Confessing Evangelical

This was previously part of the post which appears above this, but I've separated it out to avoid derailing the main point of that post on a discussion about oaths in court.

What I said at the end of the preceding post was as follows:

This also helps us to see why, despite Jesus' words in this passage, the church has historically accepted the use of formal oaths in legal situations. An oath sworn in court emphasises that the human justice of the court derives from the justice of God himself; it is a means by which the witness sets aside their own selfish interests in favour of the interests of truth and justice, rather than a means by which the witness invokes God as a servant of the witness's own interests. (Of course, even an oath sworn in court could be sworn with such motives, in which case Jesus' stern words would continue to apply to it.)

Thomas then left a comment suggesting that this explanation

...smack[s] of the same long-winded explanations we Christians always give when we find good reasons to do what we want in spite of the clear command of Jesus

and suggesting that:

If one must take an oath to testify in court or fulfill some otherwise lawful and moral duty (and not everything demanded of us by the authorities will fall under that heading), then let's at least have the guts to 'sin boldly' and not wring out lengthy self-justifying examinations of our decidedly mixed motives.

I think Thomas has a point about the skill and expertise Christians have long demonstrated in side-stepping Jesus' more awkward commands. Whether that applies in this case, given the other examples of oaths being used without complaint in other NT situations, is a different matter. Further discussion is welcome in the comments.

Labels: biblical ethics, sinning boldly