"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man". Matthew 15:18
Since Jerusalem fell to the Roman General Titus there had been a steady decline of the Empire and central civil powers of that world. For almost a thousand years the majority of people of Europe lived without taxes, owning and working their own land, caring for their families and protecting their communities on a voluntary basis. There was almost as many people living in Europe in 176 AD as there was in 1776 but the former were far more free.
The end of the first millennium brought a new rise in the power of kings and a sometimes military reformation of the "Church" through these new crowned heads under the direction of the Roman Church. It had taken almost 500 years for these crowns to bind the land and the people of Europe and Britain. It was during this time we see an expansion of things like celibacy amongst ministers, property tax upon registry in the Doomesday Book, feudalism, a system of statutory labor, the draft and impressment of soldiers into standing armies, legalization of usury, credit money--- and last, but not least: "Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy".
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus ruled what some historians call the Golden Age of the Roman Empire. He was a Stoic philosopher with high ideals of duty and humble service. His Meditations of Marcus Aurelius "became one of the most widely read works of Greek literature, second only to the New Testament in popularity." Much of it reads like a modern Sunday sermon minus the common Christian names. Marcus' rule as First Citizen, Commander in Chief and Appointer of the Judiciary was benevolent and prosperous with great achievements.
"It is sad to record that this great man was an enemy of the Christians. Some people think that he was influenced by the stoic philosophers who were his constant companions, and who were jealous of a faith that was robbing them of many followers. However that may be, Marcus Aurelius believed, as did many people in his day, that the Christians were secretly planning to overthrow the Empire. He thought that his duty as emperor made it necessary for him to treat them with great severity."
If those early Christians were familiar with Romans 13 and there was constitutional guaranteed religious freedom in Rome why were the Christians singled out for persecution? At their height they only comprised 5% of the Roman population, had no military aspirations and because of their Jewish origins were exempt from military service. It is true Jesus had preached a kingdom. The Christians had developed a unique and ancient system of family rule and community independence. They applied for none of the "free" government benefits so common in the affluent system of Rome. Rome's welfare system was often operated through its network of what we call temples.
Rome also imposed "contributions" or taxes upon its citizenry and those they conquered militarily and commercially under the operation of their legal system. To apply for such benefits openly would be partaking of "meat sacrificed to idols". That application to the Patronus of Rome would be praying to another Father.
"The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
It was also true, as Edward Gibbon had pointed out in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, when he praised "the union and discipline of the Christian republic", that Christianity "gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire?"
But why would that dismay Rome. The problem with Christians is that they would not take an oath of allegiance and supremacy,. because they knew that such activity was the meaning of worship.
Somewhere along the way Christians have been convinced that worship has to do with singing in Churches or mimicking repeating words of praise while your real allegiance is given elsewhere.
Prayer is application and worship is allegiance and homage. Because of the early American unfettered examination of the newly translated Biblical text they were developing a strikingly different perception of the Gospel of Jesus Christ than was desired by those Churches that enjoyed the protection and assistance of governments of exercising authority.
People were coming closer to the ways of the first century Church and farther from what men have tried to make the Church from the beginning. When men gave their Allegiance and oath of Supremacy to other men they bound themselves to homage and service of king or government. They would now be protected and procured by the walls of man made government and institutions. They would be regulated and restricted within those walls to the service and judgment of that government. They would be in bondage.
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Revelation 2:6
What was the doctrine of the "Nicolaitans"? There was a connection between them and Balaam. Balaam is from the Hebrew word 'Baal' meaning lord or master and 'am' references the people. It is an expression of superior rank over the people.
Nike is the Greek word for conqueror with nikos meaning victor. Laos is a word for people. Nicolaitan and Baalam are two different forms of the same idea. Both include the idea of rank, lordship and submission to an exercising authority who can judge the people. They are systems that make gods, judging rulers of men who other men must pay homage to, homage being "fealty to a king or ruler or Benefactor who can demand a portion of your service in exchange for protection."
There are gods Many
http://www.hisholychurch.info/sermon/godsmany.php
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. (Nu 30:2)
Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. (Pr 6: 2)
These Cometh of Evil?
Comments on Oaths and swearing.
TITLE 28, PART V, CHAPTER 115, Sec. 1746.-
Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''
Although there is a distinction between an oath and a declaration in the above declaration one subjects themselves to the power of the court.
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 1 Corinthians 6:12
Jesus expressed a different opinion in the New Testament and compared it to the Old.
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; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:33-37)
Taking oaths or swearing allegiance or service or anything at all was a great controversy between Christians and the other nations and lead to their persecution from the earliest history of the Church and the Kingdom it served..
But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. (James 5:12)
A Witness from the Past
There were many who witnessed this controversy from those early days.
"Let no one of you cherish any evil in his heart against his neighbour, and love not an oath of falsehood." (Barnabas, The Epistle of Barnabas, late 1st century)And with regard to our not swearing at all, and always speaking the truth, He enjoined as follows: "Swear not at all; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." And that we ought to worship God alone, He thus persuaded us." (Justin Martyr, First apology of Justin, A.D.165)
"…but also to love their enemies; and enjoined them not only not to swear falsely, but not even to swear at all; and not only not to speak evil of their neighbours, but not even to style any one "Raca" and "fool; "[declaring] that otherwise they were in danger of hell-fire." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, late 2nd century)
"For they do not receive from the Father the knowledge of the Son; neither do they learn who the Father is from the Son, who teaches clearly and without parables Him who truly is God. He says: "Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, late 2nd century)
"Above all, let an oath on account of what is sold be far from you. And let swearing on account of other things be banished." (Clement of Alexandria, A.D.195)
Of perjury I am silent, since even swearing is not lawful. (Tertullian, A.D.200)
"You are compelled to swear, which is not lawful." (Cyprian, A.D.250)
"We must not swear… of this same matter, according to Matthew…"I say unto you swear not at all." (Cyprian A.D.250)
Even earlier comments on oaths can be found.
"Every man who vows another to death by the laws of the gentiles will himself be put to death." The Essene's Cairo Damascus Document following Geza Vermes:
"The very need for any oath assumes that truth can not be guaranteed without it, and that lies can be told, expected and tolerated if there is no oath! Such a system ignores the fact that lies are equally as offensive to God, with or without an oath!… There is a reference (in Acts 18:18) which is often quoted by some who want to set aside the words of Jesus, to make it obligatory for Christians to swear oaths. That obligation is even built into the creeds of some Churches!" (Allon Maxwell, What Jesus said about Oaths, Bible Digest - Number 60 August 1996)
"Anabaptists found explicit prohibitions in the Bible against oath-taking (Matthew 5:34, and James 5:12). This alone made them poor citizens, for they could not participate in most juries and could not swear oaths of allegiance. It also meant that they could not serve in public office." (Dr. E.L. Skip Knox, Anabaptist Beliefs—the Christian and the State, History of Western Civilization, 18 October 1998)
"We commit ourselves to tell the truth, to give a simple yes or no, and to avoid swearing of oaths." (Mennonite Confession of Faith, Herald Press, 1995)
"That war was looked upon as contrary to the will of God, and oath-taking was forbidden." (Uxbridge Quaker Heritage, By Allan McGillivray, 1996)
Taking an "affirmation in lieu of oath." The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they'd been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath "by thy head."
DEFINITIONS:
AFFIRM. To say positively; declare firmly; assert to be true... v.i. in law to declare solemnly, but not under oath; make affirmation. Webster New World Dictionary.
SWEAR. To make a solemn declaration or affirmation with an appeal to God or to someone or something held sacred for confirmation: as, he swore by the bible. 4. in law, to give evidence or state under oath. Webster New World Dictionary.
What is the difference between "to declare solemnly" and "make a solemn declaration"?
What is the difference between "To make a solemn declaration or affirmation" which is to SWEAR and to AFFIRM?
In Bouviers an Oath is defined in one form of attestation as commonly called an affirmation, (q. v.) the officer repeats, "You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that," &c.
Even the definition of swear includes an "affirmation with an appeal to God or to someone or something held sacred for confirmation".
Jesus says for whatsoever is more than Yes for Yes and No for No cometh of evil.
To take an oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury is more than just answering yes or no and is solemnization of the penalties of perjury.
There is no more difference between taking an oath or affirmation than there is in committing adultery or have an affair. Both of these activities are the same just as an affirmation is the same as an oath.
Christians use to be persecuted for refusing to take oaths, affirmations of allegiance in obedience to Christ but now churches preach their own brand of Christianity that is an adversary to the teachings of Christ. They by their own private doctrines and customs have delivered the people into bondage. By their customs they make the law of God to no effect.
Share this
page 
