Cross My Heart

God’s people would please take
their Bibles and turn back once again to the Epistle of James. A bit of a hiatus last week and
we resume the Epistle of James. I sent out an email just last
night appealing to those who have filled the pulpit in the
past There will be a gap if the Lord sustains and we finish the
epistle of James as planned here near the end of February. We’ll
have a bit of a gap before I start something new, and I’m not going
to tell you what it is. So James, we’re in James chapter
5. We come to verse 12, and as I
began to study this passage, I came across an interesting
assessment, there was an individual that said regarding verse 12,
there is not the remotest connection between this verse and the section
that is gone just before. It’s an interesting statement
because it’s almost as if James just drops this in out of nowhere. And yet I would say that it’s
not completely out of context of the entire rest of the book. And in that sense, it’s rather
a punctuation mark, if you will, an exclamation mark to what James
has already said. James has addressed the tongue
speaking many times throughout this epistle. In chapter one,
verse 26, remember he spoke of bridling the tongue, an interesting
image. In chapter two, verse 12, he
urged us to speak as those who are to be judged by the law of
liberty. We will answer for how we utilize
our tongues. He warned us about the severe
destructiveness of the tongue in chapter three, when he spoke
of the tongue as a fire that sets on fire everything around
it. In chapter four, in the context
of that section on worldliness, he spoke of so many of the sinful
effects of the tongue, boasting and lying, And then in chapter
four, verse 11, he zeroed in and said, do not speak against
one another. And so in the context of the
book, James has routinely and repeatedly addressed the sin
of the tongue. There’s a further connection,
though, with this book, more homiletical, I would suggest,
than explicit or than anything literal. Think of it this way. In chapter two, verses 14 through
26, in that section, James was addressing empty faith, faith
that is lifeless, faith that bears no fruit. In chapter 3,
verses 13 through 18, they’re just following the sins of the
tongue. He talks about empty wisdom. In chapter 4, verse 13, he talks
about empty plans. In chapter 5, verses 1 through
6, he speaks of empty riches. And here in verse 12 of chapter
5, if you will, he speaks of empty promises. Boasts that never
come true. We come to a passage of scripture.
That has been misunderstood. This is not what you want to
read. In the midst of an already busy week. When one faithful
commentator looks at this passage and says this passage. This insertion
against swearing has never been satisfactorily explained. Well, I think that’s a bit of
a stretch. I think that it can be understood. Chapter five. Verse 12. But above all, my brethren do
not swear. Either by heaven or by earth
or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no,
no, so that you may not fall under judgment. James here issues
a command, it’s a twofold command. It covers not only the negative
aspect of speaking, but he issues a positive admonition as well. Not this, but that. Don’t swear,
but let your yes be yes and your no be no. What I want to look at this morning
is the process really of developing verbal integrity. James essentially
gives us a short little verse, which in essence is a manual. It’s complete. It goes from one
end of the spectrum to the other, and it covers thoroughly how
to go about cultivating verbal integrity, saying what we mean,
meaning what we say, and nothing more. As I suggested a moment
ago, there are two exhortations, one negative and one positive,
and they call us, these two, to the highest standard of speech. look at the passage, if you will,
as we begin to look first this morning at the negative that
sounds so negative, but it’s a command against doing something. Where he says, but above all,
and when James says that, he’s pointing to a sin that is so
great and so destructive, just like so many of the sins of the
tongue, that he elevates our level of concern about it. It’s
as if the warning lights are flashing, horns are blaring. James wants our attention. This familiar sin that he will
address is so familiar. We get so used to it. It’s so
commonplace. That James has to fight for our
attention even to get us to acknowledge it. But this particular sin is a
great dishonor to God himself. I would even say it trends into
blasphemy in short order. One described it in these terms.
When he said the evil of swearing reflects the spirit of worldliness,
that’s what James has been focused on since early in chapter four. But here, this swearing that
James is going to address, it’s one of the most destructive and
dishonoring forms of sin that James addresses in all of this
epistle. Essentially, it is a selfish,
self-centered, self-guided attempt to cover over the truth under
a guise. And yet, even still. As we have
seen in past weeks, that opening section of chapter five, where
James is not talking about believers, but then immediately begins to
talk over and over again, addressing specifically his brethren. And so there is a graciousness
here. There is a tenderness, a pastoral care, if you will. Out of a heart of concern, On
James’s part for his brothers and sisters in Christ. When he
says above all my brethren. But let’s get to the heart of
it. James says, but above all my
brethren do not swear. The common. And most immediate. A recourse for the Christian
is to think of what we call cussing, using foul language, taking the
Lord’s name in vain. It’s a great disservice to this
passage. And really, it’s a linguistic
error on our part to think of swearing in that sense, to blend,
if you will, cursing and swearing as if they’re one in the same.
I would suggest to you that cursing or cussing, as we know it, is
not as bad as swearing, as James will define it. That doesn’t
mean that cussing is right. It just means that what James
is addressing here is the most serious kind of sin. one made a quick short comment
that I think is appropriate. When he said profanity, the reference
is, rather he called his entire article profanity and then proceeded
to describe it as the reference is to the flippant use of profanity. Few things are worse than sulfurous
speech which are like the very fumes of hell. And as gripping
as that is, it isn’t what James is talking about. James isn’t
talking about profanity. He’s not talking about cussing.
He’s not talking about cursing. He’s not talking about using
dirty words, vulgar language. What he’s talking about is swearing.
And you say, what’s the difference? That’s why we’re here. Those things are true. Cussing,
profanity, cursing is wrong, but that’s not what James is
talking about. Taking the Lord’s name in vain,
saying bad words, cuss words and the like. It’s not what James
is addressing. What is intended? What James
is addressing is the sinful practice of layering our speech with strong
admonitions to the truthfulness of what we say. And this is done
by short, strong little phrases that are appended to a statement.
Which may even utilize the formula, I swear. To make matters worse, these
formulas often invoke the name of God. But this sin comes in
many forms. Regardless of the precise words
that we use at its heart is a passionate appeal to be believed. Often,
however, even if the statement is false. And therein lies the
sin. It’s a deceitfulness. It’s an
attempt at deception to utilize the name of God to justify your
lie. I want to point out right away
that this verse that James cites here is essentially an echo,
not a quote per se. It wouldn’t surprise us to learn
that James was there when Jesus uttered this statement, but it’s
essentially an echo of what Christ himself taught in the Sermon
on the Mount. If you would, I want to do something
a little tricky today because we’ll go back and forth, but
I want you to turn to Matthew 5, tuck maybe the bulletin in
there. For now, turn there specifically to Matthew chapter 5. And there in Matthew chapter
five, I want you to just capture first kind of the context that
Jesus is addressing, beginning in verse 17. In verse 17, Jesus
said, do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets. I did not come to abolish, but
to fulfill. For truly, I say to you, until
heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke
shall pass from the law until it is all accomplished. Whoever
then annuls one of the least of these commands and teaches
others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of
heaven. But whoever keeps and teaches them, he should be called
great in the kingdom of heaven. And so Jesus is laying the groundwork
to address A very significant concern. And the pattern that
you’ll notice is that he takes you back to the ancients, what
the predecessors have said in their interpretation of the law
and what reality is. Jump down, if you would, to verse
21. You have heard that the ancients were told you shall not commit
murder. And whoever commits murder shall
be liable to the court. But what Christ does over and
over again is bring in the real interpretation, God’s interpretation. Verse 22. But I say to you, everyone
who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court.
And whoever sends to says to his brother, you good for nothing
shall be guilty before the Supreme Court. And whoever says you fool
should be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Jesus elevates
the interpretation. Jesus tells us what the real
interpretation is. Jump down, if you would, to verse
27. You have heard it said that you shall not commit adultery.
And then he gives the real interpretation of what adultery is. But I say
to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has
already committed adultery with her in his heart. Look at verse
31. It is said that whoever sends his wife away, let him give her
a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that everyone
who divorces his wife, except for the reason of in chastity,
makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman
commits adultery. Look if you would at verse 38.
There’s a pattern. He takes us back to the common
understanding of the interpretation of the law and gives essentially
God’s interpretation of the law. Verse 38, you have heard that
it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But
I say to you, do not resist an evil person. Whoever slaps you
on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. And then finally,
look at verse 43. You have heard it said, you shall
love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love
your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Now, that’s
the pattern. That’s what Jesus sets forth,
citing their own interpretation of the law and then providing
his own, God’s interpretation. But as you’re in Matthew, look,
if you would, at verse 33. because we skipped one purposely. I want to take you to verse 33,
because it’s essentially where James gets this idea. Whether
he heard it from Jesus directly, ultimately this is an echo of
Jesus’ own words here. Again, you have heard that the
ancients were told, you shall not make false vows. but shall fulfill your vows to
the Lord. But I say to you, make no oath
at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by
the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet, or by Jerusalem,
for it is the city of the great king. That’s where James gets
this idea. That’s why we have this echo
from James. It’s not a direct quote. It’s
not verbatim. But James takes the sense of
it and says this. Do not swear. Either by heaven
or by earth or with any other oath. But let your yes be yes
and your no be no. There are actually two related,
very closely related words, and both of those words are used
in each of these passages. Both Jesus and James use the
same two words. We see the first word, hamnuo,
translated in James 5.12 to swear. Do not swear. Or do not affirm
by an oath. But that same word is translated
here in Matthew 534 as an oath, translated as such. It gets a
little muddier as we introduce the second term. The second word
is orkos, which refers to an oath, by that which a person
swears. And so in Matthew, it’s translated
as a vow in verse 33. In James, however, the same word
is translated as an oath. And you say you’re confused.
Essentially, what we have is a graphic illustration here that
these two verses, these two words, rather, are almost used interchangeably. It’s the same way in English,
isn’t it? If we make a vow with an oath, or if we take an oath,
it can be said later that we made a vow. You get the point.
And so we have these two passages, both utilizing both of these
words, issuing and echoing the same kind of prohibition, but
a prohibition of what? We’ve already determined that
it isn’t cussing, it isn’t using profanity. The use of oaths in
itself wasn’t even strictly forbidden in scripture. In fact, it sometimes
it is commended, if not commanded. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s
Thomas Manton. Oaths in themselves are lawful. If taken in truth, righteousness,
and judgment, that is, without fraud, in a lawful manner and
upon a weighty occasion, the commandment itself allows a liberty.”
In other words, he leaves room, he says that scripture leaves
room for taking an oath, for making a vow, for swearing. Here’s John Gill. Spurgeon’s
predecessor. An oath is very lawful when taken
in the fear and name of God and made by the living God and used
for the confirmation of anything of moment, anything of great
importance. And here is one of my admired
heroes of the faith, Robert Johnstone. An oath has nothing in its own
nature immoral. Now are these guys all, Manton
and Gill and Johnstone, are they all running counter to Jesus
Christ himself? Are they all disregarding what
James is urging here? Johnstone goes on to say, it
is an appeal to him who knows the heart regarding the truth
of a testimony or the sincerity of a promise. A reverential oath
honors, not dishonors God. And so the use of oaths was not
strictly forbidden. It isn’t strictly forbidden in
scripture. And all three of these arguments are in favor of the
use of oaths in the right way. At times, as I said, they are
commended, if not commanded. Deuteronomy 6, 13, you shall
fear only the Lord your God and you shall worship him and swear
by his name. Exodus chapter 22, if a man gives
his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, an animal to keep for
him and it dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is
looking. An oath before the Lord shall be made by the two of them
that he has not laid hands on his neighbor’s property and his
owner shall accept it. Matter is considered closed.
Isaiah 65, 16, he who swears in the earth will swear by the
God of truth. Paul likewise, a well-trained
expert in the Jewish scriptures, said this, I call God as witness
to my soul. 2 Corinthians 1.23, later on
in that same epistle, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus
Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. Essentially
an oath. He essentially swears. But it wasn’t to be used trivially. It wasn’t to be used flippantly. And I know what’s in your mind.
I know where your mind went as soon as I said this, because
as soon as we read James 5.12, Matthew 5.33, I know what you’re
thinking, because that’s exactly where my mind went. What about
swearing in as a witness in court? Well, the very reason that our
court system utilizes the process of swearing in witnesses is that
they know human nature and our tendency as congenital liars
to lie. And so to ratchet things up,
They make you stand before the court and at least suggest that
you are going to tell the truth. And they consider it a matter
of even criminal offense if you lie. And so as a Christian, if
a Christian finds himself in a court of law as a witness,
based on the law of the land, taking an oath under those circumstances,
promising to tell the truth is right and appropriate. One pastor characterized it in
these terms, an oath may be taken in a court of justice or in religious
crises, calling for an express appeal to God. But in the quiet
lives of most believers, it will never occur at all. In other
words, he says, except in extreme cases, the Christian would never
have to swear. The Christian should never have
to take an oath. This is the rare and particular
case when an oath is appropriate. And this is not what James is
addressing. The courtroom example essentially proves James’s case. Why should anyone, especially
a Christian, have to swear to tell the truth? Shouldn’t that be axiomatic for
everyone? Well, if not everyone, shouldn’t
that be axiomatic at least for the believer to speak truth,
to tell the truth, to say what’s right. James’s whole point here
is, yes, it should. We shouldn’t have to swear to
the validity of what we’re saying. And so not all oaths are forbidden,
but a certain kind that both Jesus and James are addressing. You see, the bottom line is,
It was supposed to be an extremely rare event, the taking of an
oath. But it had for the Jews become
a daily, chronic, perpetual thing. In their ongoing, regular interactions,
they were constantly swearing to the veracity, the truthfulness
of their statements by way of these plentiful oaths. And that
seemed to call into question their very truthfulness about
almost anyone’s dialogue. If they were constantly having
to swear to the truth, the veracity of what they were saying, the
moment that they didn’t swear, one could question the truthfulness
of their statement. And so swearing became quite
plentiful. It seemed that you had to swear
for everything. Even the price of milk. One faithful commentator zeroed
in on three tendencies of the Jewish people, their frequency
of swearing, again, that they would just swear for everything,
swear to prove everything that they said. And then they would
do these oaths utilizing created things, the altar, the temple
and the like. And then the third, which really
was fitted by the first two, is the breaking of these oaths.
They weren’t binding. And they knew they weren’t binding.
And so it became commonplace to soften these plentiful oaths
by broadening the list of things by which they swore. And in so
doing, they subtly developed a very creative system of lying. One described it in the conversation,
the interaction of perfect beings, there would be no oaths. Do you
realize that you’d never have a reason to say I swear. But in a sinful society, because
the entire world would be their mutual confidence, their oaths
would be altogether needless. If it wasn’t for sin, we wouldn’t
need to swear. And so the Jews began to make
differentiations, as I mentioned, between their oaths, between
the things to which they swore. So that some oaths were considered
absolutely binding. Other oaths were not. And this
led to everyone going around constantly, as I say, swearing
this and swearing by that. And nobody knew if anyone was
actually telling the truth. Listen to how one historian described
this scene. Chaotic, almost. Oaths in which
the name of God was used were held to be binding. Whereas those
in which no direct mention of God was made were not held to
be binding. Thus, the force of an oath that to all appearances
seemed binding could be evaded by minute inaccuracies in the
formula used. In other words, in their deceitfulness,
they would use this formula that wasn’t quite to the letter of
the law, and there was their escape clause. They developed
the fine art of hiding the truth, and may I suggest they developed
the fine art of declaring a lie. Behind their own pious oaths,
such a practice of pretending to appeal to God to establish
the truth while deftly framing an oath, not considered binding,
was the worst form of worldliness. That’s what the practice is that
James and Christ are addressing. And so an oath by nature was
supposed to be a rarity. And if you think about it, to
invoke the name of God in our speech is in itself an act of
prayer. If you invoke the name of God,
it’s really an act of worship, isn’t it? And so the use of an
oath should be done in all sincerity, not in vain, not flippantly,
but only on the most solemn occasions. And if so, what was supposed
to be a rare event on a solemn occasion soon became this unchecked
flood of these empty vows, oaths, swearing. The sin was the sin
of excess, not the thing itself. Here’s how one Puritan described
it. Oaths give suspicion of men’s falseness and lightness. Did
you hear that? It has the opposite effect. And
the more you do it, the more people have to wonder, why is
he always doing that? If a man were serious and sincere
in their discourse, their word would be equivalent to an oath
and their very affirming would be swearing. I’m telling you
the truth. No. Did you get that? He says that all they should
have had to do was speak a word and the truth, that should have
been it. But it wasn’t the truth. And
so it had to be layered with these plentiful and flowery vows. As one said, the addition of
a confirmatory oath was an acknowledgement that the individual was conscious,
that his word was weak and ordinarily unreliable. I had a friend, used to go to
lunch fairly frequently not a believer, that he would almost start every
sentence with one of these little epithets. Well, honestly, to
tell you the truth, and you soon began to wonder on those occasions,
those rare occasions where he didn’t start with one of those
phrases, can I take him at his word here? And so the fact that they did
these things, I swear by heaven, I swear by the very throne of
God, I swear by the glory of God’s creation. The fact that
they did this brought all of their speech into question. The
morality of the pattern of interacting with one another sank to an ever
new low. People couldn’t be trusted if
they felt like they were had to swear for every little statement. Distrust grew, vows became more
ornate and more dramatic. If a man’s ethical standard was
so low that it had to be constantly tended and propped up, then it
would only be natural for people to agree with his low estimate
of himself. As one pastor put it, swearing
is necessary only in a society where truth is not reverenced. For a Christian, this this ought
to be easy, shouldn’t it? For a Christian, we should all
be about the truth. For a Christian, we should be
totally committed to the truth and so committed with such integrity
that a vow becomes totally unnecessary. Robert Johnstone again said,
among the ways in which the Pharisees had made void God’s law. And remember, Christ just went
through a lengthy list. Among the ways in which the Pharisees
had made void God’s law by their traditions was their introduction
into the system of oaths. Subtleties. They taught that
most forms of oath were comparatively light. might be used freely in
ordinary conversation and need not be regarded as in any way
specially obligatory. You know, that’s what Jesus and
James both say. If you’re still in Matthew, look
at the passage again. Look at how this thing had grown
and morphed. Look at verse 34, but I say to
you, make no oath at all. You shouldn’t even need to use
one of these. Either by heaven, for it is the
throne of God, or by earth, for it is the footstool of his feet,
or by Jerusalem. We’ll come back to that thought
in a moment. Flip back, if you would, to James. In other words, Both Jesus and
James, by echo, says that oaths by anything other than by God
were blasphemous. The only thing that legitimized
an oath, a vow, was that it invoked the name of God himself. But
the Jews were so superstitious about even speaking the name
of God that they invented all kinds of other oaths, as Matthew
records. The idea was that they could
name something that God created that would represent him heaven
or earth or Jerusalem or the temple. You see, Jewish rabbis
had concocted this system which held that vows were only binding.
If you named either one of God’s more general names. Not the very
name of God himself or one of his attributes, I swear by God’s
sovereignty. Other oaths might be used, but
they wouldn’t be binding. And so the thing was a house
of cards. I know I turned you back to James, if you would go
back to Matthew, go to chapter 26, though, Matthew 23, pardon
me, Matthew chapter 23. Jesus addresses this same sin
even more strongly here in Matthew chapter 23. This is how prevalent
it was among the Jews, prevaricating, lying, deceiving everybody around
them. If you’re in 23, jump down to
verse 16. Woe to you blind guides who say,
whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing. But whoever
swears by the gold of the temple is obligated. So now they’re
differentiating between different parts of God’s creation. You
fools and blind men, says Jesus. Which is more important, the
gold of the temple that sanctified the gold or the temple that sanctified
the gold? Verse 18, and whoever swears
by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering
on it, he is obligated. Another one of their little devices.
Verse 19, you blind men, which is more important, the offering
or the altar that sanctifies the offering? Verse 20, therefore,
whoever swears by the altar swears both by the altar and everything
on it. And whoever swears by the temple
swears both by the temple and by him who dwells within it.
And whoever swears by heaven swears by both the throne of
God and by him who sits upon it. Back now, if you would. to James. And so in so doing,
these Jews brought the very idea of a vow into disrepute, into
question. Jesus’ words in Matthew make
it clear that a vow by any created thing, since it was done flippantly,
was irreverent and sinful. Jesus tells the Pharisees that
regardless of whether God’s name is actually invoked, if it is
done carelessly and frivolously, it’s just as profane as if they
had used God’s name itself. Since they had not actually vowed
by God’s name, they could circumvent the truth and lying became commonplace. People didn’t know what to believe. Years ago, fresh out of seminary,
I came to know and learn the London Baptist Confession, 1689.
And there’s a chapter in there that for years I didn’t quite
know what to do with it. Chapter 23, of lawful oaths and
vows. And I wondered to myself, what
must these poor people have been enduring in that particular society
that they had to write an entire chapter? It’s in the Westminster
as well. What must have been happening?
What was so prevalent that they had to address it so strongly
and spend an entire chapter on oaths and vows? Well, turns out that what we learn
from That is that what the Puritans were addressing there in the
16th century England is precisely what James is addressing in first
century Christianity, which was an echo of what Jesus
had addressed while he was on the earth. And the fact that
Jesus addressed it and James addressed it and the reformers
addressed it means that it’s much more commonplace, isn’t
it? It’s much more common problem
than we might have believed. One pastor characterized it as
the commonest and most serious moral fault in speech. I mean,
that ought to get your attention. The most serious moral fault
in speech. Well, surely not us. Do we? We do. One faithful pastor introduced
the whole subject when he said, it is characteristic, in other
words, commonplace. It is characteristic of certain
individuals who are aware that their reputation for veracity,
truthfulness, is not exactly outstanding. They’re liars. And that the more they lie, the
more they will assert that what they are saying is the gospel
truth. They’re in the habit of interlacing
their conversations with oaths. This is an exhaustive list. Just
try them on. In your heart of hearts. To tell you the truth. And that’s
the way most sentences begin with some people. You ask them
a question, and they have to introduce it with a clarification
that, oh, by the way, this is true. Scouts honor. Well, honestly, it’s just another
one of the many forms. Truthfully, You can go ask so
and so as God is my witness. With everything in my being,
that’s the dramatic one. Heaven knows, Lord knows, God
only knows, I promise. That’s the gospel truth. That’s
God’s honest truth. Cross my heart and hope to die. Even came across a country song
and I don’t listen to country music. I swear by the moon and
the stars. I swear on my grandmother’s grave. I swear on a stack of Bibles. No, really. So help me God. are all common oaths that are
used in our society. And that’s why James says. Above
all, my brethren. Do not swear. Don’t get into
a habit of doing that, don’t get into a habit of having to
prove and verify every little thing that you say. That’s the
negative command, but he gives the positive as well. but let
your yes be yes and your no be no, so that you may not fall under
judgment. Both James here and Jesus in
Matthew 5 inform us that the abuse of vows, swearing, leaves
us guilty before God, the holy judge. This is not a warning
of eternal damnation. because you swore to the truthfulness
of one of your statements, but judgment in the sense of a serious
correction coming by God himself. What Christian ever wants to
be at odds with God? To traffic in these oaths, to
buffet every statement that we make with a vow, to stoop to
making a simple statement, suspect, is to put ourselves at odd with
God and in need of chastisement. One pastor said there ought to
be no need of oaths. Anything over and above simple
affirmation or denying is evil. It is because of Satan, the father
of lies, he has introduced falsehood into the world that oaths ever
came into use in the first place. The use of oaths is an index
of the presence of evil. It is a symptom of prevalence
of falsehood. So here, James gives the balance
to this negative admonition. Don’t do that. Do this. That’s
the formula. The goal is purity. The goal
is honesty. The goal is integrity in our
speech. That is our obligation before
God and men. We’re called here to be so forthright,
so honest, so upright in our speech that no verification,
oath or vow is needed. None. Just a simple yes or no
will do, says James, says Jesus. What a simple approach. What
a fresh way to handle our speech. Just tell the truth. Just answer
the question truthfully. Just say the truth, speak the
truth, answer the truth, yes or no. This statement too is an echo
of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5. Jesus adds in Matthew 5 that
anything beyond yes or no is of evil. We’re stooping to the devil’s
tools to use them. This is the way a believer should
speak. You shouldn’t need to call down heaven to verify simple
words. Honest, consistent, integrity
of speech should be woven into our character, which liberates
us from the curse of swearing. Plain language is to become the
norm. Simple words are to become adequate. Straightforward answers become
acceptable. because of the individual’s character.
Matthew Henry put it this way, let it suffice to you to affirm
or deny a thing as there is occasion. And be sure to stand to your
word and be true to it so as to give no occasion to your being
suspected of falsehood. If it is being suspected of falsehood
that leads men to swearing, let it be known that you keep to
the truth. And are firm to your word, and
by this means you will find that there is no need to swear to
what you say. Peter said it this way, be innocent of the thing
in which you’re slandered. That’s fresh, isn’t it? What
a fresh approach, what a novel approach. This runs delicately
and sweetly and surely counter to the practice of first century
Christianity and the 16th century, and even in our own day, tell
the truth. Uphold integrity in our speech. How refreshing, how simple. Mean
what we say, say what we mean, and we do what we say. Our word
alone ought to be enough. People should be able to come
to us and look us in the eye and get a straight, unequivocal
answer from us. Would you plead for God’s grace
at his throne? Our gracious King, For many of us, some time, even
years, we have pondered the significance, the meaning of that verse, often
reducing it to the whole concept of swearing, cussing. Lord, we
see how wretched, how prevalent lying and deceitfulness had become.
That Jesus himself had to address it. So straightforwardly to even
the leaders of the church. Lord, and the James likewise.
Would address these same things in the church in Jerusalem. Merciful
King. We know that these things are
at least potentials in our own life. We know that we find ourselves
having utilized some of these same phrases. We know that we battle the same
sin, deceitfulness, lying, believability. And so we pray, Father, that
you would grant us your grace, that you would make us anew in
this regard. Give us a fresh mouth. Give us
a fresh approach. Help us to do aside with these
unlawful oaths and vows and ridiculous speech. Lord, we pray for your grace
to honor you with our tongues. Father, we pray that if there
are any here who do not know Christ. Every word that comes
out of their mouth is dishonoring to him. Till they fall on their
knees. and confess their sin and cry
out for his grace, for forgiveness. Everything is vile and disgusting. Lord, we are no better, but we
have been touched by your grace. We pray that as that grace courses
through us, we would be changed, sanctified, And as we look forward
to one day glorified. Lord, we lay these things before
you and we pray them all in Jesus name. Amen.