john white
24-08-2008, 01:20 AM
Ok
I've been doing research into the Freeman concept recently and one core argument has been relating to the biblical origins of "freeman" status
Now straight away I'm not saying anyone has to see the Bible or Jesus as anything else than mythological/allegorical: so no panty twisting please
This is simply part of understanding the history and heritage which has informed the thoughts of freemen through the ages
Oaths
The third/fourth exposition is about oaths. While Gundry feels that this follows the discussion of divorce since Deuteronomy discusses these things one after another, though in reverse order, other scholars feel that it is simply a natural progression, as one of the major legal issues of the day was over marriage vows.
The exposition opens with a quote from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, the first half of which appears to come from Leviticus 19:12 and the second half from Psalms 50:14. However, Psalm 50:14 is about vows, not oaths; Jewish scholars made a distinction between the two concepts. Schweizer feels that the wording implies that Jesus is only discussing oaths associated with vows, and that he never speaks against the oaths of innocence or truthfulness that were not linked with vows. While the text literally condemns perjury, it can also mean break an oath, and some individuals translate it much less restrictively as do not make vows rashly.
After having made the quote, Matthew presents Jesus as extracting from it the rule never swear and then moves directly to examples, quoted from the Old Testament:
* Not to swear by heaven (Isaiah 66:1) - at the time one view held that, as expressed in M. Shebuoth, while oaths to God were binding, oaths to other subjects, such as heaven, were not. Schweizer feels that Jesus is here indicating that swearing by heaven is swearing by God with heaven being God's throne.
* Not to swear by the earth (quoted from Isaiah 66:1) - Schweizer feels that Jesus is here indicating that swearing by earth is swearing by God with earth being God's foot stool
* Not to swear by Jerusalem the city of the great King (quoted from Psalms 48:2) - this could be linked to the practice of turning toward Jerusalem when swearing an oath. The term great king may either be a reference to David or to God, with Christians usually interpreting it as the latter. Schweizer feels that Jesus is here indicating that swearing by Jerusalem is the same as swearing by God, owing to it being God's city.
* Not to swear by your head, because you can't make one hair white or black - this does not, according to Schweizer, take into account hair dye, which was a common and well known practice even in that time.
Very few Christians interpret this exposition to literally mean that all oaths are prohibited, since in other parts of the Bible oaths are looked upon more favourably. Paul for example is described in 2 Corinthians and Galatians as swearing oaths. Avoiding the literal meaning, most Christian thinkers have concluded that by never swear, Jesus is using hyperbole to emphasise his point or failing to mention exceptions to this rule that would have been implicit to his audience. Thus most Christian churches believe that only false and vain oaths are prohibited, and John Calvin argued that only oaths counter to God are wrong. Several important Christian groups do not however accept such re-interpretations, preferring to uphold what the text actually says; most notably the Quakers and Mennonites firmly reject all oaths, a stance that has led to their persecution by governments that insist on oath taking.
According to Matthew, Jesus then instructs people to only respond with yes, yes; no, no. The exact meaning of this is much disputed, and while one reading is that you should simply always answer with yes or no, as is clearly the view of James 5:12 where this whole exposition is reiterated, the Slavonic Enoch, however, states that a double yes or a double no were themselves forms of oath, and so by this understanding Jesus is not banning all oaths, but outlining an example of an oath that is permissible. Jesus is described as going on to say that whatever is more than this response constitutes something of the evil one, which in other parts of the New Testament are frequently used to refer to the devil, and Schweizer believes that the implication is merely that swearing was evil, many Christians do not see a theological difference. The formula yes, yes; no, no also appears in 2 Cor 1:17. According to Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages: "...the sentence, "Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay" (Matt. v. 37, R. V.), which is derived from Lev. xix. 36 (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, viii. 7; B. M. 49a; comp. Tos. Soṭah vii. 2; Giṭ. 35a; Num. R. xxii.)..."
I just wanted to get at the core argument on jurisdiction: (that is "Juris," in the original Latin meaning "oath.", "Diction" meaning "spoken.") in some depth
Here are the four conditions that Jesus sets to understand his phrase "swear no oaths"
* Not to swear by heaven
* Not to swear by the earth
* Not to swear by Jerusalem
* Not to swear by your head
This is Jesus's definition of "dont swear"
I think that the text is clear: he meant it
Don't swear by heaven:
Dont give responsibility for your life up to God to dictate your actions
Dont swear by the earth
Appreciate it sure, and care for it, why not? But dont swear on the material world, know that it is the creation, but not the source of creation
Don't swear by Jerusalem (the city, the state)
Don't give your mind away to governments and systems to laws made by men that never include the words Love, Truth, or compassion
Don't swear by your head
Don't swear by the notions you have in your head, politics and nationalism ad flags and clans, gurus and leaders.
Don't swear:
AT ALL
EVER
Don't ever give away your god given freedom, free will and self responsibility
Now THAT, I feel, is a message for our times :)
I've been doing research into the Freeman concept recently and one core argument has been relating to the biblical origins of "freeman" status
Now straight away I'm not saying anyone has to see the Bible or Jesus as anything else than mythological/allegorical: so no panty twisting please
This is simply part of understanding the history and heritage which has informed the thoughts of freemen through the ages
Oaths
The third/fourth exposition is about oaths. While Gundry feels that this follows the discussion of divorce since Deuteronomy discusses these things one after another, though in reverse order, other scholars feel that it is simply a natural progression, as one of the major legal issues of the day was over marriage vows.
The exposition opens with a quote from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, the first half of which appears to come from Leviticus 19:12 and the second half from Psalms 50:14. However, Psalm 50:14 is about vows, not oaths; Jewish scholars made a distinction between the two concepts. Schweizer feels that the wording implies that Jesus is only discussing oaths associated with vows, and that he never speaks against the oaths of innocence or truthfulness that were not linked with vows. While the text literally condemns perjury, it can also mean break an oath, and some individuals translate it much less restrictively as do not make vows rashly.
After having made the quote, Matthew presents Jesus as extracting from it the rule never swear and then moves directly to examples, quoted from the Old Testament:
* Not to swear by heaven (Isaiah 66:1) - at the time one view held that, as expressed in M. Shebuoth, while oaths to God were binding, oaths to other subjects, such as heaven, were not. Schweizer feels that Jesus is here indicating that swearing by heaven is swearing by God with heaven being God's throne.
* Not to swear by the earth (quoted from Isaiah 66:1) - Schweizer feels that Jesus is here indicating that swearing by earth is swearing by God with earth being God's foot stool
* Not to swear by Jerusalem the city of the great King (quoted from Psalms 48:2) - this could be linked to the practice of turning toward Jerusalem when swearing an oath. The term great king may either be a reference to David or to God, with Christians usually interpreting it as the latter. Schweizer feels that Jesus is here indicating that swearing by Jerusalem is the same as swearing by God, owing to it being God's city.
* Not to swear by your head, because you can't make one hair white or black - this does not, according to Schweizer, take into account hair dye, which was a common and well known practice even in that time.
Very few Christians interpret this exposition to literally mean that all oaths are prohibited, since in other parts of the Bible oaths are looked upon more favourably. Paul for example is described in 2 Corinthians and Galatians as swearing oaths. Avoiding the literal meaning, most Christian thinkers have concluded that by never swear, Jesus is using hyperbole to emphasise his point or failing to mention exceptions to this rule that would have been implicit to his audience. Thus most Christian churches believe that only false and vain oaths are prohibited, and John Calvin argued that only oaths counter to God are wrong. Several important Christian groups do not however accept such re-interpretations, preferring to uphold what the text actually says; most notably the Quakers and Mennonites firmly reject all oaths, a stance that has led to their persecution by governments that insist on oath taking.
According to Matthew, Jesus then instructs people to only respond with yes, yes; no, no. The exact meaning of this is much disputed, and while one reading is that you should simply always answer with yes or no, as is clearly the view of James 5:12 where this whole exposition is reiterated, the Slavonic Enoch, however, states that a double yes or a double no were themselves forms of oath, and so by this understanding Jesus is not banning all oaths, but outlining an example of an oath that is permissible. Jesus is described as going on to say that whatever is more than this response constitutes something of the evil one, which in other parts of the New Testament are frequently used to refer to the devil, and Schweizer believes that the implication is merely that swearing was evil, many Christians do not see a theological difference. The formula yes, yes; no, no also appears in 2 Cor 1:17. According to Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages: "...the sentence, "Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay" (Matt. v. 37, R. V.), which is derived from Lev. xix. 36 (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, viii. 7; B. M. 49a; comp. Tos. Soṭah vii. 2; Giṭ. 35a; Num. R. xxii.)..."
I just wanted to get at the core argument on jurisdiction: (that is "Juris," in the original Latin meaning "oath.", "Diction" meaning "spoken.") in some depth
Here are the four conditions that Jesus sets to understand his phrase "swear no oaths"
* Not to swear by heaven
* Not to swear by the earth
* Not to swear by Jerusalem
* Not to swear by your head
This is Jesus's definition of "dont swear"
I think that the text is clear: he meant it
Don't swear by heaven:
Dont give responsibility for your life up to God to dictate your actions
Dont swear by the earth
Appreciate it sure, and care for it, why not? But dont swear on the material world, know that it is the creation, but not the source of creation
Don't swear by Jerusalem (the city, the state)
Don't give your mind away to governments and systems to laws made by men that never include the words Love, Truth, or compassion
Don't swear by your head
Don't swear by the notions you have in your head, politics and nationalism ad flags and clans, gurus and leaders.
Don't swear:
AT ALL
EVER
Don't ever give away your god given freedom, free will and self responsibility
Now THAT, I feel, is a message for our times :)