I would suggest ethnic pride motivates you. To have admirable ancestors who did great things motivates you to follow them.
The binding power of a vow made by my ancestors
- Thread starter pgwolv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- todays generation vows
- Status
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
Samuel was bound to the service of God, and Jephthah's daughter indicated that she was bound.
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
I also don't think so, but why is this the case?
This is true, and may be applicable to my questions.
Which is why this case illustrates that one should not take a vow made to God lightly.
This is a good question. I have no idea what their stance on Christmas was.
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).
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
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.
We can’t legitimately pick and choose. So I say, quit abusing “vow-making” passages.
Last edited:
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
I've included the entire chapter but section 6 is probably the most relevant one.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Freshman
Pastor Barnes, so do you feel modern-day vows are equally legitimate as in the OT?
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks very much for this. I will take some time to carefully work through it. Something I have already noticed is the following:
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."
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
Von
Puritan Board Sophomore
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:
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.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
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
Corporate Sin Provokes The Lord's Judgments
Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church
www.sermonaudio.com
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you. That's going to take some time to work through!Corporate And Covenantal Responsibility
Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church
The Imputation Of Sin From The Fathers Unto The Children
Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church
Corporate Sin Provokes The Lord's Judgments
Andrew Barnes | Christ Presbyterian Church
- Status
