← Back to sermon library

of lawful oaths and vows, probably 
not a topic we pay attention to a lot or we think about a 
lot, but it certainly touches on the ninth commandment, we're 
not to bear false witness, but I think even more importantly 
it's rooted in the third commandment, because when we swear, we swear 
by God, and to do so falsely or vainly is in fact to blaspheme 
His holy name. I want to read beginning in chapter 
23 at paragraph 1. 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. 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. Again, I think that what we see 
here specifically is a command rooted in the ninth, obviously, 
you shall not bear false witness, but in the third, you're not 
to take the name of the Lord your God in vain. is a promise made to man before 
the Lord. So an oath is a promise from 
one man to another, but it is made in the presence of the Lord. 
A vow is specifically directed to God. A vow is something that 
we pronounce to God in terms of our particular conduct. So 
that shade of distinction between oaths and vows. Oaths are manward 
before God. Vows are directly to God. I want 
to look at first the oath in paragraphs 1 to 3, and then secondly 
the vow in paragraphs 4 and 5. I'm sorry, 1 to 4 is the oath, 
and then the vow is in paragraph 5. In the first place, we ought 
to consider the nature of lawful oaths. Notice, a lawful oath 
is a part of religious worship. You can turn to the book of Deuteronomy. 
Deuteronomy chapter 6. I would probably suspect that 
most of us, as we list the elements of worship, would include preaching 
the Word, reading the Word, the sacraments of the church, praying 
to God, singing, all those things. But would we include oaths and 
vows in a description of Christian worship? Well, the Bible does 
indicate that such is the case. Notice in Deuteronomy 6.13, 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. And then again in chapter 10 
at 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. So, oath-taking is a form of 
religious worship. A. A. Hodge further explains, 
he 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. Certainly, as we 
are calling upon God to witness an oath before men, or we are 
calling upon God to hear our vow to Him, we are conscious 
of the fact of who He is, His attributes, His being, His power, 
His glory, His majesty. As we consider that, it is indeed 
an act of worship. David Dixon makes this observation. I think he fleshes out what Hodge 
says in a bit more detail. Now, this was 17th century theological 
language or theological writing, so it may be a little bit awkward 
in terms of the construction, but I think it is straightforward. 
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 in existence. Isn't that the 
case? If we're calling upon God to 
witness an oath that we make before men or to hear the vow 
that we make to Him, certainly that is an acknowledgment of 
His being. That is involved in worship. Those who come to Him, Hebrews 
11, must believe that He is. He goes on to say, secondly, 
His ubiquity. Now, ubiquity is another way 
of saying His omnipresence, which is another way of saying that 
God is everywhere. In other words, when we invoke 
God in terms of an oath or a vow, we acknowledge His ubiquity, 
His omnipresence, the fact that He is there with us in these 
things. So he says, secondly, His ubiquity, 
that He is present in all places and in all times and within our 
hearing. He says, his omniscience, thirdly, 
that means God knows all things, that he is the searcher of the 
heart. The apostle calls him heart knower in Acts 15a. 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. We acknowledge, sixthly, his 
vindictive justice as he is a revenger of perjury. Seventhly, we acknowledge 
his providence and fatherly care of the concerns of mankind owing 
the cause of the righteous. Now, if you've ever been called 
upon to testify in a criminal court or other sort of proceedings, 
and you've raised your right hand, and you've sworn to tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God. I doubt that you parsed it out the way that David Dixon 
does in this particular instance. But as he does, do you see how 
it is, in fact, an act of religious worship? It is an acknowledgment 
of the being and the attributes or the perfections of God Most 
High. So we need to keep that in mind. 
We ought not to take these things lightly. And as our confession 
goes on to highlight in detail, we certainly ought not to swear 
rashly and absolutely not falsely. Notice, with reference to the 
nature of lawful oaths, it is a part of religious worship, 
paragraph 1. Paragraph 1 also tells us we're 
in the person swearing in truth, righteousness, and in judgment. 
In other words, we don't do this when we are trying to lie. We 
don't do this in order to sort of strengthen our particular 
position. You hear people do this all the 
time. Well, I swear on a stack of Bibles and those sorts of 
things. No, we need to ponder and we 
need to approach these things soberly and with truth, righteousness, 
and in judgment. And then it goes on to tell us 
that it includes calling on God to witness. Notice, "...solemnly 
calleth God to witness what he sweareth, and to judge him according 
to the truth or falseness thereof." Now, it's an instance where we 
ask God to witness, to provide that confirmation that what we 
are saying or attributing is in fact the case, or is in fact 
real, or is in fact true, but it's also putting our money where 
our mouth is. So help me God means that if 
I am lying here, if I am a false witness here, if I have slandered 
here, if I have gossiped here, if I have acted rashly here, 
then may the wrath and fury and judgment of God be upon my head. 
So it's a very solemn matter and we need to understand that. 
It's rooted not just in the ninth, but in the third commandment. 
Again, Hodge says, with an implied imprecation. Now remember, an 
imprecation is another name for imprecatory or another form of 
the word imprecatory. And what imprecatory or imprecation 
means is to pray down the wrath of God. You see this throughout 
the book of Psalms. You see the psalmist praying 
down the wrath of God upon the enemies of God. Today is Sanctity 
of Life Sunday. I'm going to preach on the Sixth 
Commandment this morning. It's been common and popular 
in the last few years to hear the rallying cry, defund Planned 
Parenthood. No, destroy Planned Parenthood. That is a biblical imprecation. Don't just take their money away, 
but destroy them. Bring them to utter ruin and 
make it the case that they don't infect society anymore with their 
murderous rage against babies. That is an imprecation, and we 
need to understand that that's so help me God with reference 
to oaths and vows isn't just stylistic, it is an imprecation. It is imposing a self-maledictory 
oath on ourselves if we indeed sin in this particular thing. 
So he says, with an implied imprecation of God's disfavor if we lie or 
prove unfaithful to our engagements, 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." Now notice, secondly, 
the sanctity of lawful oaths in paragraph 2. It says, the 
name of God only is that by which men ought to swear. It's only 
the name of God. We're not to swear by Baal. We're 
not to swear by our mother's graves. We're not to swear by 
the sovereign state. We are to swear by God alone. The name of God only is that 
by which men ought to swear. And as a result of that, it is 
to be used with all holy fear and reverence. Again, the connection 
is clear to the third commandment. If you do not treat the name 
of God with the holiness and the reverence and the sanctity 
that it demands, you have violated the third word. You go into open 
court and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help me God, and you then proceed to lie or 
to misrepresent or to slander or gossip, you have invoked the 
name of God in a way that is ungodly. And then notice, we 
are to do it solemnly, 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. Turn to the book of Ecclesiastes 
for just a moment, specifically Ecclesiastes chapter 5. Ecclesiastes chapter 5, the solemnity 
of oath-taking and vows are seen here in Ecclesiastes 5. Notice 
in verse 1, walk prudently when you go to the house of God, and 
draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools. 
Don't you love that? Draw near to the house of God 
to do what? Catch up with your buddy on how the Canucks are 
doing? Catch up with your buddy on how work is going? No, to 
hear. To hear. To hear what? To hear God the 
Lord speaking through the word by his spirit. That's the emphasis 
in worship. Walk prudently when you go to 
the house of God and draw near to hear rather than to give the 
sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil. Do not be rash with your mouth. Boy, if the Christian church 
would take heed to Ecclesiastes 5.2, I believe we'd all be a 
whole lot better off. Joey's here, cool. Very cool. Do not be rash with your mouth, 
Micah too, that's nice. Micah's the vehicle by which 
Joey made it, so I guess Micah's to be appreciated also. Do not 
be rash with your mouth and let not your heart utter anything 
hastily before God. For God is in heaven and you 
on earth. Therefore, let your words be 
few. Isn't that what Solomon tells 
us elsewhere? In the multitude of words, transgression 
is not lacking. If we listen twice as much as 
we speak, we probably still speak way too much, but it's a good 
start. It's a very good start. Notice, 
verse 3, for a dream comes through much activity and a fool's voice 
is known by his many words. Solomon tells us in the Proverbs. 
Even a fool is counted wise when he shuts his mouth. He may be 
the dimmest bulb in the room, but if he doesn't open his mouth, 
you don't know that. Praise God for the blessed gift 
of silence by which we can at least try and persuade men that 
we have some degree of wisdom. We ought to utilize silence far 
more often than we do, I think is what Solomon is getting at 
here. 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. So I think that underscores the 
specific thing mentioned here. We are not to swear vainly or 
rashly by that glorious and dreadful name. And then notice the occasion 
for lawful oaths there in paragraph 2. It says, 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. 
there is a target audience that our confession is writing against. Now, the first edition in 1644, 
and then the second edition in 1677, actually, is when the 1689 
was put together. It was in 1677. But 1689, after 
the act of toleration under William and Mary, the Baptists had a 
degree of liberty to publish their views. So 1689 has attached 
itself to this second London Confession. But one of the primary 
purposes that our Particular Baptist brethren had when they 
wrote the Confession was to distance themselves from the Anabaptists. Because you had Paedo-Baptists 
calling anybody that was a Baptist an Anabaptist. Well Particular 
Baptists, and today Reformed Baptists, we are not Anabaptists. And one of the things that Anabaptists 
denied was oath-taking. They said it was not biblical. With misinterpreting our Lord's 
words in Matthew 5, which we'll look at in just a moment, they 
said there was no place for the oath or the vow in New Covenant 
Church. It was only something that was 
done in the Old Testament. And so notice what the divines 
say here in this particular paragraph. So they caution us, they call 
us to take heed, they make sure we don't enter into this vainly 
or rashly or to swear by any other thing. But then it goes 
on to say, yet as in matter of wait and moment. In other words, 
we are not to engage in oaths over every jot and tittle of 
our lives. That's where you can turn to 
Matthew chapter 5. Matthew chapter 5, Jesus speaks 
concerning oaths. Now, the New King James heading 
of this particular paragraph is absolutely terrible. Absolutely 
Anabaptist. Notice in Matthew chapter 5 at 
verse 33. I suspect all of you with the 
New King James has that marginal note or the title of the subsection. Jesus forbids oaths. No, he doesn't. Jesus does not forbid oaths. That is to suggest that there 
is some sort of antithesis between Jesus' teaching in the New Testament 
and the Father through Moses' teaching in the Old Testament. 
One of the things that Jesus is doing in this section in Matthew 
chapter 5, and he does so by way of what's called antitheses, 
you have heard that it was said to those of old, but I say to 
you. Now, the wrong interpretation 
of this is to suggest that Jesus is referring to the law of Moses. 
You've heard that it was said to you, Moses said this, but 
I say to you, do this. Jesus is not telling us to disregard 
Moses. That would be a hard pill to 
swallow in light of Matthew 5, 17 to 20. Do not think that I've 
come to abolish the law and the prophets. I haven't come to abolish 
them, but rather I have come to fulfill them. He talks about 
the blessings of those who teach that the jots and tittles of 
God's law are still abiding. The antitheses are not between 
Moses and Jesus, but between the Pharisees, Moses and Jesus 
together. In other words, the Pharisees 
botched the interpretation of Mosaic law. In fact, there's 
a particular example here in Matthew 5.43. You have heard 
that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. Now, brethren, I encourage you 
to search the Old Testament and find where God commands you to 
hate your enemy. He doesn't. That was Pharisaic 
misinterpretation. Now, there's certainly God judged 
my enemies. The imprecations belong there. 
But in terms of our personal, everyday dealings with people, 
we're not supposed to hate them. We're not supposed to, you know, 
foment their destruction or hope that they trip and, you know, 
crack their heads. We're not supposed to hate our enemies. 
That's just biblical in both the Testaments. So back to 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 
the earth, for it is his footstool, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the 
city of the great king." Now what he's speaking to specifically 
in verses 34 and 35 was a particular Pharisaic practice that had arisen. It was a means by which you could 
swear and still get out of what you're allegedly swearing to 
uphold. You swear by a creature, by something 
that represents God. Somehow that carries the full 
force, but then when push comes to shove, it actually doesn't. 
So he's speaking about that abuse. And then notice he goes on to 
say in verse 37, and this is where the Anabaptist interpretation 
and everybody else who denies the legitimacy of oaths and vows 
fall. It says, but let your yes be 
yes and your no, no, for whatever is more than these is from the 
evil one. Now, it seems pretty clear. Jesus 
says, let your yes be yes and your no be no. Therefore, don't 
take oaths and vows. Remember that Jesus, in the Sermon 
on the Mount, is dealing with interpersonal relationships. 
He is dealing with personal ethics. He is not dealing with the role 
of the civil magistrate. That's why when he speaks to 
turning the other cheek, we're not supposed to take that out 
of the realm of personal ethics, wherein we're not to be vindictive, 
retribution-seeking, Pharisaic wretches to our next-door neighbor 
because his dog messed in our yard. The idea is that we're 
not supposed to be that kind of people. He's not teaching 
the civil government shouldn't execute criminal offenders. Does 
everybody understand here? We don't take personal ethics 
and from that read into the specific legitimacy of the civil government. In other words, if Jesus says 
you need to turn the other cheek, How would it be if your child 
was raped, and you took the offender to the criminal courts, and the 
judge says, well, offer him your other daughter? That would be 
an abuse of this passage, and that is not the way we do biblical 
ethics. Jesus is dealing with personal 
ethics. We're not supposed to be pharisaic. We're not supposed to be vindictive. We're not supposed to be critical-spirited 
people. We're not supposed to be tiny 
people. We're supposed to live and let 
live. And so when he says, let your 
yes be yes and your no, no, he is not saying that the legitimacy 
of oaths and vows are now suspended. He's talking about in matters 
of everyday living. If your wife asks you, was the 
pot roast good tonight? You don't have to swear an oath 
to confirm that. You can say, yes. That's perfectly 
acceptable. You don't have to swear on a 
stack of Bibles that you'll actually show up tomorrow morning. You 
don't have to do that. Let your yes be yes and your 
no, no. In your daily lives, that should 
cover it. In your daily lives, that should 
be enough. But know what the confession 
says, yet as in matter of wait and moment. In other words, you've 
been called upon to testify at a murder trial. A man's life 
is hanging in the balance. Victims are standing or waiting 
in the courtroom. Their lives are hanging in the 
balance. Is it legitimate to invoke God 
in that solemn occasion to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth? Absolutely it's legitimate. And 
this is what the confession is saying. Notice, yet is in matter 
of wait and moment for confirmation of truth. This is the purpose. This is the impetus. Again, honey, 
the meatloaf was great, I swear to you. Doesn't matter. But yes, 
I saw that man take that gun and shoot that other person. 
Well then, that guilty one is sentenced to death. That would 
be an incident of matter of wait and moment, wherein good testimony 
is absolutely crucial. So it confirms the truth, and 
it ends all strife, and then in a completely anti-Anabaptist 
vein, says 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. If you are called upon to the 
criminal court because you witnessed a particular crime, you cannot 
say, no, I don't do that on the basis of religious liberty. Based 
on scripture, you must. You are invoking the God of heaven 
and earth to confirm your testimony and to end all strife. Jesus 
is dealing with the pot roast question. Jesus is dealing with 
the meatloaf question. Jesus is dealing with the poor 
guy whose wife says, do I look good in this? That's what Christ 
is dealing with. Let your yes be yes and your 
no be no. But when it comes to matters 
of wait and moment, criminal proceedings, property disputes 
wherein person's livelihood are at jeopardy, Yes, we invoke the name of God 
most high to underscore these particular things. The Old Testament 
saints took oaths, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Elijah, Nehemiah, for 
just a few examples. The law required oaths, Exodus 
22, 11, Numbers 5, 19, 1 Kings 8, 31. The Lord Jesus took an 
oath. Now, if the Anabaptists are right, 
and Jesus is suspending oath-taking and vow-taking in Matthew chapter 
5, then we really ought to struggle with Matthew chapter 26. Because 
you remember, the high priest puts Christ under oath by the 
living God according to 2663. Notice how Jesus does not respond. He does not say, well, high priest, 
you should get my sermon notes from the Sermon on the Mount 
in chapter 5, because there I suspended the oath and I suspended the 
vow, and that was a facet or an element of old covenant worship 
that is no longer binding today. No, Jesus does. Jesus says, it 
is as you said. He has been placed under oath 
by the living God. And He doesn't resist that. He 
doesn't say, oh, taking is bad. I'm going to let my yes be yes 
and my no be no. He says, it is as you said. And 
then in Revelation 10.5, the angel there that swears an oath, 
I take to be the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, there's going to be some 
difference of opinion there, but suffice it to say that's 
an interpretation. The Lord God took an oath. Turn 
to Hebrews 6. Hebrews chapter 6, if oath-taking 
is wrong or if oath-taking is no more, it is strange argumentation 
by the apostle in Hebrews 6 to point to God's oath with himself 
as an encouragement to the people of God in terms of their salvation. 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, 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. You see, the author acknowledges 
the utility of oath-taking. Why do men take oaths? Because 
it is for confirmation for them an end of all dispute. Right 
where our confession gets this. 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. You need to understand that when 
God swears an oath by Himself, it's not that there's some question 
concerning the divine credibility. Who's God doing that for? He's 
doing it for us. So we can say, praise God Almighty, 
He swore by Himself to save me from my sins. That's the point 
in Hebrews 6. Hughes says that God should bind 
Himself by an oath as 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. God in his kindness does this 
for us. And then of course, Paul took 
oaths several places in Paul's writings. He highlights this 
oath or that he's under this oath. Verse nine in Romans one, 
for God is my witness whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel 
of his son, without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers. And that doesn't say I have sworn 
an oath that I will never stop making mention of you in my prayers. 
He says, God is my witness. It implies a prior arrangement 
that Paul has entered into this relationship with the saints 
in Rome to be their friend, to be their prayer intercessor, 
to be this man that God would have him to be. 2 Corinthians 
1. Moreover, I call God as witness 
against my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth. It was for your benefit that 
I didn't come at that particular time. So to come at that particular 
time, I may have said things that you wouldn't have liked. 
And so God is my witness. I spared you so that I might 
not come to Corinth. Not that we have dominion over 
your faith, but our fellow workers for your joy, for by faith you 
stand. Notice in Philippians 1.8, Philippians 
1.8, for God is my witness, how greatly I long for you all with 
the affection of Jesus Christ. And then 1 Thessalonians 2, verse 
5. Again, it's not formally, here's 
my oath on behalf of the churches, but this idea of invoking God 
as witness indicates that God is called upon in this sort of 
an oath manner. 1 Thessalonians 2, 5, 4, Neither 
at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak 
for covetousness. God is witness. And then again in verse 10, You 
are witnesses, and God also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly 
we behaved ourselves among you who believe. So when we look 
at Jesus' words in Matthew 5, Wrong interpretation is to say 
that you ought not to swear an oath in a criminal court when 
it's a murder trial, and the potential there is that the guilty 
party will be executed by the state. You just let your yes 
be yes and your no, no. No, let your yes be yes and your 
no, no when it comes to your everyday, normal life dealings. 
I mean, when somebody says, I swear to you on a stack of Bibles, 
that's when I suspect they're lying to me. Believe me, I'm 
telling you the truth. Well, if you just tell me the 
truth, you can let your yes be yes and your no, no, right? I 
don't know if my mind is the only suspicious one in the room, 
but do you ever get that? I'm telling you the truth. Just 
tell me the truth and just let your yes be yes and your no, 
no. That's what Matthew 5 is about, not suspending the role 
of oaths and vows with reference to God and his government and 
the civil magistrate and that sphere. No, the Anabaptists are 
wrong. Those who deny oath-taking are 
wrong. Now, notice the solemnity of 
lawful oaths in paragraph 3. whosoever taketh an oath warranted 
by the word of God ought duly to consider the weightiness of 
so solemn an act." In other words, if you are called upon, and it 
is a lawful oath imposed by a lawful party, and you're going to stick 
your hand up in the air, and you're going to swear by God 
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
you ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act. It is a huge matter connected 
to the third commandment. If you lie, you are blaspheming 
God most high. And therein to avouch nothing 
but what he knoweth to be truth. Now notice what the end of paragraph 
three says. For that by rash, false, and 
vain oaths the Lord is provoked. See, again, I don't think we 
value truth-telling the way that God values truth-telling. How does the psalmist address 
God in Psalm 30, 31? He is the Lord God of truth. 
How does Jesus describe himself? I am the way, the truth, and 
the life. No one comes to the Father except 
through me. So it provokes the Lord, and 
then the end of paragraph three, it says, and for them this land 
mourns. We ought to suggest that at least 
it should mourn. It's an interesting thing what 
we no longer mourn over. We don't mourn over abortion. 
We don't mourn over euthanasia. We don't mourn over the lack 
of the death penalty. We don't mourn over lies. and 
false witness and false testimony. It's just commonplace. We expect 
politicians to lie in open court or in congressional hearings. 
It's what they do. It's synonymous. I mean, we've gotten trained 
to the point where if we look up the dictionary definition 
of liar, there's a picture of a politician there. We just accept 
that. That's really not the way we 
ought to be. We ought to be those who love 
the truth. And when the truth is distorted 
and perverted, again, church, family, state, the land ought 
to mourn. I mean, if we can't trust one 
another to tell each other the truth, that means the collapse 
of civil society. Isn't it the case? I mean, isn't 
that the basis upon which you brothers engage in commerce? I will deliver this to you and 
you pay me this. If people are lying, you don't 
get to eat that night. We have to value these particular 
things. We have to expect that our political 
leaders, men and women, that we choose for that particular 
role will be persons of integrity and will not lie. I would much 
rather than go before a congressional hearing and say, everything you're 
charging me with, I've done. I'm guilty. I'm a terrible specimen 
of a human being. I am a monster that deserves 
to be fired. I would praise God for that. 
But this, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, this 
equivocation, this subterfuge, this covertness, this deception, 
it is absolutely wretched and it makes most people just, some 
people want to throw up their hands and say, forget it, I'll 
pray that God will have mercy on those in high places, but 
man, it's a pretty bad looking situation at this particular 
juncture because we don't value the truth. And then notice, the 
sincerity of lawful oaths is dealt with in paragraph 4. An 
oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words 
without equivocation or mental reservation. You tell your child, 
I don't want you to eat any cookies out of the cookie jar. OK, I 
swear I won't. For the illustration, his yes 
should be yes and good enough. But for the illustration, you 
come home and there's cookie dust all over the counter. But 
you notice the cookie jar is still full. He said, well, you 
didn't say anything about the bag in the pantry. He knew that, right? And he swears 
not to touch the cookies in the jar because he knows there's 
at least a few remnants in the bag that he can get his nasty 
little mitts on. You see, people do that. People 
engage in that sort of... wickedness. An oath is to be 
taken in the plain and common sense of the word. It shouldn't 
require a lawyer to interpret an oath. Do you mean by that? 
Look, it should be plain and simple. It should be such that 
the most simple-minded human being on the face of the earth 
can stand up in open court and swear to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. It 
ought not to be an exercise in legalese or mental gymnastics, 
an equivocation or mental reservation. Mental reservation would be the 
equivalent of crossing one's fingers, right? Maybe you didn't 
do that here in Canada, but in America growing up, well, I crossed 
my fingers when I said I would or I wouldn't. Okay, but that 
doesn't free you. The cross fingers is not the 
way we're supposed to proceed. There's to be no equivocation, 
no mental reservation. We are not to try to find loopholes 
out of truth-telling. Just tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Notice, then, 
with reference, well, we already dealt a little bit with Matthew 
5. Just to give you a couple of quotes on what's happening 
there in Matthew 5, you can go back there, where Jesus talks 
about this swearing by things. Verse 34, I say to you, do not 
swear at all, 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. You see, swearing by these creatures, 
temple and altars and that sort of thing, swearing by creature 
seemed in their minds to be a strong thing, but it wasn't swearing 
to God, so there might have been some wiggle room. But what Jesus 
teaches, in essence, is all these things lead to God. An oath is 
an oath. It is before God. And John Gill explains this clause 
this way. 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. So condemning the one does not 
mean he's condemning the other. He is not condemning oaths and 
matters of importance and weight. What he is condemning is this 
rashness in this triviality and swearing by the creatures. Bonson 
explains, 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, 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. I mentioned earlier, I swear 
on a stack of Bibles, I didn't burn the pot roast. You burned 
it, just be honest. Let your yes be yes and your 
no, no. This is what we need to appreciate. When Jesus is 
dealing with personal ethics in the Sermon on the Mount, we're 
not to take that and then read it into civil ethics on the societal 
level. Turn the other cheek to this 
guy that slaps you doesn't mean leave your house unlocked. and 
let people come in and steal everything and rape your women. 
That's just not what it means. It's not an argument against 
that kind of protection. It's not an argument against 
the civil magistrate wielding the sword, executing God's judgment 
in history. And that approach to the Sermon 
on the Mount makes it extremely dangerous because we really evidence 
that we don't understand, A, Jesus' words, and B, the rest 
of the Bible. And that's always a bad thing 
for the Christian church to sort of advertise. Anyway, so that's 
the oath. Let's look at the vow finally 
in paragraph 5. 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. In other words, your oaths to 
men before the Lord demand a certain amount of consideration and contemplation 
and studied carefulness. Well, the same is true when you 
vow to God. You make a vow to God Most High. You don't just 
say, oh, you know, that's the way it goes. I'm going to just 
do this. To God alone, it is to be made and performed with 
all religious care and faithfulness. As is often the case, they're 
not only combating the Anabaptist error, but they're also combating 
Roman Catholicism. And Roman Catholicism had a whole 
bunch of different oaths or vows for a whole bunch of different 
things. Notice they say, but popish monastical vows of perpetual 
single life. You know, this idea where the 
priest has to take a particular vow or the monk has to take a 
particular vow for a perpetually single life. That has no warrant 
in the scripture. Absolutely without warrant in 
the scripture. That the Church of Rome has forbidden 
their ministers to marry has caused them untold harm in terms 
of pedophilia and a whole host of other expressions of evil 
and wickedness. Let the men have wives. I'm not 
here to help Rome, but if they wanted to hear, I'd say, let 
the priests marry. It might help you with some of 
those abominations. Better yet, you know, close up 
shop and declare that Protestantism is right. That would be the ultimate 
and the best, but you're taking something that God in his goodness 
gave to the creature, and you're telling them, no, it's a bad 
thing. That is wrong. Popish monastical vows of perpetual 
single life. The first instance, or the one 
instance in the creation week where God saw that something 
was not good was when Adam was alone. The Bible upholds the 
sanctity of marriage. The Bible gives us a command 
to protect marriage. God Almighty is pro-marriage. Peter himself was pro-marriage, 
wasn't he? I mean, if Peter's your prototype, 
how in the world can you forbid other men in his succession to 
be married? Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. Last I checked, that meant Peter 
had a wife. In fact, Paul says as much in 
1 Corinthians, don't we have the right to take with us a believing 
wife like Peter and the others? Praise God! God not only saved 
Peter, but God saved Peter's wife. And Christ healed Peter's 
mother-in-law. So it's always been, you know, 
just a curiosity to me that a system that extols the primacy of Peter 
says, but you can't get married like Peter. That is wicked, not 
just, well, you know, that's their way. No, it's absolutely 
wicked. Forbidding a man to engage in 
something that God says is good is a bad, bad thing. We're not 
supposed to do that. In fact, in 1 Timothy 4, Paul 
treats marriage and forbidding meat as doctrines of demons. Isn't that incredible? We think 
of the doctrines of demons that will punctuate the last times 
as Russia or as Obama or as whatever. Paul says when you forbid somebody 
to marry or you forbid them a nice porterhouse steak, you have associated 
yourself with demons. Because that is the kind of stuff 
that God's Word is absolutely opposed to. He made this world. He made husbands and wives. He 
made cows for eating. He did this because He's good. You are impugning the goodness 
of God by forbidding marriage. And you are demanding of somebody 
that they have a gift that they may not necessarily have. Doesn't 
Paul treat celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 as a gift? Not all men are 
like me. What's he indicating? God's given 
me the ability not to be married and also not to burn in lust. Now, some speculate that Paul 
had been married. If he was a Pharisee, if he was 
the man that he describes himself to be prior to his conversion, 
and it was most certainly the case that pious Jews in that 
situation would have been married. The hypothesis is, on the part 
of some, is that Paul's wife died. Others actually say Paul's 
wife left him when he came to the Savior. So that when he says, 
whatever was gained, these things I have counted loss, he knew 
what he was speaking about in terms of the cross costing something. But either way, whether she died, 
whether she left, or whether there was never a Mrs. Paul, 
God gave him a gift. And God hasn't given that gift 
to everybody. And to demand that a man who 
has no gift act like the one who has the gift is a violation 
of God's holy law, and it is the practical source of a whole 
host of abuse. Now, I'm not saying Protestantism 
is, you know, great and sterling. There's pedophilia, to be sure, 
in Protestantism as well. But you've sort of built it into 
the system in the Roman Catholic ministry. You have not made it 
any easier, that's for sure. So Popish monastical vows. I just love that phrase, Popish 
monastical vows. Whoever gets to say Popish monastical 
vows, those who study the great confessions of the 17th century, 
praise God. I bet you'll not hear that in 
this coming week, but I took a Popish monastical vow or I 
rejected a Popish monastical vow. It's not the kind of stuff 
you hear in your common everyday life of perpetual single life 
and then profess poverty. That's another thing. Somehow 
Rome has associated poor with holy. There's some really wretched 
poor people. Poor people aren't virtuous because 
they're poor. There's some actually very godly 
rich people too. Imagine just saying that you 
got to cough up all your dough and somehow that fits you for 
service in Christ's kingdom. That's not the way the Bible 
treats it. The Bible is not telling you everybody's got to be rich. 
Everybody's got to have, you know, a billion dollars or everybody. 
No. If you work hard and by God's blessing, you make a little dough, 
that's okay. And if you're in the ministry, 
I don't see brethren, and I always hate talking about money connected 
to the ministry, at least at our church. I think I'd go to 
Mike's church today and preach on how they need to give. Give 
big brethren and support your pastor. But for me, I don't like 
to talk about money associated with the ministry. I really don't. 
But this much I am convinced of, it ought not to be the case 
that the minister starves or that the minister's kids can't 
wear shoes or that they live in a hut. I'm not convinced that's 
the biblical way. I'm convinced that our confession 
of faith accurately describes the scriptural admonitions. He 
ought to have sufficient support so that he can maintain life. He makes his living from preaching 
the Word, or he preaches the Word as a means by which He makes 
a living. So make sure he makes a living. 
Now, I'm not asking for a raise. I'm not here saying, February's 
in sight, brethren. AGM's coming. I'm not. I'm very happy, very content. 
God is very good. I'm very thankful for the infrastructure 
of this church that has always looked after me. I can say that 
with Judgment Day honesty, and I praise God for it. Because 
there are ministers out there that are severely mistreated. 
A man's preaching to you the word of God, and you're going 
to cheap out? We don't cheap out when we search out a lawyer. 
We certainly don't cheap out when we visit a doctor. We don't 
cheap out when we hire a mechanic. Well, maybe we do. And if we 
do, then that's, I guess, the way it is. But the point is, 
if a man is preaching to us the eternal truth of God Almighty, 
we shouldn't want him to live in a hovel or to live behind 
the alley downtown and just sort of creep out on Sunday and do 
his thing and then head back to that shack. Again, I'm not 
asking for more money. I have no concern whatsoever 
for that. I'm just telling you that this idea of professed poverty, 
don't we do that sometimes? They're poor, they must be holy. 
Poor people are wretched. Rich people are wretched, but 
God in His grace saves some poor, He saves some rich, and they 
have the imputed righteousness of Jesus, and they can function 
and live and do what they're supposed to do. If the Word of 
God says you need to be poor in order to serve in the Christian 
ministry, then that's the case. But if the Word of God doesn't 
say that, then lighten up, Rome. Let these poor guys buy a suit. Let them wear something other 
than that outfit. Let them have a steak once in 
a while. They might actually serve you a little better. I 
mean, it's just an insane system. Then this idea of regular obedience. I simply did not have the time 
yesterday to get back into the historical context. I think it 
has to do with those things that the church dictates. In other 
words, those things that are not scriptural, but are Romish 
or Popish and you vow to subscribe to those particulars. And then 
it goes on to say, are so far from being degrees of higher 
perfection that they are superstitious and sinful snares in which no 
Christian may entangle himself. Turn to Colossians 2 for just 
a moment. Again, I think we don't think 
like the Apostle Paul. I don't mean we, you guys, go 
home and cry because Jim made fun of you. One of the signs 
from the rally yesterday was a whole bunch of snowflakes make 
up a snowball or something. Go away. There'll be a snowflake 
somewhere else. That's not something to revel 
in. I certainly don't think it has any place in the church, 
so if you get offended, I'm sorry. I just don't think we think like 
Paul. Look at what Paul says. Verse 16 of Colossians 2, "...let 
no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival, 
or a new moon, or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, 
but the substances of Christ." Now notice, "...let no one cheat 
you of your reward, taking delight in false humility." Now false 
is supplied there, but it's a good supply. You know, humility is 
a good thing. False humility is a terrible 
thing. The person that tells you how 
humble they are, they're not. I'm just, you know, so humble. 
I'm just so selfie face. No, you're not. You're the most 
proud person I've ever met. People that tell me I'm so humble. 
Ah, man, just go be humble somewhere else. I can't handle it. It's 
just too much. Let no one cheat you of your 
reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, 
intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed 
up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head from 
whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and 
ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Now, what Paul 
is doing here is he is condemning specifically mystical legalism. Now, notice that he's going to 
deal with or condemn or treat this idea of what's called asceticism. Now, asceticism is popish, right? Don't marry Don't eat a steak 
on Friday. Fish is okay. McDonald's sells 
more Filet-O-Fish during Lent on Fridays probably than any 
other time of the year. In fact, I've noticed during 
Lent, you see the McDonald's signs advertising Filet-O-Fish. Say what you will about McDonald's. 
They got marketing down. Papists are going to see the 
sign and head to McDonald's on Friday because they get to eat 
the Filet-O-Fish on Friday. Can't eat the Big Mac, can't 
have the Quarter Pounder. I can have that on Saturday and 
I can have that on Thursday, but on Friday I have to have 
the Filet-O-Fish. It's just marketing genius, isn't 
it? It's just amazing. So asceticism is you can't marry 
because it's wrong to have relations with a woman. You can't eat a 
Big Mac on Friday. You can't go here and you can't 
do that. Well, in their mind, and in the 
minds of Protestants who think this way as well, it's not just 
a popish thing. Protestants do, like, hey, I 
can't do that. I can't touch that. I can't go here. I can't 
go there. And in that, I commend myself to God as holy. Now, if 
you have those preferences, not to go or not to eat or not to 
do, that's fine. But don't see them with religious 
significance as commending you to God. That's the problem. He 
says in 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 yourselves to regulations? Do not touch, 
do not taste, do not handle, which all concern things which 
perish with the using. according to the commandments 
and doctrines of men." Now here's where, and I suggest we don't 
think like Paul. We see this and we see, wow, 
commitment to holiness. We see the skinny priest and 
say, wow, commitment to holiness. We see the popish person not 
having a Big Mac on Friday. Now for us, we see it as weird, 
but it's holy. We see Protestants who have this 
rigid code that is holy. Well, let's go to what Paul says, 
verse 23. 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. The Puritans called this will-worship. 
will worship. When you set up all these structures 
and you approach it not as a means to help you in your sanctification 
under the power of the Holy Spirit, God working in you, but as a 
means by which you are more favorable or more acceptable to God, this 
is will worship. Don't be dazzled by that. Don't 
think, wow, Wow, that guy or gal is really holy. If they think 
by their doing that commends them to God, that's will worship, 
and Paul says as much. We ought not to think opposite 
to the way God tells us. Now I'm not saying go out and 
do anything you want. Go do what God commands you to do, but understand, 
we're not accepted by God based on what we don't eat. We're not 
accepted by God because we opt for the Filet-O-Fish on Friday. We're not accepted by God because 
of any external code that we choose to live our lives by. 
We are accepted by God because of Jesus. the active and the 
passive obedience of Christ. Well brethren, I think the sanctity 
of truth is something we ought to take to heart. Numbers 30 
verse 2 tells us, 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. Amen. Well, let us pray. Father, 
we thank You for Your Word, and we thank You for the oath and 
for the vow. Help us to appreciate it as an 
act of religious worship. Help us to see it as an acknowledgment, 
not only of Your being, but of Your perfections and who You 
are and what You do in terms of men. And how Dixon says, it 
shows that You are mindful even of the matters that affect Your 
creatures in this world. God, certainly your providence 
is glorious, the fact that you have given these things for the 
good of your creatures and the good of your people. Lord, in 
this we rejoice. We pray now that you would guide 
us into worship, give us that spirit and truth, that heart 
of reverence toward you, that we may worship and glorify you. 
And we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.