Search

You searched for 'Old Testament'

I've found 33 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 21: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 15,228 views | 6,372 words | 0:32:47 hours | 06 March 2015 19:19

...aw

The ceremonial law was abrogated because it was fulfilled by Christ (see 19:3 for our discussion), therefore, believers under the New Covenant are not obliged to follow the ceremonial laws. These were laws concerning ritual cleanness and uncleanness; animal sacrifices; dietary laws; feasts; ceremonial Sabbaths and so on. These things have been fulfilled in Christ thereby have been done away with. Therefore, anyone obligating the people of God to obey those laws is intruding upon the liberty which God has given His children from the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and is therefore anti-Gospel. This was the law which the Judaizers wanted the Gentile Christians to follow and about which Paul said that it functioned as a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14-16). As Christians, we are freed from the rigor and curse of the law (point 3 above), we are freed from the ceremonial law, but we are not freed from the moral law. In fact, the moral law is enforced in chapter 19 of the Confession. Therefore, we should not understand obedience to God’s moral law to be something that is intruding on our liberty, but rather, something which we, having liberty, are called to walk in.

2. Greater boldness of access to the throne of grace

This point is similar to point 10 above. The Epistle to the Hebrews says:

Heb. 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

We have confidence in Christ Jesus to find grace from God. We no longer fear God as a judge who will condemn us, but we love and know Him as our caring and beloved Father who has saved us, although we hated Him. Calvin notes concerning this passage:

Let us therefore come boldly, or, with confidence, etc. He draws this conclusion, — that an access to God is open to all who come to him relying on Christ the Mediator; nay, he exhorts the faithful to venture without any hesitation to present themselves before God. And the chief benefit of divine teaching is a sure confidence in calling on God, as, on the other hand, the whole of religion falls to the ground, and is lost when this certainty is taken away from consciences.^[3]

We know and we are confident that if we go to God through Christ we will find Him sitting on the throne of grace from which He will pour His grace upon His needy children. We strive to love God and obey Him, not because we fear His punishment, but because He has displayed amazing grace and love to us and therefore, we strive to show our thankfulness and love for Him. We love Him as our Father, and as His children, we seek to do that which is pleasing in His sight.

3. Fuller communications of the free Spirit of God

The work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the believers after the ascension of Christ is greater than His work prior to that event. John says that the Spirit “dwells with you [the disciples] and will be in you” (John 14:17). He is at the present with them and around them, but in the future, He will be in them. Furthermore,

John 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Albert Barnes notes:

For the Holy Ghost was not yet given. Was not given in such full and large measures as should be after Jesus had ascended to heaven. Certain measures of the influences of the Spirit had been always given in the conversion and sanc...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 24: Of the Civil Magistrate - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 13,191 views | 5,667 words | 0:29:28 hours | 06 March 2015 19:38

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 24 Civil Magistrates Civil Government Romans 13

...rong. What should the Christian magistrate do? It is interesting that he is not said to enforce Christianity in general or Particular Baptist theology in particular. He is said to maintain just and peace according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth. He is to govern according to the laws of the land and not make a theocracy of the land in which he is allowed to be a magistrate. As we noted in chapter 19:4, Christians are called to submit to the laws of the land in which they live and not reimplement the Israelite theocracy of the Old Testament. The Christian magistrate is not to enforce the laws of God in his government as it was in the times of the Old Testament. But it is without a doubt that a Christian magistrate has a Christian worldview and therefore, justice and peace mean more to him than an unbelieving magistrate. His views of justice and peace will be and should be influenced by the biblical worldview. But principally, he is to enforce and maintain the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth. This is obviously different than what other Reformed writers had in mind. For many of them, the government had the duty to maintain the Christian religion and not only the Christian religion in general but Protestant Christianity in particular. But the Baptists did not follow with that as they did not see the New Covenant and the regulations under the New Covenant to be just like those in the times of the Old Covenant with the Mosaic laws. The Mosaic judicial laws were no longer applicable. The only application had to do with their “general equity” (see chapter 19:4). Furthermore, they were being persecuted by those very people who wanted a particular branch of Christianity to be defended by the state, although they were as much Reformed and Christian as they were. Hence the publication of this Confession of Faith to show that we have more things in common than different.

Lastly, there will be times of war, but this has to be upon just and necessary occasions and it is specifically said to be under the New Testament. In other words, not every instance of war in the Old Testament is justifiable now under the New Covenant. But at the same time, this does not mean that no war is justifiable under the New Covenant.

Christians are not to reject involvement in civil matters but are to accept them. It is not sinful, contra the Anabaptists, to work in the government. Christians in the government are to seek justice and peace. They are not to turn the civil government into a theocracy, but they are to influence it and maintain justice and peace. Their rule is to be according to the laws of the land, yet one cannot disconnect their own convictions of the Law of God. One cannot be neutral at work and Christian at home. When Christians work in the government, they should try to bring their Christian convictions with them to work. They cannot believe one thing on Sunday and promote contrary things on the other days of the week. There is a fine difference between being influenced by the biblical worldview and trying to reimplement the civil law of Israel again. I’m sure many of us know politicians in our countries who are devoutly Christian and try to bring their Christian influence in the land we live.

Examples of believers involved in pagan governments are Daniel and his three friends, Nehemiah who later became governor of Judea, but before this, he was a cupbearer to Cyrus the king of Persia. It was his request ...

An extensive compilation of Scripture canon lists: texts and spreadsheet

Simon Wartanian | 1,668 views | 611 words | 0:03:010 hours | 05 September 2023 19:34

Canon Of Scripture Protestant Canon Roman Catholic Canon Apocrypha Early Church Canon Lists

...from Gallagher and Meade’s book.

Link

Resources

These are the few helpful resources that I’ve used to compile this list.

Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford, 2017)
The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation – Christian Resources (christiantruth.com)
- see also the endnotes page: Endnotes for The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation – Christian Resources (christiantruth.com)
Ancient Canon Lists (bible-researcher.com)
Canon of the Old Testament, II - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
The Canons Of The Old Testament And The New Testament Through The Ages (islamic-awareness.org)
Early lists of the books of the New Testament (islamic-awareness.org)

...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 32: Of the Last Judgment - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 18,618 views | 16,377 words | 1:25:50 hours | 06 March 2015 23:30

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 32 Last Judgment Eternal Hell Eternal Suffering Lake Of Fire

...3:12), but so was Israel (Hos. 13:9; cf. Isa. 9:14) and so were the sheep and coins that were then found (Luke 15:4, 8); unbelievers are said to ‘die,’ but then all of us have always been ‘dead’ (Rom. 6:13; 7:4; Eph. 2:1, 5; cf. Rom. 7:10, 13; 8:2, 6; I Tim. 5:6; Col. 2:13; Rev. 3:1), and that surely does not mean we have been without existence and consciousness.^[14]

Alan W. Gomes likewise, in responding to the Annihilationist’s linguistic argument, says:

The most common term translated “destroy” in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word abad. It is used to describe the fate of the wicked, as in, for example, Proverbs 11:10. But should we understand this destruction to mean total annihilation?

It is clear from other Old Testament passages using this word that abad need not mean annihilation. The word has a range of meaning. For example, Numbers 21:29 says that the people of Chemosh were “destroyed” (abad). But this is a reference to their being sold into slavery, not to their annihilation. In 1 Samuel 9:3 and 20, the word is used in reference to Saul’s “lost donkeys” (athonoth abadoth). In this context, the word means “lost,” not “annihilated.” In Psalm 31:12, a vessel is “broken” (abad), not annihilated. Here, the meaning is that the vessel is rendered unfit for use, not that it has lapsed into nonexistence. It simply is not true that abad, “without exception,” must mean annihilation.^[15]

When we look to the uses of these words in connection with the righteous, we clearly do not see them being zapped out of existence, therefore, on what ground do we think that it means the wicked are zapped out of existence? But this is not the only thing which we have, we have already reviewed texts which teach that the torment and punishment will go on without end. And punishment presupposes consciousness. Therefore, this terminology does not support the annihilation of the soul or body. Their linguistic argument from the New Testament is likewise unconvincing. They point to the word commonly translated with “destroy” as evidence of annihilation. The Greek verb ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi, G622) which basically means “destroy”, does not support extinction or non-existence. Charles Hodge observed:

To destroy is to ruin. The nature of that ruin depends on the nature of the subject of which it is predicated. A thing is ruined when it is rendered unfit for use; when it is in such a state that it can no longer answer the end for which it was designed. A ship at sea, dismasted, rudderless, with its sides battered in, is ruined, but not annihilated. It is a ship still. A man destroys himself when he ruins his health, squanders his property, debases his character, and renders himself unfit to act his part in life. A soul is utterly and forever destroyed when it is reprobated, alienated from God, rendered a fit companion only for the devil and his angels. This is a destruction a thousandfold more fearful than annihilation.^[16]

We must also note the wide range of meaning of “destroy”, and with that, Alan W. Gomes helps us:

As Reymond points out, Luke 15:8-9 uses the word to describe the lost but existing coin. In Luke 15:4 and 6 it describes the lost but existing sheep. The prodigal (but existing) son is described by this term in Luke 15:17, 24. Murray Harris cites other passages, such as John 11:50, Acts 5:37, 1 Corinthians 10:9-10, and Jude 11, where the concept of destruction (apoleia) or perishing (apolusthai) need not imply annihilation. I...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 13,889 views | 3,261 words | 0:17:00 hours | 05 March 2015 19:57

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 20 General Revelation Special Revelation The Necessity Of The Gospel The Work Of The Holy Spirit

...as revealed in this promise, God worked to beget in the elect faith and repentance so that they would embrace this promise, which was effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners (Gal. 3:15-22). This promise of Christ was, essentially or in substance, the promise of the gospel and salvation, which is what Christ accomplished on behalf of the elect.

Salvation was always through Christ, whether people were consciously aware of that or not. They were saved by faith alone and by not works. By loosely reading the Old Testament and seeing the absence of the cross, we may think that salvation was by works under the Old Testament, but now, in the New Testament era, it is by grace. This is completely false and a grave mistake. Salvation has always been by grace. The reason that this is so is because the Adamic Covenant (see here), which could have provided eternal life if Adam obeyed, was broken. When that covenant was broken, the promise of eternal life by obedience was likewise broken and became unprofitable for Adam’s fallen and sin-cursed descendants. The Covenant of Works which was made with Adam in Eden lost the ability to give eternal life because it is now broken. That covenant did not contain provisions for atonement and now it could only administer the curse of that covenant—death. We see in Genesis 3 that just after God, the covenant Lord, confronts Adam and Eve with their sin, He likewise gives the promise of the Savior:

Gen. 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

This is indisputably a promise of the Savior, the first one and that is why it is called the Proto-Evangelium, meaning, the first (giving-out of the) gospel. God promises a Seed, an Offspring Who would conquer the serpent, who is the Devil. At this point of time, it seems pretty vague, but as time goes by we come to know more about this Offspring and Seed. For example, Abraham is promised that in his “offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). So now we know not only He will be the child of Eve, but will also be a descendent of Abraham. From Genesis 49:10 we learn that the Offspring and the Messiah will come from the loins of Judah. As we progress in biblical revelation, we come to learn more about the identity of the Messiah. Later it will be revealed that He will be a son of David (2Sam. 7) and so forth. It is not that the original Covenant of Works made with Adam has been completely done away with, but that it can no longer give life. The only thing it administers is its curse—death—under which all outside of Christ lie. Death is the wage of sin (Rom. 3:23), that was what Adam was threatened with by God (Gen. 2:17) and because of Adam all are made sinners (Rom. 5:12).

The substance of the Covenant of Grace was revealed to all the saints before Christ. The Covenant of Grace, prior to the inauguration of the New Covenant by the blood of Christ, existed not as an established covenant, but as a promise. This is how 1689 Federalism understands Covenant Theology. For more see chapter 7. Believing in the coming promise of the Redeemer and believing God, was enough for salvation. The saints prior to Christ looked forward to Christ, but now that He has come, we look back to Christ. This is how Abraham was saved, the father of the faithful: “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness” (Gen...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 19,084 views | 13,619 words | 1:11:21 hours | 06 March 2015 23:22

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 30 Sacrament Ordinance Lord's Supper Table Of The Lord Communion Eucharist Transubstantiation Roman Catholicism Idolatry Means Of Grace

...ich brings about the remission of sins. Holy Writ knows of no sacrifice of atonement on behalf of those who are dead, much less of the living in any other manner than the actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross for His elect.

The Biblical View

Nobody, having the Bible alone, would come to the same conclusion on the Lord’s Supper as a Roman Catholic would. It is obvious that the Roman Catholic does not rely on Scripture alone, but Scripture plus tradition, which brings about this abominable practice. The biblical view is that Christ offered a bloody sacrifice once for all time, never to be repeated again. In fact, the primary critique of the book of Hebrews about Old Testament religion is in its repeated sacrifices (e.g. Heb. 10:11). But the Roman Catholic religion not only remembers that one sacrifice but repeats it in an unbloody manner again and again, through which forgiveness of sins is attained, i.e., it is propitious. But the Bible teaches that Christ made a propitious sacrifice once for all time.

I believe a simple reading of Hebrews refutes all the superstitions of the Catholic Church regarding the Mass and the supposed sacrifice of Christ therein. For example, we read in Hebrews 9:25-28 that Christ’s sacrifice, in contrast to the Jewish ceremonial system, was not to be offered repeatedly. But rather, “he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (v. 26). His coming as the sacrifice was once for all time, never to be repeated, whether bloody or unbloody, and this is the sacrifice that propitiates God. Furthermore, it is also said that “Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time” (v. 28). This passage explicitly teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all time, never to be repeated. Hebrews 10:12-14 is likewise a total refutation of the sacrifice of the Mass. Roman Catholics may try various ways to evade the teaching of these passages. whether to speak vaguely about their abominable doctrine, or try to offer unsatisfactory interpretations of Hebrews. We’ve said this and we have not even touched upon the priesthood. The New Testament knows nothing of a sacramental priesthood, but rather acknowledges that all believers are priests (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:5; 5:10). Therefore, the whole priesthood thing and the priest, whom Roman Catholics believe possesses the power to bring about the change in the substance of the bread and wine, and offer the sacrifice, is totally absent from Holy Writ. There is only one High Priest whom the New Testament acknowledges who was the Offering and the Offerer at the same time of a perfect once for all propitiatory sacrifice.

Furthermore, neither Christ nor His apostles ever celebrated or commanded any practice which resembles the sacrifice of the Mass. Roman Catholics may claim all they want that this is Apostolic Tradition which the Church has practiced for 2000 years, but if it is not commanded in Holy Writ, it is forbidden. Every addition to His word is a lie, especially in the area of worship. This is the centerpiece of Roman Catholic worship and it is found nowhere in Holy Scripture. Not only that, but its claims are contradicted by Holy Scripture. What Christ actually commands is to “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). The disciples were to partake of the bread and wine and thereby remember their Master. They would remember His Person, but most especially, His propitiatory sacrifice ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 4: Of Creation - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 19,557 views | 6,589 words | 0:34:34 hours | 04 March 2015 21:12

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 4 Creation Young Earth Creationism Image Of God Imago Dei

...r in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (cf. Ex. 31:17)

I think that the Israelites had a pretty good idea of how long a day was. They were not told to work for long ages, and then rest for a long age. No. They were told to work six regular days and rest the 7^th. Pretty straightforward. They are to copy the pattern of God’s work-week.

Another point is that it has been observed that whenever a numeral is attached to a day in the Old Testament, it always means a regular day. Thus we have the seventh day in a lot of places, for example. All these days refer to simple 24 hour days and not anything longer. The argument that the Day of the Lord is perhaps longer than a regular day, and thus in this way, perhaps the days of Genesis 1 are longer than regular days will not work here. The Day of the Lord is not preceded by a number, i.e., the first day or the sixth day. Second, we do not deny non-literal uses of the word “day” in the Bible, but we deny the non-literal use of the word day in Genesis 1 because of the context and the few points mentioned above. This is enough for me to be confirmed in the straightforward reading as the true history of the Creation.

What Was Created Each Day?

Reading the Genesis account, we come up with the following things that were created:

Day	Created
Day 1	Earth, space, and light out of darkness
Day 2	The firmament, diving the waters and creating the atmosphere
Day 3	Dry land and vegetation (grass, herbs and seeds, trees and fruit)
Day 4	Sun, moon, and stars; day and night
Day 5	Fish in the waters and birds in the sky
Day 6	Land animals, man as male and female in the image of God
Day 7	The Sabbath day

It is also interesting to notice the framework used in the days. God creates the realms and then populates them. This is a valid and good observation to see the order in God’s creation work, but some people use this insight to suggest that the days are not consecutive or not normal days, which is unwarranted.

Day 1: God creates the light and space	Day 4: God creates the sun, moon, and stars
Day 2: God separates the water from the sky	Day 5: God creates fish and birds
Day 3: God separates the sea from the land	Day 6: God creates land animals and man
Day 7: The Sabbath Day

Age Of The Earth

This is a more tricky and hotly debated subject than the days of Genesis. I’m a Young Earth Creationist, thus I do believe the Earth to be young and around 6 to 10 thousand years based on the genealogies of Genesis. They do not seem to contain any gaps, and even if they did, they would not mount up to millions of years. Millions of years will only come when you first make the days of Genesis to be long ages, not because of anything in the text, but because we’re forcing something upon the text. I’m also comfortable with this view based on giants who went before me in interpreting the text. It is not a hot issue for me. I accept it by faith based on what I can see in the Word of God. This Confession says that everything was made in the space of six days, it’s not a giant leap to assume that they meant regular days like the ones they had.

Martin Luther t...

Review of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology

Simon Wartanian | 20,537 views | 1,938 words | 0:010:06 hours | 19 July 2015 19:18

Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology Book Review Calvinism Baptist Continuationist Premillennialism

...hamed about his belief in God’s absolute and holy Word.

The Bible is God’s sole authoritative Word, His very speech (2Tim 3:16). God used holy men as His instruments and spoke through them, not ignoring or overriding their vocabularies and use of language (2Pet 1:20-21).

It is incapable of being wrong, because it comes from the God who is the Truth (Jn 14:6) and who cannot lie (Heb 6:18). The Word of God reflects the character and its integrity is based upon the character of God.

The Bible, which is the collection of 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books is the very and certain Word of God.

See my commentary on the first chapter (Of The Holy Scriptures) of the 1689 Baptist London Confession.

Trinity

Dr Grudem excellently shows the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity from the Scripture and not from creeds as is often alleged by unbelievers. I have often gone back to chapter 14 (God in Three Persons: The Trinity) to get more insight into this great doctrine and the biblical support.

Dr Grudem goes on to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by using three statements that summarize the doctrine:

God is three persons.
Each person is fully God.
There is one God.

From there on he goes into the Scriptures to prove just that!

See my case for the doctrine of the Trinity in my commentary on the 1689 Baptist London Confession.

God’s Providence

This is the first chapter that I read from Grudem. Chapter 16: God’s Providence. And man...I was in for something. It was excellent and it was fully biblical. I loved it.

He defines God’s Providence as follows:

God is continually involved with all created things in such a way that he (1) keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them; (2) cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3) directs them to fulfill his purposes.^[2]

God is absolutely sovereign over His creation. Nothing can happen without His will. Moreover He has ordained whatsoever comes to pass.

Although God is absolutely sovereign, even over chance events (Prov 16:33), man is still held responsible (Isaiah 11, Gen 50:20; Acts 4:27-28).

This is above our understanding, but it is what the Scriptures teach and thus we are to obey it.

This is not fatalism, this is the carrying out of a divine plan of a God who is just, holy, wise and merciful.

We are not “robots,” as many non-Calvinists would accuse Calvinists of making man, we make responsible choices, but these choices are absolutely under the control of God.

See my commentary on chapter 3 (Of God’s Decree) and chapter 5 (Of Divine Providence) on the 1689.

The Person of Christ

The treatment of of the Person of Christ is excellent. His two-fold natures in one Person, His effective and definite atonement, resurrection and ascension. All these he handles in part 4 with great care and persuasive biblical argumentation.

Before reading his treatment on the Person of Christ, I thought that Christ now was only divine and not man. God graciously used Dr. Grudem to persuaded me otherwise.

In the incarnation the Word took on flesh (Jn 1:1, 14). He did not lay aside His divinity, but added humanity to His divine Person (Phil 2:5-11). He was resurrected with a human body and went into heaven with that glorified body, nothing actually convinces us that the Lord Jesus ceased to be human at the moment of...

Acts 7:51, 'You always resist the Holy Spirit'

Simon Wartanian | 8,436 views | 1,097 words | 0:05:36 hours | 03 April 2014 14:01

Resistible Grace Irresistible Grace Calvinism John Gill Matthew Henry ESV Study Bible Acts 7:51

...were enraged and incensed against them: You do always resist the Holy Ghost. 1. They resisted the Holy Ghost speaking to them by the prophets, whom they opposed and contradicted, hated and ridiculed; this seems especially meant here, by the following explication, Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? In persecuting and silencing those that spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost they resisted the Holy Ghost. Their fathers resisted the Holy Ghost in the prophets that God raised up to them, and so did they in Christ's apostles and ministers, who spoke by the same Spirit, and had greater measures of his gifts than the prophets of the Old Testament had, and yet were more resisted. 2. They resisted the Holy Ghost striving with them by their own consciences, and would not comply with the convictions and dictates of them. God's Spirit strove with them as with the old world, but in vain; they resisted him, took part with their corruptions against their convictions, and rebelled against the light. There is that in our sinful hearts that always resists the Holy Ghost, a flesh that lusts against the Spirit, and wars against his motions; but in the hearts of God's elect, when the fulness of time comes, this resistance is overcomer and overpowered, and after a struggle the throne of Christ is set up in the soul, and every thought that had exalted itself against it is brought into captivity to it, 2Cor 10:4; 2Cor 10:5. That grace therefore which effects this change might more fitly be called victorious grace than irresistible.

This content is taken from this document

[1] C.f. John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, section 33. See “Resources.”

[2] ESV Study Bible, 2008 (Crossway). Taken from the Online Version at www.esvbible.org

[3] John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-7-51.html

[4] Matthew Henry, Whole Bible Commentary on Acts 7:51-53. http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/acts/7.html

...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 23: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 13,993 views | 5,299 words | 0:27:50 hours | 06 March 2015 19:34

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 23 Oaths Vows Swearing Allegiance

...aths. We should take oaths only when necessary and not rush to make oaths for everything we’re called to be speaking the truth on. We should live in a manner before people that they would not require of us an oath to know that we’re speaking the truth. But, if the government calls upon us to take an oath which is not against any biblical principle or our conscience, it is unreasonable for us to refuse unless we know that we’re not telling the truth.

Here we come to the discussion of the text in Matthew 5:33-37 wherein some people have seen that Jesus basically forbade the swearing of oaths. But was this the case? Did Jesus simply abrogate all that was said in the Old Testament about ?

Matt. 5:33-37 “ have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Some, upon reading this passage, have concluded that Christians should not take oaths, otherwise they’re disobeying what is said here by our Lord. Basically, if this interpretation is Jesus Himself disobeyed this principle in Matthew 26:62-64 where He submitted to an oath. The apostle Paul, likewise, when he said, “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you” (Rom. 1:9). Or even more pointedly in 2 Corinthians 1:23, “But I call God to witness against me—it was to spare you that I refrained from coming again to Corinth.” Therefore, unless we want to accept contradictions, or the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul what God has now revealed, we must not take the words “Do not take an oath at all” absolutely. Rather, we should look more closely at the context of the passage and of the times.

The Lord Jesus here forbids a specific kind of swearing. The Jews tried to substitute titles for God’s Name or things which are high and worthy and thereby to not swear by God’s Name. The purpose? That their may be broken. John Gill, who was versed in Jewish writings, notes on v. 34:

by heaven; which is directly contrary to the Jewish canons {m}, which say,

“ that swear בשמים, “ heaven”, and by earth, are free.’’

Upon the words in So 2:7, “I adjure you”, c. is asked {n},

“ what does she adjure them? R. Eliezer says, by the heavens, and the earth by the hosts, the host above, and the host below.’’

So Philo the Jew says {o} that the most high and ancient cause need not to be immediately mentioned in swearing; but the “earth”, the sun, the stars, ουρανον, “heaven”, and the whole world. So R. Aben Ezra, and R. David Kimchi, explain Am 4:2. “The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness”; that is, say they, בשמים<

...