The Pulpit Commentary — Numbers — Section 407

different source.. There Is no reason what- Ver. 6.-If her father disallow her. It ever for supposing that the "hee.da of the apptars from the previous verse that the die- tribes" were more interested in these par• allowance must be spoken, and not mental ticular regulations than in many others which only. If the vow had been made before concerned the social life of the peoP.le (such witnesses, no doubt the father's veto must as that treated ofin eh. v. 6-31)which were be pronounced before witnesses also, declo.red in the ordinary way unto "the Ver. 6.-If she had at all a husband. children of Israel" at large. Literally, "if being she be to an husband." Ver. 2.-If a man vow a vow. "'l;J.~, a Septuagint, idv -ywoµiv11 1•v11ra, avlipi. vo,v, is commonly sai~ to be distinctivel;r a Case second, of a marrie or betrothed positive vow, a promise to render somethmg woman. As far as the legal status of the unto the Lord. This, however, cannot .be woman was concerned, there was little dif. strictly maintained, because the N azar1te ference under Jewish law whether she were vow was 'MIU'!', and that was essentially a vow married or only betrothed. In either case of abstinence. To· say that the vow of the she was accounted as belonging to her hus- N a.zarite was of a. positive character because band, with all that she had (cf. Deut. xxii. he had to let hisha.ir grow "unto the Lord" 23, 24; Matt. i. 19, 20). When she vowe~; is a mere evasion. It is, however, probable Rather "and her vows be upon her. that 'Miler when it occurs (as in this pas• Septuagint ,cai ai •vx,ai abrii, h., airrp. The vows ~ight have been made before her sage) in ~onnection ~th. issar, does ~~ke betrothal and not disallowed by her father ; on the narrower signification of a positive yet upon'her coming under the power of her vow swear an oath to bind his 10111 with husband he had an absolute right to dis- a b~nd. Literally, "to bind a bond upon solve the obligation of them ; otherwise it is his soul." "'l!Pl:t, a bond, which occura only evident that he might suffer loss through an in this chapter, is considered ~o be a re- act of which he had no notice. Or uttered strictive obligation, a vow of abstmence. It ought out of her lips. Rather, "or the rash would appear that the issar was alwa;ys utterance of her lips." The word 1/,t~:+r,:,, undertaken upon oath, whereas the neder (as which is not found elsewhere (cf. Ps. cvi. 33), in the case of the Naze.rite) did not of neces- seems to have this meaning. Such a vow sity require it. He shall not break his made by a young girl as would be disallowed word. This was the general principle. with by her hllllband when he knew of it would respect to vows, and, e.s here ~aid down, ~t .was presumably be a " rash utterance." in accordance with the un1vel'!ial religious Ver. 9.-Every vow of a widow, and of feeling of mankind. ~atever. crim~s may her that is divorced. This is not one of the have claimed the sanction of this sentiment, cases treated of in this section (see ver. 16), whatever exceptions and safeguards a clearer but is only mentioned in order to point out revelation and a. better knowledge of God may have established, yet the principle re- that it falls under the general principle laid mamed thnt whatsoever a man had promised down in ver. 2. unto the Lord, that he must fulfil. Ip~i- Ver. 10.-If she vowed in her husband's genia in .A.ulis, Jephthah'a . daughter. ,m house. Case third, of a married womnn Gilead proclaim to what horrid extremities living with her husband. The husband had any o~e religious principle, unchecked by naturally the same absolute authority to other co-ordinate principles, may lead; but allow or disallow all such vows o.s the ft1ther they n.lso proclaim how deep and true t~is hnd in the case of his unmarried daughter. religious principle must have been which The only difference is that the responsibilitr could so over-ride the natural feelings of men of the husband is expressed in stronger terms not cruel nor depraved. than that of the father, because in the nature of things the husband hns a clo~er inter~t Ver. 3.-If a womau vow a vow. The in and control over the proceedmgs of his fm<>mento.ry nature of this section appears wife than the father has over those of the fro~ tho fact that, after laying down the daughter. general principle of the sacredness of vows, Ver. 13.-Oath to afflict the soul. No it proceeds to qualify it in three special cases doubt by fasting or by othor kinds of abstin- only ofvows made by women under authority. ence. The expression is especially used in Tho.t vows mnde by boys were irreversible is connection with the rigorous fost of the day exceedingly unlikely; and indeed it is ob• of atonement (Levit. xvi. 29; Numb. nix. 7; v!ous that many cases must have occurred, and cf. Isa. lviii. Ii; l Cor. vii. 6). neither mentioned here nor in Levit, xxvii., Ver. 16.-Theu he shall bear her iniquity, in which the obligation could not stand a.bso• i. e. if he tncitly allowed the Tow in the first lute. In her father's house in her youth. instance, and afterwards forbo.d its fulfilment, Caso fil'!it, of a girl in her father's house, who the guilt which such breach of promise in- had no property of her own, nnd whose per• volved should rest upon him. For the nature sonal services were due to her father. and expiation of such guilt see on Levit. v. 394 THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. [err. XXX. 1-16,