Though she be in her fathers house, whither such persons oft returned; which limitation may be gathered both from the opposition of her being <\/P>
in her husbands house, <\/B>Num 30:10<\/B><\/span>, and from hence, that this was the only doubtful cast for if such a person was not in her fathers house, she was unquestionably bound by it, but being now freed from her husband, and returned to her father, it was doubtful whether she was not returned to the same state of subjection in which she was before, and consequently unable to make or perform a vow without her fathers consent, as she was before, which is here denied. <\/P> <\/p>\n 9. every vow of a widow<\/B>In thecase of a married woman, who, in the event of a separation from herhusband, or of his death, returned, as was not uncommon, to herfather’s house, a doubt might have been entertained whether she wasnot, as before, subject to paternal jurisdiction and obliged to actwith the paternal consent. The law ordained that the vow was bindingif it had been made in her husband’s lifetime, and he, on being madeaware of it, had not interposed his veto [Num 30:10<\/span>;Num 30:11<\/span>]; as, for instance, shemight have vowed, when not a widow, that she would assign a portionof her income to pious and charitable uses, of which she might repentwhen actually a widow; but by this statute she was required to fulfilthe obligation, provided her circumstances enabled her to redeem thepledge. The rules laid down must have been exceedingly useful for theprevention or cancelling of rash vows, as well as for giving a propersanction to such as were legitimate in their nature, and made in adevout, reflecting spirit.<\/P><\/p>\n But every vow of a widow<\/strong>,…. The Scripture speaks, as Jarchi says, of a widow from marriage, or that has been married, but a widow from espousals (or that has been only espoused), the husband dead, the power is transmitted, and returns to the father; and with respect to such a case, it is said in the Misnah y<\/p>\n “if the father (of such a betrothed person) dies, the power is not transmitted to the husband; but if the husband dies, the power is transmitted to the father; in this case, greater is the power of a father than of an husband; in others, greater is the power of an husband than of a father, because an husband makes void (the vow of) one at age, but a father does not make void (the vow of) such an one:”<\/p>\n and of her that is divorced<\/strong>: from her husband on some account or another; now in each of these cases, the one being loosed from the law of her husband by death, and the other by a bill of divorce, if they vowed,<\/p>\n the vows wherewith they have bound their souls shall stand against her<\/strong>; against either of them, they having none over them to disapprove of, contradict, and make void their vows.<\/p>\n y Nedarim, c. 10. sect. 2.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Verses 9-16:<\/p>\n The third: <\/strong>the case of a widow or a divorcee. If a woman vowed a vow after she became a widow, or was divorced, the vow was binding upon her.<\/p>\n However, if a widow or divorcee had vowed a vow while she was married, the same rule applied as for a wife or a young unmarried daughter. The husband might either confirm the vow by his silence, or make it void by disallowing it. In either case, the responsibility for the vow belonged to the husband (and father), not to the wife or unmarried daughter.<\/p>\n 9. But every vow of a widow. I have stated why widows are expressly named, viz., lest a woman should think that by a second marriage she would escape, as being no longer free, and again under the yoke; since by such subtle excuses people often extricate themselves. No other subject is referred to down to the end of the last verse but one; for they have made a very gross mistake, who interpret it as applying to a family and its master. (327) The subject itself certainly does not admit of such an explanation; and the words of Moses forbid it: so that it is the more surprising that persons skilled in the Hebrew language have not seen the matter clearly. <\/p>\n (327) Num 30:10<\/span>, ואם-בית אישה. Literally, “And if the house of her husband.” C. and A.V. follow LXX. in assuming that the preposition in should be supplied before the house. S.M., on the other hand, translates the word בית , family, which is undeniably allowable; but says in a note, “By family, is to be understood the wife here, as the chief personage in it after its master.” To this treatment of the text C. here adverts, as strange on the part of one so skillful in the Hebrew tongue. — W <\/p>\n THE VOW OF THE WIDOW AND OF THE DIVORCED WIFE, Num 30:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n Such a vow must be paid, because both the widow and the divorced wife are free from the law of the husband and the father also. According to the rabbins, marriage to a second husband before the vow is performed has no effect upon the vow. It is not in his power to make it void.<\/p>\n (iii) A vow made by a widow or a divorced woman ( Num 30:9<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n Num 30:9<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n ‘But the vow of a widow, or of her who is divorced, even everything with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her.’ <\/p>\n The vow made by a widow or a divorced woman was seen as being as binding as an adult male’s. She was not under the authority of father or husband and her vow was thus seen as irrevocable. Even a divorced woman who returned to her father’s household was thus still seen as having her own measure of independence. Even here, however, she could presumably only vow in a binding way concerning her own position and wealth. <\/p>\n This example is especially of interest in regard to the question of women’s ‘equality’. It was not that women were not seen as equal with men. That fact is confirmed here. It was that there had always to be a head of a group, and that that head was to be seen as having overall responsibility. <\/p>\n Num 30:9<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Every vow of a widow, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Here again the case is put, of persons in their own power, who, being their own mistresses, might certainly dispose of themselves as they pleased. <\/p>\n The special case of the widow, respecting vows, serves to show the personal responsibility of each character. It is the language of the scripture that everyone shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. 1Co 3:8<\/span> .<\/p>\n divorced. Hebrew “put away [from her husband]”. Compare Lev 21:7. <\/p>\n Lev 21:7, Luk 2:37, Rom 7:2 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 24:2 – she may go<\/p>\n Num 30:9. Widow or divorced Though she be in her fathers house, whither such persons often returned.<\/p>\n 30:9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand {f} against her.<\/p>\n (f) For they are not under the authority of the man.<\/p>\n But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. Though she be in her fathers house, whither such persons oft returned; which limitation may be gathered both from the opposition of her being in her husbands house, Num 30:10, and from hence, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 30:9”<\/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-4666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4666","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=4666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"