Latest / Reformed Thinking / Let What You Say Be Simply Yes or No | John Piper

Transcript

Let What You Say Be Simply Yes or No | John Piper · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Hello and welcome to Reformed Thinking.
0:01
We're your host for the Deep Dive.
0:04
Our aim here, as always, is to give you a shortcut to being
0:07
well informed. We take resources, break them
0:10
down, and try to uncover the most well striking insights.
0:14
For this deep dive, we're getting into a really
0:16
fascinating, maybe even surprising command from Jesus.
0:20
We're looking at it through the lens of John Piper's
0:22
interpretation. And this isn't just about, you
0:25
know, keeping your promises. It feels like it goes much
0:27
deeper into the very fabric of truthfulness itself.
0:30
That's exactly right. Yeah.
0:31
We're going to look closely what Jesus actually says about taking
0:34
oaths, primarily looking at Matthew chapter 5.
0:37
And then later in Matthew 26, we're bringing in some related
0:40
research notes that Piper draws on.
0:42
Our goal today really is to unpack why.
0:44
Why did Jesus give this instruction?
0:46
What does it actually mean for genuine integrity in how we
0:50
speak? And maybe how does it
0:51
fundamentally shape how a follower of Jesus approaches
0:55
truth? You know, in every part of life,
0:57
it's a topic that really touches the core of trust, doesn't it?
0:59
Trust within community and how believers are supposed to live
1:02
differently in the world. OK, so let's start there.
1:04
We often talk about keeping promises, honoring your word.
1:07
That's familiar ground. But before Jesus came along,
1:10
what was the established understanding, the standard
1:13
regarding oaths, especially thinking about the Old Testament
1:16
context? What were people doing?
1:18
Well, the Old Testament definitely set a standard and it
1:20
was quite clear, quite demanding in its own way.
1:24
People were absolutely expected to keep their oaths.
1:27
This wasn't just, you know, a suggestion.
1:29
It was deeply ingrained socially, even legally, to swear
1:33
falsely, to break an oath. That was a serious thing.
1:36
It had real consequences. And oath was a recognized way,
1:39
sometimes formal, sometimes even sacred, to basically guarantee
1:42
what you were saying or promise a future action.
1:45
It really was the common societal measure for
1:47
reliability. It gave structure, help people
1:49
feel secure, you know, in contracts, legal stuff, even
1:52
personal promises. It was how society tried to
1:54
build a baseline of trust. Right.
1:56
OK, so oaths were part of the system, a known tool to give
1:59
words. Wait.
2:00
But then Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, he introduces
2:03
something that sounds, well, strikingly different.
2:05
He seems to go beyond just saying be honest.
2:08
What exactly does he tell his followers in Matthew 5 verses 36
2:12
and 37? Yeah, he gives a really clear,
2:14
direct and honestly revolutionary directive.
2:17
He says, and do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot
2:19
make one hair white or black. Then he says, let what you say
2:24
be simply yes or no. Anything more than this comes
2:27
from evil. This is a huge redirection,
2:30
isn't it? Away from common practice, Even
2:32
away from how the Old Testament allowed oaths?
2:35
Jesus moves beyond just keeping oaths to actively discouraging
2:38
their use altogether. He specifically mentioned
2:40
swearing by your head, pointing out our inability to control
2:43
even tiny things like hair color to show how futile it is to use
2:46
those things as guarantees. He's pointing his followers to
2:49
something higher, a higher way of living, a higher standard of
2:51
speech. It's a call for such
2:53
transparency, such simplicity in our words, that in his view,
2:56
oaths should become completely unnecessary.
2:59
Anything more than this comes from evil.
3:01
Wow, that is a remarkably strong statement.
3:03
It suggests this isn't just some minor tweak to morality.
3:06
Why is such a radical change now at this point in history?
3:09
What makes Jesus time, his era so different that it needs this
3:12
really fun directive against oaths moving beyond?
3:15
Just keep the oaths you make. Yeah, that's a crucial question.
3:18
And this new command is what's intrinsically linked to the
3:21
arrival of God's Kingdom. That's the key.
3:24
You see, with Jesus's ministry, the king himself is physically
3:26
present. This isn't just a future hope
3:28
anymore. God's direct.
3:29
Rule is actively. Breaking into human history,
3:32
it's changing the whole spiritual landscape.
3:34
And then there's the sending of the spirit of truth.
3:36
That's God's own character, his truthfulness being poured out,
3:39
residing within believers. And of course, the big one, the
3:42
inauguration of the New Covenant.
3:45
Unlike the Old Covenant, which often relied heavily on external
3:47
laws, rituals, this new covenant promised a transformation from
3:51
the inside out. God's law is written on the
3:53
heart. These aren't small adjustments.
3:56
They are foundational spiritual realities.
3:58
When you put them together, they change everything.
4:00
For those who are now part of God's Kingdom, they bring a
4:03
completely new spiritual atmosphere.
4:05
OK, so if those are the new realities, the King is here, His
4:08
spirit is inside believers. A new heart transforming
4:11
covenant is in place. What's the practical
4:14
implication? How does that change how
4:16
followers should actually speak? Does it fundamentally reshape
4:20
how they interact with the world?
4:21
It absolutely elevates the standard of truthfulness to an
4:24
astonishing degree. Actually.
4:26
The expectation now is for a visible, noticeable lessening of
4:31
compromise with evil in the world, a clear distinction from
4:34
how things usually work. It's about this higher call to
4:37
integrity, reflecting the new era that's dawned with Christ's
4:41
rule. The simple word of a follower,
4:43
just their yes or no should be enough.
4:45
Why? Because of this new spiritual
4:47
reality, God's Spirit working within them.
4:49
It's a direct consequence of being aligned with God's
4:51
Kingdom, living under His direct rule.
4:54
There should be a real, demonstrable difference in their
4:56
lives, especially in how they speak truth and how others
4:58
perceive them. They're yes should just mean yes
5:00
and they're no no purely because of who they are now in Christ.
5:04
That makes sense. OK, let's shift slightly.
5:06
Jesus says anything more than this comes from evil.
5:10
That's pretty stark. It suggests a problem deeper
5:13
than just words or broken promises.
5:15
Where exactly does this evil come from?
5:17
The evil that seems to make oaths necessary in the 1st place
5:21
feels like we're drilling down to a core human issue.
5:23
Yes, absolutely. The very fact that oaths exist,
5:26
their origin, points to a foundational issue, evil within
5:31
the human heart. This inherent flaw, you know,
5:33
part of our fallen state, it can actually produce reduces lying,
5:36
deceit. It's just there.
5:38
And Jesus himself spoke directly about this.
5:40
He said lying in deceit originated with the father of
5:43
lies. That's in John 8.44.
5:45
He describes the devil as well, a murderer and a liar right from
5:48
the beginning. Someone who stands completely
5:49
outside of truth. And this evil that's inherently
5:52
in the human heart, it gets amplified to gain strength from
5:54
the evil that's just pervasive in the world around us.
5:57
So it's not just an external thing, it's internal too, A deep
6:00
inclination that constantly works against truth, against
6:02
integrity. It makes genuine trust really
6:05
difficult. It's that constant struggle with
6:07
inhuman nature itself. OK, so if truth is always at
6:10
risk because of this, this deep seated inclination towards
6:13
falsehood both inside us and around us, how does society even
6:17
function? How do we build anything,
6:19
maintain communities, even just manage daily interactions if
6:22
truth is inherently fragile? Yeah, you've hit on a really
6:25
critical point there. Life and community absolutely
6:28
requires some measure of trust just to survive, let alone
6:32
thrive. Without it, everything just
6:34
grinds to a halt, doesn't it? Think about it.
6:36
Marriage, business, schools, government, they all rely on
6:39
some basic level of trust. And think about all the
6:41
contracts, agreements we make buying a house, getting on a
6:44
bus. They assume some truthfulness,
6:46
and maybe most. Personally, our friendships
6:48
trust. Is the absolute bedrock there
6:50
because inherent truthfulness sadly, often can't be reliably
6:54
counted on in this fallen world. That's where devices like oaths
6:57
came from. They became a practical, though,
6:59
you know, imperfect way for society to keep functioning, to
7:02
maintain some stability amidst all the potential for deceit.
7:05
A necessary workaround for a fundamental human problem.
7:08
A workarounds. That's a good way to put it.
7:10
You mentioned earlier that oaths arise from a deeper issue.
7:14
Could you clarify what Piper means when he says oaths exist
7:17
because love does not hold sway in the world?
7:20
What's the direct link there? Right.
7:22
The core problem, the thing that really ruined trust in how
7:26
people interact, the reason we can't just take a simple yes or
7:30
no at face. Value all the time.
7:32
It's basically selfishness. I'll will.
7:35
When people are driven by those motives getting what they want,
7:37
they become prone to twisting the truth or just outright lying
7:41
even if it harms someone else. Just think, if genuine, selfless
7:45
love was the rule, if it universally prevailed, truth
7:49
would naturally hold sway. People just wouldn't break their
7:51
word. They wouldn't lie.
7:52
Love would compel them to be reliable because someone driven
7:55
by love has no desire to deceive and harm their neighbor.
7:58
Their word would automatically be their bond because their
8:00
heart would be aiming for the good of others, and that
8:03
includes being honest. But that's not the world we live
8:05
in, is it? Love doesn't consistently win
8:07
out in every interaction, not even close sometimes.
8:10
So in that reality, how do oaths step into that gap where genuine
8:15
love is missing? Exactly.
8:16
Since love doesn't consistently hold sway, oaths a rose is this
8:21
pragmatic tool, a way to compensate for what love should
8:23
naturally achieve. They're born of the necessities
8:26
created by that lack of universal love and
8:28
trustworthiness. So to assure others, people
8:31
found this way to essentially put themselves under threat of
8:34
punishment, often divine punishment if they broke their
8:37
word. This mechanism basically makes a
8:40
person's own self regard, their concern for their own skin,
8:44
their reputation, maybe fear of God or just consequences, makes
8:47
that the measure of their truthfulness.
8:49
They're motivated not necessarily by love for the
8:51
other person or inherent honesty, but by wanting to avoid
8:54
getting struck down or facing some other severe penalty.
8:58
And what's really interesting is that this mechanism, this
9:00
threat, it carries weight even for people who don't actually
9:02
believe in God, because the social structure, the fear of
9:05
consequences, it's still there. So it becomes this widely
9:07
accepted, almost universal way to try and get assurance where
9:10
genuine inherent love and truthfulness are lacking.
9:13
It's an external lever trying to enforce an internal reality
9:15
that's often missing. OK, I think I'm getting it.
9:17
So oaths play this practical, maybe even crucial role in a
9:22
fallen society. Almost like a necessary evil.
9:25
As you said, they act as a sort of stopgap measure, holding
9:28
things together where genuine truthfulness might fail, but
9:30
they don't actually fix the underlying problem.
9:33
You've got it. That captures it well.
9:35
For people who don't yet know Jesus's saving work, oaths might
9:38
still be a necessary tool. They can genuinely help a fallen
9:41
society hang together. Piper uses this image, borrowing
9:45
it from Adolf Schlatter, a German New Testament scholar
9:48
known for his really rigorous work.
9:51
He says oaths act as a kind of dam against the river of human
9:54
falsehood. That image is powerful, isn't
9:57
it? Just like a dam tries to hold
9:59
back a potential flood, those try to contain this torrent of
10:02
lies and deceit that flows from the human heart.
10:04
They provide the structure of accountability.
10:06
It's external shore, but it can still prevent a complete
10:09
societal collapse into just chaos and total distrust.
10:12
Without them, the flood of dishonesty might just overwhelm
10:15
everything. That damn image is really vivid,
10:17
but the source material also hints that even this dam it's
10:20
not a perfect fix. It has its own built in
10:23
drawback. If Odes are trying to make up
10:25
for a lack of real truth, what's that downside?
10:28
What's the unintended negative consequence?
10:30
Right. Schlatter points this out, and
10:32
Piper picks up on it. While we try to build this dam
10:34
against the flood of sin, it doesn't actually achieve the
10:37
real goal, which is authentic internal truthfulness.
10:40
In fact, in a subtle but really significant way, it only
10:44
enlarges the influence of the lie.
10:46
How? Because the very act of
10:48
demanding or taking an oath implies that a simple yes or no
10:52
isn't enough on its own, it kind of inadvertently reinforces the
10:55
societal assumption that people can't be trusted at their word.
10:58
By making oath the standard for reliability, it highlights,
11:01
maybe even normalizes, the absence of inherent
11:04
truthfulness. So while Odes might contain the
11:07
external expression of falsehood, they don't.
11:09
They can't transform the heart that wants to lie.
11:11
They actually end up emphasizing the lack of intrinsic
11:14
reliability rather than cultivating it.
11:16
They point to the problem, but they don't solve it inside the
11:18
person. OK, that's a crucial
11:20
distinction. So Jesus's command to his
11:23
followers is incredibly demanding, then, A really high
11:26
standard for speech and truth. Which brings up the obvious
11:29
question, did he himself live up to this?
11:32
How did his own life reflect this well, revolutionary
11:35
expectation, He said. Absolutely, and this is key.
11:38
Jesus's command isn't just some abstract moral idea he threw out
11:42
there. It's a call to a different level
11:44
of truthfulness. It's meant to be a compelling
11:46
witness to the kind of deep, intrinsic integrity he himself
11:49
brought into the world. He expects his followers, simple
11:52
yes and no, to be literally as good as an oath reflecting
11:56
complete, faultless integrity that mirrors his own.
11:58
And he didn't just preach this, he lived it perfectly,
12:02
consistently. His whole life was the
12:04
illustration of what he taught. His words and his character were
12:07
in perfect sync. That's a powerful claim.
12:09
Can you give us a really concrete example from his life?
12:11
A moment where we see his simple word carrying that ultimate
12:14
weight even under immense pressure.
12:16
Certainly think about his trial before the high priest.
12:19
It's a Matthew 26 versus 63 and 64.
12:22
The high priest doesn't just casually ask Jesus a question,
12:25
The text says he adjured him by the living God.
12:28
He commanded him to state directly if he was the Christ,
12:30
the Son of God. Now, to adjure someone in that
12:33
context, that was a deeply serious, formal, almost legal
12:36
act. It was essentially putting
12:38
someone under the most solemn oath imaginable, compelling them
12:41
to speak the truth as if God himself was the direct witness.
12:45
It carried the absolute weight of societal and religious
12:48
expectation for such a huge declaration.
12:50
It was like a spiritual subpoena demanding a definitive answer,
12:53
basically on pain of divine judgement.
12:55
The pressure on Jesus in that moment was unbelievable to just
12:58
conform to how things were done. Wow.
13:00
OK, so faced with that intense pressure, that formal
13:03
adjuration, how did Jesus respond?
13:05
Did he give in to the expectation and take the oath,
13:07
or did he stick to the principle he himself taught?
13:10
He absolutely. Would not yield to.
13:12
Taking an oath. Even under those incredibly
13:14
grave circumstances. Instead, his response was simply
13:17
You have said so. That was his simple yes, you
13:20
have said it. And you are right.
13:21
That's how Piper puts it. There was no need for an extra
13:23
oath. No external divine guarantee was
13:25
required. His simple word by itself.
13:27
Carry the full. Unyielding impact of absolute.
13:30
Truth and Caiaphas, the high priest.
13:32
He felt the full. Force of it.
13:34
He immediately understood Jesus's simple declaration with
13:36
a claim to divinity, a claim that in his eyes was blasphemy.
13:40
Recognizing the directness of it, he tore his robe, the
13:43
traditional sign of outrage, of blasphemy.
13:45
Without needing to push Jesus further.
13:46
Without needing an oath. It's just profound demonstration
13:49
of Jesus's unimpeachable integrity.
13:51
His simple word held supreme authority.
13:53
It conveyed unequivocal truth. His truthfulness was just
13:56
self-evident. OK, but this brings up something
13:58
that, well, it might look like a contradiction at first glance.
14:01
If Jesus commanded just a simple yes or no, why did he himself
14:05
often use phrases like truly I say to you, or truly, truly I
14:09
say to you? Sometimes you see it as verily,
14:11
verily no. The sources say he used these
14:15
over 50 times when that seemed like more than yes or no.
14:18
How do we square that? That's a really perceptive
14:21
observation, and it's crucial for getting the spirit of what
14:24
Jesus was teaching, not just the letter.
14:26
The scholar DA Carson, he explains that Jesus used truly
14:29
or truly. Truly, the Greek word is Amen,
14:32
actually used the beginning of a sentence, which was unusual.
14:34
He used it before an utterance to confirm and make plain its
14:37
trustworthiness and what it conveyed.
14:39
So it wasn't about adding extra words because his own word lacks
14:43
something. Quite the opposite, opposite.
14:45
It was more about ensuring the listener fully grasped the
14:48
immense weight, the absolute certainty, the divine authority
14:50
of what he was about to say. You can think of it like a
14:53
signal, maybe a divine amplifier for truths that his listeners
14:56
might otherwise struggle to really comprehend or receive
14:58
fully. OK, so he wasn't using these
15:01
reinforcing words because he lacked integrity himself, or
15:05
maybe because his listeners didn't trust him.
15:08
What was the deeper reason, the motivation for using them so
15:11
often? No, absolutely the opposite.
15:12
If anyone ever existed whose integrity was so perfect and
15:15
needed no extra words, it was Jesus.
15:18
His use of these phrases, Piper argues, came purely from an
15:21
impulse of love. Love for his audience.
15:24
His listeners remember. They were living in a world
15:26
soaked in deceit, skepticism. They need to be awakened to the
15:29
complete trustworthiness of what He was saying.
15:31
They might not have fully known, or maybe couldn't perceive just
15:34
how utterly reliable the speaker, Jesus himself, truly
15:37
was, or the incredible divine nature of the truth He was
15:40
revealing. So these reinforcing words were
15:42
entirely for their benefit, to help them receive the full
15:45
impact of His divine truth, to bolster their faith in what He
15:48
was revealing, not to make up for any lack in his own
15:50
character or reliability. He was helping them see the
15:53
reality of His words more clearly.
15:55
That makes a lot of sense, OK. And does God himself, who is
15:57
truth, who is integrity itself, does he ever use anything like
16:01
an oath to confirm his word to us?
16:02
Does the divine example shed any more light here?
16:05
Yes it does. The sources point out that God
16:08
himself, who is perfect truth, the very definition of
16:10
integrity, sometimes confirms His word with oaths.
16:13
We see examples in, say, Luke 1.73 referencing the oath to
16:17
Abraham, or Genesis 22.16 where God swears by himself.
16:21
Now, this obviously wasn't because God was untrustworthy.
16:23
That's just impossible to imagine.
16:26
Rather, Piper suggests it was to give multiple encouragements to
16:29
help us believe him. It's an act of what theologians
16:33
called divine condescension. God essentially Stoops down to
16:36
our level, meets us in our human weakness, our doubt.
16:38
He uses a form of assurance we understand to bolster our faith,
16:41
to give us absolute certainty in His promises.
16:44
It's really a measure of His grace towards us, His creatures,
16:47
who often find it hard to just simply believe His word.
16:49
So what does all this, Jesus's example, God's example, tell us
16:53
about Jesus command regarding the specific wording?
16:56
Does it mean the rule is maybe less absolute than it first
16:59
sounded? Or is there a deeper principle
17:00
here beyond just sticking rigidly to yes or no?
17:03
Yeah, I think it leads us to understand that Jesus core
17:05
instruction aims for absolute integrity, unshakable
17:09
truthfulness of the heart, but it doesn't seem to rigidly
17:12
control the precise, exact wording that expresses this
17:16
truthfulness in every single situation.
17:19
The real, really critical message here seems to be that
17:21
the principle, the principle of absolute truth, integrity of
17:24
heart, that's the primary concern.
17:26
It's not about a legalistic adherence to only saying yes or
17:28
no and nothing else ever. The spirit of command is about
17:31
the heart's disposition towards truth, a deep seated commitment
17:34
to honesty and everything. It's not just about policing
17:37
vocabulary. Our lives, and especially our
17:39
speech, should consistently point to a character rooted in
17:42
truth, just like Christ's own character was.
17:45
OK, that clarifies things quite a bit.
17:48
So given all this discussion, Jesus strong command against
17:53
oaths, his own example, even God's occasional use of them,
17:56
are there ever situations where a follower of Jesus might
17:59
actually be permitted to take an oath?
18:01
It seems like such a strict command initially, but then we
18:03
see these nuances, these divine examples.
18:06
How do we navigate that? Well, the sources do suggest
18:10
some very limited exceptions. Recognizing that we live in a
18:13
complex fallen world, Piper concludes that the specific
18:17
wording of an oath, you know, saying something like, I call
18:20
God to witness that what I say is true, could potentially,
18:24
under certain specific circumstances, actually be a way
18:26
to show love. When would that apply?
18:28
Maybe when you're just speaking to someone who doesn't know you
18:30
at all. They have no basis to judge if
18:32
you're trustworthy. And maybe their cultural
18:34
situation or perhaps a legal framework they're in would only
18:37
give real weight to what you're saying if you use such a formal
18:40
declaration. The motivation here would need
18:42
to be about removing a barrier, allowing the truth to be
18:45
communicated effectively to them.
18:46
It's about meeting them where they are, essentially, so the
18:48
truth can get through. OK, so if I'm understanding this
18:51
right, the reason behind potentially using an oath
18:53
matters way more than just the ACT itself.
18:56
It's about the mode of love, clarity and the specific needs
18:59
of the listener rather than a total blanket ban.
19:02
Precisely. Yeah.
19:03
This potential limited use of an oath, it's understood in
19:07
relation to the abuses of oaths that Jesus was primarily hitting
19:10
on, you know, the casual, self-serving, manipulative oaths
19:13
he condemned back in Matthew 5 and Matthew 23.
19:15
Those were about people trying to find loopholes or trying to
19:18
control others. The guiding principle, the one
19:21
that applies across all time, all cultures, for followers of
19:23
Jesus, is simply to be people of absolute truthfulness, absolute
19:27
honesty in every situation, The specific wording, the formality
19:31
of the speech that's secondary to that core intrinsic
19:33
integrity. The emphasis is always on the
19:35
hearts unwavering orientation towards truth and the desire to
19:38
communicate that truth clearly, effectively, even if very
19:42
occasionally it means using a cultural form to do so, as long
19:45
as it's not a deceitful form itself.
19:47
Right. But even with those carefully
19:49
worded potential exceptions, there's a definite sense of
19:52
caution, almost an unease that comes through in the source
19:55
material about even discussing permitted oaths.
19:58
What's that about? Why the hesitation?
20:00
Yeah, the author Piper notes that even just talking about
20:03
permitted oaths carries a risk. The risk of taking the edge off
20:07
Jesus is really radical Request Jesus wasn't just trying to
20:10
clean up some bad habits around oath taking.
20:13
He was actively raising his followers to a significantly
20:16
higher standard of integrity, higher than just keeping
20:19
promises or swearing correctly. There's a very strong pull away
20:22
from oaths as a general practice for his people.
20:25
So the concern is if these exceptions become too broad or
20:27
maybe too easily embraced, then the unique countercultural
20:31
nature of Jesus original command might get watered down.
20:34
It might get lost. We could unintentionally just
20:36
slide back towards the world standard instead of inviting
20:40
Christ's higher call. OK, So what should be the
20:42
consistent default position, the gut inclination for a follower
20:46
of Jesus and daily life when the idea of an oath comes out?
20:49
The new consistent inclination, the default setting for a
20:53
follower of Jesus, should always be something like My oath isn't
20:57
necessary here, I should be really slow to use one.
20:59
The concern, as Piper highlights it, is that willingly using an
21:03
oath, especially in a situation where your simple word really
21:06
ought to be enough, could subtly communicate something negative.
21:10
It might imply a weakness in your own trustworthiness.
21:13
It could suggest, even unintentionally, that your
21:15
unadorned word isn't sufficient on its own, and that might, in a
21:19
subtle way actually dishonored Jesus by diminishing the
21:22
reflection of his perfect integrity in your life.
21:25
The goal is really to live in such a way that an OST becomes
21:28
redundant, like a relic from a time before the King truly
21:31
established his Kingdom in your heart and life.
21:33
That makes sense. And what does Jesus free us from
21:36
in this whole area, both in how we speak and maybe our internal
21:39
state? What's the remarkable freedom
21:41
being offered here? Well, this is a really
21:43
significant aspect of Jesus freeing work.
21:46
He frees his followers from two things that are deeply
21:48
intertwined. First, he frees us from the need
21:51
to lie. Why?
21:53
Because our hearts are being renewed.
21:55
Our deepest desires are shifting towards truth as we follow Him.
21:58
And 2nd, remarkably, He frees us from the need to prove that we
22:01
do not lie because ideally, our lives, our character, become a
22:05
visible testimony to our integrity.
22:07
This is a profound freedom offered in Christ.
22:10
It's liberation from that heavy burden to seed, and also from
22:13
the anxiety of constantly feeling like you have to
22:16
validate your truthfulness with external guarantees like oaths.
22:20
It means living with a kind of quiet confidence that your
22:22
character, shaped by Christ, speaks louder than any sworn
22:25
statement ever could. OK, so wrapping the section up,
22:28
for followers of Jesus, the goal isn't merely to scrupulously
22:31
avoid telling lies. It's much bigger.
22:33
It's about cultivating such a deep, intrinsic integrity in
22:36
their lives that those external assurances, like oaths, they
22:40
just become irrelevant. It's a pursuit of profound heart
22:43
level honesty. Exactly.
22:44
That's it. Followers of Jesus are called
22:47
not just to be honest in, you know, specific actions or words,
22:51
but to actively move toward a condition, a state of being,
22:54
where protections against being thought dishonest will not be
22:57
necessary. This points to that continuous
22:59
growth and spiritual maturity in intrinsic integrity, reflecting
23:03
Christ more and more in every part of who we are.
23:05
It's about cultivating a character that just naturally
23:07
radiates truth, making oaths totally superfluous because
23:11
one's word is just by its very nature, a reliable reflection of
23:14
Christ's own character living within them.
23:17
It's that ongoing work of sanctification, really.
23:19
And what does this kind of truthfulness, this radical
23:22
integrity in speech, what does it declare about Christ's reign
23:25
in a believer's life? How does it visibly show his
23:27
Lordship? Well, Piper says, they are to
23:29
find countercultural ways of declaring the lordship of Christ
23:32
over their minds and mouths. Think about it.
23:34
In a world where trust is often fragile, where oaths are common
23:38
practice, their speech just they're simple.
23:40
Yes and no. When it's consistently backed up
23:42
by a life of integrity, that should speak volumes.
23:45
It should distinguish them sharply from the world's
23:48
reliance on external guarantees. It's sort of ingrained
23:51
skepticism. It visibly demonstrates that
23:54
Christ truly rules within them, that he influences even the
23:58
simplest of their words, shaping their character to look more
24:01
like his own. Their speech itself becomes, in
24:03
a way, a living sermon. So what's the ultimate aim,
24:07
then? The big picture for this deep
24:08
dive into truthfulness? What's the overarching
24:11
aspiration behind Jesus's instruction on oaths and his
24:14
call to simple truth? Ultimately, Jesus intends to be
24:18
known, known as the way, the truth, and the life.
24:21
That's who He is, and He commands his followers to live
24:24
and speak in a way that consistently makes his glory
24:27
known, known to a world that desperately needs that truth.
24:31
So our truthfulness, our integrity, it becomes more than
24:34
just personal morality. It becomes a compelling witness.
24:37
A witness to who he is and to the incredible transformative
24:40
work he does in changing hearts and lives.
24:42
Our integrity doesn't just uphold some abstract code, it
24:45
points others directly to the source of all truth, to the King
24:49
who has brought his Kingdom near and invites everyone to walk in
24:52
integrity with him. Wow.
24:54
That's quite a high calling. What a rich exploration of what
24:57
it means to be truly truthful. We've seen how Jesus calls his
25:00
followers to this standard of integrity where ideally a simple
25:03
yes or no carries full weight. How it reflects the reality of
25:06
the Kingdom of God breaking in, the reality of the new covenant
25:08
he established. And it's clear this isn't just
25:10
about following a set of rules for speaking, is it?
25:12
It's about displaying the very character of.
25:14
Christ in our speech. Flowing from our lives.
25:17
That's absolutely right. Yeah.
25:18
It really challenges us, doesn't it, to look at our own hearts,
25:21
to recognize that oaths historically arose because love
25:25
failed, because evil is pervasive.
25:27
But the good news is that in Christ we're freed from the need
25:30
to lie and remarkably, freed from the constant need to prove
25:34
we're not lying. We're called instead to embody
25:36
this distinct counter cultural truthfulness, one that points
25:39
directly back to Jesus, his perfect character and his
25:43
liberating work in us. So as you are listener, reflect
25:47
on all this. Maybe consider this question.
25:49
How does living with that kind of radical integrity, where your
25:52
simple word genuinely aims to be as good as an oath?
25:56
How does that actually alter how you interact, especially in a
25:59
world that still relies so heavily on oaths, contracts,
26:01
external guarantees? How can your sepal, reliable
26:04
word itself speak volumes about the truth you embody because of
26:07
Christ's ongoing work in you? Something to think about.
26:10
May your yes truly mean yes and your no truly mean no.
26:13
All for the glory of Christ.