That certainly makes sense, but I don't think that's what most people have in mind when they say those vows, if intent matters.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Bigamist (A lotta fog in Italy)
- Thread starter Palrmine
- Start date
Hey Rustywest4, this is the predicament I find myself in; and you are spot on!
I think it is important to consider wether or not you were frauded into making that vow as vows based on fraud are not binding.
The pastor who preformed my wedding ceremony told me that the vows he had us recite were biblical and that he "would not be comfortable doing the ceremony if I wrote my own vows because they might not be biblical" nowadays I would remove him from the ceremony altogether. Back then I had been taught that the pastor's view on scripture carried an authority that my view did not (another fraud). So there were two frauds that induced me to make those vows.
Also a very significant consideration is that I told the Lord I would follow him wherever he told me to go and do whatever he told me to do well before I made any wedding vows. So my commitment to God precedes my fraud induced recitation of an unbiblical vow and, I believe, voids it.
In less legal wording , if someone tricks you into making a vow based on a false premise I do not believe you are bound by it.
Btw this is my first post here. I am happy to have found these forums, you all sound like serious followers of Christ.
We're happy you found us! As a convention, not a requirement, we appreciate it when newcomers open a thread in the Introductions forum to say hi and tell us a little bit about themselves; take a look and see what you think.
And meanwhile, welcome to the forum!
I'm glad Andrew posted a welcome, because I missed that you were new. As a result, I'll add a friendly "hello!" and a disclaimer that the following post should be seen as more inquisitive than accusative. I'm not trying to scare off the new guy! 
This is confirmed in the following law:
Leviticus 5:4-6. "'Or if anyone swears rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatever it is that a man might utter rashly with an oath, and it is hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty of one of these. It shall be, when he is guilty of one of these, he shall confess that in which he has sinned: and he shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin."
Of course we have forgiveness through the sin offering* of our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, but I don't see Biblical precedent for rash vows to automatically be declared null and void.
(By the way, for this same reason, I have decided to stop saying the pledge of allegiance. I am thankful to God for my country, and obey its laws insofar as they do not contradict God, but I will no longer vow my unconditional future loyalty to a system that does not honor God.)
*Autocorrect tried to change this to "son offering" which would, technically, also be correct.
I'm going to have to question this based on the experience of the Israelites being tricked by the Gibeonites in Joshua 9. God seems to hold them to this covenant later (e.g. 2 Samuel 21) when he sends a famine for Saul's breaking it, and David has to make attonement. Another example would be Isaac being tricked into giving the blessing to Jacob rather than Esau -- no take-backs!
This is confirmed in the following law:
Leviticus 5:4-6. "'Or if anyone swears rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatever it is that a man might utter rashly with an oath, and it is hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty of one of these. It shall be, when he is guilty of one of these, he shall confess that in which he has sinned: and he shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin."
Of course we have forgiveness through the sin offering* of our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, but I don't see Biblical precedent for rash vows to automatically be declared null and void.
(By the way, for this same reason, I have decided to stop saying the pledge of allegiance. I am thankful to God for my country, and obey its laws insofar as they do not contradict God, but I will no longer vow my unconditional future loyalty to a system that does not honor God.)
*Autocorrect tried to change this to "son offering" which would, technically, also be correct.
For further reading: here's the thread where I posted an essay about vows, and the pledge of allegiance.
Vows and covenants are basically a contract. In modern legal parlance were wedding vows treated like any other business contract they might very well be considered unconscionable adhesion contracts and unenforceable. Which is to say, they fall into the class of agreements considered unjust and therefore unenforceable. There is another legal construct they'd likewise fall under but I cannot remember it off the top of my head. (edit: fraudulent inducement, which was already brought up)
Thats not a Biblical argument, but God does care about justice.
Thats not a Biblical argument, but God does care about justice.
Last edited:
I am reading up on your point about 2 Samuel but I don't see fraud in the original inducement to vow.
As far as the the blessing you mentioned I don't think that applies as a blessing is not a vow.
Also the Leviticus reference is very interesting to me. It informs my view in a way I have never seen before. It confirms to me that my unbiblical vow was a sin. Seems obvious now that I read that verse. It also surprises me as it clearly states that the fulfillment of the vow is not what is prescribed to cleanse the sin. Instead the instruction of God is to be cleansed through sacrifice. It is a very clear and applicable verse for this topic. Thank you!
I am not sure if a fraudulently induced vow is ever valid in the same way that a vow founded on truth is. I don't think it is. However it is clearly a sin according to Leviticus and God asks for sacrifice as the remedy (Christ' sacrifice)
As far as the the blessing you mentioned I don't think that applies as a blessing is not a vow.
Also the Leviticus reference is very interesting to me. It informs my view in a way I have never seen before. It confirms to me that my unbiblical vow was a sin. Seems obvious now that I read that verse. It also surprises me as it clearly states that the fulfillment of the vow is not what is prescribed to cleanse the sin. Instead the instruction of God is to be cleansed through sacrifice. It is a very clear and applicable verse for this topic. Thank you!
I am not sure if a fraudulently induced vow is ever valid in the same way that a vow founded on truth is. I don't think it is. However it is clearly a sin according to Leviticus and God asks for sacrifice as the remedy (Christ' sacrifice)
Just so we're on the same page, my understanding of the passage in Leviticus is that the sin spoken of isn't the making of an unbiblical vow (because it could be a good vow) but rather the failure to meet the vow. If for whatever reason, you can't fulfil your vow (good or bad), then you've sinned, and must confess and ask attonement.
As for the Gibeonites, the deception in Joshua 9 was that they pretended to be from a far country (not inhabitants of the land) so that the Israelites would be willing to create an alliance (a type of vow). Even once they realized the false pretenses, the Israelites failed to obey God's command to drive them out of the land, because they had sworn by God that they wouldn't attack them.
One more passage on this:
Ecclesiastes 5:4-6. When you vow a vow to God, don't defer to pay it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which you vow. It is better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay. Don't allow your mouth to lead you into sin [i.e. the sin of not paying a vow]. Don't protest before the messenger that this was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice, and destroy the work of your hands?"
As for the Gibeonites, the deception in Joshua 9 was that they pretended to be from a far country (not inhabitants of the land) so that the Israelites would be willing to create an alliance (a type of vow). Even once they realized the false pretenses, the Israelites failed to obey God's command to drive them out of the land, because they had sworn by God that they wouldn't attack them.
One more passage on this:
Ecclesiastes 5:4-6. When you vow a vow to God, don't defer to pay it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which you vow. It is better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay. Don't allow your mouth to lead you into sin [i.e. the sin of not paying a vow]. Don't protest before the messenger that this was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice, and destroy the work of your hands?"
Fraud requires intent, and I don't think anyone involved in a typical western marriage is intending to fraudulently induce the bride or groom to say what they say. Everybody concerned believes at the time that they are saying the correct and appropriate vows for God-ordained marriage, so the issue would be more one of mutual mistake than deliberate deception. Then the question becomes 'how do you convince your wife it was all just a big mistake?'....
I'm more interested in rockfox's adhesion contract approach. Adhesion contracts are form contracts that are offered to consumers on a "take it or leave it" basis, without any opportunity to negotiate specific terms. Under common law such a contract (or some of its terms) could be found unconscionable (against the conscience, or basically just unreasonable), on the theory that one party is taking advantage of its out-of-proportion bargaining power to dictate terms to the other party.
A couple of problems, though. First, like the fraud allegation, who is the perpetrator here? Is it the woman? Women, generally? The church? Western Civilization? Or is everybody (including whomever officiates) just misguided but otherwise innocent of wrongdoing? Second, these days just about every contract we sign is an adhesion contract, and more and more courts are finding them enforceable more and more of the time. We can't assume that just because a contract is found to be an adhesion contract it will therefore automatically be held to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
So I think we're left with "mutual mistake". When both parties to a contract are mistaken about a material fact, the agreement could be found void or voidable, depending on the kind of mistake.
I have an appointment at 10:00, so I have to jet, but this may have opened up an interesting line of reasoning, or at least I have some observations I'll offer later about what happens to women when they are confronted with this idea that what they thought was the fundamental bargain they were making is all just a big cultural mistake.
I'm more interested in rockfox's adhesion contract approach. Adhesion contracts are form contracts that are offered to consumers on a "take it or leave it" basis, without any opportunity to negotiate specific terms. Under common law such a contract (or some of its terms) could be found unconscionable (against the conscience, or basically just unreasonable), on the theory that one party is taking advantage of its out-of-proportion bargaining power to dictate terms to the other party.
A couple of problems, though. First, like the fraud allegation, who is the perpetrator here? Is it the woman? Women, generally? The church? Western Civilization? Or is everybody (including whomever officiates) just misguided but otherwise innocent of wrongdoing? Second, these days just about every contract we sign is an adhesion contract, and more and more courts are finding them enforceable more and more of the time. We can't assume that just because a contract is found to be an adhesion contract it will therefore automatically be held to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
So I think we're left with "mutual mistake". When both parties to a contract are mistaken about a material fact, the agreement could be found void or voidable, depending on the kind of mistake.
I have an appointment at 10:00, so I have to jet, but this may have opened up an interesting line of reasoning, or at least I have some observations I'll offer later about what happens to women when they are confronted with this idea that what they thought was the fundamental bargain they were making is all just a big cultural mistake.
This is an interesting line of thought. I’m on my phone now so won’t say a lot, but later I’ll try to share a little bit of how we mutually corrected our vows.
When couples make the vows knowing what the vows mean intending on keeping those vows, and later information about other options comes in, how does that void the previous vow? That sounds like buyers remorse to me. Leviticus 27 shows that vows can be changed.....but.... IMHO You can't just nullify a vow to G-d even if it's made hastily, by deception, or lacking knowledge of other options. Wouldn't that be the by definition taking the L-rds name in vain?
This has always been my thinking.
I've run all this (polygyny) by my wife, and she has informally released me from that original vow, but even if she hadn't, it wouldn't change my mind or approach.
I see your point, but most of the weddings I've gone to, very few weren't family, the Vows began Unto G-d do you promise to......Jane Doe...and take Jane Doe as your lawfuly wedded wife.
To me that is a vow to G-d.
Even so I was always taught that "A man always keeps his word no matter what. There's only two things in this world that can't be taken from you. Only you can give them up. Your word and G-d. A man without his word or G-d is nothing." So the way I see it you either keep your word or get released from the vow so you don't break your word.
If I go to buy a house, I look it over, it needs some work but I know its the one I want. The owner says it's being sold as is, no improvements can be made with out authorization from the lean holder, the price is firm and its owner financed with a high interest rate and if I'm buying from him its the only way possible. I choose to buy it and sign a contract. Later I find out that was a very bad discision. I didn't have to accept the as is condition, the other terms, and I could have tried negotiated for a better deal if I wanted too. I can't just say the deal is null and void, I signed a contract. I can go get a loan (at a lower intrest rate) to pay off the balance and be free from the original deal, remodel the house as I see fit and make sure others don't make the same mistake I did.
Last edited:
Apparently your typical and my typical are different; I've never been to a wedding like that. The classic western vows are some version of "I, John, take you, Jane, to be my lawful etc etc". Then she reciprocates. The vows are said to each other--staring into each other's eyes, really--and are promises to each other. They're said in church in front of witnesses, but the language is that of reciprocal covenants between the bride and groom.
I'm not advocating for any man to unilaterally breach his covenant. That's not the point.
Agreements are renegotiated in the light of new information or changed circumstances all the time. So the question becomes, How to approach a situation where the parties have made an agreement, possibly on the basis of a mutual mistake, to determine whether to re-trade the deal or not? How do you determine whether the mistake is mutual or unilateral, and how do men and women process that question differently?
More later.
@Kevin, I'm all in on keeping words, vows, all that. I'm not into relativism usually, either. At some point, though, leaders have to take new information and process it into the circumstances they find themselves in.
Remember when Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath? What come first, allegiance to God, or allegiance to a vow? I view it as chicken or egg thinking.
Remember when Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath? What come first, allegiance to God, or allegiance to a vow? I view it as chicken or egg thinking.