Matot

Vows

This portion starts with a command to the heads of the tribes (matot).

As i reflected on this Torah portion i saw how important speech is in the economy and society of God.

God creates by speaking.

Israel enters covenant through spoken assent.

Vows create obligations.

Blessings and curses have covenantal force.

Speech is not merely descriptive; it is performative—it brings about a new legal and moral reality.

The portion starts off by God commanding the heads of the tribes that unwwavering commitment to official words is important made.

Numbers 30:2 TLV

Whenever a man makes a vow to Adonai or swears an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he is not to violate his word but do everything coming out of his mouth.

Deuteronomy 23:21–23 TLV

“When you make a vow to Adonai your God, you are not to delay to make good on it—for Adonai your God will certainly require it of you, and you would have sin on you. But if you refrain from making a vow, you would not have sin on you. Whatever comes out of your lips you are to take care to do, since you have vowed to Adonai your God a freewill offering that you have promised with your mouth.

Whats’ the differnce between a vow (nedar) and an oath (sheva)?

A vow is a conditional promise of dedication to God. “If you do something Lord, I will do something for you…”

An oath is unconditional promise. “I swear I have not done…” OR “I swear I will do…”

Vows are always dedications to the Lord at the sanctuary.

Vow Examples:

Genesis 28:20–22 TLV

Then Jacob made a vow saying, “If God will be with me and watch over me on this way that I am going, and provide me food to eat and clothes to wear, and I return in shalom to my father’s house, then Adonai will be my God. So this stone which I set up as a memorial stone will become God’s House, and of everything You provide me I will definitely give a tenth of it to You.”

Numbers 21:2 TLV

Then Israel vowed to Adonai and stated, “If you deliver this people into our hand, we will put their cities under the ban of destruction!”

If you brought a monetary offering to the Lord to fulfill a vow, do you think it matters how you’ve earned that money?

Deuteronomy 23:18 TLV

You are not to bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the House of Adonai your God for any vow, for both of these are detestable to Adonai your God.

God cares about the source of our offerings to him. The means of obtaining that tithe or offering is important.

If you made a vow, must you fulfill it exactly as you’ve stated?

Numbers 30:2 TLV

Whenever a man makes a vow to Adonai or swears an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he is not to violate his word but do everything coming out of his mouth.

Judges 11:30–31 TLV

Then Jephthah vowed a vow to Adonai and said, “If You will indeed give the children of Ammon into my hand, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from the children of Ammon, it will be Adonai’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”tlv

We know the story - Jephthah returns the first thing that comes out of his house is his only child, his daugther. She goes off and mourns.

Jephthah carries out his vow. Do you think that was right or wrong?

First, there is debate about whether she was sacrficed or dedicated as a lifelong virgin to the lord (like a Nazir is dedicated).

Second, the Torah makes provision for redeeming vows.

Leviticus 27:1–2 NASB95

Again, the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man makes a difficult vow, he shall be valued according to your valuation of persons belonging to the Lord.

Here is an example of crops redeemed.

Leviticus 27:19 TLV

If he who dedicated the field would ever redeem it, then he is to add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it will remain his.

Yes, you can redeem various types of vows.

But, God places a higher bar because you need to add 20% to the original vow and fulfill that 120% at a future date to the Lord.

And we see in lev 5 that if one makes a ‘rash oath’ there is a process for bringing a guilt offering.

Oaths

An oath is unconditional promise. “I swear I have not done…” OR “I swear I will do…”

Oath Examples:

Genesis 22:16 TLV

and said, “By myself I swear—it is a declaration of Adonai—because you have done this thing, and you did not withhold your son, your only son,

Genesis 26:3 TLV

Live as an outsider in this land and I will be with you and bless you—for to you and to your seed I give all these lands—and I will confirm my pledge that I swore to Abraham your father.

Leviticus 19:12 TLV

“You are not to swear by My Name falsely, and so profane the Name of your God. I am Adonai.

Do you think an oath is like the everyday promises we make, or is it something more than that?

Deuteronomy 10:20 TLV

Adonai your God you will fear—Him will you serve. To Him will you cling, and by His Name will you swear.

1 Kings 2:23–24 TLV

Then King Solomon swore by Adonai saying: “May God do so to me and even more, if Adonijah does not pay with his own life for this request! Now therefore, as Adonai lives who has established me and set me on the throne of my father David, and who has made me a house as He promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death this day.”

This says, in effect, ‘May God strike me dead if I do not …’. These are awesome words, which few would utter lightly.

Why do you think Oaths would be important?

Oaths were important for society because they guaranteed a word or action by appealing to God and calling down his curse if it was broken. A man might say on oath that he had not committed a crime, and he had a good chance of being believed, since a false oath meant that the curse would befall him.

Or a man might say, for example, ‘I swear by God that, if you let me have your ox today, I shall pay you for it tomorrow’. If both parties believed in God and his justice—his reliability to punish transgressors—the oath would be good security.

As believers are oaths OK or should we only say “yes or no”?

Matthew 23:16–22 TLV

“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘Whoever swears by the Temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the Temple, he is obligated.’ O fools and blind ones! Which is greater, the gold or the Temple that made the gold holy? And you say, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ O blind ones! Which is greater, the offering or the altar that makes the offering holy? Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and everything on it. And whoever swears by the Temple, swears both by the Temple and by Him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

§3. In Matt. 23:16–22 Yeshua criticizes the Pharisees for distinguishing between an oath ‘by the temple’, which is invalid, and an oath ‘by the gold of the temple’, which is valid; and between an oath ‘by the altar’, invalid, and an oath ‘by the gift on the altar’, valid.

Some teachers apparently distinguished between:

Swearing -> by the Temple not legally binding.

Swearing -> by the gold of the Temple binding.

Swearing -> by the altar not binding.

Swearing -> by the offering (korban) on the altar binding.

Yeshua is saying that all these oaths are of equal seriousness, and that they are actually oaths taken in the name of God himself. Look at the last line verse where Yeshua summarizes:

altar -> everything on it

Temple -> God who dwells there

heaven -> God's throne -> God Himself

Notice that this is an arguemnt of source. Yeshua foucses in on where each of the things derive their sanctity. Ultimately they all derive sanctity from God’s name. If the source is holy all things derivitive of it are holy.

Yeshua sees all of those formulations as binding oaths.

Matthew 5:33–37 NASB95

“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.

This is of course mat 5 where the context is that Yeshua didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. When Yeshua says ‘fulfill’ it, he doesn’t mean just prophetically, he means practically. He came to obey it. What does obeying the Torah look like? That is what the beatitudes are about.

The pharisees and scribes were guilty of disobeying and Yeshua was there to teach how to obey. And as you read he doesn’t say ‘it is written’, rather he says ‘you have heard it said’. Yeshua is dealing with the beliefs and interpretations that surrounded the Torah. in other words he is directly addressing the teachings and interpretations that were attached to the the Torah.

so again in v 33 the topic of vows come up - and Yeshua’s addressing the common teaching surrounding vows. the common teaching was that depending on the language of the one making a vow it could be binding or non binding. Yeshua is saying all of those formulas don’t matter, and in fact, an oath itself - invoking God’s name - is a sign of our evil.

In my opinion, Yeshua is not syaing it is wrong to make an oath invoking God’s name. His point is that any oath one makes, regardless of the formulas ciruclating, is dervied from God’s holy name and subject to the curse. You can’t swear by something that belongs to God and use it to escape the sanctity of God’s name attached to it. Even your hair is known and owned by God.

The reason one makes an oath in God’s name is because community members are untrustworthy with a simple yes or no, and require a curse formula. in other words, unless there is a penalty of a curse, man can’t be trusted and so oaths in God’s name were required. Yeshua intensifies it and says we should be a people that recognizes a failure of our ‘yes and no’ as equally subject to a curse. All speech is subject to a curse, the court, and judgement of heaven!

What’s happening here?

Mark 7:9–13 NASB95

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Korban means an offering dedicated to God.

So, if something is dedicated to God it cannot be given to someone else.

What was happening is that people would use the word Korban to designate by vow something to God and thereby restrict others from having it. Simply declaring it as korban was enough to move it into the status of an offering dedicated to God.

In this case a man has made what was to be for his parents a korban to God, making it sanctified to God and so unavailable to the parents.

Yeshua thinks the man’s vows are invalid.

Pharisees legal tradition would have validated the vow and now allowed the man to do anything for his parents.

Why does Yeshua think it is invalid? It’s very interesting that Yeshua says ‘he who speaks evil of father or mother…’ because what the man has done is ‘speak’ to vow a korban to God, but in his declaration of korban that is at the same time an evil speech against his parents - because it leaves them without care and honour.

In other words, the very speech he uses to dedicate an offering to God becomes the very speech that is evil toward his parents and worthy of death.

In the pharisaic legal tradition, using the specific word korban meant it was a binding offering to God and so had to be kept, which mean the Word of God was not kept.

What we also need to learn is that some of these stories and interactions we read about there is a lot of complex legal discussion behind the scenes. Here is an example from the Mishnah.

If a man saw others eating [his] figs and said, ‘May they be Korban to you!’ and they were found to be his father and brothers and others with them, the School of Shammai say: For them the vow is not binding, but for the others with them it is binding. And the School of Hillel say: the vow is binding for neither of them. (Nedarim 3.2)

A man saw some people eating what he thought were strangers eating his figs. He said, "Those figs are forbidden to you as if they were dedicated to God (korban)!" Later, he discovered that the people included his father and his brothers, along with some other people.

The School of Shammai ruled:

The vow does NOT apply to his father and brothers, because he never intended to include them.

But it DOES still apply to the other people who were there.

The School of Hillel ruled:

Since the vow was made under a mistaken assumption, the entire vow is invalid.

Therefore, it does NOT apply to anyone.

In this case the question is about intention. Not the exact situation in mark 7 because the intention of the man is specifically to avoid giving to his parents. So because the man used the word Korban and his intention was clear, the vow would have been binding and the paretns wouldn’t have received anything. Yeshua criticised that reasoning because it violates the point of the command to honour the parents.

It is very interesting where this discussion is inserted in mark 7. it is right in the middle of the discussion about eating iwth unwashed hands. the ultimate point in the discussion about unwahsed hands is that true defilement comes from the evil intentions and actions of men. So why does this topic about vows and korban fit in here?

i wouldnt fall on my sword, but i think it is because the man was dedicating an offerring - making a korban - that was defiled. He was dedicating to God something that was defiled from his evil intention not to honour his parents. thus the pharisees were permitting through their tradition a defiled offering to God, and yet were criticising the disciples for eating with unwashed hands to ensure the smallest impurities were caught.

The pharisees were straining a gnat and swallowing a camel through their tradition!

How might you understand the third commandment in light of oaths?

Exodus 20:7 TLV

“You must not take the Name of Adonai your God in vain, for Adonai will not hold him guiltless that takes His Name in vain.

In my view this is a broad category to not treat speak of God as worthless or impotent or with disrespect.

It’s not simply banning cusswords using God’s name, though that is part of it. It means in any setting or context one is not allowed to diminish or belittle the God of Israel.

In the context of oaths, to swear by His name was to declare “the curses be on me if I don’t do such and such”. To treat something as vain was to consider it worthles. God is saying that we should not treat His name as impotent or worthless when we invoke it.

You recall the story of the man in the camp who had an Israelite mother and Egyptian father, he fought with a community member, and then he blasphemed the name and cursed.

Leviticus 24:11 TLV

The Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name, and cursed, so they brought him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

The hebrew word for blaspheme here is nakav.

It appears to have a base meaning of pinpoint.

This would be a word used for piercing something - a nose, ear, etc.

In numbers 1 the Lord told Moses to take a census of the people and then God selects heads of each tribe and at the conclusion of naming the individuals it says in verse 17 that these were the ones “designated by name”. That word designated is our word blaspheme.

So, in this context it means to pinpoint a recognized leader in the community. This egyptian pinpointed God’s name not for honour, but for a curse.

By the time of Yeshua, pronouncing the tegragrammoton was treated as only served for the temple context by the priests.