← Back to sermon library

of lawful oaths and vows, I'll 
just read the several paragraphs and then we'll look at it in 
a bit of detail. Beginning in paragraph one of chapter 23, 
a lawful oath is a part of religious worship wherein the person swearing 
in truth, righteousness, and judgment solemnly calls God to 
witness what he swears and to judge him according to the truth 
or falseness thereof. 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 another 
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 
takes 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 knows 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. An oath 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. Amen. So the chapter obviously 
deals with oaths and vows. And there is a distinction made 
between the oath and the vow. An oath is a solemn promise to 
man before the Lord. So an oath is something we do 
horizontally, one to another. A vow is a solemn promise to 
God. So it's vertical in nature. Waldron 
says concerning this particular chapter, the main issue here 
is the lawfulness of oaths. The Baptist Confession softens 
the attack of the Westminster and Savoy Confessions on the 
refusal of many Anabaptists to take any oaths. The Anabaptists 
said that it was not lawful to take oaths. If you remember the 
historical context of our Confession, The Baptists wrote this particular 
confession to distance themselves from Anabaptists. In other words, 
the particular Baptists are being accused of being Anabaptists. 
One of the reasons for which they wrote the confession was 
to distinguish between themselves and the Anabaptists. So they 
basically rehearse or recite what is already in the Westminster 
Confession and what is in the Savoy Declaration to indicate 
The particular Baptists were not Anabaptists. They were distanced 
from them, and as a result, they do include this section on oaths 
and vows. Waldron says those confessions 
state clearly that it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything 
that is good and just being imposed by lawful authority. So what 
Waldron says of the Presbyterians and the Savoy independence said 
it was a sin not to take a lawful oath. Now the Baptists here tell 
us they should take lawful oaths very specifically. So a lawful 
oath at the end of paragraph two being imposed by lawful authority 
in such matters ought to be taken. So that's what he means that 
they soften the language of the Presbyterian and independent 
documents. As I said, we ought to distinguish 
between vows, which are solemn promises to God, and oaths, which 
are solemn promises to man before the Lord. Waldron says, the purpose 
of the oath is confirmation. The purpose of the vow is commitment. And both of these are essential 
elements in the Christian life. I know we don't talk a lot about 
oaths and vows. I know that we don't talk a lot 
about these sorts of things. But our confession has it. it's 
important for us to understand what is going on in this particular 
chapter. We'll look first at the oath 
in paragraphs 1 to 3, and then secondly the vow in paragraph, 
I'm sorry, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, and then the vow in paragraph 5. 
And a couple of things, or several things, we ought to consider 
with reference to the oath. First, the nature of lawful oaths. Secondly, the sanctity of lawful 
oaths. Thirdly, the solemnity of lawful 
oaths. And fourthly, the sincerity of 
lawful oaths. In the first place, the nature 
of lawful oaths. Notice what it says in paragraph 
one. A lawful oath is a part of religious 
worship. So when we take an oath, when 
we solemnly promise to man, or we solemnly promise to God, that 
is an act of worship. In Deuteronomy 6, verse 13, this 
is indicated. You shall fear the Lord your 
God and serve him and shall take oaths in his name. And then again 
in chapter 10 in verse 20 in the book of Deuteronomy. You 
shall fear the Lord your God, you shall serve him, and to him 
you shall hold fast and take oaths in his name. Hodge says, 
hence an oath is an act of supreme religious worship, since it recognizes 
the omnipresence, omniscience, absolute justice and sovereignty 
of the person whose august witness is invoked and whose judgment 
is appealed to as final. So certainly it is worship when 
we call upon the living and true God to confirm that which we 
speak. As we move through this section 
of the confession, what is obviously in view is the ninth commandment. 
We are to be truthful in the words that we speak. The ninth 
commandment calls upon us to engage in truthfulness. You shall 
not bear false witness. But probably the more overarching 
commandment in or behind chapter 23 is the third commandment. 
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. For 
us to swear before God and then speak falsehood or speak inaccurately 
or speak with a knowing deceitfulness is to blaspheme or to bring reproach 
upon the holy name of God. The confession goes on to tell 
us, with reference to swearing, it ought to be in truth, righteousness, 
and judgment. We should never speak those things 
which are knowingly false. We should be men and women of 
integrity before God. When we look at the psalm Psalm 
15, he describes the righteous man in Psalm 15, 4 as one who 
swears to his own hurt and does not change his mind. That ought 
to be indicative of the people of God. Jesus says, and James 
says, we ought to let our yes be yes and our no be no. A person 
shouldn't be curious as to whether we are telling the truth or not. 
We ought to be a people that speak the truth in love all the 
time because we serve the Lord God of truth. And notice it calls 
upon or it includes calling upon God to witness. Paragraph one, 
solemnly calls God to witness what he swears. and to judge 
him according to the truth or falseness thereof. That's a sober 
exercise. We are calling upon God to confirm 
what we speak. Conversely, if we are speaking 
falsehood, we are calling upon God to bring judgment to bear 
upon us. It can be an imprecation or an 
imprecatory way of speaking to ask God to bring judgment upon 
our heads if we are found to be deceitful persons. Look at 
Leviticus chapter 19 and verse 12. You see again this whole 
idea rooted in the third commandment, the honor of God's name. Leviticus 
19 and verse 12. Verse 11, you shall not steal, 
nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. And you shall not 
swear by my name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of 
your God. I am the Lord. So you see the 
direct connection between our falsehood and the name of God. So when we speak lies, or when 
we speak these things that are deceiving in nature, and if we 
call upon God to witness or confirm it, then we're going to be in 
a whole heap of hurt. We're in a bad state. Hodge says, 
with an implied imprecation of God's disfavor if we lie or prove 
unfaithful to our engagements. To judge him, this is the end 
of paragraph one, according to the truth or falseness thereof. 
Think of some of the oaths and vows that we engage in on a regular 
basis without really thinking twice about them. Marriage is 
a lawful oath or vow before the Lord God. Always struck. We say 
they're oaths, but it seems to be horizontal in nature. But 
there is that vertical element wherein we covenant before God, 
we swear to God that we will do all that we swear to the person 
we're standing before. But imagine when you divorce. 
Now, there are lawful reasons for divorce. I believe the Bible 
teaches that in the matter of adultery, in the matter of desertion, 
abuse, those are legitimate areas where the innocent party can 
sue out divorce. But accepting those particulars 
when persons divorce They are breaking an oath. They swore 
before God that they would be together till death do them part 
or until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. And to break that 
is to break a solemn promise before God. And that's what paragraph 
one indicates, and to judge him according to the truth or falseness 
thereof. Hodge says this last is generally 
expressed by the phrase forming the concluding part of the formula 
of most oaths, so help me God. i.e. let God so help me as I 
have told the truth or as I will keep my promise. So paragraph 
one deals with the nature of lawful oaths. Now notice in paragraph 
two the sanctity of lawful oaths. The name of God only is that 
by which men ought to swear. That ought to be a no-brainer 
for the people of God. We don't swear by our mother's 
graves. We don't swear by our father's 
good name. We swear rather by the glory 
and honor of the name of God Most High. This is the only means, 
or this is the only way by which we engage in a lawful oath. He 
says, or they say, 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." Now, when we speak 
of the name of God, when we consider that particular concept, we are 
concerned with God himself. You know, when we think of Jim 
or Steve or Bill or whoever, there's something that we do 
associate with Jim or Bill or Steve, but it's not that that 
is the very description or an indicator of the essence of that 
particular person. The name of God, however, stands 
for all that God is. And so when we use that name 
or we invoke that name, we are calling upon God. We're calling 
upon the Holy One of Israel. And so they say, therein it is 
to be used with all holy fear and reverence. We ought never 
to take these things lightly when we raise our hand and we 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 
the truth, so help me God. We're invoking the name of the 
one who is from everlasting to everlasting, the one who is that 
he is, the one who is eternal and glorious and wondrous in 
all that he is. And so we ought to enter into 
this with a great deal of fear and reverence, as the confession 
says. And then notice, it speaks of 
the occasion for lawful oaths. One of the things that we'll 
see in just a few minutes is what Jesus condemns in Matthew 
5. Jesus is not condemning oaths. Jesus is condemning a frivolity 
that was associated with oath-taking in his particular context. And you see it today. When you 
ever talk to people and say, I'm telling you the truth, I 
mean, I'm telling you what I'm saying to you is true, and they 
try and underscore. I swear on my mother's grave. 
That's not necessary. Let your yes be yes and your 
no be no. It ought not to be the case that 
from morning till evening, everything we say takes on the nature of 
a vow. The wife shouldn't say to the husband, I'll have your 
pot roast ready by 530, so help me God. No, let your yes be yes 
and your no, no. It is frivolity that attached 
itself to oath-taking that Jesus condemns, not oath-taking. And that's what the confession 
indicates. Notice the particulars in the 
middle of paragraph two. Yet as in matter of wait and 
moment. Certainly, in a criminal proceeding, 
when you take the stand, you swear by God most high that the 
testimony you're going to give is true and is accurate. Whether 
you're, you know, when you're called upon to serve in that 
capacity, that is a lawful oath in that particular, in a matter 
of wait and moment. Pot roast at 530 is not a matter 
of wait and moment. You know, the criminal proceedings 
of somebody accused of rape or murder or incest, that is a matter 
of wait and moment. And certainly when you are sworn 
in, That's legitimate. That is lawful. You see, the 
Anabaptists said, no, you're not supposed to do that, probably 
having a faulty understanding of what Jesus says in the Sermon 
on the Mount. The Presbyterians and the Savoy 
Independents said, look, if you don't do that, you're in sin. 
Our Baptist brothers here say, so a lawful oath being imposed 
by lawful authority in such matters ought to be taken. You ought 
to do it. You ought to comply with this 
particular instruction. In matters of weight and a moment, 
you swear an oath before God to men. As well, notice the confirmation 
of the truth. It says, yet as in matter of 
wait and moment for confirmation of truth, and then note, and 
ending all strife, an oath is warranted by the word of God. So you see, the confession acknowledges, 
along with the Holy Scripture, that there are lawful instances 
for taking oaths and for taking vows. And then it indicates, 
so a lawful oath being imposed by lawful authority in such matters 
ought to be taken. So if you're called upon to serve 
in jury duty, they say, I want you to swear as you step into 
this particular place, or if you're a defendant or a plaintiff 
in a criminal proceeding, this is a lawful and legitimate thing. 
And you are not to refuse that. You ought to engage in it because 
it does speak to matters of wait and moment for the confirmation 
of the truth. and to end all strife. Now, there 
are several illustrations in the Bible where various godly 
men took vows. In the Old Testament, we have 
the case of Abraham. We'll just, I think we probably 
all agree on these men. Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Elijah, 
and Nehemiah. They all swore oaths before God. The Lord himself requires oaths. Notice in Exodus 20 to 11. See, 
it's just simplistic rhetoric to say that Jesus has done away 
with the oath. I think as we look at that passage 
in a few minutes, you will see that Jesus did not do away with 
the oath. Jesus did away with the Pharisaic 
frivolity that was attached to oath-taking at his particular 
time. But Exodus 22, 11. specifically 
dealing with property rights, verse 10, if a man delivers to 
his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, 
and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, then 
an oath of the Lord shall be between them both, that he has 
not put his hand into his neighbor's goods, and the owner of it shall 
accept that, and he shall not make it good. If God commands 
oaths, then they are good. We cannot let the Anabaptists 
tell us otherwise. Other places where the oath is 
demanded in the Old Testament, Numbers 519, 1 Kings 831. Notice that the Lord Jesus himself 
took an oath in Matthew 26. It would be incredible to suggest 
that Jesus in Matthew 5 did away with the oath, and then Jesus 
in Matthew 26 takes an oath. Matthew 26, 63. But Jesus kept silent, and the 
high priest answered and said, I put you under oath by the living 
God. Tell us if you are the Christ, 
the Son of God. Notice what Jesus does not say. I'm an Anabaptist. The oath is 
no longer lawful. You ought not to have such things. 
This is an affront to my dignity. And that's not what he says. 
The high priest puts him under oath by the living God. He says, 
tell us if you are the Christ, the son of God, and Jesus answers 
him. It is as you said. Nevertheless, 
I say to you, hereafter you will see the son of man sitting at 
the right hand of the power and coming on the clouds of heaven. 
Revelation 10 verse 5, the angel there swears an oath. I believe 
the case can be made that that angel is the Lord Jesus Christ, 
but that's an argument or a discussion for another day. The Lord God 
swears by himself according to Hebrews chapter 6. You can turn 
there. Again, just saying the warrant 
for lawful oaths, men of God in the Old and New Testaments 
that God made Himself took oaths, and we see that God Himself swore 
an oath. Notice in Hebrews 6.13, For when 
God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no 
one greater, He swore by Himself. See, in order to say that the 
oath is unlawful and to take the Anabaptist position is to 
call into question the very fidelity of God himself. He swore by himself, 
verse 14, 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. Thus God, determining to show 
more abundantly to the heirs of 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." Hughes says that God should bind himself 
by an oath is a reflection, not on the divine credibility, but 
on the perversion of the human situation. God's oath indeed, 
though in itself redundant since his word is absolute truth, is 
a condescension to human frailty. That explains why God took an 
oath But it ought to be observed that God took an oath. He swore 
by himself. It's not unlawful. It's not ungodly. It is to swear an oath to say 
that the dinner will be ready at 530. But in matters of weight 
and moment, to confirm the truth, to end strife, those are legitimate 
times for us to engage in oath-taking. The apostle Paul engaged in oaths. Romans chapter 1, verse 9. For God is my witness, whom I 
serve with my spirit in the gospel of his son, that without ceasing 
I make mention of you always in my prayers. Now in that regard, 
he's not swearing in a particular court, but he's calling God to 
witness a confirmation of the truth as Paul sets forth his 
heart for these brethren in Rome. 2 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 
23. Moreover, I call God as witness 
against my soul, that to spare you, I came no more to Corinth." 
Philippians chapter 1, verse 8. Just an illustration that 
the apostle was not an Anabaptist. Philippians 1.8, for God is my 
witness, how greatly I long for you all with the affection of 
Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 2.5, for neither 
at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak 
of for covetousness, God is witness. And then in 210, you are witnesses, 
and God also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved 
ourselves among you who believe. So you see, oath-taking is authorized 
by the word of God. It is to be engaged in in truth, 
righteousness, and judgment. It is to be engaged in with great 
fear and reverence and solemnity when we stand before men and 
we swear that what we are speaking is the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, and we are calling on God to witness 
and affirm and confirm this, then if we are speaking the truth, 
praise be to God, all will go well. If we are speaking lies, 
it serves as an imprecation to call down God's judgment and 
wrath upon our heads. Now notice, in the third paragraph, 
the solemnity of lawful oaths. The solemnity, paragraph three, 
whosoever takes an oath warranted by the word of God ought duly 
to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act. It's one of 
the things I hope I've learned over the years when I do premarital 
counseling, to try to caution the person. So I know that when 
you come, you want to get married, you're all happy and everything 
looks good and glowing and, you know, the sun shines out of the 
eyes of that person. You hope to say, I do too. Just 
let me encourage you the sun's not always going to shine out 
of their eyes You need to make sure that you consider the weightiness 
of this particular decision It is for either blessing or in 
some situations cursing. It's not always the case that 
that two godly people can marry each other. It's just not the 
case that everybody who names the name of Christ is somehow 
automatically, the assumption is that they can be married and 
live happily ever after. It is important to duly consider 
the weightiness of so solemn an act. When you stand before 
a courtroom and you raise your right hand or you know you're 
going to be called to testify concerning certain things, you 
need to consider the weightiness of this. Filing a tax return, 
claiming exemptions, and all those sorts of things. I realize 
that doesn't have the character of a solemn oath, but truth telling 
in every instance or in every area of our lives ought to be 
weighty for the Christian. How is God described in Psalm 
32? He is the Lord God of truth. How does Jesus describe himself 
in John 14, 6? I am the way, the truth, and 
the life. Now I realize that some in our 
day would rather say in Psalm 32, He is the Lord God of our 
experience. He is the Lord God of our emotional 
high. He is the Lord God of our practical 
benefit. He's the Lord God of truth. Jesus 
says, I am the way, the truth, not the emotional experience, 
not the existential moment, not your personal satisfaction. I 
am the way, the truth, and the life. The Christian church needs 
to take the truth seriously. Yes, with reference to the gospel 
and the preaching of justification by faith alone, but the truth 
in every area of life. He's not just the way, the truth, 
and the life in matters with reference to how we come to God 
through him, but how we live before God through him on a daily 
basis and telling the truth is of paramount importance for the 
people of God. So when you say yes or when you 
say no, make sure, and you're going to ratify that by an oath, 
make sure that you consider the weightiness of so solemn an act. And notice the particulars they 
go on to say, and therein to avouch nothing but what he knows 
to be the truth. I mean, you can say, I don't 
know. I mean, I think a Hillary Clinton, 
anytime she's asked a question, I don't recall, I don't recall, 
I don't recall. It's an amazing thing how they can tell you, 
you know, 35 years ago what they did good with pinpoint accuracy, 
but they can't remember yesterday with reference to a particular 
without, I can't recall, I can't recall. But if you legitimately 
can't recall, that's okay. Don't lie. Don't twist the truth. Don't distort facts. Don't bring 
down the wrath of God. I mean, God does not judge, you 
know, a bad memory. He judges a deceitful heart. And we all have bad memories. We all have that ability to forget 
certain things. So brethren, consider it, therein 
avouch nothing but what you know to be true. And then the practical 
application or implication, for that by rash, false, and vain 
oaths the Lord is provoked, and for them this land mourns. Interesting, isn't it? They relate 
the unfaithfulness of the spoken word to the judgment of God upon 
the land. Now, what is one professional 
area in this world that we have come to accept and expect lies 
in politics? That is a terrible thing. We 
just associate political leaders, maybe you don't, you might have 
purer minds and hearts than I do, but typically the political climate 
to me speaks of deception, it speaks of lies, it speaks of 
subterfuge. We could probably include with 
that a large bulk of the media And yet we never connect any 
judgment from God upon the land over the lack of veracity in 
our speech. Certainly abortion brings the 
wrath of God upon a blood guilty nation. Certainly sodomy brings 
the wrath of God upon a perverse nation. Certainly euthanasia 
is going to bring the wrath of God upon a nation that does not 
value the sanctity of human life and the fact that life is in 
the image of God. But what about lies? What about 
deception? What about professing Christians 
who cheat on their taxes? Or professing Christians who 
lie so that they can gain some sort of an advantage? Or professing 
Christians who pare off the truth, or who hedge their bets, who 
are saying, you know, speak in things that are not clear, that 
are not precise? What about Christian preachers, 
or so-called preachers, who are lying, who are telling them that 
the Bible really is about your better life now, rather than 
about justification by faith alone in God, through God's dear 
Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Why don't we ever directly connect 
God's judgment upon the land with truth-telling or its absence? We need to understand He is indeed 
the Lord God of truth. Turn to Proverbs chapter 6. Proverbs 
chapter 6. I think this illustrates the 
point in a very vivid way. A passage I hope and pray that 
all of us have in our minds and hearts. I've always thought it's 
good for us to know what God loves, but it's also good for 
us to know what God hates. I like to know what my wife likes. I like to know what she hates. 
If she hates Shellfish? I'm not going to bring shellfish 
home on our anniversary. I just don't think that's a good 
way to live. Don't know how shellfish got 
in there, but it did nevertheless. Notice in Proverbs 6.16, these 
six things the Lord hates, yea, seven, are an abomination to 
him, a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 
a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running 
to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows 
discord among brethren." That's a pretty powerful list of what 
the Lord God abominates. We find abortion there, don't 
we? God abominates hands that shed innocent blood. But in this catalog, isn't it 
intriguing that a failure to tell the truth comes up twice? 
These six things, Yahweh hates, yea, seven are an abomination 
to him, and twice lying is there. A lying tongue, verse 17. Verse 19, a false witness who 
speaks lies. That was the only passage we 
had about what God is displeased with. What could we conclude? 
He really hates lying. Yes, he hates abortion. He hates 
euthanasia. He hates hands that shed innocent 
blood. He hates those who sow discord among the brethren. He 
hates those hearts that devise wicked plans and feet that are 
swift and running to evil. He really hates lying. It's typically 
behind every evil act lies are right there, aren't they? When 
you look at the abortion industry, for instance, what do you think? 
They operate from the principle of truth and righteousness? What 
are the two characteristics of the devil according to Jesus 
in John 8? He's a murderer and a liar. Those things work hand 
in hand. Do you ever doubt what abortion 
is founded upon? It's those devilish principles, 
murder and lies. God abominates these things, 
and as the people of God, we ought to abominate them as well. Now notice, in the fourth place, 
the solemnity, I'm sorry, the sincerity of lawful oaths in 
paragraph four. Notice an oath is to be taken 
in the plain and common sense of the words without equivocation 
or mental reservation. I say to you, do not swear at 
all. Again, he swears later in 26. We can't mean ever without 
exception. It's a particular context. He 
says, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the 
earth, for it is his footstool, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the 
city of the great king. I swear by Jerusalem. No, you're 
not supposed to do that. If you're in the marketplace 
and you say, I swear by Jerusalem, I got these goods over. You're 
not supposed to do that, is what Jesus is indicating. As well, 
the oath became commonplace. Instead of being used for serious 
matters, it became used in everyday conversation. If you have to 
underscore everything you say by, I swear, or I'm not lying, 
or I'm telling the truth. You need to stop in your life, 
you need to repent, you need to forsake sin, and pray to God 
to help you to be a truth-telling individual. This is not the way 
you are to live. Let your yes be yes and your 
no, no. You don't have to swear an oath 
on everything. Gil says, with reference to Jesus' 
statement here, which must not be understood in the strictest 
sense, as if he meant no oaths ever in any context. He says, 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, by Jerusalem. by my mother's grave, by my father's 
good name. You're not supposed to swear 
like that. That's what Jesus is condemning. 
Greg Bonson says, this was a vain scribal effort to avoid reckoning 
with God in one's assertions. The substitutes for God's name 
would secure emphasis for the person's statement without obliging 
him to the truth. If you swear by Jerusalem, what 
difference does that make? It may sound good rhetorically, 
or for you to say, I swear based on my father's good name. That 
might pack some rhetorical punch, But your father's good name? 
He's not God. He doesn't have the power of 
life and death. He is not the ultimate witness 
to truth telling among his people. That sounds good rhetorically, 
but it has no substance. It has no basis. It has no ground. And it does free you from speaking 
the truth. He says, or so the Pharisees 
thought. Christ makes it clear that all 
these substitutes have an unavoidable God-word reference anyway. Furthermore, 
resort to this kind of subterfuge implies that your simple word 
is not sufficiently credible, but rather suspect. You know, 
when you know those people, I've been telling you the truth, I'm 
not lying. Dude, you're telling me where to get good gas. You 
don't have to give me that sort of affirmation. There's just 
certain people that I think, think somehow, if I say enough 
that I'm telling the truth, then maybe persons will believe me. 
That seems to be the indication of what was going on among these 
Pharisees swearing by the creature. So the Bible simply does not 
uphold that idea that there is no place for the lawful oath 
or vow. That brings us to paragraph 5, 
a vow. A vow which is not to be made 
to any creature but to God alone. It's not made to any creature 
but to God alone. So you see the oath. horizontal, 
I covenant, or I make an oath to you, I solemnly promise before 
the Lord this particular fact. A vow, however, is before God. A vow is what we will do before 
God. That's why the preacher says, 
do not vow rashly. Do not say, Lord, I'm going to 
get up every morning in 2016 at 5 AM and read 10 chapters 
of Holy Scripture. I vow to you. Be very careful. Do not swear rashly. Do not bite off more than you 
can chew. Now, if you want to get up at 
5 a.m. and read 10 chapters, I heartily commend that decision 
on your part. But be careful before you vow 
to God that you will do this, to call down God's wrath upon 
you should you fail. So it is not to be made to any 
creature, but it is to be made to God alone. And then notice 
what they say specifically. It is to be made and performed 
with all religious care and faithfulness. Hodge, 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. You see what 
he says? To accumulate such obligations 
is injurious. You probably have enough to do 
each and every day the normal, ordinary things that God calls 
upon you to do. To overstep that ordinary and 
normal and to vow the extraordinary and the supra-normal, you are 
unnecessarily opening yourself up to some difficulties. Hodge 
says the word of God in the scriptures imposes upon us by his authority 
all that is his will for our interest for us to observe. The 
multiplication of self-imposed duties dishonors him and greatly 
harasses and endangers our safety. You see that the emphasis among 
some in the church today and throughout the history of the 
church. I can serve God better if I go sit on the top of a pole 
out in the middle of the desert. I can serve God better if I quit 
my job and I, you know, cut my hair and I go downtown and I 
pass out track. God doesn't call on you to do 
that. You're okay to be married, to 
have a job, to work hard, to eat a steak occasionally. Those 
are legitimate things. God is not calling us to monasticism. God is not calling us to the 
supraordinary. God is not calling us to the 
extraordinary. and for persons to vow to God 
to be this sort of a radical specimen of a Christian being. Now, hopefully they can sustain 
it, and hopefully they can do it to the very end, but this 
is not for everybody. This is not everybody's cup of 
tea. What Hodge says is right. There's 
enough duties in a given day for every Christian to be kept 
sufficiently busy until Jesus returns. If you don't have enough 
to do as a Christian, then call me. I can tell you, go do this 
or go read that. Normal, ordinary things. To heap 
up the extraordinary things are not wise. The multiplication 
of self-imposed duties dishonors him and greatly harasses and 
endangers our safety. I love that statement. It greatly 
harasses and endangers our safety. Why do you want to do that? Why 
would you want to greatly harass and endanger your safety? He 
says vows had better be restricted to the voluntary assumption and 
promise to observe with the help of divine grace, duties imposed 
by God and plainly revealed in the scriptures. Now notice specifically 
what is in the crosshairs. 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." I love that. That is a direct contradiction 
to the Roman Catholic idea that unfortunately has found its way 
into Protestantism, that it's somehow more spiritual, it's 
somehow more holy to be single. or to be poor, or to subscribe 
to the church without any question whatsoever, that statement saying 
regular obedience. I don't think it has to do with 
our everyday, normal, ordinary stuff. In the place of Roman 
Catholicism, it may have to do with the particular religious 
order that one was a monk of, or thereof, to use some legalese, 
and to mother church herself. Is that accurate? Is that what 
you found in your reading? So you see specifically, popish 
monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, 
and regular obedience. These are wrong. It may have 
an air, and it may have an appearance of being super spiritual, but 
it's not. You'll see this in Protestantism. There are wings, factions, groups 
that propagate that singlehood is to be preferred over the married 
state. That's got no warrant in the 
Bible. You can serve God with a wife or a husband just as well 
as if you were single. Now, Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 
7, and there are particular issues and, you know, situations and 
contexts wherein a single person can yield obedience in a way 
that pleases God, but Paul therein is not condemning marriage. You 
cannot conclude from the New Testament that Paul is an enemy 
of marriage. Paul takes marriage and says 
it typifies the relationship between Jesus and his church. 
For Paul, marriage was held in high esteem. So you cannot conclude 
that somehow it is more holy and more godly and more righteous 
to be single. or to be poor. Now, I realize 
we need to protect ourselves, we need to guard against a love 
for mammon, but brethren, poor people can sin against God too. 
Poor people can be vile and wretched too. The poor man who's constantly 
craving money and constantly craving riches is, in some sense, 
like the rich man who's over there counting his loot all the 
time. Poverty does not make holy. If you think that, you've missed 
the point of the Bible. You see, the popish monastical 
vows that swore off marriage, that swore off money, that swore 
to their order or the mother Kirk, was wrong. And this is 
what the confession is against. And I love the way they indicate 
this. And I think that this is Paul, or Paul's language in Colossians 
2 validates this. 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. 
You see this again in Protestants. You see it in some of the heroes, 
you know, in the 18th century or 19th century. You know, these 
men who swore, you know, they made it known they were going 
to have a day of fasting every Wednesday. Doesn't Jesus tell 
us not to make people know when we're fasting? You know, today. You see it on Facebook. I don't 
know. Have I ever seen this on Facebook? No, I haven't. But 
it wouldn't surprise me. Oh, I'm fasting today because 
I want to really glorify God. You're not supposed to tell people 
you're fasting. In fact, you're supposed to anoint 
your face with oil, put a smile on your face, don't walk around 
grumbling, moaning and complaining because you're so hungry, because 
you're so godly, you're giving up a meal for the Lord Jesus. 
No, you're not supposed to do that. These are not holy things 
to publish our religious practices, to bind the consciences of others, 
and to somehow suggest that the only way one can successfully 
engage in a pattern of Bible reading is to be up at 5 a.m. every morning and to read 10 
chapters. That's wrong. We can't bind people's consciences 
and hearts and minds that way. Not only is that not godly, it 
is contrary to what the Scriptures do declare. They are superstitious 
and sinful snares in which no Christian may entangle himself. 
Look at Colossians 2 for just a moment. Look at what asceticism looks 
like. Asceticism is what is described 
in verse 20. Therefore, Colossians 2, 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? Verse 21, do not touch, do not 
taste, do not handle. We've probably met people like 
that, or we've probably been people like that. I'm really 
holy if I do not touch, I do not taste, and I do not handle. Now, there's obvious applications. We are not to touch another man's 
wife. We are not to taste methamphetamine. We are not to handle those things 
that are that are sinful and wicked, but that's not what's 
in view. It's the idea that good things 
God created, if we abstain from them, somehow we are holier, 
somehow we are more righteous, somehow we are more commended 
to God. for abstaining from those things, 
asceticism, the idea that the creature is to be avoided for 
increased holiness before the Creator. What does Paul say in 
1 Timothy 4? Every creature of God is good. 
You can eat that steak, pray, thank the Lord, it's sanctified, 
eat it, enjoy it. Holiness does not consist in 
abstaining from steak. This is another Roman Catholic 
invention. What do you do on Friday if you're 
a Popish adherent? You don't eat meat. How is that 
commend you to God? How does that make you holy? 
So on Friday you go to McDonald's and you get a filet of fish instead 
of a Big Mac and somehow you have pleased God. Do you see 
how foolish that is? And it's easy to pick on Rome 
in that instance because it's low-hanging fruit. But I wonder, 
how many of us have done this in our own lives? If I do this, 
if I don't do this, if I don't handle that, well then somehow 
I'm going to be commended to God. Do you know what commends 
you to God? Grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. That is your righteousness, that 
is your hope, that is your life. And as a justified, by grace 
alone, through faith alone believer in Christ, pray to God that the 
power of the Holy Spirit keeps you in your daily life and don't 
be a nut saying, well as long as I don't touch, as long as 
I don't taste, as long as I don't handle, somehow I'm going to 
be commended to God. Notice what Paul says concerning 
this approach, verse 22, which all concern things which perish 
with the using according to the commandments and doctrines of 
men. These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed 
religion. It has an appearance. A guy sitting 
on a pole in the middle of the desert, there's an appearance. 
You say, well, yeah, if he's up there, he's not smoking meth. If he's up there, he's not engaged 
in you know, whoredom. If he's up there, he's not engaged 
in whatever. I mean, there's an appearance. 
There's some sort of a logic involved if he's not touching, 
tasting, and handling. Yeah, he's probably better off 
as a result of that. Notice, these things indeed have 
an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and 
neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence 
of the flesh. What is the value against the 
indulgence of the flesh? Romans 13, put on the Lord Jesus 
Christ and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its 
lusts. What does Paul say in Romans 
8, 13? If by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the body, you will 
live. Killing sin, glorifying God, does not come about by us 
not touching, tasting, or handling. It comes about by faith in the 
Lord Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Again, be 
wise here. I am telling you there are specific 
concrete things you shouldn't touch, you shouldn't taste, and 
you shouldn't handle. Don't touch another man's wife 
or another woman's husband. Don't taste methamphetamine and 
don't handle those things that are going to bring your soul 
into subjection to bad things. But what Paul is dealing with 
is this mindset that we can commend ourselves to God in a particular 
pathway. He says it may look wise, it 
may look good, but it's not. In fact, it is counterproductive, 
as our confession points out, They are superstitious and sinful 
snares in which no Christian may entangle himself. We don't 
want to be superstitious people. You know, instead of Christians 
throwing the salt over our shoulders or jumping over the cracks in 
the sidewalk, we have our superstitions. We have our oddities and our 
shibboleths and our idiosyncrasies, and we need to make sure that 
we properly evaluate such things and make sure that we are not 
thinking that somehow because I don't touch this and I don't 
taste this and I don't handle that, God's really happy with 
me. Much more so than that wretch 
over there with that 16 ounce piece of beef on his plate. That's 
just not the way we want to live. In Psalm, Ecclesiastes 5, 4 and 
5, 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. If you're going to renege 
on your vow, do not make the vow. If you are going to renege 
on the oath, do not make the oath. Numbers 30 verse 2, 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. We must engage in the 
pursuit of truth in our personal relations, family situations, 
ecclesiastical commitments. We didn't even touch that, ecclesiastical 
commitments. Persons commit when they become 
members of churches to particular things. Well, does that have 
the vow or the oath that we make them stand before God and man 
and swear that? No, but we do appreciate truthfulness 
in the commitments that you make. as well in business dealings. 
If you're a Christian on the Lord's Day, hopefully you're 
a Christian Monday through Saturday. And it ought not to be the case 
that you're ripping off people. It ought not to be the case that 
you're not a man or a woman of your word. And as well in political 
matters, we need to make sure that wherever truth is involved, 
we are like Jesus as he's described in Psalm 15. He swears to his 
own hurt and does not change. Let us pray. Father, we thank 
you for this body of doctrine and our confession of faith. 
We know it's not authoritative and infallible and inspired and 
inerrant as the scriptures are, but we believe this is a summary 
of those things most surely believed among us. Help us to see the 
value and the honor and the glory of your name, and help us to 
see the importance of truth in our lives. We ask that you would 
just help us, God, to take these things to heart and to mind. 
Help us, God, not to swear or to make vows rashly, but help 
us to enter into these things with weight and consideration. 
We ask that you bless our time of worship as we gather together 
in a few minutes. We pray for all of our brothers 
and sisters that you would bring them safely to the house of God, 
that in all that we do today, it would be for the glory of 
God. And we pray through Christ our Lord. Amen.