What is the context?

The next case concerns a woman who marries while already bound by a vow or rash promise. A husband’s silence on hearing it confirms it; his prohibition on that day nullifies it, and the Lord absolves her.

The rule for a widow or divorced woman is different: her vow is binding on her. The passage therefore does not place every woman’s commitment under the same current male decision. It identifies distinct situations and their consequences.

How is this passage commonly understood?

Wesley notes that the widow or divorced woman’s vow remains binding even if she has returned to her father’s home. His explanation highlights the difference between that case and the young daughter’s case. The text’s categories should be retained rather than replaced with a claim that women can never make binding vows.

What is our position?

We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.

Where can I study this further?

No deeper study linked yet.