Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
JAMES 5:1-20 TEXT: v12 [SWEAR NOT AT ALL]
But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath:
but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
The relation of this verse to the context is not easily established
If the reference to the "swearing" means "cursing" and the use of bad
language, we might see a connection as these poor, down trodden workers
are forced to endure being defrauded and bullied etc., week in and week
out by unscrupulous bosses
Of course, they are not to curse with bad language in such a case
[i] We are to love our enemies and do good to them who abuse us
[ii] Such cursing is indirectly aimed at God whose providence has seen
fit to put us into such a trying position ultimately for our good
I am happy enough to run with the wise saying:
It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness
It is better to seek God as they had been doing (v4)
God is the real Power Broker and it is Him we should seek
Of course, the wicked bosses are responsible for their crimes
(Hence the great words of condemnation in the opening verses)
But the balance/power lies firmly in the hands of our Sovereign God
[iii] Such cursing usually embitters an already implacable enemy
[iv] Such cursing only serves to embitter those who minister
[v] Such cursing is not to God's glory - see chapter 3 re: tongue
But the "swearing" on view here relates to the use of the "oath"
e.g. "I swear, by Almighty God, etc.,"
This leaves us to wonder why it is being introduced here at this point
Particularly as v13 is more easily attached to what goes before
Something for us to ponder over!
But let's look at the exhortation as it stands here in its own right
Perhaps it is not something which we are accustomed to doing
Therefore the exhortation will be readily painless to us
But let us beware lest we begin to induce this art/communication
1) THE TAKING OF AN OATH IS NOT SINFUL IN ITSELF:
A/ We may say this because God Himself has employed it
(Turn to Hebrews 6:13-18)
God cannot deny Himself and therefore cannot sin, for such denies His
own law which He has established and glorified and declared to be good
B/ The use of the oath is regulated in the word/God:
That which is gone out of thy lips
thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as
thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with
thy mouth. (Deuteronomy 23:23)
The man who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord:
(Among other things) He that sweareth to his own hurt (i.e. stands over
his oath even when it becomes troublesome and costly to him)
Obviously not those who deliberately swear to their own hurt, but those
who counted on better, who were disappointed, but still stood firm)
Such a one (overall in Psalm 15) is seen as walking uprightly
His oath certainly was not being viewed as illegal
True: David was the man after God's own heart yet he was an adulterer
Ans: The two situations are not linked or even mentioned/same breath
C/ As we see in a few moments…the Apostle Paul (under inspiration) saw fit to use the oath on a number of occasions
The Holy Spirit cannot lead the Christian into sin
If Paul was Spirit led - then His actions enjoy the full endorsement of Heaven without any censure whatsoever
This Book is and will always remain the Good Book (Psalm 119:9)
2) THE TAKING/OATH THEREFORE IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY:
IOW: The ban here is relative and not absolute
A/ In an ideal world, every man's word would, be his bond, as anticipated in this text: We do not live in an ideal world
We will return to this idea as re: the church in our last point
B/ The taking of an oath is often necessary in a court of law
[i] If a man has murdered someone…what is the telling of a lie?
OBJECTION:- What then is the taking of an oath even before God?
ANSWER: A criminal offence that adds to the original crime and which
may be used to awaken the conscience to its need of a Saviour
[ii] Use of the oath/court also serves to preserve the course/justice
An innocent man may be preserved because the oath may prevent a witness
either wilfully or even accidentally going beyond what is true
Shows the proceedings to be more than a mere debate/entertainment
C/ Sometimes to give extra sense of importance to religious activities:
Paul used the oath on a number of occasions in his epistles:
[i] Sometimes these were used in words of warning/rebuke:
Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth. (2 Corinthians 1:23)
Again: Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. (Galatians 1:20)
[ii] Sometimes to reaffirm faithfulness to the cause/Christ:
For God is my witness, whom I serve
with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make
mention of you always in my prayers; (Romans 1:9)
For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:8)
What of Paul's threefold oath in Romans 9:1
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
These were not light words, put on for mere show
I would've believed Paul had he simply said: I have a burden for the lost
His life, as recorded in the Book/Acts and elsewhere proves it
He denounced lying and idle talk and all appearance of evil
But Paul was inspired to solemnise the statement with such an invocation
C/ The oath is used in ceremonies like ordinations or marriages etc.,
These are not every day occasions
[i] A man may be ordained once and installed only a few occasions
(Time really is short and the night really is coming when none can work)
[ii] He is hardly likely to marry more than 2-3 times in a Scriptural fashion in his entire life time
(The Sadducees' scenario was exceedingly rare: Mark 12:20-23)
[iii] If a couple make a vow before God to raise each child born
according to the dictates/Scripture - it is but once for each named
child, even if they has a large family and therefore on each occasion,
a sacred event
Which leads us to our next point:
3) THE TAKING OF AN OATH OUGHT NOT TO BE ABUSED:
A/ This is what James is getting at
Not the use of the oath (otherwise the Spirit/God has inspired James to
ban it outright, while inspiring Paul to use it and so defy James)
The oath was not to be abused as it had been abused
B/ This warning of James was not new: Read Matthew 5:33-37
Again, the idea is the abuse rather than the use
In Jewish times, some folk would swear by lesser things (i.e. less than
the Lord's name) and then relegate their obligation to carry it out
This was wrong: Let it not be
If we say that we are going to do something then let us do it
Why invoke Heaven etc.,
C/Another abuse was the over use of the vow
Already emphasised the fact that vow taking is not normally something
which the vast majority of people are called upon to do regularly
I suppose that I have taken an oath less than 5 times in my life
Although Paul uses the oath in quite a number of occasions/epistles (by
inspiration) yet they are minimal in relation to the amount he wrote
He was able to speak about other things without invoking its use
D/ Another abuse: Making entirely wrong and unreasonable vows
The wicked were fond of this:
But do not thou yield unto them: for
there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound
themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they
have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from
thee. (Acts 23:21)
But even Believers can fall foul here: Jephthah: the obvious example
This was an obvious problem in other days:
Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. (Ecclesiastes 5:5)
4) THE TAKING OF AN OATH OUGHT NOT TO BE NECESSARY:
A/ As said, Not be so in an ideal world: We do not live in such a world
Sometimes (but not always) the taking of an oath denotes that our
ordinary words are not worth the air that it takes to speak them
If it so with us: our "yes" really means "yes" and our "no" means "no"?
Are you a man/woman of your word?
You ought to be (anyway), but especially as a Christian
With that same tongue, you profess yourself to be a follower/Christ
Why should we believe you if your word is not your bond?
Again: You profess to be a follower of Him whose every word is pure
Of Him: No guile found in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22)
B/ If you say "yes" to something pure - stand over it/best your ability
True, that we cannot always deliver, but let us not promise/affirm
something that we have no reasonable hope/intention of delivering
We must use of lips/tongue responsibly or else study to be quiet
C/ If we say "no" to something, then likewise let us stand firm
(Thinking now of something impure)
Our stand will have encouraged many others to likewise be firm for
truth/righteousness - but if we cave in (due to threats/inducements)
then we will be responsible for much discouragement and folk may
further than we have managed to fall
D/ If the oath must be used (as it can be) let it be only used to
solemnise am event/statement, rather than be needed to authenticate our
word because it is so suspect
E/ To insist that others use oaths may flow from our unbelief or
inability to discern where truth lies - should be used very sparingly
F/ It is a great testimony to the unsaved to be a man/word especially
in business - this was once a common trait even among unsaved people in
a by gone day - it is fast disappearing in a world lacking moral ethics
G/ Lastly, your tongue is most suspect in any circumstance (James 3)
You can only ask God to guide you as you speak, remember that even idle
words will be fully accountable in that great day (Matthew 12:36)
THE END