so, if Jesus forbade us making promises, explain marriage vows etc?

[1213]

So, if Jesus forbade us makng promises, how do we explain the belief amongst christians that marriage vows are ok? christian doctors swearing the Hippocratic Oath? Christians swearing on Bible in court?

this is off the back of a thread i was reading earlier and one poster commented on how we should obey Jesus, and he mentioned that making promises is something Jesus forbade?

By what I know, he said, don’t swear/make oath. I don’t think that is same as don’t promise anything.

but I tell you, don't swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can't make one hair white or black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'no.' Whatever is more than these is of the evil one.
Matt. 5:34-37

It is interesting how it is required to swear on Bible, when Jesus says don’t do that. Sounds almost like blasphemy.

 

[dqhall]

So, if Jesus forbade us makng promises, how do we explain the belief amongst christians that marriage vows are ok? christian doctors swearing the Hippocratic Oath? Christians swearing on Bible in court?

this is off the back of a thread i was reading earlier and one poster commented on how we should obey Jesus, and he mentioned that making promises is something Jesus forbade?

When I swore I was going to do one thing or some other thing, I got in trouble when my plans changed. I had to stop swearing what I was going to do in the future and focus on what to do today.

Marriage is a lifelong commitment for many couples. They had to stay together to raise their child, children or to share a home and go places together even if they can not have children. The wedding vow is a public statement of their intention to be married. They may marry without a public ceremony by applying for a marriage license.

 

[Andrewn]

I was wondering where @John Helpher and @WrappedUpinHisLove3 got their misunderstanding of Mat 5:34 from. So I checked several Bible translations and found the following misleading translations:

NLT: 34 But I say, do not make any vows!

CEB: 34 But I say to you that you must not pledge at all.

With the recent decline in Biblical knowledge, these 2 translations have become quite influential in conservative and liberal circles, respectively. Sad!

 

[hedrick]

I was wondering where @John Helpher and @WrappedUpinHisLove3 got their misunderstanding of Mat 5:34 from. So I checked several Bible translations and found the following misleading translations:

NLT: 34 But I say, do not make any vows!

CEB: 34 But I say to you that you must not pledge at all.

With the recent decline in Biblical knowledge, these 2 translations have become quite influential in conservative and liberal circles, respectively. Sad!

I don't think the CEB actually has that much of a following. Most liberal churches I'm aware of using the NRSV. I agree that pledge is a bad translation, though if you look at the whole passage it's not so misleading:

"33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those who lived long ago: Don’t make a false solemn pledge, but you should follow through on what you have pledged to the Lord.n 34 But I say to you that you must not pledge at all. You must not pledge by heaven, because it’s God’s throne. 35 You must not pledge by the earth, because it’s God’s footstool. You must not pledge by Jerusalem, because it’s the city of the great king."

Still, it's not the way I'd do it. I tried the CEB for a while with kids, but went back to the Good News Translation.

"But now I tell you: do not use any vow when you make a promise. Do not swear by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by earth, for it is the resting place for his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King."

It's slightly interpretive, since literally it just says do not swear. But "swear" now has a very different meaning, so that may be the most accurate translation using common English words.

 

[Junia]

I was wondering where @John Helpher and @WrappedUpinHisLove3 got their misunderstanding of Mat 5:34 from. So I checked several Bible translations and found the following misleading translations:

NLT: 34 But I say, do not make any vows!

CEB: 34 But I say to you that you must not pledge at all.

With the recent decline in Biblical knowledge, these 2 translations have become quite influential in conservative and liberal circles, respectively. Sad!

ok.i am still learning the Bible and about Jesus, so that probably where the misunderstanding comes from. i am not a mature believer, which is why i asked the qustion. no, it isn't sad because a babe in christ is not expected to know everythign yet. i think Jesus delights in our asking questions in simple childlike faith

 

[Junia]

I don't think the CEB actually has that much of a following. Most liberal churches I'm aware of using the NRSV. I agree that pledge is a bad translation, though if you look at the whole passage it's not so misleading:

"33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those who lived long ago: Don’t make a false solemn pledge, but you should follow through on what you have pledged to the Lord.n 34 But I say to you that you must not pledge at all. You must not pledge by heaven, because it’s God’s throne. 35 You must not pledge by the earth, because it’s God’s footstool. You must not pledge by Jerusalem, because it’s the city of the great king."

Still, it's not the way I'd do it. I tried the CEB for a while with kids, but went back to the Good News Translation.

"But now I tell you: do not use any vow when you make a promise. Do not swear by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by earth, for it is the resting place for his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King."

It's slightly interpretive, since literally it just says do not swear. But "swear" now has a very different meaning, so that may be the most accurate translation using common English words.

i fidn the conservative vs lineral thing a bit confusing. my church is not either end of the spectrum. i suppose more liberal but i was not aware our views differed from that of the Bible. the Bible actually supports many "liberal" and egalitarian views

 

[hedrick]

i fidn the conservative vs lineral thing a bit confusing. my church is not either end of the spectrum. i suppose more liberal but i was not aware our views differed from that of the Bible. the Bible actually supports many "liberal" and egalitarian views

For a new Christian, differences in translation are so small is to be irrelevant. Differences in interpretation are significant. The churches that CF calls liberal are actually mainline. They would be considered moderate in Europe or the UK.

For a new Christian the big difference is that conservative Protestant churches believe in Biblical inerrancy. That means they believe in a 7 day creation or use a wierd interpretation to reconcile it with a semi-scientific view. They also reject female leaders, want to maintain traditional view on a variety of sexual issues, and in general maintain traditional beliefs.

Liberals see the Bible as an account by humans who experienced God, but still were ancient people. Thus liberals normally accept consensus science, and think some of the Biblical writers were influenced by their culture on issues of gender and sex (though in some cases we also think the traditional understanding misrepresents what the Biblical authors actually intended).

Generally both think the Jesus is the son of God, that Christians are expected to do what he taught, and that we will be held accountable. Liberals don't always think being held accountable means being tormented eternally in fire, but Jesus did clearly say that God cares what we do.

Liberals tend to prioritize what Jesus himself taught, seeing Paul and other NT writers as important in showing how his teachings were put into practice by his first followers, but that Christians today aren't always called to be just like Christians in the first century. Many of the controversial ethical issues come from Paul and other writers, not Jesus himself, and many also involve misreading what Paul actually meant.

 

[hedrick]

There are also differences in understanding in what sense Jesus is or is identified with God, but we can't really deal with those differences in CF. In these issues liberals tend to try to follow what the NT writers meant, but are more skeptical of later doctrinal developments than conservatives are.

 

[Junia]

For a new Christian, differences in translation are so small is to be irrelevant. Differences in interpretation are significant. The churches that CF calls liberal are actually mainline. They would be considered moderate in Europe or the UK.

For a new Christian the big difference is that conservative Protestant churches believe in Biblical inerrancy. That means they believe in a 7 day creation or use a wierd interpretation to reconcile it with a semi-scientific view. They also reject female leaders, don't believe in the existence of sexual orientation, and in general maintain traditional beliefs.

Liberals see the Bible as an account by humans who experienced God, but still were ancient people. Thus liberals normally accept consensus science, and think some of the Biblical writers were influenced by their culture on issues of gender and sex (though in some cases we also think the traditional understanding misrepresents what the Biblical authors actually intended).

Generally both think the Jesus is the son of God, that Christians are expected to do what he taught, and that we will be held accountable. Liberals don't always think being held accountable means being tormented eternally in fire, but Jesus did clearly say that God cares what we do.

Liberals tend to prioritize what Jesus himself taught, seeing Paul and other NT writers as important in showing how his teachings were put into practice by his first followers, but that Christians today aren't always called to be just like Christians in the first century. Many of the controversial ethical issues come from Paul and other writers, not Jesus himself, and many also involve misreading what Paul actually meant.

wel the view i have is that you can avoid hellfire and condemnation by being born again, receive the Holy Spirit which empowers us to obey Jesus and live a decent compassionate life. i do believe we dont acheive perfection until we die and are made new bodies etc and brains that arent crippled with mental illness, addictions etc that often lead to sin. so i believe no condemnation for christians. if we receive jesus we are running after the spirit.

 

[Andrewn]

I don't think the CEB actually has that much of a following. Most liberal churches I'm aware of using the NRSV.

NRSV is a good translation. Unfortunately, NLT is extremely influential in conservative circles. In many churches it is the translation read from the pulpit. Even in churches where it is not, still a lot of people use it.

But "swear" now has a very different meaning, so that may be the most accurate translation using common English words.

Many famous translations render the expression into "do not take an oath" or "do not make an oath." These include NASB, ESV, CSB, NIV, and NCV. What do you think of that expression?

 

[Junia]

There are also differences in understanding in what sense Jesus is or is identified with God, but we can't really deal with those differences in CF.

i read something by Joyce Meyer and she said that once w born again we receive the Holy Spirit and if we are TRUE believers we walk after the spirit not the flesh. so therefore christians who are truly born again are no longer subject to Gods wrath. i do nto belive christians go to hell unless either they never were born again or they deliberatley walked away from God and therefore forfeited salvation. sorry but i beleive that there will be many mnay believer sin heaven not just a habdful..

 

[Junia]

NLT is extremely influential in conservative circles. In many churches it is the translation read from the pulpit. Even in churches when it is not, still a lot of people use it.


Many famous translations render the expression into "do not take an oath" or "do not make an oath." These include NASB, ESV, CSB, NIV, and NCV. I think this is still misleading. What do you think of that expression?

it means do not swear an oath eg like a vow. so that means not to swear on a bible in court of law or something like that

 

[hedrick]

NLT is extremely influential in conservative circles. In many churches it is the translation read from the pulpit. Even in churches when it is not, still a lot of people use it.


Many famous translations render the expression into "do not take an oath" or "do not make an oath." These include NASB, ESV, CSB, NIV, and NCV. I think this is still misleading. What do you think of that expression?

The straightforward translation is "swear." The word seems to be a fairly general one. TDNT understands it as the general term for any formal oath. Commonly God or gods were seen as witnesses, but although swearing by something was done, it doesn't appears that that's necessary to the word. They understand Jesus as saying that in the Kingdom, no formal oaths are necessary because everyone always tells the truth. So it's not just a condemnation of abusive and misleading types of oath (a common interpretation), or just oaths by something.

It does not appear to be a rejection of making promises though, nor do I think translating it as "oath" or "swear" would imply that. It's simply saying that you shouldn't need any formal thing to say you're serious about a statement, because you should always be serious about your word.

If that's true, then the real answer for judicial oaths is that American courts aren't part of the Kingdom of God, or at least they aren't entirely and can't depend upon all participants acting that way. We don't live in the Kingdom whose ethics Jesus described, where everyone always tells the truth. I do not agree with people who say that the Kingdom was only meant for 1st Cent Jews, or it's an ideal that is not yet here. I think we're called to live in the Kingdom now. But we should also recognize that that there are aspects of life that don't yet abide by Jesus' ideals, and that people who care about others will support processes to protect people from being damaged by the problems that remain. Hence in such a mixed world, things like judicial oaths make sense.

As to translation, it's hard. Most of us don't use oaths anymore except in court or if we become President. So I'm not sure quite what word to use. "swear" and "oath" both seem reasonable translations. "Swear" however is commonly used to refer to vulgarities, so you could argue that "oath" is less likely to mislead.

 

[Junia]

The straightforward translation is "swear." The word seems to be a fairly general one. TDNT understands it as the general term for any formal oath. Commonly God or gods were seen as witnesses, but although swearing by something was done, it doesn't appears that that's necessary to the word. They understand Jesus as saying that in the Kingdom, no formal oaths are necessary because everyone always tells the truth. So it's not just a condemnation of abusive and misleading types of oath (a common interpretation), or just oaths by something.

It does not appear to be a rejection of making promises though, nor do I think translating it as "oath" or "swear" would imply that. It's simply saying that you shouldn't need any formal thing to say you're serious about a statement, because you should always be serious about your word.

If that's true, then the real answer for judicial oaths is that American courts aren't part of the Kingdom of God, or at least they aren't entirely and can't depend upon all participants acting that way. We don't live in the Kingdom whose ethics Jesus described, where everyone always tells the truth. I do not agree with people who say that the Kingdom was only meant for 1st Cent Jews, or it's an ideal that is not yet here. I think we're called to live in the Kingdom now. But we should also recognize that that there are aspects of life that don't yet abide by Jesus' ideals, and that people who care about others will support processes to protect people from being damaged by the problems that remain. Hence in such a mixed world, things like judicial oaths make sense.

yeah i think we called to live in the kingdom now. in the UK we swear an oath on the Bible in our courts. my knowledge of US law is very limited. but seems liek may be similar to ours?

 

[hedrick]

yeah i think we called to live in the kingdom now. in the UK we swear an oath on the Bible in our courts. my knowledge of US law is very limited. but seems liek may be similar to ours?

In the US you typically swear on the Bible or equivalent, but you can also simply affirm that you will tell the truth. In principle the clerk is supposed to say "do you swear?" so you can say "no, I prefer to affirm." However a lot depends upon the judge.

 

[Junia]

In the US you typically swear on the Bible or equivalent, but you can also simply affirm that you will tell the truth. In principle the clerk is supposed to say "do you swear?" so you can say "no, I prefer to affirm." However a lot depends upon the judge.

oh that is ok then. for what it is worth i still am not saying i think promises are wrong but someoen told me that on another forum post hence am asking.

 

[Junia]

i am not condemning anyone. i dont believe in condemnation for christians. i am sorry if i caused any offence to anyone on here

 

[hedrick]

i read something by Joyce Meyer and she said that once w born again we receive the Holy Spirit and if we are TRUE believers we walk after the spirit not the flesh. so therefore christians who are truly born again are no longer subject to Gods wrath. i do nto belive christians go to hell unless either they never were born again or they deliberatley walked away from God and therefore forfeited salvation. sorry but i beleive that there will be many mnay believer sin heaven not just a habdful..

That's worth a separate thread. If this is a reaction to my summary of differences between liberal and conservative, it's probably true that liberal tend to think more people will be saved (and it's common to think that everyone will be, though I think this is a minority view even among mainline Christians). But it's more complicated than that. Even among evangelicals the are differences about who is saved. And many of us think that only God knows. Few liberals would normally accept the idea that most people are damned. But I'm not sure all conservatives believe that. And of course if you're talking about Catholics the distinctions tend to be different.

Someone asked Jesus whether many would be saved. While not everyone agrees, my understanding of his response was that he never answered, but said "make sure *you* are."

 

[Junia]

That's worth a separate thread. If this is a reaction to my summary of differences between liberal and conservative, it's probably true that liberal tend to think more people will be saved (and it's common to think that everyone will be, though I think this is a minority view even among mainline Christians). But it's more complicated than that. Even among evangelicals the are differences about who is saved. And many of us think that only God knows. Few liberals would normally accept the idea that most people are damned. But I'm not sure all conservatives believe that. And of course if you're talking about Catholics the distinctions tend to be different.

I grew up in a strict branch of Evangelicalism that was pretty cult like. i dont doubt these people were saved but the picture i had of God from there was a very legalistic angry God who made heaven difficult to get into. because of my upbringing this was toxic to me. i just felt he church was abusing me all over again with their "be prefect or go to hell doctrine" . so now i am forming a picture of God in my mind whic is consistent with what i need at the moment to heal. and that God is someone who would accept an imperfect person likeme and help them gradually transform into His likeness..... for me hell is somewhere those who are not born again go, so i only think about it in the context of evangelsim. i do make sure th epicture of God i have built in my mind is not agaisnt the Bible. so i believe in a God who is Holy but also meriful, who helps us overcome with patience and kindness.

He chastises us which meand discipline which means corrects us. so our soulds will be saved. and they will if we persevere in Him.

perseverence of the saints seems closest to Biblical doctrine also from what i have studied so far.

 

[The Liturgist]

Christ did not forbid us from making promises. He condemned the frivolous swearing of oaths, because oath-swearing came from a place of insincerity. This doesn't mean that a Christian can't swear to tell the truth in a court of law, or swear themselves to their spouse. It means that we shouldn't have say, "I swear by the Temple in Jerusalem!" because we should be persons of integrity whose yes means yes and no means no.

-CryptoLutheran

One interesting thing I’ve noticed in watching COPS, LivePD, and bodycam footage of police officers on YouTube channels is how frequently criminals, when attempting to deny a crime, will swear by various things, such as their mother’s grave, their childrens’ lives, and other things, only to, moments later, concede they were lying.