Oaths, Vows, & Promises

[johnb]

My question stems from assuming that taking an oath, a vow, to swear, and to promise are all different terms for the same act.

In Matt 5:33-37 Jesus said:
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. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

How does this harmonize with:
1.Taking a wedding vow?
2.Taking an oath with a local church to become a formal member?

[mattrose]

I believe the negative command (don't make oaths) is a general principle given to combat the mis-use of oaths. I think exceptions are allowable if one's motives are pure.

[TK]

Good call, Matt. My wife would not have taken kindly to me refusing to take a wedding vow.

TK

[johnb]

Thanks for the response, it does give some more light. It reminds me of something I just read the other day…

"It is your purpose God looks at, not your feelings about that purpose; and your purpose, or will, is therefore the only thing you need to attend to."
- Hannah Whitall Smith; The Christians Secret of a Happy Life

I guess my initial thought is that it seems 9 times out of 10 people take oaths and vows with the best of motives in mind, but that still doesn’t seem to negate the mis-use of them. You still have the issue of mis-use.

With the case of wedding vows – Please don’t throw forks at me, but, it makes me think that maybe some Christians shouldn’t take wedding vows since some seem to mis-use their vows fairly frequently (especially in our day) even though they probably have pure motives in the beginning. Maybe we are just ‘following the traditions of men’ when we go through the ceremonial practice of saying vows, wearing wedding gowns, lighting candles, acquiring best men, and reading 1Cor 13:4-8. Maybe we should simply recognize the deep bond that is made by God within the marriage covenant, honor it by living it, and just leave it at that. I may be getting off track here, but I guess this may lead me to rethink the way we go about wedding ceremonies – maybe there is a more God honoring way, or maybe not.

With the case of formal membership oaths – I am one of those who think formal memberships are questionable to begin with. I was just curious to see how those who hold a formal membership view this passage.

I guess I’m still (always) pondering

[mattrose]

I think the NT was written in an environment (much like ours) where promises, oaths, covenants, contracts, etc. didn't carry the weight that they should. For instance, in Matthew 23:16-22 Jesus speaks a 'woe' against the pharisees who were creating different levels of oaths (swearing by the temple means nothing, but swearing by the gold of the temple is binding, etc.). The situation was ridiculous. They were acting like children. Indeed, I remember a very similar policy from my childhood. My brother and I have 3 tiers of truth. If we just said something, it needn't be true at all. If we added "I swear" or "I promise" it was probably true. But if we added "I swear/promise to God" then it HAD to be true.

Jesus called for an end to games like this. Our general policy should simply be honesty. Our yes or no should be enough. Nevertheless, because the world is still backwards, it may sometimes be necessary to enter into promises, oaths, etc. for the benefit of the other party who is still used to a culture of deceit.

I have nothing against your idea of having a Christian wedding ceremony without vows b/c the 2 parties trust each other w/o vows. I'd say that's a good thing!

Even still, vows are not, by nature, evil. Pretty much every major character in the Bible made vows or something synonymous with a vow. Here's a quick list of what I found... Abraham, God, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, angels, and potentially Jesus and Paul.

[benstenson]

If the requirement of an oath implies that a person can not be trusted but somehow the oath makes them more trustworthy, then it is more than yes or no. I have declined to swear oaths in court for that reason.

the law recognizes this and allows for a simple affirmation, same with being sworn into office, they make an exception for simple affirmations.

[benstenson]

Maybe we are just ‘following the traditions of men’ when we go through the ceremonial practice of saying vows, wearing wedding gowns,

usually immodest ones

With the case of formal membership oaths – I am one of those who think formal memberships are questionable to begin with

sadly... it figures churches have membership oaths.. I didn't know about that. That is just like taking an oath with your hand on the bible.

[mattrose]

In defense of 'church membership'... they need not include the word 'swear' or 'oath' or 'promise'. When we take in members at our church (infrequently since we don't push membership) it simply requires an affirmation on their part that they desire to be members and affirm that they meet the qualifications. A simple 'yes' will suffice.

I suppose some denominations may require some sort of oath/vow/promise.

[Paidion]

We are not required to take an oath when we become members of the only true Church which exists, namely, the Church which Christ founded. We read in Acts (A.V.) that THE LORD added to the Church daily such as should be saved. You didn't "join" the Church at all. God added you to it. So it should be right to this day. Actually it is so in some groups who recognize only the Church of Christ (I don't mean the denomination that goes by that name). Those who meet in the name of Christ alone, and not in the name of Luther, or Menno Simons, etc. recognize members of the true Church. Local "churches" which require membership are not much different from the various clubs who require membership( 4H club, Lions club, etc.).

I know I'm getting a little off topic. But, like Ben, I also have refused to take an oath, and in legal documents have drawn a line through "swear" and have written in "affirmed" and initialed it. Jesus said to let your answer be a simple "yes" or "no". "Anything more than this comes from evil" (or possibly "from the evil one").

We need to decide whether we are going to follow the words of Christ, or whether we are going to explain away His instructions.

By the way, I am loath to make promises as well. Promises are expected to be kept, but sometimes new circumstance arise which make it difficult or impossible to keep a promise. I also refuse to "pledge" money to even worthy causes. What if circumstances arise which make it impossible to fulfill you pledge"? I have also stroked out "I pledge to give ..." and replaced it with "I intend to give..."

[mattrose]

We need to decide whether we are going to follow the words of Christ, or whether we are going to explain away His instructions.

I'm not sure this is a very gracious way to explain the options

While it may be easy to say we should take these words in a wooden literal sense, it may be well argued that the actual 'literary' meaning of the words was a general statement, not an absolute one. When we consider all the positive characters in the Bible (including, of course, God Himself) that made promises/oaths, we should lean towards seeing Jesus' statement as a general one.

I'll state my understanding again. It is best not to have to resort to promises/oaths. But as a concession to a fallen world, they are sometimes helpful and even necessary for the other party.

I don't say this as someone who uses the words 'promise' or 'vow' or 'oath', just as someone trying to understand the statements of Jesus & James in light of the multitude of promises/oaths/swearing in Scripture.