← Back to sermon library

Three, in the confession of faith 
of lawful oaths and vows. There's some difference of opinion 
within the Christian church concerning a chapter like this. Some suggest 
or some teach or say that we are not to engage in any sorts 
of oaths. Historically, those persons have 
been identified as Anabaptists. If you remember, one of the main 
emphases in the writing of the First Confession, the First London 
Confession of 1644, was to distinguish the Reformed or particular Baptists 
from the Anabaptists. And so this particular chapter 
would not be in an Anabaptist confession, and I think a lot 
of it hinges on a bad understanding in Matthew chapter 5. So I'll 
read this section, and then we'll look in some detail at the teaching. So chapter 23, beginning in paragraph 
1. The name of God only is that 
by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used 
with all holy fear and reverence. Therefore to swear vainly or 
rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any 
other thing, is sinful and to be abhorred. Yet as in matter 
of wait and moment, for confirmation of truth and ending all strife, 
an oath is warranted by the word of God. So a lawful oath being 
imposed by lawful authority in such matters ought to be taken. 
Whosoever taketh an oath warranted by the word of God ought duly 
to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein 
to avouch nothing but what he knoweth to be truth. For that 
by rash, false, and vain oaths the Lord is provoked, and for 
them this land mourns. An oath is to be taken in the 
plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or 
mental reservation. A vow, which is not to be made 
to any creature but to God alone, is to be made and performed with 
all religious care and faithfulness. but popish monastical vows of 
perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience 
are so far from being degrees of higher perfection that they 
are superstitious and sinful snares in which no Christian 
may entangle himself." Well, as we consider this particular 
chapter, it's in a larger context. Remember, if you go back to chapter 
21, the confession treats of Christian liberty and liberty 
of conscience. And then the rest of the confession, 
up to the section concerning the church, well, and including 
the church, deals with liberty of conscience. The conscience 
of the man under Christ is subdued or subjected to God alone. If 
you notice in paragraph 2 in chapter 21, God alone is Lord 
of the conscience. and hath left it free from the 
doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary 
to his word are not contained in it." So then we see that fleshed 
out in real concrete ways in the chapter subsequent to chapter 
21. So chapter 22 of religious worship and Sabbath day. The 
people of God are not subjected to the Pope of Rome, they're 
not subjected to the King of England with reference to matters 
ecclesiastical. They're also not subject to any 
ecclesiastical tyrant that tries to subdue or tries to subject 
them to those things contrary to the Word of God. Now, here 
in chapter 23, you see a particular application in terms of liberty 
of conscience when you see in paragraph 5, Popish monastical 
vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular 
obedience are so far from being degrees of higher perfection 
that they are superstitious and sinful snares in which no Christian 
may entangle himself. Again, that's an outworking of 
the principle of liberty of conscience. The pope does not have the right 
to command persons to take these sorts of vows or oaths that are 
contrary to what we have in the Word of God. So it's good to 
see the larger context in which this particular chapter functions. 
And as I said, there is some question about the perpetuity 
of oath-taking in this new covenant era. Typically, it falters, or 
rather, it centers on a faulty understanding in Matthew 5, which 
we'll look at later. But in terms of this particular 
chapter, I think Waldron is right. He says, vows are solemn promises 
made to the Lord. Oaths are solemn promises made 
before the Lord, but to men. The purpose of the oath is confirmation. 
The purpose of the vow is commitment. So when we talk about oaths, 
we're talking about our swearing to one another before God. When 
we talk about vows, that is a direct appeal to God in terms of something 
that we hope to carry out. So we'll look at the oath in 
paragraphs 1 to 3. paragraphs 1 to 4, rather, and 
then the vow in paragraph 5. So notice in the first place 
the nature of lawful oaths in paragraph 1. A lawful oath is 
a part of religious worship. Again, I don't think we typically 
reflect upon oath-taking in that way, but it is a part of religious 
worship. If you turn back to the book 
of Deuteronomy, you'll see this. Deuteronomy chapter 6, and then 
again in chapter 10. But Deuteronomy chapter 6, specifically 
at verse 13. We read, you shall fear the Lord 
your God and serve Him and shall take oaths in His name. And then 
over again in chapter 10 in verse 20, same emphasis, you shall 
fear the Lord your God, you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall 
hold fast and take oaths in His name. So it's an act of or part 
of religious worship. A. A. Hodge says, hence an oath 
is an act of supreme religious worship since it recognizes the 
omnipresence, the omniscience, and the absolute justice and 
sovereignty of the person whose august witness is invoked and 
whose judgment is appealed to as final. So we don't do this 
in a vacuum. We do this before the God of heaven and earth. 
And in doing this, we acknowledge what Hodge mentions here, omnipresence, 
omniscience, and the absolute justice and sovereignty of God 
himself. So it is an act of religious 
worship. David Dixon, I've mentioned this 
book before, Truths, Victory, Over Error. It's an early, probably 
one of the first commentaries on the Westminster Confession 
of Faith. I think he was a participant. in the Westminster Assembly, 
and on the heels of that he wrote a commentary on the Confession, 
where he deals with the matters of dispute. He doesn't deal with 
everything that everybody already agrees upon, but those things 
that perhaps would distinguish the Westminster divines from 
other sort of religious groups. He focuses on that. And here 
he speaks concerning the oath. He says, because an oath rightly 
taken is an act of religion whereby we glorify God and adore his 
attributes, we thereby first solemnly acknowledge his being 
and existence. That's absolutely, naturally 
a good implication that follows. If we oath before God or we vow 
to God, we are acknowledging his existence. He goes on to 
say, secondly, his ubiquity. And ubiquity simply means his 
omnipresence, his everywhere-ness. Secondly, his ubiquity, that 
he is present in all places and in all times and within our hearing. 
His omniscience, thirdly, that he is the searcher of the heart. 
The Apostle calls him literally heart knower in Acts 15.8. We 
acknowledge, fourthly, his truth and veracity. He is a witness 
brought into the court that cannot lie nor be imposed upon as saith 
the Apostle. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. 
Fifthly, his supremacy over all creatures, for verily men swear 
by the greater. Sixthly, his vindictive justice, 
as he is a revenger of perjury. Seventhly, we acknowledge his 
providence and fatherly care of the concerns of mankind, owning 
the cause of the righteous. Again, there's a lot contained 
in this brief statement that a lawful oath is a part of religious 
worship. We're religious beings under 
God, and when we invoke his name, we are asserting all the things 
that Dixon says in this particular sack shed. And then as we move 
through this paragraph, notice that it involves swearing. It's 
not just, you know, I hope that I carry this out, I kind of hope 
that I'm going to do this. It's not a suggestion, it is 
a swear. It is an oath, it is something where you are affirming 
the veracity or truthfulness of what you're doing. Wherein 
the person swearing in truth, righteousness, and judgment, 
notice there is a calling upon God to witness. Solemnly calleth 
God to witness what he swears, and to judge him according to 
the truth or falseness thereof. I think that if everybody took 
this particular chapter more seriously, not just within the 
context of the church, though including the church, but in 
civil matters, when persons swear in a courtroom to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God, 
there is a great great responsibility in terms of invoking God. That's 
why the Confession says in paragraph 2, the Lord is provoked at the 
end, or in paragraph 3, and for them this land mourns. When we 
don't take seriously truth, when we don't take seriously oaths 
before the living God, then we end up living in lands that mourn 
over the wretchedness of the condition of the body politic. 
So it involves swearing, truth, righteousness, and in judgment, 
and then this calling upon God with reference to His witness. And not only that He witnesses 
what we swear, but to judge according to the truth or falseness thereof. 
So I mentioned, it certainly applies in matters of civil polity, 
but it also applies in ecclesiastical polity as well. There are persons 
in the Reformed tradition and Reformed churches that affirm 
or swear or take an oath that they're going to uphold a particular 
confession of faith. In the Dutch churches, it's the 
Three Forms of Unity. In the Presbyterian churches, 
it's the Westminster Confession of Faith. Obviously, in a Reformed 
Baptist context, it's the Second London Confession of Faith. Now, 
when we swear or affirm that we're going to uphold that body 
of doctrine that is taught in that confession, and then we 
deviate from that, or we depart from that, that's not righteous 
conduct. That's not righteous behavior. 
It's far more honest for a man to say, I disagree with the confession 
of faith, than to try to redefine it, to change its meanings, to 
make it a wax nose that is malleable and formed in any way, shape, 
or form you want. That is disingenuous. W.G.T. Shedd once made the statement 
that an honest heretic is preferred over a dishonest professor of 
the true religion. At least the honest heretic has 
honesty going for him, I deny. the deity of Jesus, or I deny 
sovereign grace, or I deny the place of the Holy Spirit. Well, that's one thing, and that's 
a bad thing. I'm not condoning heresy, but 
for guys to stand in pulpits who've taken vows or oaths that 
they're going to uphold a system of doctrine, now, persons will 
say, well, you shouldn't do that except for the Bible. We subscribe 
to this confession because it is biblical. And as a result, 
what we find in this confession does summarize accurately the 
main heads of Christian doctrine. So to deny that is to deny the 
other, and it is a dishonest move on the part of gospel ministers. Better to leave that Reformed 
environment, better to leave that confessional environment, 
and better to engage in whatever you believe the scriptures are 
teaching than to be disingenuous, to change the meanings, and to 
make it say something that it absolutely positively never was 
meant to say. We saw that in our study many 
years ago in the ARBCA, or in the Association of Reformed Baptist 
Churches of America. It was that small clause, without 
body, parts, or passions, in the chapter 2, paragraph 2. And 
guys were saying, oh, no, that's not what it means. Well, yeah, 
it is what it means. So don't continue to say you 
subscribe to this confession, all the while denying what the 
confession teaches. So this sanctity, this truthfulness, 
this affirmation holds, again, in the civil sphere, but as well 
in the ecclesiastical arena. And now notice the sanctity of 
lawful oaths in paragraph two. It says, the name of God only. 
So the propriety of God's name. It's only God's name that we 
are to swear in. In fact, if you look at Leviticus, 
you might still be open to Deuteronomy. Turn back to Leviticus in chapter 
19. Leviticus in chapter 19. Verse 12, you shall not swear 
by my name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of the Lord 
your God. And then in the section we're 
looking at in the book of Exodus, we see we're not to swear by 
false gods. To swear by false gods is an 
act of idolatry. If swearing by the true and living 
God is an act of religious worship, if we swear by a false God, then 
that necessarily implies that that is an act of idolatry. So 
the name of God only is that by which men ought to swear. 
And then they go on to say, and therein it is to be used with 
all holy fear and reverence. And there's something in that 
clause or that phrase that is missing in the church today. 
We need to fear God. There needs to be reverence for 
God. There needs to be that respect 
and honor for God. Turn to the prophet Malachi. 
In Malachi chapter 1, God, through the prophet, is upbraiding the 
nation because they've engaged in an externalism and a formalism 
that's absolutely wretched and wicked. And in chapter 1 at verse 
6, a son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then 
I am the father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, 
where is my reverence, says the Lord of hosts, to you priests 
who despise my name? Yet you say, in what way have 
we despised your name? They're so embroiled in this 
kind of lawlessness, when they're called out upon it, they don't 
even recognize it. That's one of the marks of the 
prophet Malachi. Everything that he indicts them 
for, they basically say, who, us? Are you kidding? Us? We're 
so holy. We're so righteous. We're so 
pious. They respond with sanctimony when God, through the prophet, 
is calling them to repentance. But look at the principle. a 
son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am the 
father, where is my honor? Back to the confession, and therein 
it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence." Now obviously 
there is a connection between this chapter and the third commandment. Well, the ninth commandment, 
you shall not bear false witness. I think that's obvious and patent. But if you look at the third 
commandment, we are living our lives in the sight of a holy 
God. And to live in a manner contrary 
to that is to take his name in vain. And that is an unrighteous 
act. So therein it is to be used with 
all holy fear and reverence. And then it goes on to say, therefore, 
to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, 
or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful and to be abhorred. So the confession is underscoring 
for us the great weight with which we should consider entering 
in to oath-making and to vow-making. In other words, we ought not 
to rashly run in. We ought not to just say, oh, 
yeah, I'm good on this, and I'm just going to go ahead and do 
this. I think that the confession and its sort of emphasis on the 
reverent climate or context of this causes us all to hopefully 
reflect and pause before we enter into some of these things. And 
then it goes on to give the specific reasons as to why we would engage 
in oath-taking. I mentioned that there are some 
who think that oaths are no longer binding on the Church today. 
Well, what Jesus is condemning in Matthew chapter 5 is an oath 
for every single situation of every single day. Well, I swear 
that dinner will be ready at 5 p.m. I swear that I'm going 
to be at work at 9 o'clock. No, that's the context wherein 
you let your yes be yes and your no be no. but there are instances 
and there are matters that require oath-taking and that's what the 
confession speaks to now. Notice what it says, yet as in 
matter of wait and moment, if you happen to witness a bank 
robbery and your testimony may impinge upon the freedom or liberty 
of a particular person that was at that bank robbery, when you 
take that oath or when you swear that oath, you can see how that 
is a matter of wait and moment. If you say, hey, I'll have dinner 
ready at five, I swear, and it's not ready at five, that's not 
really a matter of wait and moment. But the bank robbery or the murder 
or whatever thing that is a matter of wait and moment is something 
that we use oaths for. Notice, yet as in matter of wait 
and moment for confirmation of truth and ending all strife, 
an oath is warranted by the word of God. So a lawful oath being 
imposed by lawful authority in such matters ought to be taken. 
So you can see where the particular Baptists in the 17th century 
are not only speaking to matters concerning the civil government 
and church government, but they're distinguishing themselves from 
what were called the Anabaptists. The Anabaptists would think that 
this is wrong. We're not supposed to take O's. 
We're to let our yes be yes and our no be no. Well, those are 
the same sorts of persons that said, turn the other cheek. Yeah, 
you turn the other cheek in terms of day in, day out activity. 
But if somebody rapes your wife, you don't tell them where your 
daughter is so they can rape them also. That is an unrighteous 
application of Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. And 
so is Matthew 5, 33-37, to forbid or prohibit oath-taking in a 
court of law wherein somebody's life is hanging 
in the balance. That is a matter of wait and 
moment for confirmation of truth, for the ending of all strife, 
and therefore the oath is warranted by the word of God. So a lawful 
oath being imposed by lawful authority, a civil court, in 
such matters ought to be taken." Now turn to Matthew chapter 5. 
Turn to Matthew chapter 5, just so we can see what Jesus is and 
isn't teaching there. I used the parallel in the following 
section. We looked at that with reference 
to the vindication of self-defense. We're working our way through 
the civil code in the book of Exodus, and self-defense is clearly 
prescribed in Exodus 22, 2, and 3. you can foil a criminal who 
breaks into your house at night up to and including death. If 
it is dark, you don't know what his particular intentions are, 
and you kill him in that exchange, you're not responsible, you're 
not liable for his death. Now, if the sun is shining, and 
there's more information to be had, and there's neighbors around 
that can assist you, you can't kill him. I mean, there's, you 
know, lawful limits imposed in terms of self-defense. But typically, 
persons look at Matthew chapter 5, verses 38 to 42 to say, oh 
no, pacifism is taught in the Bible. So notice in 538, you 
have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth 
for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But 
whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him 
also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, 
let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go 
one mile, go with him too. Give to him who asks you, and 
from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. As 
I explained when we were looking at that particular application, 
he's dealing with day-to-day life. He's dealing with life 
among individuals. He's not dealing with criminal 
courts. He's not dealing with ecclesiastical courts. You see 
that when Jesus is standing before the Sanhedrin and they slap him 
on the face. He doesn't turn the other cheek 
so they can slap him on that cheek as well. That is simply 
a misappropriation of the biblical principle that is here to matters 
that it doesn't apply in. So when Jesus is speaking in 
Matthew 5, 38 to 42, he's not saying, go ahead and let that 
criminal offender who breaks into your house in the hours 
of darkness, go ahead and do whatever he wants to you. And 
again, if he wants to do horrible things to your family, tell them 
what room they're sleeping in so we can get them. This text 
does not validate no locks, no guard dogs, no alarm systems. 
That's reading too much into it. Well, the same thing in the 
previous section. Notice in verse 33. It says, for it is the city of the great 
king. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot 
make one hair white or black. But let your yes be yes, and 
your no, no, for whatever is more than these is from the evil 
one." Again, brethren, you have to see the context. This is individual, 
personal ethics. It's not life in the church per 
se. And the issue of unrepentant 
sin, Matthew 18 says, if your brother sins, go to him. If he 
hears you, you've won your brother. If he doesn't, take two or three 
witnesses. If he doesn't hear them, tell it to the church. 
But aren't we supposed to turn the other cheek? Aren't we supposed 
to just let know? You're supposed to carry out 
lawful discipline in that arena. Same in the civil arena. So when 
it comes to this particular thing, it's about living your life without 
making all of these superfluous oaths about every That's the 
emphasis in the first part. You shall not swear falsely, 
but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you, 
do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne. 
And then notice, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, nor 
by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. This whole 
detailed system had arisen about normal common everyday sort of 
things. Kind of like When I was a kid, 
I remember us saying, you know, I swear on a stack of Bibles, 
as if the stack of Bibles was somehow better than one Bible. And what were we swearing on? 
It wasn't something that was, you know, of weight and moment. 
It was, hey, I'll do this or I'll do that. There's a difference 
between life in the normal context of living with one another, where 
we don't have to swear about everything, we don't have to 
make oaths before the Lord about basic arrangements, and then 
those matters of weight and moment. So that's the emphasis here. 
Let your yes be yes, and your no, no, for whatever is more 
than these is from the evil one. The oath became commonplace. Instead of being used for serious 
matters, it became used in everyday conversation. That's what Christ 
is combating in this section in the Sermon on the Mount. Just 
like he's combating in the next section, our personal day-to-day 
relationships. We don't have to take everybody 
to court who's given us the slightest offense in our normal day-to-day 
life. But we certainly can take somebody 
to court if they have stolen from us, if they have beaten 
us, if they've abused us or attacked us, or they've done some horrific 
thing. The Bible doesn't condemn seeking 
redress in the criminal courts for criminal activity. And then 
as well, John Gill makes this observation with reference to 
the Matthew 5 text. He says, which must not be understood 
in the strictest sense, as though it was not lawful to take an 
oath upon any occasion, in an affair of moment, in a solemn, 
serious manner, and in the name of God, which may be safely done, 
but of rash swearing about trivial matters and by the creatures. When you look at the Old Testament, 
you'll see that several of the saints of God took oaths. You 
see Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Elijah, and Nehemiah. The law itself 
required oaths, as we've seen in our study thus far. And then 
in the New Testament, you see the Lord Jesus took an oath. 
Look at Matthew chapter 26. Matthew chapter 26. When alighted 
upon by the high priest, Jesus affirmed. He didn't say, well, 
I'm in a New Covenant arena and, you know, oath-taking is wrong 
and you shouldn't say such things. Before the Sanhedrin in chapter 
26 at verse 62, And the high priest arose and said to him, 
Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify 
against you? But Jesus kept silent, and the 
high priest answered and said to him, I put you under oath 
by the living God. Tell us if you are the Christ, 
the Son of God. Jesus said to him, It is as you 
said. That's an affirmation of an oath. 
He took an oath. You can't escape that implication. Again, he doesn't say, well, 
you know, my yes is my yes, and my no is my no, and whatever 
I say in this new covenant era. This was a matter of wait and 
moment. This was a matter of some degree 
of seriousness. He's standing before the highest 
court in Israel at that particular time, and he's put under oath. 
I put you under oath by the living God. Tell us if you are the Christ, 
the Son of God. And then turn to the book of 
Revelation, Revelation chapter 10. As you're turning there, 
I should tell you that the book of Revelation uses the word angel 
in a threefold way. There are angels, as we typically 
understand angels, as those spirit beings that are made by God. 
They're not man, they're not God. They're creature, but they're 
spirit beings. So there's that class of other 
creatures that are not physical and material the way that you 
and I are. But then angel also is applied to the bishop or the 
overseer in the churches. So the angel is the one addressed 
in the seven letters to the churches of Asia Minor, to the angel of 
the church at Ephesus, right. So the angel there uses, the 
translation is messenger. But then angel is also applied 
to our Lord Jesus Christ. He's the messenger of the covenant 
extraordinaire. And so in Revelation chapter 
10 notice in verse 5, and the sea and the things that 
are in it, that there should be delay no longer." I take that 
reference as angel to our Lord Jesus. You can turn to Revelation 
20 to see another application of the word angel to the Lord 
Jesus. In Revelation 20 in verse 1, 
Well, who is it that binds the devil? Who is it that binds Satan? Who is it that restrains Satan 
from engaging in his campaign to deceive the nations? It's 
the Lord Jesus Christ. He speaks of that in his gospel 
ministry. He talks about binding the strong 
man, and that's precisely what you see in this instance. So the Lord Jesus took oaths. 
The Lord God took an oath. Look at Hebrews chapter 6. Hebrews 
chapter 6. The argument simply is this. 
If oath-taking was wrong, if oath-taking was no longer binding 
in this new covenant era, then we would not have positive examples 
of persons taking oaths. We would not see that sort of 
a corroboration of the ancient practice of oath-taking. Notice 
in Hebrews chapter 6, specifically at verse 13, for when God made 
a promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no one greater, 
he swore by himself. Now, people will say, well, that's 
different. God's swearing by himself. It is different, but 
it's not different. If swearing is wrong, if swearing 
is condemned by Jesus in Matthew 5, 33 to 37, then it has to positively 
be wrong here, too. So you cannot live with contradictions 
or apparent contradictions, you've got to try to solve those things. 
You've got to try to reconcile. And the best approach is to see 
Matthew 5, 33 to 37, applying to the normal everyday situations 
that men find themselves in. It's not dealing with matters 
of wait and moment. When we turn to matters of wait 
and moment in the scripture, we see Jesus take an oath. We 
see Jesus swear an oath. And here, with reference to a 
matter of wait and moment, we see God swear an oath. For when 
God made a promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no 
one greater, he swore by himself, saying, Surely, blessing, I will 
bless you, and multiplying, I will multiply you. And so after he 
had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear 
by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end 
of all dispute. Very positive statement, very 
affirming statement, very much consistent with what we find 
in our Confessions articulation of the place of the oath. It 
says, Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs 
of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by 
an oath. Now, when we swear an oath, we 
do it for us. When God swears an oath, He does 
it for us. He's not doing it as if there's 
any potential liability in terms of his keeping to this particular 
oath. He swears this oath for the benefit 
of his people. It's kind of like in Genesis 
chapter 15, when he makes that promise to Abraham that Abraham's 
going to have a lot of land and a lot of seed. And Abraham basically 
says, well, how do I know that this is true? And God says, get 
the animals, split them in two, put them on either side, and 
then God walks through or God goes through those pieces. And 
the significance of that ceremony is that if the covenant initiator, 
the covenant maker, does not hold fast to that covenant, then 
whatever happened to these animals must happen to him. So God doesn't 
do that because there might be in God a potential to not do 
it. He does it for Abraham. He does it to encourage his friend. And in this particular context, 
he does these oaths or he takes this oath not for him as if there's 
some liability within him to renege on this, but he does it 
for us. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the 
heirs a promise, the immutability of his counsel confirmed it by 
an oath, that by two immutable things in which it is impossible 
for God to lie, we might have strong consolation who have fled 
for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. And then 
as well, the apostle Paul took oaths. You can turn to Romans 
chapter one. Romans chapter 1. Again, if the argument is that 
in this new covenant setting, Matthew 5, 33-37, invalidates 
any oath taking whatsoever, it's hard to explain why there's oath 
taking in the Lord Jesus, in God Most High, and in the Apostle 
Paul. Notice in Romans chapter 1 verse 
9, for God is my witness. Why is he invoking God as his 
witness? Because everything that he's 
saying is affirmed by oath, whom I serve with my spirit in the 
gospel of his son, that without ceasing I make mention of you 
always in my prayers. Look at 2 Corinthians chapter 
1. 2 Corinthians chapter 1, same sort of emphasis, matters of 
weight, And moment. 2 Corinthians 1, verse 23. Moreover, I call God as witness 
against my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth. Philippians 1, verse 8. For God is my witness. How greatly I long for you all 
with the affection of Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 2. 1 Thessalonians 
2, verses 5 and 10. For neither at any time did we 
use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak for covetousness. God is witness." And then in 
verse 10, you are witnesses in God also, how devoutly and justly 
and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe. I have 
no doubt that in the civil courts in the Roman Empire, when the 
Apostle appears before the various magistrates, had they made him 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help him God, he would have done that, because 
they were matters of wait and moment. so that every day, day 
in normal sort of relational life that we live we don't have 
to swear on a stack of Bibles, we don't have to swear on the 
gold that was involved in the temple, we don't have to swear 
on those things let your yes be yes and your no be no but 
in matters of weight and moment it is perfectly acceptable and 
legitimate to take oaths to demonstrate the validity of the testimony 
that you're going to give Any questions or comments there about 
the oath and its appropriateness? All right, notice in paragraph 
4, it just gives some specifics. So the basically doctrinal presentation 
in paragraphs 1 to 3, and then the practical or mechanical application 
in paragraph 4. An oath is to be taken in the 
plain and common sense of the words without equivocation or 
mental reservation. That should go without saying. 
An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the 
words without equivocation or mental reservation. You get this 
with, you know, technicalities. You get this with, oh, I thought 
you meant the cookie jar that was sitting over there. I thought 
you meant, you know, those sort of technicalities that people 
engage in when they try to sort of wriggle their way out of a 
situation. The emphasis here is that an 
oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the word. 
We're not supposed to try to use some technicality in the 
law to justify our sinfulness or our deception. And then without 
equivocation or mental reservation. So that's the mechanics. Now 
the vow in paragraph 5, remember the vow is a solemn promise to 
God. It says, a vow which is not to 
be made to any creature but to God alone is to be made and performed 
with all religious care and faithfulness. So with the oath, it's an oath 
that I'm making to another individual before the Lord God Almighty. 
When it comes to a vow, I'm making that to God Most High, and I 
am restricted. I'm not supposed to make a vow 
to any creature but to God alone. And when it's made, it's to be 
made and performed with all religious care and faithfulness. So everything 
that was said about the oath is applicable with reference 
to the vow. Now, when it comes to this, you see in scripture 
as well, 1 Samuel chapter 1, Psalm 76, and then look at Ecclesiastes 
5. Ecclesiastes 5 is a good warning 
passage concerning the place of the vow in the religious life. Ecclesiastes chapter 5. specifically 
at verses four and five. See, sometimes people use the 
vow as a means of sanctification. You know, they have a sin in 
their life, and they rightly and correctly want to deal with 
that particular sin. And so they resolve, and perhaps 
they don't keep that resolution. And then they get serious, and 
they're going to vow to God that they will never do that particular 
sin again. Well, be very careful about your 
vows to God. I'm not telling you to hedge 
your bet and not keep the door open so that you can sin. But 
you may be compounding sin by more sin. If you look specifically 
at Ecclesiastes 5, verse 4, when you make a vow to God, do not 
delay to pay it. For he has no pleasure in fools. 
Pay what you have vowed. Better not to vow than to vow 
and not pay. It's a good principle that should 
again alert us to the gravity of the situation. Turn over to 
the book of Acts in Acts chapter 18. Acts chapter 18, the apostle 
Paul does something that underscores the validity of the vow. Acts chapter 18, let me see here. Yes, verse 18, sorry. So Paul 
still remained a good while, then he took leave of the brethren 
and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He 
had his hair cut off at Centuria, for he had taken a vow. Again, 
he makes this vow to God concerning a religious observance, and he 
is going to be consistent with that. Hodge comments, when the 
matter of the vow is not unlawful but morally indifferent, the 
vow is binding. But experience abundantly proves 
that to accumulate such obligations is very injurious. The Word of God in the Scriptures 
imposes upon us by His authority all that it is His will or for 
our interest for us to observe. He's commenting on what the paragraph 
says. A vow which is not to be made 
to any creature, but to God alone, is to be made and performed with 
all religious care and faithfulness." Don't enter into these things 
rashly. Don't enter into these things 
with, you know, this is just sort of a resolution, or this 
is just an effort that I'm going to make. No, it's better not 
to vow than to vow and not to pay. And so there is a weightiness 
involved. And then there's a specific application 
to an ecclesiastical environment. But popish, that refers to Roman 
Catholic, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed 
poverty, and regular obedience are so far from being degrees 
of higher perfection that they are superstitious and sinful 
snares. in which no Christian may entangle 
himself." Now, for those of you who have not come out of Roman 
Catholicism, those of us who have been involved in Roman Catholicism 
know exactly what they're talking about here. The Popish monastical 
vows of perpetual single life. There are the priests. I've heard 
there's nothing anywhere written that forbids priests from getting 
married. I think I've heard that, but 
it's probably one of the most powerful unwritten rules that 
the Roman Catholic Church has. I mean, you could travel from 
Dan to Beersheba all throughout this earth, four corners, and 
not find a priest that's married. So there's this sort of supposition 
or assumption that the single life is more godly. The single 
life is more holy. The single life is more righteous, 
and therefore, as a single person, you're better able to serve the 
Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, usually 1 Corinthians 7 
is the go-to passage for that. The apostle essentially says 
that, you know, a man who's seeking to please his wife isn't as concentrated 
on the kingdom of God. But Paul highlights the reality 
that Paul had been given a gift. Celibacy or incontinence is a 
gift. It's not something that you can 
conjure up. It's not something that you make. 
It's not something that you just pray for and get. I guess you 
could pray for it and potentially get it, but I'm hard pressed 
to see that every man that entered into the Roman Catholic priesthood 
had that gift. So if you've got that gift, then 
you can serve without any sort of division. But for those who 
don't have the gift, guess what God's answer is? Get married. And when you turn to 1 Timothy 
chapter 3, what's the bishop? What's the elder? What's the 
overseer? What is unique to that particular man? He's the husband 
of one woman. He manages his own household 
effectively or well. If he can't take care of his 
own, or he can't manage his own household, how can he take care 
of the Church of God? I don't think Paul mandates that 
elders should be married, but I think elders that are married 
have a leg up in terms of being able to speak to practical issues 
concerning the people of God. It was quite common in the first 
century for the Jewish religious leaders to be married. Some suppose 
that Paul himself would have been married. It was typical 
for a rabbi, a trained rabbi, functioning in that particular 
context, to have been a married man. Some suggest she either 
died or she left him when he became a Christian, and God gives 
him the grace or the gift that he no longer needs a wife. Now, 
you know, I think F.F. Bruce makes the case from Philippians 
chapter 3, what things were gain I now count loss. He puts his 
wife In that category, she did not believe on the Messiah. She 
did not believe on Jesus, so perhaps she left him. Or perhaps 
he was a widower. But it would have been commonplace 
in the first century for a religious leader, a Jewish rabbi, to have 
been married. That's just the way it is. So 
back to the confession. Popish monastical vows of perpetual 
single life. That's an ungodly vow. That's 
an unholy vow. That's an unwarranted vow. You're 
not supposed to swear that when God has said that it's good to 
be married. Turn to 1 Timothy chapter 4. 
1 Timothy chapter 4. Not sure how this Roman Catholic 
emphasis ever arose in light of 1 Timothy chapter 4. Verse 
one, now the Spirit expressly says, and they say that Peter 
was the first pope. Remember in Jesus' ministry, 
Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. So if the first pope, according 
to Roman Catholic dogma, was a married man, why should all 
the underlings be forbidden of having a wife as well? In fact, 
the Apostle extols the goodness of God in the fact that Peter 
was able to bring along a believing wife when he went on his missionary 
endeavors or visiting other churches. Notice in 1 Timothy 4.1, now 
the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart 
from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines 
of demons, speaking lies and hypocrisy, having their own conscience 
seared with hot iron. So I've mentioned before that 
sort of prepares you for like, you know, horrible things. I 
mean, what are these doctrines of demons? Is it ax murder? Is 
it child rape? Is it, you know, what kind of 
sins are involved here? I mean, doctrines of demons, 
speaking lies and hypocrisy. Notice verse three, forbidding 
to marry. That's a doctrine of demons. 
Why? Because God in his goodness gave 
marriage. We saw it yesterday, Genesis 
chapter 2, 18 and following. It's not good for the man to 
be alone. So God makes a wife and brings 
her to him. It's a blessed provision from 
God most high. It's a blessed provision from 
the Lord most high. And commanding to abstain from 
foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by 
those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of 
God is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it is received 
with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God 
and prayer." So this popish monastical vow of a perpetual single life 
is wrong. But then notice it goes on to 
say professed poverty. Professed poverty. I don't think 
gospel ministers should be, you know, living high on the hog 
and having private planes and, you know, summer mansions and 
all that sort of thing. But do they need to live in huts? 
Do they need to wear no shoes when everybody in their church 
is covered in Air Jordans? I mean, this isn't godly. It could be ungodly to be proud 
of your professed poverty. So, the Bible that prohibits, 
you know, living lavishly and being immoderate when it comes 
to riches and resources, doesn't condone a man living, it doesn't 
condone a man enjoying the fruits of his labor. You know, 1 Timothy 
chapter 5, look at verse 17, let the elders who rule well 
be counted worthy of double honor. In the context, honor isn't your 
right reverend sir, it's not doctor whoever, it's not the 
best parking spot, it's payment. Look at verse 3 in the same chapter, 
honor widows who are really widows. That doesn't mean give them the 
best seat, it means give them money. Help them to buy food, 
help them to buy clothes, help them to buy the things that they 
need. Honor these widows. There's specifications as to 
the honors who make it on the list. Notice in verses 9 and 
10. But then when we drop down to verse 17, the idea of honor 
means to financially remunerate them, to pay them. And notice 
what the apostle says, let the elders who rule well be counted 
worthy of double honor. In other words, if a man works 
hard, pay him for his hard work, especially those who labor in 
the word and doctrine. And brethren, this is not an 
appeal for a raise. I always hate doing these kinds 
of tax because, oh, Butler's got this passive-aggressive backdoor 
commitment to enrich his own bank. That's not it at all. That's 
not the point. We're arguing against this professed 
poverty. There's nothing godly about professed 
poverty. There's nothing godly about this 
single life. It's not as if God really approves 
of you if you're single. He really approves of you if 
you're impoverished. That's just not Bible. That's 
not even common sense. That's wretched. And then notice 
the grounding. The apostle doesn't just say, 
let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, 
especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. But notice 
where he goes to validate this. 4, the scripture says, you shall 
not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. One of those case 
laws of Moses is brought into a new covenant environment, and 
it is applied to gospel ministry. If the ox is threshing out the 
grain, let him eat while he's doing that. Don't forbid him 
or prohibit him, that's going to dishearten him and destroy 
him. But he not only appeals to the 
book of Deuteronomy, he also appeals to the Lord Jesus in 
Luke chapter 10. Notice, the laborer is worthy 
of his wages. It is a principle. So when we 
look at this confession of faith and we compare it to the Roman 
Catholic Church, those are not righteous vows. Better to not 
vow than to vow and not be able to carry it out, but especially 
better not to vow when it's something that the Lord God does not commend, 
the Lord God does not say, yes, if you do this, you're going 
to be all the better. Go back to chapter 22. in our 
confession, and notice what paragraph one says, it says, the light 
of nature shows that there is a God who hath lordship and sovereignty 
over all, is just, good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore 
to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and 
served with all the heart, and all the soul, and with all the 
might, but the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is 
instituted by himself. So the light of nature, general 
revelation declares that God is. declares that as God's creatures 
we should worship Him. But the means or manner by which 
we worship is instituted by Himself. General Revelation doesn't dictate 
for us all of the elements involved in corporate worship. So the 
acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by 
Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will. that he may 
not be worshipped, notice, according to the imaginations and devices 
of men." That's what these Popish monastical vows are. They are 
imaginations and devices of men. It's somehow more holy to be 
single. It's somehow more holy to be poor. Now, again, you can 
have problems as a married man. You can have problems as a man 
who's not poor. There's certainly temptations 
in both of those spheres. But to say you can't do that 
goes over and above what scripture says. And then to somehow condone 
sort of a life of singlehood or singleness and poverty as 
being better than somebody who's married and somebody who has 
money is wicked. So it is the imaginations and 
devices of men. And if you turn to Colossians 
chapter 2, you see that fleshed out, no pun intended. Colossians chapter 2, verse 20. Therefore, if you died with Christ 
from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living 
in the world, do you subject yourself to regulations? He's 
dealing with what's called asceticism in religion. Asceticism is sort 
of like those popish monastical vows. It's godly to not go near 
a woman. It's godly to not go near a stack 
of cash. It's godly to not eat meat on 
a Friday. It's godly to do those sorts 
of things. So asceticism is caught up in 
externals and forms that suggest that by avoiding those things, 
we're somehow holy or righteous before God. Now, obviously that 
does great disservice to the doctrine of justification by 
faith, but as well in the life of sanctification. Sanctification 
is not about taking on things that the Bible doesn't condemn, 
or doing those things that are contrary to the Word of God. 
We're not smarter than God, brethren. We're not to be more fastidious 
than God. If God says it's good to have 
a wife, and it's good to eat a big fat steak, then it's not 
holy to resist the wife or the state. That's just the devil's 
logic. So look at what he says. If you 
died with Christ, you've been conquered by sovereign grace, 
you've been justified freely by grace, from the basic principles 
of the world, why is the living in the world do you subject yourselves 
to regulations? Do not touch, do not taste, do 
not handle. Now there are some things obviously 
that are sin that you shouldn't touch, you shouldn't taste, and 
you shouldn't handle. But those things that are not 
sin are perfectly acceptable. A wife, a husband, a stake, those 
things are not forbidden by our gracious God. Notice, which all 
concern things which perish with the using, according to the commandments 
and doctrines of men. Now notice the commentary in 
verse 23, these things indeed have an appearance of wisdom 
in self-imposed religion. There's a bit in Spurgeon where 
he talks about the Roman Catholic priest that was emaciated. He 
was super skinny. And Spurgeon has this bit how 
he thinks that that fellow thought he was super holy. And Spurgeon's 
whole thing was, no, he was super bony and just looked like he 
needed to eat something. That's not godliness. It's not 
righteousness. But Paul affirms these things 
indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion. I mean, that proclivity is there, 
that guy's given up everything to serve the Lord, how holy is 
that? But does that mean the guy who 
hasn't given up everything to serve the Lord is somehow less 
holy? Not everybody has the same circumstances 
or situations. Not everybody is in the same 
arena. If you have stuff, that doesn't 
necessarily make you any unholier than the guy who has no stuff. 
It has the appearance, well, you know, the skeletal fellow 
must be the godlier of the two. Well, why? Why is that? Because 
we think that somehow religion is advanced by not eating cheeseburgers? That seems to really relegate 
religion to a place of just, you know, the here and now that 
has no sort of tap roots in scripture. So he says, these things indeed 
have an appearance of wisdom and self-imposed religion, false 
humility, and neglect of the body. But look at what he says. 
But are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. So back 
to the confession. When it points out these errors 
or abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, for those of you who've 
not been sort of exposed to that, Part of the holiness, part of 
the sanctity, part of the respect paid to the priesthood was just 
that. Well, they're guys that gave 
up wives. They're guys that gave up money. 
They're holier. They're better than us. Well, 
Paul says, no, they're not. And so in this passage, or in 
this section of the Confession, it shows us that those things 
are not lawful, and therefore we're not supposed to entangle 
ourselves in it. So regular obedience are so far 
from being degrees of higher perfection that they are superstitious 
and sinful snares in which no Christian may entangle himself. 
Now, brethren, don't think for a moment that the Protestants 
haven't aped this, that this is only a Roman Catholic abuse. Protestants have done the same 
thing with their seasons of fasting, and it's not wrong to fast, it's 
not wrong to pray, it's not wrong to do religious things. It's 
a perfectly legitimate expression. But to hold that up, you know, 
I fast three times a week, or I tithe of all that I possess, 
it sounds pharisaical and self-righteous. But there's been that sort of 
movement. In fact, it's interesting that they use the language of 
higher perfection. Because later on in the history 
of the church, there would be the Christian perfectionist movement. There would be those persons 
that would teach that you can achieve perfection on this side 
of glory. Now, brethren, if you've got 
any intimacy with the Bible, you'll know that's just not the 
case. And so this emphasis is not simply applied or simply 
confined, rather, to the Church of Rome, but Protestants have 
embroiled themselves in it as well. I remember years ago there 
was a particular religious teacher And he thought that the single 
life was it. I mean, the single life was the 
better life. He was Protestant, professing Protestant religion. 
And he had great influence over a whole lot of people. Turns 
out a couple years ago, he was defraud for very inappropriate 
behavior towards women. You see, when you deny what God 
has actually given in terms of the legitimate expression of 
your sexuality, when you say that that is sinful and wrong 
and you prohibit people from doing that, if they don't have 
the gift of celibacy, they're gonna spend that sexuality elsewhere. they're going to engage in things 
that are unlawful. I think it is a gross, gross, 
gross abomination in terms of religion or Christianity to bring 
to bear upon people the kinds of things that God not only doesn't 
condemn, but God speaks positively of. He's not against you being 
married, He's not against you eating a steak. So in this In 
this particular chapter, we see an emphasis on the sanctity of 
truth. In Numbers 30, it says, if a 
man makes a vow to the Lord or swears an oath to bind himself 
by some agreement, he shall not break his word. He shall do according 
to all that proceeds out of his mouth. So in personal relations, 
our dealings with one another, family situations, ecclesiastical 
commitments, business dealings, political matters. The principle 
of let your yes be yes and your no be no is certainly true. When 
it comes to matters of weight and moment, when it's a time 
to engage in oaths or vows, we certainly engage in those things 
correctly. And then we remember that the 
righteous man of Psalm 15, he swears to his own hurt and does 
not change. There's an expression of this 
or an application of this in the book of Joshua. Remember 
the Gibeonites, they come and they bring up this tale, they're 
afraid of the Israelites, so they make it sound like they've 
come from a long way and they just want to be their servants 
and that sort of thing. Turns out they hadn't come from 
a long way. But before they knew that, they had made an oath to 
them that they would have safe harbor within the confines of 
Israel. But when they find out that they'd 
been duped, when they find out that they'd been lied to, they 
don't renege. They don't break their oath. 
The Gibeonites can be the woodcutters and the water carriers. They 
don't cut them off. They don't disenfranchise them. And then the final application 
is consistent with what we saw on Wednesday night as we work 
our way through the civil laws of Moses. Exodus chapter 23, 
we see specific instructions in verses 1 to 3 to people, verses 
4 and 5, sort of a general ethic for all the people of the nation. 
But then 6 to 9 is to the judges. six to nine is to the judges 
in Israel, and they are forbidden from perverting justice, they 
are forbidden from punishing the innocent, they are forbidden 
from taking bribes, and they are forbidden from oppressing 
the stranger. Why? Because the stability of 
the civil order depends upon good judges, men that speak the 
truth, but the stability of the civil order also depends on good 
witnesses, people that speak the truth, people that take seriously 
oaths and vows, and understand the implications involved with 
them. So may God give us, as his people, 
a desire to speak the truth, but may that extend to the world 
around us so that society isn't jeopardized with lies and deception. 
Well, I'll close in a word of prayer, and if there's any questions, 
we can deal with those. Our God and Father, we thank 
you that you are, as the psalmist says, the Lord God of truth, 
and we pray that you would help us to be committed equally to 
that truth, help us to love your word, to meditate upon it day 
and night, and may it be the case, God in heaven, that the 
church would be marked by veracity, by a commitment to truth, by 
commitments and those things that are necessary in the life 
of God's people. We pray for this present evil 
age. We pray for judges, those in authority. We pray for those 
involved in the jurisprudence system. We just pray, God in 
heaven, that honesty and that stability would be involved in 
these things. And we ask, in the name of the 
Lord Jesus Christ,