James 5:12 and WCF.XXII

[Me Died Blue]

WCF.XXII speaks of "Lawful Oaths and Vows," and among other things, says that they can only be sworn by the name of God. How does that chapter take James 5:12 to be interpreted? "But 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" (ESV).

That is something I've wondered about for awhile.

 

[fredtgreco]

The phrase in James has to do with the lack of equivocation in vows, not the very words themselves.

Here is Calvin's comment:

But he says, above all things; because the profanation of God's name is not a slight offense. The Anabaptists, building on this passage, condemn all oaths, but they only shew their ignorance. For James does not speak of oaths in general, nor does Christ in the passage to which I have referred; but both condemn that evasion which had been devised, when men took the liberty to swear without expressing the name of God, which was a liberty repugnant to the prohibition of the law.

And this is what the words clearly mean, Neither by heaven, neither by the earth. For, if the question had been as to oaths in themselves, to what purpose were these forms mentioned? It then appears evident that both by Christ and by James the puerile astuteness of those is reproved who taught that they could swear with impunity, provided they adopted some circuitous expressions. That we may, then, understand the meaning of James, we must understand first the precept of the law, "Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain." It hence appears clear, that there is a right and lawful use of God's name. Now, James condemns those who did not indeed dare in a direct way to profane God's name, but endeavored to evade the profanation which the law condemns, by circumlocutions.

But let your yea be yea. He brings the best remedy to correct the vice which he condemns, that is, that they were habitually to keep themselves to truth and faithfulness in all their sayings. For whence is the wicked habit of swearing, except that such is the falsehood of men, that their words alone are not believed? For, if they observed faithfulness, as they ought, in their words, there would have been no necessity of so many superfluous oaths. As, then, the perfidy or levity of men is the fountain from which the vice of swearing flows, in order to take away the vice, James teaches us that the fountain ought to be removed; for the right way of healing is to begin with the cause of illness.

Some copies have, " Let your word (or speech) be, yea, yea; no, no." The true reading however, is what I have given, and is commonly received; and what he means I have already explained, that is, that we ought to tell the truth, and to be faithful in our words. To the same purpose is what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:18, that he was not in his preaching yea and nay, but pursued the same course from the beginning.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The verse in James is actually cited by the framers of the Confession as a proof text, as you are probably aware, specifically, Section 2 of that chapter where it states: "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." I think their use of that verse in this context indicates that what Fred says is correct, ie., the verse does not prohibit oaths but has to do with unlawful aspects of oath-taking.

 

[cultureshock]

Lawful Oaths and Vows

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
WCF.XXII speaks of "Lawful Oaths and Vows," and among other things, says that they can only be sworn by the name of God. How does that chapter take James 5:12 to be interpreted? "But 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" (ESV).

That is something I've wondered about for awhile.

I have been studying this myself, recently. James 5:12 should be compared with Matthew 5:33-37. The Reformed interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, which is very defensible, is that Jesus is correcting misunderstandings of the Law of Moses. In this instance, Jesus is correcting the false idea that an oath that is sworn on something less than God himself is somehow less binding. Notice that he does not prohibit swearing by God, but only by things lesser than God.

Positive evidence for this position is found in the Old Testament in Lev. 19:12 and Deut. 23:23. The Old Testament Law never commands one to swear by anything other than God.

Positive New Testament evidence is seen in that Paul invoked God as witness to attest to the truth of his claim (Rom. 1:9), Jesus subjected himself to an oath, swearing by God (Matt. 26:63), and the angel in Rev. 10:6 swore by God.

Brian