And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes. 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 Lev_27:1-34, 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 "heads of the tribes" itself serves to differentiate it from all the rest of the "statutes" 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 "heads of the tribes" 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 Num_5:5-31) which were declared in the ordinary way unto "the children of Israel" at large.
Num_30:2
If a man vow a vow.
ðÆãÆø
, 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 healer, 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 "unto the Lord" is a mere evasion. It is, however, probable that neder, when it occurs (as in this passage) in connection with issar, does take on the narrower signification of a positive vow. Swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond. Literally, "to bind a bond upon his soul."
àÄñÈÌø
, a bond, which occurs only in this chapter, is considered to be a restrictive obligation, a vow of abstinence. It would appear that the issar was always undertaken upon oath, whereas the neder (as in the case of the Nazarite) did not of necessity require it. Heshall not break his word. 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'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.
Num_30:3
If a woman vow a vow. 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 Lev_27:1-34, in which the obligation could not stand absolute. In her father's house in her youth. Case first, of a girl in her father's house, who had no property of her own, and whose personal services were due to her father.
Num_30:5
If her father disallow her. 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's veto must be pronounced before witnesses also.
Num_30:6
If she had at all a husband. Literally, "if being she be to an husband." Septuagint,
ἐὰν γενομένη γένηται ἀνδρί
. 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. Deu_22:23, Deu_22:24; Mat_1:19, Mat_1:20). Whenshe vowed. Rather, "and her vows be upon her." Septuagint,
καὶ αἱ εὐχαὶ αὐτῆς ἐπ αὐτῇ
. 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. Oruttered ought out of her lips. Rather, "or the rash utterance of her lips." The word
îÄáÀèÈà
, which is not found elsewhere (cf. Psa_106:33), 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 "rash utterance."
Num_30:9
Every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced. This is not one of the cases treated of in this section (see Num_30:16), but is only mentioned in order to point out that it falls under the general principle laid down in Num_30:2.
Num_30:10
If she vowed in her husband's house. 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.
Num_30:13
Oath to afflict the soul. No 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 Num_16:29; Num_29:7; and cf. Isa_58:5; 1Co_7:5).
Num_30:15
Then he shall bear her iniquity, i.e; 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 Lev_5:1-19,
HOMILETICS
Num_30:1-16
VOWS UNTO THE LORD
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 sui juris)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 "not our own," but "bought with a price," 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) "go up higher." 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 "reasonable," i.e; 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, e.g; one who had vowed celibacy came to feel in himself the truth of 1Co_7:9, 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, e.g; 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, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," 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—
I.THAT A MANMUSTNOTBREAKHISWORDUNTOGOD. 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 (Psa_15:4); if God himself have vouchsafed to make promises to man (and with an oath too—Heb_6:17, Heb_6:18), 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!
II.THAT A PROMISEMADE, TOGODINSICKNESSORDISTRESSMAYNOTBEDEPARTEDFROMINHEALTHANDPROSPERITY. No doubt most vows were made under stress of some calamity or need, as Jacob's (Gen_28:20), Hannah's (1Sa_1:11), and others (cf. Psa_66:13; Psa_76:11). Yet how often do men treat their God with such indignity! (1Co_10:22).
III.THAT A RESOLUTIONDELIBERATELYFORMEDANDOFFEREDUNTOGODISQUITEASSACREDASTHOUGHMADEWITHANOATH. For an oath is on the part of God a condescension which has no meaning for him (Heb_6:17), 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.
IV.THATNOPROMISECANBEMADETOGODINDEROGATIONOFTHEJUSTRIGHTSOFANOTHEROVERUS. 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 (2Sa_24:24), it is unjust to offer unto the Lord of that which doth cost another something.
V.THATINPARTICULAR A DAUGHTER'S PRIMARYDUTYISTOHERPARENT, A WIFE'S TOHERHUSBAND. Only what lies beyond the sphere of their legitimate claims can she sacrifice in the name of religion.
VI.THATTHE "RASHUTTERANCEOFTHELIPS" ISNOTHELDBINDINGBYTHELORD. 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.
VII.THAT A FATHEROR A HUSBANDMAYNOTPLAYFASTANDLOOSEWITHTHERELIGIOUSPRACTICESOFTHOSEDEPENDENTUPONHIM, NEITHERDISALLOWONEDAYWHATHEALLOWEDTHEDAYBEFORE. 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's servants from any but the purest motives, and for any but the weightiest reasons.
VIII.THATIFWE, THROUGHNEGLIGENCEORCAPRICE, DISTURBTHESPIRITUALLIFE, ANDHINDERTHEHEAVENLYDESIRESOFTHOSEDEPENDENTONUS, WEMUSTBEARTHEIRINIQUITY. 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 (Mat_18:6).
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Num_30:1, Num_30:2
THE SOLEMN OBLIGATION OF THE VOW
I. NOTICE THEABSENCEOFANYREFERENCETOTHESUBJECTMATTEROFTHEVOW. 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'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.
II.CONSIDERTHENECESSITYTHEREWASFORIMPRESSINGONTHEISRAELITESTHESOLEMNOBLIGATIONOFTHEIRVOWS. How came the Israelite to make a vow? 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'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'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. It was an invisible God who had to be dealt with; 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? "I may neglect it with impunity," is the thought in the Israelite's heart (Psa_1:1-6 :21; Psa_73:11). 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.
III.CONSIDERHOWTHEPRINCIPLESTHATUNDERLIETHISINJUNCTIONARETOBECARRIEDOUTBYCHRISTIANS. 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: "Grant unto thy people that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise." 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.
1. Consider well the great projects and ruling views of your life. 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's will, but spring from it, Nothing really accords with God's 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 (Rom_1:1; Php_1:1; Jas_1:1; 2Pe_1:1; Rev_1:1), 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.
2. Consider wherein the evil of a broken vow really consists. 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 voluntarily, 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.
3. Consider what deliberation is required in entering on the obligations of the Christian profession. 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 (Mat_7:21-29; Mat_16:24-26; Luk_9:57, Luk_9:58; Luk_14:25, Luk_14:35; Joh_6:44).
4. Consider the great peril of being unfaithful to the knowledge of what is right. 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'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.
Num_30:3-16
THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD HONOURED AND CAUTIONED
The command contained in this section of the chapter secures a double result.
1. 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.
2. 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—
I.WHATTHISCOMMANDIMPLIEDWITHRESPECTTOTHEHEADOFTHEHOUSEHOLD. Let us take the relation of the father and daughter, similar things being true, mutatis mutandis, with respect to the husband and wife.
1. This command honoured parental authority. 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'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.
2. This command required much watchfulness on the part of the father. To act rightly here demanded the whole compass of paternal duty. The father was not allowed to say that his daughter'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'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, "Why did not your larger knowledge and experience shelter me from difficulties which my inexperience could not possibly anticipate?"
3. This command required much consideration on the part of the father. 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'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 (Num_6:2). 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 ones—a 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!
4. This command required, in order to be fully complied with, sympathy with the voluntary spirit in religion. 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'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: "We love him because he first loved us" (1Jn_4:19). 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.
1. Their right to make a vow was itself secured. The command did not say that daughter and wife were to make no vow at all. They were as free to make a vow 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.
2. A gentle and patient submission was recommended on the part of the daughter and the wife. 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 good, 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. "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Mat_22:30).—Y.
Num_31:1-54
EXPOSITION
EXTERMINATION OFTHEMIDIANITES (Num_31:1-54).
Num_31:1
The Lord spake unto Moses. The command to "vex the Midianites, and smite them," had been given before (Num_25:17), 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.
Num_31:2
Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites. 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. Afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 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.
Num_31:3
Avenge the Lord of Midian. 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 Num_25:17. 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.
Num_31:5
There were delivered, or "levied."
éÄîÈÌñÀøåÌ
. Septuagint,
ἐξηρίθμησαν
The Hebrew word is only used here and in Num_31:16 (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.
Num_31:6
And Phinehas the son of Eleazar. 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 Num_31:19); but his son, who was already marked out as his successor, could act as his representative (see on Num_16:37). In after times the Messiah Milchama ("Sacerdos unctus ad bellum," alluded to in Deu_20:2) 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. With the holy instruments, and the trumpets. Septuagint,
καὶ τὰ σκεύη τὰ ἅγια καὶ αἱ σάλπιγγες
. The word instruments (
ëÀÌìÅé
) is the same more usually translated "vessel," as in Num_3:31, and is apparently to be understood of the sacred furniture of the tabernacle. It is difficult to understand what "holy vessels" 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 (Num_10:33; Jos_3:14; Jos_6:8), and the narrative of 1Sa_4:3 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. Num_14:44), identify the "holy instruments" with "the trumpets;" 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 "holy instruments" by Urim and Thummim; these, however, as far as we can gather, seem to have been in the exclusive possession of the high priest.
Num_31:8
They slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain. This is more accurately rendered by the Septuagint,
τοῦς βασιλεὶς
;
ἀπέκτειναν ἅμα τοῖς τραυματίαις
: "they put to death (
äÈøÇâ
) the kings, in addition to those who fell in battle" (from
çÈìÇì
, to pierce, or wound). These five kings, who are mentioned here as having been slain in cold blood after the battle, are said in Jos_13:21 to have been vassals (
ðÀñÄéëÅé
) of the Amoritish king Sihon, and to have dwelt "in the country." 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. Zur. The father of Cozbi (Num_25:15). Balsam also … they slew with the sword. Not in battle, but, as the context implies, by way of judicial execution (see on Num_24:25; Jos_13:22).
Num_31:10
Their goodly castles.
èÄéøÉúí
. Septuagint,
ἐπαύλεις
. This word, which occurs only here and in Gen_25:16, 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 "cities"would have belonged to the previous inhabitants of the land.
Num_31:11
The spoil.
äÈùÈÌÑìÈì
. Septuagint,
τὴν προνομήν
. The booty in goods. The prey.
äÇîÇÌìÀ÷åÉç
. Septuagint,
τὰ σκῦλα
. The booty in live-stock, here including the women and children, who are distinguished as "captives" (
ùÀÑáÄé
) in the next verse.
Num_31:14
Officers of the host. Literally, "inspectors." Septuagint,
τοῖς ἐπισκόποις τῆς δυνάμεως
Num_31:16
To commit trespass.
ìÄîÀñÈøÎîÇòÇì
See on Num_31:5. The word
îñø
seems to be used here much as the English word "levy" is used in such a phrase as "levying"war against a person.
Num_31:18
Keep alive for yourselves, i.e; 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.
Num_31:19
Do ye abide without the camp. In this case at any rate the law of
ìÄîÀñÈøÎîÇòÇì
Num_19:11sq. was to be strictly enforced. And your captives,i.e; 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.
Num_31:20
Purify all your raiment, and all that is made. Literally, "every vessel" (
ëÀÌìÄé
). This was in accordance with the principle laid down in Num_19:1-22 that everything which had come into contact with a corpse needed purifying.
Num_31:21
And Eleazar the priest said, This is the ordinanceof the law (
çË÷ÇÌú
äÇúÌåÉøÈä
, "law-statute, as in Num_19:2) which the Lord commanded Moses. Thereis something peculiar in this expression which points to the probability, either that this paragraph (Num_31:21-24) was added after the death of Moses, or that "the law was already beginning, even in the lifetime of Moses, to assume the position which it after. wards held—that, 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.
Num_31:22
The brass. Rather, "copper." The six metals here mentioned were those commonly known to the ancients, and in particular to the Egyptians and Phoenicians.
Num_31:23
Ye shall make it go through the fire. This was an addition to the general law of lustration in Num_19:1-22 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.
Num_31:26
Take the sum of the prey. No notice is taken here of the spoil (see on Num_31:11), but only of the captured children and cattle. And the chief fathers. Perhaps
àÇáåÉú
(fathers) stands here for
áÅÌéúÎàÈáåÉú
(fathers' houses). So the Septuagint,
οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν πατριῶν
.
Num_31:27
Divide the prey into two parts. 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 Jos_22:8; 1Sa_30:24; 2 Macc 8:28, 30.
Num_31:29
An heave offering unto the Lord. Septuagint,
τὰς ἀπαρὰς Κυρίου
. The Hebrew word
øåÌí
(to lift) from which terumah is derived, had practically lost its literal significance, just as the English word has in the phrase "to lift cattle;" hence terumah 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.
Num_31:30
One portion of fifty. 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.
Num_31:32
The booty, being the rest of the prey. Rather, "the prey (
äÇîÇÌìÀ÷åÉçÇ
, see on Num_31:11), to wit, the rest of the booty" (
äÇáÈÌæ
, as in Num_14:3, Num_14:31). Septuagint,
τὸ πλεόνασμα τῆς προνομῆς
, i.e; 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 (Jdg_6:5) and of their modem representatives today.
Num_31:49
There lacketh not one man of us. 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.
Num_31:50
What every man hath gotten. 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 Jdg_8:24-26). Chains.
àÆöÀòÈãÈä
. Septuagint,
χλιδῶνα
. Clasps for the arm, as in 2Sa_1:10. Tablets.
ëÌåÌîÈæ
. Probably golden balls or beads hung round the neck (see on Exo_35:22). A different word is used in Isa_3:20.
Num_31:52
Sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. 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.
Num_31:54
Brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation. 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. A memorial. To bring them into favourable remembrance with the Lord. For this sense of
æÄëÈÌøåÉï
cf. Exo_28:12, Exo_28:29.
Note on the Extermination of the Midianites
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.
I. 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 e.g; 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' directions, 12,000 soldiers had to deal with perhaps 50,000 women, first by ascertaining that they were not virgins, 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.
II. It is commonly urged in vindication of this massacre that the war was God'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's undoubted representative today, it would be necessary deliberately to disobey them.
It is urged again that the question at issue really was, "whether an obscene and debasing idolatry should undermine the foundations of human society," 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 Num_25:1-3), 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 "obscene idolatries." 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'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 "obscene idolatry," 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'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 "to avenge the children of Israel" (Exo_28:2) who had fallen through Baal-peor, and at the same time "to avenge the Lord" (Exo_28:3), who had been obliged to slay his own people.
III. The true justification of these proceedings—which we should now call, and justly call, atrocities—divides 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; 1Sa_15:2, 1Sa_15:3). 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.
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, e.g; that saying, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." For the Jew it meant that in waging wars of vengeance he fought as the Lord'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.
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, i.e; 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.
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 Exo_28:13 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 d
