Numbers 30

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:32utc

II. The Regulations of Offerings and Vows 28:1-30:16B. The Regulations of Vows 30:1-16 The purpose of this chapter is not so much to confirm the sacredness of the vow, as to emphasize the authority of a father over his unmarried daughter, and of a husband over his wife within the context of vows made by women.

The Hebrew word for vow, used in this chapter is neder, which Strongs defines as "a promise (to God); also (concretely) a thing promised." In order to understand the background of this chapter correctly, we have to take the vow in its concrete sense, not as an oral promise, but as the thing promised, as a sacrifice. This involved property which, legally, belonged to the father, or to the husband of the girl.

The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary writes about the topic: "[A woman ... in her father's house in her youth.] Girls only are specified; but minors of the other sex, who resided under the paternal roof, were included, according to Jewish writers, who also consider the name 'father' as comprehending all guardians of youth, and tell us 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."

Adam Clarke's Commentary remarks: "[In her youth] That is, say the rabbis, 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."

There are three points to be considered in this chapter: the nature of a vow, the status of a person who is under authority of someone else, and the meaning of silence.

A vow in the context of this chapter is a promise, made to God, to give certain things, or perform certain acts. The neglect to keep the promise amounts to sin in the eyes of God. We can, no doubt, extend the binding character of the vow to inter-human relations also. Broken promises always constitute sin. All sin between humans is sin for God. My own life is littered by unfulfilled pledges and promises, both by people made to me and by me to others. Our tongues are sharper than our memories, and often the satisfaction our good intentions give to us seems to us the equivalent of a fulfilled pledge. But the Lord's opinion differs from ours on this point. God's Word says: "If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin."[ 1 ] And in Ecclesiastes we read: "When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow."[ 2 ] Those who make promises, but do not intend to keep them, are fools in the eyes of God.

Vows rated very highly in man's moral behavior in biblical times. The breaking of a vow was considered the greatest sin of all, even to the point that, as in the case of Jephthah, murder was committed, rather than breaking the vow.[ 3 ] Even the immoral king Herod preferred being known as a man who kept his promises, even if it made him guilty of murder. When his daughter asked: "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist," we read: "The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted."[ 4 ] Scripture did not sanction this concept of the binding character of a vow, but it shows how vows were rated by the people of those times.

The second point we want to look at is the status of one who is under authority. As we read in the commentaries, quoted above, the regulations of this chapter were applied, not only to girls who were minors, but to members of both sexes up to the point of puberty. The law provided a place for parental authority to override a vow made by a child. The law suggests that the making of vows requires insight and wisdom that may not be present in the mind of a child. A child is more easily inclined to act impulsively, and make rash promises that cannot be fulfilled, than an adult. God does not take the attitude of not taking the vow earnestly, by saying: "it is only a child." He takes children's vows seriously, but He also wants them to understand the seriousness of their vows. That is why He creates a place for a parental veto.

There is a fine line between the healthy development of a child's character, and unbridled liberty that leads to insecurity. On the other hand there is a subtle difference between strong parental guidance and imperious authority. Paul uttered words of deep wisdom when he wrote: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother' -- which is the first commandment with a promise—'that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.' Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord."[ 5 ] As parents, we are to respect our child's personality, but we should also recognize that the developing mind of a child is not always able to oversee all the consequences of its acts. It takes maturity to be able to calculate the outcome of one's choices. Above all, it takes intimacy with God to discern which way one should go. We live in a world that is complex, and the pollution of sin blurs everyone's vision to the point that clear moral choices are often extremely difficult to make. God has ordained certain lines of authority within the family to help define those choices. Even so, no family is foolproof against mistakes and failures. There is only One "who is able to keep [us] from falling and to present [us] before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy;"[ 6 ] He is the One to turn to in our dilemmas.

In our modern society it has become possible for a child to take his parents to court in cases where disciplinary acts are involved. Instead of protection of a child against parental brutality, this procedure has become an indication of the fact that our society has gone awry. Scripture, evidently, considers the evil of absence of parental authority greater than the excesses of the exercise of it.

The third point that draws our attention in this chapter is the meaning of silence. The father of the girl, or the husband of the wife did not have to verbally consent to validate the vow; the absence of objections stood for acquiescence. The problem is that silence does not always indicate approval; it can be the evidence of a lack of interest or attention. The provision of the law suggests that a father or husband was required to give full attention to the words of the girl or wife under his jurisdiction. It could be costly for a husband who was not in the habit of listening to his wife. Cancellation after the facts, of a vow that was made previously, would make the husband the guilty party.

Matthew Henry's Commentary says significantly: "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." If silence is born of neglect, it stands for consent. Neglect makes us just as responsible as our acts.

[ 1 ] Deut. 23:21

[ 2 ] Eccl. 5:4

[ 3 ] There is disagreement among scholars, as to whether Jephthah actually had his daughter killed or that she was condemned to a life of celibacy.

[ 4 ] Matt. 14:8,9

[ 5 ] Eph. 6:1-4

[ 6 ] Jude vs. 24