Psalms, Psallo, and Instrumental Worship

Oct 31, 2014 | Articles

Has God authorized instrumental worship?

No, the New Testament presents no such authority. The first century church was instructed by the apostles of Christ (Luke 11:49; Acts 2:37, 42; 4:35; 8:18; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 1:17) whom were guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13) into all truth (John 16:13), yet, instrumental worship is nowhere to be seen in the pages of the New Testament. Therefore, it is not of the truth. And if it is not of the truth, those offering such worship are not worshipping God in truth as Christ said must be done (John 17:17). No, God does not desire this type of adoration from the church or else He would have inspired the apostles to say so. Jesus explicitly commanded His apostles to teach the observance of all things He had commanded, and this would include all things commanded by the Spirit (John 14:26).

Sometimes scripture is cited from Revelation where harps are mentioned in heaven, but it must be remembered that Revelation is a book of symbolism. The harps are no more literal than the vials (bowls) of incense which are said to be the “prayers of the saints” (5:8). Furthermore, literal or symbolic, the harps are in heaven and therefore authorize nothing for the church on earth. It has been said:

“To argue that what is accepted or rejected there is accepted or rejected in the church proves more than our friends will accept. Shall we conclude that since there is no marriage in heaven, we in the church are not authorized to marry?” (Caldwell, p. 255).

However, let’s consider some common replies in defense of instrumental worship in the church. Matt Slick, apologist, creator of CARM.org, and host of CARM Radio presents some of these responses in an article titled, Can We Use Instruments in the Church?

DAVID AND THE PSALMS

Mr. Slick first goes to the Old Testament for authorization, saying:

“The Psalms contain instructions that we worship the Lord with musical instruments…”

Instrumental praise in the book of Psalms is commonly the reason people believe the same is acceptable in Christianity. If God accepted it then—why not now? It is true that the book of Psalms contains many Biblical principles that Christians can learn, and it includes forms of worship that the New Testament further authorizes (such as singing, and praying, etc.). In fact, the whole Old Testament is profitable for learning. Throughout it are countless truths, morals, prophecies and foreshadows to be valued. However, it is essential to understand that Jesus Christ established a new covenant with God’s people (Heb. 8:8-12), and whatever is to be done within the relationship between God and man must be authorized in that covenant alone. The Mosaic Law, including the book of Psalms (Jesus referred to it as the law – John 10:34), ended at the cross (Rom. 7:4; Gal. 3:24-25; Eph. 2:15-15, etc.).

Thus it is useless to appeal to a discontinued covenant in an effort to claim authority for one’s practice of worship. Jesus declared that He has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Therefore, everything, including our interaction with God through worship, must be authorized by Christ. David can authorize nothing. Jesus, through the inspiration of the Spirit, by the word of the apostles, has authorized a variety of forms of worship including, prayer (1 Cor. 14:15; Thess. 5:17, etc.), observance of the Lord’s supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7), speaking praise (Heb. 13:15), singing, (1 Cor. 15:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), etc. However, instrumental music is not approved once.

Reflect on another important truth. Just because something was approved or even demanded by God in the past does not mean it is still authorized now. The baptism of John, for example, was ordained by God at one time (John 1:26, 28), but He no longer accepts it in the Christian dispensation (Acts 19:3-5).

EPHESIANS 5:19 AND PSALLO

Mr. Slick continues:

“Furthermore, in Eph 5:19, the phrase ‘making melody’ is the Greek word, psallo which means, ‘1) to pluck off, pull out, 2) to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang, 2a) to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate, 2b) to play on a stringed instrument, to play, the harp, etc. 2c) to sing to the music of the harp 2d) in the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song.’ We can see that the making melody to the Lord involves the use of musical instruments.”

It’s remarkable that while Mr. Slick is defending the use of instrumental worship, he quotes a Greek lexicon (Thayer’s) that actually refutes the very argument for which he quotes it. He argues that the Greek word psallo (translated “making melody” KJV) incorporates the use of a stringed instrument, but, in fact, the very lexicon he cites makes it clear that during the era in which the New Testament was written, psallo meant simply to sing. The lexicon says, “In the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song.” Did you notice that all those stringed-instrument definitions vanish when the word is defined by its New Testament meaning? Did Mr. Slick? The apostle Paul is only commanding them to sing, not to play an instrument, and Mr. Slick has presented evidence of such.

In the ages previous to Paul’s, as the Lexicon states, psallo did carry the idea of plucking on strings, but it is natural for words to evolve in meaning over time. For instance, in the 14th century, the word “nice” meant foolish or silly, but now, of course, it has a pleasant, positive meaning. The word “lewd” in the 1300’s meant the common people, or the laity, while our modern usage is that of showing lustful excitement or desire in an offensive way. Countless words could be listed to exemplify the point. Numerous lexicons and sources could be referenced to confirm that by the time Paul penned psallo in the first century, it no longer embodied the idea of plucking strings on an instrument.

Yet, amazingly, but not surprisingly, Mr. Slick passes right over that important nugget of truth. He brings no attention whatsoever to the New Testament definition. Instead, he just says, “Making melody to the Lord involves the use of musical instruments.” Either he doesn’t understand the Lexicon he quotes, or he’s being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the New Testament definition of the word.

PSALLO’S INSTRUMENT

This having been said, the fact is that regardless of the era in which it is used, no specific instrument is inherent in the word psallo. Such must be determined from the context. Some examples will suffice from the well known Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint:

“Play [psallo]” happens “on the psaltery with ten strings” (Psalm 33:2).

“I will sing songs [psallo] on the harp” (Psalm 71:22).

“Sing [psallo] with a harp” (Psalm 98:5-6).

“Let them sing praises [psallo] with timbrel and psaltery” (Psalm 149:3).

The only instrument in Ephesians 5:19 that is connected with psallo is the heart. He says to psallo “in the heart.” This means man’s spirit and thoughts must be involved in the singing. (Compare 1 Corinthians 14:15 where psallo is used with “understanding.”) It is out of the heart that praises shout forth from the lips; thus when music is made in the heart, we sing praises to God and our Lord Jesus Christ. The praises of a song exist only in the words of a song. Mechanical instruments have nothing to offer on that front. No, vibrations from inanimate devices can offer no praise to the Lord. Neither pops, nor bangs, nor clicks, nor jingles, nor is any other mechanical sound able to render to God the music He desires.

“Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name” (Heb. 13:15)

–Andrew Richardson

Hanegraaff’s Heresy: No Baptism For Salvation

Jun 18, 2012 | Articles

Rummaging through a box of freebies, I found a small book called The Bible Answer Book, authored by Hank Hanegraaff, the proclaimed “Bible answer man.” In it, Hanegraaff provides his answers to eighty-one questions, but sadly, many of his answers are wrong, including the one to the most important question—what must I do to be saved? So the souls of his followers are at risk, headed straight for the ditch (Matt. 15:14). (My first suspicion this would be the case was when I saw he allows himself to be called the “Bible answer man.”)

Hanegraaff’s answer starts off in a decent direction. He begins: “you must realize you’re a sinner, [and] recognize your need for a savior” (p. 12-13). This is true. We all need redemption. The Bible declares that “all have sinned” and “come short” of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23), and, yes, such must be acknowledged; otherwise we wouldn’t seek salvation in the first place.

Next he says, “Repent of your sins…” This too is correct. It is commanded (Matt. 4:17; Mark 6:12; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 17:30). We cannot willingly continue to practice sin and expect to be accepted by God (John 5:14; Rom. 6:1ff; Gal. 2:17). Of course, nobody will repent unless they first know they should; they must first hear the gospel and believe (Rom. 10:17).

Unfortunately, his answer then becomes clichéd and vague:

“Finally, to demonstrate true belief means to be willing to receive. To truly receive is to trust in and depend on Jesus Christ alone to be the Lord of our lives here and now and our Savior for all eternity…According to Jesus Christ, those who realize they are sinners, repent of their sins, and receive him as Savior and Lord are “born again…” (p. 13)

“Receiving Jesus as savior” is a commonly used cliché that lacks adequate truth to the question at hand. In other words, it doesn’t really tell us anything! Of course a man must accept Jesus as savior, because rejecting Him as savior certainly would not lead to ones salvation. The fact is that “receiving” and “trusting” Jesus is really the same thing as “believing on Jesus.” If we have faith in Christ, we will necessarily accept Him as the one who saves, and we will trust in Him to save us if we comply with His will (Heb. 5:9).

A necessary part of “receiving Jesus as savior” (believing on Him) incorporates the acceptance of what He has taught and acting upon it. This leads us right back to the question: “what must one do to be saved?” What has our savior, Jesus, whom we have received as such, told us to do to be saved?

Hanegraaff says those who repent and receive the Lord are “born again,” “according to Christ,” but the same Christ who said “believe” (John 6:29) and “repent” (Luke 13:3) also said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). So, “according to Christ,” salvation for the believer requires baptism. Jesus’ statement is very simple and direct.

God has only ever accepted and “saved” those who responded to Him in obedience. Just as Abraham, who was counted righteous by believing (Rom. 4:3), obeyed God from the outset (Gen. 12:4). He believed; therefore he acted. Thus his “faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect [Greek – teleioo = complete]” (James 2:22). There are always men in our day in age deceiving others by teaching that man is saved at the moment of belief. Man’s faith must—I say again, must move him into obedience or God will not extend His grace (Heb. 5:9; James 2:24).

Hanegraaff omits what Jesus Christ requires, but it is Jesus who saves, so He gets to decide how He will do it. By grace He provides the means—His atoning blood—and He also gets to decide how we must respond in order to benefit from it. Hanegraaff has salvation before the baptism of the penitent believer while Jesus has it after.

Peter also puts salvation after baptism (for it is in baptism when the Lord, by His grace, removes the sins of the believer). On the Day of Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection, Peter spoke to the mass of Jews about Jesus so they might believe, and his speech was effective. The fact that they were “pricked in their heart” (felt remorse for crucifying the Lord) indicates they believed Peter’s message. Feeling guilty about murdering the man that Peter has convinced them is the Messiah, they ask what they should do (v. 38). How could they remedy what they have done? Peter doesn’t respond by saying, “repent and receive Christ and you will be born again” (as what Hanegraaff’s cliché teaches). No, Peter says, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”

Hanegraaff admitted that a man must “repent” before being saved, so by his own words confirms that those Jews were not yet saved (even though they heard Peter’s speech, believed it, and asked what they should do), because Peter had not yet told them to repent. It is clear that repentance and baptism precede the forgiveness of sins.

“For the remission of sins” is the same term found in Matthew 26:28 and logically points toward a goal. Man cannot be saved without baptism because baptism is “for the remission of sins”; it is when Jesus forgives the sins of the believer.

That God doesn’t remove the believer’s sins until baptism is further evident in the case of the apostle Paul. Paul received instant faith when Christ spoke to him on the road to Damascus in Acts 9 (note that after Jesus identifies Himself, Paul calls Him “Lord”). In verse eleven, we see that after this vision, Paul waits in the city “praying.” Not only that, but he was fasting—neither eating nor drinking for three days (Acts 9:9), which shows his repentance (cf. Neh. 9:1; Jonah 3:4-5). So, even though Paul believed in Jesus (calling Him “Lord”), prayed, and repented, he was still not yet saved, because Ananias came to him and said, “…why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Notice Ananias’ use of the words “wash away”; it is in baptism that our sins are “washed away,” i.e., forgiven by Jesus (remember Peter linked baptism to the remission of sins–Acts 2:38).

Observe that though Paul had already prayed to Jesus and had already called Him “Lord,” he had not yet been “calling upon the name of the Lord” until baptism. Though “calling upon the Lord” has itself become a cliché in our modern religious world, the phrase Biblically embraces a deeper concept than just prayer (though not excluding prayer). It is an appeal to Jesus for His good graces by submitting to His will, just as Zephaniah 3:9 connects “calling on the name of the Lord” with “service.” Peter also spoke of “calling on the name of the Lord” in Acts 2:21 and went on to tell the Jews to “repent and be baptized.” (Note: the same Greek word translated “call on” in Acts 2:21 is translated “appeal” in Acts 25:11. By “appealing to Caesar,” Paul had to submit himself to the system’s required process to be heard by Caesar. Likewise, a sinner’s call upon God consists of his submission to God’s requirements for salvation.)

We can see the necessity of baptism in the example of the Philippian jailer. The Jews on Pentecost believed the gospel preached by Peter and as a result asked what they must do, but when the jailer asked what he must do to be saved (Acts 16:30), he did not know the gospel or know Jesus, since Paul didn’t preach “the word of the Lord” until afterwards (v. 32). So, unlike the Jews, the jailer did not have faith at the time he asked. (Though he must have heard enough from Paul and Silas to conclude they had information on the subject.) Paul answers: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (v. 31). Paul knew that true faith would cause the jailer to submit to the will of God which would result in his salvation. (In Mark 5:25-29, the faith of the woman with the blood issue led her to touch Jesus’ garment, which in turn healed her. Jesus declared that her “faith made her whole” (v. 34), but it was after it led her to act.) Paul then preached “the word of the Lord” to the jailer (so he could believe), and next we read: “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway” (v. 33). The jailer was baptized in an act of faith (cf. Gal. 3:26-27; his faith led him to submit to the Lord’s will) and so by faith he was saved just as Paul had said.

We see the attitude of the jailer’s heart in tending to their wounds. His new faith produced in him a penitent heart (which Hanegraaff says is necessary for salvation). It also led him to be baptized. It stands to reason that baptism was necessarily a part of “the word of the Lord (v. 32), because this was the jailer’s response to hearing it.

 BAPTIZED “INTO HIS DEATH”

 To further grasp the incredible fallacy of barring baptism as a prerequisite of salvation, which most do, we need to look at its purpose. Paul said:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection…” (Rom. 6:3-5)

It is the blood of Christ that removes the sin from the believer. Jesus shed that blood in death, and it is “by baptism” that buries us “into His death.” He said that His blood was shed “for the remission of sins,” and Peter said “repent and be baptized…for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). The connection between the blood of Jesus and baptism is apparent. The blood of our Lord is the source of our forgiveness, but water immersion in the name of Jesus is when this occurs.

Paul also said:

“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12).

The absolving of the believer’s sins in baptism is the “operation of God”—God is working in it, forgiving our transgressions, and thus baptism is an act of faith. Just as the marching around the city of Jericho was an act of faith (cf. Joshua 6:3ff; Heb. 11:30); God promised to bring the walls of the city down if they followed His instructions. They did, and “by faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days” (Heb. 11:30). Likewise, we believe in the “operation of God”—the removing of our sins—if we are baptized. We can then stand with a “good conscience toward God”:

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” (1 Pet. 3:21)

 BAPTIZED “INTO CHRIST”

 Many people speak of baptism as nothing more than an “outward sign of an inward change,” but the inspired Paul speaks more on its purpose:

 “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:6-27).

Can somebody tell me how the language here is only symbolic? It is explicit that baptism is the mode by which a believer gets “into” Jesus. Not because there is any magic in the water, but because God has decided it to be so. Redemption is “in Christ” (Rom. 3:24); “In Christ” is where there is “no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1); we are “one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5); and “salvation” is “in Christ” (2 Tim. 2:10), and it is by baptism that the believer moves “into Christ.” And let me ask this: if “as many” of us “as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ,” then how many of us as have not been baptized into Christ put on Christ?

The “Bible answer man” has the wrong answer! It’s a terrible shame and an utter iniquity to leave out of salvation what Christ includes. Let us avoid the teaching of men like Hank Hanegraaff, lest we be deceived into believing there is nothing we must do in righteousness and in obedience to possess eternal life. Jesus has provided the means, so let us all obey the gospel today:

•  Have Faith (John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 6:40; 1 Tim. 1:16)
• Love (Faith must “work through love”; Gal. 5:6; 1 Cor. 13:2; 1 John 4:7)
• Repent (Matt. 4:17; 9:13; Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30)
• Confess Jesus as Christ and Son of God (Matt: 16:15-17; Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 8:36-37; 1 John 4:15)
• Be baptized for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:12)

After this, the believer is “in Christ” (where he has salvation—2 Tim. 2:10), and as a Christian he must continually strive to please the Lord (Col. 1:23) and walk worthy of the calling (Eph. 4:1), growing in knowledge and love (Eph. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:18).

—Andrew Richardson

Do Not Swear At All

Apr 26, 2012 | Articles

³³Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

³⁴But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:

³⁵Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

³⁶Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

³⁷But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

(Matthew 5:33-37, KJV)

One of the most abhorrent human evils is dishonesty. When God created Adam and Eve, He placed them in a garden of perfection. Harmony exists between God and man. Satan’s entrance brings deceit, and the truth of God is exchanged for a lie.

In this section (verses 33–37), Jesus reminds us that citizens of God’s kingdom are to speak only the truth. God is truth so He expects His children to possess this characteristic (Proverbs 6:16–17; 12:22; Psalm 119:163; Revelation 21:8). To illustrate this expectation, Jesus discusses the issue of swearing.

Thou shalt not forswear thyself: The Mosaic Law teaches the Jew is not to perjure himself (epiorkeo—forswear) and that all oaths are to be made in a special way. To understand Jesus’ new teaching, note the teaching about oath taking in the Old Testament.

Oath taking in the Old Testament is addressed even in the patriarchal age. Various practices are connected with swearing. In Genesis 14:22, Abram lifts his hand toward God and calls Him as a witness. In Genesis 24:2–9, a hand is placed under the thigh as the oath is taken to underscore the solemnity of the vow. Although oath taking is quite pervasive in scripture, no single formula seems to be followed in the making of oaths. The following scriptures are a few Old Testament references that describe the practice of swearing: Genesis 24:7; 31:50, 53; 47:29; 50:5, 25; Judges 21:5; Ruth 1:17; 3:13; 1 Samuel 1:26; 17:55; 19:6; 20:3; 25:26; 2 Samuel 2:27; 3:9; 11:11; 15:21; 1 Kings 2:23; 18:10; 2 Kings 2:2; 6:31; Ezra 10:3–5.

Swearing may be defined as a solemn declaration or promise about someone or something with God being called as witness to the inviolability of the speaker’s words. The logic seems to be that Deity fills the void in humanity’s credibility gap. Hebrews 6:16 corroborates this basic definition.

Under Mosaic Law oaths not only are accepted but are commanded at times. Three basic oaths are taken:

The Exculpatory Oath—designed to clear oneself from guilt when no witnesses are available as in cases of stolen property (Exodus 22:11), shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 21), and suspected violation of marriage vows.

The Adjuration—a summons to appear and give testimony or information. Leviticus 5:1 addresses the necessity of adhering to such a summons.

The Voluntary Oath—though voluntary, once this oath is made it becomes obligatory (Leviticus 5:4). Psalm 15 speaks about the necessity of keeping one’s oath even if made in rashness. The evil wrought in Joshua 9:15, Judges 11:30, 1 Samuel 14:24, and Matthew 14:7 is verdict against rash oath taking.

‘but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:’ God is to be the only object of the Jews’ oath. They are not to swear by any other name. The third commandment of the Decalogue says, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” While often viewed solely in the context of profanity, in its strictest sense it refers to false swearing. Keil and Delitzsch say it “prohibits all employment of the name of God for vain and unworthy objects, and includes not only false swearing… but trivial swearing in the ordinary intercourse of life” (Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch 118).

Swearing is not wrong in the Old Testament, but it is minutely regulated. It must follow the prescribed formulas as found in passages such as Numbers 30 and must be done only in God’s name (Deuteronomy 6:13). As will be noted, however, the scribes eventually encourage swearing by other than God’s name. They reason that swearing by less important things makes their word less binding. Jesus places this on par with lying.

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

Swear not at all: If our Lord’s words “Swear not at all” (me omosai holos) are taken alone, this seems to be a universal prohibition of all oath taking. History is not without those who so interpret this command. Broadus lists several groups who have traditionally opposed swearing: Anabaptists, Waldensians, Mennonists, Quakers, etc. He also indicates that such early notables as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Jerome decline the practice (115).

We find, however, various occasions in the New Testament where individuals call God as a witness or take vows. Jesus himself answers under oath before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin council. The term used in the Authorized Version is “adjure” (exorkidzo) and refers to being placed under oath (Robertson 217). In Romans 1:19, the Apostle Paul calls God to witness the solemnity of his love toward the saints at Rome (see also 2 Corinthians 1:18–23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:5, 10). In 1 Thessalonians 5:27, Paul puts the church under oath as he charges them before the Lord that his epistle be read to all. In Romans 14:11, Paul applies to Christians an Old Testament passage that includes swearing (Isaiah 45:23). Other New Testament passages (such as Luke 1:73; Acts 2:30; Hebrews 3:11, 18; Hebrews 6:13; Revelation 10:5–6) also indicate that swearing is practiced.

The above evidence suggests that Jesus’ prohibition is qualified. The lists of “neither and nor” that follow verse 34 provide the key to understanding God’s restrictions on swearing.

Swear not at all: As noted above, this statement is qualified and must be taken in the context in which it is given. Jesus now gives some examples of the type of swearing Christians are to avoid. The gospels adequately show that by Jesus’ day many religious perversions exist (15:9; Mark 7:11). Oath taking has not escaped such perversion. While the scribes despise outright lying, they have concocted a more subtle way of deceit—a loophole to the law. They teach the obligation to honor their oaths depends on the value of the object by which they swear. They teach that the vow is absolutely binding only when God’s name is used. If lesser objects are sworn upon, the oath is valued in relation to the object used and might even be forgotten (Lenski 235).

neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: To swear by heaven instead of by God is an attempt to circumvent one’s promise. Heaven was created by God and is where His throne is. Therefore, since God cannot be divorced from His place of residence, to swear by one is paramount to swearing by the other.

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: Likewise, the earth is God’s creation and cannot be divorced from Him. To swear by the earth not only violates Old Testament passages but ignores the fact that God’s presence is everywhere therein.

neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King: To swear by Jerusalem accomplishes nothing in an attempt to remove oneself from the all-seeing eyes of God. Jerusalem is not only where the Temple is but is the city of David and is the representation of the kingdom of heaven.

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black: Ultimately, God controls everything. He not only determines the color of man’s hair, He is the creator of man’s head. Thus, to swear by one’s head is to acknowledge God’s presence.

The custom of false swearing Jesus addresses here is further addressed in chapter twenty-three. Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees and shows again that God cannot be removed from everyday life (see 23:16–19).

 Notable Scholars on the Issue of Swearing

From the above it seems clear that Jesus does not forbid all oaths. Judicial oaths and vows made to God on solemn religious occasions are not condemned. McGarvey, however, is right when he says, “But as these are the only exceptions found in the scriptures, we conclude that all other oaths are forbidden” (Commentary on Matthew 57).

Barnes says, “It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned” (57).

Lenski remarks:

Jesus shows why oaths are still necessary. The prince of this world rules so many men that the state, which has to deal with the ungodly as well as with the godly, is compelled to require oaths in order to establish truth and to confirm promises. Since the world is so full of liars, the state cannot trust a simple “yea” or “nay.” Hence the scriptures permit necessary oaths (239).

A Matter of Conscience

In similar fashion to the groups mentioned above, many in the church of Christ also universally decline the practice of swearing. This view is to be highly respected. Although scripture indicates that Matthew 5:34 be interpreted in light of Jewish perversion, one must never violate his conscience. While it may be acceptable to swear on solemn occasions and in judicial settings, it is certainly acceptable not to swear. Jesus will illustrate in verse 37 that a Christian’s simple “yes” or “no” should be enough to establish the truth. Swearing is not bound on Christians as a positive imperative. No matter one’s conscience, it should generally be avoided as familiarity may lead to levity.

For those, however, whose consciences are not settled on the issue, the following questions should be considered:

• What is the difference between swearing an oath and vowing a vow? Does a Christian violate Matthew 5:34 during a wedding ceremony?
• How may we harmonize those occasions in the life of Paul where he called upon God as witness if all swearing is forbidden?
• What criteria might we use in determining on which occasions swearing is acceptable?
• What general need is there to swear in today’s society?
• How could solemn, or judicial oaths, made respectfully before God, be rightfully attributed to the “evil one” (see verse 37)?
• In substance, what is the real difference in judicial settings between taking an oath and saying, “I affirm”?
• When one who administers baptism raises his right hand, what significance does the act have? How do Daniel 12:7 and Revelation 10:5 relate to this practice?

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: A Christian’s simple “yes” or “no” should be sufficient to establish the truth. Anything more than this comes of evil (the evil one). The Christian does not need an elaborate system by which he can renege on his word or deceive those who hear him. A Christian means what he says and says what he means. Because believers are children of the King (5:45; 1 John 3:1), they ought to possess the Father’s divine attributes. Therefore, since God is truth, Christians must always speak truthfully.

To swear flippantly in everyday conversation harms credibility, for swearing by its nature elevates certain statements above others. Everything a Christian says should be true! Lenski writes, “The man whose heart is true to God utters every statement he makes (logos) as though it were made in the very presence of God before whom even his heart with its inmost thought lies bare” (238).

for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil: Any deliberate speech other than the truth comes from an evil motive and has the devil (“the evil one”) as its source. Both “evil” and “evil one” are appropriate interpretations of Jesus’ statement with commentators differing in preference. James, however, indicates that the former is probably correct and says, “lest you fall into judgment” (5:12).

Evangelist Mike Criswell

—Evangelist Mike Criswell, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

12 Reasons Why You Should Investigate The Church of Christ

Mar 27, 2012 | Articles

In Matt. 16:18 Jesus said, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Here the Lord promises to build His church. And this church was to become the greatest institution on the face of the earth.

The church of Christ was not limited to one nation of people, but for all people of every nation who rightfully call upon the name of the Lord. Many years before the Lord came and established His church, Isaiah the prophet records these words in chapter 2, verses 2-3:

Now it shall come to pass in the latter days That the mountain of the Lord’s house Shall be established on the top of the mountains, And shall be exalted above the hills; And all nations shall flow to it. Many people shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Another prophecy about the Lord’s church being for all nations of people is in Daniel 2:34-35:

You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

From these two prophecies we see that the Lord’s church was to become a great body of people from all nations of the earth. These people would be those who would love and respect God, and obey His word of truth.

The Lord’s church was to be a divine church, not a human or man-made church. This church was to follow the truths and commands of God’s word, not human doctrines and philosophies. In Eph 3:10-11 it reads:

“…to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord…”

The plans for the church of Christ were of eternal origin – planned by God and executed by Christ, His Son.

These human organizations, called denominations, that exist in abundance today, are the product of man and not of God. In fact, they often call themselves by the very name of their founder or by the method in which they operate. This becomes a mockery of divine authority. “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” – Eph. 5:23. Again, in Col. I: 18, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

"On this rock I will build My church"

The church of Christ is governed by Christ and His Word of truth called the gospel or New Testament. Christ is the universal head. He does not have a representative on earth as some would suggest. In Eph. 5:27 it reads, “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” The Lord had such a concern for His church’s welfare that He requested we walk in newness of life and lead sober, godly and righteous lives in order to safeguard the church’s influence in the world. The church’s mission is one of evangelism, ministry, and benevolence. To add to, or in any way change this, is to bring divine disapproval.

Our salvation is the reason that Christ came to this world. If mankind had not been hopelessly lost in sin, Jesus would not have come. But He came to seek and save that which was lost (Read Matt. 1:21, Luke 19:10, I Tim. 1:15). Because Jesus was put to death on the cross, He arose from the dead for our justification (Romans 4:25), and returned to God the Father. But He prepared the apostles for the great work of converting the world. But this work was to be done in His church. Paul writes in I Tim. 3: 15, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” It is the duty of the church to uphold the Lord’s truth to the lost. And those who obey the truth, according to Acts 2:47, are added to the church. While the church does not save by itself, it is Christ who saves, yet our salvation is in the Lord’s body or church. In Ephesians 5:23 it reads, “…Christ is the saviour of the body.” (Also read Eph 1 :22-23). To be in Christ is to be in His church. If any of us are saved, we must be in the Lord’s church. No wonder the poet so fittingly wrote:

I love thy kingdom Lord, the house of thine abode. The church our blest redeemer saved with His own precious blood. I love thy church 0 God, her walls before thee stand, Dear as the apple of thine eye and graven on thy hand.

God bless the church!!

Please Consider:

 12 Reasons Why You Should Investigate The Church Of Christ:

1. Because Jesus is its Builder and Foundation
2. Because of the Church’s scriptural beginning
3. Because of its scriptural name
4. Because the church accepts the Bible only
5. Because the church is undenominational
6. Because it worships God on the right day
7. Because of its opposition to innovations in religion
8. Because of its opposition to innovations in doctrine
9. Because of the Church’s teaching on baptism
10. Because of its opposition to innovations in worship
11. Because it opposes innovations in organization
12. Because of its teaching on the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts

Closing Remarks – Right attitude towards the scriptures