HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD

To ‘hear the voice of God’ does not necessarily mean the hearing of a literal, audible voice. It more often means recognizing and hearing with obedience what God has caused to be written in his Word and transmitted through his earthly servants who represent him. (1 John 2:3, 4) Thus, “voice” is used as applying to “every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth,” his commands whether presented to the individual verbally by God himself or by angels or men, or in inspired writing.—Ps. 103:20; Matt. 4:4; see OBEDIENCE.

HEARING JESUS’ VOICE

Jesus Christ spoke of himself as the “fine shepherd” whose sheep “listen to his voice, . . . and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. . . . they do not know the voice of strangers.” (John 10:2-5, 11) Those who are Christ’s “sheep” “know” his voice in that they recognize and acknowledge as true what Christ says as recorded in the Bible. They refuse to acknowledge the teaching of ‘strangers,’ false shepherds. They “listen” to his voice in that they obey his commands as set forth in the Scriptures. (John 15:10, 15) Since Christ Jesus is God’s Chief Representative, who always listens to Jehovah’s voice and speaks what Jehovah directs, the one following Christ will be in union with Jehovah.—John 5:19; 1 John 2:6.

The voice of the resurrected Jesus Christ

After Christ’s resurrection and ascension he appeared to Saul of Tarsus (later the apostle Paul), speaking to him in a voice that Saul understood, but that the men accompanying him did not understand. (Acts 9:1-9; 22:6-11; 26:12-18) At Acts 9:7, the account states that the men with Saul heard “a voice [“sound,” Da, Ro, ftn.].” Here the Greek word phonesʹ, the genitive case of pho·neʹ, is used, with the sense of ‘hearing of the voice.’ This allows for the meaning that the men heard only the sound of the voice, but did not understand. When Paul later related the experience he said that the men “did not hear the voice of the one speaking.” (Acts 22:9) In this account the accusative (objective) case pho·nenʹ is used. This can give the sense that, while the sound registered on their ears, they did not hear the voice as being distinct words that they understood as did Saul, to whom Christ was speaking.

The apostle Paul said, when writing to the Thessalonian congregation about the gathering of God’s anointed holy ones: “The Lord [Jesus Christ] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” (1 Thess. 4:16) The term “archangel” means “chief angel” or “principal angel.” Paul’s expression “archangel’s voice” evidently focuses attention on the authoritativeness of Jesus’ voice of command. Jesus, when on earth, revealed the authority that God invested in him, when he said: “For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. . . . The hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out.”—John 5:26-29.

THE HUMAN VOICE

Voice, along with language, is a gift of God. Therefore, the voice should be lifted in praise to God. This can be done by speaking “the magnificent things of God,” upbuilding others with information from God’s Word of truth, or in songs of praise and thanksgiving.—Acts 2:11; Ps. 42:4; 47:1; 98:5; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16.

God hears his servant’s voice

Those who serve God with spirit and truth can call upon God with the assurance that he hears their voice, regardless of the language in which they call upon him. Moreover, even though the literal voice is not used, the petition to God being a silent one, God, who knows the hearts of men, “hears” or gives attention nevertheless. (Ps. 66:19; 86:6; 116:1; 1 Sam. 1:13; Neh. 2:4) God has heard afflicted ones who cry to him for help, and he also hears the voice and knows the intentions of men who oppose him and plot evil against his servants.—Gen. 21:17; Ps. 55:18, 19; 69:33; 94:9-11; Jer. 23:25.

INANIMATE THINGS

Among the numerous things of God’s creation, many do not make a voice sound. But the Hebrew word qohl (“voice,” “sound”) is used with regard to the witness these voiceless things give to the majesty of their Creator. (Ps. 19:1-4) In a personified sense wisdom is said to keep “giving forth its voice” in the public squares, because it is available to all who seek it, and God has had wisdom proclaimed before all, so that there is no excuse for the one not listening.—Prov. 1:20-30.

FIGURATIVE USE

The anguish of Jerusalem’s inhabitants in the face of Babylonian attack is compared with the distressed voice of a sick woman, “the voice of the daughter of Zion” being likened to that of a woman giving birth to her first child. (Jer. 4:31) The enemy would reduce Jerusalem to such a low state that any utterances made with her voice would come up from her position of debasement as in the dust and would be like the low voice of a spirit medium. (Isa. 29:4) Through the prophet Jeremiah, God also prophesied that Egypt would be vanquished by the Babylonians, who would come in force as woodcutters, to chop her down. She would lie on the ground, deeply humbled, weeping softly and moaning, her “voice” or “sound” being low like that of a serpent.—Jer. 46:22.

VOPHSI

(Vophʹsi).

A Naphtalite whose son Nahbi was one of the twelve spies sent to reconnoiter Canaan.—Num. 13:2, 14.

VOW

A solemn promise to perform some act, make some offering or gift, or enter some service or condition; a pledge, either positive or negative. Being a solemn promise, a vow carries the force of an oath or a swearing and at times the two expressions accompany each other in the Bible (Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33), “vow” being more the declaration of intent, while “oath” denotes the appeal made to a higher authority attesting to the truthfulness or binding nature of the declaration. Oaths often accompanied attestation to a covenant.—Gen. 26:28; 31:44, 53.

A vow might be (1) a general vow of devotion; (2) a declaration of abstinence (in which case a person vowed to refrain from using for a limited or an unlimited time certain things ordinarily lawful in themselves); (3) a devoting of something to sacred use or to destruction.—Lev. 27:28, 29; Num. 30:2.

The earliest record of a vow is found at Genesis 28:20-22, where Jacob promised to give Jehovah one-tenth of all his possessions if Jehovah would continue with him and bring him back in peace, thereby proving to be Jacob’s God. Jacob was not bargaining with God, but wanted to be sure that he had God’s approval. As this instance points out, vows were made by the patriarchs (see also Job 22:27) and, as with so many other patriarchal customs, the Mosaic law defined and regulated these already-existing features of worship rather than introducing them.

Many vows were made as an appeal to God for his favor and success in an undertaking, as in Jacob’s case. Another example of such is the vow by Israel to devote the cities of the Canaanite king Arad to destruction if Jehovah gave Israel the victory. (Num. 21:1-3) They were also made as an expression of devotion to Jehovah and his pure worship (Ps. 132:1-5), or to indicate that one was setting himself or his possessions apart for special service. Parents could make vows in connection with their children, as Hannah did regarding Samuel. (1 Sam. 1:11; compare Judges 11:30, 31, 39.) In these instances the children cooperated in carrying out the vow.

VOLUNTARY, BUT BINDING WHEN ONCE MADE

Vows were wholly voluntary. They were not a contract or an agreement between the one vowing and someone else. However, once a man made a vow, fulfillment was compulsory by divine law. Thus a vow was spoken of as being ‘bound upon his soul,’ implying that his very life became surety for the performance of his word. (Num. 30:2; see also Romans 1:31, 32.) Since life is at stake, it is understandable why the Scriptures urge one to use extreme caution before making a vow, carefully considering the obligations to be assumed. The Law stated: “In case you vow a vow to Jehovah . . . God will without fail require it of you, and it would indeed become a sin on your part. But in case you omit making a vow, it will not become a sin on your part.”—Deut. 23:21, 22.

As later expressed by the Congregator: “What you vow, pay. Better is it that you vow not than that you vow and do not pay. Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin, neither say before the angel that it was a mistake.” (Eccl. 5:4-6) A vow rashly made on the impulse of momentary enthusiasm or mere emotion might very well prove to be a snare. (Prov. 20:25) Under the Law one making such a thoughtless vow was guilty before God and had to present a guilt offering for his sin. (Lev. 5:4-6) In the final analysis, a vow has no merit in the eyes of God unless it is in harmony with his righteous laws and issues from the right kind of heart and spirit.—Ps. 51:16, 17.

Vows of women, under the Law

The laws regulating vows made by women are outlined at Numbers 30:3-15: The vow of a daughter was binding once her father heard it and raised no objection; or, instead, he could annul it. The vow of a wife (or an engaged girl) likewise depended on her husband (or fiancé) for validation. If the man annulled the vow after first letting it stand, he bore her error. (Vss. 14, 15) In the case of a widow or a divorced woman, “everything that she has bound upon her soul will stand against her.”—Vs. 9.

DISPOSITION OF THINGS VOWED

Any person or possession, including land, could be offered in vow to Jehovah, except what was already set apart for Him by Law, such as the firstborn, first-fruits, tithes, and so forth. (Lev. 27:26, 30, 32) That which was vowed as “sanctified” (Heb., qoʹdhesh, something set aside as holy, for sacred use) could be redeemed by a certain payment to the sanctuary (except clean animals). (Lev. 27:9-27) However, anything “devoted” (Heb., hheʹrem) could not be redeemed, but was to be completely and permanently the property of the sanctuary or, if devoted to destruction, was to be destroyed without fail.—Lev. 27:28, 29.

WRONG OR UNCLEAN VOWS

The vows of heathen religions many times involved unclean, immoral practices. Throughout Phoenicia, Syria and Babylon the proceeds of temple prostitution were dedicated to the idol or temple. Such degenerate vows were outlawed in Israel: “You must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog [or, ‘pederast’ (sodomite), likely] into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow.”—Deut. 23:18.

Jeremiah reminded the Jews in Egypt after Jerusalem’s destruction that one of the reasons why this calamity befell them was that they had misdirected their vows to the “queen of the heavens,” and offered sacrifices to her. The women who were taking a prominent part in this idol worship were quick to point out that their vows and worship to the “queen of the heavens” had been approved by their husbands and that they were determined to carry out their vows to this goddess. They thus made the excuse that they were acting in harmony with the Law regarding vows for women (Num. 30:10-15), but Jeremiah denounced their actions as really law-defying, since they were idolatrous.—Jer. 44:19, 23-25; 2 Cor. 6:16-18.

Hypocritical vows

The Jews did not slip back into outright idol worship after the exile. However, they “made the word of God invalid because of [their] tradition.” Their specious reasoning in interpreting the Law affected the matter of vows as well as other features of worship, their religious leaders hypocritically teaching “commands of men as doctrines.” (Matt. 15:6-9) For example, Jewish tradition stated that if a man pronounced to his father or mother this form of dedication or sanctification: “Whatever I have by which you might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God,” he thereby vowed to sanctify all he had spoken of to God, and was not to use these things to help his parents, on the theory that now the temple had the prior claim to these possessions, although he was actually allowed full liberty to keep them to himself.—Matt. 15:5, 6.

SACRIFICES CONNECTED WITH VOWS

Under the Law, a burnt offering at times accompanied other sacrifices, to denote complete dedication and an appeal to Jehovah to accept the sacrifice with favor. (Lev. 8:14, 18; 16:3) Such was true in connection with vows. (Num. 6:14) Burnt offerings were sacrificed to perform special vows. (Num. 15:3; Ps. 66:13) And concerning a “communion sacrifice to Jehovah in order to pay a vow” the requirement was that an unblemished animal be offered, part of which was burned on the altar.—Lev. 22:21, 22; 3:1-5.

As regards Jephthah’s vow before fighting the Ammonites (Judg. 11:29-31), see JEPHTHAH.

PAUL’S OBSERVANCE OF LAW AS TO VOWS

The apostle Paul made a vow, whether a Nazirite vow or not is uncertain; also, whether he had made the vow before becoming a Christian is not stated. He may have concluded the period of his vow at Cenchreae, near Corinth, when he had his hair clipped (Acts 18:18) or, as some believe, when he went to the temple in Jerusalem with four other men who were completing their vows. However, this latter action was taken by Paul on the advice of the Christian governing body to demonstrate that Paul was walking orderly and not teaching disobedience to the Law, as rumored in the ears of some of the Jewish Christians. It was common practice for a person to pay for others the expenses involved in the ceremonial cleansing at the expiration of the period of a vow, as Paul here did.—Acts 21:20-24.

As to why the apostle Paul and his associates in the Christian governing body approved the carrying out of certain features of the Law, even though the Law had been moved out of the way by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the following things may be considered:

The Law was given by Jehovah God to his people Israel, and accordingly, as the apostle Paul said: “The Law is spiritual,” and of its regulations, “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” (Rom. 7:12, 14) Consequently, the temple and the services carried on there were not despised by Christians, or looked down upon as wrong. They were not idolatrous. Furthermore, many of the practices had become ingrained as custom among those who were Jews, and, moreover, since the Law was not merely religious, but was also the law of the land, some things had to be followed by all those living in the land, such as the restrictions on work on the sabbaths, and so forth.

But in considering this matter, the main point is that the Christians did not look to these things for salvation. The apostle explained that things such as the eating of meat or vegetables, the observing of certain days as above others, even the eating of meat that had been offered to idols before being put up for regular sale in the marketplaces, were matters of conscience. He wrote: “One man judges one day as above another; another man judges one day as all others; let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day observes it to Jehovah. Also, he who eats, eats to Jehovah, for he gives thanks to God; and he who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, and yet gives thanks to God.” Then he summed up his argument by stating the principle: “For the kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit,” and concluded: “Happy is the man that does not put himself on judgment by what he approves. But if he has doubts, he is already condemned if he eats, because he does not eat out of faith. Indeed, everything that is not out of faith is sin.”—Rom. 14:5, 6, 17, 22, 23; 1 Cor. 10:25-30.

An enlightening comment is made on this point by Bible scholar Albert Barnes, in his Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 290, 291). Making reference to Acts 21:20, which reads: “After hearing this [an account of God’s blessing on Paul’s ministry to the nations] they began to glorify God, and they said to him: ‘You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law,’” Barnes remarks: “The reference here is, to the law respecting circumcision, sacrifices, distinctions of meats and days, festivals, &c. It may seem remarkable that they should still continue to observe those rites, since it was the manifest design of Christianity to abolish them. But we are to remember, (1.) That those rites had been appointed by God, and that they were trained to their observance. (2.) That the apostles conformed to them while they remained in Jerusalem, and did not deem it best to set themselves violently against them. ch. iii. 1. Luke xxiv. 53. (3.) That the question about their observance had never been agitated at Jerusalem. It was only among the Gentile converts that the question had risen, and there it must arise, for if they were to be observed, they must have been imposed upon them by authority. (4.) The decision of the council (ch. xv.) related only to the Gentile converts. [Acts 15:23] . . . (5.) It was to be presumed, that as the Christian religion became better understood—that as its large, free, and [universal] nature became more and more developed, the peculiar institutions of Moses would be laid aside of course, without agitation, and without tumult. Had the question been agitated [publicly] at Jerusalem, it would have excited tenfold opposition to Christianity, and would have rent the Christian church into factions, and greatly retarded the advance of the Christian doctrine. We are to remember also, (6.) That, in the arrangement of Divine Providence, the time was drawing near which was to destroy the temple, the city, and the nation; which was to put an end to sacrifices, and effectually to close for ever the observance of the Mosaic rites. As this destruction was so near, and as it would be so effectual an argument against the observance of the Mosaic rites, the Great Head of the church did not suffer the question of their obligation to be needlessly agitated among the disciples at Jerusalem.”

VULTURE

[Heb., ra·hhamʹ]; Black vulture [Heb., ʽoz·ni·yahʹ].

These birds are listed among those declared ‘unclean’ in the Mosaic law.—Lev. 11:13, 18; Deut. 14:12, 17.

Vultures are large carrion-eating birds rather similar in appearance to the hawks and eagles, except that the vultures generally have only soft down or scattered feathers on the head and neck and their claws are comparatively weak. They render a very valuable service in many lands of warm climate, consuming the dead carcasses and putrefying flesh that might otherwise cause disease.

In Arabic, a language that is cognate with Hebrew, a word similar to ra·hhamʹ designates the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), often called Pharaoh’s hen. This bird is white except for its black wings and yellow bill and legs. It is the smallest of the vultures found in Bible lands, being about twenty-five inches (64.1 centimeters) in length. With its bare wrinkled face, large eyes, hooked beak and curved talons, it is quite repulsive in appearance. Due to its willingness to eat refuse disdained even by other vultures, it is considered the foulest scavenger of the East, and by the same token the most useful, because of the service it performs.

The griffon vulture is the most common of the vultures found in Palestine and, according to one naturalist, it is “the most striking ornithological feature of Palestine. It is impossible in any part of the country to look up without seeing some of them majestically soaring at an immense height.” A yellowish-brown bird, it measures about four feet (1.2 meters) in length, with a wingspan of some nine feet (2.7 meters). The griffon vulture was the symbol of the Egyptian goddess Nekhebt and also appeared on the battle standards of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Persians.

The lammergeier or bearded vulture is now becoming uncommon in Palestine. It is the largest of the vultures, standing about four feet (1.2 meters) high. With its long pointed wings that span almost ten feet (3 meters), the lammergeier flies with unusual grace and wheels effortlessly as it searches the land below for food. Unlike other vultures, the lammergeier has feathers on its head and a beard resembling that of a goat. It has a preference for marrow bones, carrying these to great heights and then letting them drop upon rocks so that they split open, allowing the bird to reach the marrow within.

The Hebrew word ʽoz·ni·yahʹ is of uncertain derivation. Lexicographer Ludwig Koehler (Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, p. 695) suggests that it identifies the black vulture (Aegypius monachus), a vulture about the same size as the griffon but classed by ornithologists as of a separate “genus” among the vultures. Whereas vultures commonly prefer to nest on cliff ledges or rocky crevices, the black vulture usually nests in tall trees. More brown than black, it has the vulture’s characteristic naked head; the neck is blue, the tail wedge-shaped.

WAGON

[Heb., ʽagha·lahʹ, from ʽa·ghalʹ, meaning to roll].

The wagon or cart of ancient times was a simple vehicle, usually wooden, having spoked or solid wheels. (1 Sam. 6:14) Some were little more than two-wheeled open platforms fitted with a horizontal tongue or pole in front. Others had sides, and some were covered, such as the six covered wagons (drawn by two bulls each) used to transport tabernacle articles. (Num. 7:2-9) The “coaches” of Revelation 18:13 may denote four-wheeled wagons or carriages.

In Israel, especially in earlier times, the wagon was usually drawn by cattle rather than horses, the latter being used especially for chariots and in warfare. (2 Sam. 6:3, 6; 15:1; 1 Chron. 13:7, 9; Prov. 21:31) Wagons were employed to transport persons (Gen. 45:19, 21, 27; 46:5), grain and other loads. (1 Sam. 6:7-14; Amos 2:13) Those used in warfare (as mentioned at Psalm 46:9) may have been military baggage wagons. In the time of Isaiah, when the Israelites