Skip to main content

Going Against One's Word or Breaking Vows

    Inherent in the problem having to do with breaking a vow that one has previously made (from a Biblical point of view) is the classic distinction between "law" and "grace" which is talked about a great in the writings of Paul. It is not advisable to make a vow (Matthew 5:34-35), or to break a vow (Matthew 5:33), obviously because of the strict justice of God and His righteous standard. However, to think that a vow made foolishly, rashly, in error, while intoxicated, poisoned, mentally compromised, etc, must always be observed forever, is not only a wrong way or practice for being too legalistic, it would practically be heresy because one would be ignoring what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross does away with the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Testament by fulfilling them, bringing them to completion in the bringing of a new covenant in Him. Well guess what? In the Old Testament ceremonial ordinances the Jews had a way to have their vows cleared, forgiven, and handled on the Day of Atonement, the feast of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16). The special song they sing for the annulment of vows is called Kol Nidre. For those who are in Christ now, in the new covenant, sins such as that are dealt with in him (1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:1-2). One cannot be in Christ and have live a lifestyle of sin, though (1 John 2:4). So while one might mistakenly make a vow that they can't or shouldn't keep, to intentionally do that repetitively as a lifestyle means that they are so in sin that their very salvation could be called into question.
   Even in the Old Testament it is shown that God has provided for the fact that humans make mistakes and are not perfect completely like He is. For example, Leviticus 27 gives valuations for property, livestock, and persons so that in the case that the actual thing vowed cannot be given, then people could donate the monetary equivalent of their vow. For more on Leviticus 27, see here 
   I need to make several other caveats. A vow made with the name of God is different from one made not with God's name, because one would be breaking the third commandment by breaking the first type. A formal vow or oath is different from just breaking one's word. The purpose of an oath is it's binding value, and so when one vows or oaths, their attention is on that purpose. This is different than in regular conversation when people might say things without thinking. The numerous provisions in the Old Testament for sins committed unintentionally (such as for example Leviticus 4) are quite obviously replaced in the new covenant by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Sins committed unintentionally were quite obviously handled at the cross of Jesus by His sacrifice.
   If you made a bad vow that you can't keep, and you're not sure if God is forgiving you, you should talk to your pastor, pray to God about it, and also look in the Bible. Also, no one has to keep an oath or vow to do something which would make them be in sin (Acts 23:12-22, Numbers 30:5-13).
   Sometimes if someone cannot keep their word, and they did not vow in God's name, it is possible that the only authority holding them in account directly is other men because God has basically forgiven them for that specific sin. (I am saying this because people in their wicked nature can be very ungracious while God's grace is good). They could have a different sin for failing to reconcile, though, because Jesus said in Matthew 5:23-24, "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering."
   Just to help everyone, I am providing quotes from the book of Romans here which are regarding law and grace.
   "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."  Romans 7:4-6
   "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,  so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.  For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you."  Romans 8:1-9

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Night Fever," new song of mine could have many biblical implications

    Many people think of going to do something for the Lord like the preach the gospel, but will they really consider what the backlash would or could be like against them in many forms?     During my years of preaching with and alongside Third Street Ministries the typical level of discomfort normally experienced was just the prodding of scoffers and mockers in the mission field. It was kept from encroaching on our personal lives for an extended time, even despite posting videos. My testimony would indicate just how cautious, circumspect, and in agreement with your fellow believers you have to be in order to avoid a problem. That is especially true if you are working at the "trenches" level of confronting the unbelieving world.     In this new song "Night Fever," I just describe in vague terms one day in July 2011 when my ministry efforts with them finally got derailed more seriously. Tom of 1tmoch fame called my cellphone (or we called each othe...

Apologies to the Trump Campaign

   I received your messages (Donald Trump and son), I just haven't checked that email account often enough. I am well aware that someone with you follows my posts here, ever since my original idea to have a wealthy man run for President has come to fruition somehow. The only thing I would have to communicate is that this was never supposed to be a purely political blog. I started the blog to write about whatever I wanted to, or whatever I was interested in. The "general topic" theme gives me the freedom to write freely across subject areas. If my ideas have helped you somehow, I did not realize that. Let me see what I can do to help you further, though. I think you should continue giving America a message of hope based on ideas and values our country was founded on, and you won't be able to really go wrong. Too often Democrats win elections not by their own merit, but by a smear campaign against their opponent. That's what they've tried to do, it looks like. ...

War on the Poor or Helpful Heart of Republican President?

     I was surprised to see an article today in the Washington Post saying that President Trump was declaring as a result of his visit to California, that he wanted to take federal action to clean up homeless encampments in Los Angeles and San Francisco. I was personally stunned at the vitriol against said "homeless," but also by the fact of the matter that his proposed action as leaked by insiders is liberal in nature. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-homeless-people-hurt-the-prestige-of-los-angeles-san-francisco/2019/09/17/71e71b9e-d982-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html    In truth, I don't really have a problem with him trying to set up a better place for the tenants of Skid Row in Los Angeles. I just don't understand how it is a federal matter. I'd be really more comfortable with the effort if The President would arrange for legislation for block grants to be passed down to local governments to address these problems as they see fit. His pro...