A solemn and religious promise or oath. (
See OATH.) It is more particularly taken for a solemn promise made to God, in which we bind ourselves to do or forbear somewhat for the promoting of his glory. Under the Old Testament dispensation, vows were very common, Jdg 11:1-40: Num 30:1-16: But in the New Testament there is no command whatever for the observation of them. Hence it is supposed that vows belong more to the ceremonial law than to the Gospel; and that we are to be more dependent on divine grace to keep us, than to make resolutions and vows which we do not know that we shall be able to perform; and we certainly ought not to vow any thing but what we are able to perform.
We meet with numberless circumstances in the Old Testament Scripture respecting vows. It is our happiness, however, under the New Testament dispensation, that we are brought under no particular ordinance concerning them. The dedication of the heart to the Lord doth not come under the article of a vow, because, in a believer, the offering the soul to God in Christ is in the Lord’s strength. A vow in man savours of human strength too strongly to come under the character of the gospel dispensation.
a promise made to God, of doing some good thing hereafter. The use of vows is observable throughout Scripture. When Jacob went into Mesopotamia, he vowed to God the tenth of his estate, and promised to offer it at Bethel, to the honour of God, Gen 28:22. Moses enacts several laws for the regulation and execution of vows. A man might devote himself, or his children, to the Lord. Jephthah devoted his daughter, Jdg 11:30-31. Samuel was vowed or consecrated to the service of the Lord before his birth, by his pious mother Hannah; and was really offered to him, to serve in the tabernacle, 1Sa 1:21, &c. If a man and woman vowed themselves to the Lord, they were obliged to adhere strictly to his service, according to the conditions of the vow; but in some cases they might be redeemed. A man from twenty years of age till sixty, gave fifty shekels of silver; and a woman thirty, Lev 27:3. From the age of five years to twenty, a man gave twenty shekels, and a woman ten; from a month old to five years, they gave for a boy five shekels, and for a girl three. A man of sixty years old, or upward, gave fifteen shekels, and a woman of the same age gave ten. If the person was poor, and could not procure this sum, the priest imposed a ransom upon him, according to his abilities. If any one had vowed an animal that was clean, he had not the liberty of redeeming it, or of exchanging it, but was obliged to sacrifice it to the Lord. If it was an unclean animal, and such as was not allowed to be sacrificed, the priest made a valuation of it; and if the proprietor would redeem it, he added a fifth part to the value, by way of forfeit. They did the same in proportion, when the thing vowed was a house or a field. They could not devote the first born, because in their own nature they belonged to the Lord, Lev 27:28-29. Whatever was devoted by way of anathema, could not be redeemed, of whatever nature or quality it was. An animal was put to death, and other things were devoted for ever to the Lord. The consecration of Nazarites was a particular kind of vow. The vows and promises of children were void, of course, except they were ratified either by the express or tacit consent of their parents. It was the same with the vows of a married woman; they were of no validity, except confirmed by the express or tacit consent of her husband, Numbers 30. But widows, or liberated wives, were bound by their vows, whatever they were.
Whosoever invokes the awful name of God to witness, any untruth, knowing it to be such, is guilty of taking it in vain. Our Lord did not mean to preclude solemn appeals to heaven, whether oaths or vows, in courts of justice, or in important compacts. For an oath, or appeal to the greatest of all beings, as the Searcher of hearts, to witness a transaction, and to punish falsehood or perjury, is necessary, for putting an end to all strife or controversy among men, to promote confirmation or security of property, Heb 6:16. And it was sanctioned by the example of God, swearing by himself, Gen 22:15; Heb 6:17-18; and by the example of the patriarchs and saints of old; thus Abraham swore by the most high God, Creator of heaven and earth, Gen 14:22; the transjordanite tribes, by the God of gods, the Lord, Jos 22:22. And the law prescribed, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name,” Deu 6:13. And afterward, “All Judah rejoiced at the oath, for they had sworn unto the Lord with a loud voice, with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them; and the Lord gave them rest round about,” 2Ch 15:14-15. And a highly gifted Apostle uses the following most solemn asseveration, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not,” 2Co 11:31. See the vows of the priests and Levites, to put away strange wives, Ezr 10:5; and to take no usury from their brethren, Neh 10:29, St. Paul also vowed a vow, which he performed, Act 18:18; Act 21:23. Our Lord, therefore, reenacted the law, while he guarded against the abuse of it, by prohibiting all oaths in common conversation, as a profanation either of God’s name, where that was irreverently used, or where any of his works was substituted instead of the awful and terrible name of the Lord, which the Jews, through superstitious dread, at length ceased to use, from misinterpretation of Deu 28:58: “But I say unto you, Swear not at all,” in common conversation, by any of your usual oaths, “neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, &c. For, by the detestable casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees, some oaths were reckoned binding, others not, as we learn from the sequel; thus, to swear by the temple, the altar, heaven, &c, they considered as not binding: but to swear by the gold of the temple, by the gift on the altar, &c, they considered as binding; the absurdity and impiety of which practice is well exposed by our Lord in Mat 23:16-22.
Vow may be defined as a religious undertaking, either, 1. Positive, to do or perform; 2. or Negative, to abstain from doing or performing a certain thing. The morality of vows we shall not here discuss, but merely remark that vows were quite in place in a system of religion which so largely consisted of doing or not doing certain outward acts, with a view of pleasing Jehovah and gaining his favor. The Israelite, who had been taught by performances of daily recurrence to consider particular ceremonies as essential to his possessing the divine favor, may easily have been led to the conviction which existed probably in the primitive ages of the world, that voluntary oblations and self-imposed sacrifices had a special value in the sight of God. And when once this conviction had led to corresponding practice, it could not be otherwise than of the highest consequence that these sacred promises, which in sanctity differed little from oaths, should be religiously and scrupulously observed. Vows, which rest on a human view of religious obligations, assuming as they do that a kind of recompense is to be made to God for good enjoyed, or consideration offered for good desiderated, or a gratuity presented to buy off an impending or threatened ill, are found in existence in the antiquities of all nations, and present themselves in the earliest Biblical periods (Gen 28:20; Jdg 11:30; 1Sa 1:11; 2Sa 15:8). With great propriety the performance of these voluntary undertakings was accounted a highly religious duty (Jdg 11:35; Ecc 5:4-5). The words of the last vow are too emphatic, and in the present day too important, not to be cited: ’Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay’ (comp. Psa 66:13, sq.; 76:11; 116:18). The views which guided the Mosaic legislation were not dissimilar to those just expounded. Like a wise lawgiver, Moses, in this and in other particulars, did not attempt to sunder the line of continuity between the past and the present. He found vows in practice; he aimed to regulate what it would have been folly to try to root out (Deu 23:21, sq.). The words in Deu 23:22 are clearly in agreement with our remarks: ’If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.’
A promise made to God of doing some good thing or abstaining from some lawful enjoyment, under the influence of gratitude for divine goodness, of imminent danger, the apprehension of future evils, or the desire of future blessings. To fulfill a vow binding one to sin, was to all sin to sin; but no considerations of inconvenience or loss could absolve one from a vow, Psa 15:4 Mal 1:14 . Jacob, going into Mesopotamia, vowed the tenth of his estate, and promised to offer it at Beth-el, to the honor of God, Gen 28:20-22 . Moses enacted several laws for the regulation and execution of vows. "If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee; that which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform," Deu 23:21,23 Ecc 5:4-5 .\par The vows of minors, etc., were not binding without the consent of the head of the family, Num 30:1-16 . A man might devote himself or his children to the Lord, Num 6:2 . Jephthah devoted his daughter, Jdg 11:30-40 ; and Samuel was vowed and consecrated to the service of the Lord, 1Sa 1:11,27,28 . If men or women vowed themselves to the Lord, they were obliged to adhere strictly to his service, according to the conditions of the vow; but in some cases they might be redeemed, Lev 27:1-34 . These selfimposed services were more in keeping with the ancient dispensation, in which outward sacrifices and observances had so large a share, than with enlightened Christianity. See CORBAN, and NAZARITES.\par
To be taken voluntarily; but when taken to be conscientiously fulfilled (Deu 23:21-23; Ecc 5:5; Neh 1:15; Psalm 1.14; Pro 20:25). The Nazarite however was often dedicated froth infancy by the parent.
(1) vow of devotion,
(2) of abstinence,
(3) of destruction,
A man could not devote to sacred uses the firstborn of man or beast, as being devoted already (Lev 27:26). The law of redeeming vowed land is given (Lev 27:15; Lev 27:24; Lev 25:27). An animal fit for sacrifice could not be redeemed; any attempting it had to bring both the animal and its changeling (Lev 27:9-10; Lev 27:33). An animal unfit for sacrifice, adding a fifth (Lev 27:12-13).
A devoted person became a servant of the sanctuary (2Sa 15:8). The vow of a daughter or a wife was void if disallowed by the father or husband, otherwise it was binding (Num 30:3-16). The wages of impurity was excluded from vows (Deu 23:17-18); "dog" means "Sodomite" (Mic 1:7). In Ashtoreth’s and the Babylonian Mylitta’s worship prostitution for hire devoted to the idol was usual (Lev 19:29; 2Ki 23:7). The head was shaven after a vow (Act 18:18; Act 21:24).
euche (G2171) Vow
proseuche (G4335) Prayer
deesis (G1162) Request
enteuxis (G1783) Intercession
eucharistia (G2169) Thanksgiving
aitema (G155) Petition
hiketeria (G2428) Supplication
Four of these words occur together in 1Ti_2:1, and as Flacius Illyricus justly observed: "Which group of words I far from doubt Paul brings together not by chance." I propose to consider these words and the larger group to which they belong.
In the New Testament, euche is used once to refer to a prayer (Jam_5:15) and twice to refer to vows (Act_18:18; Act_21:23). Origen has a long discussion on the distinction between euche and proseuche and between euchesthai (G2172) and proseuchesthai (G4336), but he only notes the obvious: the concept of the vow or dedicated thing is more common in euche and euchesthai than is the concept of prayer. A more interesting treatment of the words and the difference between them may be found in Gregory of Nyssa.
Proseuche and deesis often occur together in the New Testament and in the Septuagint, and many attempts (mostly unsuccessful) have been made to distinguish them. For example, Grotius argued that they are respectively the Latin precatio and deprecatio; the first seeks to obtain good, the second to avert evil. Augustine observed that this distinction between precatio and deprecatio had almost disappeared in his day. Theodoret anticipated Grotius and explained proseuche as "requests for good things" and deesis as "supplication brought for deliverance from some distressing things." Gregory of Nazianzus said: "Think of supplication [deesin] as the request for what is lacking." This arbitrary distinction, however, is not supported by the words or their usage. Calvin more correctly understood proseuche as "prayer in general" and deesis as "prayer for particular benefits": "Proseuche is the entire genus of prayer, deesis is when a specific thing is requestedas genus and species." Bengel's distinction amounts to nearly the same thing: "Deesis (from dei [it is necessary]) is an imploring for a favor in a certain particular need; proseuche (oratio) is through any presentation of wishes and desires before God."
Although Calvin and Bengel correctly noted one point of distinction between the words, they failed to observe that proseuche is restricted to sacred uses. Proseuche always refers to prayer to God; deesis is not used with such a restriction. Fritzsche rightly argued:
He proseuche and he deesis differ as precatio [prayer] and rogatio [entreaty]. Proseuchesthai and he proseuche are sacred words, for we pray [precamur] to God; deisthai and he deesis at times are used for a sacred matter and at times for secular things, for we can ask both God and human beings.
It is the same distinction that we find between the English prayer and petition.
Enteuxis is used in the New Testament only in 1Ti_2:1; 1Ti_4:5, and once in the Apocrypha (2Ma_4:8). The Authorized Version's "intercession" is an unsatisfactory translation because of our current understanding of this word. Enteuxis does not necessarily refer to prayer in relation to others, as it now does, to a pleading that is either for them or against them (in 1Ti_4:5 this meaning is impossible). It certainly cannot refer only to a pleading against our enemies, as Theodoret's words ("enteuxis is an accusation against those who do wrong") imply. Hesychius defined enteuxis as "a request for vindication in behalf of someone." But as its connection with entynchanein implies, it refers to free, intimate prayer that boldly draws near to God. When the Authorized Version was made, "intercession" did not have its current limited meaning of prayer for others (see Jer_27:18; Jer_36:25). The Vulgate uses postulationes (demands), but Augustine preferred interpellationes (appeals) because it emphasized the parrhesia (G3954; the freedom and boldness of access) that constitutes the fundamental meaning of enteuxis. Origen also understood boldness of approach to God and asking him for some great thing (he cites Jos_10:12) to be the fundamental concepts of enteuxis.Enteuxis might mean more than this, however, for Plato used it to refer to a possible encounter with pirates.
In the Authorized Version, eucharistia is translated "thankfulness" (Act_24:3), "giving of thanks" (1Co_14:16), "thanks" (Rev_4:9), and "thanksgiving" (Php_4:6). Eucharistia is rarely used outside the New Testament, except in sacred Greek. We will not discuss the special meaning the Greek eucharistia and the English eucharist have acquired from Holy Communion, the church's most important act of thanksgiving for all the benefits she has received from God. Regarded as one manner of prayer, eucharistia expresses what should always be present in our devotions: the grateful acknowledgment of past mercies as distinct from seeking future ones. This aspect of prayer will exist in heaven (Rev_4:9; Rev_7:12), being larger, deeper, and fuller there, since only there will the redeemed know how much they owe to their Lord. In the very nature of things, all other forms of prayer will cease, because all other prayers will have come to fruition.
Aitema occurs twice in the New Testament in the sense of "a petition of men to God" both times in the plural (Php_4:6; 1Jn_5:15). It is not, however, restricted to this meaning (Luk_23:24; Est_5:7; Dan_6:7). In a proseuche of any length there will probably be many aitemata, because they make up the several requests of the proseuche. For example, in the Lord's Prayer there are seven aitemata, though some have regarded the first three as euchai and only the last four as aitemata. Witsius stated: "A petition is a part of a prayer, so that if you call the entire Lord's Prayer a prayer, indeed its individual parts or requests are petitions."
Hiketeria, when used with rhabdos (G4464) or elaia (G1636), was originally an adjective that gradually acquired substantival power and appeared alone. Plutarch explained hiketeria as "a branch from the sacred olive bound with white wool"the olive branch encased in white wool and held up by the suppliant as a token of his character. A deprecatory letter that Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have written on his deathbed to the Jews is described as "having the position of a supplication [hiketerias]."Agrippa designated his letter to Caligula as "a writing which I offer for a supplication [hiketerias]."It is easy to trace the steps by which this symbol of supplication came to signify the supplication itself. Indeed, the only time hiketeria is used in the New Testament (Heb_5:7), it is joined with deesis and refers to the supplication itself.
For the most part, however, these words do not refer to different kinds of prayer but to different aspects of prayer. Witsius stated:
It seems to me that one and the same thing is designated by various names for the various aspects involved. Our prayers are called deeseis inasmuch as by them we make known our needs, for deesthai [G1163] is "to stand in need"; they are proseuchai inasmuch as they contain our solemn vowsaitemata in that they bring our petitions and desiresenteuxeis in that God allows us to approach him without fear and with self-confidence and on friendly terms, for enteuxis is a conference and gathering of friends that eucharistia is an act of thanks for benefits already received is a fact too well-known to be reminded.
In the New Testament Jesus refers to vows only to condemn the abuse of them (Mat 15:4-6; Mar 7:10-13; compare Talmud,
(Acts 18)
- Probably a Nazarite vow taken by Jews to give thanks to God for his goodness. This is described in the Old Testament in Numbers 6:1-2.1. It involved not taking meat or wine for a period and letting the hair grow. Then an offering was made, and the hair shorn and burnt at the altar. Although a strictly Jewish custom, Paul does not appear to have persuaded any Jewish Christians to abandon their ancient practises. It would therefore be natural for him to show his gratitude to God in a time-honoured way.
A vow was a promise that a person made to God to do something (or not to do something), usually in return for God’s favour (Num 21:1-3; 1Sa 1:11; Psa 56:12-13; Psa 132:1-5). In some cases, however, a vow was not concerned with some specific blessing from God, but was purely an act of devotion by which a person offered to God worship and service (Num 6:1-8; Psa 61:8; Psa 65:1; Psa 76:11; cf. Act 18:18; see also NAZIRITE).
Israelite regulations
All vows were voluntary, but once made they had be kept. A vow was as binding as an oath, and a broken vow brought God’s judgment (Num 30:2; Deu 23:21-23; Ecc 5:4-6; see OATH). Therefore, a person was not to make a vow in haste, but was to consider carefully what it involved (Pro 20:25; cf. Jdg 10:30-40; see JEPHTHAH).
To protect people from the consequences of rash vows, Israelite law placed a special responsibility upon the head of the household. If he heard his wife or daughter make a rash vow, he could cancel it, provided he acted immediately he heard the vow. If he at first allowed the vow then later changed his mind and forced the person to break it, God held him responsible for the broken vow (Numbers 30). Normally, once a vow had been fulfilled, the person was released from it by a ceremony that involved offering a sacrifice of dedication (Deu 12:6; Deu 12:26; Psa 50:14; Psa 66:13).
The Levitical law set out details concerning the sorts of things people could vow to God and the way they could offer them. If the offering they vowed was a person, they could not offer the person as a sacrifice, but had to buy back (redeem) the person by a payment of money to the sanctuary. The priests estimated the amount of money according to the usefulness of the person offered (Lev 27:1-8).
Animals, houses and land that were vowed to God usually became the property of the sanctuary. The priests were free to decide whether to use the vowed articles or sell them. If people vowed an article then later wanted to keep it for personal use, they could buy it back from the sanctuary at a price estimated by the priests. However, they had to add a fine of one fifth of its value, since they were keeping for themselves something they had vowed to God (Lev 27:9-27).
If the priests caught people being dishonest, such as trying to offer an inferior animal instead of the one they had vowed, they lost both (Lev 27:10). No one could vow to God anything that belonged to God already, such as the firstborn of animals (Lev 27:26; Lev 27:28-29).
Misuse of the system
The Israelite regulations for vows should have made people aware of the need for complete honesty, sincerity and devotion to God. Yet some people soon found ways of using the system deceitfully and for their own benefit. They used the making of vows to hide treachery (2Sa 15:7-10), immorality (Pro 7:14) and selfishness (Mal 1:14).
A well known example of the misuse of vows concerned the Jews of Jesus’ time. People would vow their possessions (or money) to the temple in such a way that, when they died, the goods became the property of the temple. The goods were ‘corban’, meaning ‘given to God’. Having promised the things to God, the owners said they were no longer free to give them to anyone else, not even to needy parents. But they themselves continued to enjoy the use of those things as long as they lived. As usual, Jesus condemned such people, for they cunningly used the details of legal regulations to excuse them from more important responsibilities (Mar 7:9-13).
A very strong promise that a person
makes, sometimes to God and often
using the name of God or something
else known to be real or important.