Numbers 30:13

A married woman needed her husband's approval to make vows and pledges. Her husband could cancel her religious promise. But he had to decide on the day he heard about it. God did not blame the married woman for breaking the promise if her husband canceled it correctly (compare 30:5, 8, 12).

The self-denial mentioned in 30:13 probably refers to fasting. If he did not object, the husband's silence meant he agreed. He could not delay his objection, or he would be guilty of a broken vow (compare Leviticus 5:4–13).

Vows were an important way to show devotion or piety. But people sometimes made them quickly and forgot them. People often made voluntary pledges during special religious events or in times of war. The mention of vows and voluntary offerings might have led to further discussion here (29:39; compare 15:3; see also 6:1–21; Leviticus 5:4–5; 27:1–34; Deuteronomy 23:21–23).

These instructions applied to Hannah and Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1–28). Such practices, including fasting, continued into the New Testament period (for example, Matthew 6:16; 15:3–9; Acts 18:18; 21:23). Vows made by females needed approval from the responsible male who would share financial responsibility for the vow. This applied to young and unmarried or adult and married women. No one, male or female, young or old, should make a vow to God and then ignore it.

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 30:10-11]; 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.




Next: Numbers Chapter 31

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 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.
II. 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 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.

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.

Footnotes:

[326] The Lat. is, "Accidet ut mulier in vidaitate viro non subjecta, praecipiti zeli fervore voveat, eo mortuo retractet specioso praetextu, quia tunc libera non erat, nec sui juris." The Fr., "Il adviendra qu'une femme estante en sujection de mari, vouera par une ardeur hastive de zele, le marl trespasse, elle prendra honneste couverture de se retracter, d'autant qu'elle n'estoit pas libre pour lors." I have translated the latter, not being able to understand the original, nor to reconcile them.

[327] Ver. 10, v'm-vyt 'ysh. Literally, "And if the house of her husband." C. and A.V. follow LXX. in assuming that the preposition in should be supplied before the house. S.M., on the other hand, translates the word vyt, family, which is undeniably allowable; but says in a note, "By family, is to be understood the wife here, as the chief personage in it after its master." To this treatment of the text C. here adverts, as strange on the part of one so skillful in the Hebrew tongue. -- W

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.

Afflict the soul, i.e. herself by fasting, which oft goes under that name, as ,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 ,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.

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. שׂפתיה מבטא, gossip of her lips, that which is uttered thoughtlessly 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. עונה, the sin which the 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).