When we think of the 10 Commandments and respect for truth, our minds go to the command, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).
The 10 Commandments are the perfect expression, through divine revelation, of God’s natural law, “the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Romans 2:15). Although our consciences become seared by sin, we know through conscience that lying is wrong. We instinctively know that there is an objective order of truth out there, even though some philosophers try to convince us that all truth is subjective and a matter of perception. We know that lying is out of sync with the natural order of objective reality. You can proclaim your rejection of the law of gravity, but try stepping off a ladder and see what happens!
Lying is also a form of stealing because it deprives our neighbor of the truth to which he is entitled, and meaningful communication is impossible unless we can assume, absent a motive to lie, that most people tell the truth most of the time. When I’m driving, why should I ask someone for directions if he is just as likely to lie as to tell the truth? At the grocery store, why should I read the ingredients on a package unless I can assume the packager is telling the truth? Why even ask someone what time it is?
Some forms of lying are illegal as well as morally wrong. It is a crime to give false information to a police officer. Fraud – an intentional misrepresentation upon which someone relies to his detriment – is both a criminal offense and a civil tort. In Davis v. Queen City Furniture (1906), the Louisiana Supreme Court looked at contradictory testimony on the record and recognized that some of it must be false. The Court stated:
Whether in all these contradictions it is the plaintiff’s witnesses who have violated the ninth commandment or if it be the defendant’s witnesses, only the Supreme Judge can decide with absolute certainty.
In United States v. Ianniello (1990), a federal court observed that our judicial system cannot do justice if it cannot ensure that witnesses tell the truth:
When our judicial system was established and the requirement of an oath or affirmation on the part of a witness was borrowed from the British common law, the swearing of an oath meant something – namely, that the court could be fairly sure that a witness would tell the truth. In the time of our Founding Fathers, witnesses believed that they would be subject to severe and perhaps immediate Divine retribution if they lied under oath on the witness stand, based on the Ninth Commandment’s proscription, handed down by God to Moses that ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’
In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington warned:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
A good definition of justice comes from Aristotle: Rendering to each person what is due.
But how does a judge know what is due to a person before his court?
To determine whether the person should be executed, imprisoned, fined, or released and rewarded, the judge needs to know the truth: Did the person commit the crime, or didn’t he? If he did, are there aggravating or mitigating circumstances to consider in determining the punishment?
It is impossible to do justice without knowing the truth, and to learn the truth, the judge needs assurance that witnesses tell the truth in court. That’s why witnesses are required to testify under oath, and that’s why perjury – testifying falsely under oath – is a criminal offense. In the Bible, one who testified falsely under oath was given the same punishment as the defendant in the case would have received had he been found guilty (Deuteronomy 19:16-21). If a witness testified falsely in a capital case, he was given the death penalty.
False testimony under oath violates the commandment against bearing false witness, but it also violates another commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exodus 20:7). We know that this commandment prohibits blasphemy, but it prohibits perjury as well. Luther says in his “Large Catechism”:
The Second Commandment.
‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.’
…
If, then, it be asked: How do you understand the Second Commandment, and what is meant by taking God’s name in vain? we answer briefly: It is taking God’s name in vain if we call upon the Lord God in any way in support of falsehood or wrong of any kind.’ Therefore this commandment forbids the mention of God’s name, or taking it upon the lips, when the heart knows or should know differently, as among those who take oaths in courts of justice where one side falsifies against the other. For God’s name cannot be more abused than when used to support falsehood and deceit.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” and the “Heidelberg Catechism” give similar explanations.
Truth is a central part of God’s order of creation. Our society, our government, and our legal system are based upon respect for truth, and the Ten Commandments are the perfect expression of this respect. As we recognize the value of truth, let us also recognize its Source.
Colonel Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu) and as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org). You may contact him for speaking engagements at eidsmoeja@juno.com.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to Commentary@1819News.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
