Are Marriage Vows Immoral?

We are repeatedly informed that the God of Christianity has absolute morals. Yet when we review the claims made about morality within the Christian world, we are often left scratching our heads. Clearly the claimed system of God’s absolute morality is nothing like what we think of as humans, and we puzzle and puzzle over what gets priority in this God’s world.

We think that genocide and the killing of baby boys is always immoral, but in this absolute morality of the Christian God, apparently at times it is morally acceptable. Numbers 31:17, Judges 20:48, and 1 Samuel 15:3. We think that murderers should be punished, not excused. And most certainly that their infant son should not be killed for their crime. 2 Sam. 12:15. But this is what is required in this absolute Christian God Morality scheme.

And we are told that the times of the Tanakh were different, and God related to the people in a different manner, imposing a different morality. (Sounding like a morality based on relativism, not being absolute.)

Taking just one example--Why did God change His position on taking vows? Did He discover that there is some scale of morality which allows a vow-taker to supercede other moral laws?

God, in the form of Jesus, makes His position on vows very clear. Don’t. “I say to you, do not swear at all.” Matthew 5:34. This is a change from what God had previously stated in Mosaic Law.

Under Moses, if one made a vow, there were certain requirements. Such as: they must not delay in performing it. Deut. 23:21. God even provided for a priority of vows, in that a woman could be overruled by her father or husband. Numbers 30:5 & 8. If a man makes a vow, he cannot break it, but must complete it. Num. 30:2

Following the imposition of the Mosaic Law, we have instances of people swearing to do things that are bound by them. Spies to Rahab the Harlot. Joshua 2:12. David to Saul. 1 Sam. 24:22. David to Bathsheba. 1 Kings 1:13. All of Israel. Ezra 10:5. On this last one, God was upset because they swore falsely, which was a problem. Jer. 5:2

Evidently taking vows was not only contemplated by God’s morality, it was regulated, and enforced. God did state that taking a vow would never be mandatory (Deut. 23:22) but one had the option. Until God said “Do not swear at all” in the Sermon on the Mount. (I have seen it argued that this is not a change in Mosaic Law. It most certainly is! Prior to Jesus, one could or could not take a vow, but if one did, there were certain limitations. After Jesus, one cannot take a vow. Period. That is a change.)

The author of James definitely got the memo, and reiterates God’s new commandment. (James 5:12.) The author of Hebrews apparently missed the new commandment and wrote about taking oaths as still acceptable. (Heb. 6:16) The author of Acts was absent that day, so they, too, seemed to think that God’s morality still provided for taking vows. (Acts 18:18 and 21:23)

Did God’s morality regarding taking vows change? Did something happen where God decided that swearing to do something was not such a good idea, and based upon new information, did away with it altogether?

I can’t help but wonder when God imposed the new rule on swearing, He was thinking about Jephthah and how poorly THAT all turned out.

Jephthah had a Gileadite father, but his mother was a whore. So all the legitimate Gileadites, in what has been unfortunately historical for Christian morality, threw him out of the community-- not based on what he did, but on something over which he had no control. (How Jephthah was to blame for who his mother was is beyond anyone’s guess. Still, he gets the punishment for his Mother’s occupation.)

It turns out that Jephthah was a big, strapping fellow, and being a courageous outcast, attracted a number of other outcasts, into an army. The Gileadites became threatened by the Ammonites. They needed Jephthah’s army. Again, in typical Christian manner, when Jephthah was needed, his heritage became no longer an issue, and the elders of Gilead swore to not only accept him, but to make him their leader. Despite the fact his mother was a whore.

Jephthah agreed to fight the Ammonites. He had an army and the support of his old community, although he lacked the support of the other tribes of Israel.

But Jephthah wanted more. An Edge. A Nudge. He makes a vow. If God would provide him the victory over the Ammonites, Jephthah swore upon arriving home, to provide as a burnt offering to God whatever comes out of his door.

And tragedy occurs. God provides the victory. And the first thing that meets Jephthah when he comes home is his only child—his daughter. Jephthah immediately realizes what he must do, and with wisdom beyond her years, his daughter (we never know her name) says, “You made an oath. You have to keep it. Do what you have to do.”

Jephthah is bound by his oath, and sacrifices his daughter. Now, in our humanistic determination, we would find this act immoral. While breaking an oath is assuredly not encouraged, it can be remedied here without the necessary loss of life.

Somehow, in this absolute morality proposed by the Christian viewpoint, breaking an oath is MORE immoral than killing an innocent child. If I swear to God if He gives a good parking spot, I will break the arms of my son—is it a greater sin to not break his arms upon getting right next to the handicap spot?

Is this why God, in the form of Jesus, decides to do away with swearing altogether, since He realized (upon becoming human) the ludicrous notion that keeping an oath is more important than human life or harm? But if God is changing his mind as to what is moral for humans, we end up with a non-absolute moral system in which to work. Just as secular humanists attempt to frame a moral system, and persuade others of its viability, the Christian is equally attempting to guess at what God wants humans to do and persuade others of the viability. We are no different—you and I.

[A side note for which I apologize, but it will come up, so I might as well head it off as best I can now.

Apologists typically argue that Jephthah did not actually kill his daughter, but rather devoted her to the Lord. The arguments in favor of this claim are:

1. Mosaic Law did not allow for human sacrifice.
2. Jephthah’s daughter’s response.
3. Other children (Samuel) were devoted to the Lord similarly.

The arguments against this claim are:

1. Mosaic Law is not clear about human sacrifice.
2. Jephthah’s response.
3. The “Festival of Lament.”

It leaves us in a bit of a quandary. I think the strongest argument against her being killed is in her recorded response. Upon learning the vow, she asks for a two-month reprieve (violating Deut. 23:21) to grieve over the fact that she will never lose her virginity. After it is recorded in the cryptic “Jephthah did what he vowed to do” we receive the further notation that she never had sex.

It seems odd (unless there was some cultural significance to this) that upon learning she would die, her biggest concern was that she would never get to have sex. While sex is great, at the moment, we would think dying would have a much higher focus of her attention. Further, if she was killed, the phrase, “And she never knew any man” become superfluous. Like saying, “Jephthah killed her, and on, by the way, she missed Yom Kippur next year.”

However, on the flip side, Jephthah’s reaction is extreme, if she was devoted to the Lord. Apologists claim that this is because his lineage would end (as she was an only daughter.) Why? There is nothing to indicate that Jephthah could not have any more children. This was a time of multiple wives. Of kidnapping other people’s daughters to bear children. (Judges 21:21) The Judge before Jephthah had 30 sons and (coincidently) the Judge after Jephthah also had 30 sons.

Jephthah had no inheritance (whore’s son, remember) and the story of his possessions is questionable. (Lived in Tob, but his house is listed in Mizpah.) There is no indication, and it is pure speculation, that Jephthah had any interest in continuing his lineage.

The passage records that each year, the daughters of Israel held a four-day event in which they recounted, or rehearsed the story of Jephthah’s daughter. (The word “lament” in the KJV is bad translation. Sorry.) Not even Samuel got that, and he was devoted, too! The impression left here is more of a tragedy along the lines of a death, rather than a life of servitude.

Mosaic Law does not help the apologist. According to Leviticus 27:3, if a person is consecrated by vow, they can be redeemed by payment to the priest. Jephthah would have had to pay 10 shekels to save her. (Lev. 27:5) A two-month lament? Tearing of clothes? After saving Gilead, we would think Jephthah could spring 10 shekels to save her.

BUT, Lev. 27:28 says no devoted offering may be redeemed. Worse, Lev. 27:29 says that one devoted to destruction could not be redeemed, but must be put to death. What is “devoted to destruction?” If the apologist claims that Jephthah’s daughter was not to be killed but was devoted to be the equivalent of a burnt offering, it would certainly seem feasible that Lev. 27:29 still mandates her death.

But Deut. 18:10 prohibits having one’s sons or daughters “pass through fire” which is claimed to be an idiom of child-sacrifice. Deut. 18:10 doesn’t say anything about fulfilling vows, though.

The best part of Christian “absolute” morals is that there are so many conflicting statements. If Jephthah devoted his daughter can he redeem her? “Yes”—Lev. 27:3, or ”No”-Lev. 27:28. If she was devoted to destruction, must she be killed? “Yes” – Lev. 27:29, “But not by fire” – Deut. 18:10. But Jephthah vowed a burnt offering. Which means, regardless of the apologetic position, he either breaks his vow, or breaks Mosaic law.

Under God’s “absolute morals” what is worse? See—we don’t know! It is all up to argument, and persuasiveness. Just. Like. Relative morals.

My resolution to the problem: I am convinced that Mosaic Law did not develop until the period of the divided kingdoms. The story of Jephthah is a legend from a time prior to Mosaic Law in which a Canaanite sacrificed his daughter in thanks for a victory. His story was incorporated in the Hebrew culture, and then made sanitized and made cryptic by removal of the actual sacrifice.)

As I read the tale of Jephthah, I can’t help but reflect on King David’s similar situation. King David committed murder (perhaps) but certainly adultery—a crime punishable by death. Yet in this Christian morality scheme, there appears to be an out. An exception. Regardless of the immorality or morality of an action, God can impose mercy, and exempt the person from punishment.

What is so “absolute” about that? We have an arbitrary determination of who gets exempted from punishment. Further, God, within this scheme of mercy, can inflict death as a punishment for this crime on another person! (See also “David’s Census.”)

At least with King David, we see that he did something wrong. There is nothing recorded that Jephthah did immoral. There is no reason why God could not have intervened, provided mercy, and saved the daughter. When asked “Why didn’t God?” all that can be said is, “We don’t know.”

Exactly. This system of “absolute morality” has introduced an arbitrary factor (God) in which we can no longer determine when they will step in, when they will not, nor the results. We see that God changes His mind about the morality of vows. We have no information as to the priority of morals—which is more important: death or keeping a vow or following the law?

Although it is not the sole issue with the concept of absolute morality, in this area what I see is one being absolutely ground in arbitrary:

Naturalist: As there is no way for us to determine absolute morality, we must determine it as best we can with what we have.
Christian: Ah—but we have Absolute Morality!
Naturalist: Grounded in what?
Christian: God.

Naturalist: And what is God’s morality?
Christian: As there is no way for us to determine God’s morality, we must determine it as best we can with what we have.
Naturalist: And this is different from me….how?