Matthew Henry on Numbers 30:1-2
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: This is the thing which the Lord has commanded concerning vows, and it is a command still in force.
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 lawfu…
Read the whole note in the consoleJohn Gill on Numbers 30:1
And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes,.... 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:
concerning the children of Israel; how they ought to conduct and behave in the following case, it being an affair which concerned them all:
saying, this is the thing which the Lord hath commanded; 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, Numbers 32:24.
do that which hath proceeded out of your mouth; to which…
Read the whole note in the consoleJohn Calvin on Numbers 30:1
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'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.
