SHOULD A CHRISTIAN MAKE A PLEDGE or A VOW?





Making a Solemn Promise

The definition of the words oath, swear, pledge, and vow are all the same. They all mean to make a solemn promise about something. The person making a pledge is promising to do something in the future. If you think about this you will see that it is not possible to truthfully promise anything. I am not speaking of what a person intends to do, but what someone promises to do.


A solemn promise is not within the power of any man. No man can control the future, so no man can make a solemn promise in truth. When someone asks us to promise, or make a pledge, we should examine all of the situations which we think might cause us to break our promise and answer accordingly. However we do not even know the future. How then can we make a solemn promise and what promise that a Christian would make is not a solemn promise.


Let me illustrate what I am trying to say. Suppose you are walking down the street and you happen to meet a friend. Your friend stops you and explains that he desperately needs a loan. He asks for one hundred dollars. It seems like a lot of money, but you have a thousand in your pocket. However you intend to make a purchase with it and you do not want to go back to the bank, where you have more than a hundred thousand, in order to withdraw more. You fear you will miss out on the deal you had planed for. Your friend does not need the money until tomorrow so you promise to loan it to him in the morning. You see no reason that you can not fulfill your promise and it does seem reasonable, but it would be better to listen and contemplate what God says about making promises.


The ability to see the future is not given to man. Suppose you die tonight. Your friend who desperately needs the loan, which you promised, stopped searching for it, because of your promise. That is just one possible ending to the story. There are any number of possible endings.

You could forget, after all, the loan is not as important to you as it is to your friend. There could be a tornado, hurricane, or flood. Your bank could fail, or you could learn that you are bankrupt and did not realize it.


You are probably saying to yourself that these are very unusual occurrences and of course that is correct. This may lead you to think, because you could not predict these unusual circumstances that you have done nothing wrong. But do not forget your friend who depended on you to fulfill your promise. Your conscience will remind you that you have indeed erred.


Consider Matthew 5:33-37 (NIV), AAgain, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one@. Also James 5:12 (NIV), AAbove all, my brothers, do not swear‑‑not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

While you are contemplating solemn promises and you still think you are released from your promise if unusual circumstances cause you to fail to fulfill your obligations. Consider Leviticus 5:4 (NIV), AOr if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil‑‑in any matter one might carelessly swear about‑‑even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty.@ Did God give you an out? He said anything, good or evil, in any matter, even if you are unaware of it you will be guilty.

I don=t see any possible way to justify a broken promise. If you are one of those who would say Leviticus is the Old Testament and it no longer applies to the events of today you are wrong. It is true that the penalty for sin has been paid for all those who will admit guilt, and plead for mercy, but it is still wrong to sin.


Only God knows the future, so only God can make a promise. If we promise to do anything without the ability to fulfill it we are lying, and we do not have the ability to control or predict the future, so any promise is basically only a lie.


If you are inclined to think your motives make a vow, or pledge right then consider Jephthah the Gileadite who made a vow to the Lord. His motives were right. However he did not know the future and he had to sacrifice his only daughter, because of his vow.

Satan can not change the Word of God, so he changes the meaning of the words in which the Word of God is written.

This is how Satan has confused this issue.

Satan has managed to shade the meaning of swear into meaning using God=s name in vane. It does not mean that when it is used in the Bible.

It means to make a promise.

When we make a promise we are setting ourselves up as a God.

We, though we do not mean to, are indicating that we can do what only God can do.

Do as the Bible says (Mat. 5:34-37 NIV), ABut I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.@

That is how promises, oaths, swearing, pledges, and vows look to me.


http://astudent.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/s...-make-a-pledge/

QUOTE

Do as the Bible says (Mat. 5:34-37 NIV), ABut I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.@

That is an excellent scripture about why making pledges is wrong.

Seriousness of taking a vow or making a pledge ...

... once it is made, one may think one has annulled it, or has had it removed or disappeared (a childish, dangerous notion indeed) but it has been permanently recorded by the Lord. At the Great White Throne Judgment He will judge the 'lost' equitably according to their 'words'.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that one shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Matthew 12:36


For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 12:37




_____________________________________________________________________


When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.
Deuteronomy 23:21



If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.
Numbers 30:2


You will pray to Him, and He will hear you; And you will pay your vows.
Job 22:27


So I will sing praise to Your name forever, That I may pay my vows day by day.
Psalm 61:8


When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in fools. You must fulfill what you vow.
Ecclesiastes 5:4


It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.
Ecclesiastes 5:5


33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Matthew 5:33-37


You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:12



When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you.
Deuteronomy 23:21



You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised.
Deuteronomy 23:23



16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Matthew 23:16-22







But I say unto you, That every idle word that one shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Matthew 12:36


For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 12:37


And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.
Isaiah 29:4


Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Revelation 2:5

Is It Ever Right To Lie?

The question of truth and lying pervades all that is said or left unsaid within our families, communities, and working relationships. In this study we will be answering the question: Is it ever right to lie? Conduct seems to indicate that many believe it is right to lie, at least on certain occasions. Professors exaggerate the excellence of their students on recommendations for employment, physicians lie to their patients, parents lie to their children about such things as adoption, social investigators use deception while trying to uncover medical and welfare fraud, the police and journalists lie and deceive in order to expose crime and corruption, and even Dr. Laura, under the pretext of offering moral advice, frequently tells people to lie in order to avoid what she considers to be more serious problems.

Conditioned To Lie

We find ourselves living in a society that actually conditions us to lie. Our employers ask us to lie for them on many occasions. For instance, the secretary who "covers" for the boss when he doesn't want to be disturbed and the salesman who makes claims for his product which are not true are both lying. Many times our "embellishments" on job recommendations for friends and acquaintances are nothing but lies. I suppose it is possible that the Christian might try to convince himself that these little lies are not really important enough to worry about. But God makes it clear that "all liars shall have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).

Telling The Truth Is Not Easy

Of course, telling the truth is not the easiest course of action to follow. On the contrary, telling the truth is often difficult, and frequently places us in circumstances that are quite unpleasant. The following information was related to me by a Christian who retired from the military as a Lieutenant Colonel and serves to illustrate just how difficult it can be to tell the truth, even for a Christian trying to do what is right. Job advancement and retention in the military depends on an evaluation report made by one's supervisor. Form DA67-7, 1 January '73, U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report called for officers to be rated as OUTSTANDING, SUPERIOR, EXCELLENT, EFFECTIVE, MARGINAL, and INADEQUATE. Although most of us would find it nearly impossible to distinguish between OUTSTANDING, SUPERIOR, and EXCELLENT, experience had taught Army raters that anyone rated less than OUTSTANDING would be at a great disadvantage and would probably become a likely candidate for discharge. Such an inane rating system coerced most to be somewhat less than truthful while actually creating even greater ambiguity as to the true qualifications of those being rated. Imagine the difficulty caused the Christian who objected to the rating system as being totally ridiculous, and the extra work he had to undertake to amend each rating to reflect what he believed more accurately mirrored the qualification of those he was assigned to evaluate. On top of this, add the realization that his rating of a fine officer somewhat less than OUTSTANDING—although he explained in writing his reasons for doing so and actually recommended him for advancement—might result in the officer not being promoted to a position he was clearly qualified for and, in fact, might actually cause the officer to be thrown out of the service. What would you have done?

The realization that we have a military capable of developing such a fiendish rating system is disturbing. Nevertheless, our military industrial complex seems to reflect nothing more than the current societal standard. Everywhere we look in our society we find glaring examples of lying and deception. Having experienced Vietnam, Watergate, Abscam, and the Iran-Contra affair, most Americans believe "this country's leaders have consistently lied to the people" (Cambridge Survey Research, 1975, 1976). Add to this the Clinton Whitehouse, where perjury is to be determined by what the meaning of "is" is, and one must admit the mistrust Americans have for everyone and everything, and just how much this blight on America's moral landscape has affected us us all.

Furthermore, it may be disturbing for us to think that Christians, of all people, need to develop the proper attitude toward lying, but the apostle Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit, admonished the Christians of his day thus: "Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another" (Ephesians 4:25). In order for a Christian to be the victorious soldier the Lord expects him to be, it is imperative he have his "loins girt about with truth" (Ephesians 6:14a).

"Okay, okay," you might be thinking, "but it could be right, could it not, to lie? The answer, unequivocally, is "No!" In Revelation 22:14-15, the Scriptures say:

Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whosoever loves and practices a lie.

Unfortunately, not all have understood the absolute nature of God's moral requisite against lying. Martin Luther, the famous "reformer," was reported to have said: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them" (Cited by Luther's secretary in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, Vol. 1). Stanly Paher, writing in one of the brotherhood papers, justifies the lying of Rahab the harlot in order to save the two spies by writing: "It was, therefore, a Godly thing to lie and the Holy Spirit's commendation of her actions show this, It was not sin" ("Commandments in Conflict?, II," Vanguard, Vol. 11, November 1984, pp. 300,301).

Something Called "Graded Absolutism"

Both Luther and Paher could be classified theologically as "graded absolutists." A graded absolutist believes that there are many moral absolutes taught in the Bible and that they sometimes conflict. He believes there are higher moral laws taught in the Bible and when moral laws conflict, one is under obligation to follow the higher law. Therefore, according to those who hold this position, lying is sometimes right because showing mercy to the innocent is a greater moral duty than telling the truth to the guilty. For instance, while listening to a religious radio station, I heard a denominational preacher teaching a lesson on the need to lie under certain circumstances. Like Paher, he used the story of Rahab the harlot to substantiate his teaching. This shows earthly wisdom on the part of these teachers, because even among those who know that the Bible condemns lying, the truth of what Rahab did (viz., she lied), and the fact she is mentioned in a positive manner in the New Testament, has caused some perplexity among God's people (cf. Hebrews 12:31 and James 2:25). During his lesson, the aforementioned preacher used this illustration:

Suppose there was someone chasing after me with a shotgun threatening to kill me. Here you come walking down the street and here I come running around the corner and pass you by. Soon, here comes the man with the shotgun. He stops and asks you which way I went; I hope, for my sake, you'll tell him a lie.

What this teacher wanted those who heard him to think was that they were under a higher obligation to show mercy to him than they were to tell the truth to the man with the shotgun.

First of all, one is not under any obligation, morally or otherwise, to give an answer to the gunman. Jesus did not sin by refusing to answer some questions asked of Him (cf. Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:8,9), and neither do we! Secondly, as God's Word instructs, one ought to do unto his neighbor as he would have his neighbor do unto him. In this case, this might entail preventing or subduing the potential assailant, if possible. But under no circumstances is one under any Biblical obligation to aid, answer, or assist the evildoer.

Now, let's consider the case of Rahab. What Rahab did in assisting the spies to escape (viz., she lied) was wrong, and consequently, it is nowhere praised in the Scriptures. Those who use the case of Rahab to justify lying, simply "err not knowing the Scriptures, or the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Neither Hebrews 11:31 nor James 2:25 commend Rahab for lying. Instead, she is commended for the faith she exercised in believing God. Likewise, when David, an adulterer and murderer, was identified as a man after God's own heart, one can be sure that these two sins were not being recommended to those of us trying to live godly lives. And maybe—notice that I said maybe—if the aforementioned denominational preacher understood this (i.e., that adultery is condemned in God's Word and is, therefore, always wrong), then maybe—again, I said maybe—he wouldn't be so concerned about conditioning his flock to lie for him whenever they see some man chasing him with a shotgun.

Something Called "Unqualified Absolutism"

When one tries to take the Lord's teaching on "the weightier matters of the law" (cf. Matthew 23:23) to justify breaking any part of God's law, one is simply "wresting the Scriptures." Yes, Jesus spoke of the weightier matters of the law (e.g., "justice," "mercy" and "faith"). And what the Lord was teaching was that we ought to put first things first. But, He made it clear that the other less weightier things ought not to be left undone. In other words, one ought to keep all of God's commandments, not just the ones that are convenient. This position, which is, I am convinced, the only Biblically tenable position, the theologians would call "unqualified absolutism." The unqualified absolutist believes there are many absolute moral laws, and none of them should ever be broken. In other words, the unqualified absolutist believes one cannot justify lying even when such lying is for the sole purpose of saving the life of another. The one who holds this position believes that lying is always wrong! To many, this just seems too harsh. Therefore, there is a third position to which some Christians turn.

Something Called "Conflicting Absolutism"

This third position is called "Conflicting Absolutism." I first heard it articulated by a fellow Christian who I would otherwise consider to be a very careful Bible student. The one who takes this position believes that we inherently live in an evil world where absolute moral laws sometime run into inevitable conflict. In such cases, the conflicting absolutist believes it is his responsibility to do the "lesser evil." He will break what he considers to be the lesser law (viz., lying) to uphold the greater law (i.e., preserving life). Then, after doing so, he prays for mercy and asks God to forgive him for breaking a lesser commandment that circumstantially conflicted with the "greater good."

In principle, this position is far removed from graded absolutism which says under certain circumstances lying is not a sin. On the contrary, and to his credit, the conflicting absolutist believes it is always wrong to break an absolute moral law of God. There are no exceptions or exemptions, he tells us. One's lying to save a life is always wrong (i.e., it is sinful), but it is truly the lesser evil and, therefore, must be done under the circumstances. But, just as it is wrong to lie, the conflicting absolutist believes it would be wrong (i.e., sinful) not to lie to save a life. Consequently, in practice, both the graded and conflicting absolutists would practice lying in order to do what they would consider to be the higher good.

But why would anyone want to think himself obligated, as the conflicting absolutist does, to do that which is evil? Such a position is morally absurd. In addition, this lesser-evil position implies that Jesus probably sinned during His earthly existence. Remember, this position claims that sin (i.e., the lesser evil) is actually unavoidable in this evil world in which we live. Of course, the Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are (Hebrews 4:15). If so—and if moral conflicts require us to do the lesser evil, as these folks claim, then Jesus must have sinned. But this conflicts with the remaining part of Hebrews 4:15 which says that Jesus was in all points tempted as we are, but without sin. Furthermore, if Christ is our complete moral example, and Paul says He is in 1 Corinthians 11:1,2, and if He was tempted in every way just as we are (Hebrews 4:15), then He either sinned by having to choose the lesser evil, or He never faced the moral dilemmas the rest of us face. If the former, then He was not the perfect sacrifice for our sins; and, if the latter, then He is not our complete moral example. Who can believe it?

"The Way Of Escape"

The conflicting and graded absolutists miss the truth of God's Word on lying. One is never permitted to lie, much less morally obligated to do so. The only moral obligation one is under with reference to lying is not to do it. This, and this alone, is the clear teaching of God's Word.

Now, I don't want anyone to think that I'm saying that living in this evil world is easy, for it most certainly isn't! But the answers to the difficult situations we sometimes find ourselves in are not found in the idea that we can, or ought to, violate one of God's moral absolutes in favor of another. To do so is spiritual and ethical suicide. One who takes this position is "mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29, NKJ). The Bible clearly teaches: "No temptation has overtaken [us] except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow [us] to be tempted beyond what [we] are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that [we] may be able to bear it" (I Corinthians 10:13). I certainly don't understand all the hows and wherefores of this promise, but I do understand that they are backed up by the faithfulness of Almighty God. The promise to the Christian is that GOD IS FAITHFUL, and that in His faithfulness, He will not allow us to be tempted BEYOND WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO BEAR, and through His power He will MAKE FOR US THE WAY OF ESCAPE. This tells me that Satan is not the only one active in this present world. The Lord is at work in our lives and simply will not allow us to be tempted without a way of escape. Many would say the way of escape is simply following His commands. This, of course, is only half of the formula—our faithfulness. But the passage under discussion has to do more with God's faithfulness—what He will do for us. What then is it that He will do for us? He will, He says, make for us a way of escape. Do you believe this? I do.

We must not be mistaken concerning the "Scriptures" (God does not permit lying) "nor the power of God" (with every temptation, He will make a way of escape). Let us be of the mind to do His will in all things and then trust in His power to take care of us. When we pray, let us pray: "And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen" (Matthew 6:13).

What Is A Lie?

It is always wrong to lie. I know this is true because the Bible says so. But, what is a lie? In asking this question, I have no desire to justify lying. As I've already pointed out, lying cannot be justified. Many who will have no problem agreeing with everything I've said up to this point, will have some serious problems with what I am about to say. Many otherwise serious students of the Word rely upon a man-made, rather than a Biblical, definition of lying. In doing so, they all too frequently wind up condemning the guiltless (cf. Jesus' statement about this in Matthew 12:7). Because they do not know the Bible's definition of a lie, they place restrictions on themselves and others that God never intended. Consequently, they have not only missed opportunities for service themselves, but they have also stood in the way of others who were trying to faithfully serve the Lord. For example, some gospel preachers have failed to obtain visas into foreign countries for the purpose of preaching and teaching the gospel because they have felt they were under obligation to tell the whole truth when filling out visa applications (i.e., when they mentioned they were "gospel preachers" their applications were denied). Okay, I realize that this statement probably caused an alarm to go off in your head. Good, because I need your undivided attention if I am to make my point. Is it really true that the Biblical prohibition against lying requires us to tell the whole truth in every circumstance? When a foreign country will not grant a gospel preacher a visa, is it a lie for that preacher to list his occupation as "teacher"? Furthermore, when asked by a government hostile to the preaching of the gospel the purpose of one's visit, is it wrong for a preacher, who during the course of his visit plans to visit different areas of the country in order to preach the gospel, to say, "to visit and travel about in your country"? Some would answer all these questions with a "Yes." However, I am convinced the answer to these questions can be "No." What follows, then, is a Biblical defense of not telling the whole truth in every circumstance. Before you dismiss this as "ethical sloppiness," I bid you to consider what I have to say.

Webster Versus The Bible

According to Webster, to lie is "1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive; 2: to create a false or misleading impression" (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 1981). Although Christians will sometimes quote Webster as an authority on this subject, it is obvious, at least from a Biblical standpoint, that he is not totally correct in his definition of a lie. Obviously, "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" is an accurate description of a lie, but "to create a false or misleading impression" is not. How do I know this? Well, in 1 Samuel 16, we have a perfect example of this point. Samuel, the prophet, is instructed by Jehovah to go to Bethlehem for the express purpose of anointing another king over Israel. Understandably, the prophet was concerned about King Saul learning of his mission because he was afraid Saul would have him killed. Knowing something about the character of Saul, we have every reason to believe that Samuel was not just being overly cautious—Saul was certainly the kind of man who would kill to protect his throne. But, in order to allow Samuel's primary purpose to go undetected, Jehovah devised a stratagem (i.e., a cleverly contrived scheme to outwit the enemy and gain an end). The Lord told Samuel to take a heifer with him and say: "I have come to sacrifice to the Lord" (verse 2). Then we are told:

So Samuel did what the Lord said, and went to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, "Do you come peaceably?" And he said, "Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice" (verses 4 & 5a).

I think you will agree with me that Samuel did not tell the whole truth. Although what he said was true, it served to conceal his primary purpose, which, if discovered, would most assuredly not have been considered peaceful by the elders who questioned him. In other words, if Saul had known what was going on, he probably would have been trying to kill not just the prophet, but he would more than likely be wanting to execute any in the town he thought to be accomplices. Therefore, otherwise critical information was being withheld from the elders, and they would not have thought the prophet's visit peaceful.

So, according to Webster's definition (viz., "to create a false or misleading impression"), not only did Samuel lie, but God actually instructed him to do so! Who can believe it? Obviously, any definition of lying that would have the Lord encouraging one to do what is sinful cannot be correct (cf. James 1:13). Therefore, from a Scriptural point of view, the creating of a false or misleading impression is not necessarily a lie. Let's consider yet another situation. In Joshua 8, God, who "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2), instructed Joshua to "lay an ambush for the city [of Ai] behind it" (v.2). Now, it seems impossible for anyone to try and deny that an ambush, by definition, is deceptive. An actual reading of Joshua 8:1-8, makes this very clear:

Now the LORD said to Joshua: "Do not be afraid, nor be dismayed; take all the people of war with you, and arise, go up to Ai. See, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land. 2 "And you shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king. Only its spoil and its cattle you shall take as booty for yourselves. Lay an ambush for the city behind it." 3 So Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up against Ai; and Joshua chose thirty thousand mighty men of valor and sent them away by night. 4 And he commanded them, saying: "Behold, you shall lie in ambush against the city, behind the city. Do not go very far from the city, but all of you be ready. 5 "Then I and all the people who [are] with me will approach the city; and it will come about, when they come out against us as at the first, that we shall flee before them. 6 "For they will come out after us till we have drawn them from the city, for they will say, '[They are] fleeing before us as at the first.' Therefore we will flee before them. 7 "Then you shall rise from the ambush and seize the city, for the LORD your God will deliver it into your hand. 8 "And it will be, when you have taken the city, [that] you shall set the city on fire. According to the commandment of the LORD you shall do. See, I have commanded you (NKJV).

Therefore, if all deception is a lie, then the God who cannot lie commanded Joshua and the Israelites to lie. Again, who can believe it? So, since it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18), neither the stratagem at Ai nor the subterfuge at Bethlehem could be inherently evil, although both clearly involve what most would identify as deception. Consequently, I believe it Scriptural to say that although lying is always wrong and can never be justified under any circumstances (this makes me a moral absolutist), hiding the whole truth from one's adversaries is not always wrong and ought not to always be categorized as lying. The aforementioned preacher, in carrying out the commands of the Lord to carry His gospel to a lost and dying world would not be lying when listing his occupation as "teacher." Yes, it is true that he was hoping to conceal his true occupation, but he did not state anything that was untrue (i.e., he did not have to deny that he was a gospel preacher), for a preacher is, in deed, a teacher of the Word. Therefore, I believe the Christian who charges this preacher with sin, as some are more than willing to do, is guilty of condemning the guiltless which, in turn, is the charge Jesus made against the religionists of His day (Matthew 12:7). Unfortunately, those who would condemn this preacher are the same ones who feel justified in saying that "Abraham lied about Sarah being his wife." They do so because they have allowed the world (sacred and secular) to define lying to include any and all concealment and deception. If this were true, and many think it is, then Abraham lied when he answered in such a way as to conceal that Sarah was, in fact, his wife. But when correctly interpreted, I believe the passages mentioned in this article teach just the opposite—namely, all deception is not lying. In the case of Abraham, the Biblical account makes it clear that Abraham was not guilty of saying Sarah was not his wife, which would have been a lie. Instead, what he said was, "She is my sister" (Genesis 20:2), which was true (v. 12). Likewise, Sarah did not say that Abraham was not her husband, which would have been a lie. What she said was, "He is my brother" (v. 5), which was true. Sure, it was not "the whole truth," but it was not a lie either. In fact, after this whole episode played out, Abimelech acknowledged that Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister (cf. verse 16a). Was this not Abimelech's own admission to the truthfulness of Abraham's and Sarah's statements? Originally, Abimelech believed he had been wronged by Abraham not telling him the whole truth (verses 9-10), but was Abraham required to repent to the king? No, it is the king who must, and does, repent toward Abraham and Sarah, even though he did what he did without knowing Sarah was Abraham's wife (i.e., he did it in the integrity of his heart [verse 5]).

When contemplating this story, it is important to realize that it was common for ancient kings and potentates to "take" women into their harems (verse 2 says he sent and took Sarah), and this is probably what happened to Sarah here and also back in chapter 12. If, per chance, the "wanted" women had husbands, they were either killed or imprisoned. This certainly played into Abraham's thinking back in Genesis 12 and was, no doubt, the strategy in this episode, and with God's help, it all worked out wonderfully. For not only was Abraham handsomely compensated by the king, but he was permitted to dwell anywhere in the country without being molested. Now, if Abraham had actually sinned against Abimelech, would God have sent the king to him so he could pray for him? Not likely! So, although Abimelech originally felt justified in taking Sarah into his harem, second wife, or whatever, God still held him responsible for his actions which, in God's sight, were not right, and this was true regardless of the local or universal customs in play at the time. What right did Abimelech have to "take" (the Hebrew connotes force) Sarah, even if she were single? Therefore, Abimelech's privileged arrogance caused him to take another's man's wife and God, in this instance, was making it clear to Abimelech that He was holding him directly responsible for his actions. Deceived or not, his arrogance had put him in harm's way and he was, in fact, a dead man if he didn't give Sarah back. Consequently, it was only after Abimelech gave Sarah back and Abraham prayed to God on his behalf that the king was healed (verses 17-18). To find in this story a reason to condemn Abraham, as many Christians do, is totally unwarranted and makes the one doing it guilty of condemning the guiltless.

Conclusion

Is it ever right to lie? Absolutely not! The Christian must recognize lying for the evil it is and never try to justify it under any circumstances, no matter how difficult they may be. Nothing will destroy our influence quicker. No confidence can be placed in a liar. The Christian is instructed: "Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth" (Ephesians 6:14). But, at the same time, let us make sure we understand the difference between Webster's definition of a lie and God's definition. Remember, Webster missed it on baptism also, referring to baptism as sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

http://allanturner.com/lying.html

Guess we're all in trouble...

Who here had not pledged allegiance to the flag of the united states of America?

Who here has not made a wedding vow?

Who here has not been sworn in on the Bible in court?

Who here has not sworn the the military to defend this country?

Who here has not made a pomise to their child; parent; friend; spouse; co-worker; boss...etc?

Who here has not promised to be a good boy or girl to their parent?

Who here has not made a vow with Jesus Christ?

Or made some promises to God???

Looks like the Kingdom of Heaven is going to be quite a lonely place according to some of you guys!

Liars and the Lying Spirit


John 8:44: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies".

Yesterday, just some minutes past 7.00 in the morning, I received a Telephone call on my mobile hand set from an important business colleague, who apologized for calling me so early in the morning hoping that I was not woken up from bed by the phone call. I responded that I had already resumed work in the office; therefore there was no need for his apology.

He then said that since I was already in the office he preferred to call me on my office fixed wireless land phone, as its charges are less expensive than calls made to mobile phone. (I guessed he wanted to have a long discussion with me on my Business proposal before him.) He ended by saying that he was about to leave for his office and would make the call as soon as he resumed duty.



As the telephone conversation ended, I knew I was in a bit of a problem because I had lied that I was already in the office whereas I was still at home. If my business colleague had phone my office line immediately he would have been shocked that I was not on seat and my credibility before him would had been injured. What saved me was the fact that he was just leaving for his office.

In order to cover my lie, I immediately left home and rushed to the office so that I would be at my desk to receive his phone call. He eventually called much latter in the day and he did not detect that I had lied earlier. As I meditated latter in the day on the incident I wondered why I had lied to my business colleague in the morning.



Was it to massage my ego that I always resume work early in the morning and by so doing portray me as hardworking? I realized with much guilt that the lie I told was needless. I also realized that I had effortlessly told the lie.



I was not under any pressure to tell a lie yet I opened my mouth and boxed myself into a corner. He was merely apologizing for phoning me early in the morning, and instead of saying the truth that I had woken up, but at home preparing to leave for the office, I said I was already at my desk working! Another thing I realized was that I exposed myself to risk because I had to drive to the office in a hurry in order to cover up my lies. What of if I had an accident in the mad rush?

The important lesson here is that when you tell a lie, you are at the risk of being detected and you may have to embark on more grievous things to cover up your first lie. Lies multiply themselves and the more you persist in lying, the more you commit more evils. Lying is a spirit, Lying is an art, Lying is a habit. But the Bible also clearly states that lying is a sin that we must seek to control and overcome.

Revelation 21:8: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Several people may not make heaven not because they committed any of the known sins like sexual immorality or murder, but because they were liars when on earth. Like I stated earlier, there is a spirit that influences people to lie.

A spirit is and invisible force, and the spirit of lying are devilish. God never leads any one to tell lies. It is the devil that influences people to tell lies under the influence of the lying spirit. The Bible describes as the Father of Liars. We all must all make conscious efforts and pray to overcome the Spirit of lying.

1 Kings 22 vs. 19-23: "Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'

"One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' " 'By what means?' the LORD asked. " 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.

" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours." The story is a narration of a scene in the presence of God where a lying spirit volunteers to influence King Ahab. God allowed this to happen because Ahab had stubbornly refused to hearken to the divine instruction.

2 Thessalonians 2 vs.11: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."

It is very easy to tell a lie, but it is not also difficult to stick to the truth all the time. In fact, Gut God has given us the power to bind and cast out this spirit from our life so that we can stand on the truth at all times

Ephesians 4 vs. 25: "Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body"

There are some people who tell lies occasionally, some tell lies habitually and some pathologically. No matter the category you below, we must all realize that we can all do and live without having to tell lies. The spirit of God can help us to stand by the truth at al times and resist the devil that is the father of liars.

I have repented of the lie I told early yesterday morning and I have prayed to God to help to say the truth at all times. If you are also ashamed of the lies you have told, you can call on the God of truth today to deliver you from the spirit of lying. The first step you need to take before God can save you from this evil spirit is that you must invite Jesus Christ, the Truth into your life.

John 14 vs. 6: "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

http://babalobi.com/2007/11/27/liars-and-the-lying-spirit/

Christians and the Pledge of Allegiance


“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”



This public oath, taught to children and repeated by most Americans many times throughout their lives, is familiar to us all. Yet, what does it mean for Christians? Should Christians be making such an oath, a promise, a pledge? Furthermore, what should be a Christian’s attitude toward his or her country?



Let’s begin by examining the Pledge. Take out the flag part, as it’s just a symbol of the republic for which it stands. And set aside the “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” as those are just descriptions of the republic (which may be revisited later).[1] We’re left with “I pledge allegiance to the republic.” That is the essence of the Pledge. But what are we really saying? “Allegiance” in the dictionary is defined as “loyalty, or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation…” “Pledge” is defined as “a formal promise”. So, while each may have his or her own interpretation, I suggest the most general meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance is a formal, public promise of loyalty to our nation.



Without major caveats, it seems inappropriate that a Christian should make such a promise. Let’s begin, of course, with Jesus, and then look to the example of the early Church. Jesus announced early in His ministry that He was bringing “the Good News of the Kingdom of God” (Luke 4:43). He repeatedly refers to His Kingdom, noting that it is “not of this world” (John 18:36).[2] Indeed, His Kingdom (and its characteristics as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5) is so unlike worldly Kingdoms as to invite confusion, scorn, and ridicule. It is not delimited by geographic borders, nor defended by a military. The Jews, outraged that this so-called messiah was not leading a violent overthrow of the Roman occupation army, called for His execution. His Kingdom relied on other methods, but would still grow “like a mustard seed” (Matthew 13:31).



The early Christian church, whether members of a people group occupied by Rome, or Romans themselves, considered themselves members of the Kingdom of God. They believed themselves to be the beginnings of the glorious prophecies in Isaiah whereby people “will beat their swords into plowshares” (Isaiah 2:4), led by a “Prince of Peace, of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end” (Isaiah 9:6-7).[3] They believed these things were being fulfilled within their small growing church, the Kingdom of God. In this sense, they viewed themselves as very much apart from the normal political spectrum and off the political map. Much like Native American tribes in the United States today, they considered themselves an independent nation, although physically within the boundaries of a worldly nation. The early church referred to itself as “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9), whose “citizenship” was in heaven (Philippians 3:20). God, they said, “has made us to be a kingdom” (Revelation 1:6).[4]



This notion of the church’s “independence” from earthly kingdoms is quite stark in some New Testament writings. When John was imprisoned on the island of Patmos (the Roman equivalent of Alcatraz), he penned a letter now known as the book of Revelation. Amidst imagery of the persecution of believers, he describes “the kings of the earth” in negative terms throughout the book. They stand in contrast to “the multitude” of believers.[5] Clearly, John viewed the church as a people living within, but yet apart, from all worldly kingdoms. The early church willingly and routinely faced persecution and death, often over their refusal to join the military or pledge an oath to Caesar.



Both Jesus and Paul addressed the specific question of loyalty to government in two well-known texts, Matthew 22 and Romans 13. When the Pharisees attempted to put Jesus into a Catch-22 over the question of paying taxes to the Romans, he asked whose image was on the coin. “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” Jesus replied (Matthew 22:21). It’s a cute answer, but what does it mean? The coin clearly belongs to Caesar; it has his image on it. But then what belongs to God? Well, what has God’s image on it? Yes, the word “image” is the same used to denote that we are created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27). Noting that even Caesar is made in the image of God, we see that what is God’s encompasses all things, including the coin. It is now less clear whether we should give that coin back to Caesar. However, what is clear is that loyalty to God clearly has supremacy over loyalty to Caesar.



When Paul writes to the Romans, he is writing to a church so persecuted that they are on the verge of forsaking their traditional peaceful, non-violent response (often termed “patient endurance” (e.g., Revelation 1:9)) and turning to weapons to defend themselves or even attack the Roman authorities. The relevant passage reads:

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted… it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 12:17-13:5).



This is perhaps the most oft-quoted passage in the New Testament used to support patriotism, loyalty, and obedience to country.[6] The context, however, must be remembered. Paul himself, by preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, disobeyed Roman law and was imprisoned. He no doubt knew the words of the apostles, “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29), as he was present (as Saul) at the stoning of Stephen. This rather obvious qualifier to Romans 13 opens the door to subjecting all state policies to the litmus test of God’s law. The main intent of the passage appears to be to calm the church’s desire to strike back and to encourage them to stay on their non-violent course. One of the motivating factors that Paul uses is to remind them that God uses governments, both evil and good, for His purposes.[7] In this case, it appears that Paul is calling the authorities “evil”, but nevertheless requires submission to them. In this case, submission means a non-violent response to persecution and a willingness to accept the punishments of the authorities.[8] It is not, however, a submission of the Kingdom of God to a worldly kingdom. Rather, submission to their persecutors (combined with servanthood and acts of love) was merely one of the methods by which the members of the church would communicate the message of Jesus to their oppressors. The ultimate loyalty of the church, of course, remained with the Kingdom of God.



When not openly persecuted, the early church was often publicly criticized for its failure to support the Roman military and perceived lack of loyalty. These Christians were, at best, bad citizens. At worst, they were a threat to the state. To this complaint, church leader Origen responded, “You urge us to fight for the king… [but] we by our prayer vanquish all demons who stir up war and lead to the violation of oaths and disturb the peace. We in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them.”



All this said, there are many functions of the state that are good and in no way conflict with the Kingdom of God. A state (or any organizational structure) is simply a group of people binding themselves together to provide for common needs.[9] Thus, a state, at its most basic level, is an example of human cooperation to provide goods and services. Many of these services are humanitarian in nature (e.g., sewers, fire protection, schools). To this end, it certainly seems within the teachings of Jesus to participate and cooperate in these endeavors. In Paul’s epistles, submission to government authorities is often mentioned along with obedience of wives to husbands and slaves to masters (e.g., Titus 2:2-3:2, 2 Peter 2:13-3:6).[10] The proper attitude was one of respect and loving servanthood (the usual methods of Christ), but did not include carte blanche allegiance.



Suppose now that we take all the above into account and are comfortable reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the major caveat that loyalty to God comes first. We would still have to add an additional caveat. We cannot pledge exclusive loyalty to any one nation at the expense of another nation, should two nations come into conflict. First of all, there are now Christian churches in every nation.[11] Clearly, the idea that Christians enter into conflict against each other, under the banner of their earthly nation of residence, is unpalatable. We bemoan the Civil War in the United States, the slaughter of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, and on-going bloodshed in Northern Ireland —all instances where nearly all combatants called themselves Christian, and yet loyalty to state, ethnicity, or simply economic concerns led them to forsake the Kingdom of God.



We are called to have a missionary focus, to love all peoples, and to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). In fact, the term “all nations” appears so many times in the New Testament (and the messianic prophecies in Isaiah) that there is no need to emphasize the point that our God is international in scope. Paul, in visiting and discipling believers across the Mediterranean, appeared far too busy with “Kingdom work” that he had no place for political allegiance; he was a missionary and he loved all whom he visited. He epitomized Jesus’ description of His followers, having no true earthly home, “no place to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). We, too, are called to view the world as missionaries, to be “Christ’s ambassadors” (2 Corinthians 5:20), working to further His Kingdom and make it grow. Given this life-encompassing calling to be workers in God’s Kingdom, it seems that we have to put so many caveats on the Pledge of Allegiance as to make it meaningless. Rather than deceive our fellow Americans by reciting an oath with so many qualifiers, let us respectfully decline and follow the example of the early church. Rather than participate in the sacramentum, the pledge of allegiance to the Roman emperor (or, for recruits, to the Roman military), the early church considered the bread and wine of communion as their alternative pledge, which we now know by that name: sacrament. That was the only pledge they said.














[1] This article does not discuss the current debate over the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge.

[2] “The Kingdom” is mentioned over 100 times in the four Gospels.

[3] Justin Martyr, a 2^nd century church leader, wrote "We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter...changed our warlike weapons into plowshares and our spears into implements of tillage."

[4] This seems a far different notion from many Christians in America today, who typically view loyalty to country as an obligation, while the Kingdom of God simply refers to the afterlife or is relegated to a status akin to that of a philanthropic society.

[5] Eventually, “the kings of the earth” come to worship the Lamb when “the kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord” (Revelation 11:15).

[6] Ironically, this passage is one of the only passages in the New Testament used to justify war. In these instances, the verses from Romans 12 are not cited. Instead, the verses from Romans 13 are simply lifted out of context and applied toward a wide variety of government actions.

[7] The Old Testament contains many examples of God using Israel to punish other nations, and vice versa. The Babylonian captivity, which spans significant parts of the Old Testament, is the most prominent example of the latter.

[8] This was a central tenet of Gandhi’s non-violent practices as well, to willingly accept the punishment inflicted by the state. Cyprian, an early Christian leader in North Africa, wrote, “Christians are not allowed to kill, but they must be willing to be put to death.”

[9] At least, this was at the heart of John Locke’s political theory of the social contract. In reality, we are born and find ourselves citizens of a pre-existing state over which we have little control.

[10] Paul’s letters do not address the morality of slavery as an institution. They do provide advice for those caught up in slavery, counseling a non-violent Christ-like response that respects the humanity of their masters.

[11] It is interesting to note that one church in Basra, Iraq, was founded by Saint Thomas in the first century A.D. and still recites the liturgy in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

http://www.christiansforpeace.org/theo/pledge.html

The only one I will pledge my life to is Christ.

Regards
FreedomPower

Can a Christian Pledge Allegiance to the Flag: Reflections on Religious Affections Ancient and Modern


This past March I presented a paper at the 37th Annual Society for Pentecostal Studies meeting at Duke Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina. The paper was entitled "'Savior' and 'Lord' in the Lukan Birth Narrative: A Challenge to Caesar" (which has been submitted for publication in a NT related peer-reviewed journal presently). In this paper, I spent a great deal of time constructing the historigraphical picture of Palestine with reference to the rise of the Imperial cult through the end of the first century BCE and the mid-first century CE. In so doing, I spent much time wrestling with the ideology of religious affection in a milieu in which the taxonomic lenses of modernity's bifurcation of "political" and "religious" were alien, unthinkable demarcations; for religion was political and politics ipso facto was intrinsically enmeshed with religious concerns and affections.

As I studied the rise of the Imperial cult, I found myself torn internally by what I was uncovering about the past and how such knowledge was impossible for me to keep from deconstructing my own current experience as a human in the American Imperial West in the 21st century. Granted I was very careful to reconstruct the ancient world as the ancient world. However, what I did not expect from my research was the overwhelming effect, residual effect, such study would ultimately have upon my own Weltanschauung in the present. Indeed, the ways in which I conceived of myself in the socio-political and historical present. Now to my thought for the day, actually, I have been pondering this for quite some time now, almost a year.

In the ancient world, Israel was, even after exile, (as N.T. Wright has labored exhaustively to show) Israel likely still perceived herself as still in exile, even during the time of Jesus' advent. First, the Persian empire financially and politically offered the support (or rather sponsorship) of the reestablishment of a temple-state in Israel (i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah's building programs). Throughout the period that followed from the Persian sponsorship of the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem to the Roman occupation stretching into the earliest Jesus period, Israel was perpetually ruled by socio-political forces outside of their control. At times there was a feeling of independence, but historically the period clearly evidences the nation as a subject peoples, though often granted the beneficence of being able to practice their own religion and operate on a semi-independent scale, barring the perpetual extraction of monies by the overlords.

By the latent first century BCE, the Roman Empire was in process, that is, they were undergoing an internal transformation, a transformation instilling national power in an individual--the Emperor. This, of course, is a complicated manner that here, my brush strokes only outline vaguely. However, with Julius the religious landscape, polytheistic as it was, was also changing along with the power structures (because they were intimately wed together). Underlying the difficulties of the tremendous expanse of the Empire in lands and people was the ever illusive task of grounding the locus of authority, originally with the Republic (510 BCE), but ultimately in the Emperor (ca. 50 BCE). The imperial cult arose, slowly, but steadily in response not to a necessarily religious need, rather the imperial cult functioned as a means of perpetuating the Imperial ideology, a tool for the dissemination of Empire, if you will. Granted this functioned primarily in the East, often arising from the indigenous peoples seeking the favor of the Empire via the Emperor. With Augustus a new age had dawned in which the Emperor himself would function as the locus of Rome's authority, as the symbol of the Empire par excellence. Thus, a two-way relationship was forged: a) from the provincial areas toward the Empire (centripetal) and centrifugally from the Emperor as "savior" (Σωτήρ) or benefactor by providing games, food, and drink. Hence, the socio-political constellation revolved on the axis of the ancient universe--the Emperor himself. There is no little significance to the fact that the "government/emperor" oppressed the people through the extraction of monies from the provincial areas to fund the perpetuation of Empire building (wars, construction, etc.). The Imperial cult offered individuals on a local level a venue to evidence their patriotism to the Empire. Here they would come and offer prayers for (and sometimes to) the emperor, they would give offerings, they would participate in a sacerdotal system of spending in order to show their religious affection for their nation via the emperor. In fact, the mantra of the day became "Caesar is Lord." That is not to say, "Caesar is the unique creator, monotheistic deity who is holy and will save the world from sin" (that would be anachronistic. Rather Caesar is the supreme Lord in the sense that he saves the people from their own peril--lack of food, etc. (Often at the Imperial games the Emperor would distribute meat to the populace, etc.).

However, the first Christians refused to say "Caesar is Lord" because they followed a different Lord. Their claim, while possibly including the theological freight of restoration to God through Jesus, certainly first was socio-political (because remember in the first century there is no separation--religious and political are inseparable). So what was the real issue? I submit to you that fundamentally faith = allegiance. Following Jesus is a fundamental commitment of one's allegiance (socially, politically, spiritually) to have no other allegiances than Jesus. First Christians were murdered because they would not pledge an oath to Caesar. Evangelicals often appeal to the claim that Christians opposed the oath for spiritual reasons, i.e. it offended their religious commitment to Jesus; but does that not prove my point?

Now, what does any of this have to do with the "pledge of allegiance?" For those of you who are not American or have not lived in this country, this may or may not make much sense to you; but I was raised in the United States, indeed, the deep South for that matter. Every day at school students would stand, face the American flag, place their hand over their heart and say, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Today, I can no longer in good conscience pledge allegiance to the flag or to the nation. In fact, I think that if one takes Jesus seriously, takes his followers seriously, then in rough terms I find very little difference between the Imperial Cult's oath's to Caesar and the pledge of allegiance.

Here is my rationale:
Purpose and Function:
The Oath to Caesar functioned in order to: a) perpetuate the Empire's ideology and power structure, to identify, articulate, and perpetuate individuals personal commitments to the Emperor (a metonymy for the Empire), c) to foster Imperial unity of purpose under one monarch; and probably other reasons that I can't presently think of.

The Pledge of Allegiance functions in order to: a) perpetuate the ideology of the American Empire, to identify, articulate, and perpetuate individuals personal commitments to the Empire (flag a metonymy for America), and c) to foster American unity and a sense of patriotism toward one's place within the empire.

If first Christians died because they wouldn't simply say, "Yes, I am a patriot. I love my country and my leader, Caesar is Lord" then neither can I today fail to perceive that being a follower of Jesus necessitates that no other governmental allegiance may be held for where my "treasure is, there will my heart be also."

http://robgreid.blogspot.com/2008/07/relig...and-modern.html

Marriage has been a social institution in just about every society since the earliest times. Marriage traditions and customs differ greatly from culture to culture, but nearly every culture has them. Have you ever wondered why marriage was culturally relevant; even in primitive societies? Though the ages men and women of all races and religions have chosen to single out a time and place to "unite in marriage." Customs guide it; laws govern it; society respects it. Why is that it is that only within the past few decades has traditional marriage been set aside or rejected all together?

One reason is the moral laxness that pervades the United State since the 1960's. Sex outside of marriage is no longer considered sinful, even by many people that go to church. "We love each other, that is all what really matters," is the mantra of the post modern generation. The prevailing wisdom of this group says, "We don't need a piece of paper to make it right."

Another reason is that in the past 30 years our society has lost a sense of what marriage really is. Having "divorced" marriage from its cultural and biblical moorings, it is left to drift on the uncertain current of people's personal opinion.

Why is marriage important? Why do we take vows and what is their significance? Is a "piece of paper" really important? Does the Bible require marriage? Does marriage have any benefits to those who choose to engage in it? These are important questions to consider.

In almost every culture marriage has two cornerstones: vows and sexual intercourse. In fact it is both of these that legitimize and legalize a marriage.





In the western world it is the vows that form the legal commitment and sex that "consummates" those commitments. In most states a marriage that is not consummated with intercourse can be annulled. Divorce dissolves a marriage, but annulment voids the marriage completely, as if it never happened.

It is interesting that marriage vows and sex are so closely associated. Biblically speaking it is considered morally wrong for a couple to have sex even one minute before a wedding ceremony and totally acceptable, and even expected, that they would after the ceremony. What takes place in the ceremony that legitimizes sexual intercourse?

Marriage has two parts, one is legal and one is spiritual. Both are activated by the vows.


Legally the vows form a verbal contract to become one; sharing property, debt and other privileges and responsibilities. This is why a couple can not just get "unmarried." They have to go to the court system and have a judge legally terminate the marriage. Spiritually the vows create what the Bible calls a "covenant." A covenant is a spiritual agreement, governing the relationship. Because of the vows, couples are united, both in the eyes of the society in which they live and before God which spiritually joins them together. Just as a legal agreement can not be broken without consequences, so a covenant can not be broken without consequences.

Consider what God had to say about this covenant and the spiritual consequences in Malachi 2:13-15 (the last book of the Old Testament).

"And here's a second offense: You fill the place of worship with your whining and sniveling because you don't get what you want from GOD. Do you know why? Simple. Because GOD was there as a witness when you spoke your marriage vows to your young bride, and now you've broken those vows, broken the faith-bond with your vowed companion, your covenant wife. GOD, not you, made marriage. His Spirit inhabits even the smallest details of marriage. And what does he want from marriage? Children of God, that's what. So guard the spirit of marriage within you. Don't cheat on your spouse. "I hate divorce," says the GOD of Israel. I hate the violent dismembering of the 'one flesh' of marriage." So watch yourselves. Don't let your guard down. Don't cheat" (The Message Bible. Emphasis mine.)

This portion of scripture was written about 400 years before Jesus Christ was born, at a time when the nation of Israel was in moral decline. Even though they remained outwardly religious, they had moved away from the true worship of God and their moral obligations. Adultery and divorce was rampant. It was not uncommon for a man to divorce his wife and get a new one. Our society today is much like that of ancient Israel when God spoke these words.

Notice the emphasis placed on the vows and the covenant. God says He was witness to the marriage vows. You might also note the consequences of their covenant-breaking (adultery and divorce). These people were worshipping and praying, but they were not getting answers to their prayers. God points out that the reason is breaking their marriage vows. God is serious about the vows we take and the covenants we make. Spiritual things happen when we make covenants. Spiritual things happen when we break them too.

When a couple trades vows before God, the Bible tells us that God unites them. That is why Jesus said, "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder." This article is not about the evils of divorce, but rather the power of the wedding vows and the covenant that was created before God and man.

Covenant is the central theme of the Bible. In fact the Bible is divided into the Old Testament (covenant) and the New Testament (covenant). The word covenant actually means "cutting" and when two people or two groups of people make a spiritual agreement it was called, "cutting covenant." In the Old Testament an animal was slain and divided in two (hence the idea of cutting) and the parties making the covenant passed between the two pieces of the animal signifying the seriousness of the covenant. In effect they were saying, only death can end this covenant and if I break it you can kill me. The familiar strains of "until death do us part," in the traditional marriage vows probably came from this concept of cutting covenant, because this is exactly what the couple does.

Another interesting aspect of the marriage covenant was sexual intercourse. Sex was the seal or bond of the covenant. As we mentioned earlier, a marriage that is not consummated by sexual intercourse can be voided as if it never happened. Since covenant had an element of the shedding of blood involved, so the consummation of the marriage covenant also has the shedding of blood. In the best case scenario a woman is supposed to be a virgin when she gets married. The first time she has sexual intercourse the hymen is broken and blood is shed. It could well be that this 'seal of purity' was God's way of ratifying the marriage covenant.

We've looked at what a marriage covenant is in a spiritual sense and even some of the consequences for breaking our marriage covenant. Now let's look at the benefits of the covenant relationship.

When a couple exchanges wedding vows they are creating a moral, legal and spiritual commitment to each other. Those vows are meant to hold them together in tough times. They were promises made to each other. "For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health." These pledges were meant to be a comfort to the spouses; a promise that someone would walk with them through the difficulties of life and not bail out as soon as things got tough. Since both parties were going to make a long term 'investment' in the relationship spiritually, emotionally and financially it is only fitting that some sort of guarantee is offered.

"To have and to hold; Forsaking all others and keeping only to your spouse," were promises particularly related to the sexual union. A couple vowed to each other before God and man to remain sexually pure with each other. What a concept.


Very few people want to marry a person that they know will cheat on them.


It was this part of the covenant vow that legitimizes the sexual union.

Another reason God requires a covenantal relationship to guard sex is that children are the natural result of marriage. God told Adam and Eve to, "be fruitful and multiply." God wanted children to be brought up in a loving stable environment. The hard truth is that the devastating effects of single parent families have impacted our society in ways we can not imagine. It does make any difference if the parents were never married or if they were divorced, children most often pay the price emotionally and socio-economically. (Please note I am not condemning people in either situation. I am only stating that the result has been catastrophic to modern society in terms of emotional turmoil and economic impact, not to mention the problems related to education, discipline, sexual abuse and more.)

God wanted parents to stay together, work out problems and provide emotional and moral foundations for their children. When the family is a cornerstone of society, the world is a better place.

The bottom line is that marriage is about commitment. Commitment forms the basis of the moral, legal and spiritual privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage. It is precisely this issue that cause many couples to live together, rather then get married.

What is the big deal about a piece of paper? It is easy to see that the piece of paper is not the real issue; it is the moral, spiritual and legal commitments that govern the relationship that are the heart and soul of marriage and family. Couples want the benefits of marriage: companionship, sex, financial advantages (they don't have to rent to apartments and pay double bills) and other things, but do not want to make the commitments that have traditionally defined marriage in almost every culture for over 6000 years.

A couple may say they are committed, but until that commitment takes on moral, legal and even spiritual ramifications it is really no commitment at all. In God's economy it is the loving, self-sacrificing commitment of covenant that legitimizes marriage, not the fleeting emotion of love or desire. If a couple is committed to one another there is no reason at all that they should not be willing to say the words in public and enter into a covenant relationship.

God placed His blessing on marriage and children. He promised to listen to the unified prayers of the Christian couple and bless their children. In the turbulent uncertainty of the 21^st century, having God's blessing might be a really good idea.




http://talktoapastor.com/marriage-vows.htm

One that answereth a matter before hearing it, it is folly and shame unto them.
Proverbs 18:13

Did Jesus teach that men should never take any oaths? This is a question that has been much debated. Some have come to believe that they should not even swear to "tell the truth" in a court of law because of the Bible's teaching on this issue.


Like many teachings this one must be understood in its immediate as well as its broader context. By "broader context" we mean everything else taught in the Bible about it. Statements can easily be misunderstood if we do not take a systematic and thorough approach in studying them.


Yes, Jesus did teach the people of His day not to swear, but this was in a very narrow context. It is imperative that we understand what was going on in Christ's day when He taught the people then. Listen to what He actually said:

Matthew 5

³⁴But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; ³⁵or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. ³⁶And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. ³⁷Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

• Historical Background of Jesus' Day:

The Pharisees and Scribes had a legal system of oaths. They had one for tithing, for journeying on the Sabbath, for washing your hands before meals, and many more. They had passed all of these off to the people as "commands from God." Jesus often and systematically violated their man made laws in public and then used their indignation as a teaching opportunity to the crowds. The man healed on the Sabbath was one such occasion.


Matthew 12:10-15

¹⁰ And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--- so that they might accuse Him. ¹¹ And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? ¹² "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." ¹³ Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other. ¹⁴ But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. ¹⁵ But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all,


The vowing practices of the Pharisees is just another example of the type of thing they were doing across the boards. It was ridiculously childish when we consider it. They were designating certain things to "swear oaths" by. When they swore oaths by the proper thing then their credibility could not be questioned. It was a way of putting an end to the dispute and actually allowed them to deceive people because the veracity of things sworn in a certain way could simply "not be questioned" [according to them]. Like their other foolishness, Jesus condemned this practice soundly. Listen as He explains it in greater detail later in Matthew's gospel. Again, He is speaking to the Pharisees.



Matthew 23

"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' ¹⁷You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? ¹⁸You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' ¹⁹You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? ²⁰Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. ²¹And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. ²²And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.


Notice that Jesus condemns their wretched man-made legalism and not the vowing itself. He points out that when they swear they cannot make these foolish distinctions that they were so fond of. Jesus does not condemn oath takers. He condemns the practice of dragging God into our lies and deceptions.


One can also see why the Pharisees so hated Christ. He was breaking the back of their lying, legalistic power over the people. False religion holds people in bondage just as surely as lust and sin. Look at what Paul says about going back under man-made laws.


Galatians 5:1-4

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. ² Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. ³ And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. ⁴ You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.


This is a deadly serious issue. Many Bible believing Christians are seeking today to be justified before God by their works. Lists of do's and don'ts abound. Others are judged on their outward works and appearance and not by the criteria endorsed by Jesus and the Apostles. Christian Beware! This is a snare of the Devil and will deeply damage your relationship with Christ.


Notice also that Abraham [Gen. 21:25-31], David [I Sam. 20:12-17], and Paul all took oaths [Acts 18:18]. In the book of Revelation we also see an angel swearing a vow.


Revelation 10:5-6 ⁵ Then the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land lifted up his right hand to heaven, ⁶ and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer,


The object of the angel's vow:

This mighty Angel is a creationist. He knows that God in heaven created all things. This is a sobering vow. As he swears this oath to God he raises his right hand toward heaven where God dwells. The scroll is lying open in his hand so we imagine it in his left hand. [10:8] The angel now hails the God of the universe before pronouncing his oath. This is what the angel says:

• He lives forever: God is eternal in His being. He is without beginning or end. Time is His creation and He exists outside of it. This simple statement affirms God as the source of all life. He is the uncaused cause of all that lives.

• He created heaven and the things in it: Unbelievers have intimidated many Christians into silence with "science" that has no actual scientific content. Everything man knows for sure can more readily be explained by Special Creation than by any random process. God said He created the universe and this mighty angel affirms it in his vow. He leaves no room for anything to exist outside the creative power of the God of Heaven. "He created the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it:"

• There will be delay no longer: The actual vow is pretty simple. God decided not to exercise anymore patience with mankind's ruthless wickedness and hatred.

God does not seem to have a problem with true oaths like this. Oaths that glorify Him and His truth are ways of testifying truthfully of the God of Creation.



Conclusions:

• God refuses to be bound by what men say is true or untrue. We should also refuse to be bound by such things. We are servants of Christ not servants of men and their religions. "Let God be True!!"

• Christ expects His children to have an absolute and unswerving commitment to the truth. We are not to seek in anyway to deceive "other men," "ourselves" or "God." "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No!' "

• The Scripture does not encourage the swearing of oaths.
  
• There does not appear to be any reason to swear one in the normal course of living, but if required to, we can do so in good conscience.
  
• We are not commanded to never swear an oath.
  
• We are however, commanded not to be like the Pharisees and use our oaths to deceive men by dragging the Holy Unblemished Name of God into our deception. It is this practice of deception that Jesus condemns.

• Men and women can, in good conscience, "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," if asked to do so in a court of law. We are always to obey our government until they require us to go directly against something that our Lord taught us.

Romans 13:1-7 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. ² Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. ³ For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; ⁴ for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. ⁵ Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. ⁷ Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:mJ0bL9...lient=firefox-a

Numbers 30 - The Keeping of Vows

A. The requirement to keep vows.



1. (1) Moses speaks to the leaders of the tribes.



Then Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, "This is the thing which the Lord has commanded:



a. Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes: This instruction was given to the leaders of the tribes of Israel, for them to communicate to all the others in Israel.



2. (2) The command of the Lord regarding vows.



If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."



a. He shall not break his word: A vow before God is no small thing. God expressly commanded that Israel should be careful to keep its vows, and to fulfill every oath made.



i. In many circles today, the breaking of an oath is just standard business practice - but before God, it is simply sin.



ii. Some people today believe that vows or oaths are not permitted for a Christian today. They think this because of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:34-37: But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. (See also James 5:12)



iii. But,