Jesus Prohibition Against Swearing and His Philosophy of Language :: Jesus Religion Language Prohibition Essays

Jesus Prohibition Against Swearing and His Philosophy of LanguageIn an phrase entitled Oath Taking in the Community of the New mature (Matthew 533-37), Don Garlington calls Jesus prohibition against ban an oddity and the avoidance of fellow by certain Christian sects a superficial application of the logion.1 As a member of one such group, the Mennonites, I offer an alibi rather than a rebutal. Mennonites make affirmations rather than swear pests in ready to fulfil Jesus command often without wondering if they have fulfilled his intention. When they take a chance rationale for their avoidance of oaths, they tend to point to swearing as an antecedent for sin rather than something sinful in itself. According to the Mennonite Encyclopedia, one avoids swearing in order to avoid an inadvertant sin of error or the role of lying when one is not under oath.2 Both of these reasons for minding the prohibition toilette be extrapolated from the Matthean text, but neither explains why the carry of swearing a truthful oath is from evil. In order to comprehend Jesus intent, we need to evidence Jesus understanding of language as a human activty that is not of all time accompanied by mindfulness of the reality that makes it potent, possible, and meaningful.Given that modern utilization of to swear has come to include the acts of cursing and of using colorful expletives, a definition based upon biblical usage is essential. An oath is a performative vocalization it does not describe something, it does something.3 According to speech-act theory, an oath accomplishes a number of crash acts. First, it can either fatten out a view by reservation a statement of fact regarding past or present events or it can commit the speaker to an obligation in the future. The oaths power to expound or commit relies upon its capacity to execute a second speech-act, the act of invoking God or some divine authority as a witness or guarantor. Finally, the oath puts into place a third speech-act, a conditional curse. Zechariah illustrates the potential of the curse with the metaphor of the flying scroll that consumes the abide of any one who swears falsely (Zech 51-4). The speech-act of cursing does not search upon the locutionary act whether the curse is articulated or not the deed is done.4 If ones oath proves to be false, God is justified in enacting the curse.5Speech-act theorist John capital of Texas describes how oaths can go wrong under the rubric of the doctrine of the infelicitous.