Numbers 30
OF VOWS MADE BY WOMEN (vs. 1-16)
1 “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 (see v.39 of last chapter), 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, 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 and dislocated character of these two sections. 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 ch. 5:5-31) which were
declared in the ordinary way unto
“the children of
This is the thing
which the LORD hath commanded.”
2 “If a man vow a
vow” - rd,n,, 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 neder, 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 –
“unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond;”
- Literally,
“to bind a bond upon his soul.” rS;ai,
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 laid
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
daughter in
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. “he shall do
according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”
neder (נֶֶדֶר, “vow; votive offering.” This noun occurs 60 times in biblical
Hebrew and is often used in
conjunction with the verb (19 times): “… Any
of
thy vows which thou vowest …” (Deuteronomy 12:17). Modern versions
compress
the noun and verb into one idiom: “Or
whatever you have vowed
to give” (niv), or give a technical usage to the noun: “Or any of your
votive offerings which you vow” (rsv)
The vow has two basic forms, the unconditional and the conditional. The
unconditional is an “oath” where someone binds himself without expecting
anything
in return: “I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in
the presence
of all his people” (Ps. 116:14). The obligation is binding upon the person
who has made a “vow.” The word spoken has the force of an oath which
generally
could not be broken: “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 [everything he said] " (v. 2). The conditional “vow” generally
had a preceding clause before the oath giving the conditions which had to come
to pass
before the “vow” became valid: “And
Jacob vowed a vow, saying,
If God will be with me, and will [watch over me] … ,
so that
I come
again to my father’s
house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God …
and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee”
(Gen. 28:20-22).
“Vows” usually occurred in serious situations. Jacob needed the assurance of
God’s presence before setting out for Padan-aram (Ibid.); Jephthah made a rash
“vow” before battle (Judges 11:30-40; compare ch..21:1-3); Hannah greatly
desired a child (1 Samuel 1:11), when she made a “vow.” Though conditional
“vows”
were often made out of desperation, there is no question of the binding
force of the “vow.” Ecclesiastes 5:5-6, amplifies the Old Testament teaching on
“vowing”: “When thou vowest a vow unto
God, defer not to pay it.… Better
is it
that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not
pay.… Neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error.” First, “vow”
is always made to God. Even non-lsraelites made “vows” to Him (Jonah 1:16).
Second, a “vow” is made voluntarily. It is never associated with a life of piety
or given the status of religious requirement in the Old Testament. Third, a “vow”
once made must be kept. One cannot annul the “vow.” However, the Old
Testament allows for “redeeming” the “vow”; by payment of an equal
amount in silver, a person, a field, or a house dedicated by “vow” to the Lord
could be redeemed (Lev. 27:1-25). This practice, however, declined in Jesus’
time, and therefore the Talmud frowns upon the practice of “vowing” and refers
to those who vow as “sinners.”
Neder signifies a kind of
offering: “And thither ye shall bring your burnt
offerings, and your
sacrifices, and your tithes, and [contributions] of your
hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings …” (Deuteronomy 12:6).
In particular the word represents a kind of peace or “votive offering” (Ezra 7:16).
It also is a kind of thank
offering: “Behold upon the mountains the feet of him
that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! … Perform thy vows …”
(Nahum 1:15). Here even Gentiles expressed their thanks to God presumably
with a gift promised upon condition of deliverance (compare ch.21:1-3). Such
offerings may also be expressions of zeal for God (Psalm 22:25). One can give
to God anything not abominable to Him (Leviticus 27:9; Deuteronomy 23:18),
including one’s services (Leviticus 27:2). Pagans were thought to feed and/or
tend their gods, while God denied that “vows” paid to Him were to be so
conceived (Ps. 50:9-13). In paganism the god rewarded the devotee because of
and in proportion to his offering. It was a contractual relationship whereby the
god was
obligated to pay a debt thus incurred. In
relationship was in
view.
The Israelites’ unique and concrete demonstrations of love for God show that
under
Moses, love (Deuteronomy 6:4) was more than pure legalism; it
was
spiritual devotion. God’s Messiah was pledged to offer Himself as a sacrifice
for sin (Psalm 22:25; compare Leviticus 27:2). This was the only sacrifice
absolutely
and unconditionally acceptable to God. Every man is obliged
to
pay the
“vow” before God: “ Praise waiteth for thee, O God in
and unto
thee shall the vow be performed.… Unto thee shall all flesh
come” (Psalm 65:1-2).
(Taken
from: Vine, W. E. ;
Unger, Merrill F. ; White, William: Vine's Complete
Expository
Dictionary of Old
and New Testament Words.
1996, S. 1:278-279)
3 “If a woman also 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, in which
the
obligation could not stand absolute - “unto
the LORD, and bind herself
by a bond, being 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.
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. 5
But if her father disallow her” - It appears from t
he
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 -“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.”
6 “And if she had at all an husband,” - Literally, “if being she be to
an
husband.” Septuagint, (v. 7) - eja<n
genome>nh ge>nhtai ajndri> - ean
genomenae genaetai andri
– If she is married to a husband.
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 (compare Deuteronomy 22:23-24;
Matthew 1:19-20) - “when
she vowed,” - Rather, “and her vows
be upon
her.” 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
af;b]mi, which is not found elsewhere (compare Psalm 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”
- “wherewith
she bound her soul
shall stand. 7 And her husband heard it, and held his
peace at her in the
day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her
bonds wherewith she bound her soul
shall stand. 8 But if her husband
disallowed her on the day
that he heard it; 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: and the LORD shall forgive her.”
“But every vow of
a widow, and of her that is divorced,” - This is not one
of
the cases treated of in this section (see v.16), but is only mentioned in order
to
point out that it falls under the general principle laid down in v. 2 - “wherewith
they have bound their
souls, shall stand against her.”
10 “And if she vowed in her husband’s house,” - Case three, 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 - “or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11 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.
12
But if her husband
hath utterly made them void on the day he heard
them; then whatsoever
proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or
concerning the bond of her
soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made
them void; and the
LORD shall forgive her.”
13 “Every vow, and every binding 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 (Leviticus 16:29; ch.
29:7; and compare
Isaiah 58:5; I Corinthians 7:5) - “her husband may establish
it, or her husband
may make it void. 14 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 confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day
that he
heard them.”
15 “But if he shall any ways make them void after that he
hath heard
them; 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.
16 “These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between
a
man and his wife,
between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth
in her father’s
house.”
Vows unto the Lord (vs. 1-16)
This section, although fragmentary, yet reveals to us with great clearness the
Divine mind concerning one important portion
of practical religion. It
lays down directly the principle that vows
to God were lawful and binding.
It lays down indirectly the limitation (although it only
applies it to the case
of
women not sui juris) that no vows to God were
valid without the
consent of the lawful guardian, if such there were. It implies the
general
rule that no vows are binding to the damage of any who are not parties to
the
vow; and this is itself a part of the yet wider principle
that God is not
served nor honored by anything which involves the injury or dishonor
of
man. In applying the teaching of this chapter there is indeed
the serious
preliminary difficulty of deciding whether vows are lawful at all
under the
Christian dispensation. Inasmuch as no direct utterance can be found in the
New Testament upon the subject, it can only be argued upon
broad
principles of the gospel, and will probably for ever continue to be
decided
in
different ways by different people. It will be truly said upon one side that
by
virtue of our Christian baptism and profession our whole self is dedicated
unto God, to live a life of entire holiness, such as leaves no room for
further and self-imposed limitations and restrictions. On the
other side it
will be truly replied that although in principle all that we have and are is
“not our own,” but “BOUGHT WITH A
PRICE” (I Corinthians 6:19-20)
and
only held in trust by us for the glory of God and the good of men, yet in
practice
there are many different degrees of self-renunciation between
which a good Christian
is
often called in effect to make his choice, and that his vow may be simply
his
answer to the inward voice which bids him (in this sense) “go up
higher.” It will be said, again, and truly said, that the law of Christ is
essentially a law of liberty, and
therefore inconsistent with the constraint of
vows; that as soon as a man crosses his natural will, not because his higher
will deliberately embraces pain for the sake of God, but because he is
bound by a vow, his service ceases to be free and ceases to be
acceptable.
On the other side it will be said, and truly said, that
just because we are
under the law of liberty, therefore we are at liberty to use
whatever helps
Christian experience finds to be for practical advantage in
the hard conflict
with self; the law of liberty will no more strip the weakling of the
defensive
armor which gives him confidence than compel the strong man to
hamper
himself with it. Once more, it will be said that the Christian
service is
“reasonable” (Romans 12::1-2), -
i.e., one which continually approves
itself to the honest intelligence of him that renders it; but
since it may happen
to
any to have his convictions altered by growing knowledge or greater experience,
it
is not fit that the conduct of any be permanently restrained by vows. And this
is
to a certain extent unanswerable. No vow could oblige a Christian to act
contrary to his matured convictions of what was really best for
him, and so
for
God. If, e.g., one who had vowed celibacy came to feel in himself the
truth of I Corinthians 7:9, he would be a better Christian in
breaking
than in keeping his vow; for we are not under the law, which
rigorously
enforces the letter, but under
the Spirit, who loves only that which makes
for TRUE HOLINESS! It may, however, be truly urged that while no
vow
ought to be held absolutely binding upon a conscience which
repudiates it, yet
many vows may be taken with all practical assurance that the conscience
never will repudiate them. One thing of course is certain; all
vows (at least
of
abstinence) stand upon the same footing in principle, however various
an
aspect they may wear in practice. A vow, e.g., of total abstinence from
intoxicating liquors is in principle exactly as defensible or as
indefensible as
a
vow of perpetual celibacy; nor can an attempt to defend one while
condemning the other be absolved from the charge of hypocrisy. This
being
the
doubtful state of the argument, of which the true Christian casuist can
only say, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his
own mind”
(Romans 14:5), it remains to treat of vows in that sense in
which they are
allowed by all, viz., as promises
made by the soul to God, whether fortified
or not by some outward ceremonial, whether made in response to the more
general persuasions of the gospel, or the more SECRET
DRAWINGS
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:
CONSIDER
THEREFORE:
man is obliged in honor (and wherever practicable in law too)
to keep his
promise to his brother man; if an honest man (even among savages),
having
given his word to his neighbor, may not disappoint him, though
it were
to his own hindrance – “he that sweareth
to his own hurt and
changeth not - (Psalm
15:4); if God Himself have vouchsafed to
make promises to man (and with an oath too — Hebrews
6:17-18),
WHICH PROMISES HE
FOR HIS PART WILL MOST SURELY
KEEP AND PERFORM, how much more is man bound to keep
his promise made to
God!
DISTRESS MAY NOT BE DEPARTED FROM IN HEALTH AND
PROSPERITY. No
doubt most vows were made under stress of some
calamity or need, as Jacob’s (Genesis 28:20), Hannah’s (I Samuel 1:11),
and
others (compare Psalm 66:13; 76:11). Yet how
often do men treat
their God with such indignity! (I Corinthians 10:22).
OFFERED UNTO GOD IS QUITE AS SACRED AS THOUGH
MADE WITH AN OATH. For an oath is on the part of God a
Condescension which has no meaning for him (Hebrews 6:17), on the
part of man a device to overawe
his own sinful weakness, but it adds
nothing to the real sacredness
of the vow. How many vows have we
taken upon ourselves, either openly or secretly! They are all as
binding on us as though we had imprecated the most frightful penalties
upon our failure to observe them.
The punishment of Ananias and Sapphira was intended to mark the
extreme malediction of such as secretly withhold from God what of
themselves or of their own they have deliberately dedicated to His
service.
OF THE JUST RIGHTS OF ANOTHER OVER US. God can never be
served with that upon which another has a rightful claim, nor honored by
anything which involves dishonor of another. Only that which is really
ours to give can we give unto God. If it be unworthy to offer
unto the Lord
of that “which doth cost us nothing,” as
David said in II Samuel 24:24,
it is unjust to offer unto the Lord of that which doth cost
another something.
TO HER PARENT, A WIFE’S TO HER HUSBAND. Only what lies
beyond the sphere of their legitimate claims can she sacrifice in
the name of
religion.
BINDING BY THE LORD. Since He utterly
rejects any service which is
not truly willing, and since he is infinitely above taking
advantage of the
folly of man, it is mere obstinacy, not religion, which leads a man to
abide
by what he has ignorantly and rashly said that he will do.
AND LOOSE WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF THOSE
DEPENDENT UPON HIM, NEITHER DISALLOW ONE DAY
WHAT HE ALLOWED THE DAY BEFORE. It is given to them to
Exercise control even in religious matters, but not to exercise it
capriciously.
It is a fearful
responsibility to cross the devout
purposes of God’s
servants from any but the purest motives, and for any but the weightiest
reasons.
DISTURB THE SPIRITUAL LIFE, AND HINDER THE HEAVENLY
DESIRES OF THOSE DEPENDENT ON US, WE MUST BEAR THEIR
INIQUITY. We do not know indeed how such responsibility will be
apportioned at the day of judgment, but we do know that God will exact
vengeance for
every injury done to souls, and ESPECIALLY FOR
INJURY
DONE TO SUCH AS RE COMMITTED TO OUR CARE!
(Matthew
18:6)
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
How came the
Israelite to make a vow? We must recollect that in
those days there was a general and practical belief in the power
of
supernatural beings to give help to men. The Israelites, only too often
found
unbelievers in Jehovah, were not,
therefore, wanting in religious
feeling-. When they lost faith in the God of Israel, the lapse was
not into
atheism, but into idolatry. And thus when their hearts were
strongly set on
some object, not only did they put forth the effort of self and solicit the
aid
of
others, but especially the aid of Jehovah. And as they sought the aid of
their fellow-men under the promise of a recompense, so they
sought the aid
of
Jehovah under a similar promise. Under the
influence of strong desires
and highly excited feelings all sorts of vows would be made
by the
Israelites, and some of them, probably, very
difficult to carry out.
Doubtless there were
Israelites not a few with somewhat of Balak’s
spirit
in them. They felt how real was the power of
Jehovah, and, being as little
acquainted with his character as Balak was, they concluded that
his power
could be secured on the
promise of some sufficient consideration in return.
Among an unspiritual
people whose minds were filled with a mixture of
selfishness and superstition, vows
would take the aspect of a commercial
transaction. So much
indispensable help from God, and, as the price of it, a
corresponding return from man. And as the help of God would be felt to
require a much greater return than the help of man, so the vow would
undertake something beyond the ordinary range of attainment. May we
not
conclude that the petition connected with the vow was oftentimes
answered, and that God for His own wise purposes did give people
the
desires of their own hearts, even as He did to Hannah? If so, we see at once
the difficulty that would often arise in fulfilling the vow.
We know how the
desire of a man’s heart, once accomplished, is often felt to be
unworthy of
the effort and expenditure. Thus there would be
a strong temptation to
neglect the fulfilling of the vow if it could be safely managed. IT WAS
AN INVISIBLE
GOD WHO HAD TO BE DEALT WITH and ready
enough as the Israelite might be to believe in Jehovah as long as
it was for self-
advantage, the faith in Him
and the fear of Him would begin to wax feeble
when it was a question of meeting what had proved a profitless
engagement.
A vow to an idol was really a vow to be paid to avaricious and watchful
priests. A
promise made to a fellow-man he may be trusted to exact. But what is a
vow to the invisible God? “I
may neglect it with impunity,” is the thought
in the Israelite’s
heart (Psalm
50:21; 73:11). BUT THE IMPUNITY WAS
A
DELUSION. God had marked
the vow only too carefully; and it was
LESS HARM FOR A MAN TO GO WITH SOME HEAVY BURDEN
AND GREAT HINDRANCE HANGING ABOUT HIM ALL THE
DAYS OF HIS LIFE than that THE SANCTITY
OF THE VOW OR
OATH SHOULD BE SLIGHTED IN THE SMALLEST DEGREE!
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All
rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.