SIN > Unmasked: Failing to ‘do what you know’

Disobedience – but not as you know it.

Anybody who has followed my blogs will get that I see that there exists a type of knowledge and knowing that the world calls ‘esoteric’. [ http://godwithoutchurch.blogspot.com/ ] This shouldn’t trouble any keen disciple of Jesus, since he made it quite plain (e.g. as we have seen in Matthew 13) that it is a normal part of the kingdom of God and His ekklesia that knowledge is not entirely up to us and our will and power to know.  God searches motives and knows us all according to our motivations and intent regarding knowledge.  We can be ‘blocked’ from knowing things.

By nature, we humans crave power; that’s why we happily pursue the idea that “knowledge is power” even when it might be destructive or negative power over against power than adds, constructs and instructs.  God has known that all along; that’s why He reserves the right to administer knowledge and knowing 'according to His will' among us “mere mortals”.

In the New Testament, there are three different Greek words translated into English as some kind or type of (or means to) knowledge; and one of those is eidw which reasonably translates into English as intuition and discernment.  In my frame of reference, humans are comprised of body, soul and spirit; and knowledge – or at least the process of knowing something – can be initiated in all of those locales.  Intuition/discernment tends to have its ignition in the spirit – and, as Paul teaches us, it is in (with, by) the spirit that we truly know another person.  Disciples of Jesus are encouraged to get to know each other this way: see his second letter to the Corinthians 5:16.

Man’s ways may tell us we’re out of our mind; but Paul wisely notes: “If we are out of our mind, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.” (2 Corinthians 5:13).

“Hence”, he says, “from now on we regard no one according to the flesh [alone].  Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.  Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.  The old has passed away; behold the new has come!”  And “All this is from God...” he says.  The ‘new’ embraces intuition and discernment and their pivotal role.

And let me point out too that the New Testament contains plenty of references to the skill of discernment, its critical importance to disciples of Jesus, and its position as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit given by the grace of God to some believers for the benefit of His ekklesia. Some theologians refer to it as ‘moral perception’, insight, and the practical application of the thing ‘known’.

If we allow this concept, the concept of intuition, and the understandings coming to us from Jesus’ words about God’s reading our motivations and intentions before allowing us to ‘hear’ correctly, we can make a whole lot better sense of the passage I’m referring to here: Hebrews chapter 2.

We must pay closer attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.  For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every transgression and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

A motto I have found helpful and valuable in my journey with God is: ‘When you see a ‘therefore’, look to see what it’s there for.”  These first words of Hebrews 2 have a ‘therefore’; what is it there for?  Perhaps it’s there to encourage us to re-read the letter without the human-imposed chapter and verse numbers to get the writer’s message in context.

We need to pay proper attention to what we have heard – a binding ‘message spoken by angels’ – lest we drift away from it.  And ‘drifting away’ embraces two of the concepts we talked about earlier in our definition of sin: falling short and veering across a demarcation line.

The writer of this letter is telling the Hebrew believers that this message is binding precisely because it was mediated to us by angels, not by humans.  What is the message?  In the immediate, the message is Hebrews chapter 1 – the paragraphs from the beginning of the letter up to the text that says ‘therefore’.  Beyond that, it is the story of Jesus they have all just lived through, from His pre-birth announcement to his ascension into glory.  And it was ‘spoken’ “On many past occasions and in many different ways ... to our fathers [ancestors] through the prophets.”

The point the writer is making throughout the first part of his letter is – as I have referenced elsewhere – the clear and marked superiority of the new covenant in Jesus Christ over the old covenant of Abraham, Moses and even David.  The new covenant is a covenant brokered by angels, not humans; and its essential nature is a far superior message about a far superior priesthood and sacrifice, announced and mediated by angels, not by humans and so on.

My 50+ years of experience as a follower of Jesus tells me that huge tracts of humanity have done precisely what the writer to the Hebrews was warning against: missing the point!  We are not supposed to blend the old covenant with the new as if the new simply extends or augments the old; we are supposed to get the message that the new covenant supplants, usurps and replaces the old – there can be no blending and co-habitation.

And to make his point with utter profundity, he announces that even Abraham, Moses and David themselves understood this.

One of my favourite authors is Brian McLaren.  Along with famed fellow-author Tony Campolo, they wrote Adventures in Missing the Point, (Zondervan 2006).  In my view, church history from the death of the first apostles til now is close to 2,000 years of adventures in missing the point – with all-too-few rare exceptions.  The history of divisions, schisms, denominations, murders (sanitised into ‘martyrdoms’) and political justifications indicate to me that we act as if Hebrews was not penned by an apostle of Jesus or that it only applies if we think it applies and how we think it applies – usually presenting us in favourable light without question.

Now – what’s this got to do with disobedience?  If you haven’t already worked it out, let me explain.

The popular (and might I stress predominantly Western European) notion of obedience and disobedience is that it’s about carrying out (or not) a command, an order, an instruction, a law, a rule, a regulation, a decree, a precept, an ultimatum.  Most people I speak to imagine that obeying or disobeying God is about identifying a command, law or instruction God has previously given and we have written down somewhere.  Most notable is, of course, the ten commandments.

But is that what Jesus said?  On the one hand, he said that, if you choose to be a legalist, if you break one of the laws, you are guilty of breaking them all – a rather difficult standard for sure.  On the other hand, he said that there really is only one law – or perhaps two (if you want to put a full stop mid sentence).  Both Jesus and Paul concur: Matthew 22 and Galatians 5 tell us that the whole law is fulfilled in a single decree – to love as you have been loved by God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Suddenly ‘law’ is a meaningless concept when it comes to obedience and disobedience if by ‘law’ we mean any of the things in the paragraph above.  And that’s what Paul iterates over and over again.  Law is nothing more nor less than a kind of ‘school-master’ or mentor, guru, guide or signpost to draw us towards our proper destination: Christ.

One thing I’ve learned from Australian aboriginal disciples of Jesus is that aboriginal culture knows both law and lore; and that’s not uncommon in cultures around the world.  However, the polity of most Western European countries is based on law: “law and order” and “rule of law” – with little or no attention to “lore”.  But it is this concept of lore that disciples of Jesus need to catch up with.  This is what etymonline.com says about lore:

Lore is almost always an oral tradition passed down through the generations; and it is also almost always a form of esoteric knowledge.  So, what if the “new things” in Christ include a move by God to make His ways and His wishes known to His children via the spirit rather than by the mind and the body?  What if the message of the Old Testament book Song of Solomon is there precisely to unveil this part of God for us?  What if Paul’s concepts of knowing people (including Jesus) according to (by) the spirit and ‘living according to the Spirit’ are “how it’s done” in the new covenant?  What if we are meant to get our knowledge and learning from the Holy Spirit via our spirit rather than by rote learning, catechism, formal education or repetition of laws?

I wonder sometimes if Paul’s concept of “the law of the Spirit” might better be rendered “the lore of the Spirit”, since it is not at all a law code or any kind of set of instructions, but an unwritten ‘code of conduct’ transmitted spiritually down the generations.

What if God, seeking us out for intimacy and union as a good father does both his natural and his adopted children, encrypts his message for us, but first plants within us the encryption tool to both send and receive his message (the granting of the Holy Spirit)?

My actual experience with this dates back to 1983, while I was (albeit briefly) fulfilling a role as a ‘pastor’ in a rural parish in Australia.  God had his version of WhatsApp even before digital technology and computers were common.  We messaged each other back and forth for years; but it began when God got my number and messaged me: I want you to do what you know.  I didn’t have to think at all about what he meant: my intuition, insight, perception was decoded from eternity-speak into my spirit.  And from that day, that’s the path my life took: discerning the Spirit and ‘obeying’.  And that is precisely what this passage in Hebrews is talking about.

God has a version of WhatsApp or Signal that neither government nor police; neither Zuckerberg, Gates nor Cook; neither black-hat nor white-hat hackers can breach.  It transmits the “lore” of eternity – the zone of God’s abode; and it is both infinitely and organically variable for each of God’s hand-crafted individuals as well as for the channel we know of as ekklesia in all its forms: micro, mezzo and macro via the spiritual gifts God has granted her.

Furthermore, it is mediated by angels, not by humans; and is not subject to outages, power failures or data corruption or theft.  However, we might “fall asleep at the wheel” as we say.

We have two big problems:

One, we don’t trust it; we constantly seek verification from vastly inferior sources, questioning not just the message but the messenger, and God Himself.

Two (in part because we don’t trust it), we don’t “obey” it – and that, in my view, is precisely what the writer of the letter to the Hebrews was getting at in chapter 2.

The old hymn says: Trust and obey | for there’s no other way | to be happy in Jesus...

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God.”  Even if, at the end of time, we all come to faith in God (because that was God’s intention all along), might not we, our relationships with people and the planet, and our administration and politics on planet earth be transformed by ensuring we have the app; that we participate; and that we regularly remind ourselves and each other to “pay closer attention ... so that we don’t drift away [i.e. sin]”; and in so doing, find ourselves in all kinds of shit because we opt to neglect God’s lore – so readily available?

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the ekklesias.”

Hebrews was written to Jews.  On an occasion in Jesus’ ministry (see John 10), he was talking to some Jews as he strode around the temple courts in Solomon’s Colonade.  [It is possible some of these Jews were later the addressees of the letter.]  They stopped him and demanded: “How long will you keep us in suspense?  If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”  To which Jesus replied:

“I already told you, but you did not believe.  The works I do in my Father’s name testify on my behalf.  But because you are not my sheep, you refuse to believe.  My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.  No one can snatch them out of my hand.  My Father who has given them to me is greater than all.  No one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.  I and the Father are one.”

“At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone him...”

There’s an app for that!  But it won’t work on a “smart” phone.

Next: “It’s only wrong if you get caught.”

SIN > Unmasked: Sodomy???

Sodomy – but not as you know it.

‘Sodomy’: A cultural perspective

If you take note of many loud and boisterous voices these days, not only is homosexuality the ‘sin of Sodom’ (still referred to as sodomy in many legal jurisdictions around the world), it is also (apparently) the unforgivable sin – which, as we have seen, it clearly is not.

And if you consult a dictionary, many will inform you that ‘sodomy’ is one of three things: a) sexual intercourse using the anal orifice; b) sexual relations with animals; c) any sexual activity considered perverted.  Or perhaps it is all three.

Now while I understand that language is a cultural construct, and that languages evolve over time, the use of the word sodomy to describe various sexual sins is neither honest nor accurate to the related original historical data.  Culturally, sodomy is not exclusively sexual.

Many of the loud and boisterous voices I refer to will gladly tell you – and anybody else in ear-shot – that sodomy came from the evils of the inhabitants of the town of Sodom in the time of Abraham and his family.  Given that Sodom is generally linked to nearby Gomorrah, it is puzzling that homosexuality is not similarly linked to this town; perhaps it was just too hard to think of a way to say it simply – so sodomy would have to do.

Abraham was Lot’s uncle and as the nomadic family and their herds increased in size, the need arose for Lot to separate from Abraham and find his own place in the world.  Abraham let Lot choose and he selected the fertile lands at the south of the Dead Sea in the Jordan valley.  Many believe that the site of Sodom and its neighbours is now under the waters of the Dead Sea.

You can read the story in Genesis 14.  Cut to the end of the story and Lot and his family are in a lot of trouble and need to flee – which they do.  However, Lot’s wife loses her life and the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.  According to the biblical record, they were destroyed because of their evil ways and their perversions.

There is ample evidence to suggest that some of the perversions of Sodom were sexual in nature – hardly unexpected – and some were homosexual in nature.  This is the reason for today’s dictionary definitions of ‘sodomy’.

However, accepting the cultural, linguistic and dictionary definitions without question very often leads to the neglect of God’s definition.  English dictionaries are only a few hundred years old and at the time of their earliest compilation, the Church held great sway over society and over what were considered ‘public morals’, including (emphatically) pubic morals.

However, if you stay only with the text of the story in Genesis, you miss what – specifically - God thinks of the matter.  We all need to take a good look at Ezekiel 16.

But a brief note before we go there is warranted.  Virtually all of what modern “Christians” think about homosexuality comes from God’s old will that is now null and void.  It is most often referred to as the Old Testament.  At the end of a lot of research, I concur with William O. Walker Jr on the website https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/ as at October 17, 2019:

Proposition 2: “At most, there are only three passages in the entire New Testament [what I call God’s new will] that refer to what we today would call homosexual activity” (Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:8-11);

Proposition 3: “Two of the three passages that possibly refer to homosexuality are simply more-or-less miscellaneous catalogues of behaviours that are regarded as unacceptable, with no particular emphasis placed on any individual item in the list.”

Proposition 4: “It may well be that the two lists of unacceptable behaviours—1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1—do not refer to homosexuality at all.”

The lists in some translations refer to ‘male prostitutes’  (Greek word meaning soft, cowardly or lacking in self-control) and ‘sodomites’ (Greek word meaning literally ‘to bed a male’).

Walker cites Dale B Martin whose research clearly demonstrates that there is no certainty at all as to the most acceptable translation of these two words used by Paul in these lists.  Like many words we use today, they can be taken literally or not.  Martin’s conclusion is that when this second word (sometimes translated ‘sodomites’) is used independently, it is generally NOT used to name some sexual immorality but rather economic injustice or exploitation.

Martin concludes that it means “exploiting of others by means of sex, but not necessarily by homosexual sex.” [Sex and the Single Savior, Dale B Martin, Westminster John Knox Press 2006, page 39.]

Walker suggests “that it might even refer to exploitation that has nothing at all to do with sex.”  Furthermore, there is nothing in the New Testament that enters the nuanced world of initiator and participant, or consent and willingness.

It is common in our language today and in many languages over many years that we use sexual language when we talk about things void of any sexual content.  By way of example – if you will pardon the use of a crude word – we often describe people as ‘arseholes’ when we mean that they are generally nasty, exploitative or corrupt people.  We do not mean it literally.  That, I believe, is what Paul was doing.

And I come to that position for two main reasons.

First, his writings are quite clear that all kinds of sexual sins are: unacceptable for disciples of Christ; can prevent the reception of the Kingdom of God; and are out-workings of idolatry (Romans 1).  Homosexuality is NOT singled out as any worse than unrestrained heterosexuality.  Both are regarded as expressions of sexual lust.  And as John pointed out in his epistle, there is both lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes.

Second, we can get a clearer view of how God sees ‘the sin of Sodom’ simply by reading a different part of the bible.  The Prophet Ezekiel agrees with some of our present day researchers and teachers: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.  Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before me.  Therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50 NASB)

The sin of Sodom is NOT homosexuality; it is arrogance, gluttony, greed, careless ease, disdain for poor and needy people and being haughty – the outworking of which is committing abominations, including all sorts of sexual abominations.  Homosexuality is simply one of many sexual symptoms of a form of idolatry that is, at its heart, the worship of self.  Sound familiar?  As far as I can tell, the world has a very large population of ‘sodomites’ many of whom are not homosexual; and many of whom self-brand as ‘christian’.

The campaign against homosexuality is a deception from the father of lies himself in order to deflect guilt from the real sodomites.  And in the 21^st century, it would appear – according to God’s definition – that many countries are run by sodomites and many governments and private corporations overtly foster and encourage sodomites.  And that leads to one all-important question: is there a ‘sin’ element or component in homosexual acts – and if so, what is it?

The new testament – and the new covenant more generally – makes no significant distinction between sexual acts of a homosexual nature and those of a heterosexual or asexual nature.  However, what they do underscore is that, in either case, there can be a ‘sin’ element or characteristic to any sexual act – or indeed any other act.  What is it that makes any act a ‘sin’?  If you revisit earlier posts in this series, you can find answers.

a) it ‘crosses a line’ – transgresses: it contravenes an accepted fence-line or moral code, much like when a car veers onto the ‘wrong’ side of the road, crossing the centre line.  It is both dangerous and threatening not just to the one transgressing but to others on the ‘other’ side of the road.

b) it ‘misses the mark’ – falls short: it is below par; it is substandard; it’s power and force take it wide of an accepted target.  Again, it is both dangerous and threatening to those involved and those around about.

c) it operates on a ‘seeing is believing’ model instead of a ‘believing is seeing’ model: “I can’t see how this hurts me or anyone else, so therefore it’s OK.”  Perhaps one ought to consider the thought, “I believe others elsewhere have been hurt by this, therefore I’ll refrain so as not to put others in danger.”

d) it interferes with – even breaches – the principle of ‘personal sovereignty’ that is central and foundational to being ‘created in the image of God’ – the Ímago Dei.

A good question for all of us to ask – whether it is regarding sex or money or power or any other temptation of man – is: is this act characterised by any of these four principles?  That’s what makes any sexual act a sin – regardless of its being homo or hetero.

And God’s definition (in Ezekiel 16) puts up in neon lights the acts of human beings that God hated and punished in Sodom and Gomorrah.  God hates rapacious, uncaring capitalism as much as abusive, controlling, manipulative sexual relationships.

‘Sodomy’: A historical perspective 

Early in 2018, ABC News Australia ran an article with the title “In the age of #MeToo, how do we talk about sexual violence against men?” This of course comes within the context of Australia’s royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse.  It begins with these two sentences:

 There are around 1 million male survivors of sexual assault in Australia.

And of the 6,875 survivors to testify at the royal commission into child sexual abuse, almost 65 per cent were male.

Is there historical precedent for the kind of behaviours that have come to light in this inquiry?  I’ll leave that to practicing historians.  One thing that is clear, I think, is that in our English biblical record, we do not see any recognition of the twin concepts of permission and consent.  A person might be ‘found guilty’ of ‘sodomy’ or of adultery or of ‘fornication’, but it always appears decidedly one-sided with little to know concept of perpetrator and ‘victim’, permission or consent.  21^st century concepts and understandings – and law – are far more nuanced.

While the ABC News article was attempting to raise a serious question – the very title of the article – it also throws up serious questions for Christians and other theologians around this matter of the transition from old covenant ‘law’ to the new covenant in Jesus the Christ.

And this of course is the subject of rape.  In neither the old testament nor the new testament – at least in our extant English translations – is there any serious questioning of the theory of patriarchy and male dominance.  It is assumed that adult males rule; and that females and children are chattels and ‘possessions’.  Without ascribing guilt on anyone’s part, abuse of a minor by a priest, teacher or ‘mentor’ in a position of trust stems from the notions of possession and entitlement, with a massive power differential.  In today’s world, we get that and understand it at least to some degree; in days gone by, let’s just say, not so much!

So let me highlight a key paragraph in the ABC News article referenced here:

Male rape has been the object both of concern and of squeamish silence in Australian (sic) since the earliest days of white settlement. Government documents of the time make frequent reference to the problem of forced sodomy in the penal colonies, as do court papers and letters to the press.

[We can safely assume the dictionary definition of ‘sodomy’ I referred to earlier is in mind here.]

It’s well established that “female factories” were a striking feature of early Australian penal settlements, sitting rather like a prison within a prison.  Indeed, this is part of the story of Australia’s Granny Smith apple (see Us Aussies by Mal Garvin): ‘Granny’ Smith used to bake apple pies for the offspring of the dalliances between the women in the ‘female factories’ and the men in the wider prison community – usually left to fend for themselves outside the prison after a certain age.

How many of those dalliances were consensual and how many were rape?  We’ll probably never know.  The history also clearly shows “forced sodomy” – male rape – was treated, as the author notes, with “squeamish silence” in Australia.  One can fairly assume it was similarly treated back in the British fatherland.

Here’s a few links I have found useful and informative, if rather disturbing, in my pursuit of a humane and more ‘christian’ approach to this issue.

https://www.humandignitytrust.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rape

This is my BIG QUESTION: with His absolute focus on justice, mercy and compassion, how does God see the people involved?

In my experience and opinion, we’re living in the age of “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.  In our haste to hate, we criminalise people – most often the wrong people.  And it has taken over 200 years to come up with a half-decent study or inquiry into the absolute travesty of injustice, intolerance and cruelty meted out to unsuspecting, unwilling and trusting souls.

If we can’t honestly, sincerely and credibly grasp the issue of sin and guilt – as God sees it in the new covenant era of Jesus – we need to stay out, hold our tongues and not presume too much lest we be found by God to be precisely that person in Matthew 7 who rages about the speck in his brother’s eye while completely ignoring the log in his own.  In our pursuit of a guilty verdict for someone we despise, we become the guilty as far as God is concerned – and guilty of the sin of speaking and judging for God without His approval, permission or imprimatur.

Is there an unforgivable sin?  Yes.  But it’s not homosexuality; it’s attributing a work of the Spirit of God to the Prince of Darkness – a thing we can easily become guilty of if we pursue the line of ignorantly and haughtily prosecuting what and when God defends.

The story goes that the mid-sixteenth century English martyr John Bradford observed a group of prisoners being led to execution and responded, “There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford.”  We err greatly when we presume to know God’s thoughts and ways when we clearly do not (see Isaiah 59) and then presume to be His executioner.  That is precisely the story of some of the Pharisees Jesus faced and addressed.

Next: Disobedience – but not as you know it.

SIN > Unmasked: Is swearing sin?

“Swear not at all” (see Matthew 5:34)

The biggest problem here is that when we refer to coarse language as ‘swearing’, we miss the point – thrice.

First, we miss the point that coarse language, while often hard to tolerate and very grating, is not what Jesus was talking about when he said “don’t swear”.

Second, we miss the point that real swearing “taking an oath” can literally be a case of ‘taking the name of the Lord in vain’ and opening oneself to the charge of “the name of God is blasphemed because of you”.  Yet we so often do it uncritically as a matter of course.

Third, we miss the point that coarse language is a form of speech in any language and can be altogether legitimate when it is not just gratuitous dribble for the sake of using the words or making a noise.  It ought not, therefore, be censored simplistically – which is a form of ‘tone-policing’.

Being aware and circumspect is probably, for me, the baseline of this matter.  On the one hand, I want to ‘say what I mean and mean what I say’; on the other hand, both language and behaviour can easily bring God and others into unjustified disrepute.  Libel, defamation, slander are serious issues of human behaviour and language and can utterly destroy relationships, endeavours and enterprises.

The following links from www.openbible.info are very useful and helpful here.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/foul_language

https://www.openbible.info/topics/oaths

Let your ‘yes’ mean yes and your ‘no’ mean no.

As far as I am concerned, the new covenant words of Jesus take priority in the matter of authority for the people of God in the current era.  As I see it, what is presented in the old testament must be understood through the prism of the new testament; and what is presented to us by others in the new testament must be taken in conjunction with the recorded words of Jesus where such is available to us.  And the matter of ‘oaths’ or ‘swearing’ is a prime example of how that works.

If we take the words of Numbers 30:2

If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word.  He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

And Deuteronomy 23:21-23

If you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay fulfilling it, for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin.  But if you refrain from vowing, you will not be guilty of sin.  You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.

Then we take Jesus’ words of Matthew 5:33-37

...you 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.’  But I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.  Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Apostle James concurred with Jesus (James 5:12)

But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

How did apostle Paul make his solemn affirmations?  Romans 1:9; Galatians 1:20; 2 Corinthians 1:23

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers...

In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!

But I call God to witness against me – it was to spare you that I refrained from coming again to Corinth.

Throughout history, disciples of Jesus have refused to make oaths following these principles.  As a result, in many jurisdictions to this day, an alternative to an oath (to ‘swearing’ – on the bible or anything else) is available as a legal affirmatory tool.

We have at our disposal – if we are joined to Christ as he and apostle Paul envision it – an avenue to take and a power/dynamic to make our word certain and be certain of our words;  in other words, to ‘say what you mean and mean what you say’.

Why is making an oath (‘swearing’) such a big issue?  I believe it is because making an oath directly interferes with personal sovereignty.  The only ‘person’ we have direct control over is ourselves; we have no real control over another person – and we certainly have no control over God.  So, in the event that we have to make good on our oath, we cannot because that would breach the other person’s (or God’s) sovereignty.  And that is not how God works; neither is it how things work in the kingdom of God.

[On this blog, there are series of posts on this matter of the kingdom of God.]

In addition, making an oath leaves us wide open to the charge ‘taking the name of the Lord our God in vain.’

It’s what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person

A commandment we’re (allegedly) familiar with:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7)

And just in case we missed it, the commandment given the second time (that’s the meaning of ‘Deuteronomy’)

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. (Deuteronomy 5:11)

Three words from Matthew’s account of Jesus:

I tell you, on the day of judgment, people will give account for every careless word they speak. (12:36)

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (12:37)

And he called the people to him and said to them, ‘Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (15:10-11)

What did Jesus’ apostles teach?

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (Ephesians 4:29)

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:4)

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. (Colossians 3:8-10)

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Colossians 4:6)

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness. (2 Timothy 2:16)

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. (James 1:26)

If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man; the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.  How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!  And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. (James 3:2-6)

From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (James 3:10)

Solomon’s wisdom advises us:

Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. (Proverbs 4:23)

What I hope we have learned from this section is this:

Making an oath – the real ‘swearing’ – is the doorway to sin, albeit forgivable;

What we commonly call swearing – foul language – is unbecoming and not fitting for a member of the household and family of God when it pours froth from us like in the scriptures above.

That does not preclude strong and direct speech when the situation and the Spirit of God demand it – when, as Paul put it, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”.  Review this short passage in Paul’s letter to the Galatians – 5:1-15.  He pulls no punches in saying that he wished those Jews who go on demanding Gentiles be circumcised would go ‘all the way’ and cut off their balls too (emasculate, mutilate, castrate themselves – depending on which translation you read).

“Say what you mean and mean what you say.”  And say it under the authority and with the power of the Holy Spirit – remembering clearly that you will give account for it.

Next: Sodomy – but not as you know it.