I do want to put you at ease a little bit. Jim Lawrence just let me know he's standing right back here in case I get confused or lost on any of the things that I'm teaching about this morning. He said I could thumbs up from Jim. That's good to know. We are going to be reading from chapter 23 of the Second London Baptist Confession today, which is a chapter that deals with the taking of lawful oaths and vows. Now there's a lot of material in this chapter that is really historically rooted in the 16th and 17th century. And so one way to approach going about studying this chapter would be to try to go back to each paragraph and dissect what the historical situation was that attended each paragraph, try to understand all of this in the context of the Protestant Reformation and the things that they were dealing with both in the church and in the state and in the church-state relationship. And I think that would be a helpful way to approach this, although it would be a little bit of a long way, and I'm not sure that we can do it in 30 minutes. Another way to approach studying this chapter would be to study it by looking at the paragraphs, looking at the scriptures that the confession cites, and trying to understand the theology of our confession in light of the associated scriptures and some relevant texts that attend it. And so that's what I want us to do. I want us to spend most of our time thinking about this chapter in light of its associated scripture texts and what our broader theology is on the taking of oaths and vows. I think in looking at this paragraph, we're essentially going to come down to two things, or at least these are my propositions as we work through it. Number one, that we live our lives in the presence of an all-knowing God who will hold us accountable for our truthfulness. And secondly, that we should thus approach the making of oaths or vows, indeed our daily conversation, just the more mundane, less formal ways that we communicate with one another, with honesty, integrity, and a clean conscience. So as we look at this, I think these are the overarching themes that we're going to take out of it. Paragraph one provides us a definition of an oath. But more than that, it points us to a fundamental underlying issue of what oaths are all about. That making an oath is an admission that our lives are lived in the presence of an all-knowing God and that we are accountable to him for our truthfulness. Paragraph one says that 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. This paragraph, number one, gives us the definition of the term oath, and so it serves in that way to guide us through the rest of the reading of this chapter in the Confession. But secondly, it calls on us to think of oath-taking not only in terms of our responsibility to another party or the other parties with whom we make an oath, but to think about oath-taking in relationship to our responsibilities before God. So in that way, it drills down to an underlying issue about taking an oath to say, This isn't something that we just have to do because it's the right thing to do. It's something that we have to do because we are doing it invoking and in the presence of an all-knowing God who will hold us accountable to whether or not our oaths and our commitments to others are truthful. We can speak broadly about how it defines for us an oath by saying that it's a commitment or a promise that a person makes with a forthcoming, righteous, and wise intention. invoking God to hear and hold him or her accountable. So simply put, an oath is a promise made from one person to another, invoking God's holiness as the standard, and his justice and wrath as a consequence for a failure to keep that which is sworn. Our standard for taking an oath is God's own holiness, and the consequence for breaking an oath is his judgment and wrath. Beyond being a simple call to truthfulness, The confession presents the issue of taking an oath as a spiritual one. This, in part, is why it's referred to in our confession as a part of religious worship. This isn't an argument that we should see oath-taking as a part of corporate or private worship. It's not an essential element of religious worship in that way. Rather, it's a recognition that oath-taking is religious in nature because it's done with a view to God, who will judge whether or not we are truthful in what we say that we will do. So when we take an oath invoking God as our witness, we do so with the knowledge that he knows all things, that he sees all things, and he will judge us righteously and in accordance with our own truthfulness. The framers of the London Baptist Confession draw our attention to Deuteronomy, where oath-taking in the name of Yahweh was a distinctive and binding feature of Israelite worship. In Deuteronomy 6, which is not cited in the confession but is an important passage related to it, Moses gives instructions to Israel on behalf of the Lord. This is explicitly in the context of Israel taking possession of the land of Canaan. Verse 1 of that chapter says, This is the commandment, the statutes, and the rules that the Lord your God command me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over to possess it. The Lord gives Israel a series of commands about life and worship in the land. With this purpose, in verse 12, Take care lest you forget the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of slavery. Israel owed their very existence to the Lord's providential care for them. He had promised them a land that they themselves couldn't conquer, cities that they didn't build, houses that were filled with good things which they didn't fill, wells that they didn't dig, vineyards and trees that they didn't plant. Everything they would possess was given to them by the Lord, and they owed him their exclusive worship accordingly. Thus, as one of the great dangers they would face, and indeed eventually capitulate to, was the temptation of syncretism, which was the meshing together of the worship of Yahweh and the pagan gods of the Canaanite peoples. So this was the strong warning of the Lord. Don't forget the exclusive worship of Yahweh who has brought you out of the land of Egypt when you get there. This command is put this way in verses 13 to 15. It is the Lord your God you shall fear, him you will serve, and by his name you shall swear. You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you, for the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous God. Lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off of the face of the earth. Israel's oath-taking in the name of Yahweh stood out as a characterization of their uniqueness among the peoples of Canaan. A similar passage in Deuteronomy 10 is cited in our confession. And again, it's in the context of the Lord bringing them out of the house of Egypt, putting them in the land of Canaan and demanding their exclusive worship of Him there. Moses gives them the Lord's command and says, You shall fear the Lord your God. You shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. And by his name you shall swear. So the oaths that they're going to make are going to be made in the name of Yahweh. Most of the oaths involving the Israelites were religious in nature. They would occur at the dedication of a place or an altar. They would occur in the context of committing a service to the Lord or in a ceremonial or festive or liturgical function. Performing these oaths in the name of Yahweh, distinguished the Israelites from their pagan contemporaries who would also take oaths in the name of their own gods. But beyond this, it invoked the reality that they lived their lives and they conducted their worship in the presence of God and would be held to account for their words and their actions, not just by Moses or by one another, but by him. In fact, to make an oath in the name of the Lord and then to break it was a violation of the third commandment. In Exodus 27, which says, You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Now you and I don't make oaths as often as the biblical audience. As a matter of fact, we don't make oaths as often as the reformers who authored the Westminster and London Confessions. They were frequently involved in oath making. They would be involved in making oaths with the church, and they would be involved in making oaths with the civil authorities and with the state. And we don't find ourselves as often doing that. But nonetheless, we still make oaths. We make some of them formally, and we make some of them more generally or informally. Government officials, for instance, at all levels take an oath of office. So everyone from the dog catcher to the president takes an oath of office, and they keep them carefully. Civilians testify in court in their sworn testimony, and they swear that they will tell the truth. They will tell the whole truth. They will tell nothing but the truth, so help me God. Many state bars still require attorneys to take an attorney's oath that ends with this phrase, so help me God. Even the army takes an oath of enlistment that ends with the phrase, so help me God. But the oaths that we make aren't always this formal. We make informal oaths and commitments to one another all the time. For instance, just to give one example, we frequently tell one another, I will pray for you. This although it doesn't invoke the formal language of an enlistment ceremony, is an oath that you and I make with one another. And when we do these things, we should realize that making an oath is an admission that our lives are lived in the presence of God and that we are accountable to him for our truthfulness. So to use a Patton Lee Puritan phrase, what duties attend making an oath? Are they permissible at all? This was a relevant question that no doubt percolated in the minds of both the authors of the Westminster and the London Confessions. The Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession, authored quite earlier than either Westminster or the London Baptist Confessions in the 16th century, taught that oaths were actually not permissible at all, that to take an oath was a violation of scripture. This is chapter seven of the Schleitheim Confession, by the way. The theology of our confession is that oaths are permissible, but should be made only in the most important circumstances and are to be fearfully observed. Chapter two of our confession says this, or paragraph two of this chapter says this, that 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 a matter of wait and moment for confirmation of truth and the ending of all strife, an oath is warranted by the word of God. So a lawful oath being imposed by lawful authority in such matters should be or ought to be taken. Now the New Testament presents a somewhat complicated picture of the relationship between Christians and taking oaths. There are several relevant texts that are confession sites on this point. And so rather than trying to do an independent exposition of each of those relevant texts, what I want to try to do is give a brief introduction to them, summarize them together, and synthesize them together so that we can come to a place that's consistent with our confession. In the first place, Jesus and James seem to discourage or even forbid oath-taking altogether. And this was the cornerstone of the Anabaptist position on this issue. Jesus said in Matthew 5, that you have heard it was said to those of old that you shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn. But I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of a great king. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or one hair black. Let what you say be simply yes or no, Anything more than this comes from the evil one. And this, by the way, is the bedrock of the Anabaptist position on this. That they argue that it is explicitly prohibited by Jesus to take an oath, to do so is evil, it stems from the evil one, and it's totally forbidden in the New Testament. James adds to this discussion. As a matter of fact, the large portion of the book of James draws heavily on the Sermon on the Mount. And so I think he's not just corroborating what Jesus said or agreeing with it but he's actually drawing upon it to build his own argument in James chapter 5 and verse 12 where he says above all my brothers do not swear either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath but let your yes be yes and your no be no so that you may not fall under condemnation. My conviction is that the Anabaptist position is not altogether misguided on this point, and it does justice to a straightforward reading of both Matthew and James. It acknowledged that Jesus and James warned against oath-taking and encouraged Christians to speak truthfully on the basis of their moral character, so their personal integrity as followers of Jesus would dictate their truthfulness in all matters. As Christians, our words should be completely trustworthy without the necessity of taking an oath. Yet oaths are not so explicitly forbidden as to be absent from the New Testament. Jesus was tried under oath by Caiaphas. And there are several translations that provide a really straightforward rendering of this passage that does it justice. In Matthew chapter 26, Caiaphas says this to Jesus. He had been brought to trial, accusations of blasphemy and other crimes were being made against him, They had asked him repeatedly if he wanted to refute these charges or if he wanted to explain himself. And Matthew records for us that Jesus was silent. And so Caiaphas, the high priest, said, I put you under oath before the living God. Tell us if you are the Christ that is the Messiah, the Son of God. And when Caiaphas put Jesus under oath in the name of Yahweh, Jesus answered, under oath, you have said so. Paul swore an oath in 2 Corinthians chapter 1. We've been reading through 2 Corinthians and care groups, so you're familiar with this. The Corinthians were distressed that Paul hadn't visited them as he had intended to, and Paul wrote to them and said, I call God to witness against me. It was to spare you that I refrained from coming again to Corinth. The author of Hebrews points to the faithfulness of God's promises by reminding them of the oaths that God had made with their forefathers. When God desired to show more convincingly to their heirs of the promise, the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath. So that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope that is set before us. So the tension here is pretty evident. Jesus and James seem to explicitly condemn oath-taking, whereas we see Jesus making testimony under oath, we see Paul writing under oath and invoking the name of God to bear witness to his truthfulness, and the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 6 grounds God's faithfulness and his trustworthiness in the oaths that he had made with the forefathers, with Abraham and so on. I think we resolve this tension when we think about this passage in Matthew and Jesus' confrontation with the Jewish rabbis. His condemnation of rabbinical practice of oath-taking was probably not a wholesale prohibition on oath-taking, but rather was a condemnation of a persistent attitude toward observing the letter of the law while rejecting the spirit of it. And here's what I mean by that. Many schools of rabbinical Judaism argued that an oath taken in the name of the temple was not binding, but swearing by the gold of the temple edifice was binding. Jesus condemned them for saying, if anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, then he is bound by an oath. And the problem with these regulations is that they created an artificial paradigm where some oaths were binding and some were not. And oaths weren't an issue of integrity or honesty or truthfulness, but they became a matter of association with the value or perceived value of the thing by which an oath was being sworn. But we know that it's inescapable that all oaths are made in the presence of an all-knowing God, who will hold us accountable for our own truthfulness. Jesus' response was to call on his followers to practice utter honesty in all matters. Our confession acknowledges and synthesizes these passages by arguing that oaths are permissible, but they should only be made in the most important or compelling circumstances, and that they must be fearfully observed. And I think it is true to say that it's better to not take an oath at all than to take an oath and break one, and it's better not to make a vow at all than it is to make a vow and to break it. This means that we should be slow and careful to make oaths, and that we should do so only with the utmost honesty and with a clear conscience. The next two paragraphs, paragraph three and four, say that 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 the 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. The confession argues that oaths should be made with a due consideration of the weightiness, and that they should be limited to what the oath taker knows to be true. This is similar to oath language that we're accustomed to hearing. I swear to tell the truth, and the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God. If we put these things negatively, what does it mean to not tell the truth? It means to lie. What does it mean to omit certain parts of the story and not tell the whole truth? It's to tell a lie. What does it mean to embellish the truth and to add to it and elaborate upon it? I'm talking to all of my fellow fishermen here this morning. It means to tell a lie. And this is what the confession warns them of, that they are to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They're only to speak and make an oath to what they know, they're to speak to the whole matter, and they're to do so with a clean conscience without mental reservation. The seriousness of this is underscored in Leviticus 19, which is part, by the way, of what's typically called the holiness code in the book of Leviticus, chapters 17 through 26. Significantly, this passage not only condemns false oath-taking, which seems to be quite formal if the Israelites make an oath, but it also condemns dishonesty in a more general sense. And I'm surprised in a sense that our confession doesn't cite verse 11 as well as verse 12, because these verses together say, you shall not steal, you shall not deal falsely, you shall not lie to one another, you shall not swear by my name falsely, And so profane the name of your God, I am the Lord. The authors and framers of Westminster and the London Confession, as well as others, appropriated this old covenant writing for their own time. They lamented that for rash and false and vain oaths the Lord is provoked and for them this land mourns. So they saw many of the calamities of their own time as being a consequence of people making rash or false oaths or breaking them. This even included those who under duress would make oaths that they secretly denied. Both Catholics and Protestants justified this in pragmatic terms. They were sometimes compelled with threat of punishment or banishment or even death to make oaths with which they disagreed. And some thought it was better to preserve their own lives for the sake of peace while reasoning that God knew their conscience and would justify them on the basis of what they truly believed rather than what they confessed. But our confession, like Westminster, warns that oaths should be taken without equivocation or mental reservation. A very simple and colloquial way to say this is that truth is worth dying for. And truth is worth standing for in the face of all opposition. And may we never love our lives so much as to deny that truth. When we make an oath, even when we communicate with one another in an informal way, we must do so with the utmost honesty and with a clear conscience. We should be thoughtful and deliberate about what we say in our conversations, we should be thoughtful and deliberate about the formal oaths that we make for a job or for public service, and we should heed the advice of Proverb 2920, which says, or asks rather, do you see a man who is hasty in his words, there is more hope for a fool than for him. So be careful and think long on the things that you commit to. The final paragraph of this chapter shifts the focus from oaths to vows. In simple terms, the distinction between an oath and a vow is that oaths are made between people in the presence of God, and vows are commitments that are made directly between a person and God. Vows should be carefully made and fulfilled, and unpiblical vows should be refused. Paragraph 5 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. But popish monastical vows of a 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. And here you see the historical setting of the writing of the Westminster and London Confessions really percolating to the surface. Vows, like oaths, are familiar to readers of the Bible, especially those who read the Old Testament. The Confession points specifically to the vow that Jacob made with the Lord at Bethel. After a dramatic vision of angels ascending and descending from heaven, the story that we usually call Jacob's Ladder, the Lord's promise to bless Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and their descendants, then this happened. Early in the morning, Jacob took the stone that he had put under his head and he set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. So this wasn't an altar yet, but later in Jacob's life he would come back and he would construct an altar here at Bethel. And he called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first. Then Jacob made a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God. So if the Lord is faithful to me, if he provides for me, and this last phrase invokes the image of if he lets me die a timely and natural and peaceful death and be gathered to the house of my fathers, then I am going to worship the Lord all the days of my life. And he alone will be my God. Such vows, as with oaths, were to be made with care. The Lord would pour out his wrath on those who made foolish or vain vows. Sometimes, as in this example, vows were made in a conditional way. The human party would say, I'm going to do such and such, and they would invoke the Lord to do this, and if the two parties agreed and performed those things, then it would be fulfilled. But other vows were unconditional. For example, the Nazarite vow was unconditional. It didn't require anything of God. It was a unilateral commitment where they would commit these young men to the Lord. The final chapter of Leviticus gives us examples of many vows that the people in Israel would make to support the administration of the temple once they arrived in Canaan. And while these things didn't call on God conditionally, they did come with serious warnings. Thus, the Confession highlights the importance of keeping vows that are made to the Lord by invoking the language of Leviticus 17. Unsurprisingly, the Westminster and London Confessions also make a point to refute the practice of superstitious and sinful vows. that is to say those which are not authorized by scripture. The examples of these include common Roman Catholic monastical practices that certainly they were acquainted with in their own day. Vows of celibacy and poverty and total submission to ecclesiastical authorities are all biblically and confessionally condemned. The confession answers that while celibacy is a legitimate vow for some, As a matter of personal conscience and conviction, it is expressly not required of Christian clergy or any member of the Christian faith. In opposition to vows of poverty, the New Testament makes clear that we are to work with one's own hands, that we perform honest labor. And Paul had even warned that if a person doesn't work, neither will he eat. Christians are commanded to be slaves to Christ alone, and to value no authority or tradition above that of scripture. A more obscure thing here is about, in this final phrase, where they are committing themselves under the regulation of the church in this monastical vow. And it wasn't saying that they were submitting to the authority of the church in the same sense that we would submit to the authority of our elders in our church. They were taking an exclusive vow to a particular strain of monasticism where their final and ultimate authority would be whoever was at the top of that hierarchical structure That authority they would regard even above scriptural authority. But Christians are to be slaves to no man. Our conscience ultimately is bound to no man. It is bound to the word of God and it is bound directly to him. And so the confessions refute that monastical practice as well. So when Christians make a vow to the Lord, we should do so only on these grounds. Number one, that they are made with the Lord himself, not with any other party. Number two, that we make them with every intention of fulfilling them. And number three, that we are certain that they are governed and authorized by scripture, which is our supreme and ultimate authority. So in summary, chapter 23 of our confession calls on us to do two things. Number one, to live our lives with a knowledge that the all-knowing God will hold us accountable for our truthfulness. And number two, to make our oaths to one another and our vows to God only after we are convinced of their necessity and we are certain of our ability to fulfill them with a clean conscience. Whatever you have promised to your brothers and sisters, to pray for them, whatever commitments you've made to them, be certain that you keep that promise. If you've committed to serve them in some way, as you certainly have if you're a member of Grace Bible Church, be certain that you keep your promises to them. If you've made a vow before the Lord to love your spouse, if you've made a vow before the Lord to raise your children in his nurture and instruction, or to take up your cross daily and follow him, keep those promises as well. May he give us the grace to do this until we see him face to face. Let's pray. Our Father, help us to be mindful of the things that we think and say. because we know that you know all things and that nothing is hidden from your sight and that there is nothing which you do not call to account. We are thankful that we are hidden in Christ. We are thankful for his atoning death and his resurrection from the dead and his ascension back to your throne. But Lord, help us to live with a clean conscience to say only that which we know to be true, to keep our commitments, to be careful in invoking your name or in approaching you in any oath or any vow which we would make. We ask for your help, for your grace, in Christ's name, amen.