"Again you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.' But I say to you, make no oath at all...But let your statements be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil. Mt 5.33,34,37
Interpretation- Vowing, which implies the person is dedicating him/herself towards a particular end result (in time), alienates that person from Reality. Dedicating your heart to anything that ISN'T (in the moment) bespeaks desiring Reality to be other than it IS. Saying YES or NO keeps you aligned with the MOMENT; you're essentially saying, 'I will participate', instead of, 'I won't participate'- in the particular activity. There is no denying Reality in either of those, simply a statement of what, in the moment (amongst many, many options) you will apply your heart to.
As an example, when Jesus' disciples wanted to help him escape his inevitable capture (and suspected execution) by the Jewish authorities, he simply said NO...he would not participate in THEIR plans to save his life. It was God's will over his (and their) own to which he said YES. This scenario plays out, almost identically, to that of Socrates; when he chose to end his life (as decreed by the Greek authorities) rather than escape to another country, as his students pleaded with him to do. Two examples of NAY sayers, who clearly participated in the moment.
Matthew
Interpretation- Vowing, which implies the person is dedicating him/herself towards a particular end result (in time), alienates that person from Reality. Dedicating your heart to anything that ISN'T (in the moment) bespeaks desiring Reality to be other than it IS. Saying YES or NO keeps you aligned with the MOMENT; you're essentially saying, 'I will participate', instead of, 'I won't participate'- in the particular activity. There is no denying Reality in either of those, simply a statement of what, in the moment (amongst many, many options) you will apply your heart to.
As an example, when Jesus' disciples wanted to help him escape his inevitable capture (and suspected execution) by the Jewish authorities, he simply said NO...he would not participate in THEIR plans to save his life. It was God's will over his (and their) own to which he said YES. This scenario plays out, almost identically, to that of Socrates; when he chose to end his life (as decreed by the Greek authorities) rather than escape to another country, as his students pleaded with him to do. Two examples of NAY sayers, who clearly participated in the moment.
Matthew
Comments
However when you come to a religious teacher, listening is only part of the process. I believe the best way to understand Jesus is to practice what he is saying. Thus, on the one hand I believe that it is important to listen to what Jesus is saying (that is read his words and put him in his historical context), but on the other hand to follow him to is even better. I think when someone comes to faith in Jesus as the Messiah and follows him, that they begin to understand him from the inside. The words of Jesus become reminders of what one is already doing.
Now to the actual interpretation of the Jesus' words. Much of the Sermon on the Mount deals with Jesus' interpretation of the Jewish Law. It is important to notice that Jesus doesn't have a negative attitude toward the Law. For he says, "Do not think that I came to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." This of course presupposes the original purpose of the Law and the Prophets. The Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai to form a community out of a rag tag multitude. The Law was given as a formal treaty between the people and God. The Law was given to regulate the relationships between God and humankind, and between a person and his or her neighbor. The prophets reinforce the Law, but also, proclaim the inability of the people to keep the Law. Thus, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah the prophet proclaimed a time when God would make a new covenant written on people's hearts (Jeremiah 31:31). The Jews around Jesus' time were still doing there best to keep the treaty between God and the Jewish people by keeping the Law God had given them. But appears that at times they were more worried about keeping the details of the Law, and missing the intention of those Laws. The Mishnah, written a couple hundred years after Jesus, gives details of how they had expanded the meaning of the Law. Thus, they had a system for when an oath was binding and when it was not. In contrast Jesus wants to cut through the casuistic red tape. He wanted people to be honest in their dealings and not hide behind the object of their oath, whether they swore on the temple, or by the throne of God, or by heaven. Thus he says, "Simply let your 'yes' be 'yes'...
Most of Jesus statements made during the Sermon on the Mount are re-statements of the Jewish Law. But he is trying to get back at the intention of each statement of the Law. Just as the point of the original Law was intended to bring harmony (justice) between God and the people and between the people and the people, so to Jesus intentions is the same. Thus, he can sum up his teaching by saying, "So in everything , do to others what you would have others do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
My critique is simple, Jesus is not trying stop people from making commitments that will keep them from the living in the moment (from the "stuff"), he is teaching them to be forthright about there commitments.
Jesus whole teaching is wrapped around bringing in the Kingdom of God. For Jesus the Kingdom of God is a new community brought together by the power of God's Spirit. The identification of the new community with the kingdom is clear in Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you the truth you are Peter, and on this rock I will built my church (which means a called out people), and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom..." Likewise during the last supper Jesus passes around a cup which signifies the New Covenant which Jeremiah had spoke about. Jesus explains, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of its fruit again from now until when I drink it anew in my father's kingdom." Jesus is set on forming a new community under a new covenant, one that is ratified by his death. This is how all the writers of the New Testament saw the Kingdom, as well as why "communion" has become a lasting practice in the church.
As Norman Kraus says, " The 'Kingdom of God' which Jesus promoted is a community, koinonia, of individuals in submission to the authority of God's covenant of 'life and peace' (Mal. 2.5.) Such a community affirms individuality and makes agape the bond of unity. Instead of an inward search for a metaphysical unity with the universe, the movement is outward to others in forgiveness and reconciliation. Instead of self-assertion and independence, individuals seek the fulfillment of their personal potential in interdependence and their sharing of concern for each other." I believe with most Christians, this community was formed during the outpouring of the Holy spirit at Pentacost.
Matthew I will continue to enjoy our discussions. I hope this wasn't to much at one time. And I also hope this oppressive heat goes away soon.
God bless,
Jared
You're on the right path, but you haven't pushed Jesus' statement far enough to find it's 'power'. Let me try to clarify by commenting on your statements, leading up to your conclusion-
HH: The Mishnah, written a couple hundred years after Jesus, gives details of how they had expanded the meaning of the Law. Thus, they had a system for when an oath was binding and when it was not.
M: The ongoing process of interpretation, by which the 'learned of the Law' hoped to find it's true meaning, is inherently faulty; limited by human corruption. How is Truth to be found, when one remains 'outside', looking at if from a distance? Truth is only found when it is 'lived', or found 'within' (this meaning has multiple meanings.)
HH: In contrast Jesus wants to cut through the casuistic red tape. He wanted people to be honest in their dealings and not hide behind the object of their oath, whether they swore on the temple, or by the throne of God, or by heaven. Thus he says, "Simply let your 'yes' be 'yes'...
M: Correct. The direction, or 'vector' is now seen, but the magnitude, which shows how far it goes isn't as clear as you may expect. I'm sure the interpreters already knew that when you made an oath you were supposed to keep it. The problem lies in how much 'keeping' someone is doing. As we continue to look closer, the magnitude of the vector becomes clearer...
HH: My critique is simple, Jesus is not trying stop people from making commitments that will keep them from the living in the moment (from the "stuff"), he is teaching them to be forthright about there commitments.
M: If people continue to live from their lost state (following their will, NOT God's) they will be incapable of the correct magnitude; incapable of living up to their oath (in this example). The experts will be called in to give more detailed interpretations of the Law, so we can find out if this latest level of performance lives up to requirements of the Law. For those living out of the lost state, there's never enough clarity to determine absolute truth. The problem of 'magnitude' lies in the human concept of 'time'. If one remains within the system of time, there will be opportunities to find 'loopholes' and 'easy ways', or 'outs', as it were. How far one must go to live up to ones oath becomes completely problematic- hence the need for interpretation of the Law, and more interpretation, and more interpretation...you get the picture ;) If, as Jesus says, there is NO OPTION, BUT TO FOLLOW TO THE GREATEST MAGNITUDE (yes means YES, period), then the problem resolves to eternity; which IS Reality in this moment. Reality in the moment gives you no time for second guessing, no options for cutting corners, or 'outs'. This is why my interpretation focuses on living in the moment. Anything else is of man's will, not God's.
Matthew