Deeper Commentary
Num 30:1 Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of
Israel, saying, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded-
The address to the tribal elders was perhaps because these issues of
dedicating things were largely about dedicating property. The difficult
area was when a person who was not the head of a family tried to dedicate
property to the Lord. God had given each family a specific inheritance and
wanted that to remain within the family name. So in practice, it was the
elders of the tribes who were going to deal with these issues.
I have shown throughout Numbers that we have historical incidents followed by laws which were given in relation to those incidents. Num. 25:18 commands Israel to attack the Midianites for what they did to them in seducing them to idolatry. But we have to apparently wait until Num. 31 to read of Israel actually going to war with Midian. But the intervening chapters cover events which happened perhaps only within days after the point in Num. 25:18 where Yahweh tells Israel to attack Midian. In Num. 26 they are to take a military census in preparation for the battle. Then chapter 27 records the issue of Zelophehad's daughters, who present as faithful to Yahweh and unlike their unbeliving father who died in the desert for his sin of not believing he could enter the land. Remember Israel are now 40 years after leaving Egypt, and about to enter Canaan despite their last minute apostacy and lack of faith. Those daughters are presented as examples of the faithful remnant within Israel. Numbers 28 commands that various daily sacrifices be offered once Israel are in the land. Numbers 29 then calls for a day of atonement to be held, followed by the feast of booths five days after the atonement feast finished. This would be an apparently needless repetition of previously given legislation- unless we understand that it was a specific call to keep the feast of atonement at that time.
Now in Numbers 30 we have some laws given specifically to "the heads of the tribes" explaining how young women's vows were to be treated, and the responsibility of their fathers for them if they were still in their father's household. This is relevant to the situation in Numbers 25- where Phinehas had saved Israel by spearing to death Zimri, the apostate son of one of "the heads of the tribes" as he had sex with Cosbi, the daughter of one of the "heads of the tribes" of Midian. Num. 25:14 speaks of "Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a father’s house among the Simeonites". Num. 30 has several references to the father's house. The idea seems to be that the father's house was responsible for vows made by those within it. Although it is women who are specifically mentioned, it seems the same principle would be true for male minors still in their father's house. The principle was that if the father "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 heard them". Silence from the head of the household meant consent. And this is all in the context of Numbers 25 speaking of the sins of the young people within their "father's house". This legislation may have been to protect Phinehas from blood vengeance from Zimri's family. It would therefore appear likely that he and Zimri had made some kind of vow loyalty to Baal Peor, and Zimri's family had from day to day ignored that. And so they were responsible for it.
Num 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-
This was to guard against the temptation to make a vow which was
publically impressive before men, but then not to pay it. Any attempt to
garner kudos for our spiritual devotion is absolutely wrong; such
spiritual pride is the worst. God would therefore "require it" and
severely judge those who did this (Dt. 23:21). Not being slack to pay a
vow (Dt. 23:21) fits in with a wider Biblical theme of being quick in
responding to God. It comes to full term in the New Testament accounts of
immediate baptisms straight after people had grasped the basic message of
the Gospel. "Yes straight away" is what God really seeks from His
children. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God
(Ex. 22:29), lest their intentions weren't translated into practice. The
disciples immediately left the ship, simply put their nets down and
followed (Mt. 4:20,22); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients
in the tax office and walked out never to return (Lk. 5:17,18 implies).
Num 30:3 Also when a woman vows a vow to Yahweh and binds herself by a
bond, being in her father’s house in her youth-
Girls married young in Semitic cultures of the time, usually in their
teens. God here foresaw the possibility of a young girl wanting to do
something extra special for Him. In contemporary religions, active
participation in religion was typically something for older males. But
such is God’s value of the human person that He eagerly anticipated young
people, even children, making a special act of devotion to Him on their
own initiative. Mary’s teenage ambition to become the mother of Messiah is
the supreme example to today’s youngsters, growing up as they do in a
world where selfish ambition is the order of the day as never before.
Num 30:4 and her father hears her vow and her bond with which she has
bound her soul, and her father holds his peace at her; then all her vows
shall stand, and every bond with which she has bound her soul shall stand-
The insistence that the male head of the family had to agree was
because the vow was likely to give part of the family property to Yahweh.
The land had specifically been given to families as inheritances, and it
usually passed on through the male line, to keep the name of the family
identified with the inheritance. So the woman had no right to promise to
give it away, without first having the agreement of her husband or male
head of family.
Num 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 her soul shall stand;
and Yahweh will forgive her, because her father disallowed her-
Women got married young. But here is envisaged a situation where a
girl promises something to Yahweh, before she gets married. The idea is
that children too were in relationship with God, and could make a
voluntary dedication to Him. The idealism and ambition of youth were to be
channeled towards God's service. And these regulations show that the law
of Moses expected this kind of commitment from youth.
Num 30:6 If she has a husband while her vows are on her, or the rash
utterance of her lips with which she has bound her soul-
The spirit of this legislation seems to assume that vows would be
made rashly, and therefore these laws were required. The Lord Jesus
therefore commanded that we should not swear at all, but rather just live
integrity before God (Mt. 5:34-36). This was an indication of how well the
Lord understood human nature, since He also had it. He knew that vows and
oaths were likely to be broken; and so we should accept our humanity and
simply not make such vows.
Num 30:7 and her husband hears 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 her soul shall stand-
The simple principle established here is that there are times when
silence means consent. The Proverbs wisely advise us not to meddle in
others’ business and to hold our tongue in some cases. But there are other
times when not to speak up can have damaging consequences upon others,
especially those less mature than ourselves.
Num 30:8 But if her husband forbids 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 her soul; and Yahweh will forgive her-
"Rash utterance" is the same word as used to describe how Moses
"spoke rashly with his lips" (Ps. 106:33). He was denied entrance to the
kingdom of God on earth because of that. That seems a rather heavy
judgment for rash speaking. But here again, rash speaking in promising to
give something and then not giving it- is presented as an unforgivable
sin. People of the time were apparently used to making various exaggerated
promises to God. And these were abhorrent to Him. He wishes those in
relationship with Him to be serious and committed to Him, and to realize
the extraordinary value He places upon human usage of words and language.
This is reflected in the New Testament teaching about the power and
eternal consequences of human words. See on :12.
Num 30:9 But the vow of a widow, or of her who is divorced, everything
with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her-
A divorced woman was counted as genuinely single; the sin of marriage
breakup is in the factors leading to the breakup of the marriage, but
afterwards the person is seen by God as single. Divorce under the Law of
Moses was possible only for adultery, and adultery was punishable by
death. Yet God foresaw that there would be women who had done this and yet
remained alive by grace, or who had been falsely accused; and correctly
imagined that such women would love to make a freewill dedication of
themselves to Him.
Num 30:10 If she vowed in her husband’s house or bound her soul by a bond
with an oath-
A vow appears to refer to a promise to give or dedicate something to
God, whereas an oath tends to refer to an undertaking not to do something.
Num 30:11 and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and didn’t
disallow her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond with which she
bound her soul shall stand-
Silence means consent (Num. 30:12,15). This is a huge principle which
challenges us in so many areas.
Num 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-
To make a vow and not perform it was a sin. The implication is that
it was only forgivable if a woman had vowed property over which her
husband had a say, and he had disallowed it. We note that it is a vow and
not an oath which is in view; a vow was associated with giving property to
Yahweh, whereas an oath was a promise not to do something. Given the very
serious nature of vowing and not performing it, apparently an unforgivable
sin, we wonder why people would vow when it was not obligatory? The
reasons appear here to be in the area of "rash utterance", getting carried
away with words; or possibly pride. Contrary to what is the habit in some
parts of Christianity, giving is never to be done under duress of whatever
kind, nor 'rashly'. God wants us to give to Him on the basis of sober,
reasoned commitment rather than the emotion of a moment. See on :8.
Num 30:13 Every vow and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her
husband may establish it or her husband may make it void-
Num 30:14 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 heard them-
To vow and then not give to God was a major sin, and as her vow
involved dedication of property under his control, he shared in that sin,
or, in the blessing of dedication.
Num 30:15 But if he shall make them null and void after that he has heard
them, then he shall bear her iniquity-
Here to bear iniquity seems to specifically mean to have
responsibility for sin (as in Num. 18:1).
"Bear iniquity" is therefore an idiom for being
personally guilty. Yet the idiom is used about the Lord Jesus Christ in His bearing of our
iniquity on the cross (Is. 53:11). The Lord Jesus was our sin bearer and yet
personally guiltless. This is the paradox which even He struggled with, leading
to His feeling of having been forsaken by God (Mt. 27:46). This means that
although Christ never sinned, He knows the feelings of sinners, because His
identity with us was so deep and complete.
Num 30:16 These are the statutes, which Yahweh commanded Moses, between a
man and his wife and between a father and his daughter, being in her
youth, in her father’s house-
This legislation may well have arisen in response to some specific
cases which were not covered in the law given at Sinai. The Mosaic law was
not designed as a
deterministic legislation over every imaginable area of life. It was
intended as a springboard towards personal relationship with God. And
therefore it required interpretation and reverent engagement with God for
help in understanding, and receipt of progressive revelation.
Previous Chapter
