Taking an oath in court...

Oh, one more thing. No doubt the attourny for your company will be going over with you what your testimony be like as a part of his or her preparation. So you could at that time ask what the details are for taking the "affirmation" option instead of the "oath" option.

 

My take on the lesson to be had from this passage of scripture.

I believe it is to say that our word should be our word. It shouldnt ever be necissary to swear or promise...or so on about something because you should always be telling the truth.

Taking oath in court is never something that made me think of this verse of scripture, but it was an interesting point.

 

I was asked at one stage to become a freemason. despite all of the evidence concerning the teachings of freemasonry, that are seen by many to be in conflict with the bible, it was noe of these that convinced me not to join. I t was that I would have to swear an Oath of secrecy. Based on the first mentioned scripture in this thread, I will not swear an Oath.

Jesus says plainly no to swear by Heaven or various things. He says let you Yes be Yes and Yor No be No. If you are asked to swear an oath on or by something, you cannot without deliberatley violating the direct teaching of Jesus Christ.

If called to swear in court, on a bible or to God, I would also refuse. In Australia there is also some other type of promise to tell the truth which can be used do as to respect people who follow this teaching of Jesus Christ.

 

This changing "oath" to "affirmation", or "swear" to "affirm," is quite silly in regard to what Jesus taught in Matthew 5. If you would say you "affirm" you are being truthful, but you would not say you "swear" you are, how does this not also violate Matthew 5:37?-- "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil." "AFFIRM" is "beyond" a yes or a no.

I maintain that if you are accepting a legal obligation to tell the truth, whatever verb you use to describe what you are doing is immaterial.

 

I still think that the actual text and its references to the law, and the circumstances, and the people Jesus is talking to is being overlooked in this equation of taking oaths.

The fact that Paul, the major contributor to God's word in the New Testament, made oaths, it must be acceptable. We can reconcile what Jesus is saying by considering what Ransom wrote regarding the situation, the recipients of Jesus' words. There is no alternative. It is not a question of taking Jesus' word over Paul's; it is getting a right understanding of the passage.

Cheers,

Jim

[ January 19, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

Question for those of you still against swearing an oath in court to tell the truth, on the basis of the Sermon on the Mount:

Do you also disagree with the practice of wedding vows (which are also solemn and binding promises)? If not, what's the difference?

 

Weddings are quite simply your Yes being Yes and your No being No.

 

Artimaeus said:

I didn't "swear" at my wedding. I "Plighted my Troth". Semantics, I don't think so, but, maybe.

Most definitely semantics. "Plight" is an archaic verb form of "pledge." A "troth" is a promise to marry.

In other words, to plight one's troth means, quite literally, to make marriage vows.

Ben W. said:

Weddings are quite simply your Yes being Yes and your No being No.

So when you were married, you didn't exchange vows? The minister just asked, "Are you going to stay married?" And you both said, "Yes"? You didn't exchange rings? You (and your witnesses) didn't sign the register? It doesn't have to say "I swear" or "as God is my witness" to be an oath.

If "yes" and "no" is sufficient, why didn't you just move in together and agree never to separate? By your argument, that would be just as binding.

[ January 21, 2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

So there is no curse, even implicit, in saying "God is my witness" to the truth, when in fact, you have not said the truth?

Seems to me that violates two of the Ten Commandments: bearing false witness, and taking the Lord's name in vain.

Moreover, you have now flip-flopped from your previous position (see page 1 of this thread) where you said that Jesus and James simply said "swear not."

[ January 21, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Artimaeus said:

I am attempting to reconcile Jesus's teaching with Paul's remarks. Not a simple task.

I did it in about 5 minutes. Jesus is speaking of promissory oaths, not civil oaths. Simple examination of the context of Matt. 5:33-37 establishes that. There is nothing to reconcile.

 

Hi Ransom. Thanks. You're right. Looks like Jesus and Paul are talking about two different subjects entirely.

 

In a marrige Vow you are asked if you will take your partner as your wife, you say yes. Not by the throne Yes or anything else.

Consider carefully the vow one takes to become a freemason. You must swear punisment and untold misery on yourself for breaking it. Significantly different to simply saying yes or no.

If Jesus said do not take oaths, why take them? Or do we simply texta that sentance out?