Are Masonic Ob's Biblically Legal?
I am frequently inundated with comments on the Daily Masonic Progress YouTube channel (where all articles are presented in video form) regarding how we, as Freemasons, have taken oaths that, if our personal religious beliefs are Christian, may constitute a violation of a commandment.
Often referenced are selectively chosen verses, such as Matthew 5:34: “But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God.” Similar cherry-picked verses are also commonly cited, including the latter part of Matthew 5:37: “All you need to say is ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”
In Freemasonry, we employ the term “Obligation” to describe the solemn promise we make. When confronted with claims that these are "oaths," our defence pivots on the terminology, asserting that an Obligation is not an Oath.
While this distinction has merit, we must acknowledge that, in reality, whether we refer to it as an Obligation, an Oath, or something else entirely, public perception generally equates them.
I have found that many critics overlook three key aspects of Masonic Obligations that prove their alignment with biblical principles. In this edition of Daily Masonic Progress, we will:
Explore the differences between an oath and an obligation,
Examine how biblical figures utilised oaths, and
Reveal how our ceremonies uphold, rather than contradict, these biblical teachings.
By the end, you will understand why Masonic Obligations are not only biblically compliant but also exemplify biblical principals that respects both spiritual truth and practical commitment.
Let us begin by understanding what an oath is, as this will enhance our appreciation of its relationship to "Obligations."
One major misunderstanding regarding Masonic Obligations arises from a failure to recognise the distinct elements that define each concept. Many critics, and even some Masons, view obligations, oaths, vows, and promises as separate entities, while others conflate them as identical. Both perspectives overlook the essential understanding of how they interrelate.
This confusion obscures the true nature of what we are doing when we take a Masonic Obligation. Without a clear comprehension of how these elements fuse, we cannot effectively defend or elucidate our practices. This leaves us vulnerable to criticism and generates doubt both within our own minds and in potential candidates for Freemasonry who may worry about reconciling their own religious beliefs.
What we need to consider is that oaths, vows, and promises are essentially the same thing and are somewhat interchangeable in the context of Freemasonry and many other areas. Each represents a statement of truth concerning your reliability and character in relation to a particular matter.
For us as Freemasons, these declarations signify that you possess the same moral standards and integrity required for trustworthiness; however, there are specific differences between them.
Here are the distinct definitions that help us identify which of these three elements forms part of our Masonic Obligation:
Promises are declarations made to another person, binding the promiser in honour, conscience, or law, to do or refrain from doing something, which gives the promisee the right to demand enforcement and fulfilment of the promise.
Vows are promises made to God or a deity pertaining to actions to be taken after certain events occur. For example, wedding vows involve promises that, following a specific event or condition being met, one will fulfil commitments such as continuing to love your spouse. Vows are solemn promises of love and fidelity in a moral and religious context, invoking God as a witness to one’s sincerity; the violation of a vow is considered a grave offence.
Oaths are solemn declarations (or affirmations) with an appeal to God as a witness to the truth of the declaration. If the truth of the declaration constitutes a promise, failing to fulfil that promise subjects the individual to God’s judgement.
Reflecting on your own Obligation, you should recognise that it encompasses all three components: a promise, a vow, and an oath. The ritual is correct in using the term Obligation, but there is one distinction that elevates it to an Obligation rather than a simple oath.
What sets our solemn promises in Freemasonry apart as an Obligation is the binding force or duty to uphold the oath, vow, and promise. While Obligations entail moral, civil, or religious duties, they are not legally enforceable (e.g., no imprisonment or fines); instead, they carry one significant condition.
Unlike a standalone oath, which holds one accountable to God for any violation, an Obligation introduces accountability in the form of a penalty for non-fulfilment. If such a penalty were legally enforceable, it would constitute a contract; however, as it is not, the penalty is moral perjury. In essence, it signifies that you are not the person you claimed to be; you are a liar and cannot be trusted.
Now that we understand what distinguishes our Obligations from simple oaths, we must address an even more fundamental question: are these Obligations, which we now recognise contain oaths, biblically permissible in the first place?
Another common challenge we face comes from those who claim that any form of oath-taking is explicitly forbidden by Scripture. These critics often cite Jesus's words about not taking oaths at all, seemingly creating an insurmountable biblical barrier to our Masonic practices.
This represents one of the most serious challenges we encounter, as it strikes at the very heart of our ceremonies for any Brother who holds Christian beliefs. If these critics are correct, it would imply that countless faithful Christians, including clergy members and religious leaders, have been unknowingly violating biblical law through their various oaths of office and service.
As Freemasons, we take Obligations, but the reality is that everyone takes oaths, makes promises, or takes vows. Oaths are taken in court, and public officials make an Oath of Office. Even religious leaders take oaths, such as the Papal Coronation Oath, the Oath of Canonical Obedience taken by clergy members upon ordination, or the oath taken during the licensing of a bishop in a diocese.
Are these, then, biblically illegal, as many argue, given that Jesus commanded in Matthew 5:34, “But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God"?
The theology behind this command is that the scribes and Pharisees were making oaths they did not intend to keep while ignoring others when it suited them. They often included caveats; for example, they would swear by the temple but were only bound by the gold of the temple.
Jesus's command condemns such hypocrites for finding convenient excuses to lie or renege on promises whenever they wished. He further asserts that one cannot swear on something of God's to convince another of the truth, such as, "I swear on the sky being blue"—a claim of truth reliant on voluntary oaths.
When Jesus commands that your 'yes' be yes and your 'no' be no, he is emphasising the importance of integrity and honesty, so that every promise (an oath is a promise) and your word should stand on its own merit, rather than depending on something else being true or on the risk of consequence if you fail to uphold the truth.
In the example of "I swear on the sky being blue," what you imply is that if the sky changes colour, you have lied or broken your oath/promise. Hence, if the sky turned red, it would suggest that you had indeed lied or broken your promise.
Another question we must ask is: Is Jesus condemning the taking of voluntary oaths to establish truth regarding past events or to affirm your reliability in circumstances where you are unknown?
If you asked me, "Did you buy milk when you went to the shops?" you should not need to give a voluntary oath like, "I swear on the sky being blue that I bought milk when I went to the shops." A simple yes or no should suffice, with your integrity and honesty as a person being enough.
The key difference that makes this biblically illegal is that your promise is based on the truth of something else or the penalisation of another factor (such as the sky being blue or turning red) in order to create the credibility that you are telling the truth or will uphold your promise.
For an oath to be biblically valid and not violate the command, it must be made with genuine introspection. For instance, in Matthew 26:62-64, Jesus himself took an oath—the most significant oath in all of Christianity, as it was the very oath that condemned him to death and ultimately resulted in salvation for Christians.
Jesus before the Sanhedrin, Matt 26:62-64
"Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63) But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64) “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”"
Conversely, Peter denied Jesus while under oath in Matt 26:72-74.
72) “He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!” 73) After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.” 74) Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!”"
Considering the oath that Jesus took at the Sanhedrin, it was aimed at ensuring the reliability of his testimony. While Peter broke his oath, he nevertheless took one, which explains his lamentation over his actions; he recognised that he had committed perjury.
There are also other instances of the disciples taking oaths. Paul placed himself under oath, calling God as his witness (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:10). Like Jesus, when Paul took these oaths, he was establishing his credibility for the benefit of those who might doubt his reliability.
From this, we can conclude that for an oath to be biblically compliant, it must:
Call on God to bear witness to the truth of your testimony,
Be made solely for the purpose of establishing the reliability of your character,
Make you accountable to God for upholding it.
Here we observe that the Oath component of a Masonic Obligation is both biblically compliant and legal. What distinguishes the solemn promise of an Oath from an Obligation is the duty to uphold it and your accountability to the institution of Freemasonry for doing so. Failure to uphold your obligation results in the penalty of expulsion, leading to the loss of all rights and privileges of Freemasonry without the possibility of repair; this is our equivalent of excommunication.
While Masonic Obligations align with proper biblical oath-taking, there remains one final challenge: how do we reconcile this with Jesus's command to 'let your yes be yes, and your no be no'?
The final challenge we often face comes from those who insist that any oath beyond a simple 'yes' or 'no' violates Jesus's directive. They argue that our elaborate ceremonies and formal declarations exceed this simple requirement, rendering them unbiblical.
This criticism strikes at the heart of our ceremonial practices. If taking an Obligation were to violate the principle of letting our 'yes be yes,' it would indicate that our entire initiation process contradicts biblical teaching. However, such a view overlooks crucial elements of our ceremonies that illustrate our careful adherence to this principle.
In addressing this part of the challenge, we frequently overlook specific components of the ceremony that precede the taking of an Obligation. These involve the Master of the Lodge asking the Candidate questions that constitute an Oath. Each question begins with, “Do you declare…” and mandates a simple yes or no response from the Candidate. Therefore, there is no violation of the command; rather, we remain true to it.
A similar practice is consistently followed before taking an Obligation in any ceremony that requires it: the Candidate is asked in a yes or no manner if they are willing to take it; however, the response is given not verbally but through a physical indication, such as kneeling.
The key distinction is that the Obligation itself does not replace one's word but serves as a formal acknowledgment of the gravity and significance of becoming a Freemason. It represents a conscious choice to uphold certain principles and behaviours that are foundational to Freemasonry.
Moreover, the Obligation we undertake does not seek to establish credibility through external factors or conditional promises, which is the primary concern addressed in Matthew 5:34. Rather, it follows the biblical model demonstrated by Jesus, Paul, and others, where solemn promises are made with God as a witness to establish the reliability of character within a new community.
What is noteworthy is that Masonic Obligations do not attempt to circumvent or create loopholes in the Biblical command. Instead, they embrace its spirit by requiring candidates to demonstrate sincerity through straightforward answers before proceeding to the formal declaration of their commitment to the fraternity. This dual approach—combining the simplicity mandated by Jesus with the solemnity of Biblical oaths—creates a ceremony that is both spiritually sound and practically meaningful.
While critics may continue to challenge Masonic Obligations, careful examination reveals them to be not only Biblically compliant but also exemplary of the appropriate use of oaths, as demonstrated in Scripture. They serve their intended purpose of establishing reliability and character while respecting both the letter and spirit of Biblical teachings regarding truth-telling and oath-taking.
When we consider the complete picture of Masonic Obligations—from their distinct nature to their Biblical precedent and careful implementation—we find not a contradiction of Scripture but rather a thoughtful and reverent application of Biblical principles in practice. Far from being something to defend or apologise for, our Obligations stand as a model for how to combine straightforward truth-telling with solemn commitment, all while maintaining both spiritual integrity and practical significance.
While critics may continue to challenge Masonic Obligations, we have now seen clear evidence of their Biblical compliance through:
Understanding their unique nature beyond simple oaths
Examining Biblical precedents from Jesus and Paul themselves
Recognising how our ceremonies fulfil rather than contradict Biblical commands
Therefore, the next time someone questions whether Masonic Obligations violate Biblical teaching, you will know how to explain why they are not only compliant but also exemplary of proper oath-taking. For more insights into Masonic practices and their spiritual foundations, make sure to subscribe to Daily Masonic Progress.