaken me and swear by those who are no gods.”
Moreover, he demonstrates how detestable this sin is by the severity of its punishment when he declares that he will destroy all those who swear both by the name of God and by the name of their idol (Zephaniah 1).
Since we understand that the Lord wills the honor of his name to be exalted in our oaths, we must be all the more careful that his name is not despised or diminished instead of honored.
To swear falsely by his name is an exceedingly great insult, and therefore the law calls it profanation (Leviticus 19). For what remains to God if he is stripped of his truth? He would no longer be God. Yet he is stripped of his truth when he is made the witness and approver of falsehood.
Therefore, when Joshua sought to compel Achan to confess the truth, he said:
“My son, give glory to the God of Israel.”
—Joshua 7
By this he indicates that God is grievously dishonored when anyone swears falsely by his name. This is not surprising, since by doing so we endeavor, so far as lies within us, to brand God as a liar.
A similar solemn appeal made by the Pharisees in the Gospel of Saint John shows that this form of speech was commonly used among the Jews when they wished to place someone under oath (John 9).
The formulas of Scripture likewise teach us how greatly we ought to fear swearing falsely:
“As the Lord lives.”
And:
“May the Lord do this and more to me.”
Again:
“May God be witness against my soul.”
These expressions signify that we cannot call God as witness to our words without his avenging the perjury if we swear falsely.
When we employ God’s name in a truthful but unnecessary oath, it is not altogether profaned, yet it is rendered contemptible and lowered from its proper honor. This, then, is the second kind of oath by which God’s name is taken in vain.
It is therefore not enough to abstain from perjury. We must also remember that oaths were instituted not to serve the disorderly pleasure of men but only for necessity; outside that necessity they are unlawful. It follows that those who employ them in matters of no importance depart from their proper and lawful use. No necessity can be alleged except that which serves religion or love.
In this matter men sin today with shameful excess, all the more because long familiarity has caused the offense to be regarded as nothing, although it is by no means insignificant in the judgment of God. For God’s name is used indiscriminately in foolish and frivolous conversation, and men imagine there is no wrong in this because their habitual license has given them, as it were, a prescriptive right to do so.
Nevertheless, God’s commandment remains forever, and the threat attached to it remains inviolable and will one day be fulfilled. By it, spiritual vengeance is pronounced upon all who have taken God’s name in vain.
There is also another grievous fault: in their oaths men substitute the names of saints for the name of God, swearing by Saint James or Saint Anthony. This is manifest impiety, since God’s glory is thereby transferred to them. It is not without reason that God expressly commanded men to swear by his name and by a special commandment forbade them to swear by foreign gods (Deuteronomy 6; Exodus 23).
This is also what the Apostle means when he writes that men swear by one greater than themselves, but God swears by himself because there is none greater than he (Hebrews 6).
The Anabaptists, not content with this limitation, condemn all oaths without exception because Christ’s prohibition is general:
“I tell you not to swear at all, but let your word be ‘Yes, yes,’ or ‘No, no.’ Whatever exceeds this is evil.”
But in doing so, they wrong Christ by making him the adversary of his Father, as though he had come to earth to abolish his commandments. For in his law the Lord not only permits oaths as lawful—which ought to be sufficient—but commands their use when necessity requires it (Exodus 22).
Yet Christ testifies that he is one with his Father, that he brings nothing his Father has not commanded, and that his doctrine is not his own. What, then, will they say? Will they make God contradict himself by forbidding and condemning what he once approved by commanding it? Their opinion therefore cannot be accepted.
Yet because Christ’s words present some difficulty, we must examine them more closely. We shall not understand them unless we consider his purpose and direct our attention to what he intends in that passage. He does not purpose either to enlarge or restrict the law, but merely to restore its natural meaning, which had been greatly corrupted by the false glosses of the scribes and Pharisees.
If we hold to this, we shall not suppose that Christ intended to condemn every oath universally, but only those that transgress the rule of the law. His words show that the people at that time guarded only against perjury, although the law forbids not merely false oaths but also unnecessary ones.
Therefore, the Lord Jesus, the true interpreter of the law, warns that it is wrong not only to swear falsely but also simply to swear. How does he mean? To swear vainly. But those oaths approved by the law he leaves lawful and entirely intact.
They insist upon the expression “at all,” but it does not refer to the act of swearing itself; rather, it refers to the forms of oath that follow. For part of their error was that when they swore by heaven and earth, they imagined they were not touching the name of God. Therefore, after correcting the principal transgression, the Lord removes all their evasions so that they may not imagine they have escaped guilt merely by suppressing God’s name and swearing instead by heaven and earth.
No person of sound understanding, therefore, can doubt that in this passage the Lord condemns only those oaths already forbidden by the law. For he who represented throughout his life the perfection he commanded did not hesitate to swear when circumstances required it. His disciples, whom we do not doubt followed his rule, followed the same example.
Who would dare say that Saint Paul would have sworn if all oaths had been absolutely forbidden? Yet when the matter requires it, he swears without any hesitation, sometimes even adding an imprecation.
The question, however, is not yet fully resolved, because some believe that only public oaths are excepted. These include those required of us by the magistrate, those made by the people to their rulers or by rulers to the people, those made by soldiers to their commanders, and those exchanged between princes when forming an alliance.
They also include within this category—and rightly so—all the oaths found in Saint Paul, since the Apostles in the exercise of their office were not private individuals but public ministers of God.
Indeed, I do not deny that public oaths are the safest because they are supported by the clearest testimonies of Scripture. The magistrate is commanded to require a witness to swear concerning a doubtful matter, and the witness is bound to answer. Likewise, the Apostle says that human disputes are settled by this remedy (Hebrews 6). Thus both the magistrate and the witness possess proper authorization for what they do.
We may also observe that the ancient pagans regarded public and solemn oaths with great religious reverence, while placing little value upon those made privately, as though God took no account of them.
Nevertheless, it is exceedingly dangerous to condemn private oaths when they are made reverently, soberly, and in necessary matters, since they are supported by sound reason and examples from Scripture. For if private persons may invoke God as judge of their statements, much more may they invoke him as witness.
For example, your neighbor may accuse you of some act of dishonesty. You endeavor in love to clear yourself, but he refuses to accept any explanation. If your reputation is endangered by his obstinate false suspicion, you may without offense appeal to God’s judgment so that he may declare your innocence.
If we consider the words themselves, it is a far more solemn thing to call upon God as judge than merely as witness. I therefore see no reason to condemn an oath in which God is invoked as witness.
We also possess many examples of this. Abraham and Isaac swore oaths to Abimelech. If anyone argues that these were public oaths, Jacob and Laban were at least private persons, yet they confirmed their covenant by an oath (Genesis 31).
Boaz was a private man, yet he ratified by oath his promise to marry Ruth (Ruth 3). Likewise, Obadiah—a righteous and God-fearing man, as Scripture testifies—confirmed by oath what he wished Elijah to believe (1 Kings 18).
I therefore see no better rule than that we regulate our oaths so that they are neither rash nor lightly made, neither concerned with frivolous matters nor prompted by disordered passion. Instead, they must serve a genuine necessity—namely, when God’s glory must be maintained or love toward men preserved. This is the end toward which the commandment tends.