Questions about vows.

[Hello There]

Few questions.

1. Do you need to verbally utter the vow for it to be valid not only in Old Testament times but today?
Reason: I found a few Jewish sources that mention that vows need to be uttered verbally to be binding. There is also a verse I found...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Numbers 30:2

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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA]
2. If it is a sin/wrong to make a vow today [/FONT][FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA](Matt 5:33)[/FONT][FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA], does that mean all current vows must be destroyed and repented off?

3. Should vows be made in marriage ceremonies?


[/FONT]

 

[WAB]

Few questions.

1. Do you need to verbally utter the vow for it to be valid not only in Old Testament times but today?
Reason: I found a few Jewish sources that mention that vows need to be uttered verbally to be binding. There is also a verse I found...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Numbers 30:2
[/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA]
2. If it is a sin/wrong to make a vow today [/FONT][FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA](Matt 5:33)[/FONT][FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA], does that mean all current vows must be destroyed and repented off?

3. Should vows be made in marriage ceremonies?


[/FONT]

As with so many other contentious issues, it is best if we look at the context...

Matt. 5:33-37... "'Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not make false vows, But shall fulfill your vows to the LORD" 'But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is The City Of The Great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil'" (NASB)

Am not sure what changes may have been made in recent years, but as of the last time I appeared as a witness in court, one did not have to lay their hand on a Bible and "...swear to tell the whole truth..." etc.

As the history of the U.S.A. includes many of the original lawmakers being conversant with the Scriptures, they allowed an alternative to "swearing/taking-an-oath" by means of "affirming" that one's testimony was to be truthful.

Of course to take a vow per Old Testament/Covenant instructions was forbidden by our Lord, as found in the above.

Shalom... WAB

 

[Nazaroo]

Historically, Christians have understood the instructions in Matthew not to actually eliminate vow taking, but rather as piece of strong advice, or warning, not to take vows at all, without taking their gravity and seriousness into account.

The breaking of vows through freewill (different from accidental failures; see Numbers 6), is understood to be a form of taking the Lord's name in vanity, one of the Ten Commandments.

 

[Nazaroo]

It should be noted that both the Old Covenants and the New Covenant is of course a form of vow.

In one case, a nation or people collectively entered the vow with God, and in the New Covenant, people enter individually.

 

[Splayd]

Matt. 5:33-37... "'Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not make false vows, But shall fulfill your vows to the LORD" 'But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is The City Of The Great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil'" (NASB)

I'm not convinced this verse is necessarily saying it is wrong to make a vow. As I see it there are 3 points made:
1. It's always been taught and considered wrong to take a vow that you don't intend to keep. If you vow - mean it, keep it.
2. It's wrong to vow on things you have no control over. Who are we to make an oath by heaven, Jerusalem, Earth etc...?
3. We shouldn't need to vow anyway. We should always be honest. When we say "yes" or "no" we should mean it. When we say we're going to do something, do it. If we're men and women of our word, always honest and true, what need is there for vows anyway. Instead of focusing purely on keeping a vow, focus on keeping every word that comes from your mouth.

 

[WAB]

I'm not convinced this verse is necessarily saying it is wrong to make a vow. As I see it there are 3 points made:
1. It's always been taught and considered wrong to take a vow that you don't intend to keep. If you vow - mean it, keep it.
2. It's wrong to vow on things you have no control over. Who are we to make an oath by heaven, Jerusalem, Earth etc...?
3. We shouldn't need to vow anyway. We should always be honest. When we say "yes" or "no" we should mean it. When we say we're going to do something, do it. If we're men and women of our word, always honest and true, what need is there for vows anyway. Instead of focusing purely on keeping a vow, focus on keeping every word that comes from your mouth.

Yes, prior to our Lord's statement re vows, it certainly was wrong to make a vow one did not intend to keep, even "...as the ancients were told..."

But... it is difficult for me to imagine plainer words than those He spoke to His hearers in Matt. 5... "...But I say to you, make no oath at all..." or as the NKJ has it...
"But I say to you, do not swear at all..."

You are probably aware that the word "But" is a conjunction of contrast. In other words, our Lord was saying... in contrast to the rules governing vows under
the O.T. I am telling you not to make any kind of a vow at all.

Am aware that words can be twisted to meet a pre-conceived idea or plan, but when our Lord uses such straightforward, plain and unambiguous language, I think it ill advised to violate His command.

Shalom... WAB

 

[Splayd]

I think you misunderstand me WAB.
I'm not suggesting that the verse says we can keep vows. I'm simply trying to address the heart of the message. As I read it - the reason we shouldn't keep vows isn't because vows themselves are necessarily wrong, but because we are wrong not only in the way we use them but to even need them at all.
I think it's important to note the distinction, because if we simply avoid making vows BUT don't mind that we are honest with our words, we haven't achieved anything more than self-righteous affirmation. We pat ourselves on the back for sticking to the word but never address the point of it. To apply the full truth of this message is to be people of our words so we have no need for a vow.

 

[WAB]

I think you misunderstand me WAB.
I'm not suggesting that the verse says we can keep vows. I'm simply trying to address the heart of the message. As I read it - the reason we shouldn't keep vows isn't because vows themselves are necessarily wrong, but because we are wrong not only in the way we use them but to even need them at all.
I think it's important to note the distinction, because if we simply avoid making vows BUT don't mind that we are honest with our words, we haven't achieved anything more than self-righteous affirmation. We pat ourselves on the back for sticking to the word but never address the point of it. To apply the full truth of this message is to be people of our words so we have no need for a vow.

Don't want to be critical, but may I point out that the "heart of the message" is not the reason we should not make vows, but rather that our Lord commanded us not to take vows for any reason.

Shalom... WAB

 

[Splayd]

Don't want to be critical, but may I point out that the "heart of the message" is not the reason we should not make vows, but rather that our Lord commanded us not to take vows for any reason.

Shalom... WAB

Yes you can point that out... but I'll choose to disagree. Let's look at the verse in the context it was delivered.
It's part of a much bigger group of "the ancients said... but I say" type comments. Jesus was addressing our approach to commandments and warning us not to be too lax. Essentially his message about the whole lot is that we miss the point when we focus entirely on the specific law and not on it's purpose. If we treated them like lawyers and decided that because we hadn't actually killed someone, anything else we did to them was irrelevant, we'd missed the whole point, the "why" if you will. Jesus corrects that attitude by stripping the issues down to their central cores. The law says don't kill, I say don't even be angry with your brother. The law says don't commit adultery, I say don't even lust after someone...
If Jesus was directly and deliberately replacing old laws with specific new ones we're in big trouble because this is also where He says:
Mat 5:29 And if your right eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it from you....
Mat 5:30 And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and throw it from you.
I don't know about you but I still have both hands and both eyes, despite the fact they have led me to sin. We aren't meant to disregard the "why's" and just cut off our body bits. Rather we're being called to examine our hearts. It's all about the "why's". That's not to say we shouldn't aspire to the ideal that Jesus presents us with, but if we respond to them legalistically by simply following the letter of the word and disregarding the reasoning, we're guilty of recommiting the very offense that Jesus was trying to address.
If we choose to follow the teaching that we should never keep vows BUT don't also endeavour to be people of our word aren't we doing exactly what this passage was warning us not to do.

 

[WAB]

Yes you can point that out... but I'll choose to disagree. Let's look at the verse in the context it was delivered.
It's part of a much bigger group of "the ancients said... but I say" type comments. Jesus was addressing our approach to commandments and warning us not to be too lax. Essentially his message about the whole lot is that we miss the point when we focus entirely on the specific law and not on it's purpose. If we treated them like lawyers and decided that because we hadn't actually killed someone, anything else we did to them was irrelevant, we'd missed the whole point, the "why" if you will. Jesus corrects that attitude by stripping the issues down to their central cores. The law says don't kill, I say don't even be angry with your brother. The law says don't commit adultery, I say don't even lust after someone...
If Jesus was directly and deliberately replacing old laws with specific new ones we're in big trouble because this is also where He says:
Mat 5:29 And if your right eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it from you....
Mat 5:30 And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and throw it from you.
I don't know about you but I still have both hands and both eyes, despite the fact they have led me to sin. We aren't meant to disregard the "why's" and just cut off our body bits. Rather we're being called to examine our hearts. It's all about the "why's". That's not to say we shouldn't aspire to the ideal that Jesus presents us with, but if we respond to them legalistically by simply following the letter of the word and disregarding the reasoning, we're guilty of recommiting the very offense that Jesus was trying to address.
If we choose to follow the teaching that we should never keep vows BUT don't also endeavour to be people of our word aren't we doing exactly what this passage was warning us not to do.

No, Jesus was definitely not replacing old laws with new ones. Any law that would meet the righteous requirements of a faultless, holy Creator, is by definition, impossible for any man (other than the God/Man, Jesus) to keep.

Won't go through all of the contradictions in your post, but will deal with the one in the last para.... You say... "If we choose to follow the teaching that we should never keep vows..." Who taught that? Certainly not Jesus Christ.

What He said/taught was that we must not make vows in the first place.

I certainly agree that Christians should be "people of our word", but that is not in contradiction to what Jesus taught in the slightest. He said... "...let your yes be yes... and your no, no." And today He might add: and stick to it!

 

[WAB]

No, Jesus was definitely not replacing old laws with new ones. Any law that would meet the righteous requirements of a faultless, holy Creator, is by definition, impossible for any man (other than the God/Man, Jesus) to keep.

And, as Galatians 2:16 puts it... "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified (declared innocent) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

Won't go through all of the contradictions in your post, but will deal with the one in the last para.... You say... "If we choose to follow the teaching that we should never keep vows..." Who taught that? Certainly not Jesus Christ.

What He said/taught was that we must not make vows in the first place.

I certainly agree that Christians should be "people of our word", but that is not in contradiction to what Jesus taught in the slightest. He said... "...let your yes be yes... and your no, no." And today He might add: and stick to it!

Shalom... WAB

 

[Splayd]

Won't go through all of the contradictions in your post, but will deal with the one in the last para.... You say... "If we choose to follow the teaching that we should never keep vows..." Who taught that? Certainly not Jesus Christ.

What He said/taught was that we must not make vows in the first place.

I feel you're arguing for the sake of it. You haven't addressed a single "contradiction" at all. Every point you make gels with mine. All you've done is managed to be pedantic and point out that the word "take" or "make" would be better understood than the word "keep". Perhaps it was a poor grammatical choice, but noone reading my posts could think I suggested the argument was ever about taking vows and not "keeping" them.

I certainly agree that Christians should be "people of our word", but that is not in contradiction to what Jesus taught in the slightest. He said... "...let your yes be yes... and your no, no." And today He might add: and stick to it!

Shalom... WAB

Not for a moment am I suggesting it's a contradiction. I'm actually suggesting the exact opposite. My entire post has said that that IS what Jesus taught.
As I see it WAB there are only 2 possibilities here. You are either misunderstanding me still or you're looking for a debate to win. Either way - I'll leave it there. I don't want to beat you over the head with my understanding nor do I have any ambitions to win a needless debate.