# The binding power of a vow made by my ancestors



## pgwolv (Dec 14, 2021)

I am a South African, and some of my ancestors were definitely involved in the Groot Trek. They made a vow to God that they would set aside one day in the year as a special Sabbath to Him if He gave them victory in a certain battle. He did. For context, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Vow. If you need more context, I will see if I can find it.

Apparently we do not have the original copy of the vow anymore. So question 1) is, does it make a difference on the applicability of the vow to me if I cannot be 100% sure of the wording. 

Then, the wording as we have it today, translated into English from Afrikaans, is:



> We stand here before the Holy God of heaven and earth, to make a vow to Him that, if He will protect us and give our enemy into our hand, we shall keep this day and date every year as a day of thanksgiving like a sabbath, and that we shall build a house to His honour wherever it should please Him, and that we will also tell our children that they should share in that with us in memory for future generations. For the honour of His name will be glorified by giving Him the fame and honour for the victory.



I have a couple of questions with regards to this (I am Afrikaans, so I will make sure that nothing has been lost in translation).

2) Is such a vow legitimate for a Christian, binding generations to come? I know that, in the OT, there are such examples, but I am not sure to what extent this is applicable today. I had a quick look in the LBCF 1689, but did not immediately see a reference to such types of vows. Did I overlook it, or do the WCF or the catechisms perhaps address it. Is it a matter of conscience? (I know this is a multilayered question.)

3) Does "tell our children that they should share in that with us in memory for future generations" for all intents and purposes amount to "our children will keep this day"? I don't want to be nitpicking.

Your insights will be appreciated. It is difficult to get a non-emotional response in South Africa, because of cultural bias and the history of my country, etc.

EDIT: As a last point for now, should I not worry about the details and focus on the last sentence: "For the honour of His name will be glorified by giving Him the fame and honour for the victory"? It might help to not let a weaker Afrikaner brother stumble.


----------



## JH (Dec 14, 2021)

If memory is serving me correctly, the London omits the paragraph/clause wherein the Westminster teaches that vows and oaths are considered binding if not sinful. (i.e. Papist vows of celibacy, Jephthah's vow, etc.)
Edit: See the chapters compared on Lawful Oaths and Vows, paragraph 4 specifically: https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

But as for this case (to give the little that I have to offer) High Sabbaths/peculiar feasts would occur every so often in the Old Covenant (annually, once every seven years, etc.); but I do not find it necessary nor expedient to set apart one Sabbath in 52 as more special/sacred than the others, it just seems akin to holydays to me.

As for Covenants of out forefathers (natural or spiritual) being binding upon us, someone else will have to chime in. I'm sure the Scottish Reformed on this board would have an actual theology behind this concept, and whether or not it's biblical.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 14, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> But as for this case (to give the little that I have to offer) High Sabbaths/peculiar feasts would occur every so often in the Old Covenant (annually, once every seven years, etc.); but I do not find it necessary nor expedient to set apart one Sabbath in 52 as more special/sacred than the others, it just seems akin to holydays to me.


The date is the 16th of December irrespective of the day of the week.

Thanks for the other input, I'll look at the link a bit later on.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 14, 2021)

The wording seems to me to indicate that they bound themselves to encourage their posterity to remember the day, but did not bind their progeny. Whether that was because they thought they could and decided not to, or didn't think they had that authority, I wouldn't know how to determine. But given the English translation cited, I would think this is a matter of the 5th Commandment, respect for parents, rather than the third, the honor of God's name.


----------



## chuckd (Dec 14, 2021)

The wording sounds like they are vowing to do it and to tell their children they should too. It is binding on them, but not their children.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 14, 2021)

I utterly and completely reject as absurd that anyone other than the nation of Israel, and them only because of the unique covenantal situation in which they found themselves, can *bind* their descendants in perpetuity to do or not do something. Not everything is a covenantal entity in God's eyes. (Which is to say, most things are not!) Breathe the free air, my friend. Of course, if in your freedom you wish to participate in an activity that makes you feel connected to your ancestors, then by so means do so and enjoy!

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 14, 2021)

The guilt or the convictions of my ancestors are theirs alone. I do not believe even "Covenanting" is possible since no nation is a civil state like unto Old Testament Israel any longer. I may profit or suffer due to their decisions, but I am not guilty for their sins nor responsible to fulfill their own vows. 

I know the Jews said, "May His blood be upon us and upon our children" when they were crucifying Christ and many believe this is why the Jews have suffered throughout history after they killed the Christ...this came to pass in 70 ad and even beyond through many persecutions, but I take this as a prophesy and not a blood curse or vow. 

I do believe personal vows are meaningful, though, in the lifetime of the vow-er. We can swear personal allegiances and loyalties or swear to abide by some principle or commit some action...but even in this we should be very careful. I do believe God honors many of these personal vows.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 14, 2021)

I wouldn't worry about it. _Their_ vows are _their_ problem, not yours.


----------



## Claudiu (Dec 14, 2021)

Serious question (I haven't studied this topic) for those saying that vows only applied to Israel in the OT: 

For the vows that implicated Israel and other nations: were the other nations that entered into the vow or agreement with Israel only bound because it was with OT Israel? That is, because Israel could enter into covenants and vows, then those other nations were bound only in virtue of Israel's standing? Now with OT Israel gone, so is any possibility of vows, etc.

If so, that means if those other nations vowed or covenanted with any nation other than Israel it wouldn't have been valid?


----------



## De Jager (Dec 14, 2021)

It's clear most don't like the idea of being bound by a covenant made by their ancestors. But that better not be our reason for rejecting the concept entirely.

From scripture, what would be the reasons why we would reject this concept? We can find examples in scripture of it, and it seems as though rebuttals like "we're not Israel" do not really address the concept itself, that is the bare concept of covenanting and obligating our progeny. The fact that we are not the nation state of Israel would, no doubt restrict the _content_ of any covenants we may make, but does it eliminate the practice altogether? I am not convinced by that argument but am open to hearing more.

Somewhat related to this topic, I am of the opinion that what we do or say has a much bigger effect on future generations than we think (or want to think). However in today's society, most don't really care what their parents (or grandparents) though was important, and very few think of their children or children's children. That is a product of our western individualism. Go to other cultures and they don't operate in that way. It seems to me that the scriptures present a generational focus (Exodus 20:5-6).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 14, 2021)

De Jager said:


> It's clear most don't like the idea of being bound by a covenant made by their ancestors. But that better not be our reason for rejecting the concept entirely.
> 
> From scripture, what would be the reasons why we would reject this concept? We can find examples in scripture of it, and it seems as though rebuttals like "we're not Israel" do not really address the concept itself, that is the bare concept of covenanting and obligating our progeny. The fact that we are not the nation state of Israel would, no doubt restrict the _content_ of any covenants we may make, but does it eliminate the practice altogether? I am not convinced by that argument but am open to hearing more.
> 
> Somewhat related to this topic, I am of the opinion that what we do or say has a much bigger effect on future generations than we think (or want to think). However in today's society, most don't really care what their parents (or grandparents) though was important, and very few think of their children or children's children. That is a product of our western individualism. Go to other cultures and they don't operate in that way. It seems to me that the scriptures present a generational focus (Exodus 20:5-6).


When the Church was joined to the Civil State of Israel during the Old Testament, sure....there is a generational focus because the seedline of Messiah must be protected. But not now.

Remember that polygamy was even COMMANDED to preserve this seedline because it was a priority. Now Messiah has come and the Church is not joined to the Civil State. This fundamentally changes the way we think of church/family. For instance, the Family-Integrated folks speak of church as being "a family of families" but it is simply not true. In similar fashion, the Old Testament saints were very patriarchal as fitting for the time. Jesus says to forsake mother and father for him. 

Along with the continuity between the OT and NT, we must not forget the discontinuities as well. We are simply not "generational" in the same way as the OT patriarchs were.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

py3ak said:


> But given the English translation cited, I would think this is a matter of the 5th Commandment, respect for parents, rather than the third, the honor of God's name.


Do you mean it would have been a 5th Commandment issue to their own children? Or does the 5th Commandment require me to honour my ancestors?


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I utterly and completely reject as absurd that anyone other than the nation of Israel, and them only because of the unique covenantal situation in which they found themselves, can *bind* their descendants in perpetuity to do or not do something. Not everything is a covenantal entity in God's eyes. (Which is to say, most things are not!) Breathe the free air, my friend. Of course, if in your freedom you wish to participate in an activity that makes you feel connected to your ancestors, then by so means do so and enjoy!


These have been my thoughts on the matter, but I want to make sure they are Biblically justified.

Somewhere along their 350-year history, it seems that the Afrikaners started seeing themselves as a new manifestation of the nation state of Israel. It may be because their culture was infused with a deep awareness of their dependence on God. They were largely Calvinistic, including e.g the Huguenots. A portion of them moved away from under the hand of the British Oppressor, which may have felt like the Exodus. They moved north to fertile lands that they felt God gave to them, a kind of land of milk and honey. They had vast success.

Unfortunately, it seems that, over time, culture and heritage became more important to most than faith. It saddens me. I am an Afrikaner by heritage, but I feel culturally detached from most of my fellow Afrikaners, because, to me, there is neither Jew nor Greek, whereas many Afrikaners here still feel they have to be kept pure as a nation.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> Do you mean it would have been a 5th Commandment issue to their own children? Or does the 5th Commandment require me to honour my ancestors?


Both.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

De Jager said:


> It's clear most don't like the idea of being bound by a covenant made by their ancestors. But that better not be our reason for rejecting the concept entirely.


Exactly; I want to base my reasons on Scripture. I would love for someone with a better understanding of the nature of Christian vows to respond.


De Jager said:


> Somewhat related to this topic, I am of the opinion that what we do or say has a much bigger effect on future generations than we think (or want to think). However in today's society, most don't really care what their parents (or grandparents) though was important, and very few think of their children or children's children. That is a product of our western individualism. Go to other cultures and they don't operate in that way. It seems to me that the scriptures present a generational focus (Exodus 20:5-6).


Thanks for the insight; I am in agreement. I may be biased by Western culture to reject the Vow. I want to make sure my conscience is aligned with Scripture, not culture.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Now Messiah has come and the Church is not joined to the Civil State. This fundamentally changes the way we think of church/family.


At the point when that vow was made, the Church and Civil State (as it was) were joined, irrespective of whether it should have been. 



> Jesus says to forsake mother and father for him.


Exactly, whereas the emphasis is the wrong way around in this case.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

py3ak said:


> Both.


Would you please help me understand how the 5th Commandment extends to my ancestors? This may help with the questions I have.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 15, 2021)

We honor not just our immediate parents, but remoter ancestors. For instance, within the household of faith we are grateful for Abraham, and we imitate his faith, as well as that of the human instruments through whom we were begotten in the Gospel. 

Obviously this is not absolute: we can recognize that there is a vain tradition passed on from forebears. But consider Psalm 78; the value of tradition is that we should do better than the preceding generation. And so it is our responsibility to value and conserve what is good in our inheritance, and seek to improve on what we leave for those who come next. Gratitude, as well as respect, call upon us to have some regard and deference for ancient landmarks, familiar and cultural as well as spiritual and literal.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> At the point when that vow was made, the Church and Civil State (as it was) were joined, irrespective of whether it should have been.
> 
> 
> Exactly, whereas the emphasis is the wrong way around in this case.


If you make a marital-type vow to a woman who is not your wife, that vow is not valid bc you are not married ....no matter how fervently you vow it. Same thing with the covenanters and any other religious zealots out there making vows on behalf of their offspring. That is not how church and state works now. Not valid.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> If you make a marital-type vow to a woman who is not your wife, that vow is not valid bc you are not married ....no matter how fervently you vow it. Same thing with the covenanters and any other religious zealots out there making vows on behalf of their offspring. That is not how church and state works now. Not valid.


Sorry, this analogy is not helping. They made a descendant-type vow, and I am one of their descendants.

I think we believe the same thing, but I am looking for justification for this belief. My conscience seems to be telling me that it is not binding, but why is this? What scriptural basis is there for such vows only being valid in OT Israel?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> Sorry, this analogy is not helping. They made a descendant-type vow, and I am one of their descendants.
> 
> I think we believe the same thing, but I am looking for justification for this belief. My conscience seems to be telling me that it is not binding, but why is this? What scriptural basis is there for such vows only being valid in OT Israel?


You cannot take vows for another person. Seems simple to me. 

You can do such things as vow to raise up your children in the Lord, but your children might not cooperate. If you make someone vow something biblical, what have you added? It is already biblical. And if you make someone vow something unbiblical then there is no obligation to obey it. So what advantage is it to vow for any other but yourself?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> You cannot take vows for another person. Seems simple to me.


1 Samuel 1: "11 And she vowed a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.”

Judges 11: "36 And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.”

These are at least two examples, although they may differ in substance from the Afrikaners' vow. I would like to know, is it the wording of the vows that make the difference, or the way in which God deals with the Church since Christ came? And why?


Pergamum said:


> If you make someone vow something biblical, what have you added? It is already biblical.


Yes, but you are bound to it. I think, however, that Jesus showed us that, as you say, vows do not add value, and that your "yes" and "no" should be reliable.


Pergamum said:


> So what advantage is it to vow for any other but yourself?


I don't know. Regardless, I am still looking for Biblical guidance on the validity such a vow in today's time.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> 1 Samuel 1: "11 And she vowed a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.”
> 
> Judges 11: "36 And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.”
> 
> ...


A vow cannot be coerced. It must be voluntary. The authorities tried to get the Apostles to promise not to preach but they obeyed God rather than man. The only vows I remember from Scripture are people vowing for themselves...but not for others. Can you remember any vow for another which obligated them? The Gibeonites maybe? I need to review the details on that one. As a group the Gibeonites saved their bacon by deceit and yet Israel honored their vow not to kill them and had to stick to it. Is that correct? How does that example apply today and does it support the Boers' vow?


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Can you remember any vow for another which obligated them?


What about the two examples I cited?



pgwolv said:


> 1 Samuel 1: "11 And she vowed a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.”
> 
> Judges 11: "36 And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.”


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 15, 2021)

PG, the vow includes two things God doesn't want His people to do: make new holidays that are conscience-binding, and build temples. Regardless of where they meet--cathedral, schoolhouse, mud hut, God's assembled people are His dwelling place. There is no building or place or monument that we can build that is better or closer to God than any other--His special presence is vouchsafed to the assembly of His people on His Sabbath, and to erect a building as a religious exercise becomes idolatry. Your ancestors had bad theology in that they tried to mimic ancient Israel when we're under the New Covenant: the vow cannot bind your conscience.
You are free to keep it as a national holiday, for culture's sake, and to acknowledge God's sovereignty in their victory, but to bind your conscience to something not in Scripture is to misunderstand your freedom in Christ from the rudiments of men.
What if my ancestors had vowed that every Christmas all their descendants would make a pilgrimage to Bethlehem, implying that it would be a sin if they didn't? Wouldn't it be ridiculous if I bound myself to that? How is this different?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

Ben Zartman said:


> PG, the vow includes two things God doesn't want His people to do: make new holidays that are conscience-binding


Please just direct me to Scripture and/or the LBCF for this; it sounds correct, but I cannot immediately place my finger on it.


Ben Zartman said:


> To erect a building as a religious exercise becomes idolatry.


Please explain how it is idolatrous, in the context of the Voortrekker Monument. Note that it is not seen as a temple that contains the special presence of God, but a monument commemorating the victory and the vow (although the original intention might have differed, as it was built approximately a century after the vow).


Ben Zartman said:


> Your ancestors had bad theology in that they tried to mimic ancient Israel


I agree wholeheartedly


Ben Zartman said:


> when we're under the New Covenant: the vow cannot bind your conscience.


Yes, but why?


Ben Zartman said:


> What if my ancestors had vowed that every Christmas all their descendants would make a pilgrimage to Bethlehem, implying that it would be a sin if they didn't? Wouldn't it be ridiculous if I bound myself to that? How is this different?


The analogy holds; I'm just trying to understand why I am also inclined to feel this way. Perhaps it is because we hold to Covenant Theology? I would say the majority of Afrikaners that are both vary proud of their heritage and religious are Dispensational.


----------



## De Jager (Dec 15, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> *When the Church was joined to the Civil State of Israel during the Old Testament, sure....there is a generational focus because the seedline of Messiah must be protected. But not now.*
> 
> Remember that polygamy was even COMMANDED to preserve this seedline because it was a priority. Now Messiah has come and the Church is not joined to the Civil State. This fundamentally changes the way we think of church/family. For instance, the Family-Integrated folks speak of church as being "a family of families" but it is simply not true. In similar fashion, the Old Testament saints were very patriarchal as fitting for the time. Jesus says to forsake mother and father for him.
> 
> Along with the continuity between the OT and NT, we must not forget the discontinuities as well. We are simply not "generational" in the same way as the OT patriarchs were.



I believe you are making a hard distinction where there is not one. The generational focus of the scriptures in the old testament continues today because it was not rescinded. Just because it's the NT era does not mean that the whole true religion of the Jews is replaced by rugged individualism. Yes, God is no longer preserving a physical line for the Messiah. But also yes, parents are still to instruct their children in the way, and what we do still affects our ancestors. These principles still apply even though the nation-state of Israel no longer exists. The very commands to instruct our children are rooted and grounded in what God told Israel.

Please note that with this argumentation I am not saying that the practice of making vows before God (and obligating our descendants) should continue, but rather I am pushing back against the line of thinking presented that goes into why this practice should be rejected. This line of thinking is essentially "we're in the new covenant - therefore the topic is N/A". I just don't buy that, as it seems as though this is the typical type of response that many use when they want to avoid something they don't like (like for example, the Sabbath).


----------



## De Jager (Dec 15, 2021)

Ben Zartman said:


> PG, the vow includes two things God doesn't want His people to do: make new holidays that are conscience-binding, and build temples. Regardless of where they meet--cathedral, schoolhouse, mud hut, God's assembled people are His dwelling place. There is no building or place or monument that we can build that is better or closer to God than any other--His special presence is vouchsafed to the assembly of His people on His Sabbath, and to erect a building as a religious exercise becomes idolatry. Your ancestors had bad theology in that they tried to mimic ancient Israel when we're under the New Covenant: the vow cannot bind your conscience.
> You are free to keep it as a national holiday, for culture's sake, and to acknowledge God's sovereignty in their victory, but to bind your conscience to something not in Scripture is to misunderstand your freedom in Christ from the rudiments of men.
> *What if my ancestors had vowed that every Christmas all their descendants would make a pilgrimage to Bethlehem, implying that it would be a sin if they didn't? Wouldn't it be ridiculous if I bound myself to that? How is this different?*


This is more of a line of argumentation that I am willing to accept - i.e. that you cannot bind someone else's conscience - only God can do that. I am willing to buy that.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

De Jager said:


> what we do still affects our ancestors


 This typo made me laugh.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> What about the two examples I cited?


These were both oaths pertaining to themselves right? Not a vow binding a third party.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> Please just direct me to Scripture and/or the LBCF for this; it sounds correct, but I cannot immediately place my finger on it.
> 
> Please explain how it is idolatrous, in the context of the Voortrekker Monument. Note that it is not seen as a temple that contains the special presence of God, but a monument commemorating the victory and the vow (although the original intention might have differed, as it was built approximately a century after the vow).
> 
> ...


I would suggest ethnic pride motivates you. To have admirable ancestors who did great things motivates you to follow them.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> These were both oaths pertaining to themselves right? Not a vow binding a third party.


Samuel was bound to the service of God, and Jephthah's daughter indicated that she was bound.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> I would suggest ethnic pride motivates you. To have admirable ancestors who did great things motivates you to follow them.


Just to be clear, this "you" is not referring to me. I do not feel bound to the vow. I see a lot of ethnic pride around me and always emphasize that such distinctions taken too far are counter to Christians' directions in the NT.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2021)

De Jager said:


> I believe you are making a hard distinction where there is not one. The generational focus of the scriptures in the old testament continues today because it was not rescinded. Just because it's the NT era does not mean that the whole true religion of the Jews is replaced by rugged individualism. Yes, God is no longer preserving a physical line for the Messiah. But also yes, parents are still to instruct their children in the way, and what we do still affects our ancestors. These principles still apply even though the nation-state of Israel no longer exists. The very commands to instruct our children are rooted and grounded in what God told Israel.
> 
> Please note that with this argumentation I am not saying that the practice of making vows before God (and obligating our descendants) should continue, but rather I am pushing back against the line of thinking presented that goes into why this practice should be rejected. This line of thinking is essentially "we're in the new covenant - therefore the topic is N/A". I just don't buy that, as it seems as though this is the typical type of response that many use when they want to avoid something they don't like (like for example, the Sabbath).


I am a baptist, remember. We see more discontinuity than you all. Vows are still valid. But not on behalf of others who are not yet born. 

In the OT the "Church" could have 1 head on earth, i.e. the king or judge, who might make determinations for the People. But now the only king is Christ and no one person can vow on behalf of the whole church. Nor even one's own family I don't think. If I vowed my daughter would never marry a Chinese man or an Eskimo, that might be a wise move (sorry any Eskimos out there), but even as her father I am not sure I could enforce such a preference on another person, even my own child.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> Samuel was bound to the service of God, and Jephthah's daughter indicated that she was bound.


Good point about Samuel. He was a child dedicated to the service of God in the temple. Is there any NT equivalent to that now? Can we vow to put our kids into the ministry? I don't think so. And Jephtah's daughter seemed to take the vow willingly upon herself. And Jephtah's vow is not seen as wise, right? 

P.s. it would be very strange if these ancestors celebrated this day every year and yet railed against Christmas and other supposed special days. Did they do so or did they celebrate other "holidays" as well? This factors into the discussion as well.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Can we vow to put our kids into the ministry? I don't think so.


I also don't think so, but why is this the case?


Pergamum said:


> And Jephtah's daughter seemed to take the vow willingly upon herself.


This is true, and may be applicable to my questions.


Pergamum said:


> And Jephtah's vow is not seen as wise, right?


Which is why this case illustrates that one should not take a vow made to God lightly.


Pergamum said:


> P.s. it would be very strange if these ancestors celebrated this day every year and yet railed against Christmas and other supposed special days. Did they do so or did they celebrate other "holidays" as well? This factors into the discussion as well.


This is a good question. I have no idea what their stance on Christmas was.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> I also don't think so, but why is this the case?
> 
> This is true, and may be applicable to my questions.
> 
> ...


Ok, you have me intrigued. I am at the end of my line of argumentation and also don't know how to go further, so will wait to see if better answers than mine arise. At this point I have no clincher of an argument other than you can't bind another person who doesn't consent to a vow (but then there is Samuel).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 15, 2021)

Are there passages in the OT in which the culture of the ANE is referenced in Scripture and used by God for his purposes? Of course. But in the same vein as taking ridiculous vows (for instance, to sacrifice “the first thing” that comes out of the house) and feeling a slavish insistence to keep said ridiculous vow rather than repenting of having made such a rash vow, or taking vows that ostensibly bind’s one’s entire civilization in perpetuity, there are glimpses of ANE culture which are similarly ensconced in scripture which I do not find anyone here seeking to implement. For example, consider the hospitality customs in which a guest’s well-being is of higher importance than one’s household, which leads in multiple occasions to virgin daughters being offered to angry rape mobs instead of guests. Or shall we consider the “finding and obtaining a wife” customs that are manifest in the OT? Etc., etc.,

We can’t legitimately pick and choose. So I say, quit abusing “vow-making” passages.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 15, 2021)

1Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORDanswered, _It is_ for Saul, and for _his_ bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. 2And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites _were_ not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)3Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD? 4And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, _that_ will I do for you. 5And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us _that_ we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, 6Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, _whom_ the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give _them_. 7But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’S oath that _was_ between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.8But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: 9And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell _all_ seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first _days_, in the beginning of barley harvest. 10¶And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. 11And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 15, 2021)

This is a complex question with many dimensions.

The clearest Biblical model would be Purim (see Esther 9:26-28), where the Jews explicitly bound themselves and their descendants to celebrate annually the deliverance they had received from Haman. 

The application of this is tricky. Are contemporary Jewish Christians obligated to celebrate Purim? Should contemporary Gentile Christians celebrate Purim as the spiritual heirs of the vow? Can contemporary nations make similar vows to celebrate what they see as acts of divine deliverance?

The Puritans and their contemporaries would likely have answered the last question positively. Those more expert than I can probably point to discussion about the enduring meaning of the Solemn League and Covenant in the Scottish context, and in the early 17th century Parliament imposed annual religious celebrations of November 5th and the discovery of the Gunpowder plot (which is still annually celebrated in the UK as a secular festival with fireworks, reminding the government that we still reserve the right to blow them up if necessary). These ideas exist in a certain tension with the Puritan reservations about the church calendar, as has been pointed out. It seems odd to permit the annual celebration of a day to remember events of divine providence but forbid annual celebration of a day to celebrate much more significant events of redemptive history.

It is also the case that nations and churches do make decisions that have lasting consequences for the descendants of those who made them. Treaties do not cease to bind modern nations once the person(s) who enacted them are dead. A church that takes out a 30 year mortgage is binding the next generation to make payments.

Nonetheless, there are also Biblical restrictions on vows that limit the ability of people to make vows that impact others. Husbands can make such vows on their own authority but not wives and young single women (though widows and divorced women are not bound by the same rules; see Num. 30). There are provisions for terminating rash vows. 

Then there is the question of the renewal of covenants. Israel's example seems to suggest that covenants ought to be appropriated by new generations and affirmed as their own, not simply mechanically transferred from one generation to the other. 

And then there are the questions of continuity and discontinuity between Old and New covenants, especially the question of the differences between Israel and other nations that led to the American version of the Westminster Confession.

I don't think I've answered your question, but perhaps added some new ones. Reading providential deliverances can be tricky, especially if both sides in the conflict are Protestant, but I think it's okay to continue to be grateful to God for events that preserved your family alive and free in a dark time. We can lament the loss of life on both sides, and pray for continued safety and freedom of religion in the future. I think the Puritans would have agreed on encouraging us to "improve the day" in that way and use it for personal reflection, prayer and thanksgiving, regardless of what others may or may not be doing.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 15, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> This is a complex question with many dimensions.
> 
> The clearest Biblical model would be Purim (see Esther 9:26-28), where the Jews explicitly bound themselves and their descendants to celebrate annually the deliverance they had received from Haman.
> 
> ...


Thank you, this is certainly food for thought. I hope someone with the knowledge on the Scottish precedent will chime in. As it stands, the complexity returns me to the belief that freedom of conscience should prevail in the matter.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 15, 2021)

Speaking generally I'm inclined to view covenants made, today, _by nations _as not binding on their posterity. Covenants made between Israel and God in the OT were either, as I can see, made _by God _or in a context where individuals and the nation were held accountable in a way that is not the case now.

However that doesn't mean they are irrelevant. I think we can see in history cases where God did bless nations which formally covenanted with Him or dedicated themselves to Him. The United Kingdom is a very good example of this. And in the case of the Vow in South Africa well that day was kept as an annual commemoration even unto this day (although it has been officially replaced with that vile "Day of Reconciliation") and it is clear that the Lord did bless South Africa for as long as it adhered to Him. It wasn't until her leaders began to stray (after Verwoerd) that judgment came upon that nation.

So I would say that whilst these vows would not be binding it is worth asking whether one should keep them due to the blessings which clearly flowed from God to the respective nations. I would also add that for the last couple of years I have met with a small band of people to commemorate the Vow (not in an overtly religious way but socially as a small acknowledgment of what the Lord did). There are still those who keep it and who recognise what a wonderful deliverance the Battle of Blood River was and how wonderfully the Lord blessed that nation.


----------



## Logan (Dec 15, 2021)

Archibald Hall, _Gospel Worship, _Chapter 21, "Of Vowing to the Lord", Section 6, "In what capacity Christians may vow" has some thoughts on the general subject of vowing as a society, and the New Testament relation to the Old Testament practice. He doesn't say anything specifically on binding descendants but he does reference some writings regarding the Solemn League and Covenant and the National Covenant of Scotland.

I've included the entire chapter but section 6 is probably the most relevant one.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 15, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> Please just direct me to Scripture and/or the LBCF for this; it sounds correct, but I cannot immediately place my finger on it.
> 
> Please explain how it is idolatrous, in the context of the Voortrekker Monument. Note that it is not seen as a temple that contains the special presence of God, but a monument commemorating the victory and the vow (although the original intention might have differed, as it was built approximately a century after the vow).
> 
> ...


The LBCF chapter on "Lawful Oaths and Vows" is a great place to start.
To do anything--whether building a structure or making a pilgrimage or any other man-invented thing--as a religious exercise is idolatry because it seeks to add to what God has required, namely, obedience to His stated law. Your ancestors bound themselves to build a monument as a condition of God's deliverance, as though that promise had swayed Him to be their helper. But what if they had earnestly sought Him in prayer and resolved to obey His commands and keep His appointed Sabbaths: do you think God wouldn't have favored them then? Did they need to do aught extra because they already did those things as a matter of course? I think not. Those who confidently obey God as a habit of life and believe that He does all things well don't need to add extra duties to His commands when they want something extra: they simply need to continue watching unto prayer, knowing that the Judge of all the earth will do right.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 16, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> 1Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORDanswered, _It is_ for Saul, and for _his_ bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. 2And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites _were_ not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)3Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD? 4And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, _that_ will I do for you. 5And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us _that_ we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, 6Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, _whom_ the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give _them_. 7But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’S oath that _was_ between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.8But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: 9And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell _all_ seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first _days_, in the beginning of barley harvest. 10¶And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. 11And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done.


Pastor Barnes, so do you feel modern-day vows are equally legitimate as in the OT?


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 16, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> There are still those who keep it and who recognise what a wonderful deliverance the Battle of Blood River was and how wonderfully the Lord blessed that nation.


I hear and appreciate what you are saying. It's just that, in modern-day South Africa, it feels like these are being used to divide our people. For instance, there is an "emergency plan initiative" called the Suidlanders (translated to Southlanders) who are preparing plans to save specifically White South Africans if civil war were to break out. They say "We are primarily a Bible believing Christian conservative group," but this can be said for many people of other colours here. And this is complicated even further by heeding the words of a so-called prophet of the early 20th century, Siener van Rensburg. I think the whole situation is troubling me, because for many "Boers" here, their cultural heritage seems much more important than their faith in Christ. And they often hold to bad theology.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 16, 2021)

Logan said:


> Archibald Hall, _Gospel Worship, _Chapter 21, "Of Vowing to the Lord", Section 6, "In what capacity Christians may vow" has some thoughts on the general subject of vowing as a society, and the New Testament relation to the Old Testament practice. He doesn't say anything specifically on binding descendants but he does reference some writings regarding the Solemn League and Covenant and the National Covenant of Scotland.
> 
> I've included the entire chapter but section 6 is probably the most relevant one.


Thanks very much for this. I will take some time to carefully work through it. Something I have already noticed is the following:


> First, I shall mention some of the singular circumstances of the covenanting Jews, that were peculiar to themselves; and belonged to the nature of the dispensation they were under. And (1.) Their covenant-holiness, as a nation separated to dwell alone, and not to be reckoned among the rest of the nations, was entirely peculiar to them. Their systems of worship and jurisprudence had a peculiar connection and influence. Every individual was in the same degree entitled to civil and religious privileges. The persons, services, and possessions of that people were all sanctified. Their church and state had the very same subjects; and the laws of both viewed each of these subjects in the same light, whether favorable or unfavorable. Hence the same laws that prescribed what was available for the purifying of the flesh from ceremonial defilement, pointed out the way for taking of the temporal punishment that their sins exposed them to, as they were members of the civil community under God, as their political King. These circumstances too, of the priests executing civil offices, and of their kings giving appointments concerning the things of the Lord, were singular, and pertained only to that people.


It is very clear that the Afrikaners, at least at one point, considered themselves "a nation separated to dwell alone, and not to be reckoned among the rest of the nations," and that many want to return to that perceived state. This is what I rile against. If I keep such a vow, it will be as a Christian, not as a specific people group that should not mix with the "surrounding nations."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 16, 2021)

Logan said:


> I've included the entire chapter but section 6 is probably the most relevant one.


It also states:


> Secondly, I shall now consider the form of Christian vows and covenants...A vow should run in such a form as leaves no room to suppose that it superadds any obligation to that of Jehovah’s law.


I think this is what Ben has been pointing to:


Ben Zartman said:


> To do anything--whether building a structure or making a pilgrimage or any other man-invented thing--as a religious exercise is idolatry because it seeks to add to what God has required, namely, obedience to His stated law.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Von (Dec 16, 2021)

I'll just throw in my thoughts as a fellow South African.
I am not a direct descendant of the Voortrekkers. My wife is. Three things have stood out for me with regards to this specific vow:

_One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.(Rom 14:5)_
Although I do sympathize with the original spirit and intent of the vow, it tends to be upheld and fought for by a far right section of the Afrikaner population
The "white-against-black"-nature of the actual battle that took place on the day tends to make it difficult to find a place in multi-ethnic churches.
Due to number 2 and 3, I would make sure to carefully explain to others the meaning and reasoning behind keeping the day as a memorial. I hope my answer came through nuanced enough.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 16, 2021)

Von said:


> I'll just throw in my thoughts as a fellow South African.
> I am not a direct descendant of the Voortrekkers. My wife is. Three things have stood out for me with regards to this specific vow:
> 
> _One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.(Rom 14:5)_
> ...


Thanks, I appreciate the input as a fellow South African!


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 16, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> Pastor Barnes, so do you feel modern-day vows are equally legitimate as in the OT?











Corporate And Covenantal Responsibility


Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church




www.sermonaudio.com













The Imputation Of Sin From The Fathers Unto The Children


Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church




www.sermonaudio.com













You'll Be Hung Without A Savior


Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church




www.sermonaudio.com













Corporate Sin Provokes The Lord's Judgments


Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church




www.sermonaudio.com













It Starts With Leaders


Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church




www.sermonaudio.com













Genuine Corporate Repentance


Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church




www.sermonaudio.com


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 16, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> Corporate And Covenantal Responsibility
> 
> 
> Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church
> ...


Thank you. That's going to take some time to work through!


----------

