Jesus And Oath's

[Duncan]

In the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood in Sec. 84 of the Doctrine and Covenant it seems Jesus is in favour of swearing an oath yet in the Sermon on the Mount he counsels us to not swear an oath at all,

 

"33 ¶Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:"

 

Is one counsel to the immediate audience of the Sermon on the Mount and the other is to whoever receives the Priesthood? or is something else in play?

[knowone]

which part specifically in sec 84 does it sound like He is ok with oaths?

 

as far as i know, we cant make oaths with the divine.  simply, because oaths have to originate from Him to us.

[Duncan]

which part specifically in sec 84 does it sound like He is ok with oaths?

 

as far as i know, we cant make oaths with the divine.  simply, because oaths have to originate from Him to us.

 

I read it as stating you swear the oath as he gives it and you receive it by covenant, the oath is what you both agree to do and it's now a covenant but then earlier Jesus warns against oaths and such

[Palerider]

As I understand the churches "current" explanation of this, it is that the Lord swears the oath and we make the covenant. In reality I think they are one and the same. If one is "covenanting" one is still, in essence, swearing an oath which is forbidden by the Savior.

 

It seems to me according to my Old Testament reading, that God made covenant to man. Sometimes men would swear oaths by certain entities e.g. God, temple, on my mother's grave, etc., but I don't recall men making a covenant to God. Rather they would "enter" into the covenant that was offered by the Lord to them which was also confirmed by the Lord's oath. Deuteronomy 29: 1, 9, and 12 

 

See also Hebrews 7:21 Here the Lord confirms the priesthood of Melchisedec by an oath which He (the Lord) swears but no covenant is mentioned whatsoever.

 

According to the recollections of some in the early history of the "restored church", the word "swear" was first used and then later replaced by the word "covenant" in some ordinances that I won't go into here. 

 

The first coming of the Savior was the fulfilling of part of God's covenant to Israel. The second part will be fulfilled at His second coming when he will physically gather lost Israel back to the holy land and there establish His one and only temple.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Palerider

[David T]

You don't swear by something (I swear by heaven I shall do this! I swear by my mother's grave! By my pretty Floral bonnet!), you "let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay". Or in other words, don't bolster or make a show of backing it up with some other object that's either material or intangible, just say, "No", and walk away, or "Yes,"  and then do it.

Edited June 4, 2014 by David T

[CV75]

In the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood in Sec. 84 of the Doctrine and Covenant it seems Jesus is in favour of swearing an oath yet in the Sermon on the Mount he counsels us to not swear an oath at all,

 

"33 ¶Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:"

 

Is one counsel to the immediate audience of the Sermon on the Mount and the other is to whoever receives the Priesthood? or is something else in play?

The way I see it is, in the Sermon, we are not to perform any oaths, even unto God. In the oath and covenant of the priesthood, we are not performing an oath unto the Lord but receiving an oath of the Father. There may appear to be a very subtle difference, but I see the second structure as completely submissive on our part, the same difference as “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you…” and “many are called, but few are chosen” – it’s a difference in attitude.

[nosmelone]

You don't swear by something (I swear by heaven I shall do this! I swear by my mother's grave! By my pretty Floral bonnet!), you "let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay". Or in other words, don't bolster or make a show of backing it up with some other object that's either material or intangible, just say, "No", and walk away, or "Yes,"  and then do it.

This is the way I  understood it as well, Jack Welch has followed this thinking as well in the Hugh Nibley Teachings on the Book of Mormon Lecture series when he substitues for Nibley over 4 of the Lectures (during the discussion of 3 Nephi 11-19 if I recall).   He likened the covenant or oath with temple covenants and also suggests that we are not to swear an oath on something as noted in the above example.  

[Gray]

You don't swear by something (I swear by heaven I shall do this! I swear by my mother's grave! By my pretty Floral bonnet!), you "let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay". Or in other words, don't bolster or make a show of backing it up with some other object that's either material or intangible, just say, "No", and walk away, or "Yes,"  and then do it.

 

Great Firefly reference!

[Palerider]

To put it more succinctly, in Old Testament times Israel was commanded NOT to forswear themselves in inappropriate ways, but they were to perform their sworn oaths (or covenants) unto the Lord. But the Savior places a prohibition on swearing oaths period.

[halconero]

Oaths yes, covenants no. The New Testament, especially Matthew, the Pauline Epistles, and Hebrews is filled with covenant literature.

[Duncan]

Oaths yes, covenants no. The New Testament, especially Matthew, the Pauline Epistles, and Hebrews is filled with covenant literature.

 

 

enlighten us!

[Ahab]

In the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood in Sec. 84 of the Doctrine and Covenant it seems Jesus is in favour of swearing an oath yet in the Sermon on the Mount he counsels us to not swear an oath at all,

"33 ¶Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:"

Is one counsel to the immediate audience of the Sermon on the Mount and the other is to whoever receives the Priesthood? or is something else in play?

We can say we will do something, with a sincere intention to do it, without swearing or making a promise to do it. If we're simply saying "Yes" we will do something someone has asked or challenged us to do, then we haven't necessarily promised or sworn we will do it, even though we will have given our word that we will do it and probably with the sincere intention to do it.

[Que]

The oath pertaining to the priesthood is one made by God, which he cannot/will not break:

 

"And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood. Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved." (D&C 84)

 

We do not make this particular oath, our part is to enter into a covenant.

[Que]

Hebrews 6:17 looks like another example of God making an oath...

[Palerider]

Yes, the New Testament (read covenant if the word "testament" is translated correctly) is filled with references to the covenant that God makes to us, through faith in his Son, Jesus Christ.

 

There is no requirement of "ordinance" for us to make what amounts to a swearing or oath (as in some LDS ordinances) to enter into a binding agreement with Heavenly Father.  Even if you don't use the word "swear" but use the word "covenant" in it's place, the essence or legalism is the same. You are still "promising" to obey a set of rules that will be soon be broken even if only on some miniscule level and the covenant or swearing will be void. Thus we make ourselves constant liars.........

 

This is why Israel, as Paul said, was never able to keep all the rules of the Law. It is impossible for man to live the Law perfectly, all the time. So why make the swearing/promise/covenant in the first place?  

 

Rather, "Swear not at all" as the Savior instructed and then rely on His merits when we make mistakes and try to do better thereafter.

[Palerider]

"Hebrews 6:17 looks like another example of God making an oath"

 

This is precisely correct. God has the power and ability to bring to pass all that He has sworn to do and is well within his right to make any oath he chooses.

 

Man on the other hand, even though he may have the best of intentions does not have that power or ability. Therefore better not to swear at all.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Palerider

[halconero]

enlighten us!

Will do when I get home. But Palerider is wrong. Even Pauline literature is full of covenant language and patron-client relationships. The reason Paul had an issue with Mosaic law was because it was both hard, and without a divine patron dispensing favour. To say that humanity wasn't required to enter into covenants in the New Testament is a misunderstanding of the cultural context, koine Greek, and an imposition of modernity.

[Palerider]

Still missing the point here aren't we............

 

Of course man has obligations to God and expectations are required of him by virtue of the covenant which God makes to man. But they are NOT entered into in the form of an informal swearing or as an ordinance or ceremonial swearing or verbal "covenanting" as Mormons have synthesized. To reiterate: "Swear not at all" is the Savior's command.

 

IIRC there is nothing in the New Testament writings that supports such a notion. To use your language: "It is an imposition of modernity". 

[halconero]

As I understand the churches "current" explanation of this, it is that the Lord swears the oath and we make the covenant. In reality I think they are one and the same. If one is "covenanting" one is still, in essence, swearing an oath which is forbidden by the Savior.

 

It seems to me according to my Old Testament reading, that God made covenant to man. Sometimes men would swear oaths by certain entities e.g. God, temple, on my mother's grave, etc., but I don't recall men making a covenant to God. Rather they would "enter" into the covenant that was offered by the Lord to them which was also confirmed by the Lord's oath. Deuteronomy 29: 1, 9, and 12 

 

 

Such is still the case. Current Latter-day Saint teachings on covenants maintain that God makes a covenant by setting terms, promises, and blessings, which man enters into by agreement:

 

"God sets the terms of gospel covenants, which we either accept or reject." (Preach My Gospel, chapter 3).

 

"more often between God and man; but in this latter case it is important to notice that the two parties to the agreement do not stand in the relation of independent and equal contractors. God in His good pleasure fixes the terms, which man accepts. The same word is sometimes rendered “testament.” The gospel is so arranged that principles and ordinances are received by covenant, placing the recipient under strong obligation and responsibility to honor the commitment." (Bible Dictionary, Covenants). 

 

Jesus' prohibition wasn't on making promises, or entering into agreements, but was directed towards oaths. While these may seem like similar ideas, the concept of an oath in the ancient world was far different than ours, and was a different arrangement than a covenant, promise or agreement. The verb ὀμνύω, used in Matthew 5 does not signify promising, which is the verb ὑπισχνοῦμαι, but means the solemn declaration of terms of intent, with the one making the oath determining the blessings and consequences of success or failure. One could promise to keep the terms of God, or could swear to do so. The former means that the mortal strives to keep God's terms, in relation to God's blessings and punishments. The latter means that the mortal declares to God the commandments that the mortal sets, with the blessings and curses the mortal sets. Jesus prohibits the latter, but not the former.

 

There is nothing wrong with saying that we are covenanting with God. In Latter-day Saint belief, covenanting on the part of mortals is the agreeing to terms, promises, and consequences set by God. Promising to keep them isn't the declaration of our terms, or consequences, even our most solemn covenants in the temple are entered into by a simple "Yes."

 

Still missing the point here aren't we............

 

Of course man has obligations to God and expectations are required of him by virtue of the covenant which God makes to man. But they are NOT entered into in the form of an informal swearing or as an ordinance or ceremonial swearing or verbal "covenanting" as Mormons have synthesized. To reiterate: "Swear not at all" is the Savior's command.

 

IIRC there is nothing in the New Testament writings that supports such a notion. To use your language: "It is an imposition of modernity". 

 

 

Of course there is a solemn ceremony to enter into a covenant. Circumcision, the means whereby ancient Israelites entered into the covenant set by God is connected several times with baptism in the New Testament. In Colossians 2, Paul teaches that baptism is the circumcision without hands. In Galatians 3 he states that entrance into the Abrahamic covenant is gained through baptism.

 

That the covenant includes adherence to moral standards is preached both by Paul, and by Jesus. In Romans 4, Pauls states that circumcision is the seal of righteousness, and that the covenant/promise comes through "Pistis" which is faithfulness/devotion/loyalty. Jesus' Great Commission at the end of Matthew would have been understood by its readers, who were Jewish-Christians, in the same context as the Abrahamic covenant. Jesus command that they should baptize all nations mirrored God's promise that Abraham's seed (who entered into the covenant in a formal manner) would bless all nations. This command is tied with moral instruction, demonstrating that the obligations and terms God sets are agreed to at baptism.

Edited June 11, 2014 by halconero

[Palerider]

If you will think back carefully regarding the temple "covenant" you will realize there is much more involved than a simple "yes". I could tell you the verbiage but rather than do so, I would prefer not to engender the wrath of the moderators.

 

Of course according to LDS teachings they are not swearing an oath, because the leadership have told them they're not and so they believe them. It's the same as when someone comes along and says, "That's a very fine camel you are riding there." and you reply, "I'm not riding a camel, I'm riding a horse. They're very good horses because they can go for many miles in the desert without water and they have a reserve of fat here in their hump."   

 

"Who told you that was a horse?"

 

"My Bedouin horse salesman, when I told him I was looking for a horse to buy."

 

The best we can do is smile and say "How are they at cutting cattle?"

Edited June 11, 2014 by Palerider

[halconero]

I disagree on the basis that historically vows, with their accompanying conditions and consequences, were entirely dictated from man to God. The temple covenants, in their most solemn moments, are always promising to submit to presented covenants.

 

However, as you have said, we cannot delve more into this without breaking board policy, or my personal comfort concerning the discussion of temple rites. So this might be a time for us to amicably agree to disagree. Good discussion, Palerider. While we clash over modern Latter-day Saint doctrine, and historical-biblical interpretation, I respect your thoroughness and passion.

Edited June 13, 2014 by halconero

[Avatar4321]

It's the Lord that gives the oath.