# WCF Ch 22 and Matthew 5:33-37



## Justified (Feb 28, 2014)

I was reading through chapter 22, and I am having a hard time with understanding it. Doesn't Matt 5:33-37 command us not to swear or make oaths at all? Is there a difference between oaths and vows? Any clarification on this chapter at all would be welcome.

Edit: Mess up in title. (Matthew 5:33-37)


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 28, 2014)

There is a succinct defense of the lawfulness of oaths in Wilhelmus a Brakel's _The Christian's Reasonable Service_, volume 3. You may find it here, beginning on page 134 (which is 144/598 for the document): http://biblicalspirituality.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/reasonableservicevol3-indexed.pdf.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 28, 2014)

Here is another good summary.

Robert Shaw, _The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith_, "Chapter XXII. Of Lawful Oaths and Vows:"



> An oath may be warrantably taken on weighty occasions, when imposed by lawful authority. The Quakers, and some others, deny the lawfulness of swearing an oath in any case, under the New Testament. But their opinion is refuted by a variety of arguments. An oath for confirmation is warranted by the third precept of the moral law; for while that precept prohibits the taking of God's name in vain, it sanctions swearing by the name of God on lawful occasions. The practice is confirmed by numerous approved examples under the Old Testament. Abraham swore to Abimelech that he would not deal falsely with him.–Gen. xxi. 23, 24. A king of the same name desired that an oath might be between Isaac and him; and they swore one to another. - Gen. 2. xxvi. 31. In like manner Jacob swore to Laban (Gen. xxxi. 53); and Joseph swore to his father.–Gen. xlvii. 31. All these examples occurred before the Mosaic law was given to the Jews, and therefore an oath can be no peculiarity of the Mosaic dispensation. But that law expressly recognised the warrantableness of taking an oath (Lev. v. 1), and under that dispensation we have various examples of holy men swearing by the name of God. Thus Jonathan required David to swear unto him (1 Sam. xx. 17); and David also swore unto Saul.–1 Sam. xxiv. 21,22. The taking of an oath being no part of the judicial, or of the ceremonial law, it must be equally warrantable under the present dispensation, unless expressly prohibited in the New Testament. But there is much in the New Testament to confirm the practice. The Apostle Paul frequently appeals to God in these and similar expressions: "God is my witness:"–"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not", (Rom. i. 9, ix.1): "I call God for a record upon my soul."–2 Cor. i. 23. Christ himself answered the question of the high priest, when he adjured him by the living God; which was the common form of administering an oath among the Jews. The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the oath which God swore to Abraham, "who, because he could swear by no greater, aware by himself;" and he adds, "An oath for confirmation is an end of all strife" (Heb. vi. 13, 16); plainly showing that he sanctioned the practice. It must be evident, therefore, that our Saviour's words (Matt. v. 34), "Swear not at all," and the similar words of the Apostle James (v. 12), do not absolutely prohibit all swearing on necessary end solemn occasions; but only forbid the practice of swearing in common conversation, and particularly of swearing by creatures. It must be remarked, however, that an appeal to God in trivial matters, and the frequent and unnecessary repetition of the same oath, is a taking the name of God in vain. And it may also be observed, that as the lifting up of the hand is the usual mode of swearing mentioned in Scripture (Gen. xiv. 22; Rev. x. 5, 6), so it ought to be preferred; and all superstitious forms ought to be rejected.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 28, 2014)

There are two key points to bear in mind, not only here but really in all interpretation. One is the principle so well expressed by John Murray: that "each text has its own denotative scope and universe of discourse." The second is that we take in all of Scripture, not just part of it.

In light of those two principles we can see that Christ's prohibition of swearing is not absolute, but is directed against a particular error. And that enables us to see how Paul's own use of oaths, or God's calling "swearing by my name" part of learning the ways of his people (Jeremiah 12:16) is consistent with it. Taking oaths of any kind lightly is profane and irreligious; but if there is an appropriate occasion, then it is a legitimate part of Christian worship.


----------



## Justified (Mar 1, 2014)

Thanks for both of your replies. It makes sense to me now.


----------

