Monthly Archives: February 2018

Swear not at all

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:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all […]

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5)

I didn’t know what to make of this when I originally read it. It seemed peculiar, and an outlier of what Jesus is saying in other parts of the Sermon on the Mount. I did not see the import of it. Yet, Emmet Fox reverses that. He says (The Sermon on the Mount, p. 68-70)

Swear not at all is one of the cardinal points in the teaching of Jesus. It means, briefly, that you are not to take vows. You are not to mortgage your future conduct in advance; to undertake to do or to refrain from doing something tomorrow, or next year, or thirty years hence.

This is striking, because Fox claims this is not peripheral but cardinal. Why would ‘not taking vows’ be central to Jesus’ thought? As he continues,

It is an absolutely vital part of [Jesus’] teaching that you are constantly to seek direct inspirational contact with God, constantly to keep yourself an open channel for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit into manifestation through you. Now, if you make up your mind in advance as to what you shall do or shall not do, shall believe of shall not believe, shall think or shall not think, shall be or shall not be, tomorrow, or next year, or for the rest of your life – and especially when you crystallize this determination by a solemn act of the will like a vow – you are not leaving yourself open to the action of the Paraclete; but you are, by that very act, shutting him out. If you are to receive the guidance of God, Divine Wisdom, it is absolutely essential that you have an open mind, because it so often happens that the part of wisdom is not in accord with your own personal feelings or present opinions. But if you have taken a vow or made a promise concerning your soul, for tomorrow, you are no longer uncommitted; and unless you are uncommitted, the action of the Holy Spirit cannot take place. This, in fact, is nothing less than the sin against the Holy Ghost of which the Bible speaks, which has caused so much terror to sensitive hearts, and concerning which there seems to be a very general misunderstanding.

What is the sin against the Holy Ghost? The sin against the Holy Ghost is any action on your part which prevents the activity of the Holy Ghost from taking place in your soul; anything which shuts you off from the ever-fresh energizing action of God that is spiritual life itself. The penalty for this mistake is spiritual stagnation and, since the only remedy in such a case consists in the direction action of the Holy Spirit, and this mistake in itself tends to prevent that very action from taking place, a condition of vicious deadlock results. Now it is obvious that this condition must necessarily remain as long as the mistake is persisted in, and so, in this sense, the sin is unforgivable. The problem cannot be solved in any way until the victim is prepared to change his attitude. The symptoms of this malady are spiritual stagnation, and all-round failure to demonstrate [(i.e., concrete results of God’s actions in one’s life)], and these are only too often accompanied by much self-righteousness and spiritual pride.

So Fox takes something that seems peripheral (‘don’t make vows’), and then interprets it in light of something central to Jesus’ thought (one should aim to be in constant, live contact with God). This is the right way to do Scriptural exegesis in general – to throw light on what seems incongruous or irrelevant in terms of what is known to be central. In this sense, the odd claim to not make vows can be seen as an application of a central part of Jesus’ thought (be open to God’s Wisdom, and do His will).

Furthermore, Fox then extends that to making sense of another, seemingly singular and confounding claim Jesus makes about a ‘sin against the Holy Spirit’, which is a natural implication of the point about making vows!

To conclude, Fox then draws the obvious conclusion if this is the correct interpretation – Jesus didn’t mean to not enter into everyday business contracts and so on.

Of course, Jesus does not mean that you are not to enter into ordinary business engagements, such as taking up the lease of a house, signing an agreement for certain services, entering into partnership, and so on. Nor does he mean that the ordinary oath administered in a court of law is inadmissable. These things are matters of legal convenience for the transaction of business between man and man, and they are right and necessary in an ordered society. The Sermon on the Mount, as we have seen, is a treatise on the spiritual life, for the spiritual controls all the rest. One who understands the spiritual teaching of Jesus, and practices it, will be in no danger of breaking honorable agreements. He will be an ideal tenant, a desirable business partner, and a reliable witness in court.

In other words, the superficial and tempting interpretation is almost the opposite of what is meant, just as a material interpretation of, say, the second Lukean beatitude (‘blessed are the hungry’) isn’t at all the proper sense (rather, ‘blessed are those who hunger for righteousness’, the key being given in this case from Matthew, a completely different idea).



Food and drink indeed in Christianity

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. John 4:34

A key part of Jesus’ thought is that when he talks about food, he is usually talking about spirituality. You see this again in the Beatitudes in Matthew.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
 Matthew 5:6

Once you get this link, it seems what Jesus is talking about in the following line of the Our Father is spiritual.

Give us this day our daily bread.
 Matthew 6:11

Indeed, this line seems to express a similar thought to the first quoted in John above (‘My meat is to do the will of him that sent me’), because Jesus precedes the talk here about bread with doing the will of God (‘Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven; Give us this day our daily bread’). One reasonable conclusion from combining this with the passage from John, therefore, is that Jesus is implying in the Our Father that when one becomes a spiritual master, daily bread and doing the will of God on a daily basis are closely connected. I.e., if you continually do the will of God, you will get lots of spiritual nourishment on a daily basis.

So, ‘food’ = ‘spiritual nourishment’ for Jesus in many cases. This leads us to a more contentious passage.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. John 6:48-58

Some Catholics claim Jesus meant this literally – that we must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood to have salvation. They use this to justify the Eucharist. Some anti-Catholics claim a literal interpretation of this passage is disgusting, and therefore the Catholic interpretation is disgusting, and if Jesus meant that, the many in attendance who left would have been right to do so.

The point I want to make here is that neither the pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic positions outlined above are accurate, because the actual Catholic position isn’t that Jesus literally becomes the bread and wine, and therefore any anti-Catholic positions based on that have a mistaken premise.

Consider. If I say I am literally eating a hamburger, I don’t mean I am eating something that doesn’t look, smell, or taste like a hamburger, or have a hamburger’s chemical structure, but rather has a hamburger’s ‘essence’ or ‘substance’ as opposed to its ‘accidents’. That is not a way of speaking literally about eating something. Since what Catholics claim is exactly that they are eating Jesus’s substance as opposed to his accidents, they aren’t talking literally. They too are saying Jesus meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood something spiritual, but they then tie this to a theology of Jesus’ substance and the Last Supper. This is to push the question of what exactly is being claimed back a step (what do we mean by Jesus’ substance?), but it is still a spiritual, non-literal understanding of eating and drinking something.

What shall you do to inherit eternal life?

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: do this, and thou shalt live.

(Luke 10:25-8)

There is a lot of clutter in Christianity – ideas, theologies, doctrines, and so on, that have built up around the core of Christian teaching, and around ideas of ‘salvation’.

Yet here, Jesus is quite clear. Do two things and you have everlasting life – love God, and love your neighbour.

This is the essence of the Christian message, everything else is more of less footnotes.

The centre of Christian character

In Christianity, given the sheer variety and complexity, it is important to identify the centre and periphery, not just in terms of scripture but also in terms of character and praxis.

So what is the centre of Christianity in terms of psychological attributes? I would say the top 3 are

  1. Love. (‘Love one another,’ and so on.)
  2. Courage. (‘Fear not,’ and so on.)
  3. Serenity. (‘My peace I give you,’ and so on.)

These attributes work together to amplify each other. For example, serenity makes courage easier, and love drives courage (if you don’t love something, what reason do you have to be courageous?).

If this is right, then the next question a Christian ought to ask himself is “How do I amplify these attributes on a day to day basis?”

This then leads to the centre of praxis for an individual. Jesus gives many techniques to cultivate these psychological habits in the Gospels.