John Calvin Commentary Numbers 30
John Calvin Commentary
Numbers 30
John Calvin Commentary
Numbers 30
"And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which Jehovah hath commanded." — Numbers 30:1 (ASV)
And Moses spoke. Moses teaches in this chapter that vows made by persons who were not free were not considered valid before God. Although no mention is made of male children, still, since their condition was the same, it seems that by synecdoche, they must be included with the daughters and wives, unless perhaps God chose to show particular regard for women.
But since He permits women, who were not under their father’s authority, to make vows despite their gender, nor does He allow this to be an excuse for frivolity or thoughtlessness, it seems that the proposed objective was that the authority of the father over his children, as well as that of the husband over his wife, should be kept inviolate.
"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." — Numbers 30:2 (ASV)
If a man vow a vow. Wishing to modify the general law, so that no one would think there was any contradiction in this exception, he begins by repeating the law itself: that everyone should faithfully pay whatever he had vowed. This is as if to say that this principle remains valid, but that he only refers to those who are their own masters, and that women or girls who are under the authority of another were not free to make vows without the agreement and consent of their fathers' or husbands'.
This preface, however, must be understood, as I have already pointed out, as applying to lawful vows, by which neither religion is corrupted nor the holiness of God’s name profaned. And certainly, unless what we offer is acceptable to God, there can be no obligation on the conscience.
Moreover, since a distinction is made here between males and females, it can probably be conjectured that boys of ten years old, although still part of their family, are bound by their promises. Therefore, I will not stubbornly contend about this, because it is better to leave undecided whatever is doubtful and disputable, as it is commonly called, on either side.
"Also when a woman voweth a vow unto Jehovah, and bindeth herself by a bond, being in her father`s house, in her youth," — Numbers 30:3 (ASV)
If a woman also vow. He now proceeds to the point he proposed to address, that is, that vows made by persons who are not their own masters are not valid; and he mentions two cases. For, in the first place, he teaches that if a daughter, while living with her father, has vowed anything without his knowledge, it is invalid.
He lays down the same rule if the father, hearing the vow, has disapproved of it; but if he has remained silent, it is declared that his silence is equivalent to consent. From this we gather that all those who have authority fail in their duty unless they frankly and discreetly express their opposition whenever anything displeases them, since their connivance is a kind of tacit approval.
In the second place, he addresses married women, whose vows, made in the absence or with the disapproval of their husbands, he commands to have no effect; but if the husbands have known of them and remained silent, he makes their performance binding. For many deceptions might have arisen in this way, since it is common for many, when they wish to please their wives, to conceal their opinion for the time, but, when the period of actual performance arrives, to avoid fulfilling what may have been promised.
But unless husbands use their privilege at the proper time, God requires them to bear the punishment of their servile indulgence and dissimulation. Furthermore, because women are often led to deceive by their levity and inconstancy, this danger is also foreseen.
It may also happen326 that a woman, while under her husband’s authority, may make a vow in the hasty fervor of her zeal, and when he is dead, may retract it under the specious pretext that she was not then free and independent. The same thing may occur when a divorced woman binds herself by a vow, and then, after marrying again, considers herself released from it.
Since instances of this wicked change of mind are too frequent, it is no wonder that this special precaution should be added to prevent such deceptions. Therefore, God declares that the time when the vow was made must be considered, so that such women are just as liable as if their condition had remained the same. He therefore binds to the fulfillment of their vow those women who have been freed from their fathers’ authority by marriage, and also those who have been set free by the death of their husband or by divorce. Yet it appears from the last verse of the chapter that two exceptions, modifying the general law, are specifically addressed here.
326 The Lat. is, “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 .” 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..” I have translated the latter, not being able to understand the original, nor to reconcile them.
"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." — Numbers 30:5 (ASV)
But if her father disallow her. The expression is remarkable, And the Lord shall forgive her, by which Moses gently reproves the foolish thoughtlessness of the girl; and soon afterwards, the same thing is said of married women.
And surely their rashness deserves reproof if, unmindful of their position, they, as it were, shake off the yoke and hastily commit themselves. God therefore hints that they are not without blame; but so that they will not be tormented by secret remorse, He removes every scruple, declaring that He will forgive if the fulfillment of the vow has been prevented by someone else.
When the dissent of the father or husband is required on the same day, it is equivalent to saying that what they have once approved cannot be overruled. Furthermore, for a father or husband to “hold his peace” toward a wife or daughter signifies that he does not oppose but by silence gives a sign of consent.
"But the vow of a widow, or of her that is divorced, [even] everything wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand against her." — Numbers 30:9 (ASV)
But every vow of a widow. I have stated why widows are expressly named, namely, lest a woman should think that by a second marriage she would escape, believing herself to be 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.
327 Ver. 10, , ואם-בית אישה. Literally, “And if the house of her husband.” . Literally, “And if the house of her husband.” C. and . and A.V. follow follow LXX. in assuming that the preposition in assuming that the preposition in should be supplied before should be supplied before the house. S.M., on the other hand, translates the word on the other hand, translates the word בית, 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 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. — . here adverts, as strange on the part of one so skillful in the Hebrew tongue. — W
Jump to: