And the scripture reading this afternoon is a very short one from Deuteronomy 10 from verse 20 and then we will be turning back to Exodus chapter 20 Deuteronomy chapter 10 from verse 20 to the end of the chapter, just three verses Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, him shalt thou serve and to him shalt thou plead and swear by his name he is thy praise and he is thy God that hath done for thee these great and terrible things which thine eyes have seen thy fathers went down into Egypt with three score and ten persons and now the Lord thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitudes and then in Exodus chapter 20 which of course you will realize is the giving of the Ten Commandments so solemnly and awesomely on Mount Sinai we read only verse 7 Exodus 20 verse 7 Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord thy God in vain for the Lord will not hold him guiltless but taketh his name in vain and I'm going to add a short scripture reading from Matthew 5 in the New Testament Matthew 5 we're going to read just a few verses from verse 33 as the Lord Jesus deals with the subject of oath-taking Matthew 5 verse 33 the Sermon on the Mount again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time thou shalt not forswear thyself but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths But I say unto you, swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is His footstool, neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black, but let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these, of evil. May God bless to us these several readings from his own inspired word. Now this afternoon in our service and our continuation of the consideration of some basic Christian doctrines from the scriptures we have come to a very unusual subject as I think you would all immediately recognize the subject of lawful oaths and vows a subject which, nevertheless, in our subordinate standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, is given full treatment in a fairly lengthy chapter, Chapter 22 of the Confession of Faith, that has no less than seven sections to it. Now let me hasten to say that this will be, I think, one of the shorter expositions from the scriptures and the confession of faith this afternoon because while the subject is a very important one there is not, perhaps, the same depth in this subject as there is in some of the other subjects and doctrines that we have been looking at recently. But it is an unusual subject but arising naturally, you may remember from what we considered last Lord's Day afternoon on religious worship and the Sabbath day I wonder if you noticed as we considered that subject that oaths are listed as part of the true worship of God and that is certainly very interesting now, as I say, it's not a very familiar theme among Christians nowadays nor is its relevance easy to see immediately, at least but it has very real implications for us as believers and Christians and as a Christian church for example, oaths are related to truth-telling and therefore to the opposite of truth-telling which is lying and often involving perjury and I don't need to remind you that even in the highest echelons of American government even within your lifetime and mine just a few years ago truth-telling and oath-taking was a very real issue I only need to mention the word Watergate for example and the Watergate scandal and you will remember how oath-taking and truth-telling was at the very heart of that American crisis or the absence thereof now we also need to remember that we may be called upon to take solemn oaths as in a court of law and unless we are Quakers or extreme Anabaptists who deny the validity of taking oaths imposed by lawful authority, we would be bound to take that kind of oath. But it's not just in civil society that there is a relevance concerning oaths and vows. I'm sure I don't need to remind you this afternoon that there are membership vows in the Christian Church which are very solemn and are taken in the presence of God and in the presence of the people of God. there are vows also taken in connection with the sacraments of baptism whether one is committed as we are to the baptism of covenant children within Christian homes or a baptism on profession of faith as an adult there are solemn vows before God that are undertaken by those who are baptized or those who stand for those who are baptized and also even in the taking of the Lord's Supper I scarcely need to remind you that there is by implication the solemn pledge on the part of God's people that amounts to a vow that we will live our lives in accordance with what that sacrament of the Lord's Supper sets forth concerning the death and the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ so immediately you can see that the subject of oaths and vows rightly has a great deal to do with religious worship. Far from being irrelevant and unnecessary then as a subject, it is indeed very applicable to us all. Now let me say what a joy and privilege we should regard it to have the Westminster Divine's guidance and teaching on this subject, as the Holy Spirit gave them a comprehension and understanding of it in chapter 22 of our Confession. let me say a quick word before we look at this subject in the light of scripture and the confession of faith let me say a quick word about the several scripture passages that we chose as our reading Deuteronomy 10 verse 20 thou shalt fear the Lord thy God him shalt thou serve and to him shalt thou plead and swear by his name now it's very clear just from that single verse that the fear of the Lord and the service of the Lord and pleading to the Lord is of the same nature as swearing by his name it is indeed part of religious worship to be able to invoke the name of God in any solemn transaction as we're going to see this afternoon Exodus 20 verse 7 of course third commandment, thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, and so on, we often think of the interpretation of that third commandment as forbidding oaths, in other words, bad language and we all know how common that is in our society today, all kinds of swear words, many of them invoking the name of God and doing so in an utterly unbiblical and even at times a blasphemous way now certainly the command does relate to those kind of oaths but if you read commentaries, good commentaries on Exodus 20 and the third commandment you find that underlying that interpretation is a much deeper one that what the commandment is saying is that anyone who swears by God's name in vain, that is rashly or not for substantive reason is guilty of blaspheming the name of God so it does indeed, it is a commandment referring to the use of God's name in solemn oaths and its misuse and that is particularly the warning of Exodus 20 verse 7 now when we come to Matthew 5, and I'm going to speak a little more in detail about it later, so I'll say very little about it here, Matthew 5 verse 33 and following is the teaching of the Lord Jesus concerning oath-taking in the Sermon on the Mountain many have misunderstood his teaching there in Matthew 5 as forbidding the use of any kind of oath-taking. Now I'm going to suggest to you that that is a completely erroneous and misleading interpretation of what Jesus actually taught. But we'll come to that, as I say, in the course of this exposition this afternoon. Now I want to look at the subject, as I say, and as we usually do, both in the light of Scripture and in the light of the Confession. And reading the very helpful first section, then, of the Confession of Faith, of Lawful Oaths and Vows, Chapter 22, we read a lawful oath is a part of religious worship wherein upon just occasion the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth so here is the nature of lawful oaths and in this section the first thing I want to say is what is the difference between an oath and a vow because later, if you look on, in sections 5 through 7 it deals with vows what is the difference between an oath and a vow? well, an oath is made between men with God as witness a vow, on the other hand, is made to God and He is party to it that's the great difference an oath is made between men with God as witness A vow, however, is made to God, and He is party to it. So while there are similarities, there are also very real differences, and that's why vows are treated separately in the Confession of Faith at the very end of these sections. Let me make several comments quickly on section 1. A lawful oath is part of religious worship, a lawful oath. So clearly, the Westminster divines recognize that there is a place for oath-taking and there are many instances of this in scripture I'm going to mention some of these in just a few minutes and of course in the subsequent sections of this chapter of the Confession of Faith there is indication of what comprises a lawful oath for instance we're going to see it must be made in the name of God only and it must be made concerning weighty matters and not trivial matters and so on but clearly there is recognition that there is a place for oath-taking now we've seen this in Deuteronomy 10 verse 20 where swearing by the name of the Lord is put in the same category as we saw us pleading to Him and serving Him and fearing the Lord and in Exodus 20 verse 7 the commandment respecting the use of the name of God now the second thing I want to say is it's called part of religious worship now isn't that surprising? how many of us think of oaths and vows as part of religious worship? well vows certainly because God is party to them but oaths? part of religious worship? well they must be so when you think about it because we're calling upon God to witness the sincerity of our affirmations it may be or our denials as may be or our promises and we're invoking his name and calling upon him to judge the oath that we're taking according to the truth or falsehood of what is sworn now why are we doing this? why the name of God and not the name of the President of the United States or the Queen of England in my case? well because we're recognizing the omniscience and omnipotence and absolute justice of the sovereign God whose witness is in both and that's an attitude of worship, isn't it? and if you look, I never give all the proof texts in handing out the chapters of the Westminster Confession or in the sermon notes, but there's a multitude of proof texts if you look at the Westminster Confession proof texts there are many, many instances and proofs of this being part of religious worship we've looked at Deuteronomy 10 verse 22 and Exodus 20 verse 7 but also in Leviticus 19 verse 12 there's a warning there against swearing falsely in 2nd Chronicles 6 verse 22 it's Solomon's great prayer of dedication at the temple and what's in the heart of that prayer? the taking of oaths in the name of God as he dedicates the temple he acknowledges this is part of the worship of God even in our studies of Nehemiah chapter 5 verse 12 you remember Nehemiah made the rulers who were speculating in real estate and hurting God's people he made them take an oath in the name of the Lord Exodus 22 verse 11 speaks of animals that have gone missing and the one who is in charge of those animals needing to take an oath in the name of God that he had not pilfered or stolen the missing animals even in Psalm 15 verse 4 it speaks of the godly man as swearing to his own hurt and yet not going back on his word many examples. Well then, in summary, oaths are allowed on solemn and serious occasions to bind men against dishonesty and untruth and to safeguard truth-telling and to make sure that men will tell the truth given fallen man's propensity for falsehood. Oaths are necessary on occasion because men are natural liars now it's also interesting that since this is an act of religious worship it shows that in regard to the civil courts and the civil legislation that our forefathers here in the United States did not intend a complete separation between church and state because our forefathers were very much committed to the need for oath-taking in the civil courts. And oath-taking, as we've seen, is an act of religious worship. You cannot, finally and biblically, separate entirely church and state. There is an interrelation, as we've already seen. And you see it even in the matter of oath-taking. Of course, we must say, as I finish on section 1, that even in the area of the church, the ecclesiastical area, Sadly today we witness, do we not, even Presbyterian officers and ministers being forced to their ordination vows and oaths, taking them with mental reservations and breaking them, saying on the one hand we believe thoroughly the reformed teaching and doctrines, we undertake vows to uphold those, and then in their actual ministry, quite openly defying the oath and vow that they have taken. Section 2 What constitutes a lawful oath? The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear. 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 matters of wait and moment an oath is warranted by the word of God and under the New Testament as well as under the Old so a lawful oath being imposed by lawful authority in such matters ought to be taken several things quickly here you notice that a lawful oath to be lawful involves the name of God with holy fear and reverence so the third commandment does not forbid oath-taking but only swearing by God's name in vain that is to say, to use God's name regarding trivial matters, for instance or insincerely with mental reservations or even falsely and this refutes the Pharisees' practices in the New Testament which we'll come to in a moment customarily swore by the temple or other things that they considered were less binding and did not use the name of God in their oaths we'll come to that in a minute it must be in the name of God only lawful oath taking you notice there is mention of swearing vainly or rashly well this frequently happens still doesn't it in our society and sadly even among Christians for instance some of the common expressions that we hear around merciful heaven for instance or golly or even a word that I confess I sometimes it slips out of my mouth and I even as a minister forget that really the origin of the term is taking God's name in vain, the word G I just used it recently in the presence of Mr. Cormeo, I don't know if he noticed, that all of these things, and others like them, Don, for instance, is really from Dan. These are all wrong uses, swearing vainly or rashly, and they've come very much into our common parlance, and we need very much to be on our guard about them. And the other thing I want to say is that you notice the Westminster Divine say that oaths are warranted under the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. Well that takes us to Matthew 5 verse 33 and following when Jesus says, Swear not at all. Now I want to emphasize that Jesus is not forbidding the taking of a lawful oath. Why? Well, we have our Lord's own example in much of his teaching, particularly in John's Gospel, where before some of his most pregnant sayings, you remember, in our authorised version, are the words, Verily, verily, or truly, truly. And it is the equivalent of an appeal to God, almost an oath in the name of God. Truly, truly, said Jesus, I tell you, and then there is some pregnant saying that falls from his lips now it's still more vindicated of course by the trial of Jesus in Matthew 26 verse 63 and following where the high priest you remember at Jesus' so-called trial said finally when Jesus was silent I adjure thee by the living God that thou tellest whether thou be the Christ or no and Jesus responded to that lawful oath he broke his silence he recognised that he was being put under a lawful oath so what is Jesus teaching in Matthew 5 verse 33 and following? well it's a protest against the Pharisees abuse of oath-taking as I'm sure many of you realised they avoided the use of the divine name and they substituted things like the temple and the altar and the gift on the altar and the gold of the temple and so on and they applied oath-taking moreover to all kinds of trivial matters and they drew distinctions between the oath-taking some oaths were binding and some were not Matthew 23 verse 16 and following if someone swore by the temple it was not binding but if someone swore by the gold of the temple it was binding if someone swore by the altar it wasn't binding but by the sacrifice on the altar it was binding Jesus saw this as indeed taking the name of God as it were in vain swearing by holy things using casuistic to distinguish even between the oaths themselves and so Jesus' prohibition is indiscriminate oath-taking and oath-taking which did not involve the solemn name of God In the New Testament we see an example of apostles, in Romans 9 verse 1, I tell you the truth in Christ, and so on, as the apostle speaks of the grief of his heart over the unbelief of Israel. In 2 Corinthians 1 verse 23, I call God, says Paul, as witness and of course there's the great passage in Hebrews 6 verses 13 and 16 where the writer is speaking of the new covenant and God has sworn by an oath to uphold that covenant as Samuel Rutherford said, our hope is not hung upon such an untwisted thread as I imagine so or it is likely that the cable, the strong cable of our fastened anchor is the oath and promise of Him who is eternal verity and if God goes on oath to His people, how can oath-taking on their part biblically understood and applied be sinful? I don't need to remind you that in the Old Testament there are many examples of oath-taking in his oath to Abimelech, Isaac similarly to the Philistine Abimelech, Jacob, Joseph the great oath between Jonathan and David is famous as an expression of their love and commitment to each other so provided it is imposed by lawful authority it's entirely proper and just for a Christian to comply with a lawful oath. We are not Quakers we are not, we believe, in this understanding of scripture, extreme Anabaptists either. Now in section 3 you have the warrant manner and binding nature, and I'm going to be very brief on this. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, therein to avouch nothing but what is fully, he is fully persuaded is the truth, Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being opposed by lawful authority. So, just several things very, very quickly on this. You notice the weightiness of so solemn an act is emphasized and the person being fully persuaded of the truth of what he is affirming by oath. Now, many today in our own society only consider how they can color the truth, don't they? And we need to be reminded of the weightiness of Sir Solomon Act. It's not to be engaged in for any matters that are trivial. Secondly, binding himself only to what is good and just? Doesn't that create a real dilemma for many Christians today? I'm not an American citizen, so I can't be called for jury duty. but many of you, probably most of you who are adults, could be called to serve on a jury. And a Christian friend of mine recently, he's actually one of our own ministers in this denomination, told me how he had been summoned to jury duty, and one of the questions put to him before he was approved was concerning moral principles, and he immediately said, I believe in the validity of the Ten Commandments. And guess what? he was immediately asked to leave binding himself only to what is good and just and whatever the cost we must indeed remember that this is the obligation that we are under an obligation to God himself in anything that binds us in the courts of law and not to the current level of morality or understanding of moral standards in this decadent 21st century in which we live. And you notice also a sin to refuse an oath imposed by lawful authority. I already referred to our Lord's example at his trial in responding to the oath that he was put under by the high priest. Well then, section 4, the manner and binding nature of oaths. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the word without equivocation or mental reservation it cannot oblige to sin but in anything not sinful being taken it binds to performance although to a man's own hurt nor is it to be violated although made to heretics although made to heretics or infidels, unbelievers in other words the manner and binding nature of oaths Again, very quickly on this passage, I think the teaching is very straightforward. It is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without mental equivocation. Of course, this is entered into by the Westminster divines because of the practice in the Roman Catholic Church, particularly among the Jesuits, where they were willing indeed to take oaths, or to see oaths taken, but they realized that mental reservations could be exercised. Now this is completely unbiblical. If an oath is taken, it must be according to the plain and common sense of the words. Now I mentioned already, this is a really viable issue, because even in reformed churches it's often violated, isn't it? Where men are called to the eldership, or the diaconate, the ministry, the higher calling and many of these men take vows and oaths they would admit afterwards with mental reservations without even declaring to their presbyteries or ordaining bodies that they do have equivocation or reservation in taking those vows and this amounts to dishonesty of the highest and most serious kind God is witness to what has been taken and the person is bound to fulfil the vow that he has taken and not to equivocate. Now I cannot oblige to sin, you notice. One instance or illustration of this is if there is a mixed marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant. Many of you know, some of you come from Roman Catholic backgrounds, that normally it is a requirement by the Roman Catholic priest who conducts the marriage that the Protestant party must bring up children in the Roman Catholic faith. now that is sinful, it is a wrong and erroneous and unbiblical requirement and of course a Protestant initially should not, we believe, be marrying a Roman Catholic there should not be a mixed marriage but when it does happen, that requirement is usually made now if that requirement has been made, it can be broken it should be broken by the Protestant party particularly if he's come to the biblical understanding of the upbringing of children. It cannot oblige sin. And the other thing is it binds to performance in anything not sinful, even to a man's own hurt, as we saw in Psalm 15 verse 4. And applies even to heretics or infidels. Now again, the Roman Catholic Church has traditionally taught that an oath made to someone who is not a Roman Catholic need not be binding. A great instance of this, some of you will know, is in the burning of John Hus in Bohemia, who predated Luther at the end of the 14th century and was one of the rising stars of the coming Reformation. He was promised by the Roman Catholic Church that if he attended the Council of Constance, where his teaching would be examined, he would be given a safe conduct. And when he got there, the safe conduct was denied he was tried, condemned and burned at the stake it binds to performance even to heretics or unbelievers and we need also to recognize this in all our civil contracts even in business with someone who is not a Christian it's still binding if it is an oath taken involving God's name now finally, the closing sections are very clear the nature of biblical vows we know in scripture there are many grounds for biblical vows we're going to sing as we close this service in a few minutes time, Psalm 116 where the writer of that psalm rejoices in the fact that he has been able to make a solemn vow and pledge before the Lord in Acts 18 verse 18 you find Paul voluntarily underwent a certain vow when he returned to Jerusalem and we also find in the book of Deuteronomy vows are encouraged for God's people now they're very similar to oaths it's a solemn promise made to God and it may be personal or ecclesiastical and we're all involved, brothers and sisters, we who are members of the church because, as I reminded you, there are church membership vows before God and also vows concerning baptism and even participation in the Lord's Supper. Notice section 5, very short. A vow is of like nature, with a promissory oath. It ought to be made with like religious care and performed with like faithfulness. I like the words of Spurgeon. Spurgeon was a Reformed Baptist, as you know. And he said, the practice of making solemn vows in time of trouble is to be commended when it is followed by the far less common practice of fulfilling them when the trouble is over. Typically Spurgeonic, isn't it? It's commended when it is followed by the far less common practice of fulfilling those vows when the trouble is over. Well then, section 5, religious care and faithfulness there. Think of our vows in baptism, when we come to the Lord's table, and our membership vows. Are we really doing this? Making them with religious care and performing them with a similar faithfulness. Section 6, they are not to be made to any creature, but to God alone, and that it may be accepted, the vow may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, conscience of duty, in the way of thanksgiving for mercy received, or obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties or other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto. I think that's pretty clear. The reference not making a vow to any creature, of course, is a reference to the Roman Catholic practice of making vows to departed saints, which is a superstition and involves idolatry and has no scriptural foundation whatsoever moreover a vow must be voluntary and must not be forced out of faith or conscious duty or thanksgiving or special need as it's mentioned I think it's all very clear in that section and then section 7 no man may vow to do anything forbidden in the word of God or what would hinder any duty therein commanded or which is not in his power for the performance thereof, and for the performance thereof he hath no promise of ability from God, in which respects hopish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, regular obedience, and so far from being degrees of higher perfection, they are superstitious and sinful snares in which no Christian may entangle himself. so the essence there is that we cannot vow to do something that is not authorized in God's Word which in fact is forbidden in God's Word an example of this Martin Luther as you know was a monk and he was in the Augustinian order in the German town of Erfurt at the beginning of the 16th century he had taken solemn monastic vows, Roman Catholic vows in chastity and in poverty. He broke those vows, and he had every reason for doing so, because these vows were unscriptural. Scripture does not require a man or a woman to live in perpetual singleness, nor does it require someone to live in perpetual poverty, nor obedience was the other vow. to the Roman Catholic hierarchy irrespective of what scripture teaches so Luther was perfectly within his right to break those monastic vows so vows are only for duties authorised by God and plainly endorsed in scripture and of course the section ends by mentioning the sinful snares into which many have been led in Roman Catholic teaching Well, it's a very rich chapter, isn't it? And it obviously has a great deal of relevance to our lives today, both as citizens and also in the church. We live in a fallen world where mankind's natural propensity is towards untruth and deceit. And we need, I think, the scriptural teaching to encourage us in the habit of truth-telling, both in civil and ecclesiastical matters. Let's pray. Our Father in heaven, we thank Thee for this unusual subject and yet its clear delineation in scripture and in our subordinate standard as part of the true religious worship of God. Help us all, O Lord, to be men and women, boys and girls who are committed to truth-telling and also realize the solemnity of the vows that we have undertaken, if we are members of the Church, concerning the things that are so central in the life and the profession of the Christian Church. In Christ's name, we ask these things.