“the verse bluntly excludes false oaths”

While the name of God is used comprehensively to refer ultimately to God Himself, the phrase translated in vain means ‘falsely’ (cf. Is. 59:4). The word translated ‘taketh’ means ‘to bear’ or ‘carry,’ as believers bear or carry His name when they are called Christians. But of course if we cannot live in a false manner under His name, still less may we speak or swear falsely in His name. So the verse bluntly excludes false oaths. ‘Thou shalt not swear (utter) the name of God to emptiness (vanity).’ Simply put, we should refrain from appealing to the name of God to confirm or bear witness to a falsehood. When we appeal to God by means of vows, we must honor God by honoring our vows. In the eyes of God, vows are serious business.
Douglas Wilson

6 Comments

    2. Why do you say accomplice?

      I suspect Doug may have been the driving force in getting Jamin a sweat deal, instead of an accomplice to Jamin’s attempts to get a better deal.

    3. Wilson had another plan for the oath, which never included Wight keeping his word. We may safely infer this from Wilson’s actions the moment he heard Wight swear that he committed at least 3 felonies.

      I think Wilson groomed Wight to dissemble, so that Wilson could pitch Wight as a self-sacrificing hero. I think the point of the oath was to showboat only — that is, let Wight pretend to fall on his sword to protect Natalie’s honor: “Jamin Wight confessed to everything to spare guilty Natalie and her guilty parents any more grief.” They wanted to paint Wight a noble Christian gentleman who would rather face a life term than bring disrepute on Natalie, because it was really her fault.

      Wilson scripts EVERYTHING and I think this was his plan all along. But Natalie threw a fly in the ointment when she filed a criminal complaint. She outflanked Wilson, which I am sure really lit his fuse.

      In this sense — in that Doug Wilson scripted, or staged, the oath — Doug Wilson was an accomplice (or accessory). He staged it, he administered it; and he got Jamin Wight out of it.

      Remember, they let Jamin Wight play the martyr from prison and they sent him on a missionary trip. Wilson never thought Wight did anything wrong.

      And, yes, I agree with you. Wilson was Wight’s strongest and most effective advocate in terms of eluding accountability for his crimes.

  2. While generally in agreement with the intent of this website… if that intent is to encourage some sort of accountability among a group of people that has demonstrated an unwillingness to implement or apply such accountability in any meaningful way… this sort of comment does not help your cause one iota:

    “though I suspect Wilson was disappointed that Wight did not commit greater offenses against Natalie”

    Imputing hidden motives based on speculation? That’s exactly what Doug and his supporters do (“bitter!” – “jealous” – etc) to discredit his detractors. You don’t need to sink to that level.

    1. Hi Darrel: Your point is well made and well taken. I have struck that part of the comment. But in my defense, please know that I am privy to facts that I cannot disclose that confirm this suspicion. Nevertheless, since I cannot say it, the comment does appear reckless & irresponsible, and I have corrected it. We do not wish to cause unnecessary offense.

Comments are closed.