← Back to sermon library

You can turn in your confessions 
to chapter 23. We're on the chapter of lawful 
oaths and vows. Chapter 23, it's a smaller chapter, 
five paragraphs. Touching on the lawful use of 
oaths and vows, and just before we, well, we'll get into that 
after we read it. I'll read the first five paragraphs, 
which is the first five. That's the entirety of the chapter. 
I'll read all five paragraphs, and we'll have just a tiny bit 
of introduction, and then we'll look at the content of these. 
these paragraphs. So, chapter 23, 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 true, 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. So it's an interesting, you might 
think it an interesting chapter to be included in a confession 
of faith. There is biblical warrant for 
its inclusion and there is contextual warrant at the time of the writing 
of the confession there in the 17th century to include it. We'll 
look at some of the obvious biblical background to a lawful use of 
oaths and vows as we work through the content, but just In the 
context, there are a number of things going on. One of them 
we see in paragraph 5 with regards to the popish monastical vows, 
professed poverty, and regular obedience. These unlawful things 
that the Roman Catholic Church was engaged in and still is engaged 
in, that are not proper but are rather superstitious and sinful 
snares. So we have the context of the 
Roman Catholic Church. We also have the context of the 
Church of England and an unlawful imposition by the state upon 
the consciences of men in the swearing of oaths and vows that 
they ought not to swear as free citizens. So there's some context 
there with regards to the Church of England, and of course the 
nonconformist opposition to the state imposing their will upon 
the body politic. And then also there is the charge 
against the Baptists, the particular Baptists, that they were Anabaptists. The Anabaptists and the Quakers 
rejected oaths and vows outright. And so, like they were doing 
in the first confession of faith, and now here in the second, the 
Baptists are arguing that they're not to be aligned with, they're 
not to be seen as those Anabaptists, but rather they are in line with 
the Westminsterites and the Savoyans with regards to a proper recognition 
of biblical oaths and vows and the reformed understanding of 
them. So, that's sort of the context. There's also an intimate 
confessional link to the previous two chapters. First off, with 
regards to Christian liberty, freedom of conscience, or Christian 
liberty and the freedom of the conscience, as we just spoke 
with regards to state imposition upon the minds of its body politic, 
God is Lord of the conscience, not the state, not the Pope of 
Rome, not the King or Queen of England. And so there's an intimate 
link between the chapter 21 on Christian liberty with regards 
to chapter 23, the lawful, a taking of lawful oaths and vows. There's 
also a link between chapter 22 of religious worship and this 
chapter because the very first clause is a lawful oath is a 
part of religious worship. So there's a linking between 
oaths and vows and the worship of the triune God. We would also 
go back to chapter 19, where it speaks about the perpetuity 
of the moral law as binding upon all men and all ages. And so 
the third commandment, to not use the Lord's name in vain, 
and the ninth commandment, thou shalt not bear false witness, 
are intimately connected to the taking of oaths and vows, the 
lawful and unlawful taking of oaths and vows. And then we would 
want to include chapter two, where it speaks about God and 
about his divine perfections, because when in the taking of 
an oath or a vow we invoke the name of God, that which is to 
be hallowed and held in all holy fear and reverence, the name 
of God carries with it the recognition of his divine perfections. And so when we make an oath and 
when we take an oath, the gravity and the sincerity and the seriousness 
of it has to do with the one to whom we are, before whom we're 
making an oath or the one to whom we are making a vow. And 
so I think those four chapters are of significant import to 
this particular chapter on lawful oaths and vows. So first we're 
just going to kind of work through each paragraph to observe some 
things as they pertain to lawful oaths and vows. In the first 
paragraph, we could title the definition of an oath. We see 
there a simple definition of what an oath is. A lawful oath 
is a part of religious worship wherein the person swearing in 
truth, righteousness, and judgment solemnly calleth God to witness 
what he sweareth and to judge him according to the truth or 
falseness thereof. And so we already noted the third 
commandment. You can also open your Bibles 
to the book of Deuteronomy for a moment as we see the reality 
of O's, the legitimacy of them, but also the weightiness. It's 
the language that paragraphs two and three use. The weightiness 
of the matter when it comes to the taking of O. So first in 
Deuteronomy 6, and you'll notice there, At verse 13, you shall 
fear the Lord your God and serve Him and shall take oaths in His 
name. You shall not go after other 
gods, the gods of the peoples who are all around you. For the 
Lord your God is a jealous God among you. Lest the anger of 
the Lord your God be aroused against you and destroy you from 
the face of the earth. So we see here the taking of 
oaths in the name of God, and then it's immediately followed 
by the jealousy of God against idolatrous worship, or against 
the worship of other gods. There's a connection there where, 
of course, those perhaps wrapped up in syncretism or stolen away 
to the exclusive worship of idols were obviously swearing in the 
name of an idol and not in the name of the living and true God. 
And so the nation of Israel, God's holy own, are to swear 
by his name and no other. This argues for, you can turn 
to Deuteronomy 10, it argues for the legitimacy of vows, but 
also for the weightiness of the matter in the fact that God alone 
is to be called upon as a witness to an oath. Notice in Deuteronomy 
10 at verse 20, you shall fear the Lord your God and shall serve 
him, and to him you shall hold fast and take oaths in his name. I like the following language, 
he is your praise and he is your God who has done for you these 
great and awesome things which your eyes have seen. And so the 
legitimacy of vows and also the weightiness of them and the fact 
that it is God alone, the one and only living and true God 
who is to be called as a witness to the lawfulness and the truthfulness 
of an oath taken to men. So we see there the definition 
of an oath. The New Testament confirms the 
legitimacy of oaths. So we would say against this 
Anabaptist charge that perhaps, okay, that, you know, that's 
just an old covenant thing. In this new covenant, we are 
free from the, you know, the, were free from the taking of 
oaths and vows. Hebrews 6.16, that whole discourse 
with regards to the taking of an oath, the promise of God, 
God swearing by His own name and therefore His own divine 
perfections, you know, the legitimacy of oath and vow taking in the 
New Testament is argued for there. It's argued for elsewhere by 
the Apostle Paul in at least two places, 2 Corinthians and 
in Romans, where he calls God as his witness to bear to the 
truthfulness of the thing that he is saying to the church in 
Corinth and to the recipients of the Book of Romans. Anabaptists, I believe, and the 
Quakers probably use the same argument. It's a misunderstanding 
of Christ's language in Matthew 5. And also, James picks up the 
same language in the book of James. And we'll look at that 
in a number of moments. But we have both Old Testament 
and New Testament speaking to the legitimacy of vows. We want 
to note, secondly, the sanctity and weightiness of oaths. Notice 
paragraph 2. First off, with regards to the 
name of God, 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. With all holy fear and reverence. The confession will go on to 
speak about oaths and vows, or oaths taken in a vain and in 
a rash manner. Part of that not only is on the 
onus being upon the taker of the oath and the vow, but the 
emphasis and the weight lands upon the name by which oaths 
are sworn, the name of God. flippantly and just easily use 
that language, I swear to God. With regards to the smallest 
of matters, and usually when they're lying, but also even 
just in insignificant matters also, where their emphasis isn't 
upon truth, but perhaps upon their own reputation and covering 
their own sin. But all of that to come back 
to this, that the name of God is to be employed with holy fear 
and reverence, and it is only in the name of God that oaths 
are to be taken. What we will see in a moment 
here that and we'll see from the Bible, that men at the time 
of Christ were swearing by everything other than the name of God. They 
were swearing by the temple, they were swearing by the altar, 
they were swearing by the gold that is on the altar and all 
these sorts of things, rather than swearing by the name of 
God. What do you think that would 
do? If someone is swearing an oath 
and they're not using the name of God, most likely it's because 
A, they don't want the weight of the guilt when they don't 
follow through on it or if they're not truthfully engaging in it 
to come down upon them having sworn in the name of God. So 
if they swear by the temple, maybe that's a lesser thing. 
but also they will have, they can find recourse in a sense 
to somehow wriggle out of the oath and those sorts of things. 
So the name of God is only that by which men ought to swear, 
and not only that, but it is to be used then with all holy 
fear and reverence. This goes back to the third commandment, 
and it goes back, of course, to just the recognition of the 
name of God. When we recognize the name of 
God, and going further back, when God reveals his name in 
the scripture, it's usually connected to works or divine perfection. So when we're recognizing the 
name of God and when we use the name of God in the swearing of 
an oath or the giving of a vow, we are recognizing at the same 
time the divine perfections of God, His holiness, His justice, 
His omnipresence and His omniscience, because we're swearing before 
God, recognizing that He's the God who is the heart searcher. 
He's the God who sees the intents of the heart. He knows. And so, 
In this vein, Owen wrote, the name of God is, in scripture, 
said to be that whereby he makes himself known, as his name is, 
so is he. In the name of God, all the attributes 
of God are contained. Think of that, in the name of 
God, all the attributes of God are contained. This is why it 
is so weighty a matter. When we enter into, when we're 
thinking about entering into an oath or a vow, whereby we 
swear by the name of God, It's not something to be entered into 
vainly, rashly, or lightly because of the weightiness of the name 
of God and all that is included in that, His divine perfections. And so the confession rightly 
with biblical warrant and against contemporary abuses writes, the 
name of God only is that by which men ought to swear and it is 
to be used with all holy fear and reverence. And they go on 
to write, therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that, notice, 
glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other 
thing is sinful and to be abhorred." And you can see the text that 
it brings up here. You can turn to Matthew 5 with 
me. The proof text that the confession includes here with regards to 
that is in Matthew 5. And when you get there, you can 
go to verse 33, because this touches not only upon the content 
of our immediate concern in this paragraph, but also upon the 
wrong interpretation of the Anabaptists and their opposition, their wholesale 
opposition to the use of vows. Notice in Matthew 5, beginning 
at verse 33, again, you have heard that it was said to those 
of old, 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, nor by earth, 
for it is his footstool, nor by Jerusalem, 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. Christ is dealing with contemporaneously 
an abuse of oaths such that people were swearing to the truthfulness 
of every statement. Rather than oaths and vows being 
reserved for matters of worship or matters of weightiness and 
high importance, it was just commonplace to append an oath 
to every statement made. I swear that I'll clean the floor 
tomorrow. I swear by the gold of the temple 
that I won't overcook your breakfast. These sorts of trivialities and 
frivolities with regards to just the light use of oaths and vows. In matters of simple day-to-day 
parlance and conversation and human engagement, Christ is saying 
just let your yes be yes and your no, no. Just speak the truth. The simple truthfulness and integrity 
of our language used shouldn't require oaths. We should just 
speak with respect to the ninth commandment. Thou shalt not bear 
false witness. We should just be as image bearers 
of a holy God, those who simply speak verity and truth without 
the need to call down God as our witness to the truthfulness 
of a statement. I think Peter is an example of 
one who uses, well, that's a different example, we'll get to it in a 
moment, because obviously he's lying in that case. You see, 
it's wrong to obviously swear by an oath when you're lying, 
it's also unnecessary and wrong to swear by an oath for those 
things that are light and frivolous and trivial. That's why the Confession 
speaks here when it writes, 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 have 
this vain or rash, vainly or rashly taken oaths on the one 
side, which are not to be taken, but then you have matters of 
wait and moment for confirmation of truth. We can think about 
the court of law. That statement, which I think 
with regards to its verbatim expression, probably goes back 
to the 16th or 17th centuries. I swear to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. It's a good statement. It's a 
weighty and significant statement. When someone's guilt or innocence 
hinges upon the taking of an oath, well, hinges upon the truthfulness 
of the statement, and the seriousness is such that it calls for an 
oath, an oath is therefore to be taken. That's the essence 
of the last set of number of clauses at the end there. That 
statement, you're to tell the whole truth, a general statement 
with regards to speaking the truth, To tell the truth is the 
general statement about telling the truth in that instance, in 
the taking of an oath. The whole truth. You're to speak 
it extensively, but also not to omit anything. And nothing 
but the truth. You're not to introduce falsehoods 
or embellishments. So help me God, then, is calling 
God to witness the truthfulness of your statement. And in essence, 
the so help me God is a curse, both a curse and an oath in the 
sense that you're calling a curse down upon yourself, so help me 
God, if if what you're saying is false, if you're giving false 
testimony. And then you're also confirming 
the truthfulness by using that as an oath to do just that, calling 
upon God to witness the truthfulness of the statement made. So no 
vain, do not swear vainly or rashly, but in matters of wait 
and moment do swear by the holy, fearful, and reverent name of 
God. Paragraph three speaks to the 
necessary care taken in oaths. the necessary care taken and 
owes, notice the language, 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 true for that by rash, thank you so much. For that by rash, 
false, and vain oaths the Lord is provoked, and for them this 
land mourns. It's an interesting use of language, 
you know, drawing it legitimately from the Bible, but the people, 
the particular Baptists at that time, the Independents and some 
of the Presbyterians, saw that their land was polluted and corrupted, 
and therefore their land was mourning. because of the imposition 
of the state upon the consciences of men, but also because of the 
vain and the rash manner by which people were entering into oaths 
and vows in order to perhaps, you know, temporarily engage 
in alliances, political and religious alliances, though not with the 
full virtue of truth connected to those oaths and vows. So many 
ways in which, you know, false witness was being born or by 
engaging in particular only temporary, and the word escapes me, but 
faulty religious and political alliances for personal gain or 
for whatever the matter might be. Notice, warranted by the word 
of God are to consider the weightiness, I think we've already noted that, 
of so solemn an act, and to avouch nothing but what he knoweth to 
be true. You know, I think this goes back 
to one of the things Christ is getting at in Matthew 5, but 
also just at large, what we ought to have, whether or not we take 
an oath or a vow, is simply that we operate according to truth, 
that we don't lie. Even if there's not an oath connected, 
if somebody asks you to do something, or if you volunteer your services 
for something, and yeah, I'll do that, and you don't do it, 
we should have this. this in our minds, the weightiness 
of the matter, the seriousness of truth, and the seriousness 
of truth coming from the God of truth. We don't operate devoid 
of a God who exists, who has revealed himself in nature, providence 
and creation, and who has revealed himself specially in the word, 
who calls upon his image bearers to act in accordance to truth. 
Whether an oath or a vow is given or taken or not, we are to operate 
with regards to the weightiness and the solemnness of truth itself, 
but certainly the taking of an oath for a lawful matter, elevates 
it because we're now calling God as our witness upon a particular 
thing. And you can turn to Matthew 26, 
if you're still in Matthew, turn to Matthew 26 for a moment because 
we have an instance here with the Apostle Peter. And the language 
being used, I mean, perhaps some might think it's just that the 
language here is that, you know, Peter is just angrily using profane 
language, and that's not the case. Notice in this sort of 
the last denial here in verse 74 of Matthew 26, then he, Peter, 
began to curse and swear, saying, I do not know the man. So his 
final denial of the Lord Jesus Christ before, you know, the 
interrogations of a servant girl here, His final one, the language 
being used is he began to curse and swear. This isn't angry profane 
language like Peter is just frustrated after having been asked the third 
time and he's using four letter words because he's just frustrated 
and angry. He's calling down first what's 
called a self-maledictory curse upon himself. He's calling upon 
God to judge him if the following statement that he makes is false, 
I do not know the man. And he's, the swearing there 
is he's making an oath to the one asking, calling God as a 
witness to affirm the truthfulness of the statement. So it's a two-fold 
It's a two-fold horror and sin here that Peter is engaging in. 
He's calling a curse upon himself, knowing that what he's about 
to say is false, and he's asking God, essentially, to bear witness 
to the truthfulness of what he's about to say, though, of course, 
we know it's false. And so this is what the confession 
is getting at, not only vainly and rashly, but also when you're 
avouching something that you know isn't true. And in this 
case, something that you're saying yourself, something that Peter 
is saying himself. The necessary care taken in oaths, 
it can be such that haphazardly handling or vainly, rashly, falsely 
handling oaths and vows can bring a curse upon the land, can bring 
corruption and provocation amongst the body politic and those who 
govern it. Fourthly, the fourth paragraph, 
the necessary clarity in oaths. Notice paragraph four, it's a 
simple, quick paragraph. An oath is to be taken in the 
plain and common sense of the words without equivocation or 
mental reservation. These are two, those two things. Equivocation and mental reservation 
are common tactics employed professionally, but also just by individuals 
in a less official manner to wriggle out of the obligations 
of oaths and vows. So, you know, equivocation would 
be using unclear language, you know, the confession says to 
use plain and common sense in your words. Equivocation is essentially 
the opposite of that. Using vagaries, ambiguities, 
using sort of the twisting of words in an oath or a vow in 
order to, after the fact, you know, wriggle out of the obligations 
and those things that come with the swearing of that, with the 
swearing of that given oath. Mental reservation would be something 
where you deliver the oath in such a way that you can escape 
it afterwards because in your mind you're attaching a different 
meaning to a word or in your mind you're appending or prefixing 
the statement with another word. For example, if you were to say, 
I swear I did not see that man steal the car in a court case. You could, by mental reservation, 
be saying, I swear I did not see that man steal the car in 
the last hour. So in your own mind, with mental 
reservation, you're escaping the consequences of guilt, and 
you're somehow escaping the consequences of the God before whom you've 
asked to witness your particular statement. So that's an example. Another 
example of mental reservation might be where you're attaching 
a different meaning to the word. I did not commit treason. And in your definition of treason, 
what you did isn't included. But it clearly is. So those sorts 
of things are mental reservations. Not only is the oath to be taken 
in only matters of wait and moment, in the name of God, and in that, 
recognizing his perfections and using it with all holy fear and 
reverence, but you're to use, in the taking of an oath, plain 
and common sense, plain and common sense words, and not to engage 
in equivocation or mental reservation. And then with paragraph five, 
we see the proper care taken in vows. the proper care taken 
in vows. So they're now defining or they're 
now introducing vows. Beforehand, it had been about 
oaths. An oath is, as it says here, 
a person swearing in truth to another person or persons calling 
down God as their witness. Here you see vow is different. 
It's made not to any creature but to God alone. So an oath 
is made to man with God as witness. A vow is made to God alone, sometimes 
within the context of human witnesses. So 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. We'll talk about that in a moment. 
Well, let's talk about it now. Because I think there are practical 
examples You know, and maybe we could interchange oath and 
vows here right now, but the language of with all religious 
care and faithfulness. If we think about examples such 
as in church communion, I'm not talking about the taking of the 
Lord's Supper, but as we, you know, covenant together, as we 
are living together as a church, and specifically members of a 
church who have connected ourselves to a historic confession of faith, 
this language of religious care and maybe with emphasis on faithfulness 
is an important one. And maybe I need to move this 
more into the realm of the elders of churches because to say, to 
connect yourself to a confession of faith, and to say, and to 
identify as one who confesses, who subscribes that confession 
of faith, but then in practice, and in speech, and in writing, 
to deviate from the clauses and the articles and the truths contained 
in there, which are simply theological conclusions based upon the Bible, 
that is to cast yourself into the category as one who is operating 
unfaithfully according to your oath to subscribe to a particular, 
that was a long sentence, I know, but hopefully you get the weightiness 
of it. When a minister of the gospel We saw this in our own 
history as a church. When a minister of the gospel 
attaches himself to a confession of faith and thereby attaches 
himself to the clauses and the articles stated in there, the 
doctrine of God, the doctrine of Christ, every doctrine stated 
in the confession of faith, but then goes on to teach and to 
write and to argue against the very articles and the doctrines 
stated in the confession, but still holds to or says that he 
holds to that confession. That is to operate according 
to lie, according to falsehood, according to unfaithfulness. 
And so, Such a person needs to read this chapter, needs to read 
the relevant biblical portions of Holy Scripture, needs to weigh 
the weightiness of the matter, the weightiness of the name of 
God, the weightiness of observing and engaging in oaths with holy 
fear and reverence, and just be honest and say, okay, you 
know what? All right. I don't believe in this clause, 
this article. I actually am not truly subscribing 
to this. This is where I take exception 
or whatever it might be. But to say one thing and to do 
and say another is to fly against the weight and import of lawful 
oaths and vows in things that are of weight and moment. So 
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. 
Again, that care and faithfulness speaks to the not entering into 
such a thing with rashness, with haste, without considering the 
weightiness of the matter. We're not to take things lightly 
when we oath, when we vow, when we promise, when we say that 
we are going to do a thing. And then there's this but statement, 
and this is where the Roman Catholic Church is clearly in view. 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. So as they often do, they're 
coming up against the Roman Catholic Church and imposing or opposing 
their multitudinous errors and faults and sins and superstitions. You know, popish monastical vows, 
obviously in view there, monastical vows, but the priest's vows of 
celibacy are in view there and other vows that are made. It's 
not only celibacy, but vows of silence and vows of all these 
things that monks and even nuns can enter into, that nuns do 
enter into under the guise of religious purity and under the 
guise of this degree of higher perfection, these degrees of 
higher perfection, but they are no such things, but are rather 
superstitious and sinful snares. And so, you know, a lot to be 
taken away from this particular chapter with regards, I mean, 
generally speaking, just the general truthfulness O's and 
vows aside for a moment, the God of truth has commanded such 
that we are to act in accordance with truth. And even before that, 
the light of nature shows that there is a God and discloses 
a natural law that men know outside of the divine oracles that they 
should not lie and that there is only one God. And so moving 
to special revelation, we have special revelation page after 
page that speaks to God as the God of truth, of infinite, you 
know, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable divine perfections 
who calls upon his image bearers to act in accordance with truth. So not only are we to act generally 
in accordance with truth, faithfulness, and true witness, but certainly 
when we enter into an oath, which is to confirm the truthfulness 
of a thing, we are to enter into that with truth, with understanding 
that it is only in matters of weightiness and moment that we 
are to do such things, and not to enter with rashly or quickly 
or without consideration. And this extends, this ought 
to extend to things that might not be outright an oath or outright 
a vow. But when we sign our name on 
something, when we put our signature on something, whether it's a 
financial thing, a political thing, or an employment thing, 
we are, in essence, making an oath or a vow in a different 
sort of way. We're confirming the truthfulness 
of a thing and we are to enter into those engagements, those 
agreements with truth and righteousness. And so always consider the weight 
and import of a chapter like this, of the biblical revelation 
that speaks to it, that they're summarizing when we are engaging 
in social interaction, in political, financial interaction. certainly 
in ecclesiastical interaction, in church interaction, we are 
to always speak the truth, knowing that whether we're speaking the 
truth outside of an oath or vow or we're speaking the truth by 
calling God as our witness, that God is our witness, that he is 
omnipresent, that he is omniscient, that he is perfect in holiness, 
that he's perfect in righteousness, and that He demands from His 
creatures perfection of truth. But we know that we will not 
engage in perfection of truth, and so what do we have? We have 
an advocate with the Father. We have a substitute, Jesus Christ 
the righteous, who only ever spoke truth and verity from those 
incarnate lips. What a blessing that we have, 
knowing that we'll fall, knowing that we'll stumble, knowing that 
we will never speak in truth, knowing that we will break promises. 
We have one who never did, who lived for us, who died for us, 
and who rose again for us. What a blessing that we have. 
I'll just close with three quotes, and we have a lot of time left, 
so I know there's going to be so many questions from a chapter 
like this. But just from three contemporary 
men, Benjamin Keech, Hansard Knowles, and Nehemiah Cox. Confirming this with the verity 
and the legitimacy of vows, a Christian, this is Keech, a Christian must 
be a person of truth, yea, and of integrity, whose word is his 
bond. Yet there is room for an oath 
when required by law, that justice may be done and that men may 
be held accountable before the God of heaven, who is the witness 
to all vows and promises. And this is Hansard. It is a 
matter of great consequence to invoke the name of the Almighty 
in an oath, whether public or private. Let none swear lightly 
or vainly. Let not the name of the Lord 
our God be brought into frivolous or deceitful uses. Oaths are 
not to be taken but in truth and righteousness, and when done 
so, they serve as a bond of fidelity and justice among men. And lastly, 
cocks. Vows and oaths are not contrary 
to the Christian faith, provided they be made lawfully, in truth, 
and with a sincere heart unto God. The saints of old bound 
themselves by vows before the Lord, and Christ our Redeemer 
himself did not deny the use of lawful oaths, for he spake 
truth before the high priest under an oath. Therefore, let 
none despise the lawful use of oaths, nor take them rashly. Well, praise God that we have 
a God of truth and righteousness. Might we act in truth and righteousness, 
and might we, though in light of our sin, rest upon Christ 
Jesus the Lord, who only ever spoke in truth, and that substitutionarily 
for us. Well, let's pray. Heavenly Father, 
we thank you for your word. We thank you for your truth. 
We thank you for your holiness, your righteousness, your justice. 
We do pray that you would help us in such matters where we are 
called upon lawfully to engage in oaths and vows. We pray that 
we would always engage in such, not rashly, not vainly, but considering 
the weightiness of the moment and the matter. We pray that 
we would only, of course, use your name in such things lawfully, 
and that we would in that consider the taking of such oaths and 
vows with fear and with reverence in your name and in the weightiness 
of the matter. And we just pray that you would 
now go with us into worship. We rejoice in the fact that we 
can worship you. We pray that we would worship 
you with hearts of truth, with genuine Christian joy, and that 
each and every one who enters into this place would, because 
it's possible with you, own Jesus Christ as Savior and rejoice 
in the truth of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And we pray 
in Christ's name. Amen. Any questions at all or 
comments? Leslie? Yeah Yeah, yeah, I mean I think 
it's Maybe you could answer to I think it's just a matter a 
matter of a person on their character, that when 
they give you, just kind of confirming their own character, that when 
I give you my word, I really mean it. I don't know if there's 
any religious context to, I give you my word. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. to confirming it by something. So yeah. Yeah. Related to this, at least generally, 
is I got an email from Marty the other day. And Judge Orniston 
is going to make her pronouncement on October 3rd from this recent 
go-round. And as well, Trudeau has appointed 
Judge Orniston to the BC Supreme Court. So she agreed to finish 
off this round of the situation with us. And then I'd say practically, 
I wouldn't mind the vow of silence being instituted for most government 
officials. We have a few preachers as well. Bring back the vow of silence. 
I like that. I'm OK with that too. Doug? Cam, 
I was just thinking in terms of marriage, a lot of times the 
vow is kind of It is more like an oath, because 
you're making it to the other person. You're not making that 
vow to God. You're making the oath to the 
other person, but God is your witness in that engagement, because 
he's the God of creation and the institutor of marriage at 
creation. So yeah, I would kind of say 
speak your vows, but they're speaking their vows to one another. 
vow is made to no other creature but to God so it's more like 
we're like an oath yeah oh yeah no no you're absolutely right 
I think that's you know that that and sort of the not considering 
the weightiness of the matter when, you know, planning for 
it, when preparing for it, when, you know, proposing, and all 
these sorts of things. And then at the actual wedding 
itself, you know, that's why I think, you know, those sort 
of more, the more traditional vows where there's a resolution covenantally, in a sense, where 
you're covenanting together, are much more important than 
these, ooh, let's write our own vows and let it just be sappy, 
romantic. for that, but in the giving of 
your oaths and, you know, with God and men as witnesses there, 
I think there's an importance and a solid legitimacy to the 
multiplication of certain verbiage in order to confirm the covenant 
that you're entering into. That is a significant How lucky for people that have 
family that get married anymore. A lot of people just... Yeah. Yeah, it's antiquated social 
construct, all that garbage, you know. It's sad. So when you 
hear... They wake up and realize, oh 
crap, am I financially entangled with this person? Yeah. Yeah.