1 Timothy 5:11-12 and lawful oaths/vows

[TryingToLearn]

I recently read 1 Timothy 5:11-12 and I’m having trouble in my mind trying to figure out how to square it with Reformed assumptions about 1) all oaths being qualified and 2) the fact that no man can force a vow of a celibacy upon another. These verses seem to present both of those problems in that it seems that some form of an oath regarding perpetual celibacy was taken as a requirement to be put on the widow’s aid list (“previous pledge”) and also presents the issue of “setting aside” such a previous pledge as being “unto condemnation.” This is hard for me to wrap my head around as, if all vows are qualified, then it’s hard for me to see how a widow would be sinning in marrying since her previous vow would have been implicitly qualified so that were God to call her to marriage, such a vow would not be sinfully broken.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I see no indication of vows or pledges taken in the text. Reading KJV--perhaps you have a different version?
Seems to me there's just a warning about putting people on the church dole who have other means, or for whom the free ride would temt to sin.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I recently read 1 Timothy 5:11-12 and I’m having trouble in my mind trying to figure out how to square it with Reformed assumptions about 1) all oaths being qualified and 2) the fact that no man can force a vow of a celibacy upon another. These verses seem to present both of those problems in that it seems that some form of an oath regarding perpetual celibacy was taken as a requirement to be put on the widow’s aid list (“previous pledge”) and also presents the issue of “setting aside” such a previous pledge as being “unto condemnation.” This is hard for me to wrap my head around as, if all vows are qualified, then it’s hard for me to see how a widow would be sinning in marrying since her previous vow would have been implicitly qualified so that were God to call her to marriage, such a vow would not be sinfully broken.

I would tend to agree with Calvin's interpretation of the phrase ("...for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry having damnation, because they have broken the first faith") in this passage to mean casting off their faith, not breaking a vow of celibacy - that is, expecting those to fulfil a vow of celibacy who are "young women in all the warmth of youthful years... is rash, and even cruel, to lay a snare for those who still are young girls, and who would have been fitter for the married state":

"'To have condemnation,' is interpreted by some as signifying “to deserve reproof.” But I take it to be a statement of greater severity, that Paul terrifies them by the damnation of eternal death; as if he reproved them by saying that that excellent order, which ought rather to have united them to Christ, was the very ground of their condemnation. And the reason is added, that they entirely “revolt from the faith” of baptism and from Christianity. I am aware that there are some who interpret it differently; that is, that they break the pledge which they gave to the Church by marrying, having formerly promised that they would live unmarried till death. This is exceedingly absurd. Besides, why should he call it their first faith?" (v.12, par.1)

"Accordingly, Paul rises to greater vehemence against them, and magnifies the enormity of the offense, by saying that not only would they bring disgrace on Christ and his Church by departing from the condition to which they had agreed, but they likewise broke their “first faith” by wicked revolt. Thus it usually happens, that he who has once transgressed the bounds of modesty gives himself up to all impudence. It grieved him that the levity of those women was a reproach to the godly, and that their lustfulness was reproved, or, at least, was liable to reproof. This led them to proceed to greater and greater degrees of licentiousness, till they renounced Christianity. That amplification is exceedingly appropriate; for is there anything more absurd than that they should, through a wish to promote the advantage of persons, open the door to the denial of Christ?" (v.12, par.2)

Essentially Calvin is saying that requiring young widows to not remarry may lead them to, in rebellion against such a restriction, eventually cast off their Christian faith altogether thus Paul "wished carefully to guard against laying any females under a necessity of remaining unmarried, who felt it to be necessary to have husbands." (v.9, par.3)

 

[TryingToLearn]

Yea, I figured the “abandoned the faith” interpretation might be raised, though I find it extremely improbable as an interpretation. Besides, it skirts past the issue, so for the sake of the question, assume Paul is speaking of a previous “pledge” when he speaks of “first faith”.

In trying to think about it in my own mind: Perhaps it helps to think about it this way: we should understand it not as meaning that a formal oath was violated, but that in agreeing to join the widow’s list, one was implicitly saying “yes, I will receive aid and be committed to serve the church as a widow” but then to change that very quickly would be condemnable although not sinful in itself (Barnes is helpful here a bit and even Gill). So it is not as though they are bound to an absolute oath, but that having implicitly made a sort of vow, to take it away would be imprudent and scandalous. Their sin is instability.

But idk if that is fully satisfactory here. Maybe I should start with the general question: could a church require a vow of perpetual celibacy for any reason?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Maybe I should start with the general question: could a church require a vow of perpetual celibacy for any reason?

I suppose the church might stand in support of the State, if the law should prohibit a known pdphile from marriage where step-children may exist from the beginning, and begetting/birthing new children from the marital relation is a rational expectation. Leave aside any distraction by raising the issue of whether the State should execute such criminals, etc. This is the real world. Such would be a law in protection of the vulnerable, even those who were not yet conceived, for which the church should well consider its role as promoter of the general welfare.

And if the State might prohibit a marriage in this way and for this reason, I have to allow that a church--where it is the only de facto governor of its own membership, while the world runs anarchic riot around it--might be forced to forbid such a person to marry itself, rather than rely on a stable external culture to provide that level of regulation of social norms. Not that the church becomes an institution with penal powers; its sole recourse is as ever, as in the case of the scandalous affair mentioned in 1Cor.6, in excommunication at the extreme. This church situation is one where the pdphile is allowed to live (by the State situation, whatever it is), and he professes faith and contrition for his sin.

It seems patent to me that it would be a sin by the church to encourage the natural delivery of predatory bait into the no-longer safe walls of a parental arrangement. Recidivism is a known danger, and a high probability for this sort of sin, regardless of the purposes of heart. Staying away from known temptations due to known weakness is a biblically advised tactic against falling. Sometimes, higher authority needs to step forward and impose a limit or prohibition with a credible threat of discipline, when self-control is a long way off for a certain sinner. We should hope that the civil power continued in place to imprison or otherwise monitor its own prohibition, freeing the church to focus on the spiritual dimension of the personal problem.

"Perpetual" is the word that might be the least defensible for this scenario. It might be perpetual, in the nature of the case or in case of external legality. But to promise it can never be otherwise (so far as the church's judgment goes) goes beyond what man may declare in this life. If the door remained open for the leper to go and see the priest (in Old Covenant law) no matter how long he languished until healed, then the possibility of lifting church sanction must also remain.

It is folly to imagine the law of marriage is sufficient to restrain or prevent sin, old or new. In some cases pastors should encourage marriage for the curbing of the heat of some lusts; but in other cases pastors (i.e. the church) must stand against marriage proposed as a "solution" or as a fit state for this or that person. And it may be that way for the whole life of some person.

[as an aside, I can also see the church encouraging life-long celibacy for some handicapped persons, often vulnerable to exploitation but in the guise of kindness]

 

[TryingToLearn]

I suppose the church might stand in support of the State, if the law should prohibit a known pdphile from marriage where step-children may exist from the beginning, and begetting/birthing new children from the marital relation is a rational expectation. Leave aside any distraction by raising the issue of whether the State should execute such criminals, etc. This is the real world. Such would be a law in protection of the vulnerable, even those who were not yet conceived, for which the church should well consider its role as promoter of the general welfare.

And if the State might prohibit a marriage in this way and for this reason, I have to allow that a church--where it is the only de facto governor of its own membership, while the world runs anarchic riot around it--might be forced to forbid such a person to marry itself, rather than rely on a stable external culture to provide that level of regulation of social norms. Not that the church becomes an institution with penal powers; its sole recourse is as ever, as in the case of the scandalous affair mentioned in 1Cor.6, in excommunication at the extreme. This church situation is one where the pdphile is allowed to live (by the State situation, whatever it is), and he professes faith and contrition for his sin.

It seems patent to me that it would be a sin by the church to encourage the natural delivery of predatory bait into the no-longer safe walls of a parental arrangement. Recidivism is a known danger, and a high probability for this sort of sin, regardless of the purposes of heart. Staying away from known temptations due to known weakness is a biblically advised tactic against falling. Sometimes, higher authority needs to step forward and impose a limit or prohibition with a credible threat of discipline, when self-control is a long way off for a certain sinner. We should hope that the civil power continued in place to imprison or otherwise monitor its own prohibition, freeing the church to focus on the spiritual dimension of the personal problem.

"Perpetual" is the word that might be the least defensible for this scenario. It might be perpetual, in the nature of the case or in case of external legality. But to promise it can never be otherwise (so far as the church's judgment goes) goes beyond what man may declare in this life. If the door remained open for the leper to go and see the priest (in Old Covenant law) no matter how long he languished until healed, then the possibility of lifting church sanction must also remain.

It is folly to imagine the law of marriage is sufficient to restrain or prevent sin, old or new. In some cases pastors should encourage marriage for the curbing of the heat of some lusts; but in other cases pastors (i.e. the church) must stand against marriage proposed as a "solution" or as a fit state for this or that person. And it may be that way for the whole life of some person.

[as an aside, I can also see the church encouraging life-long celibacy for some handicapped persons, often vulnerable to exploitation but in the guise of kindness]

Yeah that all makes sense. Let me ask this: is it lawful to break an unlawful oath? Like when Luther made a vow of perpetual celibacy, did this make it a sin for him to marry even though the oath itself was clearly imprudent? It seems clear that an oath such as “I will murder this person” is clearly a sin to keep, but with celibacy it seems harder as the thing vowed isn’t intrinsically evil.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Yeah that all makes sense. Let me ask this: is it lawful to break an unlawful oath? Like when Luther made a vow of perpetual celibacy, did this make it a sin for him to marry even though the oath itself was clearly imprudent? It seems clear that an oath such as “I will murder this person” is clearly a sin to keep, but with celibacy it seems harder as the thing vowed isn’t intrinsically evil.

There is a difference between an oath and a vow though they are "of the like nature" (22.5) in that they are making a promise before God. But an oath is an act of swearing that what you assert or promise is true, not an act of giving assent. So I don't believe an oath by its very nature can ever be unlawful if "imposed by lawful authority" (the phrase used in both 22.2&3).

But I understand the WCF to be teaching that a vow is a voluntary promise made "to God alone" for something personal: "in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want" (22.6), for example. An unlawful vow is one that includes "anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise or ability from God." The WCF (22.7) states that: "Popish monastical vows... are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself." An unlawful vow is not binding, but like an oath, because it is a promise made before God, "It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels." (WCF 22.2) This raises a question for those in the US: If you take an oath to tell the whole truth, can you then morally "plead the Fifth"?

 

[Ben Zartman]

There is a difference between an oath and a vow though they are "of the like nature" (22.5) in that they are making a promise before God. But an oath is an act of swearing that what you assert or promise is true, not an act of giving assent. So I don't believe an oath by its very nature can ever be unlawful if "imposed by lawful authority" (the phrase used in both 22.2&3).

But I understand the WCF to be teaching that a vow is a voluntary promise made "to God alone" for something personal: "in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want" (22.6), for example. An unlawful vow is one that includes "anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise or ability from God." The WCF (22.7) states that: "Popish monastical vows... are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself." An unlawful vow is not binding, but like an oath, because it is a promise made before God, "It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels." (WCF 22.2) This raises a question for those in the US: If you take an oath to tell the whole truth, can you then morally "plead the Fifth"?

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the fifth amendment protects you from saying something during arrest and police questioning that may incriminate you, especially if your lawyer is not present to advise. Once in court and sworn in, that protection seems to not exist, or the truth could never be got at. Clamming up during cross-examination would put you in contempt of court.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Once in court and sworn in, that protection seems to not exist, or the truth could never be got at. Clamming up during cross-examination would put you in contempt of court.

I don't believe that is true - "A witness has traditionally been able to claim the privilege in any proceeding whatsoever in which testimony is legally required when his answer might be used against him in that proceeding or in a future criminal proceeding or when it might be exploited to uncover other evidence against him." ( source )

 

[Edward]

Once in court and sworn in, that protection seems to not exist, or the truth could never be got at. Clamming up during cross-examination would put you in contempt of court.

You've got that wrong. And the judge should tell the jury that they can't draw a conclusion based on that assertion of the right. BUT some jurors are going to presume you did whatever you are refusing to deny despite the judge's charge. It's really dangerous for a lawyer to put a defendant on the stand if he's going to take the 5th as to related things. If it's unrelated to the issues of the case, and you think it might come up a motion in limine would probably be a good idea, and a vigorous objection before the client takes the fifth would be the minimum.

The big risk is if the witness says something that opens the door to the line of questioning.

Years ago in Georgia, a criminal defendant couldn't testify under oath in a criminal case, but could offer an unsworn statement to the jury. But that hasn't been on the books for a half century or so.

But bottom line - be honest with your lawyer so he or she can make informed decisions, and follow his or her advice.

 

[Ben Zartman]

So it's an option, but unadvisable. Still, an oath to tell the Whole Truth might bind the conscience of a Christian, who of course should have nothing to hide anyway......
EIther way, I hope I'm never in the witness stand.