I had a great question sent in this week ... I was researching the whole oath to God thing this morning and had another question. I looked mainly at Matt. 5:34-37 and James 5:12 and they both seem to agree with what you said last night about not taking a oath in God's name and that in Deut. 6:13 it is talking about a commitment to God. The commentators all agree with you as well, although some seemed to indicate that these passages only refer to everyday type of oaths and that it is permissible to take an oath in God's name for serious matters and as a legal requirement. However, last night I kept thinking that there was a time when God swore by himself but I wasn't sure, so I looked it up this morning. It is in Gen. 22:16 and referred to again in Heb. 6:13. How do you square that? If God swore an oath by himself, is it wrong for us to do so as well? How much of the controversy is due to people making light of it and not taking it seriously like when it says that it is better not to make a vow at all then to break one? That people throw promises around without thinking instead of just being honest and reliable all the time as indicated by needing to let your yes be yes and your no be no?
Labels: GREAT QUESTION
posted by Dr James D Harless @ 5:49 AM
1 Comments:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said people take oaths and are not serious. Historically, when an oath was made, a reputable person was called upon to vouch for another. This peoson was well known in the community and had a solid reputation. This gives credence to a person's testimony.
Since there is no greater person or reputation than God, He must make a vow on Himself. He is always truthful and has never shown to be anything but faithful. We can trust in Him and what He says.
Post a Comment
<< Home