{"id":4658,"date":"2022-09-24T00:46:33","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:46:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-301\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T00:46:33","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:46:33","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-301","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-301\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 30:1"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3 align='center'><b><i> And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n<p><P STYLE=\"text-indent: 0.75em\">The regulations respecting vows appropriately follow those given respecting sacrifices, since a large proportion of vows would always relate to the presentation of such offerings. Rules had already been given <span class='bible'>Lev. 27<\/span> for the estimation of things vowed to God. It is probable that this fresh legislation dealing especially with vows made by persons in a state of tutelage, was occasioned by some case of practical difficulty that had recently arisen; and it is addressed by Moses to the heads of the tribes <span class='bible'>Num 30:1<\/span>, who would in their judicial capacity have to determine questions on these subjects.<\/P> <P STYLE=\"text-indent: 0.75em\">There is no provision in the chapter for annulling vows made by boys and young men; from which it has been inferred that the vows of males were in all cases and circumstances binding.<\/P><\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Albert Barnes&#8217; Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\"> CHAPTER XXX <\/P> <P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\">  <I>The law concerning vows of men<\/I>, 1, 2.<\/P> <P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\">  <I>Of women under age, and in what cases the father may annul<\/I><\/P> <P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\">  <I>them<\/I>, 3-5.<\/P> <P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\">  <I>The vows of a wife, and in what cases the husband may annul<\/I><\/P> <P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\">  <I>them<\/I>, 6-8.<\/P> <P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\">  <I>The vows of a widow, or divorced woman, in what cases they may<\/I><\/P> <P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\">  <I>be considered either as confirmed or annulled<\/I>, 9-15.<\/P> <P STYLE=\"margin-left: 0.9em\">  <I>Recapitulation of these ordinances<\/I>, 16. <\/P> <P>                     NOTES ON CHAP. XXX<\/P><\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Adam Clarke&#8217;s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><P> <B>The heads of the tribes; <\/B>the chief rulers of each tribe, who were to communicate it to the rest. <\/P> <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><P><B>1. This is the thing which the Lordhath commanded<\/B>The subject of this chapter relates to vowing,which seems to have been an ancient usage, allowed by the law toremain, and by which some people declared their intention of offeringsome gift on the altar or abstaining from particular articles of meator drink, of observing a private fast, or doing something to thehonor or in the service of God, over and above what wasauthoritatively required. In <span class='bible'>Nu29:39<\/span>, mention was made of &#8220;vows and freewill offerings,&#8221;and it is probable, from the explanatory nature of the rules laiddown in this chapter, that these were given for the removal of doubtsand difficulties which conscientious persons had felt about theirobligation to perform their vows in certain circumstances that hadarisen.<\/P><\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown&#8217;s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><strong>And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes<\/strong>,&#8230;. Or the princes of them, who could more easily be convened, and who used to meet on certain occasions, and on whom it lay to see various laws put in execution:<\/p>\n<p><strong>concerning the children of Israel<\/strong>; how they ought to conduct and behave in the following case, it being an affair which concerned them all:<\/p>\n<p><strong>saying, this is the thing which the Lord hath commanded<\/strong>; relating to vows. Aben Ezra is of opinion that this was delivered after the battle with Midian, of which there is an account in the following chapter, and is occasioned by what was said, to the tribes of Gad and Reuben,<\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'>Nu 32:24<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>do that which hath proceeded out of your mouth<\/strong>; to which they replied,<\/p>\n<p><strong>thy servants will do as my lord commandeth<\/strong>; upon which the nature of a vow, and the manner of keeping it, are observed; but the occasion of it rather seems to be what is said towards the close of the foregoing chapter, <span class='bible'>Nu 29:39<\/span>, that the various sacrifices there directed were to be offered in their season, besides the vows and freewill offerings; and when these were ratified and confirmed, and when null and void, and to be fulfilled or neglected, is the principal business of this chapter.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: John Gill&#8217;s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> The rules by which vows were to be legally regulated, so far as their objects and their discharge were concerned, has been already laid down in Lev; but the chapter before us contains instructions with reference to the force of vows and renunciations. These are so far in place in connection with the general rules of sacrifice, that vows related for the most part to the presentation of sacrifices; and even vows of renunciation partook of the character of worship. The instructions in question were addressed (<span class='bible'>Num 30:1<\/span>) to &ldquo;the heads of the tribes,&rdquo; because they entered into the sphere of civil rights, namely, into that of family life.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Keil &amp; Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><TABLE BORDER=\"0\" CELLPADDING=\"1\" CELLSPACING=\"0\"> <TR> <TD> <P ALIGN=\"LEFT\" STYLE=\"background: transparent;border: none;padding: 0in;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: none\"> <span style='font-size:1.25em;line-height:1em'><I><SPAN STYLE=\"background: transparent\"><SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\">Concerning Vows.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <TD> <P ALIGN=\"RIGHT\" STYLE=\"background: transparent;border: none;padding: 0in\"> <SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\"><SPAN STYLE=\"font-style: normal\"><SPAN STYLE=\"font-weight: normal\"><SPAN STYLE=\"background: transparent\"><SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\">B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\"><SPAN STYLE=\"font-style: normal\"><SPAN STYLE=\"font-weight: normal\"><SPAN STYLE=\"background: transparent\"><SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\"> 1452.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>  <\/TABLE> <P>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This <I>is<\/I> the thing which the <B>LORD<\/B> hath commanded. &nbsp; 2 If a man vow a vow unto the <B>LORD<\/B>, or swear 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.<\/P> <P> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This law was delivered to the heads of the tribes that they might instruct those who were under their charge, explain the law to them, give then necessary cautions, and call them to account, if there were occasion, for the breach of their vows. Perhaps the heads of the tribes had, upon some emergency of this kind, consulted Moses, and desired by him to know the mind of God, and here they are told it: <I>This is the thing which the Lord has commanded<\/I> concerning vows, and it is a command still in force.<\/P> <P> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. The case supposed is that a person vows a vow unto the Lord, making God a party to the promise, and designing his honour and glory in it. The matter of the vow is supposed to be something lawful: no man can be by his own promise bound to do that which he is already by the divine precept prohibited from doing. Yet it is supposed to be something which, in such and such measures and degrees, was not a necessary duty antecedent to the vow. A person might vow to bring such and such sacrifices at certain times, to give such and such a sum or such a proportion in alms, to forbear such meats and drinks which the law allowed, to fast and afflict the soul (which is specified <span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 13<\/span>) at other times besides the day of atonement. And many similar vows might be made in an extraordinary heat of holy zeal, in humiliation for some sin committed or for the prevention of sin, in the pursuit of some mercy desired or in gratitude for some mercy received. It is of great use to make such vows as these, provided they be made in sincerity with due caution. Vows (say the Jewish doctors) are <I>the hedge of separation,<\/I> that is, a fence to religion. He that vows is here said to <I>bind his soul with a bond.<\/I> It is a vow to God, who is a spirit, and to him the soul, with all its powers, must be bound. A promise to man is a bond upon the estate, but a promise to God is a bond upon the soul. Our sacramental vows, by which we are bound to no more than what was before our duty, and which neither father nor husband can disannul, are bonds upon the soul, and by them we must feel ourselves bound out from all sin and bound up to the whole will of God. Our occasional vows concerning that which before was <I>in our own power<\/I> (<span class='bible'>Acts v. 4<\/span>), when they are made, are bonds upon the soul likewise. 2. The command given is that these vows be conscientiously performed: <I>He shall not break his word,<\/I> though afterwards he may change his mind, but he shall do according to what he has said. <I>Margin, He shall not profane his word.<\/I> Vowing is an ordinance of God; if we vow in hypocrisy we profane that ordinance: it is plainly determined, <I>Better not vow than vow and not pay,<\/I><span class='bible'><I> Eccl. v. 5<\/I><\/span>. <I>Be not deceived, God is not mocked.<\/I> His promises to us are <I>yea and amen,<\/I> let not ours to him be <I>yea and nay.<\/I><\/P><\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Matthew Henry&#8217;s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p style='margin-left:5.76em'><strong>NUMBERS &#8211; THIRTY<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Verses 1, 2:<\/p>\n<p>This Nu is an expansion of the subject introduced in Le 27:1-13, q.v. God instructed Moses to deliver these statutes to the tribal leaders, with the implication that they were to teach them to the people.<\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.03em'>&#8220;Vow,&#8221; <strong>neder, <\/strong>from the verb nadar, a positive vow or promise.<\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.045em'>&#8220;Swear,&#8221; <strong>shabah, <\/strong>&#8220;to be or become sworn.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.04em'>&#8220;Oath,&#8221; <strong>shebuah, <\/strong>&#8220;swearing,&#8221; from the verb shabah.<\/p>\n<p><strong>&#8220;Bond,&#8221; issar, esar, <\/strong>a restrictive obligation, always accompanying an oath.<\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.08em'><strong>Literally: <\/strong>&#8220;bind a bond upon his soul.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.05em'>&#8220;Break,&#8221; <strong>chalal, <\/strong>&#8220;pierce, profane, defile, profane.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Word,&#8221; <strong>dabar, <\/strong>&#8220;word,&#8221; also, &#8220;promise, answer, speech, saying, counsel, dealing, et. al.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>A man&#8217;s word was considered sacred; he must not break it, or treat it as common or profane. For the making of vows, see Ec 5:4-7; Ps 15:4; 50:14.<\/p>\n<p>The principle of honoring one&#8217;s vow applies today as surely as it did under the law, Ro 9:30-32.<\/p>\n<p><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> 1  And Moses spake.  Moses teaches in this chapter that the vows which were made by persons who were not free, were not held good before God; and although no mention is made of male children, still, as their condition was the same, it seems that by  synecdoche  they must be included with the daughters and wives, unless perhaps God chose to pay regard to the weaker sex. But since He permits females, who were not under their father&#8217;s power, to make vows in spite of their sex, nor does He make it to be an excuse for levity or thoughtlessness, it seems that the object proposed was, that the right of the father over his children as well as of the husband over the wife, should be maintained inviolate. <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Calvin&#8217;s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES<\/p>\n<p>In this chapter we have regulations as to the force and obligatoriness of vows, with certain cases specified in which they ceased to be binding. Rules for the estimation of things vowed to the Lord had already been laid down in <span class='bible'>Leviticus 27<\/span>. The present chapter appropriately follows the laws regulating the sacrifices, inasmuch as vows frequently related to the offering of sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>Num. 30:1<\/span>. <em>Unto the heads of the tribes<\/em>, because the questions which are here dealt with would be brought before them for settlement.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>Num. 30:2<\/span>. <em>A vow<\/em>. Heb., <em>neder<\/em>, a positive vow, or promise to give any part of ones property to the Lord.<em>Keil<\/em> and <em>Del.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>A bond<\/em>. Heb., <em>issar<\/em>, the negative vow, or vow of abstinence.<em>Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>A vow involved an obligation to do: a bond, an obligation to forbear doing.<em>Speakers Comm<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><em>He shall not break his word<\/em>. Margin: profane, <em>i.e<\/em>., by not fulfilling, or by violating it.<\/p>\n<p>Four cases are specially prescribed for: <\/p>\n<p>(1) that of a youthful maiden in her fathers house (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:3-5<\/span>); <\/p>\n<p>(2) that of a woman betrothed, but not married (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:6-8<\/span>); <\/p>\n<p>(3) that of a widow, or divorced woman (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:9<\/span>); <\/p>\n<p>(4) that of a married woman in her husbands house (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:10-12<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>Num. 30:6<\/span>. <em>And if she had at all an husband<\/em>, &amp;c. Rather, And if she shall at all be an husbands, and her vows shall be upon her, or a rash utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul. The at all intimates that the case of a girl betrothed, but not yet actually married, is here contemplated.<em>Speakers Comm<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><em>Uttered ought<\/em>, &amp;c. Lit., the rash utterance of her lips.<em>Ibid<\/em>. Gossip of her lips, that which is uttered thoughtlessly or without reflection.<em>Keil<\/em> and <em>Del.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>Num. 30:15<\/span>. <em>He shall bear her iniquity; i.e.<\/em>, the sin which the wife would have had to bear if she had broken the vow of her own accord.<em>Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>THE SOLEMN OBLIGATION OF RELIGIOUS VOWE<\/p>\n<p>(<em><span class='bible'>Num. 30:1-2<\/span><\/em>)<\/p>\n<p>Notice<\/p>\n<p><strong>I. The case supposed.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, Or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond.<\/p>\n<p>1. <em>The vow is made unto God<\/em>. He is the only true and proper object of religious vows. There is not a trace in the Bible of vows being made to saints or angels.<\/p>\n<p>2. <em>The vow binds the soul<\/em>. Swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond. A promise to man is a bond upon the estate, but a promise to God is a bond upon the soul.<\/p>\n<p>3. <em>The vow is voluntarily made<\/em>. Vows were not of Divine appointment, but originated with men themselves. Spontaneity was of the essence of a vow. The obligations were always voluntarily self-imposed. This is clearly expressed in regard to the offering of Ananias (<span class='bible'>Act. 5:4<\/span>). <em>(a)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>4. <em>The thing vowed must be lawful<\/em>. No one can rightly bind himself to do an unrighteous thing. Generally vows were solemn promises to consecrate something to God, or to do something in His service and to His honour. But votive offerings arising from the produce of any impure traffic, were wholly forbidden (<span class='bible'>Deu. 23:18<\/span>). The offering must be pure; the service must be righteous and good.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II. The danger implied.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>He shall not break His word, &amp;c. This implies temptation to break the word, or peril of failure in fulfilling the vow. There is in human nature a deep-rooted and deplorable tendency to forget in health the vows which were made in sickness, and to ignore in our security and peace the vows we made in our danger and alarm. <em>(b)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>III. The command given.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. <em>That he shall perform his vow<\/em>. He shall not break his word.<\/p>\n<p>2. <em>That he shall fully perform his vow<\/em>. He shall do according to <em>all<\/em> that proceedeth out of his mouth. <em>(c)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>Appeal to those who have unfulfilled vows resting upon them.<\/p>\n<p>1. <em>Baptismal vows<\/em>, in the case of some of you, are unfulfilled. <em>(d)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>2. <em>Vows made in affliction or danger<\/em> by some of you have not been paid.<\/p>\n<p>When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it, &amp;c. (<span class='bible'>Ecc. 5:4-5<\/span>). Humbly and earnestly resolve, I will pay my vows unto the Lord now. Resolve and do.<\/p>\n<p><em>ILLUSTRATIONS<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>(a)<\/em> A vow is a promise made to God, in the things of God. The obligation of it is, by casuists, deemed to be as great as that of an oath. It is a sacred and solemn bond, wherever a soul binds itself to God in lawful things; and being once bound by it, it is a most heinous evil to violate it. It is a high piece of dishonesty to fail in what we have promised to men, saith Dr. Hall; but to disappoint God in our vows is no less than sacrilege. The act is free and voluntary; but if once a just and lawful vow or promise hath passed your lips, you may not be false to God in keeping it. It is with us as to our vows, as it was with Ananias and Sapphira as to their substance: Whilst it remained, saith Peter, was it not thine own? He needed not to sell and give it; but if he will give, he may not reserve: it is death to save only a part; he lies to the Holy Ghost that defalcates from that which he engaged himself to bestow. If thou hast vowed to the mighty God of Jacob, look to it that thou be faithful in thy performance, for He is a great and jealous God, and will not be mocked.<em>J. Flavel<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>This topic is illustrated on pp. 92, 93.<\/p>\n<p><em>(b)<\/em> In English we say, The river past, and God forgotten, to express with how mournful a frequency He whose assistance was invoked, it may have been earnestly, in the moment of peril, is remembered no more as soon as by His help the danger has been surmounted. The Spaniards have the proverb too, but it is with them: The river past, the saint forgotten, the saints being in Spain more prominent objects of invocation than God. And the Italian form of it sounds a still sadder depth of ingratitude: The peril passed, the saint mocked.<em>R. C. Trench, D. D<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Praise should always follow answered prayer. It was thus with one man. He was very ill; a great strong man in his day: yet disease touched him, shrivelled him up, laid him upon a lowly bed, made him pray to the humblest creature in his house for favours hour after hour. As he lay there in his lowliness and weakness, he said, If God would raise me up I would be a new man, I would be a devout worshipper in the sanctuary, I would live to His glory. And God gathered him up again; did not break the bruised reed, did not quench the smoking flax, but permitted the man to regain his faculties. And he was not well one month till he became as worldly as he was before his affliction. He prayed as if his heart loved God; and when he got his health back again he was a practical atheisthe was virtually the basest of blasphemers.<em>Joseph Parker. D.D<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>For another illustration on this point, see p. 186 (<em>b<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p><em>(c)<\/em> I know of two men who started business with this vow: We shall give to God one tenth of all our profits. The first year the profits were considerable. The next year there was increase in the profits, and of course increase in the tithe; in a few years the profits became very large indeed, so that the partners said to one another, Is not a tenth of this rather too much to give away? suppose we say now we shall give a twentieth? And they gave a twentieth,and the next year the profits had fallen down; the year after that they fell down again, and the men said to one another, as Christians should say in such a case, Have not we broken our vow? Have not we robbed God? And in no spirit of selfish calculation, but with humility of soul, self-reproach, and bitter contrition, they went back to God and told Him how the matter stood, prayed His forgiveness, renewed their vow, and God opened the windows of heaven and came back to them and all the old prosperity.<em>Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><em>(d)<\/em> The children of pious parents, who in their infancy were <em>dedicated<\/em> to God in holy baptism, lie under the solemn vows which were assumed in their behalf. Though your parents had authority to promise for you, it is you that must perform it, for it is you that they obliged. If you think they did you wrong, you may be out of the covenant when you will, if you will renounce the kingdom of heaven. But it is much wiser to be thankful to God, that your parents were the means of so great a blessing to you; and to do that again more expressly by yourselves, which they did for you; and openly with thankfulness, to own the covenant in which you are engaged, and live in the performance and in the comforts of it all your days.<em>Richard Baxter<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>THE VOWS OF WOMEN,THEIR RATIFICATION AND ABROGATION:<\/p>\n<p>(<em><span class='bible'>Num. 30:3-16<\/span><\/em>)<\/p>\n<p>These verses suggest the following observations<\/p>\n<p><strong>I. That religious vows are sometimes rashly made.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>They are sometimes the rash utterance of the lips (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:6<\/span>). Considering their solemn nature and binding force, they ought never to be made without serious consideration.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II. That religious vows made by females under the authority of a father or a husband, and disallowed by them, cease to be binding.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Three examples are given of the abrogation of the vows of women. <\/p>\n<p>(1) A father may annul a vow made by his youthful daughter dwelling with him (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:3-5<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p>(2) A man betrothed to a maiden, but not married to her, may annul a vow made by her after her betrothal to him (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:6-8<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p>(3) A married man may annul a vow made by his wife (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:10-12<\/span>). But in order to annul these vows the father or the husband, as the case may be, must forbid their fulfilment, and that at once. If he kept silence concerning the vow, by so doing he ratified it (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:4<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num. 30:7<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num. 30:11<\/span>). And the prohibition of the vow, if it was to be of any force, must be promptly uttered. If her father disallow her in the day that he heareth, &amp;c. (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:5<\/span>, and <span class='bible'>Num. 30:7-8<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num. 30:12<\/span>). These regulations were wise and equitable; for the daughter or wife might make a vow which would be prejudicial to the affairs of the family, perplex the provision made for the 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, or otherwise seriously interfere with the measures of the father and husband.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III. That vows made by females under such authority and not disallowed, and vows made by females not under such authority, are binding.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If the father did not without delay protest against his young daughters vow (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:3-4<\/span>), or the intending husband against the vow of his betrothed (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:6-7<\/span>), or the husband against the vow of his wife (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:10-11<\/span>), such vow remained in full force. And the vows made by widows or divorced wives were as binding as those made by a man (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:9<\/span>). Not being dependent upon a husband or father, such a woman was at liberty to make vows, and having made a vow was bound to fulfil it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>IV. That if a husband improperly annul a vow made by his wife, the guilt of its non-fulfilment will rest upon him.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, &amp;c. (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:14-15<\/span>). In this case the guilt of the unpaid vow would rest upon the husband; and he must either present a trespass offering for the expiation of his sin (<span class='bible'>Lev. 5:4-13<\/span>), or he must bear the punishment due to the sin.<\/p>\n<p>The regulations we have been considering authorise the following <em>inferences<\/em><\/p>\n<p>i. <em>The solemnity of religious vows<\/em>. They relate to the soul and to God. They ought not to be lightly made; and when made, they should be performed with scrupulous fidelity.<\/p>\n<p>ii. <em>The importance and sacredness of parental authority<\/em>. Even a vow made by a maiden to God must be set aside if her father object to it. The Scriptures clearly and repeatedly affirm the authority of parents (<span class='bible'>Exo. 20:12<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Eph. 6:1-3<\/span>). And it is confirmed by the example of our Lord (<span class='bible'>Luk. 2:51<\/span>). This authority involves a double obligation<\/p>\n<p>1. <em>Parental obligation<\/em>to consider and to promote the welfare of their children, &amp;c. (<span class='bible'>Gen. 18:19<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Deu. 6:7<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Pro. 22:6<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Eph. 6:4<\/span>). <em>(a)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>2. <em>Filial obligation<\/em>. <\/p>\n<p>(1) To revere their parents (<span class='bible'>Exo. 20:12<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Mal. 1:6<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Eph. 6:2-3<\/span>). <em>(b)<\/em> <\/p>\n<p>(2) To obey their parents. We see from this chapter that obedience to a father stood higher than a self-imposed religious service. Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. <em>(c)<\/em> <\/p>\n<p>(3) To be grateful to their parents. The ceaseless solicitude and tender care and quenchless love of parents for their children should evoke from them deep and thankful affection (<span class='bible'>Joh. 19:26-27<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Ti. 5:4<\/span>). <em>(d)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>iii. <em>The importance and sacredness of marital authority<\/em>. The authority of the husband over the wife, as laid down in this chapter, and in other portions of the scriptures, is very great (<span class='bible'>1Co. 11:3<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Co. 11:7-9<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Eph. 5:22-24<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Ti. 2:12-14<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Pe. 3:1-6<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Let the husband love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. <em>(e)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>ILLUSTRATIONS<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>(a)<\/em> When children are born to you, the most solemn book is opened, so far as you are concerned, that ever is opened, except that which relates to your own souls fate. The account that begins to be incurred when parents rejoice because a child is born to them, is the most solemn account that ever is incurred aside from ones own individual duty towards God. I do not mean that all the misconduct and evil doings of the child are to come back upon the parent, and that there is to be in the child no free will, so that no individual account can belong to him. For if a parent has cleansed his skirts of his children, the guilt of their sins will rest on their heads, and not on his. But unless the parent can show that the childs misconduct and wreck of eternity are not attributable to any fault of his, the weight of the childs condemnation will be dividedno, it will not be divided, it will rest undivided on the childs head, and undivided on the parents head. It is a responsibility assumed by every parent, to look after the welfare, temporal and eternal, of his child. If God had sent to him an angel, with a scroll of heavenly writ, saying, I send to school to you my well-beloved child; take it, teach it, and bring it back to heaven; and let its education be the test of your fidelityif God had sent to the parent such a missive, his responsibility would not be greater or more real than that which is laid upon us when we undertake to bring up children, They are not simply playthings, although they do make playthings. They are not mere little pleasure-bells, although no bells ever ring so sweetly. They are not instruments of music, and pictures, and flowers of dear delight in our household, that we may enjoy them, and that they may enjoy themselves. They are not frolicsome kittens and singing birds for our pleasure and their own. They are Gods immortals. They are sent forth to make an earthly pilgrimage, and you are their schoolmasters and pilots. It is a solemn thing to have such a charge put into your hands.<em>H. W. Beecher<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>For additional illustrations on <em>Parental duties and responsibilities<\/em>, see pp. 33, 46, 47.<\/p>\n<p><em>(b)<\/em> There are some children who are almost ashamed to own their parents because they are poor or in a low station of life. We will therefore give an example of the contrary, as displayed by the Dean of Canterbury, afterwards Archbishop Tillotson. His father, who was a plain Yorkshireman, perhaps something like those we now call Friends, approached the house where his son resided, and enquired whether John Tillotson was at home. The servant, indignant at what he thought his insolence, drove him from the door; but the Dean, who was within, hearing the voice of his father, instead of embracing the opportunity afforded him of going out and bringing in his father in a more private manner, came running out, exclaiming in the presence of his astonished servants, It is my beloved father! and falling down on his knees, asked for his blessing.<em>Dict. of Illust<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><em>(c)<\/em> During Havelocks stay in England, a gentleman went one evening to the house of the colonel, in compliance with an invitation. In the course of conversation, Mrs. Havelock turned suddenly round to her husband, and said, My dear, where is Harry? referring to her son, whom she had not seen during the whole afternoon. The colonel started to his fert. Well, poor fellow! hes standing on London Bridge, and in this cold too! I told him to wait for me there at twelve oclock to day; and, in the pressure of business, I quite forgot the appointment. It was now about seven oclock in the evening. The colonel ordered a cab to be called; and, as he went forth to deliver his son from his watch on London Bridge, he turned to excuse himself from his visitor, saying, You see, sir, that is the discipline of a soldiers family. In the course of an hour, he returned with poor Harry, who seemed to have passed through the afternoons experience with the greatest good humour.<em>Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><em>(d)<\/em> An old schoolmaster said one day to a clergyman who came to examine his school, I believe the children know the catechism word for word. But do they understand it? that is the question, said the clergyman. The schoolmaster only bowed respectfully, and the examination began. A little boy had repeated the fifth commandment, Honour thy father and thy mother; and he was desired to explain it. Instead of trying to do so, the little fellow with his face covered with blushes, said, almost in a whisper, Yesterday, sir, I showed some strange gentlemen over the mountain. The sharp stones cut my feet; and the gentlemen saw them bleeding, and they gave me some money to buy me shoes. I gave it to my mother, for she had no shoes either; and I thought I could go barefoot better than she. The clergyman then looked very much pleased; and the old schoolmaster only quietly remarked, God gives us His grace and His blessing.<em>Christian Treasury<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><em>(e)<\/em> Sometimes we have seen a model marriage, founded in pure love and cemented in mutual esteem. Therein the husband acts as a tender head, and the wife, as a true spouse, realises the model marriage relation. She delights in her husband, in his person, his character, his affection: to her he is not only the chief and foremost of mankind, but in her eyes he is all in all, her hearts love belongs to him and to him only. She finds sweetest content and solace in his company, his fellowship, his fondness; he is her little world, her paradise, her choice treasure. To please him she would gladly lay aside her own pleasure to find it doubled in gratifying him. She is glad to sink her individuality in his. She seeks no name for herself, his honour is reflected upon her, and she rejoices in it. She would defend his name with her dying breath; safe enough is he where she can speak for him. The domestic circle is her kingdom; that she may there create happiness and comfort is her life-work, and his smiling gratitude is all the reward she seeks. Even in her dress she thinks of him, without constraint she consults his taste, and thinks nothing beautiful that is obnoxious to his eye. A tear from his eye because of any unkindness on her part, would grievously torment her. She asks not how her behaviour may please a stranger, or how anothers judgment may be satisfied with her behaviour; let her beloved be content and she is glad. He has many objects in life, some of which she does not quite understand, but she believes in them all, and anything that she can do to promote them she delights to perform. He lavishes love on her, and she on him. Their object in life is common. There are points where their affections so intimately unite that none could tell which is first and which is second. To see their children growing up in health and strength, to see them holding posts of usefulness and honour, is their mutual concern; in this and other matters they are fully one. Their wishes blend, their hearts are indivisible. By degrees they come very much to think the same thoughts. Intimate association creates uniformity; we have known this to become so complete that at the same moment the same utterance has leaped to both their lips. Happy woman and happy man! If heaven be found on earth, they have it! At last the two are so welded, so engrafted on one stem, that their old age presents a lovely attachment, a common sympathy, by which its infirmities are greatly alleviated, and its burdens are transformed into fresh bonds of love. So happy a union of will, sentiment, thought, and heart exists between them, that the two streams of their life have washed away the dividing bank, and run on as one broad current of united existence till their common joy falls into the main ocean of felicity.<em>C. H. Spurgeon<\/em>.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: The Preacher&#8217;s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><strong>I. LAW ON WOMENS VOWS (<\/strong><strong><span class='bible'>Numbers 30<\/span><\/strong><strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>TEXT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>Num. 30:1<\/span>. And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. 2. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear 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. 3. If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her fathers house in her youth; 4. And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth, not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, she shall stand; and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. 6. And if she had at all a husband, when she vowed, or uttered aught out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7. And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it, then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect; and the Lord shall forgive her. 9. But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. 10. And if she vowed in her husbands house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11. And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 12. But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her. 13. Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict her soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. 14. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her; he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. 15. But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. 16. These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her fathers house.<\/p>\n<p><strong>PARAPHRASE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>Num. 30:1<\/span>. Then Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the sons of Israel, saying, This is the word which the Lord has commanded: 2. If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath, binding his soul with an obligation, he shall not break his word; he shall act according to everything that proceeds from his mouth. 3. If a woman also makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by a promise while she is young in her fathers house, 4. and if her father hears her vow and the pledge by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every obligation by which she has obligated herself shall stand: 5. But if her father should dissuade her on the day he hears her vow, none of her vows nor her obligations to which she has pledged herself shall stand, and the Lord will forgive her because her father has not allowed her to make the vows. 6. However, if she should marry while under her vows, or if she has spoken impetuously, and so bound herself, 7. and if her husband hears of it but says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows are binding, and the obligations to which she has bound herself shall stand. 8. But if on the day her husband hears of it he forbids her, then he shall nullify the vow she is under and the impetuous words of her lips, by which she has bound herself; and the Lord will forgive her. 9. But the vow of a widow, or of a divorceeeverything by which she has bound herselfshall stand against her. 10. However, if she vowed in her husbands house, or bound herself by a bond with an oath, 11. and her husband heard it and did not speak out or annulled her vow, then all her vows shall stand, and every obligation which she bound upon herself shall stand. 12. But if her husband annulled them on the day he heard them, then anything which has proceeded from her lips concerning her vows or concerning an obligation upon herself shall not stand: her husband has annulled them, and the Lord will forgive her. 13. Every vow and every binding oath which would humble her, her husband may confirm, or her husband may annul. 14. But if her husband indeed does not say anything from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all her obligations, because he has held his peace on the day he heard them: 15. but if he annuls them after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt. 16. These are the laws which the Lord commanded Moses between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter while she is still young in her fathers house.<\/p>\n<p><strong>COMMENTARY<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In summary, the laws in <span class='bible'>Numbers 30<\/span> treat with vows made by womenthe only portion in Scripture which does so exclusivelyunder varying circumstances of life. As with any man, the widowed or divorced woman is unconditionally bound by any vow her heart leads her to make (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:10<\/span>). If she is unmarried, and lives in her fathers house, her vow is subject to his approval, (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:4-6<\/span>). The concurrence of her husband is required of any married woman (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:7-9<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num. 30:11-15<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Two types of vows are treated, the nedher and the issar. The latter is a vow of abstinence (<span class='bible'>Num. 30:13<\/span>); the former is a generic term covering a wide spectrum of vows. The nedher ordinarily pledges something given to God; the issar is typified by the Nazirite vow and its specific terms of abstinence. Men were bound unconditionally by any vow openly expressed, even as intentions. The seriousness of giving voice to a promise could not be overestimated. On the other hand, should an unmarried young lady or a wife so express herself, the consent or approval of the father or husband involved was necessary before her pledge became binding. If he refused, the words were invalid. The young lady in this instance is assumed to be without personal property and dependent upon her father, although the law does not say precisely this.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation applying to the married woman bound the betrothed lady as well, since there was virtually no difference in the legal status of the two under Jewish law. Both she and all that she had belonged to the husband, and he had full rights to allow or disallow any vow she might wish to make. Should she make a vow before her betrothal which her father had not disallowed, her betrothed husband still had the power to renounce her vow rather than suffer any loss through the pledge.<br \/>In the instance of divorced or widowed women, any vow had full force, since no man was involved. No explanatory or qualifying terms are mentioned because there were none: and the point is not discussed at all.<\/p>\n<p>The final situation involved the vow of a woman whose husband, upon learning of the vow, permits it to obtain, even if by his silence. Should he later change his mind, the guilt and punishment which should come upon her, if the vow is broken, become his instead. Under this circumstance, he was required to offer a sin-offering or accept the punishment for the sin (see <span class='bible'>Lev. 5:4<\/span>, ff., and <span class='bible'>Lev. 5:1<\/span>). As given, all the provisions are simple and unambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>We should notice that nothing whatever is said about the vows contents themselves. A vow was not to be broken if it were foolish, or impractical, or even wrong; it simply was not to be made in the first place if such an eventuality were possible. The point at issue was elementary: nobody was to take a promise lightly, nor was any man to give his word to any solemn pledge without carefully considering the consequences as far as they could be foreseen. PC lists these conditions which any proper vow should meet: it must not contradict any commandment of God, nor infringe any right of other men. It must lie within the proper province of a mans own free will; it must concern such things as he can really control. This was what gave the vow its virtue and significance, (p. 396). The same source, when considering the essential evil of a broken vow, concludes properly that truth must exist for the sake of truth alone. It is sacred in Gods eyes. The evil, the author concludes, has been in forcing the oath on all men irrespective of their disposition. No forced oath will make the liar really truthful; and no forced oath can make the truthful man anything more than truthful. Administering oaths to a man of veracity is like holding a candle to make the sun shine. As has been truly said, the compelled oath makes the ignorant and superstitious to think that there are two kinds of truth, and that it is harmless to say, free from an oath, what it would be very wicked to say under it, (p. 396).<\/p>\n<p><strong>QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>547.<\/p>\n<p>Distinguish between the terms nedher and issar, showing what is or is not included in each.<\/p>\n<p>548.<\/p>\n<p>What differences does the Scripture make between the circumstances under which a man or a woman might make binding vows.<\/p>\n<p>549.<\/p>\n<p>Give the circumstances under which a womans vow was not binding.<\/p>\n<p>550.<\/p>\n<p>How does the law of vows relate to a betrothed woman?<\/p>\n<p>551.<\/p>\n<p>At what time might it be assumed that an unmarried woman might make a vow without the consent of her father?<\/p>\n<p>552.<\/p>\n<p>When was a married womans vow valid, even if her husband did not speak his word of approval?<\/p>\n<p>553.<\/p>\n<p>What two kinds of women might make binding vows without consulting any men?<\/p>\n<p>554.<\/p>\n<p>Discuss fully the principle which underlies the law of vows. How does it establish a firm foundation for truth?<\/p>\n<p>555.<\/p>\n<p>What four conditions should every vow meet to be proper?<\/p>\n<p>556.<\/p>\n<p>What would cause a forced vow to lose its validity?<\/p>\n<p>557.<\/p>\n<p>Discuss why it would be superfluous to ask an honest man to take a vow.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> <strong> 1<\/strong>. <strong> <\/strong> <strong> Heads of the tribes <\/strong> Directions concerning vows were addressed, not to individuals but to the heads of the tribes, because family rights were involved as well as the interests of the individual. In the last two chapters were laws for required duties, but in this are statutes concerning voluntary acts which individuals, having freely vowed, were bound to perform. The purpose of these statutes was to prevent the making of rash vows, to annul such as were improper, and to sanction the performance of such as were advisedly made.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Whedon&#8217;s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> <strong> The Continual Making and Confirmation of Vows (with their peace\/wellbeing offerings). But While Dedication Was Good and Was Required, It Also Had To Be Controlled (<span class='bible'><strong> Num 30:1-16<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p> Vows were an essential part of ancient life. By them men demonstrated their dedication to their gods, and it was no different for Israel. So such vows were a further evidence of Israel&rsquo;s dedication. That is one reason why the general question of vows was introduced here, when the total dedication of Israel into the future was in mind. Furthermore a large number of vows would be accompanied by votary peace offerings both at their commencement and at their end. A number of people would partake of that offering in recognition and celebration of the vow and its final accomplishment. Thus they were a sacred matter. <\/p>\n<p> This chapter must not be read as though it was simply describing a way for women to get out of their vows. Its emphasis is positive. Both men and women could make vows in order to demonstrate that they were dedicated to Yahweh. The exceptions were introduced simply in order to prevent a group being bound by one member who was not the head without its consent. <\/p>\n<p> The main principle was easily dealt with. Solemn vows made to Yahweh were to be seen as a serious matter. They were binding. Once made they had to be performed. Only in this way could Israel be pleasing to Yahweh and worthy to enter the land (<span class='bible'>Num 30:1-2<\/span>). (Where they turned out to be too onerous a way was provided of redemption from some vows which were connected with property, but it was costly &#8211; see <span class='bible'>Leviticus 27<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p> But a problem then arose because of the popularity of vows among Yahweh&rsquo;s people which were made either in order to demonstrate their love for Him, or in a time of crisis when special help was needed. The result was that people such as young women made vows who were not really in a position to do so, concerning matters over which they did not really have control, especially under the stress of war. In that case the vows could either be confirmed or rescinded by the head of the household at the time when he first heard of them. <\/p>\n<p> In this chapter this situation was especially dealt with as regards women. The point was, however, not that all such vows would be rescinded, but that the final decision must rest with the head of the household which was affected by the vow. For he was responsible for both the wealth and behaviour of the household. <\/p>\n<p> But why here the emphasis on women? If our analysis of chapters 26-32 given at the commencement of <span class='bible'>Numbers 26<\/span> is correct then it contained the sequence <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> d <\/strong> Regulation in respect of land to be inherited by women and others (<span class='bible'>Num 27:1-11<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> e <\/strong> Provision of a dedicated shepherd for the people of Israel (<span class='bible'>Num 27:12-23<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> e <\/strong> Provision of a dedicated people and for future worship in the land (Numbers 28-29). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> d <\/strong> Regulation in respect of vows made by women and others (<span class='bible'>Numbers 30<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p> Comparison of the first with the last partly explains why women are specially in mind in this passage. We have here a contrast between on the one hand the loyalty and faith of the daughters of Zelophehad which were exalted and rewarded by Yahweh, with, and, on the other hand, the general situation of young women and married women who were not to usurp authority over their menfolk. Their vows therefore, which were also an expression of loyalty and faith, had to be subject to their menfolk. The decision with regard to the daughters of Zelophehad was not to be seen as a general declaration of independence. (Under the hard conditions under which they lived such a declaration would have been foolish in the extreme). <\/p>\n<p> This passage may be seen as following the pattern earlier established whereby sequences can be introduced into an overall chiasmus (compare <span class='bible'>Num 22:15-38<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num 23:1<\/span> to <span class='bible'>Num 24:12<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num 28:1<\/span> to <span class='bible'>Num 29:40<\/span>), although it can actually also be seen as a chiasmus. It may be analysed as follows: <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> a <\/strong> Moses speaks to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel issuing Yahweh&rsquo;s command concerning vows (<span class='bible'>Num 30:1<\/span>) <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> b <\/strong> A man&rsquo;s vow to be unbreakable and to be performed (<span class='bible'>Num 30:1-2<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> c <\/strong> A young unmarried woman&rsquo;s vow has to be ratified by her father, but if he says nothing when he hears of the vow it stands. If he disavows it the vow does not stand, and Yahweh will forgive her because her father disallowed it (<span class='bible'>Num 30:3-5<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> d <\/strong> A woman&rsquo;s vows made prior to marriage have to be ratified by her husband on marriage, but if he says nothing when he hears of the vow it stands. If he disavows it the vow does not stand, and Yahweh will forgive her because her husband disallowed it (<span class='bible'>Num 30:6-8<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'> or <strong> d <\/strong> The vow of a widow or a divorced woman stands (<span class='bible'>Num 30:9<\/span>) (as with a man). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> c <\/strong> A married woman&rsquo;s vows after marriage have to be ratified by her husband on marriage, but if he says nothing when he hears of the vow it stands. If he disavows it the vow does not stand, and Yahweh will forgive her because her husband disallowed it (<span class='bible'>Num 30:10-12<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'> or <strong> b <\/strong> A husband may make any vow made by his wife void as longs as he does it immediately on hearing of it. But if he says nothing it stands. If he then disavows it he bears her iniquity. The mention of the penalty suggests that this means that the husband had delayed his disavowal (<span class='bible'>Num 30:13-15<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> a <\/strong> These are the statutes which Yahweh commanded Moses (concerning disallowing or maintenance of vows) between a man and his wife, and a father and his unmarried daughter (<span class='bible'>Num 30:16<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p><strong> A Man&rsquo;s Vows Are Unbreakable (<span class='bible'><strong> Num 30:1-2<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <strong> ). <\/p>\n<p><\/strong><\/p>\n<p> A man&rsquo;s vows were an expression of dedication to Yahweh. To break them would therefore be to withdraw his dedication. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> Num 30:1<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'>&lsquo;And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded.&rsquo; <\/p>\n<p> What is here spoken was to the heads of the tribes who would be responsible for the administration of the consequences of vows. It was necessary that they made clear to the people the seriousness of vows and the situation in which they could be rescinded. For in the end a vow was not just a personal matter. It reflected on the whole of the tribe. Note the emphasis on the fact that this was a command of Yahweh. Vows to God were not to be treated lightly. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> Num 30:2<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'>&lsquo;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.&rsquo; <\/p>\n<p> The general principle is clear. When a responsible adult male vows a vow or swears an oath they are to be seen as absolutely binding. Such a person must not break his word. He must do in accordance with the words that he has spoken (compare <span class='bible'>Deu 23:21-23<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Ecc 5:4-5<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Psa 15:4<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Psa 66:13-14<\/span>). It is an act of dedication that is irreversible, although in the case of some vows to do with property redemption was possible (<span class='bible'>Leviticus 27<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p> A vow could either be (1) with a view to general performance in the light of God&rsquo;s favour (e.g. <span class='bible'>Gen 28:20-22<\/span>), (2) with a view to abstaining from something (e.g. <span class='bible'>Psa 132:2-5<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Sa 14:24<\/span>), (3) with a view to performing an act in return for God&rsquo;s favour (21:2-3; <span class='bible'>Jdg 11:30-31<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Sa 1:11<\/span>), or (4) as an expression of zeal and devotion towards God (<span class='bible'>Psa 22:22-25<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p> Two different words are used in connection with vows, neder and &rsquo;issar, the former generally, but not always having a positive vow to do something in mind, (it was used of the Nazirite vow which is both positive and negative), while the latter seems more to denote a vow of abstinence. <\/p>\n<p> Vows Are Unbreakable If Confirmed By The Head of the Household But Can Be Rescinded by Him Immediately On Hearing Of Them, Although If He Does This Iniquitously He Must Bear The Consequences. <\/p>\n<p> These are not to be seen as simply special exceptions enabling the avoidance of vows, but as a positive declaration that a vow must be confirmed by the head of the household in order to be finally binding. Thus a vow could not be finalised which bound or affected others unless agreed to by the head of the particular group, but the emphasis is on the probable confirmation of the vows. It should be noted that the whole tenor of the passage is positive. The expectation is that the vows would be confirmed if they were reasonable and acceptable to the head of the group. <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> Num 30:2<\/strong><\/span> <strong> &nbsp;If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear 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.<\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> Num 30:2<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <strong><em> Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament<\/em><\/strong> <strong> &#8211;<\/strong> Note a reference to <span class='bible'>Num 30:2<\/span> in <span class='bible'>Mat 5:33<\/span>, &ldquo;Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p><strong><em> Scripture References<\/em><\/strong> <strong> &#8211; <\/strong> Also, note a similar verse:<\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'> <span class='bible'>Ecc 5:4<\/span>, &ldquo;When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Everett&#8217;s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><strong><\/p>\n<p><\/strong> The Obligation of Vows<strong><\/p>\n<p> v. 1. And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes,<\/strong> to whom the regulation of affairs regarding families was entrusted, <strong> concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded:<\/strong> <strong><\/p>\n<p>v. 2. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with &#8220;a bond,<\/strong> both the vows to perform and the vows to abstain being included in the precept, <strong> he shall not break his word<\/strong> and thus profane his solemn utterance, <span class='bible'>Psa 55:20<\/span>, <strong> he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth,<\/strong> for the promise, supported with an oath, has called upon God as a witness, and therefore its fulfillment is a sacred obligation. Far better not to make a promise than to do so lightly and afterward not keep one&#8217;s word, <span class='bible'>Deu 23:21-22<\/span>. The purpose of this regulation, which looked forward to the time of Israel&#8217;s living in Canaan, was to prevent frivolous vowing and foolish promising, a practice which to this day tends to loosen the bonds of obligation which men ought to feel in their intercourse with one another. <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><strong>EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>VOWS<\/strong> <strong>MADE<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>WOMEN<\/strong> (<span class='bible'>Num 30:1-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes.<\/strong> The regulations here laid down about vows follow with a certain propriety upon those concerning the ordinary routine of sacrifices, but we cannot conclude with any assurance that they were actually given at this particular period. It would appear upon the lace of it that we have in <span class='bible'>Lev 27:1-34<\/span>, and in this chapter two fragments of Mosaic legislation dealing with the same subject, but, for some reason which it is useless to attempt to discover, widely separated in the inspired record. Nor does there seem to be any valid reason for explaining away the apparently fragmentary anti dislocated character of these two sections (see the Introduction). The statement, peculiar to this passage, that these instructions were issued to the &#8220;heads of the tribes&#8221; itself serves to differentiate it from all the rest of the &#8220;statutes&#8221; given by Moses, and suggests that this chapter was inserted either by some other hand or from a different source. There is no reason whatever for supposing that the &#8220;heads of the tribes&#8221; were more interested in these particular regulations than in many others which concerned the social life of the people (such as that treated of in <span class='bible'>Num 5:5-31<\/span>) which were declared in the ordinary way unto &#8220;the children of Israel&#8221; at large.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:2<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>If a man vow a vow.<\/strong> , a vow, is commonly said to be distinctively a positive vow, a promise to render something unto the Lord. This, however, cannot be strictly maintained, because the Nazarite vow was <em>healer, <\/em>and that was essentially a vow of abstinence. To say that the vow of the Nazarite was of a positive character because he had to let his hair grow &#8220;unto the Lord&#8221; is a mere evasion. It is, however, probable that <em>neder, <\/em>when it occurs (as in this passage) in connection with <em>issar, <\/em>does take on the narrower signification of a positive vow. <strong>Swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond. <\/strong>Literally, &#8220;to bind a bond upon his soul.&#8221; , a bond, which occurs only in this chapter, is considered to be a restrictive obligation, a vow of abstinence. It would appear that the <em>issar <\/em>was always undertaken upon oath, whereas the <em>neder <\/em>(as in the case of the Nazarite) did not of necessity require it. <strong>He<\/strong> <strong>shall not break his word. <\/strong>This was the general principle with respect to vows, and, as here ]aid down, it was in accordance with the universal religious feeling of mankind. Whatever crimes may have claimed the sanction of this sentiment, whatever exceptions and safeguards a clearer revelation and a better knowledge of God may have established, yet the principle remained that whatsoever a man had promised unto the Lord, that he must fulfill. Iphigenia in Aulis, Jephthah&#8217;s daughter in Gilead, proclaim to what horrid extremities any one religious principle, unchecked by other coordinate principles, may lead; but they also proclaim how deep and true this religious principle must have been which could so over-ride the natural feelings of men not cruel nor depraved.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>If a woman vow a vow. <\/strong>The fragmentary nature of this section appears from the fact that, after laying down the general principle of the sacredness of vows, it proceeds to qualify it in three special cases only of vows made by women under authority. That vows made by boys were irreversible is exceedingly unlikely; and indeed it is obvious that many cases must have occurred, neither mentioned here nor in <span class='bible'>Lev 27:1-34<\/span>, in which the obligation could not stand absolute. <strong>In her father&#8217;s house in her youth. <\/strong>Case first, of a girl in her father&#8217;s house, who had no property of her own, and whose personal services were due to her father.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>If her father disallow her. <\/strong>It appears from the previous verse that the disallowance must be spoken, and not mental only. If the vow had been made before witnesses, no doubt the father&#8217;s veto must be pronounced before witnesses also.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:6<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>If she had at all a husband. <\/strong>Literally, &#8220;if being she be to an husband.&#8221; Septuagint,    <em>. <\/em>Case second, of a married or betrothed woman. As far as the legal status of the woman was concerned, there was little difference under Jewish law whether she were married or only betrothed. In either case she was accounted as belonging to her husband, with all that she had (cf. <span class='bible'>Deu 22:23<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Deu 22:24<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Mat 1:19<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Mat 1:20<\/span>). <strong>When<\/strong> <strong>she vowed. <\/strong>Rather, &#8220;and her vows be upon her.&#8221; Septuagint,      <em>. <\/em>The vows might have been made before her betrothal, and not disallowed by her father; yet upon her coming under the power of her husband he had an absolute right to dissolve the obligation of them; otherwise it is evident that he might suffer loss through an act of which he had no notice. <strong>Or<\/strong> <strong>uttered ought out of her lips.<\/strong> Rather, &#8220;or the rash utterance of her lips.&#8221; The word , which is not found elsewhere (cf. <span class='bible'>Psa 106:33<\/span>), seems to have this meaning. Such a vow made by a young girl as would be disallowed by her husband when he knew of it would presumably be a &#8220;rash utterance.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:9<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced. <\/strong>This is not one of the cases treated of in this section (see <span class='bible'>Num 30:16<\/span>), but is only mentioned in order to point out that it falls under the general principle laid down in <span class='bible'>Num 30:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>If she vowed in her husband&#8217;s house. <\/strong>Case third, of a married woman living with her husband. The husband had naturally the same absolute authority to allow or disallow all such vows as the father had in the ease of his unmarried daughter. The only difference is that the responsibility of the husband is expressed in stronger terms than that of the father, because in the nature of things the husband has a closer interest in and control over the proceedings of his wife than the father has over those of the daughter.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:13<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Oath to afflict the soul. No <\/strong>doubt by fasting or by other kinds of abstinence. The expression is especially used in connection with the rigorous fast of the day of atonement (Le <span class='bible'>Num 16:29<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num 29:7<\/span>; and cf. <span class='bible'>Isa 58:5<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Co 7:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Then he shall bear her iniquity, <\/strong><em>i.e; <\/em>if he tacitly allowed the vow in the first instance, and afterwards forbad its fulfillment, the guilt which such breach of promise involved should rest upon him. For the nature and expiation of such guilt see on <span class='bible'>Lev 5:1-19<\/span>, <\/p>\n<p><strong>HOMILETICS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:1-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>VOWS UNTO THE LORD<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This section, although fragmentary, yet reveals to us with great clearness the Divine mind concerning one important portion of practical religion. It lays down directly the principle that vows to God were lawful and binding. It lays down indirectly the limitation (although it only applies it to the case of women not <em>sui juris<\/em>)<em> <\/em>that no vows to God were valid without the consent of the lawful guardian, if such there were. It implies the general rule that no vows are binding to the damage of any who are not parties to the vow; and this is itself a part of the yet wider principle that God is not served nor honoured by anything which involves the injury or dishonour of man. In applying the teaching of this chapter there is indeed the serious preliminary difficulty of deciding whether vows are lawful at all under the Christian dispensation. Inasmuch as no direct utterance can be found in the New Testament upon the subject, it can only be argued upon broad principles of the gospel, and will probably for ever continue to be decided in different ways by different people. It will be truly said upon one side that by virtue of our Christian baptism and profession our whole self is dedicate unto God, to live a life of entire holiness, such as leaves no room for further and self-imposed limitations and restrictions. On the other side it will be truly replied that although in principle all that we have and are is &#8220;not our own,&#8221; but &#8220;bought with a price,&#8221; and only held in trust by us for the glory of God and the good of men, yet in practice there are many different degrees of self-renunciation between which a good Christian is often called in effect to make his choice, and that his vow may be simply his answer to the inward voice which bids him (in this sense) &#8220;go up higher.&#8221; It will be said, again, and truly said, that the law of Christ is essentially a law of liberty, and therefore inconsistent with the constraint of vows; that as soon as a man crosses his natural will, not because his higher will deliberately embraces pain for the sake of God, but because he is bound by a vow, his service ceases to be free and ceases to be acceptable. On the other side it will be said, and truly said, that just because we are under the law of liberty, therefore we are at liberty to use whatever helps Christian experience finds to be for practical advantage in the hard conflict with self; the law of liberty will no more strip the weakling of the defensive armour which gives him confidence than compel the strong man to hamper himself with it. Once more, it will be said that the Christian service is &#8220;reasonable,&#8221; <em>i.e; <\/em>one which continually approves itself to the honest intelligence of him that renders it; but since it may happen to any to have his convictions altered by growing knowledge or greater experience, it is not fit that the conduct of any be permanently restrained by vows. And this is to a certain extent unanswerable. No vow could oblige a Christian to act contrary to his matured convictions of what was really best for him, and so for God. If, <em>e.g; <\/em>one who had vowed celibacy came to feel in himself the truth of <span class='bible'>1Co 7:9<\/span>, he would be a better Christian in breaking than in keeping his vow; for we are not under the law, which rigorously enforces the letter, but under the Spirit, who loves only that which makes for true holiness. It may, however, be truly urged that while no vow ought to be held absolutely binding upon a conscience which repudiates it, yet many vows may be taken with all practical assurance that the conscience never will repudiate them. One thing of course is certain; all vows (at least of abstinence) stand upon the same footing in principle, however various an aspect they may wear in practice. A vow, <em>e.g; <\/em>of total abstinence from intoxicating liquors is in principle exactly as defensible or as indefensible as a vow of perpetual celibacy; nor can an attempt to defend one while condemning the other be absolved from the charge of hypocrisy. This being the doubtful state of the argument, of which the true Christian casuist can only say, &#8220;Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,&#8221; it remains to treat of vows in that sense in which they are allowed by all, viz; as promises made by the soul to God, whether fortified or not by some outward ceremonial, whether made in response to the more general persuasions of the gospel, or the more secret drawings of the Holy Spirit. Consider, therefore<\/p>\n<p><strong>I.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> A <strong>MAN<\/strong> <strong>MUST<\/strong> <strong>NOT<\/strong> <strong>BREAK<\/strong> <strong>HIS<\/strong> <strong>WORD<\/strong> <strong>UNTO<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong>. If a man is obliged in honour (and wherever practicable in law too) to keep his promise to his brother man; if an honest man (even among savages), having Raven his word to his neighbour, may not disappoint him, though it were to his own hindrance (<span class='bible'>Psa 15:4<\/span>); if God himself have vouchsafed to make promises to man (and with an oath too<span class='bible'>Heb 6:17<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Heb 6:18<\/span>), which promises he for his part will most surely keep and perform, how much more is man bound to keep his promise made to God!<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> A <strong>PROMISE<\/strong> <strong>MADE<\/strong>, <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>SICKNESS<\/strong> <strong>OR<\/strong> <strong>DISTRESS<\/strong> <strong>MAY<\/strong> <strong>NOT<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>DEPARTED<\/strong> <strong>FROM<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>HEALTH<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>PROSPERITY<\/strong>. No doubt most vows were made under stress of some calamity or need, as Jacob&#8217;s (<span class='bible'>Gen 28:20<\/span>), Hannah&#8217;s (<span class='bible'>1Sa 1:11<\/span>), and others (cf. <span class='bible'>Psa 66:13<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Psa 76:11<\/span>). Yet how often do men treat their God with such indignity! (<span class='bible'>1Co 10:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> A <strong>RESOLUTION<\/strong> <strong>DELIBERATELY<\/strong> <strong>FORMED<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>OFFERED<\/strong> <strong>UNTO<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong> <strong>IS<\/strong> <strong>QUITE<\/strong> <strong>AS<\/strong> <strong>SACRED<\/strong> <strong>AS<\/strong> <strong>THOUGH<\/strong> <strong>MADE<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>AN<\/strong> <strong>OATH<\/strong>. For an oath is on the part of God a condescension which has no meaning for him (<span class='bible'>Heb 6:17<\/span>), on the part of man a device to overawe his own sinful weakness, but it adds nothing to the real sacredness of the vow. How many vows have we taken upon ourselves, either openly or secretly! They are all as binding on us as though we had imprecated the most frightful penalties upon our failure to observe them. The punishment of Ananias and Sapphira was intended to mark the extreme malediction of such as secretly withhold from God what of themselves or of their own they have deliberately dedicated to his service.<\/p>\n<p><strong>IV.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>NO<\/strong> <strong>PROMISE<\/strong> <strong>CAN<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>MADE<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>DEROGATION<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>JUST<\/strong> <strong>RIGHTS<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>ANOTHER<\/strong> <strong>OVER<\/strong> <strong>US<\/strong>. God can never be served with that upon which another has a rightful claim, nor honoured by anything which involves dishonour of another. Only that which is really ours to give can we give unto God. If it be unworthy to offer unto the Lord of that which doth cost us nothing (<span class='bible'>2Sa 24:24<\/span>), it is unjust to offer unto the Lord of that which doth cost another something.<\/p>\n<p><strong>V.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>PARTICULAR<\/strong> A <strong>DAUGHTER<\/strong>&#8216;S <strong>PRIMARY<\/strong> <strong>DUTY<\/strong> <strong>IS<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>HER<\/strong> <strong>PARENT<\/strong>, A <strong>WIFE<\/strong>&#8216;S <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>HER<\/strong> <strong>HUSBAND<\/strong>. Only what lies beyond the sphere of their legitimate claims can she sacrifice in the name of religion.<\/p>\n<p><strong>VI.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> &#8220;<strong>RASH<\/strong> <strong>UTTERANCE<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>LIPS<\/strong>&#8221; <strong>IS<\/strong> <strong>NOT<\/strong> <strong>HELD<\/strong> <strong>BINDING<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>LORD<\/strong>. Since he utterly rejects any service which is not truly willing, and since he is infinitely above taking advantage of the folly of man, it is mere obstinacy, not religion, which leads a man to abide by what he has ignorantly and rashly said that he will do.<\/p>\n<p><strong>VII.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> A <strong>FATHER<\/strong> <strong>OR<\/strong> A <strong>HUSBAND<\/strong> <strong>MAY<\/strong> <strong>NOT<\/strong> <strong>PLAY<\/strong> <strong>FAST<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>LOOSE<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>RELIGIOUS<\/strong> <strong>PRACTICES<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THOSE<\/strong> <strong>DEPENDENT<\/strong> <strong>UPON<\/strong> <strong>HIM<\/strong>, <strong>NEITHER<\/strong> <strong>DISALLOW<\/strong> <strong>ONE<\/strong> <strong>DAY<\/strong> <strong>WHAT<\/strong> <strong>HE<\/strong> <strong>ALLOWED<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>DAY<\/strong> <strong>BEFORE<\/strong>. It is given to them to exercise control even in religious matters, but not to exercise it capriciously. It is a fearful responsibility to cross the devout purposes of God&#8217;s servants from any but the purest motives, and for any but the weightiest reasons.<\/p>\n<p><strong>VIII.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>IF<\/strong> <strong>WE<\/strong>, <strong>THROUGH<\/strong> <strong>NEGLIGENCE<\/strong> <strong>OR<\/strong> <strong>CAPRICE<\/strong>, <strong>DISTURB<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SPIRITUAL<\/strong> <strong>LIFE<\/strong>, <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>HINDER<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>HEAVENLY<\/strong> <strong>DESIRES<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THOSE<\/strong> <strong>DEPENDENT<\/strong> <strong>ON<\/strong> <strong>US<\/strong>, <strong>WE<\/strong> <strong>MUST<\/strong> <strong>BEAR<\/strong> <strong>THEIR<\/strong> <strong>INIQUITY<\/strong>. We do not know indeed how such responsibility will be apportioned at the day of judgment, but we do know that God will exact vengeance for every injury done to souls, and especially for injury done to such as are committed to our care (<span class='bible'>Mat 18:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:1<\/span><\/strong><strong>, <\/strong><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:2<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>THE SOLEMN OBLIGATION OF THE VOW<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>I.  NOTICE<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>ABSENCE<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>ANY<\/strong> <strong>REFERENCE<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SUBJECT<\/strong> <strong>MATTER<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>VOW<\/strong>. Moses does not say anything as to certain vows being right and certain others being wrong. This was not needed, and would only have taken away from the sharp and clear announcement that a vow once made was not to be lightly esteemed. Even the exemptions from obligation which Moses mentions in the remainder of the chapter are those caused not by anything unlawful in the subject matter of the vow, but by the fact that it proceeded from one who was not a sufficiently free agent to make a vow. It was quite evident that a vow must not contradict any commandment of God, nor infringe any right of other men. It must lie within the proper province of a man&#8217;s own free will; it must concern such things as he can really control. This was what gave the vow its virtue and significance. Certain things were commanded, with respect to which there was no choice but obedience; and outside of these there was still a large field, where the Israelite was left to his own control. What use he would make of this freedom was of course a test of his own disposition. That he must keep clearly within his own freedom was a thing that needed no insisting upon.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>CONSIDER<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>NECESSITY<\/strong> <strong>THERE<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>FOR<\/strong> <strong>IMPRESSING<\/strong> <strong>ON<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>ISRAELITES<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SOLEMN<\/strong> <strong>OBLIGATION<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THEIR<\/strong> <strong>VOWS<\/strong>. <em>How came the Israelite to make a vow? <\/em>We must recollect that in those days there was a general and practical belief in the power of supernatural beings to give help to men. The Israelites, only too often found unbelievers in Jehovah, were not, therefore, wanting in religious feeling-. When they lost faith in the God of Israel, the lapse was not into atheism, but into idolatry. And thus when their hearts were strongly set on some object, not only did they put forth the effort of self and solicit the aid of others, but especially the aid of Jehovah. And as they sought the aid of their fellow-men under the promise of a recompense, so they sought the aid of Jehovah under a similar promise. Under the influence of strong desires and highly excited feelings all sorts of vows would be made by the Israelites, and some of them, probably, very difficult to carry out. Doubtless there were Israelites not a few with somewhat of Balak&#8217;s spirit in them. They felt how real was the power of Jehovah, and, being as little acquainted with his character as Balak was, they concluded that his power could be secured on the promise of some sufficient consideration in return. Among an unspiritual people whose minds were filled with a mixture of selfishness and superstition, vows would take the aspect of a commercial transaction. So much indispensable help from God, and, as the price of it, a corresponding return from man. And as the help of God would be felt to require a much greater return than the help of man, so the vow would undertake something beyond the ordinary range of attainment. May we not conclude that the petition connected with the vow was oftentimes answered, and that God for his own wise purposes did give people the desires of their own hearts, even as he did to Hannah? If so, we see at once the difficulty that would often arise in fulfilling the vow. We know how the desire of a man&#8217;s heart, once accomplished, is often felt to be unworthy of the effort and expenditure. Thus there would be a strong temptation to neglect the fulfilling of the vow if it could be safely managed. <em>It was an invisible God who had to be dealt with; <\/em>and ready enough as the Israelite might be to believe in Jehovah as long as it was for self-advantage, the faith in him and the fear of him would begin to wax feeble when it wan a question of meeting what had proved a profitless engagement. A vow to an idol was really a vow to be paid to avaricious and watchful priests. A promise made to a fellow-man he may be trusted to exact. But what is a vow to the invisible God? &#8220;I may neglect it with impunity,&#8221; is the thought in the Israelite&#8217;s heart (Psa 1:1-6 :21; <span class='bible'>Psa 73:11<\/span>). But the impunity was a delusion. God had marked the vow only too carefully; and it was less harm for a man to go with some heavy burden and great hindrance hanging about him all the days of his life, than that the sanctity of the vow or oath should be slighted in the smallest degree.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> <strong>CONSIDER<\/strong> <strong>HOW<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>PRINCIPLES<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>UNDERLIE<\/strong> <strong>THIS<\/strong> <strong>INJUNCTION<\/strong> <strong>ARE<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>CARRIED<\/strong> <strong>OUT<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>CHRISTIANS<\/strong>. We are passed into an age when vows are not commonly made. Most of those whose thoughts are filled with the desires of their own hearts do not believe in the power of God to help them. And Christians ought to be free from such desires. It is their part to pray the prayer of the Collect for the fourth Sunday after Easter: &#8220;Grant unto thy people that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise.&#8221; But though modern Christians may not have the same inducements to make vows as ancient Israelites, still there are certain principles and duties underlying this injunction of Moses which deserve our careful regard.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1<\/strong>. <em>Consider well the great projects and ruling views of your life. <\/em>Let the prayer of the above Collect be uttered on every Sunday and week-day throughout the year. Enter only on such undertakings as not merely accord with God&#8217;s will, but spring from it, Nothing really accords with <em>God&#8217;s <\/em>will save what springs from it. The sooner we discover that the most practicable life and the most blessed one is that of being not our own masters, but what the apostles learned to be, servants of the Lord Jesus Christ (<span class='bible'>Rom 1:1<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Php 1:1<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Jas 1:1<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Pe 1:1<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Rev 1:1<\/span>), the better it will be for us. We shall not then enter upon undertakings which we lack the skill, the resources, and perhaps the heart to finish. This very injunction of Moses is a suggestion of the difficulties which come from a wrong choice. Under the power of excitement and in the ignorance of inexperience we may enter into engagements which afterwards become the burden and curse of life.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2<\/strong>. <em>Consider wherein the evil of a broken vow really consists. <\/em>Do not suppose that God considers it worse to violate a vow or an oath than to violate any other promise. Truth for the sake of truth is a sacred thing in the eyes of God. Who can doubt that in his sight the affirmation, now happily allowed in courts of justice, is as binding as any oath whatsoever? Not but what a solemn appeal to the universal presence and all-seeing eye of Almighty God, if made <em>voluntarily, <\/em>and with evident conviction, earnestness, and sincerity in the mode of expression, is of great service in pressing home the truth. Witness the force of such an appeal in the writings of Paul. The evil has been in forcing the oath on all men irrespective of their disposition. No forced oath will make the liar really truthful; and no forced oath can make the truthful man anything more than truthful. Administering oaths to a man of veracity is like holding a candle to make the sun shine. As has been truly said, the compelled oath makes the ignorant and superstitious to think that there are two kinds of truth, and that it is harmless to say, free from an oath, what it would be very wicked to say under it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>3<\/strong>.<em> Consider what deliberation is required in entering on the obligations of the Christian profession. <\/em>Here are promises which it is right to make; yet they must be made with due caution, circumspection, and inquiry. Christ would have us avoid with equal care the perils of haste and procrastination. We cannot begin too soon seriously to consider the claims of God upon us, but we are warned against hastily plunging into obligations which before long may be altogether too much for our worldly hearts. It is only too evident that many are led into a profession of religion, either in a fit of excitement which cannot be sustained, and which, indeed, would be of no use if it could be sustained, or by an insufficient consideration of all that a profession of religion includes. Our Lord stops us at the very beginning with an earnest entreaty to measure well what we are about, and understand exactly what it is that he asks. We must not mistake his demands and claims, and put some notion of our own in place of them (<span class='bible'>Mat 7:21-29<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Mat 16:24-26<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Luk 9:57<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Luk 9:58<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Luk 14:25<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Luk 14:35<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Joh 6:44<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>4<\/strong>. <em>Consider the great peril of being unfaithful to the knowledge of what is right. <\/em>It is a dreadful thing to fall away from truth when it is done in the light of knowledge, and in spite of the prickings of conscience. A broken promise, whether to God or man, broken not through infirmity, but of set and selfish purpose, is in God&#8217;s eye a great transgression. No doubt in many infractions of promise there are complications and difficulties, pros and cons, which prevent every one save the all-searching God himself from determining the real character of the action. We need not make estimates of particular cases unless we are compelled. Let us keep our own hearts with all diligence, and labour to be on the side of self-denial and a good conscience rather than on that of carnal inclinations. God has made his yea and amen felt in Christ Jesus. So may Christ Jesus be able to make his yea and amen felt in the sincerity, simplicity, and straightforwardness of the lives of his people.Y.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 30:3-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD HONOURED AND CAUTIONED<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The command contained in this section of the chapter secures a double result.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1<\/strong>. By specifying certain exceptions to the validity of the vow, it makes that validity all the more manifest where the exceptions do not obtain. Stating exceptions to a rule is only another way of stating the rule itself.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2<\/strong>. These exceptions relate to the interests of the household, to the preservation of its integrity, and, to this end, of the rights and authority of the person whom God has placed at its head. Moreover, that which secures the right of the father and the husband equally secures the interests of the daughter and the wife. Consider<\/p>\n<p><strong>I.<\/strong> <strong>WHAT<\/strong> <strong>THIS<\/strong> <strong>COMMAND<\/strong> <strong>IMPLIED<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>RESPECT<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>HEAD<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>HOUSEHOLD<\/strong>. Let us take the relation of the father and daughter, similar things being true, <em>mutatis mutandis, <\/em>with respect to the husband and wife.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1<\/strong>. <em>This command honoured parental authority. <\/em>God had laid a solemn injunction on children to honour father and mother, and we see here how careful he was to honour the parental relation himself. He puts everything in the shape of a vow, everything which the daughter was otherwise free to choose, under the father&#8217;s control He requires no reason to be given; the simple veto is enough, if only it be uttered at the appointed time. The father had a responsibility which the daughter had not, and it was fitting that God should give the father all possible help in meeting that responsibility.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2<\/strong>. <em>This command required much watchfulness on the part of the father. <\/em>To act rightly here demanded the whole compass of paternal duty. The father was not allowed to say that his daughter&#8217;s vow was no business of his. He himself might not be a vowing sort of person, and therefore under no temptation to neglect a vow he was not likely to make. But even if indifferent to vows himself, he was bound to be interested in his daughter&#8217;s welfare, and do his best to keep her from future difficulties. Her limited life hid many difficulties from her eyes. It was not for a father to expose himself in later days to reproach from the lips of his own daughter. It was not for him to run the risk of hearing her say, &#8220;Why did not your larger knowledge and experience shelter me from difficulties which my inexperience could not possibly anticipate?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>3<\/strong>. <em>This command required much consideration on the part of the father. <\/em>He must not let the vow pass without notice, and when he noticed it must be with proper consideration. While it was within his right to stop the vow, he might in stopping it be doing a very unfatherly thing, a thing very hurtful to the religious life of his daughter. As God had honoured him and undertaken to help him in his fatherly relation, he must honour that relation himself. That relation from which God expects so much must be prepared to yield much in the way of care and consideration. The father may think too much of his own wishes, too little of his daughter&#8217;s needs, and too little of the will of God. The vow of the daughter might be a rightful, helpful, and exemplary one, a vow of the Nazarite indeed (<span class='bible'>Num 6:2<\/span>). It was not enough, therefore, for the father to fall back on the mere assertion of authority. It is a serious thing to offend one of the little onesa serious thing for any one to do; but how unspeakably serious when the hand which casts down the stumbling-block is that of a father!<\/p>\n<p><strong>4<\/strong>. <em>This command required, in order to be fully complied with, sympathy with the voluntary spirit in religion. <\/em>A father who felt that the services of religion consisted chiefly in exact external conformity with certain rules for worship and conduct would be very likely to stop his daughter&#8217;s vow as mere whimsicality. But religion must go beyond obedience to verbal commands; it must aim at something more than can be put into even the most exact and expressive of them. Commands are nothing more than finger-posts; and the joys of hope and preparation during the journey are directed towards something lying beyond the last of the finger-posts, The father who would act rightly by all possible wishes of his children must be one who comprehends that experience of John: &#8220;We love him because he first loved us&#8221; (<span class='bible'>1Jn 4:19<\/span>). He must be one who feels that love can never be satisfied with mere beaten tracks and conventional grooves. He must be such a one as appreciates the act of the woman who poured the precious ointment on the head of Jesus. If he be a man of the Judas spirit, grudging what he reckons waste, he is sure to go wrong. He will check his children when he ought to encourage them, and encourage when he ought to check. If God opens their eyes he will do his best to close them again, so that the blind father may go on leading the blind children, till at last both fall into the pit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>WHAT<\/strong> <strong>THIS<\/strong> <strong>COMMAND<\/strong> <strong>IMPLIED<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>RESPECT<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>DAUGHTER<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>WIFE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1<\/strong>.<em> Their right to make a vow was itself secured. <\/em>The command did not say that daughter and wife were to make no vow at all. They were as free <em>to make a vow <\/em>at any man in all Israel; and if it had not been for more important considerations connected with the household, they would also have been free to keep the vow. God would have us to understand that inferior and mutilated duties or privileges are no necessary consequence of a subordinate position.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2<\/strong>.<em> A gentle and patient submission was recommended on the part of the daughter and the wife. <\/em>The right to propose the vow being secured to every woman, it was no fault of hers, and would be counted no blame, if the father or husband cancelled it. The Nazarite vow might be thwarted in the very freshness of it, but the spirit of zeal which produced it needed not to grow languid. We cannot be hindered in the attainment of any <em>good, <\/em>save by our own negligence. God will meet us amid all restraints which untoward circumstances may impose upon us. The claims rising out of natural relations and the present needs of human society are imperative while they last, and must be respected. But they will not last for ever. &#8220;In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage&#8221; (<span class='bible'>Mat 22:30<\/span>).Y.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>Num 31:1-54<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong> EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>EXTERMINATION<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>MIDIANITES<\/strong> (<span class='bible'>Num 31:1-54<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>The Lord spake unto Moses.<\/strong> The command to &#8220;vex the Midianites, and smite them,&#8221; had been given before (<span class='bible'>Num 25:17<\/span>), but how long before we cannot tell. Possibly the interval had been purposely allowed in order that the attack when it was made might be sudden and unexpected. From the fact that no resistance would seem to have been made to the Israelitish detachment, and that an enormous amount of plunder was secured, we may probably conclude that the Midianites had thought all danger past.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:2<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites. <\/strong>The war was to be distinctly one of vengeance on the part of Israel. On the grave moral question which arises out of this war, and of the manner in which it was carried on, see the note at the end of the chapter. <strong>Afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.<\/strong> It is quite possible that Moses himself had been reluctant to order the expedition against Midian, either because it involved so much bloodshed, or, more probably, because he foresaw the difficulty which actually arose about the women of Midian. If so, he was here reminded that his place was to obey, and that his work on earth was not done so long as the Midianites remained unpunished.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Avenge the Lord of Midian.<\/strong> God, speaking to Moses, had commanded a war of vengeance; Moses, speaking to the people, is careful to command a war of religious vengeance. In seducing the people of the Lord the Midianites had insulted and injured the majesty of God himself. On the question why Midian only, and not Moab also, was punished see on <span class='bible'>Num 25:17<\/span>. It is to be remembered that, however hateful the sins of licentiousness and idolatry may be, they have never aroused by themselves the exterminating wrath of God. Midian was smitten because he had deliberately used these sins as weapons wherewith to take the life of Israel.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>There were delivered, <\/strong>or &#8220;levied.&#8221; . Septuagint,  The Hebrew word is only used here and in <span class='bible'>Num 31:16<\/span> (see note there), and in these two places not in the same sense. The context, however, leaves little or no doubt as to the meaning which it must bear.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:6<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>And Phinehas the son of Eleazar. <\/strong>The high priest himself could not leave the camp and the sanctuary, because of his duties, and because of the risk of being defiled (see <span class='bible'>Num 31:19<\/span>); but his son, who was already marked out as his successor, could act as his representative (see on <span class='bible'>Num 16:37<\/span>). In after times the Messiah Milchama (&#8220;Sacerdos unctus ad bellum,&#8221; alluded to in <span class='bible'>Deu 20:2<\/span>) who accompanied the army to the field was a recognized member of the Jewish hierarchy. Phinehas was of course specially marked out by his zeal for the present duty, but we may suppose that he would have gone in any case. <strong>With the holy instruments, and the trumpets. <\/strong>Septuagint,        . The word instruments () is the same more usually translated &#8220;vessel,&#8221; as in <span class='bible'>Num 3:31<\/span>, and is apparently to be understood of the sacred furniture of the tabernacle. It is difficult to understand what &#8220;holy vessels&#8221; could have accompanied an expedition of this sort, unless it were the ark itself. The Israelites were accustomed at all critical times to be preceded by the ark (<span class='bible'>Num 10:33<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Jos 3:14<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Jos 6:8<\/span>), and the narrative of <span class='bible'>1Sa 4:3<\/span> sq. shows plainly that, long after the settlement at Shiloh, no scruples existed against bringing it forth against the foes of Israel and of God. Indeed there is a resemblance in the circumstances between that ease and this which is all the more striking because of the contrast in the result. Most modern commentators, unwilling to believe that the ark left the camp (but cf. <span class='bible'>Num 14:44<\/span>), identify the &#8220;holy instruments&#8221; with &#8220;the trumpets;&#8221; this, however, is plainly to do violence to the grammar, which is perfectly simple, and is contrary to the Septuagint and the Targums. The Targum of Palestine paraphrases &#8220;holy instruments&#8221; by Urim and Thummim; these, however, as far as we can gather, seem to have been in the exclusive possession of the high priest.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:8<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>They slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain.<\/strong> This is more accurately rendered by the Septuagint,  <em>; <\/em>   <em>: <\/em>&#8220;they put to death () the kings, in addition to those who fell in battle&#8221; (from , to pierce, or wound). These five kings, who are mentioned here as having been slain in cold blood after the battle, are said in <span class='bible'>Jos 13:21<\/span> to have been vassals () of the Amoritish king Sihon, and to have dwelt &#8220;in the country.&#8221; From this it has been concluded by some that the Midianites at this time destroyed included only certain tribes which had settled down within the territory afterwards assigned to Reuben, and had become tributary to Sihon. This would account for the fact that the present victory was so easy and so complete, and also for the otherwise inexplicable fact that the Midianites appear again as a formidable power some two centuries later. <strong>Zur. <\/strong>The father of Cozbi (<span class='bible'>Num 25:15<\/span>). <strong>Balsam also  they slew with the sword. <\/strong>Not in battle, but, as the context implies, by way of judicial execution (see on <span class='bible'>Num 24:25<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Jos 13:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Their goodly castles.<\/strong> . Septuagint, <em>. <\/em>This word, which occurs only here and in <span class='bible'>Gen 25:16<\/span>, no doubt signifies the pastoral villages, constructed partly of rude stone walls, partly of goats-hair cloth, which the nomadic tribes of that country have used from time immemorial. Probably these were the proper habitations of the Midianites; the &#8220;cities&#8221;<em> <\/em>would have belonged to the previous inhabitants of the land.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:11<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>The spoil.<\/strong> . Septuagint,  . The booty in goods. <strong>The prey. <\/strong>. Septuagint,  . The booty in live-stock, here including the women and children, who are distinguished as &#8220;captives&#8221; () in the next verse.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:14<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Officers of the host. <\/strong>Literally, &#8220;inspectors.&#8221; Septuagint,    <\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>To commit trespass. <\/strong> See on <span class='bible'>Num 31:5<\/span>. The word  seems to be used here much as the English word &#8220;levy&#8221; is used in such a phrase as &#8220;levying&#8221;<em> <\/em>war against a person.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:18<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Keep alive for yourselves, <\/strong><em>i.e; <\/em>for domestic slaves in the first instance. Subsequently no doubt many of them became inferior wives of their masters, or were married to their sons. Infants were probably put to death with their mothers.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:19<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Do ye abide without the camp. <\/strong>In this case at any rate the law of  <span class='bible'>Num 19:11<\/span> <em>sq. <\/em>was to be strictly enforced. <strong>And your captives,<\/strong> <em>i.e; <\/em>the women and children who were spared. No peculiar rites are here prescribed for the reception of these children of idolaters into the holy nation with which they were to be incorporated beyond the usual lustration with the water of separation. In after times they would have been baptized.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:20<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Purify all your raiment, and all that is made.<\/strong> Literally, &#8220;every vessel&#8221; (). This was in accordance with <strong>the <\/strong>principle laid down in <span class='bible'>Num 19:1-22<\/span> that everything which had come into contact with a corpse needed purifying.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>And Eleazar the priest said<\/strong>, <strong>This is the ordinance<\/strong> <strong>of the law<\/strong> ( , &#8220;law-statute, as in <span class='bible'>Num 19:2<\/span>) <strong>which the Lord commanded Moses. <\/strong>There<strong> <\/strong>is something peculiar in this expression which points to the probability, either that this paragraph (<span class='bible'>Num 31:21-24<\/span>) was added after the death of Moses, or that &#8220;the law was already beginning, even in the lifetime of Moses, to assume the position which it after. wards heldthat, viz; of a fixed code to be interpreted and applied by the living authority of the priesthood. This is the earliest instance of the high priest declaring to the people what the law of God as delivered to Moses was, and then applying and enlarging that law to meet the present circumstances. It is no doubt possible that Eleazar referred the matter to Moses, but it would seem on the face of the narrative that he spoke on his own authority as high priest. When we compare the ceremonial of the later Jews, so precisely and minutely ordered for every conceivable contingency, with the Mosaic legislation itself, it is evident that the process of authoritative amplification must have been going on from the first; but it is certainly strange to find that process begun while Moses himself was alive and active.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>The brass.<\/strong> Rather, &#8220;copper.&#8221; The six metals here mentioned were those commonly known to the ancients, and in particular to the Egyptians and Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:23<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Ye shall make it go<\/strong> <strong>through the fire. <\/strong>This was an addition to the general law of lustration in <span class='bible'>Num 19:1-22<\/span> founded on the obvious fact that water does not cleanse metals, while fire does. The spoils of the Midianites required purification, not only as being tainted with death, but as having been heathen property.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:26<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Take<\/strong> <strong>the sum of the prey. N<\/strong>o notice is taken here of the spoil (see on <span class='bible'>Num 31:11<\/span>), but only of the captured children and cattle. <strong>And the chief fathers. <\/strong>Perhaps  (fathers) stands here for  (fathers&#8217; houses). So the Septuagint,    <em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:27<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Divide the prey into two parts. <\/strong>This division was founded roughly upon the equity of the case; on the one hand, all Israel had suffered from Midian; on the other, only the twelve thousand had risked their lives to smite Midian. For the application of a like principle to other cases see <span class='bible'>Jos 22:8<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Sa 30:24<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2<\/span> Macc 8:28, 30.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:29<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>An<\/strong> <strong>heave offering unto the Lord. <\/strong>Septuagint,   <em>. <\/em>The Hebrew word  (to lift) from which <em>terumah <\/em>is derived, had practically lost its literal significance, just as the English word has in the phrase &#8220;to lift cattle;&#8221; hence <em>terumah <\/em>often means simply that which is set aside as an offering. No doubt the offering levied on the portion of the warriors was in the nature of tithe for the benefit of Eleazar and the priests.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:30<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>One portion of fifty.<\/strong> Two percent of the prey. This probably corresponded very closely to the number of Levites as compared with the twelve tribes, and would tend to show that God intended the Levites to be neither better nor worse off than their neighbours.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:32<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>The booty,<\/strong> <strong>being the rest of the prey.<\/strong> Rather, &#8220;the prey (, see on <span class='bible'>Num 31:11<\/span>), to wit, the rest of the booty&#8221; (, as in <span class='bible'>Num 14:3<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Num 14:31<\/span>). Septuagint,    <em>, i.e; <\/em>what actually remained to be divided. The numbers given are obviously round numbers, such as the Israelites seem always to have employed in enumeration. The immense quantity of cattle captured was in accordance with the habits of the Midianites in the days of Gideon (<span class='bible'>Jdg 6:5<\/span>) and of their modem representatives today.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:49<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>There lacketh not one man of us.<\/strong> The officers naturally regarded this as a very wonderful circumstance; and so indeed it was, whether Midian made any resistance or not. It was, however, in strict keeping with the promises of that temporal dispensation. It would have been no satisfaction to the Israelite who fell upon the threshold of the promised land to know that victory remained with his comrades. His was not the courage of modern soldiers, who fling away their lives in blind confidence that some advantage will accrue thereby to the army at large; rather, he fought under the conviction that to each, as well as to all, life and victory were pledged upon condition of obedience and courage. In this ease no one was found unfaithful, and therefore no one was allowed to fall.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:50<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>What every man hath gotten. <\/strong>The whole, apparently, of their booty in golden ornaments was given up as a thank offering, and in addition to this was all that the soldiers had taken and kept. The abundance of costly ornaments among a race of nomads living in squalid tents and hovels may excite surprise; but it is still the ease (under circumstances far less favourable to the amassing of such wealth) among the Bedawin and kindred tribes (see also on <span class='bible'>Jdg 8:24-26<\/span>). <strong>Chains. <\/strong>. Septuagint, . Clasps for the arm, as in <span class='bible'>2Sa 1:10<\/span>. <strong>Tablets.<\/strong> . Probably golden balls or beads hung round the neck (see on <span class='bible'>Exo 35:22<\/span>). A different word is used in <span class='bible'>Isa 3:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.<\/strong> If the shekel of weight be taken as 66 of an ounce, the offering will have amounted to more than 11,000 ounces of gold, worth now about 40,000. If, according to other estimates, the golden shekel was worth 30s; the value of the offering will have been some 25,000.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:54<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation. <\/strong>It is not said what was done with this enormous quantity of gold, which must have been a cause of anxiety as well as of pride to the priests. It may have formed a fund for the support of the tabernacle services during the long years of neglect which followed the conquest, or it may have been drawn upon for national purposes. <strong>A memorial.<\/strong> To bring them into favourable remembrance with the Lord. For this sense of  <em> <\/em>cf. <span class='bible'>Exo 28:12<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Exo 28:29<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Note on the Extermination of the Midianites<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The grave moral difficulty presented by the treatment of their enemies by the Israelites, under the sanction or even direct command of God, is here presented in its gravest form. It will be best first to state the proceedings in all their ugliness; then to reject the false excuses made for them; and lastly, to justify (if possible) the Divine sanction accorded to them.<\/p>\n<p><strong>I.<\/strong> That the Midianites had injured Israel is clear; as also that they had done so deliberately, craftily, and successfully, under the advice of Balaam. They had so acted as if <em>e.g; <\/em>a modern nation were to pour its opium into the ports of a dreaded neighbour in time of peace, not simply for the sake of gain (which is base enough), but with deliberate intent to ruin the morals and destroy the manhood of the nation. Such a course of action, if proved, would be held to justify any reprisals possible within the limits of legitimate war; Christian nations have avenged far less weighty injuries by bloody wars in this very century. Midian, therefore, was attacked by a detachment of the Israelites, and for some reason seems to have been unable either to fight or to fly. Thereupon all the men (i.e; all who bore arms) were slain; the towns and hamlets were destroyed; the women, children, and cattle driven off as booty. So far the Israelites had but followed the ordinary customs of war, with this great exception in their favour, that they offered (as is evident from the narrative) no violence to the women. Upon their return to the camp Moses was greatly displeased at the fact of the Midianitish women having been brought in, and gave orders that all the male children and all the women who were not virgins were to be slain. The inspection necessary to determine the latter point was left presumably to the soldiers. The Targum of Palestine indeed inserts a fable concerning some miraculous, or rather magical, test which was used to decide the question in each individual case. But this is simply a fable invented to avoid a disagreeable conclusion; both soldiers and captives were unclean, and were kept apart; and the narrative clearly implies that there was no communication between them and the people at large until long after the slaughter was over. To put the matter boldly, we have to face the fact that, under Moses&#8217; directions, 12,000 soldiers had to deal with perhaps 50,000 women, first by ascertaining that they were not <em>virgins, <\/em>and then by killing them in cold blood. It is a small additional horror that a multitude of infants must have perished directly or indirectly with their mothers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> It is commonly urged in vindication of this massacre that the war was God&#8217;s war, and that God had a perfect right to exterminate a most guilty people. This is true in a sense. If God had been pleased to visit the Midianites with pestilence, famine, or hordes of savages worse than themselves, no one would have charged him with injustice. All who believe in an over-ruling Providence believe that in one way or other God has provided that great wickedness in a nation shall be greatly punished. But that is beside the question altogether; the difficulty is, not that the Midianites were exterminated, but that they were exterminated in an inhuman manner by the Israelites. If they had been so many swine the work would have been revolting; being men, women, and children, with all the ineffaceable beauty, interest, and hope of our common humanity upon them, the very soul sickens to think upon the cruel details of their slaughter. An ordinarily good man, sharing the feelings which do honour to the present century, would certainly have flung down his sword and braved all wrath human or Divine, rather than go on with so hateful a work; and there is not surely any Christian teacher who would not say that he acted quite rightly; if such orders proceeded from God&#8217;s undoubted representative today, it would be necessary deliberately to disobey them.<\/p>\n<p>It is urged again that the question at issue really was, &#8220;whether an obscene and debasing idolatry should undermine the foundations of human society,&#8221; or whether an awful judgment should at once stamp out the sinners, and brand the sin for ever. But no such question was at issue. There were obscene and debasing idolatries in abundance round about Israel, but no effort was made to exterminate them; the Moabites in particular seem to have been just as licentious as the Midianites at this time (see <span class='bible'>Num 25:1-3<\/span>), and certainly were quite as idolatrous, and yet they were passed by. Indeed the argument shows an entire failure, so to speak, in moral perspective. Harlotry and idolatry are great sins, but there is no reason to believe that God deals with them otherwise than he does with other sins. It was no part of the Divine intention concerning Israel that he should go about as a knight-errant avenging &#8220;obscene idolatries.&#8221; Many a nation just as immoral as Midian rose to greatness, and displayed some valuable virtues, and (it is to be presumed) did some good work in God&#8217;s world in preparation for the fullness of time. Harlotry and idolatry prevail to a frightful extent in Great Britain; but any attempt to pursue them with pains and penalties would be scouted by the conscience of the nation as Pharisaical. The fact is (and it is so obvious that it ought not to have been overlooked) that Midian was overthrown, not because he was given over to an &#8220;obscene idolatry,&#8221; wherein he was probably neither much better nor much worse than his neighbours; but because he had made an unprovoked, crafty, and successful attack upon God&#8217;s people, and had brought thousands of them to a shameful death. The motive which prompted the attack upon them was not horror of their sins, nor fear of their contamination, but vengeance; Midian was smitten avowedly &#8220;to avenge the children of Israel&#8221; (<span class='bible'>Exo 28:2<\/span>) who had fallen through Baal-peor, and at the same time &#8220;to avenge the Lord&#8221; (<span class='bible'>Exo 28:3<\/span>), who had been obliged to slay his own people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> The true justification of these proceedingswhich we should now call, and justly call, atrocitiesdivides itself into two parts. In the first place, we have to deal only with the fact that an expedition was sent by Divine command, to smite the Midianites. Now, this does indeed open up a very difficult moral question, but it does not involve any special difficulty of its own. It is certain that wars of revenge were freely sanctioned under the Old Testament dispensation (see on Exo 17:14-16; <span class='bible'>1Sa 15:2<\/span>, <span class='bible'>1Sa 15:3<\/span>). It is practically conceded that they are permitted by the New Testament dispensation. At any rate Christian nations habitually wage wars of revenge even against half-armed savages, and many of those who counsel or carry on such wars are men of really religious character. It is possible that if the principles of the New Testament take a deeper hold upon the national conscience, all such wars will be regarded as crimes. This means simply, that in regard to war the moral sentiment of religious people has changed, and is changing very materially from age to age. Even a bad man will shrink from doing today what a good man would have done without the least scruple some centuries ago; and (if the world last) a bad man will be able sincerely to denounce some centuries hence what a good man can bring himself to do with a clear conscience today. Now it has been pointed out again and again that when God assumed the Jews to be his peculiar people, he assumed them not only in the social and political stage, but in the moral stage also, which belonged to their place in the world and in history. Just as God adopted, as King of Israel, the social and political ideas which then prevailed, and made the best of them; in like manner he adopted the moral ideas then current, and made the best of them, so restraining them in one direction, and so enforcing them in another, and so bringing them all under the influence of religious sanctions, as to prepare the way for the bringing in of a higher morality. What God did for the Jews was not to teach them the precepts of a lofty and perfect morality, which was indeed only possible in connection with the revelation of his Son, but to teach them to act in all things from religious motives, and with direct reference to his good pleasure.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly God himself, especially in the earlier part of their history as a nation, undertook to guide their vengeance, and taught them to look upon wars of vengeance (since their conscience freely sanctioned them) as waged for his honour and glory, not their own, If this seem to any one unworthy of the Divine Beings let him consider for a moment, that on no other condition was the Old Testament dispensation possible. If God was to be the Head of a nation among nations, he must regulate all its affairs, personal, social, and national. We escape the difficulty, and wage wars of vengeance, and commit other acts of doubtful morality, without compromising our religion, because our religion is strictly personal, and our wars are strictly national. But the Old Testament dispensation was emphatically temporal and national; all responsibility for all public acts devolved upon the King of Israel himself. It was absolutely necessary, then, either that God should reveal Christian morality without Christ (which is as though one should have heat without the sun, or a poem without a poet); or that he should sanction the morality then current in its best form, and teach men to walk bravely and devoutly according to the light of their own conscience. That light was dim enough in some ways, but it was slowly growing clearer through the gradual revelation which God made of himself; and even now it is growing clearer, and still while religion remains fundamentally the same, morality is distinctly advancing, and good people are learning to abhor today what they did in the faith and fear of God but yesterday. Take, <em>e.g; <\/em>that saying, &#8220;Vengeance is mine, I will repay.&#8221; For the Jew it meant that in waging wars of vengeance he fought as the Lord&#8217;s soldier and not as in a private quarrel. For the Christian of the present day it means that revenge of private injuries is to be left altogether to the just judgment of the last day. To the Christian of some future age it will mean that all revenge for injuries and humiliations, private or public, individual or national, must be left to the justice of him who ordereth all things in this world or the world to come. Each has a different standard of morality; yet each, even in doing what another will abhor, may claim the Divine sanction, for each acts truly and religiously according to his lights.<\/p>\n<p>This being so, it is only necessary further to point out that the slaying of all the men whom they could get at was the ordinary custom of war in those days, when no distinction could be drawn between combatants and non-combatants. The practice of. war in this respect is entirely determined by the sentiment of the age, and is always in the nature of a compromise between the desire to kill and the desire to spare. As these two desires can never be reconciled, they divide the field between them with a curious inconsistency. The first is satisfied by the ever-increasing destructiveness of war; the second is gratified by the alleviations which strict discipline and skilled assistance can procure for the vanquished and the wounded. Whether ancient or modern wars really left the larger tale of misery behind them is a matter of great doubt; but at any rate the custom of war sanctioned the slaughter of all the combatants, <em>i.e; <\/em>of all the men, at that time; and if war is to be waged at all, it must be allowed to follow the ordinary practice.<\/p>\n<p>In the second place, however, we have to deal with horrors of an exceptional character, in the subsequent slaughter of the women and boys. Now it is to be observed that the orders for this slaughter proceeded from Moses alone. According to the narrative of <span class='bible'>Exo 28:13<\/span> sq; Moses went out of the camp, and on perceiving the state of the case, gave instructions at once while his anger was hot. It is possible that he sought for Divine guidance, but it does not appear that he did, but rather that he acted upon his own judgment, and under the ordinary guidance of his own conscience. We have not, therefore, to face the difficulty of a direct command from God, but only the difficulty of a holy man, full of heavenly wisdom, having ordered a butchery so abhorrent to our modern feelings. Let it then in all fairness be observed<\/p>\n<p><strong>1<\/strong>. That Moses was not responsible for the presence of these captives. They ought either to have been killed, or left in their own land; it was either the cupidity or the mistaken pity of the soldiers which brought them there.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2<\/strong>. That Moses could not tolerate their presence in the host. It seems a vile thing to kill a woman, but it was the women more than the men of Midian of whom they bad just reason to be afraid. In justice to the men, in fairness to the wives, of Israel, it was simply impossible to let them loose upon the camp. Again, it seems cowardly to slay a helpless child; yet to suffer a generation of Midianites to grow up under the roofs of Israel would have been madness and worse, for it would have been to court a great and perhaps fatal national disaster. For the sake of Israel the captive women and children must be got rid of, and this could only be done either by slaughtering the women and boys, or by taking them back to their desolated homes to perish of hunger and disease. Of the two courses Moses certainly chose the more merciful. The nation was exterminated; the girls only were spared because they were harmless then, and likely to remain harmless; distributed through the households of Israel, without parents or brothers to keep alive the national sentiment, they would rapidly be absorbed in the people of the Lord; within a few weeks these girls of Midian would be happier, and certainly their future prospects would be brighter, than if they had remained unmolested at home.<\/p>\n<p>The charge, therefore, which remains against Moses is, that he ordered the slaughter in cold blood of many thousands of women and children, not unnecessarily nor wantonly, but for reasons which were in themselves very weighty. It is of course an axiom of modern times that we do not wage war against women and children. But this, while partly due to Christian feeling, is partly due to the conviction that they are not formidable. If in any war the women of the enemy habitually attempted to poison, and often did poison, our soldiers, they would probably meet with scant mercy. In blockading a fortified city a modern army deliberately starves to death a great many women and children; and if they seek to escape they are sent back to starve, and to induce the garrison to surrender by the spectacle of their sufferings. If this is justified (as no doubt it is if war is to be prosecuted at all) by the plea of necessity, Moses&#8217; plea of necessity must be heard also. He deliberately thought it better that these women and boys should be slaughtered than that the future of Israel should be gravely imperiled. In these days, indeed, he would be wrong in coming to that conclusion, and his name would be justly branded with infamy. It would be unquestionably better to incur any loss, rather than outrage in so violent a manner the Christian sentiment of pity and tenderness towards the young, the innocent, the helpless; it would be better to run any risk than to brutalize the soldiery by the execution of such an order. So slowly do sentiments of mercy establish themselves in the hearts of mankind, and so unspeakably valuable are they when established, that he would be a traitor against humanity and against God who should on any pretence outrage any one of them. But there was no such sentiment to outrage in the time of Moses; none thought it wrong to slay captive women and children if any necessity demanded their lives. It was an axiom of war that a captive belonged absolutely to his captor, and might be put to death, or sold as a slave, or held to ransom, as pleased him best, without any scruple of conscience. Moses, therefore sharing as he certainly did the sentiments of his age, was morally free to act for the best, without any thought whether it was cruel or not; and God did not interfere with his decision because it was cruel, any more than he did with the similar decision of other good men who warred, and slew, and spared not before the coming of Christ, and indeed since that coming too. Finally, if the method of separation was odious, it was still the only way possible under the circumstances of separating the harmless from the harmful, and of clearing mercy towards the captives from danger to the captors. And here again a proceeding could be sanctioned without sin then which perhaps no necessity could excuse now, because the sentiment of modesty which it would violate did not exist then, or rather did not exist in the same form.<\/p>\n<p><strong>HOMILETICS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:1-54<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>THE EXTERMINATION OF SINFUL LUSTS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The religious value of this chapter for Christian people must be based upon a &#8220;spiritual&#8221; interpretation; otherwise it can but excite abhorrence, and can only serve the negative purpose of showing by contrast with that darkness how fair is the light which now shineth. But &#8220;all these things,&#8221; says St. Paul, writing of the events which followed the exodus (<span class='bible'>1Co 10:11<\/span>), &#8220;were written for our admonition;&#8221; and &#8220;all Scripture God-inspired is profitable&#8221; for some directly religious purpose. Those who reject all &#8220;spiritual&#8221; application (albeit directly sanctioned by apostolic example<span class='bible'>1Co 9:10<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Gal 4:24<\/span>, &amp;c.) must in honesty deny that such a chapter as this is &#8220;profitable&#8221; for anything except to afford some data for the science of comparative morality, an object valuable in itself, but certainly not worthy of Divine inspiration. If there be here nothing for immortal souls beyond the details of a horrid slaughter and of an enormous booty, it might better be omitted at once from the Bible. But if the hosts of Midian represent in an &#8220;allegory&#8221; the &#8220;fleshly lusts which war against the soul,&#8221; then may Samson&#8217;s riddle be found true&#8221;Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness&#8221; (<span class='bible'>Jdg 14:14<\/span>); and a passage which has given occasion to many fierce and dangerous invectives against religion may yield store of food and refreshment for the souls of the wise. Having, therefore, this clue in our hands to guide us through these dark paths, slippery with blood of slaughtered infants, and ringing with the cries of frantic women, we may see at once a profound meaning in the broad and apparently unwarrantable distinction drawn between Moab and Midian. As to fleshly sin, there was nothing to choose between them; yet Midian only was smitten, because he alone had practiced with design against the life of Israel. Even so it is against &#8220;fleshly lusts which war against the soul,&#8221; <em>i.e; <\/em>which are prepared and used by a malignant will to alienate the soul from God, and so to destroy itit is against such that Christianity denounces bitter and implacable war. Against &#8220;fleshly lusts,&#8221; as they exist among the heathen, springing out of the mere wantonness of natural life untrained to any higher aim than present enjoyment, Christianity (rightly understood) has no vindictive sternness. It may look with sadness upon a melancholy degradation; it may avoid with anxiety a most perilous contamination; but it neither condemns, nor seeks to repress, save by the gentle force of a better example and a higher teaching. Consider, therefore, with regard to the <em>Midianites<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>I.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong> <strong>HIMSELF<\/strong> <strong>PRESSED<\/strong> <strong>ON<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>WAR<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>MIDIAN<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>BITTER<\/strong> <strong>END<\/strong>, and that although there did not seem any present danger to Israel from that quarter. Even so in his holy word God ever urges us to wage an implacable war with the lusts of the flesh, and not to be content because we are not presently assailed by them, but to exterminate them wholly. Nothing is more striking than the urgency and the breadth of these exhortations. The Scripture assumes that all classes of believers (however respectable in outward life and position) have need to strive earnestly against their passions (<span class='bible'>Gal 5:17-24<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Col 3:5<\/span>, and parallel passages). And note that subsequent events fully justified the slaughter then made of Midian (<span class='bible'>Jdg 6:1-40<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Jdg 7:1-25<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Jdg 8:1-35<\/span>). We have, and shall have, but too good reason to know that fleshly sins are always a formidable danger.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>MOSES<\/strong> <strong>MUST<\/strong> <strong>FINISH<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>DESTRUCTION<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>MIDIAN<\/strong> <strong>ERE<\/strong> <strong>HE<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>CALLED<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>HIS<\/strong> <strong>REST<\/strong>, <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>ERE<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong> <strong>MAY<\/strong> <strong>CROSS<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>JORDAN<\/strong>. Even so the moral law, the wrath of God against sin declared by Moses, must remain in force until sin be destroyed in our mortal members. When the lusts of the flesh are wholly mortified, then, and only then, shall there be &#8220;no law,&#8221; but only grace and love and heaven close at hand (<span class='bible'>Gal 5:23<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Ti 1:9<\/span>, &amp;c.).<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>WAR<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>MIDIAN<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>COMMANDED<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>ORDER<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> &#8220;<strong>AVENGE<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>CHILDREN<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong>,&#8221; <strong>BUT<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>MOSES<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>ORDER<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> &#8220;<strong>AVENGE<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>LORD<\/strong>.&#8221; Even so has God commanded us to strive against hurtful lusts because they &#8220;drown men in perdition&#8221; (<span class='bible'>1Ti 6:9<\/span>), and have caused incalculable loss of those who should have had inheritance with us; but we on our part fight against these sins because they dishonour God, and destroy the souls for which Christ died. And both these motives are in effect one, and unite to make our warfare a holy war, albeit a war of vengeance, in which no mercy may be shown.<\/p>\n<p><strong>IV.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>WAR<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>MIDIAN<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>DISTINCTLY<\/strong> <strong>ONE<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>VENGEANCE<\/strong> <strong>FOR<\/strong> <strong>INJURIES<\/strong> <strong>INFLICTED<\/strong> <strong>ON<\/strong> <strong>THEMSELVES<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>ON<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>LORD<\/strong>. Even so in the strife of the Christian against carnal sin there is a true element of revenge, and abundant room for holy indignation, and even for sharp reprisals; albeit these are all directed against that in himself which is hateful to a man&#8217;s better self and to God (<span class='bible'>1Co 9:27<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Co 7:11<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Rom 8:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>V.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>IF<\/strong> <strong>ONLY<\/strong> 12,000 <strong>ACTUALLY<\/strong> <strong>WENT<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>WAR<\/strong>, <strong>ALL<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong> <strong>WENT<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>REPRESENTATION<\/strong>1000 <strong>FROM<\/strong> <strong>EACH<\/strong> <strong>TRIBE<\/strong>. So the conflict against sin may be in a few only conspicuous and acute, yet these only represent what is going on secretly more or less in the hearts and lives of Christian people generally. The stress of fight may fall on some, but all are called to fight.<\/p>\n<p><strong>VI.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THIS<\/strong> <strong>WAR<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>ACCOMPANIED<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>PRIEST<\/strong> (Phinehassee on <span class='bible'>Num 25:1-18<\/span>), <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SACRED<\/strong> <strong>TRUMPETS<\/strong>, <strong>AND<\/strong>, <strong>AS<\/strong> <strong>IT<\/strong> <strong>SHOULD<\/strong> <strong>SEEM<\/strong>, <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>ARK<\/strong> <strong>ITSELF<\/strong>. Even so the Christian warfare against sin is guided, sanctified, and cheered by the High Priest himself of our profession (<span class='bible'>Heb 2:18<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Heb 12:2<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Rev 3:4<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Rev 3:5<\/span>), and by the stirring tones of the gospel, and by the glorious mystery of the incarnation itselfGod with us, the All-holy tabernacled in our flesh, Christ in us, the hope of glory hereafter and the sweet constraint unto purity now.<\/p>\n<p><strong>VII.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>ALL<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>MEN<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>MIDIAN<\/strong> <strong>WERE<\/strong> <strong>SLAIN<\/strong>, <strong>TOGETHER<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>THEIR<\/strong> <strong>KINGS<\/strong>. Even so it is the destiny of the Church at large, and may be our individual happiness, to overthrow and destroy all hurtful lusts, however strong and active, which are in enmity with the law of God. So also their princes, &#8220;the world-rulers of this darkness,&#8221; shall not stand before us, hut shall perish (<span class='bible'>1Co 15:25<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Eph 5:27<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Eph 6:12<\/span>, &amp;c.).<\/p>\n<p><strong>VIII.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SOLDIERS<\/strong> <strong>ERRED<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>SPARING<\/strong> <strong>SUCH<\/strong> <strong>AS<\/strong> <strong>SEEMED<\/strong> <strong>WEAK<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>HARMLESS<\/strong>, <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>MIGHT<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>SAFELY<\/strong> <strong>TURNED<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>PROFIT<\/strong>. The women were in fact more dangerous than the men; the boys would become as dangerous as their fathers. Even so do we err in setting our faces strongly against certain sins which are accounted disgraceful, while we tolerate others because they seem comparatively harmless, or even profitable. This is exactly what civilization does: it puts down very thoroughly the ruder vices of mankind, but it spares the softer vices, partly because it feels no repugnance to them, partly because they actually make for wealth. But these softer vices are even more fatal to morality, because more insidious and more fascinating; and these sins which seem to add to the general wealth are preparing a disastrous future for the nation. The moral law of the gospel bids us wage an equal war with all sins without exception, and takes no account whether they are offensive or inoffensive, hateful or pleasant, to the natural man, to public opinion, or to the sentiment of the age.<\/p>\n<p><strong>IX.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>MOSES<\/strong> <strong>COMMANDED<\/strong> <strong>ALL<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>SLAIN<\/strong> <strong>EXCEPT<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>YOUNG<\/strong> <strong>GIRLS<\/strong>, <strong>WHO<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>REASON<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THEIR<\/strong> <strong>YOUTH<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>INNOCENCE<\/strong> <strong>MIGHT<\/strong> <strong>SAFELY<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>DISTRIBUTED<\/strong> <strong>THROUGH<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>HOUSEHOLDS<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong>. Even so all passions which belong to the lower and conquered nature of man must be &#8220;mortified&#8221; and exterminated, except such as can be safely and thoroughly absorbed in the sanctified life. This is the only test. Whatever natural desires can be taken up into the Christian life without remaining as a foreign element (and therefore a source of danger) within it may be spared, and ought to be welcomed, but no others. All the rest must at any cost be got rid of.<\/p>\n<p><strong>X.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>ALL<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>REST<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SPOIL<\/strong> <strong>MUST<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>PURIFIED<\/strong> <strong>EITHER<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>FIRE<\/strong> <strong>OR<\/strong> <strong>WATER<\/strong>, <strong>OR<\/strong> <strong>BOTH<\/strong>, <strong>BEFORE<\/strong> <strong>IT<\/strong> <strong>COULD<\/strong> <strong>COME<\/strong> <strong>INTO<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>CAMP<\/strong>. Even so whatever is to be brought over (and it is indeed very much) from the natural life of passion into the sanctified life of grace must be purged by the cleansing virtue of the atonement, and by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (see on <span class='bible'>Mat 3:11<\/span>). Nothing which has been contaminated with sin can be turned to Christian uses unless it is first sanctified according to its nature. But, subject to this purifying, all that is not in itself sinful may be adapted to Christian ends, and used by Christian people.<\/p>\n<p>Consider again, with respect to <em>the booty taken<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>I.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>IT<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>VERY<\/strong> <strong>GREAT<\/strong>, <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>GREATLY<\/strong> <strong>ENRICHED<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>PEOPLE<\/strong>. Even so there is more spiritual gain to be made by attacking and destroying sins than by anything else. Churches and souls would never need to complain of spiritual poverty if they busied themselves in waging zealous and unsparing war against the sins within their own reach, within themselves.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>ALL<\/strong> <strong>SHARED<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SPOIL<\/strong>, <strong>BUT<\/strong> <strong>THOSE<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>WARRED<\/strong> <strong>HAD<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>FAR<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>LARGER<\/strong> <strong>SHARE<\/strong> <strong>INDIVIDUALLY<\/strong>. Even so it is for the profit and edification of all that sins should be successfully assailed; but those who bear the brunt of temptation and strive against sin even &#8220;unto blood&#8221; have by far the greater reward in themselves. Let this be our Christian ambition, to earn the higher prizes of &#8220;him that overcometh&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>AMONGST<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SPOIL<\/strong> <strong>THERE<\/strong> <strong>WERE<\/strong> A <strong>MULTITUDE<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>HUMAN<\/strong> <strong>BEINGS<\/strong>, <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>THESE<\/strong> <strong>PROBABLY<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>MOST<\/strong> <strong>VALUABLE<\/strong> <strong>PART<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>IT<\/strong>. Even so in the Christian warfare against sin there are a multitude of souls rescued from slavery, and these of priceless worth, beyond all other rewards which we could ask or think of. The girls of Midian seemed to be delivered into slavery; they were in fact delivered from a horrible slavery, and made free in the only way which was then possible. So are those souls which are brought into the service and strictness of Christ made free by the truth.<\/p>\n<p><strong>IV.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>LORD<\/strong>&#8216;S <strong>PORTION<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>PORTION<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>HIS<\/strong> <strong>MINISTERS<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>EXACTED<\/strong> <strong>BEFORE<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SPOIL<\/strong> <strong>MIGHT<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>APPROPRIATED<\/strong>. Even so, whatever is allowed to Christian use which has belonged to a sinful world, God and his Church have a first claim upon it. It is only through the sanctifying influences of grace that Christian people can freely and safely enjoy the many comforts and luxuries and profits which else they must have forsworn. It is but right that these should first of all be willingly taxed for the glory of God among men, and for the support of all outward ministries of grace (<span class='bible'>Luk 11:41<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Consider again, with regard to <em>Balaam&#8217;s death<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>I.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>HE<\/strong> <strong>FELL<\/strong> <strong>AT<\/strong> <strong>LAST<\/strong> <strong>WHERE<\/strong> <strong>HE<\/strong> <strong>HAD<\/strong> <strong>NO<\/strong> <strong>REASON<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>APPREHEND<\/strong> <strong>DANGER<\/strong>. Israel had passed by these tribes of Midian, and Balaam no doubt believed that all present danger from them was over. Even so vengeance overtakes the wicked at the moment when he is least afraid, and when justice seems to have forgotten him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>HE<\/strong> <strong>FELL<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SWORD<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong>, <em>i.e; <\/em><strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>HAND<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THOSE<\/strong> <strong>WHO<\/strong> <strong>HAD<\/strong> <strong>BEEN<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>VICTIMS<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>HIS<\/strong> <strong>GUILE<\/strong>. Even so it is a just thing with God that evil men and seducers should receive their punishment through those whom they have wronged.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>BALAAM<\/strong>, <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>ENCHANTER<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>TEMPTER<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong>, <strong>FELL<\/strong> <strong>WITHOUT<\/strong> A <strong>STRUGGLE<\/strong> <strong>WHEN<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>PRINCES<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>MIDIAN<\/strong> <strong>HAD<\/strong> <strong>BEEN<\/strong> <strong>SLAIN<\/strong>. Even so the tempter himself the arch-enemy of souls, will (as far as we are concerned) come utterly to an end as soon as we have overcome the allurements to sin which he uses against us (<span class='bible'>Rom 16:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Consider again, with regard to <em>the offering of the officers<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>I.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>NOT<\/strong> <strong>ONE<\/strong> <strong>HAD<\/strong> <strong>FALLEN<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>RANKS<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong>a thing clearly beyond expectation in any ordinary expedition. Even so there is no reason why any should fall or fail in the warfare against fleshly lusts. For the promise of victory is not to all in general, or to the Church at large only, but to each soul in particular that will earnestly strive. And victory over sin implies eternal life (<span class='bible'>Eze 18:23<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Amo 9:9<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Mic 7:8<\/span>; Mal 3:17; <span class='bible'>1Co 10:13<\/span>, &amp;c.).<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>OFFICERS<\/strong> <strong>FELT<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>THIS<\/strong> <strong>IMMUNITY<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>DUE<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SPECIAL<\/strong> <strong>PROVIDENCE<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong>. Even so that we escape from sin and death, that we come unhurt through so many perils to the soul, is not of our strength, but of God&#8217;s assistance, and to him all the glory is due (<span class='bible'>Isa 40:29<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Co 12:9<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Php 4:13<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Ti 4:17<\/span>, <span class='bible'>2Ti 4:18<\/span>, &amp;c.).<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>THEY<\/strong> <strong>OWED<\/strong> A <strong>GREAT<\/strong> <strong>DEBT<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>GRATITUDE<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong> <strong>FOR<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>PRESERVATION<\/strong>&#8216; <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THOSE<\/strong> <strong>WHO<\/strong> <strong>HAD<\/strong> <strong>BEEN<\/strong> <strong>COMMITTED<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THEIR<\/strong> <strong>CHARGE<\/strong> (literally, &#8220;in their hand &#8220;). Even so we ought to feel and to show great gratitude to God for the spiritual safety of such as are put in our charge, whether as children or otherwise. According to our responsibility for them, and our sorrow if they were lost, so should be our thankfulness if the good hand of God be upon them to keep them in the way of life (<span class='bible'>Php 1:3<\/span> :1Th <span class='bible'>Php 1:2<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Php 1:3<\/span>, &amp;c.).<\/p>\n<p><strong>IV.<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>THEY<\/strong> <strong>SHOWED<\/strong> <strong>THEIR<\/strong> <strong>GRATITUDE<\/strong> <strong>BY<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SPECIAL<\/strong> <strong>DEDICATION<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong>&#8216;S <strong>SERVICE<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THOSE<\/strong> <strong>PRECIOUS<\/strong> <strong>THINGS<\/strong> <strong>WITH<\/strong> <strong>WHICH<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>WARFARE<\/strong> <strong>HAD<\/strong> <strong>ENRICHED<\/strong> <strong>THEM<\/strong>. Even so when we and ours come unscathed out of the temptations of the world and of the flesh, we may well dedicate to God in some special way all the costly gifts of knowledge, of sympathy, of spiritual power and freedom which come of temptation and trial bravely overcome.<\/p>\n<p>And note that the numbering of the men who had been to the war, and the offering of the golden spoil, may be interpreted of the last day.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1<\/strong>. That not one true soldier of Christ shall be missing then (<span class='bible'>Joh 10:28<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Joh 10:29<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Php 1:6<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Rev 7:3<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Rev 7:4<\/span> compared with <span class='bible'>Rev 14:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>2<\/strong>. That all the precious gifts yielded by human life amid strife and danger shall be brought into the holy city of God, to the glory of God (<span class='bible'>Rev 21:24<\/span>, <span class='bible'>Rev 21:26<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>3<\/strong>. That every one that overcometh shall be the better and the richer for his warfare against sin (see <span class='bible'>Num 31:53<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:1-54<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>THE LION AND HIS PREY<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In two of his prophecies Balaam had been compelled to speak of Israel as the lion (<span class='bible'>Num 23:24<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num 24:9<\/span>). We now behold, in the destruction of Midian, the rousing of the lion-spirit. Something of it had been seen already in the conduct of Phinehas (<span class='bible'>Num 25:1-18<\/span>), and now there is a manifestation on a larger scale in the achievement of these 12,000 men.<\/p>\n<p><strong>I.<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>COMPLETENESS<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>DESTRUCTION<\/strong>. All the males of Midian were slain, and the five kings are particularly mentioned as being among them. The women and their little ones were taken captive. The whole of their property was turned into spoil, and how large that spoil was we learn from the latter part of the chapter. Their cities and goodly castles were all burnt. And might not this seem destruction enough? Apparently not; for we read that Moses was wroth because the women had been spared, and they, as well as all the males of the little ones, had to be added to the slain. Thus the impression left upon us, and evidently intended to be left, is that of utter and merciless extermination. None were left to continue the race of Midian.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>INSPIRATION<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THIS<\/strong> <strong>DREADFUL<\/strong> <strong>BLOW<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>EVIDENTLY<\/strong> <strong>FROM<\/strong> <strong>GOD<\/strong>. It was undertaken at his command, and not only so, but laid on Moses as his last great service before his departure.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;<br \/>Death closes all: but something ere the end,<br \/>Some work of noble note, may yet be done.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Midian did not lie in the way of advancing Israel, as did the hosts of Sihon and Og. In one sense Israel had to turn out of its way in order to inflict this blow. We need to keep distinctly before our minds that God gave special command and made special preparation for it. The motive of this act is not to be found in the vindictive spirit of a half-savage people. The wrongs which, by natural disposition, they would have burned to avenge were not such as those inflicted by Midian. In truth there is no occasion either for blame anywhere, or for attempt at palliation. We must read this dreadful record in a spirit of humble submission to the authority of God, who sees need for temporal destruction where we may fail to see it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> That this blow came from God is made still clearer as we consider how <strong>HIS<\/strong> <strong>POWER<\/strong> <strong>GAVE<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>BLOW<\/strong> <strong>ITS<\/strong> <strong>EFFICACY<\/strong>. <em>Observe how small a part of the whole army was required<\/em>about<em> <\/em>a fiftieth, There is no mention of a selected company to engage against Sihon and Og, but now this small force is enough to crush the whole of Midian. If Israel had gone forth of its own accord, it would have made the result as sure as possible by taking a far larger force than actually went. But where God is not present he can turn mere numbers into loss rather than gain. It was an occasion for the excellency of the Divine power to be manifested. <em>No<\/em> <em>actual leader is mentioned. <\/em>Moses sent them forth, and on their return he went out to meet them, but they evidently lacked what inspiration his presence and counsel might give them in the field. Phinehas went with them, but he was in charge of the holy instruments and trumpets. We are made to feel that the invisible Jehovah himself was leader, not only directing the attack, but also providing sufficient defense; for when the officers came to count up the army on its return, they were able to say, &#8220;There lacketh not one man of us.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>IV.<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>REASON<\/strong> <strong>FOR<\/strong> <strong>THIS<\/strong> <strong>DREADFUL<\/strong> <strong>DESTRUCTION<\/strong> <strong>IS<\/strong> <strong>FOUND<\/strong> <strong>IN<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>PECULIAR<\/strong> <strong>INJURY<\/strong> <strong>WHICH<\/strong> <strong>MIDIAN<\/strong> <strong>HAD<\/strong> <strong>DONE<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>ISRAEL<\/strong> (<span class='bible'>Num 25:16-18<\/span>). It must needs be that offences come, but woe to the Midianites through whom they come! Although they were not a very difficult people to defeat and destroy in battle, they had been very powerful to tempt Israel into idolatry. A thing which is comparatively easy to deal with in one way is impossible to deal with in another. Israel could annihilate Midian, and do something in that way to secure safety, but there was no chance of safety in having friendly intercourse with Midian. It had to be dealt with as a people saturated with the infecting corruptions of idolatry. Everything had to bend to the interests of Israel, as both typifying and cradling the Church of the future. For the sake of Israel God plagued and spoiled the tyrannous Egyptians; for the sake of Israel he made one whole generation of its own people to perish in the wilderness. What wonder then that for the sake of Israel he utterly destroyed the Midianite tempters! When a fire is extending it may be necessary to pull down other buildings to stop itmany buildings perhaps, as Evelyn tells us was the case in arresting the great fire of London. There is something very significant in the following sentence from his diary:&#8221;This some stout seamen proposed early enough to have saved nearly the whole city, but this some tenacious and avaricious men, aldermen, &amp;c; would not permit, because their houses must have been of the first.&#8221; There may have to be a great deal of temporal destruction to make sure of eternal salvation.Y.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:8<\/span><\/strong><strong>, <\/strong><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>THE DEATH OF BALAAM<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>I. <\/strong>How <strong>CLEAR<\/strong> <strong>IT<\/strong> <strong>IS<\/strong> <strong>MADE<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>BALAAM<\/strong> <strong>DID<\/strong> <strong>NOT<\/strong> <strong>DIE<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>DEATH<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>RIGHTEOUS<\/strong>! He was slain among those who were slain by the vengeance of God. He might, of course, have died in circumstances more peaceful and less indicative of his wickedness, and yet died the death of the wicked all the same. But now the manner of his end is left in no doubt. He had not only suffered himself to be drawn into opposition to the people of God, he had not only been disobedient to God himself, but it seems that he had been the chief provoking agent in bringing destruction on a portion of the present generation of Israel. Moreover, the very people whom he thought to help he had unconsciously led to their own ruin. He certainly could not have done all this if he had not found the materials ready to handactual idolatry in Midian, and the spirit of lust and idolatry in Israel. But it was he who saw with a sort of Satanic quickness all that could be done with the material. A man cannot cause an explosion unless he has explosive substances to deal with, but we reckon him responsible who applies the exploding agent. One sinner not only destroyeth much good, but, as we see here, produceth much evil Wicked men should learn from the history of Balaam that they may do a great deal more harm than they are conscious of. How much better it is to be on the other side, striving to draw men, even though it be with few apparent results, into the paths of purity, self-denial, and love!<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>FROM<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>CHARACTER<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>BALAAM<\/strong> <strong>WE<\/strong> <strong>SEE<\/strong> <strong>HOW<\/strong> <strong>REAL<\/strong> <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>DESPERATE<\/strong> <strong>SPIRITUAL<\/strong> <strong>INSENSIBILITY<\/strong> <strong>MAY<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong>. Rightly considered, the whole conduct of Balaam is a great deal more perplexing than is the speaking of his ass. There we have to do just with the momentary occupation of the vocal organs of a brute by the speech of a human being. For a moment or two the ass was honoured beyond its natural faculties. But here is a man, raised above other men in many respects, acting in a way most humiliating to humanity. Favoured again and again with light which came to him in different ways, he remained in gross darkness with respect to the character of God as a whole. He saw not the folly, the absurdity, of the path in which he was treading. <em>The conduct of Balaam in the essential principles of it \/ms often been repeated, and is being repeated still. <\/em>We are all spiritually blind unless God be pleased to open our eyes. Seeing the things of God by the light of nature, and judging of them by natural reason, we come to some strange and impotent conclusions. Balaam&#8217;s indifference to the interferences of God is not one whit more marvelous than the unmoved, matter-of-fact way in which we can bear to have truths presented to our minds which, if they concern us to any extent, concern us more than all outward circumstances taken together. It is easy to say as one reads of Balaam, &#8220;What a fool! what an enigma! what a bundle of contradictions! what a mixture in his life of unwilling obedience to God and most obstinate persistence in his own path!&#8221; Take care lest it be said to one thus speaking, &#8220;Thou art the man.&#8221; There is not a man of the world living in a land of open Bibles but whose conduct might be so described as to appear quite as perplexing as that of Balaam here.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> A <strong>MAN<\/strong> <strong>MAY<\/strong> <strong>ENJOY<\/strong> <strong>GREAT<\/strong> <strong>PRIVILEGES<\/strong>, <strong>AND<\/strong> <strong>YET<\/strong> <strong>BE<\/strong> <strong>RUINED<\/strong> <strong>AT<\/strong> <strong>LAST<\/strong>. A seeing man may be quite safe in a dangerous path, and on the darkest night, with a little lamp, if it is enough to show him where his feet are to be placed. But a blind man will fall into the pit by noonday. A firmament radiant with a score of suns would avail nothing to such a one. A man may live in a land of Bibles, churches, and every conceivable variety of gospel ministrations, and yet die, after a long contact with all these, knowing nothing of his own state as a sinner, or of the power of Christ as a Saviour. Another man, in the midst of Africa, with no more than a torn leaf of the New Testament, might come to know the one thing needful, and be effectually led to repentance, faith, salvation, and eternal life. Privileges, as we call them, are nothing in themselves; all depends on how they are received. It was the same seed that was sown in the four different kinds of ground. One seed sown in the good ground will bring forth more than a cartload scattered by the wayside.<\/p>\n<p><strong>IV.<\/strong> <strong>BALAAM<\/strong> <strong>KNEW<\/strong> <strong>JUST<\/strong> <strong>ENOUGH<\/strong> <strong>OF<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>TRUTH<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>MISLEAD<\/strong> <strong>HIM<\/strong>, <strong>NOT<\/strong> <strong>ENOUGH<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>LEAD<\/strong> <strong>HIM<\/strong> <strong>RIGHT<\/strong>. He apprehended the real power of Jehovah without apprehending his character as a whole. He had made the discovery that if Israel fell away into the worship of any other god, it would be very severely dealt with. Doubtless he had found his way into some intercourse with the Israelites, and been made acquainted with their past history, particularly with the commandment of God at Sinai against idolatry, and the sufferings which came upon the people because of the golden calf. But he did not know that in the midst of the most faithless and apostate of generations there would still be preserved a faithful seed; he did not reckon on the energetic and efficacious zeal of a Phinehas. And thus the great mischief to many arises not so much from total indifference to God as from misleading conceptions of him. It is only too easy for us to miss the full view which a sinner ought to have of God, and remain all our lifetime with erroneous and most limited conceptions. Some make too much of God&#8217;s anger with sin, forgetting his love, his mercy, his patience, his revelation of himself as a Father; others make too much of his mercy, forgetting his unyielding righteousness, and the need of a radical change in mana change in his motives, purposes, sympathies, and delights. Nothing is more perilous than to see so much of one side of the Divine character as not to see the rest. We must see it as it is revealed in Scripture. There the living God moves before us in his actions. We see his actions, and they cannot be understood unless as the harmonious outflow of all his character.Y.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span class='bible'>Num 31:25-47<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPOILS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>I.  GOD<\/strong> <strong>TAKES<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>DISTRIBUTION<\/strong> <strong>INTO<\/strong> <strong>HIS<\/strong> <strong>OWN<\/strong> <strong>HANDS<\/strong>. The victory was his, and it was for him to arrange the spoils as might best serve his own purposes. It was the only effectual way of blighting in the bud all discord and jealousy. It was also the means of teaching important lessons to all in the community who were willing to learn. It helped to manifest afresh the unity of Israel. Those who had gone to the war had gone as representatives of the whole of Israel, hence it was for the whole of Israel to share in the spoil. While part was away, avenging the Lord of Midian, another part stayed at home, also serving God in its own way, and looking after the interests of those who were absent. We must not get into the way of looking at one part of the community as more necessary than another. It was not for the army to say, &#8220;What would Israel have done in taking vengeance on Midian but for us?&#8221; seeing that God had made it plain how he was working in and through the army. Nor was it for the people who stayed at home to say, &#8220;What right have twelve thousand men to half the spoils?&#8221; The twelve thousand were not looked at in themselves; they stood for Israel militant. All Israel gained a real blessing by this expedition, and<strong> <\/strong>the chief gain to them was in so far as they were effectually warned against the perils of idolatry. Whatever there might be in the way of improved perception of truth and duty and the Divine character was far more than all the spoil. God did not send them against Midian for the sake of the spoil, but for the sake of vengeance.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II.<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>SPECIAL<\/strong> <strong>TRIBUTE<\/strong> <strong>TO<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>LEVITES<\/strong>. It was very appropriate that this should be strictly exacted, after all the service which Phinehas had rendered. The tribe of Levi had done its part in a way which could not be mistaken. Upon this great occasion, when so much had to be distributed, God taught the lesson that distribution should be made according to the needs of men. The Levites had need not only to be supported, but well supported. The work they had to do, in the reality, the extent, the continuity, and the minuteness of it, had been lately indicated in more ways than one. Consider all the Levitical service that was involved in the offerings mentioned in <span class='bible'>Num 28:1-31<\/span> and <span class='bible'>Num 29:1-40<\/span>. It was becoming more and more clear that Levi must be set apart and properly maintained; for thus only could there be regularity and efficiency in the service of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III.<\/strong> <strong>BALAAM<\/strong>&#8216;S <strong>ASS<\/strong> <strong>WAS<\/strong> <strong>PROBABLY<\/strong> <strong>AMONG<\/strong> <strong>THE<\/strong> <strong>ASSES<\/strong> <strong>THAT<\/strong> <strong>WERE<\/strong> <strong>TAKEN<\/strong> (<span class='bible'>Num 29:34<\/span>). It is pleasant to imagine that it may have found its way into the Lord&#8217;s tribute, and that the animal which had so long borne a wicked man faithfully, would now with equal faithfulness be able to bear perhaps Eleazar himself. We need much of the spirit of obedience to God to use rightly that vast multitude of the brute creation which God has put under our control. How pitiable to see the horse carefully trained for war, and, as one might almost think, taught to cherish feelings which by nature are alien to it! May we not well wish for the day when not only the sword of the dragoon shall be turned to the ploughshare, but the horse on which he tides shall draw that share along? Think how the horse and other animals are degraded by the occasions for gambling which they furnish. Think of all the cruel field-sports in which man finds such pleasure. When be leaves the pleasures which are appropriate to his nature, what a tyrannous and hideous monster he may become! Man in all his life should be drawing nearer to God, and, rising higher himself, should raise all creation with him. Whereas he is drawn downward, and in his willing descent he degrades even the lower creation.Y.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><strong><em><span class='bible'>Num 30:1<\/span><\/em><\/strong><strong>. <\/strong><strong><em>Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes<\/em><\/strong><strong><\/strong> i.e. the representatives of the people assembled together, <span class='bible'>Deu 33:5<\/span>. <span class='bible'>1Ch 28:1<\/span>. It is very likely that some case had been propounded to Moses about <em>vows; <\/em>concerning which, by the Lord&#8217;s command, he here gives them such rules as might direct them for the future. <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><strong>SEVENTH SECTION<br \/>The regulation of the Israelitish family in Canaan, represented in the law concerning female vows<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'>Num 30:1-16<\/span><\/p>\n<p>1And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This <em>is<\/em> the thing which the Lord hath commanded. 2If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not <span class=''>1<\/span>break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. 3If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind <em>herself<\/em> by a bond, <em>being<\/em> in her fathers house in her youth; 4And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth, not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand; and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. 6And if she had at all a husband, when she <span class=''>2<\/span>vowed, or uttered aught out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7And her husband heard <em>it<\/em>, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard <em>it<\/em>: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard <em>it<\/em>, then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her. 9But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. 10And if she vowed in her husbands house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11And her husband heard <em>it<\/em>, and held his peace at her, <em>and<\/em> disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 12But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard <em>them; then<\/em> whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her. 13Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. 14But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which <em>are<\/em> upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard <em>them<\/em>. 15But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard <em>them<\/em>; then <span class='bible'>he <\/span><span class='bible'>1<\/span>6shall bear her iniquity. These <em>are<\/em> the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, <em>being yet<\/em> in her youth in her fathers honse.<\/p>\n<p><strong>TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>[<span class='bible'>Num 30:2<\/span>.  Hiph. from , and seems to imply the desecration of the subject itself, not the mere treating it in a profane way. The broken word is desecrated.A. G.].<\/p>\n<p>[<span class='bible'>Num 30:3<\/span>.  the positive vow;  the bond, the negative vow. The binding of the will through a vow or oath.A. G.]<\/p>\n<p>[<span class='bible'>Num 30:6<\/span>.  from the root to babblethe rash, thoughtless, unadvisable utterancelike our word babblerA.G.].<\/p>\n<p><strong>EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This section might be regarded merely as a completion of the regulations concerning vows (<span class='bible'>Leviticus 27<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Numbers 6<\/span>) if, aside from the repeated utterances as to the sacredness of vows, we had not here to deal solely with the vows of women, modified by their dependent condition, and if in the provisions for the regulation of their vows, we did not find the fundamental features of the Jewish household coming distinctly into view. Keil [also Bib. Com. Baumgarten traces it back to the regulations over female inheritance of the land.A. G.] finds the connecting link between this chapter and the preceding in the offering, since the vows would mainly relate to offerings. We think, however, that we may assume that the prospect of the rich blessing, the abundance which should fall to the people of Israel in Canaan forms the connecting link. In the wilderness they could make no great offerings, at least the women could not; in Canaan, on the contrary, rich offerings could and should be brought, and how like womans nature it is, in the enjoyment of plenty, to make arbitrary and lavish offerings. The lineaments of the Israelitish domestic arrangements appear in the following distinctions.<\/p>\n<p>1. The head of the household, the father or husband, decides upon the validity of the vows of the female members of the household, because they are dependent upon him. On account of this dependence they have no absolute or unconditioned right of vows, or surrender. They are particularly, with reference to religious obligations, consecrations and self-engagements dependent upon the head of the house. If he utters his veto, the woman is released from her vow, God counts her free. It is only an emasculated modern liberalism which would reverse this divinely appointed order of nature, and constitute woman the mistress, give her control of the household in things of religion.<br \/>2. But the master of the house has no unlimited right of veto. It is only in those cases in which, immediately after he had heard of the vow, he declared it invalid, that the obligation was removed. If for any time, either longer or shorter, he had kept silence, he could not invalidate the vow by a later interference. He thus indeed involves himself in the obligation, and must expiate for the non-fulfilment of the vow, as for his own trangression, with a sin-offering, or incur the judicial penalty. The reason is obvious; he has thus suffered her to cherish the assumption of her own independence, and her freedom to vow. The acquired practical right of the woman takes the place of his legal right.<br \/>3. The widows and divorced women are free in their vows, since they are not restricted by any male authority and household government. They form households in themselves, and in accordance with the deep inward parity or equality of the female sex with the male.<br \/>4. The different cases in which the right of veto can be exercised are, first, the vows of dependent maiden daughters; second, the bride who enters her husbands house with her vows unfulfilled. [Bring it upon her . The case is of one betrothed. Bib. Com.: Between betrothal and marriage the woman resided in her fathers house; but her property vested in her husband, and she was so far regarded as personally his, that an act of unfaithfulness to him was like adultery, punishable with death (<span class='bible'>Deu 22:23-24<\/span>). Hence his right to control her vows even before he actually took her home as his wife. The vows might have been made either previously or subsequently to betrothal; but in either case her future husband, under whose control she passed with these vows upon her, might disallow them.A. G.] The third case was that of wife who made a vow in her married state.<\/p>\n<p>Every vow was strictly to take an obligation upon the soul, to bind the soul; but the oath form (<span class='bible'>Num 30:2<\/span>) occurs here probably intentionally. The expression: <strong>uttered out of her lips<\/strong> has an apologetic bearing with reference to the female hastiness and thoughtlessness of speech. [It is, however, an unfair inference which Keil and Bib. Com. make from its use here, that such vows were not uncommon.A. G.] Keil remarks justly: Moses addressed these instructions to the heads of the tribes, because they extend into the sphere of civil life.<\/p>\n<p><strong>DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>[The care and explicitness with which these instructions are given to those who would be called to apply them, shows the sacredness of vows generally, and with what caution they should be made, and how carefully they should be kept when made. It is one of the most intricate and interesting fields of casuistry which is presented here. Sensitive and morbid consciences are often perplexed and burdened by vows which ought never to have been made. The saying of the preacher has an appropriate place here: it is better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Bishop Sanderson treats the question largely and fully. See also Baxter, <em>Practical Works<\/em>.A. G.]<\/p>\n<p><strong>HOMILETICAL HINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Womanly enthusiasm in religious matters should be especially restrained by the domestic authority of the man. This fundamental moral law is not suspended by the confessional. That is a fountain of Amazonian nature and life, ever extending and becoming more mischievous. See Michelet, <em>du pretre, de la femme, et de la famille<\/em>. [No man can bind himself by a vow to do that which the law of God prohibits him from doing, or to refrain from that which it clearly requires. Henry: A promise to man is a bond upon his estate; but a promise to God is a bond upon his soul. Gods promises to us are yea and amen; let not ours to him be yea and nay. 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! Rather than break these bonds, God Himself would quit his right and release the obligation of a solemn vow.A. G.]<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[1]<\/span>Heb. <em>profane<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[2]<\/span>Marg. <em>her vows were upon her.<\/em><\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> CONTENTS<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> This Chapter is devoted to the prescribing of laws concerning vows. Here are general rules, as well as particular cases, considered: such as the vows of daughters, and those of wives.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Hawker&#8217;s Poor Man&#8217;s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> In the first ages of the church, and even in later periods, some pious persons, out of an holy zeal for the LORD&#8217;S honor and glory, have obliged themselves to certain acts, either in doing or suffering, concluding thereby, that they did GOD service. In general it may be observed, that unless they are founded in divine grace, and conditionally promised in the aid of divine strength, they are unsuitable, and unbecoming poor, fallen, and sinful creatures; who in their best moments can assure themselves of nothing. See the case of Jepthah, <span class='bible'>Jdg 11:30-31<\/span> , with <span class='bible'>Jdg 11:34-35<\/span> . Hence that advice of Solomon, <span class='bible'>Ecc 5:4-5<\/span><span class='bible'>Ecc 5:4-5<\/span> . But there is a case where holy vows, formed in the grace of JESUS, and arising from a deep sense of his love in the heart, renders them sacred things. See the case of the Psalmist, <span class='bible'>Psa 66:13-14<\/span> .<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Hawker&#8217;s Poor Man&#8217;s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> <strong> IX<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> ISRAEL&#8217;S SIN AND PHINEHAS&#8217; ACT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OTHER THINGS<\/p>\n<p> Numbers 25-36<\/p>\n<p><\/strong><\/p>\n<p> The twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers on many accounts is one of the most remarkable chapters of the Old Testament. In its notable character it is equal to the chapters on Balaam. Here are the children of the Promised Land with their pilgrimage ended. They have reached the banks of the Jordan. They are encamped there just over against Jericho. Nothing to do but go over and possess the land when God tells them. Just at this time Balak, the king of Moab, brings Balaam to curse them by divinations. Having failed in that, he makes the horrible suggestion that the Moabitish and Midianitish women be used as instrumentalities to cause Israel to sin and go into idolatry. Among the women mentioned was a princess, daughter of one of the five kings of Midian. They did what they did under the prompting of their religious instruction and they succeeded.<\/p>\n<p> Very many of the people were seduced from their allegiance to God and not only sinned in a bodily respect but sinned in idolatrous worship and the heads of the people did not interfere to stop it. A plague went out from God on account of it. Moses, discovering the fearful demoralization of the people, gives the commandment that all the heads of the tribes shall be hanged up, either for active participation in this matter or for not using their authority to repress this very great disloyalty to God. It is as when a regiment has rebelled through connivance of its officers. There is the responsibility of leadership in a case of this kind and in military matters any officer, no matter bow high his grade, who would stand idle and see his troops go into rebellion without an effort to stay it, would be shot by the most summary process of court martial.<\/p>\n<p> So Moses commands the leaders to be killed and hung up in the sight of the people. Whoever was hanged on a tree was accursed. Having disposed of the chiefs, he ordered the judges, you remember when two sets of seventy were appointed to help Moses in administrative and judicial affairs, to put to death every man who had committed a sin in that way. But the plague did not stop, though the chiefs of the nation were hanging on a tree, all the judges punishing every man with death, all the people weeping before the tabernacle. &#8220;But drops of grief can ne&#8217;er repay the debt of love I owe.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p> Just at this time a son of one of the princes of the tribes comes openly into the camp with a princess of one of the five kings of Midian, in the sight of Moses and Eleazar; in sight of the weeping people; in full view of the dead hanging up and others dying, and brings his irreligious debauchery right into the very presence of God. Whereupon Phinehas, son of Eleazar, without command from anyone, without being especially appointed officer, in his holy wrath for God&#8217;s sake and bearing in his heart that indignation against sin that God bears, and God says of him, &#8220;Having my zeal,&#8221; takes a spear and goes into the tent and thrusts both of them through and kills them.<\/p>\n<p> The most remarkable part of the transaction is in what God says. He uses language just like he uses when he said Abraham believed in Jehovah and it was counted to him for righteousness. As Abraham&#8217;s faith was counted to him for righteousness, the zeal of Phinehas so perfectly expressed God&#8217;s wrath against sin that it is reckoned unto him for eternal righteousness.<\/p>\n<p> But that is not the strangest part of it, but that this display through Phinehas of the wrath of God against sin made an atonement for his sin. You strike a use of the word &#8220;atonement&#8221; there which stalls the commentators and theological seminary professors. Offhand I am going to give you my explanation of it. It is the most remarkable scripture in the Bible. Surely atonement for sin cannot be made which does not placate the wrath of God against sin.<\/p>\n<p> A good many sentimentalist preachers tell you that the sole object of Christ&#8217;s work was to reconcile men to God, that God was already reconciled and did not have to be placated. This scripture is unquestionably the strongest in the Bible to show that Christ&#8217;s sacrifice was both toward God and toward men, toward God in that the sinner&#8217;s bodily and spiritual death for sin took place and otherwise there could have been no atonement. Hence Phinehas, in a very high sense, is a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. The everlasting priesthood is promised to him. The covenant of peace is promised to him.<\/p>\n<p> When we come to the study of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, we will see an expression in the casting out of the money-changers from the temple, where Jesus takes a scourge and scourges out of God&#8217;s house those who are defiling that house, whereupon it is stated that the scripture was fulfilled, &#8220;The zeal for thy house shall eat me up.&#8221; Such a shame against the sanctity of that house must be punished or it can never be forgiven. There must be a penal sanction to law. We see it repeated again when he comes to cleanse the temple the second time, and then when he comes to die that death of the cross, under the wrath of God, forsaken of the Father, unsaved from the sword of divine justice, unsaved from the lion, Satan, who goeth about to devour, unsaved from the bite of the serpent, that is, to placate by expiation the death penalty of sin. Now, Phinehas could in a typical way represent that.<\/p>\n<p> What was the use for these people to come there and weep before the tabernacle with such an impious, presumptuous, daring sin committed right in the presence of God and nobody rebuking it? It wouldn&#8217;t do simply to hang a few of the officers. It wouldn&#8217;t do for the judges to put one or two, here and there, to death. There had to be some signal, sudden, utter display of divine wrath and that was furnished by Phinehas. If Phinehas had had a motive that was not exactly correspondent to God&#8217;s idea of wrath against sin, he would have been a murderer.<\/p>\n<p> The only trouble about it is that men began to imagine long afterwards that they stood in the place of Phinehas and could kill those whom they thought to be violators of the law, and with inferior motives and without an express sanction of God, they committed sin. The case of Phinehas in that respect stands alone. Samuel, when he hacked to pieces the king, David when he said that the seven sons of Saul must be hanged on a tree to make atonement, represent somewhat the idea But it is not said with reference to them that it was imputed to them for righteousness.<\/p>\n<p> In the case of Jesus, instead of striking the sinner that committed the sin, Jesus let God strike him after the sinner&#8217;s sins had been put on him. &#8220;Save me from the sword; save me from the lion. If it be possible let this cup pass from me, but nevertheless, not my will but thine be done. My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?&#8221; There never could have been any forgiveness of sin that was not based upon a penal sanction. The justice of God must be vindicated in some way. People will tell you that you are not punished because you have sinned but to keep other people from sinning. But sin is demerit and merits death. &#8220;The wages of sin is death.&#8221; And that death must come to the sinner himself, or it must come to the one upon whom his transgressions have been laid. See <span class='bible'>Psa 106:28-31<\/span> .<\/p>\n<p> We turn now to Numbers 26-27 and include with them <span class='bible'>Num 36<\/span> . In this case you have the second numbering of the people. They are just ready to enter the Holy Land, and with the exception of the death of Moses, which came as a result of another principle, there is fulfilled the death threatened to all the grown men that came out of Egypt. This great sin committed on the banks of the Jordan was by the new generation and 24,000 of them perished in the plague. They did not number quite so many as in the first enumeration; then 603,550, now only 601,730. The only thing worthy of mention you can do for yourself. Take the numbers for each tribe as given in the two enumerations and put them down opposite each other. Some you will find have increased. The tribe of Simeon with others has fearfully decreased. You have the reason, viz.: this tribe suffered more than any other in this plague.<\/p>\n<p> This enumeration is not merely for war, but the basis of the land allotment. The tribe which has the most men will get the most land. The daughters of a certain man who died want to know if their name is to perish in Israel and they are to be without inheritance. They are to have their father&#8217;s inheritance, and in <span class='bible'>Num 36<\/span> it shows how to safeguard the father&#8217;s part of the inheritance to the tribe, by permitting them to marry only in their own tribe.<\/p>\n<p> In this chapter is the announcement to Moses that on account of his sin he is to die. He asks that a successor be appointed and Joshua is appointed. We come to the Numbers 28-29, which are upon one point unlike any other chapters. While they refer to a great many things in the previous books of Exodus and Leviticus, there is nothing like those two chapters anywhere else. They commence at the beginning of the year and show what offerings are to be made day by day, week by week, moon by moon, year by year, seventh year by seventh year, and Jubilee by Jubilee. These chapters constitute the basis of the poem of Keble, &#8220;The Christian Year,&#8221; as it is called by the Episcopalians, derived from the Old Testament, a matter that Paul condemns thus in the letter to the Colossians: &#8220;Ye observe months, days, weeks, seasons; touch not, taste not, handle not.&#8221; God nailed all that system to the cross of Christ.<\/p>\n<p> The only thought in <span class='bible'>Num 30<\/span> that needs to be dwelt on is the bringing up of the vow question again. If a daughter makes a vow before she has attained to full age, it cannot be exacted of her, if her father does not sanction it. A wife cannot make a vow without her husband&#8217;s sanction. This chapter discusses the principle upon which the exceptions are made, and you can read it.<\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'>Num 31<\/span> is devoted to the war against Midian. God commanded Moses to make a holy war against Midian, who, acting on the suggestion of Balaam, had through their chief women brought about this great sin, when Israel had committed no provocation. This war is unlike other wars because of the number. Only 1,000 men from each tribe, or 12,000, are sent out to conduct the war. A priest, not a general, commands them. They suffer no loss. The destruction wrought is God&#8217;s destruction. God has condemned Midian for their awful sin and they are smitten. The spoils of the war are devoted to God because it was God&#8217;s war, not man&#8217;s. Everybody that looks at it will say that it was God&#8217;s war.<\/p>\n<p> As they were encamped by the Jordan and ready to pass over, it was intensely important that they leave the rear safe. Midian is smitten clear to the Euphrates. Sihon and Og had been destroyed and Moab and Ammon and Edom are incapable of war. A vast portion of territory lying on the east of the Jordan is captured. That brings us to <span class='bible'>Num 32<\/span> . This captured land is the best pasturage in the whole country; two tribes and a half express the desire that they be allotted that eastern portion. Moses is very indignant because he understands that they mean this, that while the whole nation has captured this territory these tribes propose to stay over here and leave the other tribes to capture the remainder of the country. But they explain that they simply wanted to safeguard their women and children and villages and send their army on across the Jordan to fight with the others. So the allotment is made to Reuben, Gad, and one-half of the tribe of Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p> In <span class='bible'>Num 33<\/span> there is only one thing to which your attention needs to be called. That chapter is devoted to the whole itinerary from Egypt to the Jordan. God tells Moses to impress one fact upon the minds of the people: &#8220;No terms can be made with these inhabitants of the land, for the territory was originally yours when the division was made in the days of Peleg, after the flood. But they took possession of the country.&#8221; God has not cast them out because their iniquity was not full. But their iniquity is full now and they are going to be cast out and &#8220;you are the executors of the divine will and if you leave corners around I give you warning that they will be thorns in your side forever. When you make war they will rise up in your rear. When you relax in watchfulness, they will lead you into sin.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p> I preached a sermon on that once, in which I took the matter spiritually thus: Take a Christian who is regenerated, but he stops trying to expel the old inhabitants. He says, &#8220;I am all right if I am a Christian. That is enough.&#8221; He does not continue his war against the sinful nature. A large part of him he does not seek to bring under subjection through sanctification. Then he is going to have a thorn in the flesh. Say you take an occasional spree. Whenever you quit making a fight on the lower nature, you are going to be badly fooled. By careful analysis anyone can find out his weak point. Woe to the man who does not make war on that besetting sin. I do not say he will be lost in hell, but he will get some hard falls and be badly hurt.<\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'>Num 34<\/span> is devoted to a description of the border. You can take a map and trace it out. No particular skill is required.<\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'>Num 35<\/span> is devoted to two points well worthy of special study. It is a provision for the forty-eight Levite cities who were to have no part of the land for an inheritance, and also for the six cities of refuge; three east of the Jordan and three west. You ought carefully to note the purpose of these cities of refuge and how the roads are to be kept open.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><strong> QUESTIONS<\/p>\n<p><\/strong><\/p>\n<p> 1. Having failed to turn Jehovah against Israel by divination, how did Balaam turn Israel against Jehovah?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. What penalty did Jehovah visit upon them and how many died?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. What two efforts were made to stay the plague and the results?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. What act of presumption was committed just at this time, the act of Phinehas and the result?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Expound the remarkable reference to Phinehas and particularly bring out the atonement idea in connection with his zeal.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Give result of second census. How many tribes had fewer than at first? Why the great difference in the tribe of Simeon?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. What question came up respecting Zelophehad&#8217;s daughters and how settled?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Give the law of inheritance in Israel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. What announcement here made to Moses and his request?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. What specially qualified Joshua for this place?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Describe the ceremony of the appointment and what the signification of the laying on of hands?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Try your hand on forming the calendar for the Jewish Holy Year.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. What exceptions here to the law of vows previously given?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. The war against Midian the character of it, why made, how unlike other wars and what was done with the spoils?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. Give an account of the settlement of the territory east of the Jordan.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. What terms were they to make with the inhabitants of the land?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. What was the penalty for violating this command?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. What right did the Israelites have thus to deal with the inhabitants?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 19. Apply the case of these people in their new relation to the individual Christian.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. Bound the Land of Canaan as promised to Israel. (See Atlas.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 21. What provision was made for the Levites in the land?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p> 22. How many cities of refuge? Name and locate them. What was their purpose?<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: B.H. Carroll&#8217;s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> Num 30:1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded.<\/p>\n<p> Ver. 1. <strong> And Moses spake unto the heads.<\/strong> ] Because they were in place of judicature, and had power either to bind men to their vows or set them at liberty.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: John Trapp&#8217;s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>heads = rulers or princes. <\/p>\n<p>children = sons. <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>Chapter 30<\/p>\n<p>Now as we get into chapter thirty we are dealing with the law of vows. When you make a promise unto God, God takes it seriously and God expects you to keep your vow. God is not an Indian giver and He doesn&#8217;t want you to be an Indian giver. He doesn&#8217;t want you to make a vow or a promise and then break it. In fact, in the Bible it said, &#8220;it&#8217;s better not to vow at all then to vow and to break it&#8221; ( Ecc 5:5 ).<\/p>\n<p>Now, let it be known that God doesn&#8217;t require you to make vows. Vows are something that a person does voluntarily. God doesn&#8217;t demand that you make a vow of certain things unto Him. A vow is always something that is done on your part, purely voluntarily. It is something that people often do &#8220;I promise that I&#8217;m gonna give to God this, that or the other. I promise I&#8217;m gonna do this for God. Lord, I make a vow with you, you know, and I&#8217;m gonna do this and all&#8221;. God doesn&#8217;t require it. And it&#8217;s better not to do it than to do it and break it. If you make a vow unto the Lord it is very important that you keep that vow. And so chapter thirty actually deals with the vows that are made unto the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>And if a man vows a vow unto the LORD, [verse two] and swears an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to that which is proceedeth out of his mouth. Now if a woman also vows a vow unto the LORD, and binds herself with a bond, being in her father&#8217;s house in her youth; her father if he hears it can disannul it. ( Num 30:2-5 )<\/p>\n<p>Now a young girl living in her father&#8217;s house to make a vow unto God and if her father is there and hears the vow, he has the capacity of disallowing it. But if he hears it and doesn&#8217;t disallow it then the vow is to stand. In other words, he hears it, he doesn&#8217;t disallow it; it means that it is binding now and she must keep that vow to the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>We have in the Old Testament cases where vows were made which were very unfortunate. They were, you might say, bad vows. Quite often when a person was going into an uncomfortable situation he vowed, &#8220;Lord, if you will help me, you know, win this battle, then I will-&#8220;. Jephthah said, &#8220;Lord, if you will give me victory over the enemy then I will offer unto You as a sacrifice the first thing that comes out of my house&#8221; ( Jdg 11:31 ). What a tragic thing his daughter, virgin daughter was the first thing to come out of his house to greet him in his victory when he came home and it was just a horrible vow. It had been better that he never made that kind of a vow. It was a ridiculous vow, actually.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was guilty of a ridiculous vow. When Jonathan woke up early one morning and feeling just really great, looking around finding the rest of the army still asleep, he woke up his armorbearer and he said, &#8220;You know, I&#8217;ve just been lying here thinking. Maybe the Lord wants to give the Philistines into the hands of Israel today. And if the Lord wants to give the Philistines into the hands of Israel, he doesn&#8217;t need the whole army. He could deliver the Philistines into the hand of two people as well as the whole army. It doesn&#8217;t matter to God. If he wants to defeat the Philistines today he doesn&#8217;t need the whole army. He can just do it with a couple of us. So let&#8217;s go over and see if the Lord wants to deliver the Philistines today&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>And so Jonathan, his armorbearer got up and they slipped out of the camp and they headed over to the camp of the Philistines. Jonathan said, &#8220;Now this is risky business. We want to make sure that God&#8217;s in this thing and he wants to deliver them. So when we get close to the Philistines, if they say to us, &#8216;Hey, you guys come up here and we&#8217;ll show you a thing or two&#8217;, then we&#8217;ll know that God wants to deliver them and we&#8217;ll, you know, take off after them. But if they say, &#8216;Hey you guys you wait down there and we&#8217;re gonna come down and show you a thing or two&#8217;, then we&#8217;ll know that God isn&#8217;t gonna deliver the Philistines today and we&#8217;ll get back to camp just as fast as we can. Sort of a venture in faith. I love them.<\/p>\n<p>So Jonathan and his armorbearer headed over towards the Philistines. When they got close to the Philistines, the sentry spotted them and they said, &#8220;Hey, you guys come up here and we&#8217;ll show you a thing or two&#8221;. And Jonathan said, &#8220;All right man, that&#8217;s what we&#8217;re looking for&#8221;. So he and his armorbearer scrabbled up the hill, the scripture said. They were anxious to get to those guys. Man, they jumped into the camp of the Philistines they began to smite those guys.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines began to fall back from before them; they began to retreat. And over on the other side of the hill, or the outside of the valley, on the hill on the other side, Saul woke up. Rubbing his eyes he looked over to the camp of his enemies and he saw the Philistines in disarray and running, and two guys in the middle wiping them out. And Saul said, &#8220;Quickly number. Who&#8217;s missing?&#8221; And so they counted off and they said &#8220;It&#8217;s Jonathan and his armorbearer.&#8221; And Saul made a foolish vow. He said, &#8220;Cursed be the man who eats anything today until Saul has been avenged of all of his enemies&#8221;. Foolish vow; cursing, putting a curse upon anybody who would eat anything that day until Saul had been avenged of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>So, it&#8217;s better not to make vows really. But some people like to make them. It makes you feel better or something. So if you make them, make sure you keep them. But with a man, you make a vow and that&#8217;s it; it&#8217;s binding. But with a young girl living at home, she makes a vow, it&#8217;s not binding except her father let it go. If he hears it and doesn&#8217;t say anything, then it becomes a binding vow.<\/p>\n<p>Now the same is true if a girl is engaged to a husband and he hears the vow that she makes. He is able also to disallow that vow. But if a widow or a divorced woman makes a vow, then they are bound to that vow. And then a married woman making a vow, her husband can disallow it. He can say, &#8220;Oh no, you don&#8217;t do that&#8221; you know. She can say, &#8220;Well, I&#8217;m gonna give our house to the Lord.&#8221; He says, &#8220;Oh, no you don&#8217;t&#8221;. So the husband can disallow the vow that the wife makes. If he doesn&#8217;t, then it becomes a binding vow. So the law of vows here in the thirtieth chapter of Numbers. <\/p>\n<p>&#8220;<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>In this section the subject of vows was dealt with and principally those of women. A man&#8217;s vow was declared to be absolutely binding. No provision was made for release. In the case of women this was not so. If a woman dwelling in her father&#8217;s house took a vow, the father had the power to forbid.<\/p>\n<p>If he did not do so, then the vow became binding. In the case of a woman dwelling with her husband, the husband had the like power. Similarly, if he did not exercise it, the vow became binding. In the case of a widow or one divorced, if her vow was made in her widowhood or while she was divorced, it was absolutely binding.<\/p>\n<p>If it was made while she dwelt with her husband and he forbad it, she was released. If not, she also was bound by it.<\/p>\n<p>These provisions are most arresting in revealing as they do the divine conception of the importance and necessity for the unity of the household. There must not be two supreme authorities in any family and here as always in the economy of God the responsibility of headship was with the husband and father. It can readily be seen how, were this otherwise, even through religious vows, discord and probable breakup in family life might ensue. Therefore as the nation approached settlement in the land, the integrity of the family was thus carefully safeguarded. <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>6. Concerning Vows<\/p>\n<p>CHAPTER 30<\/p>\n<p>1. The vow of a man (Num 30:1-2)<\/p>\n<p>2. The vows of women (Num 30:3-16)<\/p>\n<p>The entire chapter treats of vows. It also has a deeper meaning. There is a sharp contrast between the vow of a man and the vows of virgins, widows or wives. The vows of women could be set aside under certain conditions. The husband or the father could disallow the vow. But if they kept their peace or if she was a widow or divorced, she had to keep the vow. It was different with the man; he was not to break his word, but to do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.<\/p>\n<p>The man who keeps his word, who does all that he vowed, typifies the Lord Jesus Christ. He has completely done the work He voluntarily bound Himself to do. The woman represents the nation Israel. They made a vow at Sinai which they could never keep. Alas, when the gracious proffer of redemption came, though they had been even then long under the penalty of it, they refused redemption, held stubbornly to their broken contract, and remain under it today, the enduring lesson, published in every land, of what the law is for those who seek righteousness by it (Numbers Numerical Bible).<\/p>\n<p>Some day the vow under which Israel has put herself will be disallowed, then Israel is received back into favor. And the Lord shall forgive her (verse 8).<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Gaebelein&#8217;s Annotated Bible (Commentary)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>Num 1:4-16, Num 7:2, Num 34:17-28, Exo 18:25, Deu 1:13-17<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>Num 30:1. Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes  The chief rulers of each tribe, who were to communicate it to the rest. This is the thing the Lord hath commanded  With relation to vows, concerning which, it is probable, some case had been proposed to him to be determined.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>Num 30:15. He shall bear her iniquity. The Samaritan pentateuch, and the Septuagint read, Then he shall bear his iniquity, which conveys the just idea that by disannulling the vow, he took the blame upon himself.<\/p>\n<p>REFLECTIONS.<\/p>\n<p>This revelation respecting vows is addressed to the heads of the tribes, that it might be thence conveyed to the heads of houses: and it is an essential branch of the ministry to acquaint masters and parents with the several branches of their duty. Full of cares and labours they have less time to study, and consequently are not in a situation adequately to comprehend and discharge the several religious duties of their station. Hence they often need the aid of divine instruction.<\/p>\n<p>The vows here are understood to be on an inferior scale to those mentioned in Leviticus 27.; and merely to respect small oblations, abstinence from certain meats, or the performance of some particular devotion; all good in their kind, or at least well intended.<\/p>\n<p>A daughter or a wife before she vows in this way, should consider her relative situation. The devotion she proposes to pay to God, must not interfere too much with the deference and duties she owes to her father or her husband. One covenant must not supersede another. Consequently, God will accept from a child an extra duty in religion, but with the consent and approbation of the parent; and surely this is a considerable argument in favour of filial obedience, and equally so in favour of deference in the wife towards her husband.<\/p>\n<p>When once a vow is made it is an oath of the soul, by which it is bound to perform those purposes which have been uttered before the Lord. And from the faithful and sacred manner in which the Lord performs his promises to man, we learn in how sacred a manner he expects we should pay our vows to him. He who swears falsely to his God must bear his iniquity. But though a daughter cannot perform any extra devotions of this kind without her fathers consent, nor a wife without the approbation of her husband; yet the law does not relate to the duties of prayer, praise, and ordinary devotion. Every child, on coming to the knowledge of good and evil, is bound to be religious, whether the parents will consent or not: so it is with the wife in regard to a carnal husband. No man has a right to supersede the word of God, and force either wife or child into compliance with the sinful vanities of the age. A woman is bound to perform all the duties of conjugal life to her husband; but she is bound by superior and more durable ties to be a faithful follower of God; and those who are most faithful to the Lord, are found in the issue to have performed their relative duties from the most pure and noble principles. <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Sutcliffe&#8217;s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>Numbers 30<\/p>\n<p>This brief section has what we may term a dispensational bearing. It applies specially to Israel, and treats of the question of vows and bonds. The man and the woman stand in marked contrast, in relation to this subject. &#8220;If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear 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.&#8221; Verse 2.<\/p>\n<p>In reference to the woman, the case was different. &#8220;If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her fathers house in her youth; and her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every word wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of Her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.&#8221; (Ver. 3-5) The same thing applied in the case of a wife. Her husband could either confirm or disannul all her vows and bonds.<\/p>\n<p>Such was the law with regard to vows. There was no relief for the man. He was bound to go right through with whatever had proceeded out of his mouth. Whatever he undertook to do, he was solemnly and irreversibly held to it. There was no back door, as we say &#8211; no way of getting out of it.<\/p>\n<p>Now we know who, in perfect grace, took this position, and voluntarily bound himself to accomplish the will of God, whatever that will might be. We know who it is that says, &#8220;I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people.&#8221; &#8220;The man Christ Jesus,&#8221; who, having taken the vows upon Him, discharged them perfectly to the glory of God, and the eternal blessing of His people. There was no escape for Him. We hear Him exclaiming, in the deep anguish of His soul, in the garden of Gethsemane, &#8220;If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.&#8221; But it was not possible. He had undertaken the work of man&#8217;s salvation, and He had to go through the deep and dark waters of death, judgement, and wrath; and perfectly meet all the consequences of man&#8217;s condition. He had a baptism to be baptised with, and was straitened until it was accomplished. In other words, He had to die in order that, by death, He might open the pent-up flood gates, and allow the mighty tide of divine and everlasting love to flow dawn to His people. All praise and adoration be to His peerless name for ever!<\/p>\n<p>Thus much as to the man and his vows and bonds. In the case of the woman, whether as the daughter or the wife, we have the nation of Israel, and that in two ways, namely, under government and under grace; Looked at from a governmental point of view, Jehovah, who is at once the Father and the Husband, has held his peace at her, so that her vows and bonds are allowed to stand; and she is, to this day, suffering the consequences, and made to feel the force of those words, &#8220;Better that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>But, on the other hand, as viewed from the blessed standpoint of grace, the Father and the Husband has taken all upon Himself, so that she shall be forgiven and brought into the fullness of blessing by and by, not on the ground of accomplished vows and ratified bonds, but on the ground of sovereign grace and mercy, through the blood of the everlasting covenant. How precious to find Christ everywhere! He is the centre and foundation, the beginning and the end, of all the ways of God. May our hearts be ever filled with him! May our lips and lives speak His praise! May we, constrained by His love, live to His glory all our days upon earth, and then go home to be with Himself for ever, to go no more out!<\/p>\n<p>We have here given what we believe to be the primary thought of this chapter. That it may be applied, in a secondary way, to individuals, we do not, by any means, question; and further, that, like all scripture, it has been written for our learning, we most thankfully own. It must ever be the delight of the devout Christian to study all the wars of God, whether in grace or government &#8211; His ways with Israel &#8211; His ways with the Church &#8211; His ways with all &#8211; His ways with each. Oh! to pursue this study with an enlarged heart and an enlightened understanding!<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Mackintosh&#8217;s Notes on the Pentateuch<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>Num 30:1-16. The Circumstances under which Vows are Binding.The vows coming under review are of two kinds: (a) promises to give or dedicate something to Yahweh, (b) pledges to practise some form of abstinence. These, if undertaken by men, or by women in positions of independence, are unconditionally binding. But young unmarried women (under the control of their fathers) and married women (under control of their husbands) are only to be bound by their vows if, when the vows were undertaken, no objection was raised. Interference by father or husband at a later date entails guilt on the man. The case of unmarried women who have passed their youth is not expressly considered. See p. 105.<\/p>\n<p>Num 30:9. Apparently misplaced, since Num 30:10 continues the subject of Num 30:8.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Peake&#8217;s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>LAWS CONCERNING VOWS<\/p>\n<p>(vs.1-16)<\/p>\n<p>Under law it was permitted to the people to make vows as to what they might do in the future, for man is looked at as under probation so long as he is under law. But this time of probation for Israel (which is a sample of all mankind) has proven mankind to be untrustworthy as regards keeping what he promises. Therefore the Lord Jesus, in Mat 5:33-37 announces, &#8220;Again you have heard what was said of those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. but I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God&#8217;s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your &#8216;Yes&#8217; be &#8216;Yes&#8217; and your &#8216;No&#8217;, &#8216;No&#8217; for whatever is more than these is from the evil one.&#8221; Therefore, vows have no place in Christianity. There is only One who has perfectly kept His vows, as the Lord Jesus say in Psa 116:18, &#8220;I will pay My vows to the Lord now in the presence of all His people.&#8221; The Lord did this at Calvary, and we rest on the absolute truth of His word which could not fail, rather than on our own reliability.<\/p>\n<p>The law required any man who made a vow to be kept strictly to his word, and do all that he vowed to do (v.2). A young woman, however, who still lived with her father, if she made a vow, could be overruled by her father at the time she made it. if he did not overrule it, then the law obliged her to keep it (vs.3-5).<\/p>\n<p>The case was similar if a woman was married. Even as she had made the vow before marriage, when her husband heard of it he was in a position to cancel her obligation. But if he did not cancel it on hearing of it, then the vow remained in force (vs.6-8)<\/p>\n<p>The status of a vow of a widow or a divorced woman would not change when she was no longer married. If her husband had before made void her vow, then the vow would not stand. If he had not made it void, then she remained under obligation to keep it (vs.9-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman, so naturally influenced by her emotions, might not realize the implications of a vow she makes, while a man, characterized more by a cold, calculating intelligence, might be more cautious. In contrast to this, however, Israel made a rash promise when Moses proposed the law without even telling them what that law was (Exo 10:8); secondly, when he told them (Exo 24:3) and thirdly, when he wrote it and read it to them (Exo 24:4-7). All three times they promised to keep it. They had full opportunity to be aware of all that was involved in the law, so that they had no excuse for breaking it. Yet they broke their vow very soon after making it. How much better for us then that we should depend on the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus, not trusting our own reliability.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Grant&#8217;s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>30:1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes {a} concerning the children of Israel, saying, This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded.<\/p>\n<p>(a) Because they might declare them to the Israelites.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">Commands regarding vows ch. 30<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The last chapter of Leviticus (ch. 27) contains instructions regarding how the Israelites were to handle vows under the Mosaic Law. In contrast this chapter deals with when and under what circumstances they could annul vows and when they had to remain in force.<\/p>\n<p>&quot;The reason for the nature of the pentateuchal laws may be that the Israelites <span style=\"font-style:italic\">assumed<\/span>, with much of the culture around them, that vows were a legitimate expression of devotion to one&rsquo;s god(s), hence only specific ordinances governing the vows were seen as necessary.&quot;<span style=\"color:#808080\"> [Note: Ashley, p. 574.] <\/span><\/p>\n<p>Perhaps Moses included this section in this context of matters dealing with preparations for entering Canaan because in times of war people tend to make more vows. This is true of soldiers and their wives and children especially. Also vows are a kind of offering to God, so comment on them here is fitting in view of the previous discussion of offerings (chs. 28-29). A festival was an ideal time at which to discharge a vow.<\/p>\n<p>Vows were voluntary promises to do or not do specified things if God would or would not do something else. They also expressed thanks when God had done something special. They usually involved fasting or abstaining from other lawful things or giving God some special gift or offering. Moses explained the basic principles governing vows first (Num 30:2). The Israelites were to take their promises to God seriously and not break them (cf. Ecc 5:4-5). Then follow four cases, some of which constituted an exception to this rule. Others did not.<\/p>\n<p>A girl or young woman living under the authority of her father had a responsibility to obey her father that was more important than her responsibility to keep a self-imposed vow (Num 30:3-5). A woman who married a husband after she took her vow was to place the importance of her submission to her husband above her vow (Num 30:6-8). Another person could not void a widow&rsquo;s vow because she was directly responsible to God, not to her father or husband (Num 30:9). A woman who took a vow after she became married was under the authority of her husband primarily and under the authority of the terms of her vow secondarily (Num 30:10-12).<\/p>\n<p>Another rule follows (Num 30:13-15). A husband could annul his wife&rsquo;s vow when he became aware of it, but if he did not annul it when he first became aware of it, it would remain in force.<\/p>\n<p>&quot;The assumed culpability of Adam in Genesis 3 may stem from the principle behind this law. In Num 3:6, Adam&rsquo;s wife makes a rash decision in his presence: &rsquo;She took from the tree and ate and gave it to her husband who was with her.&rsquo; In view of this passage in Numbers, Adam&rsquo;s silence in the narrative makes him culpable for his wife&rsquo;s action.&quot;<span style=\"color:#808080\"> [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 417.] <\/span><\/p>\n<p>This section clarifies the important principle that one should not regard self-imposed religious obligations as more important than God-given duties.<\/p>\n<p>&quot;The matter of vowing a vow or making a pledge was taken very seriously in Israel. If the foundation of the faith was the immovable trustworthiness of God, no wonder a premium was put on being true to one&rsquo;s promises in general.&quot;<span style=\"color:#808080\"> [Note: Maarsingh, p. 106.] <\/span><\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>OFFERINGS AND VOWS<\/p>\n<p>Num 28:1-31; Num 29:1-40; Num 30:1-16<\/p>\n<p>THE legislation of chapters 28-30 appears to belong to a time of developed ritual and organised society. Parallel passages in Exodus and Leviticus treating of the feasts and offerings are by no means so full in their details, nor do they even mention some of the sacrifices here made statutory. The observances of New Moon are enjoined in the Book of Numbers alone. In chapter 15 they are simply noticed; here the order is fixed. The purpose of chapters 28-29 is especially to prescribe the number of animals that are to be offered throughout the year at a central altar, and the quantities of other oblations which are to accompany them. But the rotation of feasts is also given in a more connected way than elsewhere; we have, in fact, a legislative description of Israels Sacred Year. Daily, weekly, monthly, and at the two great festal seasons, Jehovah is to be acknowledged by the people as the Redeemer of life, the Giver of wealth and blessedness. Of their cattle and sheep, and the produce of the land, they are to bring continual oblations, which are to be their memorial before Him. By their homage and by their gladness, by afflicting themselves and by praising God, they shall realise their calling as His people.<\/p>\n<p>The section regarding vows (chapter 30) completes the legislation on that subject supplementing Lev 27:1-34, and Num 6:1-27. It is especially interesting for the light it throws on the nature of family life, the position of women and the limitations of their freedom. The link between the law of offerings and the law of vows is hard to find; but we can easily understand the need for rules concerning womens vows. The peace of families might often be disturbed by lavish promises which a husband or a father might find it impossible or inconvenient to fulfil.<\/p>\n<p>1. THE SACRED YEAR.- Num 28:1-31; Num 29:1-40<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the year, each day, each sabbath, and each month is to be consecrated by oblations of varying value, forming a routine of sacrifice. First the Day, bringing duty and privilege, is to have its morning burnt offering of a yearling lamb, by which the Divine blessing is invoked on the labour and life of the whole people. A meal offering of flour and oil and a drink offering of &#8220;strong drink&#8221;-that is, not of water or milk, but wine-are to accompany the sacrifice. Again in the evening, as a token of gratitude for the mercies of the day, similar oblations are to be presented. Of this offering the note is made: &#8220;it is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In these sacrifices the whole of time, measured out by the alternation of light and darkness, was acknowledged to be Gods; through the priesthood the nation declared His right to each day, confessed obligation to Him for the gift of it.. The burnt offering implied complete renunciation of what was represented. No part of the animal was kept for use, either by the worshipper or the priest. The smoke ascending to heaven dissipated the entire substance of the oblation, signifying that the whole use or enjoyment of it was consecrated to God. In the way of impressing the idea of obligation to Jehovah for the gifts of time and life the daily sacrifices were valuable; yet they were suggestive rather than sufficient. The Israelites throughout the land knew that these oblations were made at the altar, and those who were pious might at the times appointed offer each his own thanksgivings to God. But the individual expression of gratitude was left to the religious sense, and that must often have failed. At a distance from the sanctuary, where the ascending smoke could not be seen, men might forget; or again, knowing that the priests would not forget, they might imagine their own part to be done when offering was made for the whole people. The duty was, however, represented and kept before the minds of all.<\/p>\n<p>In the Psalms and elsewhere we find traces of a worship which had its source in the daily sacrifice. The author of Psa 141:1-10., for example, addresses Jehovah:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Give ear unto my voice when I cry unto Thee. Let my prayer be set forth as incense before Thee The lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Less clearly in the fifth, the fifty-ninth, and the eighty-eighth psalms, the morning prayer appears to be connected with the morning sacrifice:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;O Lord, in the morning shalt Thou hear my voice; In the morning will I order my prayer unto Thee, and will keep watch.&#8221; {Psa 5:3}<\/p>\n<p>The pious Hebrew might naturally choose the morning and the evening as his times of special approach to the throne of Divine grace, as every believer still feels it his duty and privilege to begin and close the day with prayer. The appropriateness of dawn and sunset might determine both the hour of sacrifice and the hour of private worship. Yet the ordinance of the daily oblations set an example to those who would otherwise have been careless in expressing gratitude. And earnestly religious persons learned to find more frequent opportunities. Daniel in Babylon is seen at the window open towards Jerusalem, kneeling upon his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks to God. The author of Psa 119:1-176 says:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Seven times a day do I praise Thee, Because of Thy righteous judgments.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The grateful remembrance of God and confession of His right to the whole of life were thus made a rule with which no other engagements were allowed to interfere. It is by facts like these the power of religion over the Hebrews in their best time is explained.<\/p>\n<p>We pass now to the Sabbath and the sacrifices by which it was distinguished. Here the number seven which recurs so frequently in the statutes of the sacred year appears for the first time. Connection has been found between the ordinances of Israel and of Chaldea in the observance of the seventh day as well as at many other points. According to Mr. Sayce, the origin of the Sabbath went back to pre-Semitic days, and the very name was of Babylonian origin. &#8220;In the cuneiform tablets the sabbath is described as a day of rest for the soul.The Sabbath was also known, at all events in Accadian times, as a dies nefastus, a day on which certain work was forbidden to be done; and an old list of Babylonian festivals and fast-days tells us that on the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of each month the Sabbath rest had to be observed. The king himself, it is stated, must not eat flesh that has been cooked over the coals or in the smoke, he must not change the garments of his body, white robes he must not wear, sacrifices he may not offer, in a chariot he must not ride.&#8221; The soothsayer was forbidden on that day &#8220;to mutter in a secret place.&#8221; In this observance of a seventh day of rest, specially sacred, for the good of the soul, ancient Accadians and Babylonians prepared the way for the Sabbath of the Mosaic law.<\/p>\n<p>But while the days of the Chaldean week were devoted each to a separate divinity, and the seventh day had its meaning in relation to polytheism, the whole of time, every day alike, and the Sabbaths with greater strictness than the others, were, in Israels law, consecrated to Jehovah. This difference also deserves to be noticed, that, while the Chaldean seventh days were counted from each new moon, in the Hebrew year there was no such astronomical date for reckoning them. Throughout the year, as with us, each seventh day was a day of rest. While we find traces of old religious custom and observance that mingled with those of Judaism and cannot but recognise the highly humane, almost spiritual character those old institutions often had, the superiority of the religion of the One Living and True God clearly proves itself to us. Moses, and those who followed him, felt no need of rejecting an idea they met with in the ancient beliefs of Chaldea, for they had the Divine light and wisdom by which the earthly and evil could be separated from the kernel of good. And may we not say that it was well to maintain the continuity of observance so far as thoughts and customs of the far past could be woven into the worship of Jehovahs flock? Neither was Israel nor is any people to pretend to entire separation from the past. No act of choice or process of development can effect it. Nor would the severance, if it were made, be for the good of men. Beyond the errors and absurdities of human belief, beyond the perversions of truth due to sin, there lie historical and constitutional origins. The Sabbaths, the sacrifices, and the prayers of ancient Chaldea had their source in demands of God and needs of the human soul, which not only entered into Judaism, but survive still, proving themselves inseparable from our thought and life.<\/p>\n<p>The special oblations to be presented on the Sabbath were added to those of the other days of the week. Two lambs of the first year in the morning and two in the evening were to be offered with their appropriate meal and drink Offerings. It may be noted that in Ezekiel where the Sabbath ordinances are detailed the sacrifices are more numerous. After declaring that the eastern gate of the inner court of the temple, which is to be shut on the six working days, shall be opened on the Sabbath and in the day of the new moon, the prophet goes on to say that the prince, as representing the people, shall offer unto the Lord in the Sabbath day six lambs without blemish and a ram without blemish. In the legislation of Numbers, however, the higher consecration of the Sabbath as compared with the other days of the week did not require so great a difference as Ezekiel saw it needful to make. And, indeed, the law of Sabbath observance assumes in Ezekiel an importance on various grounds which passes beyond the high distinction given it in the Pentateuch. Again and again in Ezekiel chapter 20 the prophet declares that one of the great sins of which the Israelites were guilty in the wilderness was that of polluting the Sabbath which God had given to be a sign between Himself and them. The keeping holy of the seventh day had become one of the chief safeguards of religion, and for this reason Ezekiel was moved to prescribe additional sacrifices for that day.<\/p>\n<p>We find as we go on that the week of seven days, ended by the recurring day of rest, is an element in the regulations for all the great feasts. Unleavened bread was to be eaten for seven days. Seven weeks were then to be counted to the day of the firstfruits and the feast of weeks. The feast of tabernacles, again, ran for seven days and ended on the eighth with a solemn assembly. The whole ritual was in this way made to emphasise the division of time based on the fourth commandment.<\/p>\n<p>The New Moon ritual consecrating the months was more elaborate. On the day when the new moon was first seen, or should by computation be seen, besides the continual burnt offering two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year, with meal and drink offerings, were to be presented. These animals were to be wholly offered by fire. In addition, a sin offering was to be made, a kid of the goats. Why this guilt sacrifice was introduced at the new moon service is not clear. Keil explains that &#8220;in consideration of the sins which had been committed in the course of the past month, and had remained without expiation,&#8221; the sin offering was needed. But this might be said of the week in its degree, as well as of the month. It is certain that the opening of each month was kept in other ways than the legislation of the Pentateuch seems to require. In Numbers it is prescribed that the silver trumpets shall be blown over the new moon sacrifices for a memorial before God, and this must have given the observances a festival air. Then we learn from 1Sa 20:1-42 that when Saul was king a family feast was observed in his house on the first day of the month, and that this day also, in some particular month, was generally chosen by a family for the yearly sacrifice to which all were expected to gather (1Sa 20:5-6). These facts and the festal opening of Psa 81:1-16, in which the timbrel, harp, and psaltery, and joyful singing in praise of God, are associated with the new moon trumpet, imply that for some reason the occasion was held to be important. Amos {Amo 8:5} implies further that on the day of new moon trade was suspended; and in the time of Elisha it seems to have been common for those who wished to consult a prophet to choose either the Sabbath or the day of new moon for enquiring of him. {2Ki 4:23} There can be little doubt that the day was one of religious activity and joy, and possibly the offering of the kid for expiation was intended to counteract the freedom the more thoughtless might permit themselves.<\/p>\n<p>There are good reasons for believing that in pre-Mosaic times the day of new moon was celebrated by the Israelites and all kindred peoples, as it is still among certain heathen races. Originally a nature festival, it was consecrated to Jehovah by the legislation before us, and gradually became of account as the occasion of domestic gatherings and rejoicings. But its religious significance lay chiefly in the dedication to God of the month that had begun and expiation of guilt contracted during that which had closed.<\/p>\n<p>We come now to the great annual festivals. These were arranged in two groups, which may be classed as vernal and autumnal, the one group belonging to the first and third months, the other to the seventh. They divided the year into two portions, the intervals between them being the time of great heat and the time of rain and storm. The month Abib, with which the year began corresponded generally to our April; but its opening, depending on the new moon, might be earlier or later. One of the ceremonies of the festival season of this month was the presentation, on the sixteenth day, of the first sheaf of harvest; and seven weeks afterwards, at Pentecost, cakes made from the first dough were offered. The explanation of what may appear to be autumnal offerings in spring is to be found in the early ripening of corn throughout Palestine. The cereals were all reaped during the interval between Passover and Pentecost. The autumnal festival celebrated the gathering in of the vintage and fruits.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover, the first great feast, a sacrament rather, is merely mentioned in this portion of Numbers. It was chiefly a domestic celebration-not priestly-and had a most impressive significance, of which the eating of the lamb with bitter herbs was the symbol. The day after it, the &#8220;feast of unleavened bread&#8221; began. For a whole week leaven was to be abjured. On the first day of the feast there was to be a holy convocation, and no servile work was to be done. The closing day likewise was to be one of holy convocation. On each of the seven days the offerings were to be two young bullocks, one ram, and seven yearling he-lambs, with their meal and drink offerings, and for sin one he-goat to make atonement.<\/p>\n<p>The week of this festival, commencing with the paschal sacrament, was made to bear peculiarly on the national life, first by the command that all leaven should be rigidly kept out of the houses. As the ceremonial law assumed more importance with the growth of Pharisaism, this cleansing was sought quite fanatically. Any crumb of common bread was reckoned an accursed thing which might deprive the observance of the feast of its good effect. But even in the time of less scrupulous legalism the effort to extirpate leaven from the houses had its singular effect on the people. It was one of the many causes which made Jewish religion intense. Then the daily sacrificial routine, and especially the holy convocations of the first and seventh days, were profoundly solemnising. We may picture thus the ceremonies and worship of these great days of the feast. The people, gathered from all parts of the land, crowded the outer court of the sanctuary. The priests and Levites stood ready around the altar. With solemn chanting the animals were brought from some place behind the temple where they had been carefully examined so that no blemish might impair the sacrifice. Then they were slain one by one, and prepared, the fire on the great altar blazing more and more brightly in readiness for the holocaust, while the blood flowed away in a red stream, staining the hands and garments of those who officiated. First the two bullocks, then the ram, then the lambs were one after another placed on the flames, each with incense and part of the meal offering. The sin offering followed. Some of the blood of the he-goat was taken by the priest and sprinkled on the inner altar, on the veil of the Holy of Holies, and on the horns of the great altar, around which the rest was poured. The fat of the animal, including certain of the internal parts, was thrown on the fire; and this portion of the observances ended with the pouring out of the last drink offering before the Lord. Then a chorus of praise was lifted up, the people throwing themselves on the ground and praying in a low, earnest monotone.<\/p>\n<p>To this followed in the later times singing of chants and psalms, led by the chorus of Levites, addresses to the people, and shorter or longer prayers to which the worshippers responded. The officiating priest, standing beside the great altar in view of all, now pronounced the appointed blessing on the people. But his task was still not complete. He went into the sanctuary, and, having by his entrance and safe return from the holy place shown that the sacrifice had been accepted, he spoke to the assembly a few words of simple and sublime import. Finally, with repeated blessing, he gave the dismissal. On one or both of these occasions the form of benediction used was that which we have found preserved in the sixth chapter of this book.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that celebrations like these, into which, as time went on, the mass of worshippers entered with increased fervour, gave the feast of unleavened bread an extraordinary importance in the national life. The young Hebrew looked forward to it with the keenest expectancy, and was not disappointed. So long as faith remained, and especially in crises of the history of Israel, the earnestness that was developed carried every soul along. And now that the Israelites bewail the loss of temple and country, reckoning themselves a martyred people, this feast and the more solemn day of atonement nerve them to endurance and reassure them of their hope. They are separate still. They are Jehovahs people still. The covenant remains. The Messiah will come and bring them new life and power. So they vehemently cling to the past and dream of a future that shall never be.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The day of the firstfruits&#8221; was, according to Lev 23:15, the fiftieth day from the morrow after the passover sabbath. The special harvest offering of this &#8220;feast of weeks&#8221; is thus enjoined: &#8220;Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baken with leaven, for firstfruits unto the Lord&#8221;. {Lev 23:17} According to Leviticus one bullock, two rams, and seven lambs; according to Numbers two bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs, were to be sacrificed as whole offerings; the difference being apparently that of varying usage at an earlier and later time. The sin offering of the he-goat followed the burnt offerings. The day of the feast was one of holy convocation; and it has peculiar interest for us as the day on which the pentecostal effusion of the Spirit came on the gathering of Christians in the upper room at Jerusalem. The joyous character of this festival was signified by the use of leaven in the cakes or loaves that were presented as firstfruits. The people rejoiced in the blessing of another harvest, the fulfilment once more by Jehovah of His promise to supply the needs of His flock. It will be seen that in every case the sin offering prescribed is a single he-goat. This particular sacrifice was distinguished from the whole offerings, the thank offerings, and the peace offerings, which were not limited in number. &#8220;It must stand,&#8221; says Ewald, &#8220;in perfect isolation, as though in the midst of sad solitude and desolation, with nothing similar or comparable by its side.&#8221; Why a he-goat was invariably ordered for this expiatory sacrifice it is difficult to say. And the question is not made more easy by the peculiar rite of the great day of atonement, when besides the goat of the sin offering for Jehovah another was devoted to &#8220;Azazel.&#8221; Perhaps the choice of this animal implied its fitness in some way to represent transgression, wilfulness, and rebellion. The he-goat, more wild and rough than any other of the flock, seemed to belong to the desert and to the spirit of evil.<\/p>\n<p>From the festivals of spring we now pass to those of autumn, the first of which coincided with the New Moon of the seventh month. This was to be a day of holy convocation, on which no servile work should be done, and it was marked by a special blowing of trumpets over the sacrifices. From other passages it would appear that the trumpets were used on the occasion of every new moon; and there must have been a longer and more elaborate service of festival music to distinguish the seventh. The offerings prescribed for it were numerous. Those enjoined for the opening of the other months were two bullocks, one ram, seven he-lambs, and the he-goat of the sin offering. To these were now added one bullock, one ram, and seven he-lambs. Altogether, including the daily sacrifices which were never omitted, twenty-two animals were offered; and with each sacrifice, except the he-goat, fine flour mingled with oil and a drink offering of wine had to be presented.<\/p>\n<p>There seems no reason to doubt that the seventh month was opened in this impressive way because of the great festivals ordained to be held in the course of it. The labour of the year was practically over, and more than any other the month was given up to festivity associated with religion. It was the seventh or sabbath month, forming the &#8220;exalted summit of the year, for which all preceding festivals prepared the way, and after which everything quietly came down to the ordinary course of life.&#8221; The trumpets blown in joyful peals over the sacrifices, the offering of which must have gone on for many hours, inspired the assembly with gladness, and signified the gratitude and hope of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>But the joy of the seventh month thus begun did not go on without interruption. The tenth day was one of special solemnity and serious thought. It was the great day of confession, for on it, in the holy convocation, the people were to &#8220;afflict their souls.&#8221; The transgressions and failures of the year were to be acknowledged with sorrow. From the evening of the ninth day to the evening of the tenth there was to be a rigid fast-the one fast which the law ordained. Before the full gladness of Jehovahs favour can be realised by Israel all those sins of neglect and forgetfulness which have been accumulating for twelve months must be confessed, bewailed, and taken away. There are those who have become unclean without being aware of their defilement; those who have unwittingly broken the Sabbath law; those who have for some reason been unable to keep the passover, or who have kept it imperfectly; others again have failed to render tithes of all the produce of their land according to the law; and priests and Levites called to a high consecration have come short of their duty. With such defects and sins of error the nation is to charge itself, each individual acknowledging his own faults. Unless this is done a shadow must lie on the life of the people; they cannot enjoy the light of the countenance of God.<\/p>\n<p>For this day the whole offerings are, one young bullock, one ram, seven he-lambs; and there is this peculiarity, that, besides a he-goat for a sin offering, there is to be provided another he-goat, &#8220;for atonement.&#8221; Maimonides says that the second he-goat is not that &#8220;for Azazel,&#8221; but the fellow of it, the one on which the lot had fallen &#8220;for Jehovah.&#8221; Leviticus again informs us that Aaron was to sacrifice a bullock as a sin offering for himself and his house. And it was the blood of this bullock and of the second he-goat he was to take and sprinkle on the ark and before the mercy-seat. Further, it is prescribed that the bodies of these animals are to be carried forth without the camp and wholly burned-as if the sin clinging to them had made them unfit for use in any way.<\/p>\n<p>The great atonement thus made, the reaction of joy set in. Nothing in Jewish worship exceeded the solemnity of the fast, and in contrast with that the gladness of the forgiven multitude. Another crisis was past, another year of Jehovahs favour had begun. Those who had been prostrate in sorrow and fear rose up to sing their hallelujahs. &#8220;The deep seriousness of the Day of Atonement,&#8221; says Delitzsch, &#8220;was transformed on the evening of the same day into lighthearted merriment. The observance in the temple was accomplished in a significant drama which was fascinating from beginning to end. When the high priest came forth from the Most Holy Place, after the performance of his functions there, this was for the people a consolatory, gladsome sight, for which poetry can find no adequate words: Like the peace-proclaiming arch in painted clouds; like the morning star, when he arises from the eastern twilight; like the sun, when opening his bud, he unfolds in roseate hue. When the solemnity was over, the high priest was escorted with a guard of honour to his dwelling in the city, where a banquet awaited his more immediate friends.&#8221; The young people repaired to the vineyards, the maidens arrayed in simple white, and the day was closed with song and dancing.<\/p>\n<p>This description reminds us of the mingling of elements in the old Scottish fast-days, closing as they did with a simple entertainment in the manse.<\/p>\n<p>The feast of tabernacles continued the gladness of the ransomed people. It began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, with a holy convocation and a holocaust of no fewer than twenty-nine animals, in addition to the daily sacrifice, and a he-goat for a sin offering. The number of bullocks, which was thirteen on this opening day of the feast, was reduced by one each day till on the seventh day seven bullocks were sacrificed. But two rams and fourteen he-lambs were offered each day of the feast, and the he-goat for expiation, besides the continual burnt offering. The celebration ended, so far as sacrifices were concerned, on the eighth day with a special burnt offering of one bullock, one ram, and seven he-lambs, returning thus to the number appointed for New Moon.<\/p>\n<p>It will be noticed that on the closing day there was to be a &#8220;solemn assembly.&#8221; It was &#8220;the great day of the feast&#8221; (Joh 7:37). The people who during the week had lived in the booths or arbours which they had made, now dismantled them and went on pilgrimage to the sanctuary. The opening of the festival came to be of a striking kind. &#8220;One could see,&#8221; says Professor Franz Delitzsch, &#8220;even before the dawn of the first day of the feast, if this was not a Sabbath, a joyous throng pouring forth from the Jaffa Gate at Jerusalem. The verdure of the orchards, refreshed with the first showers of the early rain, is hailed by the people with shouts of joy as they scatter on either side of the bridge which crosses the brook fringed with tall poplar-osiers, some in order with their own hands to pluck branches for the festal display, others to look at the men who have been honoured with the commission to fetch from Kolonia the festal leafy adornment of the altar. They seek out right long and goodly branches of these poplar-osiers, and cut them off, and then the reunited host returns in procession, with exultant shouts and singing and jesting, to Jerusalem, as far as the Temple hill, where the great branches of poplar-osier are received by the priests and set upright around the sides of the altar, so that they bend over it with their tips. Priestly trumpeting resounded during this decoration of the altar with foliage, and they went on that feast day once, on the seventh day seven times, around the altar with willow branches, or the festive posy entwined of a palm branch and branches of myrtles and willows, amidst the usual festive shouts of Hosanna; exclaiming after the completed encircling, Beauty becomes thee, O Altar! Beauty becomes thee, O Altar!&#8221; So, in later times, the festival began and was sustained, each worshipper carrying boughs and fruit of the citron and other trees. But the eighth day brought all this to a close. The huts were taken down, the worshippers sought the house of God for prayer and thanksgiving. The reading of the Law which had been going on day by day concluded; and the sin offering fitly ended the season of joy with expiation of the guilt of the people in their holy things.<\/p>\n<p>The series of sacrifices appointed for days and weeks and months and years required a large number of animals and no small liberality. They. did not, however, represent more than a small proportion of the offerings which were brought to the central sanctuary. Besides, there were those connected with vows, the free-will offerings, meal offerings, drink offerings, and peace offerings. {Num 29:39} And taking all together it will be seen that the pastoral wealth of the people was largely claimed.<\/p>\n<p>The explanation lies partly in this, that among the Israelites, as among all races, &#8220;the things sacrificed were of the same kind as those the worshippers desired to obtain from God.&#8221; The sin offering, however, had quite a different significance. In this the sprinkling of the warm blood, representing the life blood of the worshipper, carried thought into a range of sacred mystery in which the awful claim of God on men was darkly realised. Here sacrifice became a sacrament binding the worshippers by the most solemn symbol imaginable-a vital symbol-to fidelity in the service of Jehovah. Their faith and devotion expressed in the sacrifice secured for them the Divine grace on which their well-being depended, the blood-bought pardon that redeemed the soul. Among the Israelites alone was expiation by blood made fully significant as the center of the whole system of worship.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded. The regulations respecting vows appropriately follow those given respecting sacrifices, since a large proportion of vows would always relate to the presentation of such offerings. Rules had already been given Lev. &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-numbers-301\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 30:1&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4658","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}