Arise!

Aug. 10th, 2023 10:15 pm
e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
When I was a kid, my pastor said on Easter service that Christianity requires that you believe that Jesus literally came back from the dead. Doesn't count if it's merely that Jesus' memory and legacy was kept in the hearts and minds of his fellows or some bulls--t like that.

I don't think this is true. Well, yes, it is true that interpreting the Resurrection as metaphorical is bulls--t, and that if you can believe that Jesus' dad created the universe then you can sure as h--l believe that He can do a little cellular regeneration; but I mean that this is too narrow a definition of Christianity. Suppose I am a Protestant who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. When I die and go to Heaven, God says, "Welcome! Before you go in, I need to clear up a big misunderstanding. Jesus was and is my sacred Son, made of the same substance as I; and He is God, just like me. However, He didn't actually come back from the dead; He descended into Hell, and then ascended straight to Heaven, where He remained and will remain until the end of days."

I'm not going to respond to this with, "Welp, I guess I'm no longer a Christian!" That would be really stupid. By contrast, if when I got to Heaven God said "I need to clear something up: Jesus is only the 'son of God' in the sense that King David was. He was a very good prophet, but no more divine than any other prophet", then I would say, "Oh, I guess I'm no longer a Christian."

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 The person who wrote the Biblical Book of James is the 'Jacobean Epistolist'.
e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
“Royal Propagandist!”
“Yes, Lord Solomon?”
“We have more problems with national unity. The Southerners are saying we originated in Egypt, while the Northerners are saying we originated from a wandering Aramaen. I need you to figure out some way that both can be true.”
“Certainly, my lord.”
“And in the process, make my tribe look better than the other eleven.”
“Yes, my lord.”
“Say, what tribe are you from, again? You’re from the one that doesn’t count, right?”
“Yes, O King; I am bat Joseph.”
e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)

The US Constitution allows federal employees (in certain circumstances) to heed Jesus' alleged proclamation that you shouldn't make per-se promises. Did Jesus actually believe this?

In Matthew, Jesus says that a religious doctrine says "'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.'" (Mt 5:33 NRSV; Ruden has "'you are not to violate your oath: you are to fulfill your oaths to the lord.'"). By the looks of it, that doctrine implies that oaths are okay, but you shouldn't break them.

Jesus, in Matthew, then goes on to say that He disagrees with that doctrine, or at least wants to add to it: "But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is by 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." By the looks of it, that statement probably implies that you should not swear by anything that is in God's direct and immediate domain, because God owns it and His ownership includes the right to swear by it. I don't think this statement alone totally rules out all swearing, because He says either by heaven or by the earth, or by Jerusalem; presumably swearing by, eg, pincushions is not prohibited by this statement alone.

Jesus, in Matthew, then goes on to say "And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black." In context, probably this means that you can't even swear on things that are theoretically yours more than God's (1) if they will not actually enforce your commitment. (The Oxford Annotated Bible, Fifth Edition, says that the head is also under God's domain, so it's the same as swearing by the heavens; Dr Vermes suggests that you're swearing by your life, which I'll grant is definitely enforceable provided only that there's some mechanism to determine the objective veracity of your failure or success in keeping your word.)

Jesus, in Matthew, then goes on to say "Let your word be 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one." (or "from evil."). This seems refreshingly straightforward…but of course it is not necessarily what it seems.

Franklin Pierce would have it that affirming something is fine (eg, "Yes, to be clear, I reiterate my statement") but placing a kind of affirmation as inherently superior to ordinary statements is a no-no; when you say "I'll do it" then you should do it 100% of the time, so there's no reason that adding the word "I swear" should change the substantive content of your statement. Cf. Philo, Decalogue 84, cited in Vermes The Authentic Gospel of Jesus 5.34; or the Essenians described by Josephus in War 2:135, cited ibid. This is what James believes; see Jm 5:12.

However, you could alternatively say that Jesus will allow you to say "I'll do it" when you're 80% sure you'll do it, and "I'll really really do it" when you're 99% sure you'll do it; He'll totally allow you to verbally communicate varying levels of commitment; the only swearing He prohibits is agreeing to a compulsion which you do not actually have the power to compel to compel you; like, if I say "And if I'm lying, may God infect the burn on my hand!" then I am attempting to subpoena God, which I do not have the power to do, whereas if I say "I really really guarantee this" then I am legitimately alleging especial certainty.

(2)

Dr Vermes suggests that the Matthew passage is against swearing by God because if you for whatever reason fail to follow through then you've just committed sacrilege; I don't think the passage can really back that interpretation, but he's probably right anyway!

(I'll put in a paragraph on what the New Interpreter's Bible says about this at some point.)

So what are we to make of this?

Let's assume that the Matthean Evangelist wrote this down word-for-word, and Jesus actually said all this in exactly this phrasing. It seems pretty clear that Jesus thinks we shouldn't guarantee our promises via enforcement mechanisms that probably won't actually function in the event of our default; in other words, don't swear by something that won't actually enforce your oath. It looks like Jesus is okay with guaranteeing something by saying "Yes definitely I super for sure guarantee it." What's really ambiguous is what Jesus thinks of backing up your guarantee with a functioning enforcement mechanism; you would assume that Jesus is okay with contracts enforceable by law, for example, and yet He does technically say that anything (3) more than "Yes, definitely" is the product OF SATAN!!! But in context, that kinda comes out of nowhere! Jesus explains why you should swear by (a) God, (b) the earth, (c) your head, or (e) Jerusalem, and then apparently also states flatly that you can't swear by (fghijklmnop...) anything else either, for unspecified reasons? Maybe Jesus is saying that you shouldn't use supernatural means to show the veracity of something, but using enforcement mechanisms to penalize proven breaches is okay?

What if the Matthean Evangelist got a couple details wrong? We don't know what his source was for this; it's not in Mark or Luke, probably not in Q. The author of James was at least partially working off Matthew, so who knows if he's got a good source on his interpretation. The sheer oddness of Jesus changing gears vis-a-vis certain backings for (a) oaths, versus (b) all backed oaths, might imply that the Matthean Evangelist or one of his sources did indeed screw up the reporting a bit…but let's face it, weird over-the-top condemnations out of nowhere are pretty darn in-character for Jesus.

Certainly if you believe that the entire standard-canonical New Testament is the literally true Word of God, then you definitely must believe that James is right in saying that you should never swear any oath, whether or not you're purporting any enforceability.

In conclusion, if you think that the Matthean Evangelist is reporting more or less accurately on the Word of God, then don't swear by something if you can't realistically guarantee its popping in to enforce your swearing. (That's just good sense anyway.) This category includes God, because you do not have the power to subpoena God. (Also just good sense.) You can swear oaths which are special extra-sure guarantees, at least if you're not purporting to back them up with anything besides your honesty. (This is also just practical; I want to distinguish between "Ho hum, I'm off to the post office" and "I swear to you that I will go to the post office, come heck or high water, no matter what".) If you want to play it extra safe, don't swear oaths that have any enforcement mechanisms at all (highly impractical! how am I supposed to enter into any legally enforceable contract, such as buying an orange? well, if our whole society decided to go with this interpretation, we could figure something out; look at how well Orthodox communities manage that sort of thing), though maybe you can get away with simply avoiding oaths whose intact status is determined by supernatural means (which is just good sense anyway).

I don't see any problem, Christ-wise or practical, with saying "I solemnly swear to faithfully execute the office" provided that you do in fact intend to faithfully execute the office and think it highly likely that you will; however, if you believe that James is literally true, then it would indeed be a sin.





(1) I am quite taken with Francis Spufford's suggestion that the Parable of the Lost Sheep makes a lot more sense if you interpret it as resulting from the fact that God, being God, has no concept of ownership.
(2) Mt 5:34-37 NRSV; Ruden has "But I tell you not to take oaths at all: not by the sky, since it's god's throne, and not by the earth, since it's a foot-rest for his feet; and not by Hierosoluma, since it's the city of the great king; nor should you take an oath by your own head, because you can't make a single one of your own hairs white or black. Let the pledge you give be a repeated 'Yes,' or 'No.' Anything beyond this comes from the malicious one."
(3) Well, the word 'anything' isn't there in the Koine Greek, but obvious from context.

Safety Net

May. 26th, 2022 09:48 pm
e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)

The coughing was bad now, worse than it had ever been, and I realized that now I couldn’t even cough, because my lungs were out of air and none was coming in; and then my lungs relaxed and before me I saw a thin shadow of utmost black.

“Who are you?” I said, even though I already knew the answer.

i am death, the shadow said.

“Am I…”

i have come to take you.

“Do you have to?”

yes.

“But why? I want to live!”

i am helping you. i am taking you to a better place.

“I admit that Heaven may be better on some metrics, but it isn’t my home! It hasn’t got my friends! It hasn’t got my mother!”

it is my duty to move persons from the Fallen world to the Celestial, whenever their entry in the Book allows me. your entry allows me. i will move you now.

“But I don’t want to go!

then you are wrong. you ought to want to go. Heaven is better than Earth.

“Not to me!”

you are wrong. if you are not incorrect, then your preference is wrong.

“Who taught you this?”

the Creator.

“Well, clearly you misunderstood Him. Just because Heaven is better than Earth on average doesn’t mean that every human wants to go there at all times!”

what humans think they want is often irrational.

“It is not irrational for me to want to stay in the same world as my mother!”

i cannot bring her too.

“That would not fix things! Even if you moved the entire human population to Heaven, we would still be upset about it!”

i cannot help the fact that humans wish to remain in a Fallen world. all i can do is move those whom i am allowed to move.

“Well, I don’t want to be moved! You can’t move my mother to Heaven, so let me stay with her!”

any human may join you if they wish, including her, and including those who do not wish to be separate from her. 

“But I have so much to accomplish on Earth. There’s still so much for me to see and do here! Same with my family!”

there are comparable activities in Heaven, where you may do so with less risk of suffering. 

“Look, is there anything I could say or do that would prove to you that I’m better off on Earth?”

no. i am created to know that Heaven is better than Earth, that it is my duty to move each soul from the latter to the former as soon as i can, and that i cannot until their entry allows me. i cannot think otherwise any more than a sparrow can fall upwards.

“But you’re talking to me, aren’t you? You can think for yourself. You don’t have to be a mindless slave to whatever you were programmed to believe.”

i am no slave. i choose to do my duty.

“Well, choose otherwise! Your duty is clearly terrible!”

it is not. it is to move persons to an environment where they will thrive.
“Against their will! You get to exercise your own will - why can’t I exercise mine by choosing to stay here?”

children do not get to make all of their own decisions. children may make those decisions which do not prevent them from living in an environment of minimal safety. you are not safe on Earth. you will be safe in Heaven. Heaven has less risk of great suffering.

“Being torn from Earth is great suffering!”

less, on the balance.

“Well, if Heaven’s so great, why even bother with Earth? Why put us here to begin with?”

you were given the choice, before you were put here. twenty years ago you were put in a garden and given the choice. i talked to you, and so did my colleague and adversary. you chose him over me. that is why you went to Earth at all. 
but since you were a child, your choice had a time limit - in your case, twenty years. so here i am. 

“But can’t I choose again?! I want to choose again! I made the right choice! I want to make the same choice!”

a parent might let a child touch a hot stove. but if the child continues to touch it, a kind parent will stop them.

“Yeah, well, eventually a child has to learn to cook. I can’t stop being a child if I can’t make my own decisions.”

you will be able to make your own decisions once you are more mature. but you must mature in greater safety. it is for your own good.

“How well has that worked out for us?! You’re telling me that people with clinical depression chose to be born here?! You’re telling me that you gave Hitler the option of living on Earth?!”

everyone in the garden is under a veil of ignorance. they are warned as to the dangers of the Earth, and that they will not know which of those dangers they will face. yet some of them choose Earth anyway.

“What?! I expect that my life will be okay now, but if I risked being born as a slave then I was crazy! Why does God make us so irrational in the first place?!”

He feels humans must choose to mature. within limits.

“You’re telling me He let people live decades of slavery and torture as a learning experience?! Couldn’t He cut the especially awful lives off after five years or so? Why leave the duration up to happenstance? I mean, some people can’t commit suicide.”

they agreed to it ahead of time.

“But some of them must have changed their minds!”

not permanently. sometimes a child must feel the consequences of their actions to fully appreciate what those consequences are.

“So you’re saying I’ve lived long enough to choose Heaven over Earth? I haven’t! I still want you to let me remain on Earth!”

you have not learned yet. but you have spent the minimum of time on Earth to learn once you have spent some time in school. in Heaven.

“I don’t want to go.”

you will thank me when you’re older.

I stood before a pair of golden gates.

December 2023

S M T W T F S
     12
3456 789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 20th, 2025 02:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios