Numbers 30 commentary

NUMBERS 30 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Vows1 [a]Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: “This is what the Lord commands:

BARNES, "The regulations respecting vows appropriately follow those given respecting sacrifices, since a large proportion of vows would always relate to the presentation of such offerings. Rules had already been given Lev. 27 for the estimation of things vowed to God. It is probable that this fresh legislation dealing especially with vows made by persons in a state of tutelage, was occasioned by some case of practical difficulty that had recently arisen; and it is addressed by Moses to “the heads of the tribes” Num_30:1, who would in their judicial capacity have to determine questions on these subjects.

There is no provision in the chapter for annulling vows made by boys and young men; from which it has been inferred that the vows of males were in all cases and circumstances binding.

GILL, "And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes,.... Or the princes of them, who could more easily be convened, and who used to meet on certain occasions, and on whom it lay to see various laws put in execution: concerning the children of Israel; how they ought to conduct and behave in the following case, it being an affair which concerned them all: saying, this is the thing which the Lord hath commanded; relating to vows. Aben Ezra is of opinion that this was delivered after the battle with Midian, of which there is an account in the following chapter, and is occasioned by what was said, to the tribes of Gad and Reuben, Num_32:24. do that which hath proceeded out of your mouth; to which they replied: thy servants will do as my lord commandeth; upon which the nature of a vow, and the manner of keeping it, are observed; but the occasion of it

1

rather seems to be what is said towards the close of the foregoing chapter, Num_29:39, that the various sacrifices there directed were to be offered in their season, besides the vows and freewill offerings; and when these were ratified and confirmed, and when null and void, and to be fulfilled or neglected, is the principal business of this chapter.HENRY 1-2, "This law was delivered to the heads of the tribes that they

might instruct those who were under their charge, explain the law to them, give then necessary cautions, and call them to account, if there were occasion, for the breach of their vows. Perhaps the heads of the tribes had, upon some emergency of this kind, consulted Moses, and desired by him to know the mind of God, and here they are told it: This is the thing which the Lord has commanded concerning vows, and it is a command still in force.1. The case supposed is that a person vows a vow unto the Lord, making God a party to the promise, and designing his honour and glory in it. The matter of the vow is supposed to be something lawful: no man can be by his own promise bound to do that which he is already by the divine precept prohibited from doing. Yet it is supposed to be something which, in such and such measures and degrees, was not a necessary duty antecedent to the vow. A person might vow to bring such and such sacrifices at certain times, to give such and such a sum or such a proportion in alms, to forbear such meats and drinks which the law allowed, to fast and afflict the soul (which is specified Num_30:13) at other times besides the day of atonement. And many similar vows might be made in an extraordinary heat of holy zeal, in humiliation for some sin committed or for the prevention of sin, in the pursuit of some mercy desired or in gratitude for some mercy received. It is of great use to make such vows as these, provided they be made in sincerity with due caution. Vows (say the Jewish doctors) are the hedge of separation, that is, a fence to religion. He that vows is here said to bind his soul with a bond. It is a vow to God, who is a spirit, and to him the soul, with all its powers, must be bound. A promise to man is a bond upon the estate, but a promise to God is a bond upon the soul. Our sacramental vows, by which we are bound to no more than what was before our duty, and which neither father nor husband can disannul, are bonds upon the soul, and by them we must feel ourselves bound out from all sin and bound up to the whole will of God. Our occasional vows concerning that which before was in our own power (Act_5:4), when they are made, are bonds upon the soul likewise. 2. The command given is that these vows be conscientiously performed: He shall not break his word, though afterwards he may change his mind, but he shall do according to what he has said. Margin, He shall not profane his word. Vowing is an ordinance of God; if we vow in hypocrisy we profane that ordinance: it is plainly determined, Better not vow than vow and not pay, Ecc_5:5. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. His promises to us are yea and amen, let not ours to him be yea and nay.

JAMISON,"Num_30:1-16. Vows are not to be broken.This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded — The subject of this

2

chapter relates to vowing, which seems to have been an ancient usage, allowed by the law to remain, and by which some people declared their intention of offering some gift on the altar or abstaining from particular articles of meat or drink, of observing a private fast, or doing something to the honor or in the service of God, over and above what was authoritatively required. In Num_29:39, mention was made of “vows and freewill offerings,” and it is probable, from the explanatory nature of the rules laid down in this chapter, that these were given for the removal of doubts and difficulties which conscientious persons had felt about their obligation to perform their vows in certain circumstances that had arisen.

K&D, "The rules by which vows were to be legally regulated, so far as their objects and their discharge were concerned, has been already laid down in Lev; but the chapter before us contains instructions with reference to the force of vows and renunciations. These are so far in place in connection with the general rules of sacrifice, that vows related for the most part to the presentation of sacrifices; and even vows of renunciation partook of the character of worship. The instructions in question were addressed (Num_30:1) to “the heads of the tribes,” because they entered into the sphere of civil rights, namely, into that of family life.

CALVIN, "1And Moses spake. Moses teaches in this chapter that the vows which were made by persons who were not free, were not held good before God; and although no mention is made of male children, still, as their condition was the same, it seems that by synecdoche they must be included with the daughters and wives, unless perhaps God chose to pay regard to the weaker sex. But since He permits females, who were not under their father’s power, to make vows in spite of their sex, nor does He make it to be an excuse for levity or thoughtlessness, it seems that the object proposed was, that the right of the father over his children as well as of the husband over the wife, should be maintained inviolate. COFFMAN, "The diary conception will aid substantially in understanding the organization of the books of Moses. Apparently, the ancient lawgiver kept a careful record of all the things God commanded him to say to Israel, but it is noticeable that the legislation on vows, for example, which is given in this chapter also appears in several other places. It is supposed that the reason for these instructions being given right here lies simply in the fact that at this particular point in Moses' continual record of what God had commanded, the questions came up which led to these regulations. Many very capable scholars have observed this. "It is very probable that this law, like that concerning the succession of daughters (Numbers 27), rose from the exigency of some particular case that had just occurred."[1] Cook also agreed with this: "It is probable that this fresh legislation dealing specially with vows made by

3

persons in a state of tutelage, was occasioned by some case of practical difficulty that had recently risen."[2]Such views are more intelligent and far more helpful than the radical type of exegesis that merely complains that, "Both from the literary point of view and from the point of content, this passage (Numbers 30) stands ... without any connection with what precedes or with what follows."[3] This is also a classical example of how a failure to discern the Mosaic authorship of these books makes it impossible to understand or explain some features found in them."And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which Jehovah hath commanded. When a man voweth a vow unto Jehovah, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."This legislation applied to all men, the commandment being simply that a man shall keep his word or suffer the disfavor of God Himself. Particularly, anything that a man promises solemnly to do, that he must do. The pioneer conception in America that a man's word was "as good as his bond" honored this law in the very manner that God intended. Despite the fact that it seems to be particularly religious vows that are in view here, the law extended to all solemn affirmations and promises.The importance of this principle is so great that it is impossible to exaggerate it. "Indeed, a wholesome society can be maintained only by the integrity of the rank and file of its men and women."[4] The Biblical conception of a righteous man has always been that of "a man who sweareth to his own hurt and changes not" (Psalms 15:4).The holy principle of a man's keeping his word can be grossly abused, and doubtless has frequently suffered abuse. "No man can be bound by his own promise to do what he is already forbidden to do by Divine command."[5] People who commit crimes or do anything wrong merely because they "promised" to do so are doubly guilty. It is a great sin to make a promise to commit a sin, and even a greater sin to honor the sinful promise. People who have made a sinful promise to rear their children in a false religion are under no obligation whatever to honor such a promise.

COKE, "Numbers 30:1. Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes— i.e. the representatives of the people assembled together, Deuteronomy 33:5. 1 Chronicles 28:1. It is very likely that some case had been propounded to Moses about vows; concerning which, by the Lord's command, he here gives them such rules as might direct them for the future. TRAPP, "Numbers 30:1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded.

4

Ver. 1. And Moses spake unto the heads.] Because they were in place of judicature, and had power either to bind men to their vows or set them at liberty.POOLE, "Vows not to be broke: if a man vow, he must perform, Numbers 30:1,2. If a daughter living with her father vow, and he disapprove thereof, she is free, Numbers 30:3-5. If a married woman vow, and her husband disapprove thereof, she is free, Numbers 30:6-8. A widow or divorced woman’s vow binding, Numbers 30:9; but not those of a married woman, unless her husband consent or be silent, Numbers 30:10-15.The heads of the tribes; the chief rulers of each tribe, who were to communicate it to the rest.

WHEDON, "1. Heads of the tribes — Directions concerning vows were addressed, not to individuals but to the heads of the tribes, because family rights were involved as well as the interests of the individual. In the last two chapters were laws for required duties, but in this are statutes concerning voluntary acts which individuals, having freely vowed, were bound to perform. The purpose of these statutes was to prevent the making of rash vows, to annul such as were improper, and to sanction the performance of such as were advisedly made.

ELLICOTT, "(2) If a man vow a vow unto the Lord . . . —Two kinds of vows are spoken of in this verse—viz., the neder, which is here rendered vow, and which denotes primarily a positive vow, or vow of performance, and the issar, which is here rendered bond, and which denotes a negative vow, or a vow of abstinence. It is natural to suppose that at the expiration of the protracted wanderings in the wilderness the pious Israelites would be desirous of testifying their gratitude by dedicating themselves, or some portion of their substance beyond that which the law demanded, to the service of the Lord. And hence, although some regulations respecting vows had already been made (see Leviticus 27), it was needful that before their entrance into the land of Canaan some additions should be made to the law which pertained to the nature and obligation of vows.He shall not break his word . . . —The sacred character of a vow is enforced in these words; and a timely caution was thus given to the Israelites that it was better for them not to vow than to vow and not to pay. (Comp. Ecclesiastes 5:2-5.)

EBC, " THE LAW OF VOWSNumbers 30:1-16The general command regarding vows is that whosoever binds himself by one, or

5

takes an oath in regard to any promise, must at all hazards keep his word. A man is allowed to judge for himself in vowing and undertaking by oath, but he is to have the consequences in view, and especially keep in mind that God is his witness. The matter scarcely admitted of any other legislation, and neither here nor elsewhere is any attempt made to lay penalties on those who broke their vows. To use the Divine Name in an oath which was afterwards falsified brought a man under the condemnation of the third commandment, a spiritual doom. But the authorities could not give it effect. The transgressor was left to the judgment of God.With regard to vows and oaths the sophistry of the Jews and their rabbis led them so far astray that our Lord had to lay down new rules for the guidance of His followers. No doubt cases arose in which it was exceedingly difficult to decide. One might vow with good intention and find himself utterly unable to keep his promise, or might find that to keep it would involve unforeseen injury to others. But apart from circumstances of this sort there came to be such a network of half-legalised evasions, and so many unseemly discussions, that the purpose of the law was destroyed. Absolution from vows was claimed as a prerogative by some rabbis; against this, others protested. One would say that if a man vowed by Jerusalem or by the Law he had said nothing; but if he vowed by what is written in the Law, his words stood. The "wise men" declared four kinds of vows not binding- incentive vows, as when a buyer vows that he will not give more than a certain price in order to induce the seller to take less; meaningless vows; thoughtless and compulsory vows. In such ways the practice was reduced to ignominy. It even came to this, that if a man wished to neutralise all the vows he might make fir the course of a year he had only to say at the beginning of it, on the eve of the Day of Atonement, "Let every vow which I shall make be of none effect," and he would be absolved. This immoral tangle was cut through by the clear judgment of Christ: "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one." In ordinary conversation and dealings Christ will have no vows and oaths. Let men promise and perform, declare and stand to their word. He lifts even ordinary life to a higher plane.With regard to women’s vows, four cases are made the subject of enactment. First, there is the case of a young woman living in her father’s house, under his authority. If she vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond in the hearing of her father and he do not forbid, her vow shall stand. It may involve expense to the father, or put him and the family to inconvenience, but by silence he has allowed himself to be bound. On the other hand, if he interpose and forbid the vow, the daughter is released. The second case is that of a woman who at the time of marriage is under a vow; and this is decided in the same way. Her betrothed husband’s silence, if he hears the promise, sanctions it; his refusal to allow it gives discharge. The third

6

instance is that of a widow or a divorced woman, who must perform all she has solemnly engaged to do. The last case is that of the married woman in her husband’s house, concerning whom it is decreed: "Every vow and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void If he shall make them null and void after he hath heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity."These regulations establish the headship of the father and the husband in regard to matters which belong to religion. And the significance of them lies in this, that no intrusion of the priest is permitted. If the "Priests’ Code" had been intended to set up a hierocracy, these vows would have given the opportunity of introducing priestly influence into family life. The provisions appear to be designed for the very purpose of disallowing this. It was seen that in the ardour of religious zeal women were disposed to make large promises, dedicating their means, their children, or perhaps their own lives to special service in connection with the sanctuary. But the father or husband was the family head and the judge. No countenance whatever is given to any official interference.It would have been well if the wisdom of this law had ruled the Church, preventing ecclesiastical dominance in family affairs. The promises, the threats of a domineering Church have in many cases introduced discord between daughters and parents, wives and husbands. The amenability of women to religious motives has been taken advantage of, always indeed with a plausible reason, -the desire to save them from the world, -but far too often, really, for political-ecclesiastical ends, or even from the base motive of revenge. Ecclesiastics have found the opportunity of enriching the Church or themselves, or under cover of confession have become aware of secrets that placed families at their mercy. No practice followed under the shield of religion and in its name deserves stronger reprobation. The Church should, by every means in its power, purify and uphold family life. To undermine the unity of families by laying obligations on women, or obtaining promises apart from the knowledge of those to whom they are bound in the closest relationship, is an abuse of privilege. And the whole custom of auricular confession comes under the charge. It may occasionally or frequently be used with good intention, and lonely women without trusted advisers among their kindred may see no other resource in times of peculiar difficulty and trial. But the submission that forms part of it is debasing, and the secrecy gives priesthood a power that should belong to no body of men in dealing with the souls of their fellow-creatures, and fellow-sinners. At the very best, confession to a priest is a weak expedient.

PETT, " The Continual Making and Confirmation of Vows (with their peace/wellbeing offerings). But While Dedication Was Good and Was Required, It Also Had To Be Controlled (Numbers 30:1-16).Vows were an essential part of ancient life. By them men demonstrated their dedication to their gods, and it was no different for Israel. So such vows were a further evidence of Israel’s dedication. That is one reason why the general question

7

of vows was introduced here, when the total dedication of Israel into the future was in mind. Furthermore a large number of vows would be accompanied by votary peace offerings both at their commencement and at their end. A number of people would partake of that offering in recognition and celebration of the vow and its final accomplishment. Thus they were a sacred matter.This chapter must not be read as though it was simply describing a way for women to get out of their vows. Its emphasis is positive. Both men and women could make vows in order to demonstrate that they were dedicated to Yahweh. The exceptions were introduced simply in order to prevent a group being bound by one member who was not the head without its consent.The main principle was easily dealt with. Solemn vows made to Yahweh were to be seen as a serious matter. They were binding. Once made they had to be performed. Only in this way could Israel be pleasing to Yahweh and worthy to enter the land (Numbers 30:1-2). (Where they turned out to be too onerous a way was provided of redemption from some vows which were connected with property, but it was costly -see Leviticus 27).But a problem then arose because of the popularity of vows among Yahweh’s people which were made either in order to demonstrate their love for Him, or in a time of crisis when special help was needed. The result was that people such as young women made vows who were not really in a position to do so, concerning matters over which they did not really have control, especially under the stress of war. In that case the vows could either be confirmed or rescinded by the head of the household at the time when he first heard of them.In this chapter this situation was especially dealt with as regards women. The point was, however, not that all such vows would be rescinded, but that the final decision must rest with the head of the household which was affected by the vow. For he was responsible for both the wealth and behaviour of the household.But why here the emphasis on women? If our analysis of chapters 26-32 given at the commencement of Numbers 26 is correct then it contained the sequenced Regulation in respect of land to be inherited by women and others (Numbers 27:1-11).e Provision of a dedicated shepherd for the people of Israel (Numbers 27:12-23).e Provision of a dedicated people and for future worship in the land (Numbers 28-29).d Regulation in respect of vows made by women and others (Numbers 30)Comparison of the first with the last partly explains why women are specially in

8

mind in this passage. We have here a contrast between on the one hand the loyalty and faith of the daughters of Zelophehad which were exalted and rewarded by Yahweh, with, and, on the other hand, the general situation of young women and married women who were not to usurp authority over their menfolk. Their vows therefore, which were also an expression of loyalty and faith, had to be subject to their menfolk. The decision with regard to the daughters of Zelophehad was not to be seen as a general declaration of independence. (Under the hard conditions under which they lived such a declaration would have been foolish in the extreme).This passage may be seen as following the pattern earlier established whereby sequences can be introduced into an overall chiasmus (compare Numbers 22:15-38; Numbers 23:1 to Numbers 24:12; Numbers 28:1 to Numbers 29:40), although it can actually also be seen as a chiasmus. It may be analysed as follows:a Moses speaks to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel issuing Yahweh’s command concerning vows (Numbers 30:1)b A man’s vow to be unbreakable and to be performed (Numbers 30:1-2).c A young unmarried woman’s vow has to be ratified by her father, but if he says nothing when he hears of the vow it stands. If he disavows it the vow does not stand, and Yahweh will forgive her because her father disallowed it (Numbers 30:3-5).d A woman’s vows made prior to marriage have to be ratified by her husband on marriage, but if he says nothing when he hears of the vow it stands. If he disavows it the vow does not stand, and Yahweh will forgive her because her husband disallowed it (Numbers 30:6-8).or d The vow of a widow or a divorced woman stands (Numbers 30:9) (as with a man).c A married woman’s vows after marriage have to be ratified by her husband on marriage, but if he says nothing when he hears of the vow it stands. If he disavows it the vow does not stand, and Yahweh will forgive her because her husband disallowed it (Numbers 30:10-12).or b A husband may make any vow made by his wife void as longs as he does it immediately on hearing of it. But if he says nothing it stands. If he then disavows it he bears her iniquity. The mention of the penalty suggests that this means that the husband had delayed his disavowal (Numbers 30:13-15).a These are the statutes which Yahweh commanded Moses (concerning disallowing or maintenance of vows) between a man and his wife, and a father and his unmarried daughter (Numbers 30:16).A Man’s Vows Are Unbreakable (Numbers 30:1-2).

9

A man’s vows were an expression of dedication to Yahweh. To break them would therefore be to withdraw his dedication.Numbers 30:1‘And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded.’What is here spoken was to the heads of the tribes who would be responsible for the administration of the consequences of vows. It was necessary that they made clear to the people the seriousness of vows and the situation in which they could be rescinded. For in the end a vow was not just a personal matter. It reflected on the whole of the tribe. Note the emphasis on the fact that this was a command of Yahweh. Vows to God were not to be treated lightly.

PULPIT, "And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes. The regulations here laid down about vows follow with a certain propriety upon those concerning the ordinary routine of sacrifices, but we cannot conclude with any assurance that they were actually given at this particular period. It would appear upon the lace of it that we have in Leviticus 27:1-34, and in this chapter two fragments of Mosaic legislation dealing with the same subject, but, for some reason which it is useless to attempt to discover, widely separated in the inspired record. Nor does there seem to be any valid reason for explaining away the apparently fragmentary anti dislocated character of these two sections (see the Introduction). The statement, peculiar to this passage, that these instructions were issued to the "heads of the tribes" itself serves to differentiate it from all the rest of the "statutes" given by Moses, and suggests that this chapter was inserted either by some other hand or from a different source. There is no reason whatever for supposing that the "heads of the tribes" were more interested in these particular regulations than in many others which concerned the social life of the people (such as that treated of in Numbers 5:5-31) which were declared in the ordinary way unto "the children of Israel" at large.

2 When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.10

BARNES, "The “vow” was positive; the “bond” negative or restrictive. By a vow a man engaged to dedicate something to God, or to accomplish some work for Him: by a bond he debarred himself from some privilege or enjoyment. A vow involved an obligation to do: a bond, an obligation to forbear doing.

CLARKE, "If a man vow a vow - A vow is a religious promise made to God. Vows were of several kinds: -

1. Of abstinence or humiliation, see Num_30:13;2. Of the Nazarite, see Numbers 6;3. Of giving certain things or sacrifices to the Lord, Lev_7:16;4. Of alms given to the poor, see Deu_23:21.The law in this chapter must have been very useful, as it both prevented and annulled rash vows, and provided a proper sanction for the support and performance of those that were rationally and piously made. Besides, this law must have acted as a great preventive of lying and hypocrisy. If a vow was properly made, a man or woman was bound, under penalty of the displeasure of God, to fulfill it.

GILL, "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord,.... Which must be in a thing that is lawful to be done, which is not contrary to the revealed will and mind of God, and which may tend to the glory of God, the honour of religion, the service of the sanctuary, the good of a man's self or of his neighbour; or in things purely indifferent, which may, or may not be done, without offence to God or man; as that he will not eat such a thing for such a time, or he will do this or the other thing, as Jarchi observes; who moreover says, that he may forbid himself what is forbidden, and forbid what is free and lawful; but he may not make free or lawful what is forbidden, that is, he may not vow to do a thing which is contrary to the law of God, such a vow will not stand: and he was to be of such an age before he could make a vow that would be valid; according to the Targum of Jonathan, he must be thirteen years of age; it is said in the Misnah (p),"a son of twelve years and one day, his vows are examined; a son of thirteen years and one day, his vows are firm, and they examine the whole thirteenth year before that time; although they say we know to whose name (or on whose account) we vow or consecrate, their vow is no vow, nor their consecration no consecration; but after that time, though they say we know not to whose name (or, on whose account) we vow or consecrate, their vow is a vow, and their consecration a consecration:" or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; to his vow adds an oath for

11

the greater confirmation of it, and to lay himself under the greater obligation to perform it: he shall not break his word; or profane it (q) but punctually perform it; men should be careful how they vow, and not rashly do it; but when they have vowed, they ought to perform; see Ecc_5:4, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth; it is not in his power to revoke his vow or make it null: the Misnic doctors (r) say, a man can loose all vows, excepting his own. R. Judah says, not the vows of his wife, nor those which are between her and others; that is, as one of the commentators (s) explains it, such vows which are not made to afflict, or respect not fasting; but according to the Targum of Jonathan, though a man cannot loose his vows, or free himself from them, yet the sanhedrim, or court of judicature, can, or a wise man that is authenticated thereby, as Jarchi says, or three private persons; but these are such traditions; which make void the commandment of God, as our Lord complains, Mat_15:1.

JAMISON,"If a man vow a vow unto the Lord — A mere secret purpose of the mind was not enough to constitute a vow; it had to be actually expressed in words; and though a purely voluntary act, yet when once the vow was made, the performance of it, like that of every other promise, became an indispensable duty - all the more because, referring to a sacred thing, it could not be neglected without the guilt of prevarication and unfaithfulness to God.

he shall not break his word — literally, “profane his word” - render it vain and contemptible (Psa_55:20; Psa_89:34). But as it would frequently happen that parties would vow to do things which were neither good in themselves nor in their power to perform, the law ordained that their natural superiors should have the right of judging as to the propriety of those vows, with discretionary power to sanction or interdict their fulfilment. Parents were to determine in the case of their children, and husbands in that of their wives - being, however, allowed only a day for deliberation after the matter became known to them; and their judgment, if unfavorable, released the devotee from all obligation [Num_30:3-8].

K&D, "At the head there stands the general rule, “If any one vow a vow to Jehovah, or swear an oath, to bind his soul to abstinence, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that has gone out of his mouth:” i.e., he shall keep or fulfil the vow, and the promise of abstinence, in perfect accordance with his word. נדר is a positive vow, or promise to give or sanctify any part of one's property to the Lord. אסר, from אסר, to bind or fetter, the negative vow, or vow of abstinence. על־נפש אסר to take an ,אסרabstinence upon his soul. In what such abstinence consisted is not explained, because it was well understood from traditional customs; in all

12

probability it consisted chiefly in fasting and other similar abstinence from lawful things. The Nazarite's vow, which is generally reckoned among the vows of abstinence, is called neder in Num_6:2., not issar, because it consisted not merely in abstinence from the fruit of the vine, but also in the positive act of permitting the hair to grow freely in honour of the Lord. The expression “swear an oath” (Num_30:2; cf. Num_30:13) shows that, as a rule, they bound themselves to abstinence by an oath. The inf. constr., השבא, is used here, as in other places, for the inf. abs. (cf. Ges. §131, 4, note 2). יחל, from חלל, for יחל, as in Eze_39:7 (cf. Ges. §67, note 8), to desecrate (his word), i.e., to leave it unfulfilled or break it.

CALVIN, "2.If a man vow a vow. Wishing to modify the general law, lest any one should think that there was any contradiction in this exception, he begins by repeating the law itself, that every one should faithfully pay whatever he had vowed; as much as to say,that this stands good, but that he only refers to such as are their own masters; and that women or girls who are under the power of another, were not free to make vows without the concurrence of their fathers’ or husbands’ consent. This preface, however, must be understood, as I have already pointed out, of lawful vows, whereby neither is religion corrupted nor the holiness of God’s name profaned. And assuredly, unless what we offer is acceptable to God, there can be no obligation on the conscience. Moreover, since there is here a distinction made between males and females, it may be probably conjectured that boys of ten years old, although still united with their family, are bound by their promises; and therefore I will not pertinaciously contend about this, because it is better to leave undecided whatever is doubtful, and disputable, as it is commonly called, on either side.

COKE, ". If a man, &c.— That is, a person entirely master of himself, and actually endowed with reason. See Leviticus 27. The Jewish rabbis have advanced two excellent maxims upon this subject: the one, that a good man, who performs his duty, does well not to lay himself under the obligation of vows; the other, that we are not permitted to make any other vows than those which in their own nature tend to the glory of God. It is very evident, that vows respecting things lawful only must be here meant; and, probably, Moses principally refers to such persons as, intending to glorify God, made vows to offer some sacrifice of supererogation upon the feast days, or to afflict their souls on some other day than that of expiation. No vows nor oaths can bind to that which is unlawful. See Grotius de Jure B. & P. lib. 2: cap. 13 sect. 6. The determination of Philo upon this head is very just; that he who perpetrates any act of injustice upon account of his oath, adds one crime to another; first, by taking an unlawful oath; and then, by doing an unlawful action; therefore, such a one ought to abstain from the unjust action, and pray God to pardon him for his rash oath; an observation which clearly shews the iniquity of Herod's conduct, Matthew 14:9. Religious vows were common among all nations, wherein mankind

13

seem to have considered God rather after the manner of men, than suitably to his own nature. We may observe, however, that the vows which we most frequently read of in the Old Testament, were only solemn resolutions of universal obedience to God. See Genesis 28:20. 2 Samuel 15:8. Isaiah 19:21. Jonah 1:16; Jonah 2:9. The solemn vows and resolutions which Christians come under by baptism and the Lord's supper are of this kind: and such holy renewals, and confirmations of our resolutions to obey God, are undoubtedly of great and perpetual use. Other vows serve only for a snare, and it is most prudent to omit them.Break his word— "Profane," says Dr. Beaumont, i.e. "not violate or break his promise. For the like phrases, see Psalms 55:20; Psalms 89:34. All that proceedeth, &c. signifies every word of his; as the phrase is explained, Luke 4:4 from Deuteronomy 8:3 and this of vows lawful, and in a man's power to perform." TRAPP, "Numbers 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.Ver. 2. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord.] God is the proper object of a vow. [Psalms 76:11] Papists vow to saints, both themselves, as to Francis, Austin, Dominick, &c., and other things, as pilgrimages, oblations, &c. Our Lady, as they call her, of Loretto, hath her churches so stuffed with vowed presents and memories, as they are fain to hang their cloisters and churchyards with them. (a) This is sacrilege; yea, it is idolatry.To bind his soul with a bond.] Which none ought to do, but such as (1.) are free, or have the consent of their governors; (2.) Such as have knowledge and judgment to discern of a vow or oath; [Ecclesiastes 5:3; Ecclesiastes 5:5] (3.) Are conscientious, as Jacob, Hannah, &c. Not such votaries as Herod, [Matthew 14:7] those assassins, [Acts 23:14] those idolaters. [Jeremiah 44:27]He shall not break his word.] If he do, he will make a great breach in his conscience and crack his comfort exceedingly. "Better not vow than not pay." [Ecclesiastes 5:4] It is a sin as bad or worse than perjury, and God takes it heavily at men’s hands. [Jeremiah 34:10-11]

POOLE, " A man; which notes both the sex, as appears by Numbers 30:3, and the age, that he be grown up; for none can be so weak as to think the vow of a young child would bind it.A vow, i.e. a simple Vow to do something possible and lawful.Unto the Lord; to the honour and service of God.Or swear an oath; confirm his vow by an oath.

14

To bind his soul with a bond; to restrain himself from something otherwise lawful, as suppose from such a sort of meat or drink; or to oblige himself to the performance of something otherwise not necessary, is to observe a private day of fasting.He shall not break his word, Heb. not pollute or profane his word, as the same phrase is used, Psalms 55:20 89:34, i.e. not render his word, and consequently himself, profane, or vile and contemptible in the eyes of others.According to all that proceedeth out of his own mouth; and that without delay, Deuteronomy 23:21 Ecclesiastes 5:4, provided the thing be not unlawful and forbidden by God, Acts 23:14; for it is an idle conceit that a man can give away God’s right, or that he can make void God’s commands by his own vows, which was the dotage of the Pharisees, Mark 6:23,26.

BENSON, "Numbers 30:2. If a man vow a vow — Concerning something lawful, and in his power to perform. Unto the Lord — To the honour and service of God. Or swear an oath — Confirm his vow by an oath. To bind his soul with a bond — To restrain himself from something otherwise lawful; as, suppose, from such a sort of meat or drink; or to oblige himself to the performance of something otherwise not necessary, as to observe a private day of fasting. He shall not break (Hebrew, he shall not profane) his word — Not render his word, and consequently himself, profane, or contemptible in the eyes of others. He shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth — Punctually and conscientiously. His vow shall be performed in the manner, time, and kind which was at first proposed, in reverence to the great God to whom it was made. But in case a man vows, or takes an oath, to do any thing that is in itself unlawful, as those Jews did, mentioned Acts 23:14, nothing can be plainer than that such vow or oath must be void in the very nature of the thing. For promises and resolutions, enforced by the strongest oaths, or most solemn vows, are but secondary obligations, and therefore can never absolve us from our primary and immutable obligation to obey the laws of God and nature; for this would be to say, that we could, by an oath, oblige ourselves to do what God had before obliged us not to do. “He who perpetrates any act of injustice,” says Philo Judæus, de specialibus legibus, “upon account of his oath, adds one crime to another; first by taking an unlawful oath, and then by doing an unlawful action. Therefore such a one ought to abstain from the unjust action, and pray God to pardon him for his rash oath.” Thus Herod ought to have done; instead of performing the rash promise which he had sealed with an oath, he ought to have punished that wicked woman, who instigated him to commit murder, under pretence of fulfilling his oath, Matthew 14:9. Grotius observes further, that though the thing promised be not absolutely unlawful, yet, if it obstruct some greater moral good, such a promise, even sealed with an oath, is not binding.WHEDON, " THE SACREDNESS OF VOWS, Numbers 30:1-2.

15

2. A vow is a religions promise unto the Lord. For the different kinds see Leviticus 27, introductory note. Alms promised to the poor were also, by the interpretation of the rabbins, comprehended under vows, on the principle that the poor stand in place of the Lord. Proverbs 19:17; Matthew 25:40; Matthew 26:11.To bind his soul with a bond — Literally, bind his soul to abstain, that is, not to do a thing. The Nazarite’s vow is indicated by another word — neder. Numbers 6:2, note. In what the abstaining consisted is not explained, because it was well understood from traditional customs; in all probability it chiefly consisted in refraining from food and other lawful things. Acts 23:12.He shall not break his word — Profane his word. Slackness or needless delay was also prohibited. Deuteronomy 23:21. The time and place of paying vowed sacrifices was at the great feasts, before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle. Leviticus 1:3; Deuteronomy 12:5-7; Deuteronomy 16:16-17. Impossible vows are to be repented of, and wicked vows are to be broken. Acts xxiii, 21.

PETT, "Numbers 30:2‘When a man vows a vow to Yahweh, or swears an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.’The general principle is clear. When a responsible adult male vows a vow or swears an oath they are to be seen as absolutely binding. Such a person must not break his word. He must do in accordance with the words that he has spoken (compare Deuteronomy 23:21-23; Ecclesiastes 5:4-5; Psalms 15:4; Psalms 66:13-14). It is an act of dedication that is irreversible, although in the case of some vows to do with property redemption was possible (Leviticus 27).A vow could either be (1) with a view to general performance in the light of God’s favour (e.g. Genesis 28:20-22), (2) with a view to abstaining from something (e.g. Psalms 132:2-5; 1 Samuel 14:24), (3) with a view to performing an act in return for God’s favour (21:2-3; Judges 11:30-31; 1 Samuel 1:11), or (4) as an expression of zeal and devotion towards God (Psalms 22:22-25).Two different words are used in connection with vows, neder and ’issar, the former generally, but not always having a positive vow to do something in mind, (it was used of the Nazirite vow which is both positive and negative), while the latter seems more to denote a vow of abstinence.Vows Are Unbreakable If Confirmed By The Head of the Household But Can Be Rescinded by Him Immediately On Hearing Of Them, Although If He Does This Iniquitously He Must Bear The Consequences.

16

These are not to be seen as simply special exceptions enabling the avoidance of vows, but as a positive declaration that a vow must be confirmed by the head of the household in order to be finally binding. Thus a vow could not be finalised which bound or affected others unless agreed to by the head of the particular group, but the emphasis is on the probable confirmation of the vows. It should be noted that the whole tenor of the passage is positive. The expectation is that the vows would be confirmed if they were reasonable and acceptable to the head of the group.

PULPIT, "If a man vow a vow. נדר, a vow, is commonly said to be distinctively a positive vow, a promise to render something unto the Lord. This, however, cannot be strictly maintained, because the Nazarite vow was healer, and that was essentially a vow of abstinence. To say that the vow of the Nazarite was of a positive character because he had to let his hair grow "unto the Lord" is a mere evasion. It is, however, probable that neder, when it occurs (as in this passage) in connection with issar, does take on the narrower signification of a positive vow. Swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond. Literally, "to bind a bond upon his soul." אסר, a bond, which occurs only in this chapter, is considered to be a restrictive obligation, a vow of abstinence. It would appear that the issar was always undertaken upon oath, whereas the neder (as in the case of the Nazarite) did not of necessity require it. He shall not break his word. This was the general principle with respect to vows, and, as here ]aid down, it was in accordance with the universal religious feeling of mankind. Whatever crimes may have claimed the sanction of this sentiment, whatever exceptions and safeguards a clearer revelation and a better knowledge of God may have established, yet the principle remained that whatsoever a man had promised unto the Lord, that he must fulfill. Iphigenia in Aulis, Jephthah's daughter in Gilead, proclaim to what horrid extremities any one religious principle, unchecked by other coordinate principles, may lead; but they also proclaim how deep and true this religious principle must have been which could so over-ride the natural feelings of men not cruel nor depraved.

3 “When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge

17

BARNES, "Being in her father’s house in her youth - It was not ordinarily until her betrothal or marriage, that the female passed (some suppose by purchase) from the power of her father to that of her husband.

CLARKE, "In her youth - That is, say the rabbins, under twelve years of age; and under thirteen in case of a young man. Young persons of this age were considered to be under the authority of their parents, and had consequently no power to vow away the property of another. A married woman was in the same circumstances, because she was under the authority of her husband. If however the parents or the husband heard of the vow, and objected to it in the same day in which they heard of it, (Num_30:5), then the vow was annulled; or, if having heard of it, they held their peace, this was considered a ratification of the vow.

A rash vow was never to be kept; “for,” says Philo, and common sense and justice say the same, “he who commits an unjust action because of his vow adds one crime to another,1. By making an unlawful vow;2. By doing an unlawful action.”

GILL, "If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord,.... Who has not passed thirteen years, as the Targum of Jonathan: and bind herself by a bond; lay herself under obligation to perform her vow by an oath: being in her father's house; unto the twelfth year, as the same Targum; that is, that is under his care, tuition, and jurisdiction, whether she literally, or properly speaking, is in the house or no at the time she vows; so Jarchi interprets it of her being in the power of her father, though not in his house, she being not at age to be at her own disposal, but at his: wherefore it is added: in her youth; which, as the same writer explains it, signifies that she is"neither a little one, nor at age; for a little one's vow is no vow, and one at age is not in the power of her father to make void her vow: who is a little one? our Rabbins say, one of eleven years of age and one day, her vows are examined, whether she knows on whose account she vows and consecrates, or devotes anything; one vows a vow that is twelve years and one day old, there is no need to examine them.''He seems to refer to a passage in the Misnah (t),"a daughter of eleven years and one day, her vows are examined; a daughter of twelve years and one day, her vows are firm, but they are to be examined through the whole twelfth year.''

HENRY 3-8, "It is here taken for granted that all such persons as are sui juris - at their own disposal, and are likewise of sound understanding and memory, are bound to perform whatever they vow that is lawful and

18

possible; but, if the person vowing be under the dominion and at the disposal of another, the case is different. Two cases much alike are here put and determined: -I. The case of a daughter in her father's house: and some think, probably enough, that it extends to a son likewise, while he is at home with his father, and under tutors and governors. Whether the exception may thus be stretched I cannot say. Non est distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit - We are not allowed to make distinctions which the law does not. The rule is general, If a man vow, he must pay. But for a daughter it is express: her vow is nugatory or in suspense till her father knows it, and (it is supposed) knows it from her; for, when it comes to his knowledge, it is in his power either to ratify or nullify it. But in favour of the vow, 1. Even his silence shall suffice to ratify it: If he hold his peace, her vows shall stand, Num_30:4. Qui tacet, consentire videtur - Silence gives consent. Hereby he allows his daughter the liberty she has assumed, and, as long as he says nothing against her vow, she shall be bound by it. But, 2. His protestation against it shall perfectly disannul it, because it is possible that such vow may by prejudicial to the affairs of the family, break the father's measures, perplex the provision made for his table if the vow related to meats, or lessen the provision made for his children if the vow would be more expensive than his estate would bear; however, it was certain that it was an infringement of his authority over his child, and therefore, if he disallow it, she is discharged, and the Lord shall forgive her, that is, she shall not be charged with the guilt of violating her vow; she showed her good-will in making the vow, and, if her intentions therein were sincere, she shall be accounted better than sacrifice. This shows how great a deference children owe to their parents, and how much they ought to honour them and be obedient to them. It is for the interest of the public that the paternal authority be supported; for, when children are countenanced in their disobedience to their parents (as they were by the tradition of the elders, Mat_15:5, Mat_15:6), they soon become in other things children of Belial. If this law be not to be extended to children's marrying without their parents' consent so far as to put it in parents' power to annul the marriage and dissolve the obligation (as some have thought it does), yet certainly it proves the sinfulness of it, and obliges the children that have thus done foolishly to repent and humble themselves before God and their parents.JAMISON,"If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a

bond, being in her father’s house in her youth — Girls only are specified; but minors of the other sex, who resided under the parental roof, were included, according to Jewish writers, who also consider the name “father” as comprehending all guardians of youth. We are also told that the age at which young people were deemed capable of vowing was thirteen for boys and twelve for girls. The judgment of a father or guardian on the vow of any under his charge might be given either by an expressed approval or by silence, which was to be construed as approval. But in the case of a husband who, after silence from day to day, should ultimately disapprove or hinder his wife’s vow, the sin of non-performance was to be imputed to him and not to her [Num_30:15].19

K&D 3-15, "Num_30:3-15 contain the rules relating to positive and negative vows made by a woman, and four different examples are given. The first case (Num_30:3-5) is that of a woman in her youth, while still unmarried, and living in her father's house. If she made a vow of performance or abstinence, and her father heard of it and remained silent, it was to stand, i.e., to remain in force. But if her father held her back when he heard of it, i.e., forbade her fulfilling it, it was not to stand or remain in force, and Jehovah would forgive her because of her father's refusal. Obedience to a father stood higher than a self-imposed religious service. -The second case (Num_30:6-8) was that of a vow of performance or abstinence, made by a woman before her marriage, and brought along with her ( עליה, “upon herself”) into her marriage. In such a case the husband had to decide as to its validity, in the same way as the father before her marriage. In the day when he heard of it he could hold back his wife, i.e., dissolve her vow; but if he did not do this at once, he could not hinder its fulfilment afterwards. שפתיה gossip of her lips, that which is uttered ,מבטאthoughtlessly or without reflection (cf. Lev_5:4). This expression implies that vows of abstinence were often made by unmarried women without thought or reflection. - The third case (Num_30:9) was that of a vow made by a widow or divorced woman. Such a vow had full force, because the woman was not dependent upon a husband. - The fourth case (Num_30:10-12) was that of a vow made by a wife in her married state. Such a vow was to remain in force if her husband remained silent when he heard of it, and did not restrain her. On the other hand, it was to have no force if her husband dissolved it at once. After this there follows the general statement (Num_30:13-16), that a husband could establish or dissolve every vow of performance or abstinence made by his wife. If, however, he remained silent “from day to day,” he confirmed it by his silence; and if afterwards he should declare it void, he was to bear his wife's iniquity. נה the sin which ,עthe wife would have had to bear if she had broken the vow of her own accord. This consisted either in a sin-offering to expiate her sin (Lev_5:4.); or if this was omitted, in the punishment which God suspended over the sin (Lev_5:1).

CALVIN, "3.If a woman also vow. He now proceeds to the point of which he proposed to treat, i.e., that vows made by persons who are not their own masters do not hold good; and he mentions two cases. For, in the first place, he teaches that if a daughter, whilst living with her father, has vowed anything without his knowledge, it is of no force. He lays down the same rule, if the father, hearing the vow, has disallowed it; but if he has held his peace, it is declared that his silence is equivalent to consent. Hence we gather that all those who are possessed of power do not do their duty unless they frankly and discreetly express their opposition whenever anything displeases them; since their connivance is a kind of tacit approbation. In the second place, he treats of married women, whose vows, made in the absence or

20

with the disapproval of their husbands, he commands to be of none effect; but if the husbands have known of them, and been silent, he obliges their performance. For many deceptions might have thus arisen; since it is usual with many when they wish to gratify their wives, to conceal their opinion for the time, but, when the period of actual performance arrives, to elude what may have been promised. But unless they use their privilege in proper time, God would have them bear the punishment of their servile indulgence and dissimulation; but because women are often urged to deceive by their levity and inconstancy, this danger is also anticipated. It may also happen (326) that a woman, when subject to her husband, may make a vow in the precipitate fervor of her zeal, and when he is dead, may retract it under the specious pretext that she was not then free and her own mistress; the same thing may occur when a divorced woman shall bind herself, and then when she has married, shall appear to herself to be released. Since instances of this wicked change of mind are too frequent, no wonder that this special precaution should be added, to prevent frauds. Wherefore God declares that the period when the vow was made is to be considered, so that they are no less liable than as if their condition had remained the same. He therefore condemns to the performance of their vow those women who have been emancipated from their fathers’ authority by marriage, and also who have been set free by death or divorce; yet it appears from the last verse of the chapter, that two exceptions, modifying the general law, are here peculiarly treated of.

COFFMAN, ""Also when a woman voweth a vow unto Jehovah, and bindeth herself by a bond, being: in her father's house, in her youth, and her father heareth her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father holdeth his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth, none of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and Jehovah will forgive her, because her father disallowed her.""In her youth ..." (Numbers 30:3). This appears as a qualifier to indicate the period when a father's jurisdiction prevailed. It is unclear if this applied to those daughters still in their father's house but who were no longer young.Note also that a father could "disallow" a daughter's vows (or oaths) only if he did so on the very day he first heard of it. He could not play fast and loose in the exercise of this authority. If he once allowed it, either by tacit approval (holding his peace) or verbal permission, he could not later revoke his decision.

COKE 3-8, "Numbers 30:3-8. If a woman also, &c.— Two cases are next put, of persons who are under authority, and not entirely at their own disposal; and, by a very equitable law, it is determined, that their vows shall not stand, if disallowed by those under whose authority they are. The same law, founded in natural reason, extends to all under authority; nobody who is subject to another having any right to

21

dispose of those things which are in that other's power. Puffendorf judiciously remarks, that this power was fitly reserved to parents, &c. lest women, in their imprudent years, should ruin themselves by vowing more than their fortunes could bear, and lest the paternal estate should be burdened by such vows. See his Law of Nat. and Nations, book 6: ch. 2 sect. 11.

POOLE, " If a woman, or a man in the same circumstances, a son or a servant, as plainly appears from hence, because the reason of this law is perfectly the same in both sexes, which is, that such persons have given away what was not their own, but another’s, even their superior’s right, which is against the rule and law of natural reason, and against the word of God, which binds all persons to give to every one their due. He instanceth only in the woman, because that sex is both by creation and sin put into a state of subjection, but under the chief and most unquestionable kind all other subjects in like circumstances are comprehended, as is very usual.Being in her father’s house, i.e. under his care, power, and government, which she is whilst she continues in her father’s house, being a virgin, as appears by the opposition of a married woman, Numbers 30:6, and of a widow, and divorced woman, Numbers 30:9, and by this phrase of being in her father’s house, for when she marries, she is removed into her husband’s house, Ruth 1:9. Or, being in, or of her father’s family, the word house being commonly used for family; for when she marries, she is translated and removed into another family.In her youth; when not only her sex, but her age, disenables her for vowing; and this clause is added not by way of restriction, as if’ virgins in their riper years were freed from their parents’ jurisdiction, and at their own disposal, (which undoubtedly they are not,) but by way of addition, or amplification, q.d. especially (which particle is here to be understood, such defects of particles being frequent in the Hebrew tongue) in her youth, which is commonly reckoned about her twelfth or thirteenth year.

WHEDON, " THE MAID’S VOW, Numbers 30:3-5.3. If a woman vow — Both Judaism and Christianity recognise the religious nature and rights of woman, in marked contrast to the denial of those rights by paganism. Even girls in their minority are here recognised as capable of assuming religious obligations.In her youth — Not in her childhood. The Hebrew canons thus define youth: “A young man, the son of twelve years and one day, and a young woman, the daughter of eleven years and one day, who vow either vows of abstinence or of consecration, they examine and question. If they know to whose name they have vowed, then their vows are established; but if they know not, then there is nothing in their vows or words.” This examination they are subject to during one year; afterward their vows

22

are binding without examination, except that the daughter’s may be annulled by the father in accordance with the law.ELLICOTT, " (3) If a woman also . . . —Four distinct cases are contemplated in the following verses in regard to vows taken by women:—(1) that of an unmarried woman, living, in her youth, in the house of her father; (2) that of a woman who is unmarried at the time of making a vow, but enters into the state of marriage before the vow is fulfilled; (3) that of a widow, or of a divorced woman; and (4) that of a married woman. The sanctity and obligations of the fifth commandment are distinctly recognised and enforced in these verses. (See Matthew 15:4-5.) Whenever the vow which the young daughter had made should come to the ears of her father, he had the power either to ratify or to disannul it. If he remained silent the vow was ratified; if he disallowed the vow, the obligation to fulfil it no longer remained in force.

PETT, "Verses 3-5(i) A young unmarried woman living in her father’s house (Numbers 30:3-5).Numbers 30:3-4‘Also when a woman vows a vow to Yahweh, and binds herself by a bond, being in her father’s house, in her youth, and her father hears her vow, and her bond with which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond with which she has bound herself shall stand.’The first example was of a young woman still unmarried and living at home under her father’s jurisdiction. Note that she was ‘in her youth’. She was in expectancy of marriage. Normally such a young woman would be in her early teens, or younger. When she vowed a vow it was subject to the agreement of her father. If when he first heard of it he said nothing then he was seen as approving of the vow and the vow became firm and could not afterwards be rescinded. By his silence he was seen as having given his approval. The vow stood and any bond had to be fulfilled. Note that the positive aspect comes first. Making vows of dedication was still in mind as something positive and meaningful.

PULPIT, "If a woman vow a vow. The fragmentary nature of this section appears from the fact that, after laying down the general principle of the sacredness of vows, it proceeds to qualify it in three special cases only of vows made by women under authority. That vows made by boys were irreversible is exceedingly unlikely; and indeed it is obvious that many cases must have occurred, neither mentioned here nor in Leviticus 27:1-34, in which the obligation could not stand absolute. In her father's house in her youth. Case first, of a girl in her father's house, who had no property of her own, and whose personal services were due to her father.

23

4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand.

GILL, "And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul,.... Her vow, which is binding upon her, or her vow and an oath annexed to it; which makes it still more strongly binding; and this he hears himself, or it is reported to him by others: and her father shall hold his peace at her; shall not reprove her for it, nor contradict her in it: then all her vows shall stand; be they what, or as many as they may: and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand; his silence being to be interpreted as approving of them, and consenting to them.TRAPP, "Numbers 30:4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.Ver. 4. And her father shall hold his peace.] Qui tacet, consentire videtur, a rule in civil law; silence is a kind of consent.Then all her vows shall stand.] Provided that she vow, (1,) Such things as are lawful and warrantable by the word; for to vow to do evil is an utter abomination; {as Acts 23:14 Deuteronomy 23:18} (2.) Such things as are possible and in her power, either naturally or by the assistance of God’s grace promised to her: such is not the Popish vowing of virginity, since omnes non capiant hoc, all men cannot contain. Their vows of continency breed all manner of incontinency in their clergy.

POOLE, " Her father; under which title seem to be comprehended, as in other places of Scripture, masters, magistrates, and all other superiors, in such cases wherein their right is given away by the inferior’s vow; as for instance, when a servant vows to go a long journey for his friend, and his master will not permit him to do so; but not in other cases; as if a servant vows to do something for another in

24

that time which his master alloweth to his own use and disposal, in this case his vow binds him, but not in the former.And her father shall hold his peace; his silence being an interpretative consent, and much more if he declares his approbation of it.Shall stand, i.e. be established, or confirmed, or be in force.BENSON, "Numbers 30:4. And her father hear her vow — Either when she spake the words, or by her acquainting him therewith, as she was bound to do. If it be asked why sons are not mentioned as well as daughters, since both, in their younger years, are under the power of their parents; the answer is, that the cases are quite different; for the sons may soon have it in their power, when become masters of families, to perform the vows which they had made in their minority; but daughters, who pass from the father’s jurisdiction into the power of a husband, are perpetually dependant, either upon their fathers or husbands, and so have no right to make vows without the consent either of the one or the other, except in the case of widowhood or divorce, which is specified, Numbers 30:9.

WHEDON, "4. Her father… hold his peace — Keep silent and interpose no objection. The principle involved is, that the father and the daughter are one in responsibility, and the undisclaimed vow of the daughter becomes positively obligatory upon the daughter, and permissively obligatory upon the father. The absence of a similar law respecting the son in his minority, together with the following statute placing the wife’s vow under the arbitration of her husband, marks an imperfect stage of religious freedom which culminated in the perfect emancipation of woman by Christ. Galatians 3:28.

5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lord will release her because her father has forbidden her.

BARNES, "The Lord shall forgive her - i. e., shall remit the obligation. 25

(Compare 2Ki_5:18.)GILL, "But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth,.... Disapproves of her vow, and expresses his dislike of it, and declares it null and void; which, if done at all, is to be done on the same day he hears it, and not on another day, as Aben Ezra observes; not the day following, and much less on a third or fourth day, &c. and it might be done on a sabbath day (u): not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she bound her soul, shall stand; but become null and void, she being at the control of her father, and having nothing in her own power, and at her own disposal, to vow or consecrate, but wholly in the power and at the disposal of her father: and the Lord shall forgive her; the breach of her vow, it shall not be imputed to her as a sin: because her father disallowed her; so that it was no fault of hers that it was not fulfilled; though she might be blameworthy to make one, without previously obtaining his consent, and making it rashly without his previous knowledge, she not being at her own hands; and in this respect may be said to be forgiven by the Lord, which supposes some fault committed. CALVIN, "5.But if her father disallow her. The expression is remarkable, “And the Lord shall forgive her,” whereby Moses gently reproves the foolish thoughtlessness of the girl; and soon afterwards the same thing is spoken of married women. And surely their rashness is worthy of reprehension, if unmindful of their condition, they, as it were, shake off the yoke and hastily commit themselves. God therefore hints that they are not without blame; but lest they should be tormented by secret remorse, He removes every scruple, declaring that He will forgive, if the performance of the vow shall have been prevented in any other quarter. When the dissent of the father or the husband is required on the same day, it is tantamount to saying that what they have once approved of cannot be disallowed. Further, to “hold his peace” to a wife or daughter, signifies that he does not oppose, but give by silence a token of consent.

TRAPP, "Numbers 30:5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.Ver. 5. But if her father disallow her.] Those that vow monastical obedience renounce all duty to their parents and service to their country. Parents are our Yεοι εφεστιοι, as a heathen said, our household gods, as it were; and have power to disannul or ratify the vows of their children: but the Papists are true heirs to the Pharisees, who taught not to honour father or mother, [Matthew 15:6] and so do "make the commandment of God of none effect by their tradition." "Full well" have

26

they done it. [Mark 7:9] But what cannot they do? The Pope, saith Cardinal Bellarmine, (a) potest de iniustitia facere iustitiam, ex nihilo aliquid, ex virtute vitium; he can make righteousness of unrighteousness, something of nothing, vice of virtue; and it seems so indeed by his practice. For when the cardinals meet to choose a Pope, they make a vow, whosoever is chosen, he shall swear to such articles as they make. And Sleidan saith, (b) the Pope is no sooner chosen, but he breaks them all, and checks their insolencies, as if they went about to limit his power, to whom all power is given both in heaven and earth.

POOLE, " In the day that he heareth, i.e. speedily, or without delay, allowing’ only necessary and convenient time for deliberation. And it is hereby intimated, that the day or time he had for disallowing her vow was not to be reckoned from her vowing, but from his hearing or knowledge of her vow.Shall forgive her; or, will forgive either her rashness of making such vows, or rather her not performing of it. But this is to be understood only of such vows which could not be performed without invading the father’s or superior’s right; for if one should vow to forbear such or such a sin, and all unnecessary occasions or means leading to it, and to perform such or such duties, when he had opportunity, no father nor superior can discharge him from such vows.

BENSON, "Numbers 30:5. In the day that he heareth — Speedily, or without delay, allowing only convenient time for deliberation. And it is hereby intimated, that the day or time he had for disallowing her vow was not to be reckoned from her vowing, but from his knowledge of her vow. The Lord shall forgive — Or, will forgive her not performing it. But this should be understood only of vows which could not be performed without invading the father’s right; for if one should vow to forbear such or such a sin, and all occasions or means leading to it, and to perform such or such duties, when he had opportunity, no father can discharge him from such vows. If this law does not extend to children’s marrying without the parent’s consent, so far as to put it in the power of the parent to disannul the marriage, (which some think it does,) yet certainly it proves the sinfulness of such marriages, and obliges those children to repent and humble themselves before God and their parents.ELLICOTT, "(5) The Lord shall forgive her—i.e., she would not incur the guilt or punishment which would otherwise have been incurred by neglecting to fulfil the vow which she had made.PETT, "Numbers 30:5‘But if her father disallow her in the day that he hears, none of her vows, or of her bonds with which she has bound herself, shall stand: and Yahweh will forgive her, because her father disallowed her.’

27

However, if her father immediately rescinded her vows on the day that he heard of them then none of her vows would officially stand. She would not be bound to them by God or man. And Yahweh would forgive her because it was her father’s decision. She could, of course, still act in accordance with them, but the point is that neither God nor man would hold her bound to them.This must not be assumed to be an easy get out. The father would be seen as responsible to honour vows that were made which were positive and sensible. He would not be expected to hinder his daughter’s dedication to Yahweh. But the point is that the vows may have been the rash act of a young teenager, or may have affected things outside her own life. Thus the father was put in a position to decide whether they should have been made, and to confirm or deny them accordingly

PULPIT, "If her father disallow her. It appears from the previous verse that the disallowance must be spoken, and not mental only. If the vow had been made before witnesses, no doubt the father's veto must be pronounced before witnesses also.

6 “If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself

BARNES, "Rather, And if she shall at all be an husband’s, and her vows shall be upon her, or a rash utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul, etc. The “at all” intimates that the case of a girl betrothed but not yet actually married is here especially contemplated. After betrothal, a woman continued to reside, until the period of her marriage arrived, in her father’s house; but her property was from that time forward vested in her husband, and she was so far regarded as personally his, that an act of faithlessness to him was, like adultery, punishable with death Deu_22:23-24. Hence, his right to control her vows even before he actually took her home as his wife.GILL, "And if she had at all an husband with whom she vowed,.... Or "when her vows were upon her" (w), was either betrothed or married to a man:

28

or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; uttered anything, either with or without premeditation, either with thought and deliberation, or rashly and imprudently, as the word signifies, yet in such a manner that it was binding upon her. COFFMAN, ""And if she be married to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the rash utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her husband hear it, and hold his peace at her in the day that he heareth it; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallow her in the day that he heareth it, then he shall make void her vow which is upon her, and the rash utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul: and Jehovah will forgive her."The legislation here permitted a husband the same authority over his wife that a father had over a dependent daughter, enabling him to disallow any vows made by his wife; but it also applied to vows that a wife was "under" at the time he was married to her. In cases like that, he could disallow the vows as soon as he heard of them, provided only, that he do so at once "on the day" that he heard of them. Thus, there is a double application of the law here.Basing his conclusions upon the two distinctive Hebrew words used for "vows" in this passage, Wade declared that there are two kinds of vows which are particularly under consideration in this chapter: "They are (a) promises to give or to dedicate something to Jehovah, and (b) pledges to practice some form of abstinence."[6] It is easy to see the wisdom of such legislation. A dependent minor daughter might make a foolish and irresponsible vow to give vast sums of money to some project, such a vow, for some reason not being disallowed, and then the bridegroom marrying her would be saddled with an immense obligation unjustly. Here there was certified to him the right of annulment. "The husband had an absolute right to disallow and dissolve such obligations."[7]

TRAPP, "Numbers 30:6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;Ver. 6. And if she had at all a husband.] Hannah’s vow [1 Samuel 1:11] was made either by the consent of her husband, or else by peculiar instinct from God.

POOLE, " An husband, to whose will and authority she was thereby made subject.When she vowed, to wit, when she was in her father’s house, as is evident by comparing Numbers 30:10; and this clause seems to be added by way of exception to that which was said Numbers 30:3,4, to signify, that though she were in her father’s house, yet if she were married, her husband only, and not her father, could disoblige her from her vow.

29

Or uttered ought; either,1. By way of vow, and so this clause explains and determines the former, i.e. if she express her vow in words. Or,2. By way of oath, concerning which this same phrase is used Leviticus 5:4, and so this clause is distinct from the former, which the disjunctive particle or implies.

WHEDON, "6. If she had at all a husband — The words “at all” are a poor translation of the Hebrew idiom for becoming a wife by betrothal while still in her father’s house for ten months or a year longer. During this period the control of her vows is no longer in her father’s power, but in her husband’s, and her unfaithfulness in this pre-nuptial period was, like adultery, punishable with death. Whether the vow was made before or after the betrothal it was under the control of her husband, and it might be dis-allowed by him as soon as he heard of it, either before or after marriage. Yet the Hebrew doctors say that the period of betrothal is under the joint control of the father and the affianced husband.ELLICOTT, " (6) And if she had at all an husband . . . . —Better, And if she should be married to a husband whilst her vows are upon her, or the rash utterance of her lips wherewith she hath bound her soul. The case here contemplated appears to be that of a woman who married whilst under a vow. On the other hand the case of a woman who takes a vow after marriage is treated of further on in Numbers 30:10-13. The cognate verb of the word mibta, rash utterance, occurs in Leviticus 5:4, and seems to denote something which is uttered without reflection.PETT, " (ii) A young unmarried woman who makes a vow and then marries a husband (Numbers 30:6-8)Numbers 30:6-7‘And if she be betrothed/married to a husband, while her vows are on her, or the rash utterance of her lips, with which she has bound herself, and her husband hear it, and hold his peace at her in the day that he hears it; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds with which she has bound herself shall stand.’The second example is of a young woman who made a vow or vows and then either became betrothed or married. She had now come under the authority of her husband. Thus he had the right to decide whether to confirm her vows. She could not bring binding vows into the marriage without his agreement. Note the mention of ‘the rash utterance of her lips’. It was a recognition that a young teenage girl could make rather foolish vows. But the overall point was that if her husband came to know of her vows and by silence gave his consent to them, then they became firm and binding. Once again the positive aspect is in mind.

30

PULPIT, "If she had at all a husband. Literally, "if being she be to an husband." Septuagint, ἐὰν γενομένη γένηται ἀνδρί. Case second, of a married or betrothed woman. As far as the legal status of the woman was concerned, there was little difference under Jewish law whether she were married or only betrothed. In either case she was accounted as belonging to her husband, with all that she had (cf. Deuteronomy 22:23, Deuteronomy 22:24; Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20). When she vowed. Rather, "and her vows be upon her." Septuagint, καὶ αἱ εὐχαὶ αὐτῆς ἐπ αὐτῇ. The vows might have been made before her betrothal, and not disallowed by her father; yet upon her coming under the power of her husband he had an absolute right to dissolve the obligation of them; otherwise it is evident that he might suffer loss through an act of which he had no notice. Or uttered ought out of her lips. Rather, "or the rash utterance of her lips." The word מבטא, which is not found elsewhere (cf. Psalms 106:33 ), seems to have this meaning. Such a vow made by a young girl as would be disallowed by her husband when he knew of it would presumably be a "rash utterance."

7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand.

GILL, "And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it,.... The vow she made, and by his silence consented to it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand; or she be under obligation to perform them.

8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, 31

and the Lord will release her.

GILL, "But if her husband disallow her on the day that he heard it,.... Expresses his dislike of it; and this he does as soon as he hears it, at least that same day; according to the Jews (x), within the space of twenty four hours: then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect; by contradicting it, and forbidding the performance of it; or however by declaring to her, or to others, that it is not agreeable to his mind and will that it should be fulfilled: and the Lord shall forgive her; excuse her performance of the vow, and not impute sin to her on that account, nor punish for the breach of it, she being under the cover of her husband, and obliged to submit to his will. According to Jarchi, the Scripture speaks of a woman that vows to be a Nazarite; her husband hears and makes it void; but she does not know it, and transgresses her vow, and drinks wine, and is defiled with the dead, so that she has need of forgiveness, though it is made void; and if vows made void, he adds, have need of pardon, much more those that are not. PETT, "Numbers 30:8‘But if her husband disallow her in the day that he hears it, then he shall make void her vow which is on her, and the rash utterance of her lips, with which she has bound herself, and Yahweh will forgive her.’However once again there was a means of withdrawal. If her husband disallowed her vows on the day that he learned of them then no one would be bound by them,, and Yahweh would forgive the woman because it was not a sign of her change in dedication. Once again the husband would be seen as having a responsibility before Yahweh.

9 “Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.32

GILL, "But every vow of a widow,.... The Scripture speaks, as Jarchi says, of a widow from marriage, or that has been married, but a widow from espousals (or that has been only espoused), the husband dead, the power is transmitted, and returns to the father; and with respect to such a case, it is said in the Misnah (y)"if the father (of such a betrothed person) dies, the power is not transmitted to the husband; but if the husband dies, the power is transmitted to the father; in this case, greater is the power of a father than of an husband; in others, greater is the power of an husband than of a father, because an husband makes void (the vow of) one at age, but a father does not make void (the vow of) such an one:" and of her that is divorced: from her husband on some account or another; now in each of these cases, the one being loosed from the law of her husband by death, and the other by a bill of divorce, if they vowed: the vows wherewith they have bound their souls shall stand against her; against either of them, they having none over them to disapprove of, contradict, and make void their vows.

HENRY 9-16, " The case of a wife is much the same. As for a woman that is a widow or divorced, she has neither father nor husband to control her, so that, whatever vows she binds her soul with, they shall stand against her(Num_30:9), it is at her peril if she run back; but a wife, who has nothing that she can strictly call her own, but with her husband's allowance, cannot, without that, make any such vow. 1. The law is plain in case of a wife that continues so long after the vow. If her husband allow her vow, though only by silence, it must stand, Num_30:6, Num_30:7. If he disallow it, since her obligation to that which she had vowed arose purely from her own act, and not from any prior command of God, her obligation to her husband shall take place of it, for to him she ought to be in subjection as unto the Lord;and now it is so far from being her duty to fulfil her vow that it would be her sin to disobey her husband, whose consent perhaps she ought to have asked before she made the vow; therefore she needs forgiveness, Num_30:8. 2. The law is the same in case of a wife that soon after becomes a widow, or is put away. Though, if she return to her father's house, she does not therefore so come again under his authority as that he has power to disannul hew vows (Num_30:9), yet if the vow was made while she was in the house of her husband, and her husband disallowed it, it was made void and of no effect for ever, and she does not return under the law of her vow when she is loosed from the law of her husband. This seems to be the distinct meaning of Num_30:10-14, which otherwise would be but a repetition of Num_30:6-8. But it is added (Num_30:15) that, if the husband make void the vows of his wife, he shall bear her iniquity; that is, if the thing she had vowed was really good, for the honour of God and the prosperity of her own soul, and the husband disallowed it out of covetousness, or humour, or to show his authority, though she be discharged from the obligation of her vow, yet he

33

will have a great deal to answer for. Now here it is very observable how carefully the divine law consults the good order of families, and preserves the power of superior relations, and the duty and reverence of inferiors. It is fit that every man should bear rule in his own house, and have his wife and children in subjection with all gravity; and rather than this great rule should be broken, or any encouragement given to inferior relations to break those bonds asunder, God himself would quit his right, and release the obligations even of a solemn vow; so much does religion strengthen the ties of all relations, and secure the welfare of all societiesd, that in it the families of the earth are blessed.

JAMISON,"every vow of a widow — In the case of a married woman, who, in the event of a separation from her husband, or of his death, returned, as was not uncommon, to her father’s house, a doubt might have been entertained whether she was not, as before, subject to paternal jurisdiction and obliged to act with the paternal consent. The law ordained that the vow was binding if it had been made in her husband’s lifetime, and he, on being made aware of it, had not interposed his veto [Num_30:10, Num_30:11]; as, for instance, she might have vowed, when not a widow, that she would assign a portion of her income to pious and charitable uses, of which she might repent when actually a widow; but by this statute she was required to fulfil the obligation, provided her circumstances enabled her to redeem the pledge. The rules laid down must have been exceedingly useful for the prevention or cancelling of rash vows, as well as for giving a proper sanction to such as were legitimate in their nature, and made in a devout, reflecting spirit.

CALVIN, "9.But every vow of a widow. I have stated why widows are expressly named, viz., lest a woman should think that by a second marriage she would escape, as being no longer free, and again under the yoke; since by such subtle excuses people often extricate themselves. No other subject is referred to down to the end of the last verse but one; for they have made a very gross mistake, who interpret it as applying to a family and its master. (327) The subject itself certainly does not admit of such an explanation; and the words of Moses forbid it: so that it is the more surprising that persons skilled in the Hebrew language have not seen the matter clearly.

COFFMAN, ""But the vow of a widow, or of her that is divorced, even everything wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand against her. And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath, and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband made them null and void in the day that he heard them, then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand:

34

her husband hath made them void; and Jehovah will forgive her."The teaching here is that widows and divorced women were in the same category as all mankind (as in Numbers 30:1,2) and were required to discharge their pledges, oaths, sworn promises, and vows. Even in those instances in which a woman had made binding vows (not disallowed) before she was widowed or divorced, the woman's obligations stood.It is dramatically clear from all this that a person's spoken word is of the utmost importance, and that his eternal well-being can be vitally affected by what a person says. As our Lord Jesus Christ stated it: "And I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of Judgment. For BY THY WORDS THOU SHALT BE JUSTIFIED AND BY THY WORDS THOU SHALT BE CONDEMNED." (See Matthew 12:36,37).Right here is the little end of that tap-root which feeds and nourishes all of the corruption and immorality threatening to engulf all mankind today. What is it? It is simply this, that men cannot be counted on to do what they say they will do. How casually men take their most solemn vows! Behold how countless thousands dishonor, deny, and repudiate their marriage vows! And in the matter of holy religion, how many millions are there today who have forsaken and abandoned even their baptismal vows! May all people cease and desist from the sin of broken vows. This vital sub-structure of all human truth and order is crumbling; and, unless there shall come about a change, the future of our modern world is indeed dismal and threatening.Another condition prevalent in the times of Moses is that of the absolute inferiority of women, a condition that prevailed all over the world of that era and which continued down until the times of Jesus Christ. "Only the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ lifted women to a place of equality with men, equality in rights and in moral responsibility before God."[8]POOLE, " Though she be in her father’s house, whither such persons oft returned; which limitation may be gathered both from the opposition of her beingin her husband’s house, Numbers 30:10, and from hence, that this was the only doubtful cast for if such a person was not in her father’s house, she was unquestionably bound by it, but being now freed from her husband, and returned to her father, it was doubtful whether she was not returned to the same state of subjection in which she was before, and consequently unable to make or perform a vow without her father’s consent, as she was before, which is here denied.

WHEDON, " THE VOW OF THE WIDOW AND OF THE DIVORCED WIFE, 35

Numbers 30:9.Such a vow must be paid, because both the widow and the divorced wife are free from the law of the husband and the father also. According to the rabbins, marriage to a second husband before the vow is performed has no effect upon the vow. It is not in his power to make it void.PETT, " (iii) A vow made by a widow or a divorced woman (Numbers 30:9).Numbers 30:9‘But the vow of a widow, or of her who is divorced, even everything with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her.’The vow made by a widow or a divorced woman was seen as being as binding as an adult male’s. She was not under the authority of father or husband and her vow was thus seen as irrevocable. Even a divorced woman who returned to her father’s household was thus still seen as having her own measure of independence. Even here, however, she could presumably only vow in a binding way concerning her own position and wealth.This example is especially of interest in regard to the question of women’s ‘equality’. It was not that women were not seen as equal with men. That fact is confirmed here. It was that there had always to be a head of a group, and that that head was to be seen as having overall responsibility.

PULPIT, "Every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced. This is not one of the cases treated of in this section (see Numbers 30:16), but is only mentioned in order to point out that it falls under the general principle laid down in Numbers 30:2.

10 “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath

GILL, "And if she vowed in her husband's house,.... Before his death, in his lifetime, or before divorced: the Targum of Jonathan adds, by way of explanation, "and not at age for marriage", understanding it of a betrothed,

36

and not a married person; but Jarchi says, the Scripture speaks of a married one, which seems most likely: or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; to fulfil her vow, to abstain from this, or to do that or the other thing.COKE, "Numbers 30:10. If she vowed in her husband's house— i.e. If she who is a widow, or divorced, did make her vow during her husband's life, or before she was divorced. This sense, which is very natural, distinguishes this law from that in the 6th verse. The rabbis say, that if she was only betrothed, none could make her vow void, but her father and husband together. POOLE, "In her husband’s house, i.e. if she that now is a widow, or divorced, made that vow whilst her husband lived with her; as suppose she then vowed, that if she was a widow, she would give such a proportion of her estate to pious or charitable uses, of which vow she might repent when she came to be a widow, and might believe or pretend she was free from it, because that vow was made in her husband’s lifetime, which is here granted, in case her husband then disallowed it, but denied, in case by silence or otherwise he consented to it. And thus this law is sufficiently distinguished from that above, Numbers 30:6-8. BENSON, "Numbers 30:10. If she vowed — If she that now is a widow, or divorced, made that vow while her husband lived with her; as, suppose, she then vowed that if she was a widow she would give such a proportion of her estate to pious or charitable uses, of which vow she might repent when she came to be a widow, and might believe or pretend she was free from it, because that vow was made in her husband’s lifetime: this is granted, in case her husband then disallowed it; but denied, in case, by silence, or otherwise, he consented to it.WHEDON, " THE VOW OF THE WIFE, Numbers 30:10-16.In this case the silence of the husband cognizant of the vow gives consent, but his immediate protest annuls the obligation.13. To afflict the soul — This was usually done by fasting. Leviticus 16:29, note. The Jewish teachers infer from this verse, that although the father may annul all the vows of his daughter, yet the husband only has authority over his wife’s vow to afflict her soul.14. From day to day — His power to make void his wife’s vow expired after the day that he heard it. Numbers 30:8.15. He shall bear her iniquity — The punishment for the broken vow of his wife. A sin offering must be presented by him to expiate her sin.Leviticus 5:4-13, notes. If this is omitted he must bear the penalty.

37

Leviticus 5:1, note. “From which we learn,” says Jarchi, “that he who is the cause of offence unto his neighbour shall come in his stead unto all punishments.”ELLICOTT, "(10) And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul . . . —i.e., if she took a vow of performance or of abstinence whilst in the house of her husband.PETT, "Verses 10-12(iv) A vow made by a married woman without her husband’s knowledge (Numbers 30:10-12).Numbers 30:10-11‘And if she (a woman) vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath, and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond with which she bound herself shall stand.’This case was of a married woman who made a vow without consulting her husband as the head of the household. Such a vow was always to be seen as subject to the husband’s agreement, for her fulfilling of the vow would necessarily affect the whole household. If he heard of it and allowed it by his silence then the vow continued as binding on all. She was bound by her dedicatory vow.

PULPIT, "If she vowed in her husband's house. Case third, of a married woman living with her husband. The husband had naturally the same absolute authority to allow or disallow all such vows as the father had in the ease of his unmarried daughter. The only difference is that the responsibility of the husband is expressed in stronger terms than that of the father, because in the nature of things the husband has a closer interest in and control over the proceedings of his wife than the father has over those of the daughter.

11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 38

GILL, "And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not,.... Heard her make her vow, and bind it with an oath, and was silent at it, which was consenting to it, and did not contradict her, nor show any displeasure or resentment at her on account of it; the Targum of Jonathan adds,"and died before she was at age;''but what follows held good equally of one that was at age for marriage, and actually married to him: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand; be ratified and confirmed, and she be under obligation to make them good.

12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her.

CLARKE, "Concerning the bond of her soul - Her life is at stake if she fulfill not the obligation under which she has laid herself.

GILL, "But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them,.... Declaring they were contrary to his mind and will, he disapproved of them, and forbid the carrying them into execution: then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand; though her husband be dead, or she be divorced from him: her husband hath made them void, and the Lord shall forgive her: she will neither incur his displeasure for not fulfilling her vow, nor have any punishment inflicted on her: the Targum of Jonathan is,"if her husband

39

makes them void, and she knows it not and transgresses, it shall be forgiven her by the Lord.''PETT, "Numbers 30:12‘But if her husband made them null and void in the day that he heard them, then whatever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and Yahweh will forgive her.’But if her husband disallowed the vow or vows on the day that he heard of it/them, then they ceased to be binding. Whatever she had spoken was cancelled. Her husband had made them void and Yahweh would forgive her.

13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself.[b]

GILL, "Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul,.... By fasting, as Aben Ezra observes; as when a vow was made, or a person bound herself by an oath to abstain from such and such food, or to fast on such a day; to keep a fast which was not appointed, to set apart a day for fasting, besides the grand and general fast on the day of atonement: Jarchi from hence gathers, that a man only makes vows of afflicting the soul, or vows of fasting; but this is not said by way of limitation and restriction, but by way of amplification and illustration, giving a particular instance, by which others may be judged of: her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void, just as he pleased; and this power an husband had, to prevent confusion in the family, and trouble in the affairs of it, by vowing abstinence from such and such food, or from such and such liquor, and the like; and to prevent running into expenses he was not able to answer, by vowing and dedicating, this and the other to holy uses, for sacrifices, and repairs of the temple, and the like.COFFFMAN, ""Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he hath established them, because he held his peace at

40

her in the day that he heard them. But if he shall make them null and void after that he hath heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity. These are the statutes, which Jehovah commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter, being in her youth, in her father's house."This paragraph is somewhat of a summary of the whole chapter, but it has one new thing. The father (or husband) also is under a divine caution. There is, under certain circumstances, a finality in what he says or does not say. If, for example, he should allow certain rash vows to stand by "holding his peace" his action is irrevocable and may not be changed at some later time. His power and authority are forbidden to be used capriciously.We are indebted to Carson for this summary of the situations treated in the legislation of this chapter: (i) a young woman in her father's house (Numbers 30:3-5); (ii) a married woman who vowed while she was still single (Numbers 30:6-8); (iii) a widow or divorced person (Numbers 30:9); and (iv) that of a wife in her husband's house (Numbers 30:10-15).[9] To us it also seems that a fifth regulation appears in Numbers 30:1 and Numbers 30:2, namely, that all people are commanded by Almighty God to keep their word.Note the attestation in Numbers 30:16 that Jehovah himself is the author of the legislation given. Apparently, Moses attached this to each entry in "the book" which contained all of it.

COKE, "Verses 13-15Numbers 30:13-15. Every binding oath to afflict the soul— By fasting, abstinence, or rather acts of mortification and self-denial. See Leviticus 16:24. Perhaps St. Paul had this passage in view, when he says, the wife hath not power over her own body. 1 Corinthians 7:4. The husband had it in his power to establish or make void the vows of the wife; but (Numbers 30:14-15.) the tacit or explicit consent of the husband to the religious vow of the wife, and of the father to the vow of the daughter, once freely given at the first making of it, was to establish and render it irreversible. Their silence, or not contradicting it, at the first proposal, was to be interpreted consent; nor was it in the husband's or parent's power to retract that consent, or hinder the performance of the vow in due manner; which if he did, he was to bear her iniquity; that is,God would punish him, not her, for a breach of sacred faith. Houbigant renders this, after the Samaritan and LXX, he should bear his own iniquity: for, says he, there is no iniquity in the wife whom the husband permits not to perform her vow; the iniquity is his, who prevents the performance of it. But, according to the interpretation we have given them, there is no great difference.

41

TRAPP, "Numbers 30:13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.Ver. 13. To afflict her soul.] This is one instance of what she may vow. She may curb wanton flesh from the use of things lawful in themselves, but harmful to her, and that by a vow, as did the Rechabites, [Jeremiah 35:8-10] which the devil seeing will despair; for vows are as exorcisms to allay our rebellious spirits, and as cords to hamper our treacherous hearts, when they would slip the collar, and decline the yoke. In short, a man may lawfully vow a thing that is either a part of God’s worship - as to fast once a month before the sacrament, to pray so many times a day, &c. - or a furtherance thereof, - as to found a lecture, build a college, school, almshouse, give so much weekly to the poor, &c.

POOLE, "Afflict the soul, i.e. herself by fasting, which oft goes under that name, as Leviticus 16:29,31 23:27,32 Isa 58:5, by watching, or the like. And these words are added not for limitation, for it is manifest from Numbers 30:5,8,10,12, that the power of parents and husbands was more general and large; but for amplification, to show that the husband had this power not only in those vows which concerned himself or his estate, but also in those which might seem only to concern her own person or body. And the reason hereof is, because the wife’s person or body being the husband’s right, she might not do any thing to the injury of her body without his consent. BENSON, "Numbers 30:13. To afflict the soul — Herself, by fasting, by watching, or the like. And these words are added to show that the husband had this power not only in those vows which concerned himself or his estate, but also in those which might seem only to concern her own person and body; and the reason is, because the wife’s person or body being the husband’s right, she might not do any thing to the injury of her body without his consent.ELLICOTT, " (13) Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul.—Reference is again made to the two kinds of vows which are treated of in this chapter—viz., a vow to do anything, and a vow to abstain from anything.

PETT, "Verses 13-16A Summary (Numbers 30:13-16).Numbers 30:13-14‘Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her bonds, which are on her: he has established them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he

42

heard them.’The whole position with regard to husband and wife was now summarised. On the day that he heard of his wife’s vow, whether it was to perform something positive, or abstain from doing something, or to afflict herself in some way, he could make it void. But if from day to day he said nothing once he had heard of it, then it became binding. All such vows would be established. All such bonds would be binding. By holding his peace and saying nothing on the day that he heard of them he has firmly established them.

PULPIT, "Oath to afflict the soul. No doubt by fasting or by other kinds of abstinence. The expression is especially used in connection with the rigorous fast of the day of atonement (Le Numbers 16:29; Numbers 29:7; and cf. Isaiah 58:5; 1 Corinthians 7:5).

14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them.

GILL, "But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day today,.... Said not one word to her day after day, neither on the day he heard her vow, nor the day following: then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her; by his silence: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her, in the day that he heard them; for not to contradict them was to confirm them.

15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he must bear the 43

consequences of her wrongdoing.”

GILL, "But if he shall any ways make them void, after that he hath heard them,.... Some way or other expressing his dislike of them; not at the time he heard them, but some time afterwards; one day after, as the Targum of Jonathan: then he shall bear his iniquity: be accountable for the breach of the vow, the sin shall be reckoned to him, and he shall bear the punishment of it, because he ought to have declared is disapprobation of it sooner; and it may be, his doing it when he did was only in a spirit of contradiction, or through covetousness; and it would have been more advisable to have let the vow stand, and therefore acted a criminal part, and so was answerable for it; the Targum of Jonathan explains it,"her husband or her father shall bear her iniquity,''supposing her not to be at age: Aben Ezra gives the reason of it, because she is in his power.POOLE, " After that he hath heard them, and approved them by his silence from day to day; if now after that time spent, he shall upon further thoughts dislike and hinder it, which he ought not to do,her iniquity, her nonperformance of her vow, shall be imputed to him, not to her.

BENSON, "Numbers 30:15. After he hath heard — And approved them by his silence from day to day; if after that time he shall hinder them, which he ought not to do, her non-performance of her vow shall be imputed to him, not to her.

PETT, "Numbers 30:15‘But if he shall make them null and void after that he has heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity.’This principle has been seen in two ways. Some see this as representing a case where the husband having said nothing on the day that he heard of the vow, decided later to rescind it. Had he rescinded it immediately there would have been no iniquity. But because he has rescinded it late he must pay any penalty required for failure to fulfil the vow. This rested on him as the head of the household because he had originally confirmed the vow by his silence.But it seems more probable that this is simply a reminder that the husband must not

44

rescind any vows made by his wife lightly. While the woman would be forgiven because it was at her husband’s demand that the vow was rescinded, he himself was still to be held as accountable. He must bear the result of his decision. If his decision was wise and reasonable there would be no cost. If it was not then he was accountable to Yahweh. The responsibility had come on him.

PULPIT, "Then he shall bear her iniquity, i.e; if he tacitly allowed the vow in the first instance, and afterwards forbad its fulfillment, the guilt which such breach of promise involved should rest upon him. For the nature and expiation of such guilt see on Leviticus 5:1-19,

16 These are the regulations the Lord gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living at home.

CLARKE, "These are the statutes - It is very probable that this law, like that concerning the succession of daughters, (Numbers 27)., rose from the exigency of some particular case that had just then occurred.

Making vows, in almost any case, is a dangerous business; they seldom do any good, and often much evil. He who does not feel himself bound to do what is fit, right, and just, from the standing testimony of God’s word, is not likely to do it from any obligation he may lay upon his own conscience. If God’s word lack weight with him, his own will prove lighter than vanity. Every man who professes the Christian religion is under the most solemn obligation to devote body, soul, and spirit to God, not only to the utmost extent of his powers, but also as long as he exists. Being baptized, and receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, are additional ratifications of the great, general, Christian vow; but every true follower of Christ should always remember, and frequently renew, his covenant with God.

GILL, "These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses between a man and his wife,.... Relating to vows made by the wife, and confirmed or disannulled by the husband: Aben Ezra adds, if she is at age or in puberty, understanding it of a married and not a betrothed wife:

45

between the father and his daughter; if she is not at age, as the same writer observes; for if she is at age he has nothing to do with her vows: being yet in her youth; not at age, being not twelve years and one day old: in her father's house; in his power and jurisdiction, and at his disposal, and so could make her vows void or firm, as he pleased: this power of ratifying or disannulling vows an husband had over his wife, and a father over his daughter, to prevent imprudent and extravagant vows, and the too frequent use of them, the consequences of which might be bad in families.

COKE, "Numbers 30:16. These are the statutes, &c.— These statutes were ordained for the good of families, for the support of order, economy, and necessary tranquillity, and for the prevention of superstition and vice.

PETT, "Numbers 30:16‘These are the statutes, which Yahweh commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter, being in her youth, in her father’s house.’The chapter finishes with a summary of what the chapter was about. It may suggest that this chapter once stood alone as a written record with this as the colophon. But note that it does not mention vows (although it may have been filed under ‘vows’). The principle behind this chapter was of overall authority in a household and not just a matter of vows. It covers the situation between a man and his wife, and a father and his young unmarried daughters with regard to overall authority.

46