On a recent thread, a couple of esteemed colleagues (Doesn't that sound nice? :lol: ) proposed or advocated or asserted that vows are VOWS. And the Bible never tells us that it is ok to break them. And that therefore, if you got married under a vow of monogamy, you are flippin' STUCK, regardless of what God wants to do in your life, until you can get your wife to slip up long enough to release you from said vow. If she then repents of the release, (or perhaps sobers up), Hey! Too bad! The release is binding. You're home free! But until then, you, God, potential sister-wife and her kids -- all at the lady's mercy.
I'm sorry if that seems like a harsh synopsis of the argument, but I believe it to be accurate.
I also believe it to be erroneous, and am opening this thread for further discussion, rather than have it buried at the hindermost end of another thread.
Here is an alternate view of the situation:
First, it is at least a bit more complicated than the above. If we read the rules on vows in Torah (too hurried just now to look the references up but may later), you will find that they ARE subject to being set aside by higher authority.
If a daughter or wife makes a vow, even unto the Lord, her father or husband may set it aside when he hears about it. Is that principle transportable to the next level as well? Can a man make a vow and have Jesus/God, his Head, set it aside immediately? Does God do so when that vow is a wrong vow? At this point, I'll only claim it as an interesting possibility to be developed or discarded as we explore further.
Next, let's look at the topic of vows themselves. A woman is given over to be a witch. Accepts demons inside of her. Enters into a "marriage" with Satan. Then God happens. She gets saved! What is she to do with her vows to serve and be united with the devil?
"Oh! That's DIFFERENT!" Yeah. I agree. But please articulate just HOW it is different! Right!
** There are different kinds of vows.
** Some should be kept.
** Some should be modified or repudiated entirely when their issues are pointed out.
Ok. But how do we differentiate between them? Let's start with an easy principle:
** A vow to do right should be kept.
** A vow to do wrong should be broken, or at least modified so that it can be right.
The Gibeonite issue is one of these latter. It isn't wrong to agree to be at peace with folks. But God had specified that they were not to do so with the people of the land. So it was a wrong vow.
Upon discovering it, they went to their Head for instruction. That is important and plays into the earlier question.
Their Head, being of great mercy and unwilling that any should perish, came up with a solution for this one band of folks in Canaan who were willing to accept the service of God and went to such lengths to obtain mercy. A group who, in Egypt, could have left with the Israelites as part of the "Mixed multitude". But make no mistake, the Gibeonites did not get off scot free. They became perpetual hereditary servants. They did not remain an independent nation with their own gods and laws, etc. They got to live. And tote and fetch. The vow was kept -- BUT IN MODIFIED FORM. That is crucial to our understanding.
Going further in scripture, we find verses to the effect of Blessed is the man who fulfills a vow made even though that vow turns out to be to his own "hurt" or loss. Let's see if we can describe this in terms of a principle.
** A vow to do right, even if it turns out to be unprofitable to oneself, should be kept.
Ok. How about other variations? To shorten this, I'll come up with a few and my own conclusions about each.
** A vow to do wrong, hurting someone else. Should be broken due to the first clause.
** A vow to do wrong, hurting ourselves. Same thing.
** A vow to do wrong, hoping to profit either ourselves or someone else. Still can't get past the first clause. Must be repudiated.
** A vow to do that which is morally right and has been commanded, regardless of how others perceive it. Must be kept. Regardless of cost.
** A vow to do something morally neutral, (eg. walk a mile every day for a month, walk your sick neighbor's dog until they are well) which is good for yourself or others, should be kept. Though sometimes honorable escape clauses are built in, such as on a 2-year Verizon phone contract -- you just pay the penalty for early termination.
Now here's an interesting one ...
** A vow to do something neutral or good on the surface, which harms someone else -- particularly someone not party to the contract. I maintain that upon discovering the ramifications, this one should be broken.
There's even a Biblical example. This dude Jephthah says in Judges, "God, if you will give me victory, when I get home, I'll sacrifice the first living thing that comes out to greet me." Perhaps he was thinking of his dog, Old Yaller, who was gettin' long in the tooth anyway. I dunno. But he succeeds, goes home, and his DAUGHTER comes out first. "Daddy! You're HOME! Yippee! Uh... Why are you crying?" Dude doesn't say, "God, what am I supposed to do? You've instructed us NOT to sacrifice our kids. Shall I redeem her somehow? At what rate?" Nope. He's honorable, by gumm. Keeps his vows! Yessirree! He sacrifices his daughter.
My dad taught that this showed the importance of keeping vows no matter what. My uncle taught that this showed the fallacy of that view. I agree with my uncle. Jephthah blew it. And got it recorded for posterity.
Which brings us to the "traditional" marriage vow. "Keeping yourself only to her, so long as ye both shall live." That's the rub on this whole PM thing.
It SOUNDS good. And therefore as though it should be kept. And wives do like to argue that the only reason a man could possibly want PM is so that he can get a little sumpin' sumpin' on the side, so forgoing that is merely doing good but to his own hurt, so "Gotcha! Not unless I let ya! An' it AIN'T HAPPENING, Buddy. So settle down and get to work providing better for just ME!" Can't really blame 'em. They don't perceive the profit to themselves in PM, and think they've been given this authority.
But is this accurate? Please note that the vow does NOT promise to stay available, and keep communication open, and live together. You could conceivably go your separate ways and still remain true to this vow, so long as you don't hook up with someone else. This vow doesn't really say anything about your relationship with her. It only limits your relationship with someone else!
In fact, I think that there are three issues with this phrase which make it actively wrong, immoral, and not to be kept in its present form. Please hear me out.
First, it pre-states a future response to God as "No!" How so? Proverbs tells us that wives are a gift from God. The gift of a wife is a transaction occurring at some level between God and the man. By making this vow, the man promises that if God attempts such a thing, he will say "No." Do we really wanna put God on notice that we'll tell Him No? Really? Is it right to do so? What if we change our minds? How is that any different than the witch who gets saved?
Second, this vow seems to say that it is made to the wife-of-the-moment, and only she can release the man from it. Referring back to the the previous issue, this gives her authority to veto a transaction between God and her husband. In other words, it sets her authority higher than God's. This contradicts the first Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods (authorities) before (higher than, in advanced placement over) Me." Immoral. MUST be repudiated, though our colleagues who think that dispensations give them a pass on the 4th commandment might take a pass on this one as well.
Thirdly, is it merely swearing to the man's own hurt? He doesn't get a little sumpin' sumpin' on the side? Huh? *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*? Or does it actively hurt someone else? We in this particular movement of PM (as opposed to mormon or moslem versions) talk about one of the main justifications and needs for it arising from the demographics, and the numbers of single women, many of them moms, in need of husbands. Does refusing to step up and provide what is needed, a husband and a father, actively hurt / damage whoever God might have otherwise placed in your care? Does it? (If your answer is "No", then your first issue is to go to God and ask Him to make you into a man whom He can safely entrust with the hearts of His daughters. Once He does so, the answer jolly well SHOULD change to "Yes".) Do you have a right to vow to one person to please them by damaging another? Or is that a vow which should be repudiated as wrong? I vote for the latter.
IF you've had the intestinal fortitude, or were bored enough (*grin*) to stick with me this far, I hope you will see that there's a pretty strong argument to be made that this is an immoral vow on its face, however well intentioned.
If that is the case, men, is it entirely possible that our Head, upon hearing that we have ignorantly made such an immoral vow, may have simply said, "I disallow that vow. Got other plans for him. It is NOT to be chalked up as binding."? I maintain that He does and has, and that these vows fall under the classification of those which should be repudiated.
I believe that I understand the heart and intent of the vow, or at least perceive what that intent should be. So with my first wife, when coming to this realization years ago, I went to her, explained the situation as best I could, and told her that I was modifying my vow of approx 20 years previously to say, "I will love, honor, and cherish you, in sickness and in health, in prosperity and adversity, keeping myself open and available to you, so long as we both shall live."
Women, have any issues of your man closing up or becoming physically or emotionally unavailable? Is this a more desirable version? One which speaks to how your man intends to meet your needs, rather than concentrating on what he'll do in other of his responsibilities, which are really not your business and certainly not the issue in your wedding? Then why not ASK him to change?
-- End of Verbal Flood -- :lol:
I'm sorry if that seems like a harsh synopsis of the argument, but I believe it to be accurate.
I also believe it to be erroneous, and am opening this thread for further discussion, rather than have it buried at the hindermost end of another thread.
Here is an alternate view of the situation:
First, it is at least a bit more complicated than the above. If we read the rules on vows in Torah (too hurried just now to look the references up but may later), you will find that they ARE subject to being set aside by higher authority.
If a daughter or wife makes a vow, even unto the Lord, her father or husband may set it aside when he hears about it. Is that principle transportable to the next level as well? Can a man make a vow and have Jesus/God, his Head, set it aside immediately? Does God do so when that vow is a wrong vow? At this point, I'll only claim it as an interesting possibility to be developed or discarded as we explore further.
Next, let's look at the topic of vows themselves. A woman is given over to be a witch. Accepts demons inside of her. Enters into a "marriage" with Satan. Then God happens. She gets saved! What is she to do with her vows to serve and be united with the devil?
"Oh! That's DIFFERENT!" Yeah. I agree. But please articulate just HOW it is different! Right!
** There are different kinds of vows.
** Some should be kept.
** Some should be modified or repudiated entirely when their issues are pointed out.
Ok. But how do we differentiate between them? Let's start with an easy principle:
** A vow to do right should be kept.
** A vow to do wrong should be broken, or at least modified so that it can be right.
The Gibeonite issue is one of these latter. It isn't wrong to agree to be at peace with folks. But God had specified that they were not to do so with the people of the land. So it was a wrong vow.
Upon discovering it, they went to their Head for instruction. That is important and plays into the earlier question.
Their Head, being of great mercy and unwilling that any should perish, came up with a solution for this one band of folks in Canaan who were willing to accept the service of God and went to such lengths to obtain mercy. A group who, in Egypt, could have left with the Israelites as part of the "Mixed multitude". But make no mistake, the Gibeonites did not get off scot free. They became perpetual hereditary servants. They did not remain an independent nation with their own gods and laws, etc. They got to live. And tote and fetch. The vow was kept -- BUT IN MODIFIED FORM. That is crucial to our understanding.
Going further in scripture, we find verses to the effect of Blessed is the man who fulfills a vow made even though that vow turns out to be to his own "hurt" or loss. Let's see if we can describe this in terms of a principle.
** A vow to do right, even if it turns out to be unprofitable to oneself, should be kept.
Ok. How about other variations? To shorten this, I'll come up with a few and my own conclusions about each.
** A vow to do wrong, hurting someone else. Should be broken due to the first clause.
** A vow to do wrong, hurting ourselves. Same thing.
** A vow to do wrong, hoping to profit either ourselves or someone else. Still can't get past the first clause. Must be repudiated.
** A vow to do that which is morally right and has been commanded, regardless of how others perceive it. Must be kept. Regardless of cost.
** A vow to do something morally neutral, (eg. walk a mile every day for a month, walk your sick neighbor's dog until they are well) which is good for yourself or others, should be kept. Though sometimes honorable escape clauses are built in, such as on a 2-year Verizon phone contract -- you just pay the penalty for early termination.
Now here's an interesting one ...
** A vow to do something neutral or good on the surface, which harms someone else -- particularly someone not party to the contract. I maintain that upon discovering the ramifications, this one should be broken.
There's even a Biblical example. This dude Jephthah says in Judges, "God, if you will give me victory, when I get home, I'll sacrifice the first living thing that comes out to greet me." Perhaps he was thinking of his dog, Old Yaller, who was gettin' long in the tooth anyway. I dunno. But he succeeds, goes home, and his DAUGHTER comes out first. "Daddy! You're HOME! Yippee! Uh... Why are you crying?" Dude doesn't say, "God, what am I supposed to do? You've instructed us NOT to sacrifice our kids. Shall I redeem her somehow? At what rate?" Nope. He's honorable, by gumm. Keeps his vows! Yessirree! He sacrifices his daughter.
My dad taught that this showed the importance of keeping vows no matter what. My uncle taught that this showed the fallacy of that view. I agree with my uncle. Jephthah blew it. And got it recorded for posterity.
Which brings us to the "traditional" marriage vow. "Keeping yourself only to her, so long as ye both shall live." That's the rub on this whole PM thing.
It SOUNDS good. And therefore as though it should be kept. And wives do like to argue that the only reason a man could possibly want PM is so that he can get a little sumpin' sumpin' on the side, so forgoing that is merely doing good but to his own hurt, so "Gotcha! Not unless I let ya! An' it AIN'T HAPPENING, Buddy. So settle down and get to work providing better for just ME!" Can't really blame 'em. They don't perceive the profit to themselves in PM, and think they've been given this authority.
But is this accurate? Please note that the vow does NOT promise to stay available, and keep communication open, and live together. You could conceivably go your separate ways and still remain true to this vow, so long as you don't hook up with someone else. This vow doesn't really say anything about your relationship with her. It only limits your relationship with someone else!
In fact, I think that there are three issues with this phrase which make it actively wrong, immoral, and not to be kept in its present form. Please hear me out.
First, it pre-states a future response to God as "No!" How so? Proverbs tells us that wives are a gift from God. The gift of a wife is a transaction occurring at some level between God and the man. By making this vow, the man promises that if God attempts such a thing, he will say "No." Do we really wanna put God on notice that we'll tell Him No? Really? Is it right to do so? What if we change our minds? How is that any different than the witch who gets saved?
Second, this vow seems to say that it is made to the wife-of-the-moment, and only she can release the man from it. Referring back to the the previous issue, this gives her authority to veto a transaction between God and her husband. In other words, it sets her authority higher than God's. This contradicts the first Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods (authorities) before (higher than, in advanced placement over) Me." Immoral. MUST be repudiated, though our colleagues who think that dispensations give them a pass on the 4th commandment might take a pass on this one as well.
Thirdly, is it merely swearing to the man's own hurt? He doesn't get a little sumpin' sumpin' on the side? Huh? *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*? Or does it actively hurt someone else? We in this particular movement of PM (as opposed to mormon or moslem versions) talk about one of the main justifications and needs for it arising from the demographics, and the numbers of single women, many of them moms, in need of husbands. Does refusing to step up and provide what is needed, a husband and a father, actively hurt / damage whoever God might have otherwise placed in your care? Does it? (If your answer is "No", then your first issue is to go to God and ask Him to make you into a man whom He can safely entrust with the hearts of His daughters. Once He does so, the answer jolly well SHOULD change to "Yes".) Do you have a right to vow to one person to please them by damaging another? Or is that a vow which should be repudiated as wrong? I vote for the latter.
IF you've had the intestinal fortitude, or were bored enough (*grin*) to stick with me this far, I hope you will see that there's a pretty strong argument to be made that this is an immoral vow on its face, however well intentioned.
If that is the case, men, is it entirely possible that our Head, upon hearing that we have ignorantly made such an immoral vow, may have simply said, "I disallow that vow. Got other plans for him. It is NOT to be chalked up as binding."? I maintain that He does and has, and that these vows fall under the classification of those which should be repudiated.
I believe that I understand the heart and intent of the vow, or at least perceive what that intent should be. So with my first wife, when coming to this realization years ago, I went to her, explained the situation as best I could, and told her that I was modifying my vow of approx 20 years previously to say, "I will love, honor, and cherish you, in sickness and in health, in prosperity and adversity, keeping myself open and available to you, so long as we both shall live."
Women, have any issues of your man closing up or becoming physically or emotionally unavailable? Is this a more desirable version? One which speaks to how your man intends to meet your needs, rather than concentrating on what he'll do in other of his responsibilities, which are really not your business and certainly not the issue in your wedding? Then why not ASK him to change?
-- End of Verbal Flood -- :lol:
Sadly, I dunno what all that is. I'm more of a bar-room or play-pen floor theorist. I hope that's kinda like a "garden theologian", which I perceive Christ to be. Leastwise, He was always trying to make it easy for us bemused simple dudes to understand by talking about sheep and gardens and orchards and walls and parties ... So I'm not sure if I'm addressing your question quite right, but here is what I THINK is the answer to what I THINK you may have asked. (No insult is intended. Simply self-revelation. I simply don't know that stuff.)
*sigh*
)