Accountability For Vows And Pledges In Numbers

[Phanta]

What's up with Numbers Chapter 30?

 

Num 30:1 Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the people of Israel, saying, "This is what the LORD has commanded.

Num 30:2 If a man vows a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

Num 30:3 "If a woman vows a vow to the LORD and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father's house in her youth,

Num 30:4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.

Num 30:5 But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

Num 30:6 "If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,

Num 30:7 and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.

Num 30:8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound herself. And the LORD will forgive her.

Num 30:9 (But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.)

Num 30:10 And if she vowed in her husband's house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,

Num 30:11 and her husband heard of it and said nothing to her and did not oppose her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.

Num 30:12 But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.

Num 30:13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, [fn] or her husband may make void.

Num 30:14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows or all her pledges that are upon her. He has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.

Num 30:15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."

Num 30:16 These are the statutes that the LORD commanded Moses about a man and his wife and about a father and his daughter while she is in her youth within her father's house.

 

My question to people who are followers of this book:

 

Why is a woman less responsible for her vows than a man? Why is she potentially excused for "thoughtless utterances", and he is not? Why is she accountable to him, but not he to her?

 

Thank you.

 

Phanta

[R. S. Martin]

Because, my dear Phanta, women are inferior half-humans not fit for adult responsibility. Surely you know that, having been at one time or another in your life been exposed to conservative patriarchal society. A society in which kings can give their daughters in payment to their generals without asking the daughters if they are willing, as did King David, can have pretty much everything else, too, that "keeps women in their place."

 

Sorry, but that's the best answer I know. It's enough to make your blood boil, isn't it. But it's not worth losing one's sanity over.

[Phanta]

Because, my dear Phanta, women are inferior half-humans not fit for adult responsibility. Surely you know that, having been at one time or another in your life been exposed to conservative patriarchal society. A society in which kings can give their daughters in payment to their generals without asking the daughters if they are willing, as did King David, can have pretty much everything else, too, that "keeps women in their place."

 

Sorry, but that's the best answer I know. It's enough to make your blood boil, isn't it. But it's not worth losing one's sanity over.

 

I didn't know that, about David. I'll have to read about that. Thanks for replying, Ruby.

 

Any believers want to take a stab?

 

Phanta

[rayskidude]

Why is a woman less responsible for her vows than a man? Why is she potentially excused for "thoughtless utterances", and he is not? Why is she accountable to him, but not he to her?

Thank you.

Phanta

 

Phanta, no doubt God has chosen men as leaders and given them ultimate responsibility in the home and in the social interactions of His people, and God has designated women as followers, being subject to male leadership. Beyond God's sovereign choice, there may be some practical reasons.

 

Potential reasons;

 

1. Maybe the wife/daughter vowed something that cost far more than she realized. The man knows the family resources better and nixes the vow, as unaffordable.

 

Suppose my teen-age daughter or wife comes home, having bought a car. I know that model has serious problems at 60,000 miles - and hers has 75,000 miles - and she paid too much $$ for it. Thankfully, most states allow 3 days to reverse such a purchase. So I nix the deal. Am I an over-bearing father? Or am I acting as a loving Dad?

 

2. The daughter vows to marry a man outside the tribe. In a patriarchal society, land and children belong to the tribe. This would be especially true for a Dad who only has daughters. Ergo, maybe Dad needs to nix that vow as unacceptable to the family and tribe.

 

A source of concern for many Dads is the man who will marry their daughters. Am I wrong to interrogate and warn against, and even do all that I can legally to prevent my daughter from marrying a loser? A selfish jerk (whom she is convinced she can change)? And in the midst of her emotions and his "sweet words", she cannot see this?

 

Example - marrying a man from another culture quite different from our own. Potential problems beyond marrying someone from our own? Sure. But this does not mean that this marriage is wrong - it's just that the daughter needs to realize the added problems and pressures that will be part of their lives. And in discussions, the Dad may determine that these issues have been ignored, and nixes the deal.

 

Now s'pose the prospective husband - culture doesn't matter - gets extremely angry. Demands the women run away with him. Really - is this wise? Has this man not revealed his selfishness? Unwilling to win over her parents, as he has won over the girl's heart, he simply responds in selfish anger and shows himself to be self-willed. Now this can be communicated to the girl as 'romantic eloping' >> but her family is now offended. There are huge barriers to any future family fellowship. The Dad (and Mom) sees into the future, knows what is likely to occur - and nixes the deal.

 

Just some brief thoughts.

 

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Timothy 2:11–15). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Keep in mind, that men often abdicate their leadership - through laziness. Ergo, God reminds them of their responsibility - they need to learn diligence and selfless love.

And women often seek leadership - as they selflessly want to care for the home, so they need to learn humility and trust in God.

[Leinad89]

Ray:

 

All the things the girl could have done in your parables, a boy could very much have done as well. I see what you're saying about how she could make mistakes regarding things the father or husband has more knowledge of (and therefore help her and prevent a stupid choice), yet this is not gender specific. Families can have wives in charge of the household economy as well, so using stereotypical woman-stuff and man-stuff, really doesn't work here.

A male can for instance make just as silly mistakes and thoughtless utterances as a woman can. If a man buys a couch from a manufacturer that the wife knows has issues (assuming she's a stereotypical interior-design-wife, lol), it would be like the car-parable of yours.

 

Ray, what makes a man better than a woman/woman better than a man (assuming you still stand by the fact that God views them differently in terms of following his word)?

 

-Daniel

[rayskidude]

Ray, what makes a man better than a woman/woman better than a man (assuming you still stand by the fact that God views them differently in terms of following his word)?

Daniel

 

Daniel, there is no intrinsic or inherent superiority of men over women, just a designation as man in authority and woman as subject to his leadership. They are equal in essence, both made in God's image & likeness.

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

 

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

 

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion...” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Genesis 1:26–31). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

This same principle is confirmed in the NT by Paul.

 

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God... 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Corinthians 11:2–12). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Just as within the Triune Godhead the Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, co-powerful; so also man and woman are equal. But the Son was subject to the Father, voluntarily. The Father sent the Son, but the Son took on humanity by His own will. So, in the relationship of men and women, God has designated men as leaders and women as subject to their leadership. Neither are independent, neither are superior.

 

I do believe that God has gifted men and women differently - but this does not render one superior over another. Given the sinful & dangerous & confrontational state of the world; as men are stronger, they are better at protection & provision. Women are more gifted in nurturing and managing. Nether is superior - they are both equally necessary. Difference does not necessitate superiority, but it recognizes gifts, talents, abilities, etc.

 

John Piper and Wayne Grudem have authored/edited a tome entitled; Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I recommend this book.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Daniel, there is no intrinsic or inherent superiority of men over women, just a designation as man in authority and woman as subject to his leadership. They are equal in essence, both made in God's image & likeness.

 

 

I am pretty sure the "separate but equal" thing has already been tried in the U.S. with disastrous results.

[ShackledNoMore]

Because, my dear Phanta, women are inferior half-humans not fit for adult responsibility.

Any believers want to take a stab?

Phanta, no doubt God has chosen men as leaders and given them ultimate responsibility in the home and in the social interactions of His people, and God has designated women as followers, being subject to male leadership.

This is really more or less the same answer, just packaged a little differently with an attempted more palatable spin from the xian perspective. It is, in fact, the answer to this question.

 

It is sad, because the mindset that women are less worthy than men is detestable.

 

Suppose my teen-age daughter or wife comes home, having bought a car. I know that model has serious problems at 60,000 miles - and hers has 75,000 miles - and she paid too much $$ for it. Thankfully, most states allow 3 days to reverse such a purchase. So I nix the deal. Am I an over-bearing father? Or am I acting as a loving Dad?

Would the answer be different depending on whether it was your daughter or son that bought the car? Or whether it was the husband who vetoed the wife's purchase or the wife who vetoed the husband's purchase? For the christian god it would be.

[florduh]

Men have done a fine job of keeping the world safe and peaceful. God sure put the right gender in charge of everything. If women were running things we might have turmoil, wars and the threat of nuclear annihilation.

[Leinad89]

I'm starting to see what the "dodging questions" is all about...

[rayskidude]

 

Daniel, there is no intrinsic or inherent superiority of men over women, just a designation as man in authority and woman as subject to his leadership. They are equal in essence, both made in God's image & likeness.

 

 

I am pretty sure the "separate but equal" thing has already been tried in the U.S. with disastrous results.

 

Who said 'separate but equal' - that's you're incorrect inference. Different and equal is the Biblical truth.

 

And as those Frenchies say, "Viva la Difference!"

[rayskidude]

It is sad, because the mindset that women are less worthy than men is detestable.

 

Who has espoused this mindset?

 

Suppose my teen-age daughter or wife comes home, having bought a car. I know that model has serious problems at 60,000 miles - and hers has 75,000 miles - and she paid too much $$ for it. Thankfully, most states allow 3 days to reverse such a purchase. So I nix the deal. Am I an over-bearing father? Or am I acting as a loving Dad?

 

Would the answer be different depending on whether it was your daughter or son that bought the car? Or whether it was the husband who vetoed the wife's purchase or the wife who vetoed the husband's purchase? For the christian god it would be.

 

 

Does Scripture prohibit a father from nixing a vow made by his son living at home?

[rayskidude]

Men have done a fine job of keeping the world safe and peaceful. God sure put the right gender in charge of everything. If women were running things we might have turmoil, wars and the threat of nuclear annihilation.

 

When's the last time you checked the history of queens and other female leaders?

 

Bloody Mary's short reign in England; i believed she martyred over 375 evangelical Christians. Genghis Khan's mother, after he died, was ruthless - and she was executed in a bloodless coup. Jezebel, of Biblical fame. Catherine the Great of Russia. Marie Antoinette. Winny Mandela.

 

I agree that men are more aggressive and combative than women, more likely to jump into war quicker and with less provocation- and the younger the guy, the more apt to fight first and talk later.

 

But women who rise to power are also eager to protect their dominion by any means they deem necessary.

 

Who was it that said; "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."???

[Phanta]

Why is a woman less responsible for her vows than a man? Why is she potentially excused for "thoughtless utterances", and he is not? Why is she accountable to him, but not he to her?

Thank you.

Phanta

 

Phanta, no doubt God has chosen men as leaders and given them ultimate responsibility in the home and in the social interactions of His people, and God has designated women as followers, being subject to male leadership. Beyond God's sovereign choice, there may be some practical reasons.

 

Potential reasons;

 

1. Maybe the wife/daughter vowed something that cost far more than she realized. The man knows the family resources better and nixes the vow, as unaffordable.

 

Suppose my teen-age daughter or wife comes home, having bought a car. I know that model has serious problems at 60,000 miles - and hers has 75,000 miles - and she paid too much $$ for it. Thankfully, most states allow 3 days to reverse such a purchase. So I nix the deal. Am I an over-bearing father? Or am I acting as a loving Dad?

 

May she nix the deal when you make a comparable mistake, or are you held to your foolish vow?

 

2. The daughter vows to marry a man outside the tribe. In a patriarchal society, land and children belong to the tribe. This would be especially true for a Dad who only has daughters. Ergo, maybe Dad needs to nix that vow as unacceptable to the family and tribe.

 

In dire times, these rigid controls may have been a better route to tribal survival.

 

A source of concern for many Dads is the man who will marry their daughters. Am I wrong to interrogate and warn against, and even do all that I can legally to prevent my daughter from marrying a loser? A selfish jerk (whom she is convinced she can change)? And in the midst of her emotions and his "sweet words", she cannot see this?

 

It is touching when fathers are concerned for their daughters and offer them guidance. Interrogation and legal action will have consequences for both your daughter's ability to self-determine (perhaps this is not a negative in your eyes as it is in mine) and your relationship with your daughter. For a daughter who wishes to abdicate self-responsibility, there may be less trouble in the short term. Why is it she is foolish to think she can change a loser suitor, and you are wise to think you can change her heart? Or do you mean to advocate merely for total authoritarian control?

 

Example - marrying a man from another culture quite different from our own. Potential problems beyond marrying someone from our own? Sure. But this does not mean that this marriage is wrong - it's just that the daughter needs to realize the added problems and pressures that will be part of their lives. And in discussions, the Dad may determine that these issues have been ignored, and nixes the deal.

 

If the primary purpose of marriage is to tie families/tribes together and procreate, that is functional. It's an interesting anthropological study.

 

Now s'pose the prospective husband - culture doesn't matter - gets extremely angry. Demands the women run away with him. Really - is this wise? Has this man not revealed his selfishness? Unwilling to win over her parents, as he has won over the girl's heart, he simply responds in selfish anger and shows himself to be self-willed. Now this can be communicated to the girl as 'romantic eloping' >> but her family is now offended. There are huge barriers to any future family fellowship. The Dad (and Mom) sees into the future, knows what is likely to occur - and nixes the deal.

 

Perhaps, seeing the rigidity of parents who are un-winable, imperfect, selfish beings, he doesn't get angry and simply elopes with the willing woman. The parents, inflexible and unable to cope with their own anxiety around their daughter's life journey, push her away at a time when they could be available to her if she seeks guidance or aid, thus constructing huge barriers to any future fellowship.

 

Just some brief thoughts.

 

It's interesting.

 

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Timothy 2:11–15). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Keep in mind, that men often abdicate their leadership - through laziness. Ergo, God reminds them of their responsibility - they need to learn diligence and selfless love.

And women often seek leadership - as they selflessly want to care for the home, so they need to learn humility and trust in God.

 

Sure, abdicating self-responsibilty releases us from the burden of freedom. Some men want release from that burden and some women want release from that burden, and so seek an authority. Others are driven to self-responsibilty, to determine and follow their own sense of direction. What you have quoted is a system that keeps women from being self-responsible, but surely kept order at least. For those who fear chaos, that's got to feel good.

 

Phanta

[bdp]

Biblical truth.

 

 

is a contradiction in terms.

[bdp]

Men have done a fine job of keeping the world safe and peaceful. God sure put the right gender in charge of everything. If women were running things we might have turmoil, wars and the threat of nuclear annihilation.

 

When's the last time you checked the history of queens and other female leaders?

 

Bloody Mary's short reign in England; i believed she martyred over 375 evangelical Christians. Genghis Khan's mother, after he died, was ruthless - and she was executed in a bloodless coup. Jezebel, of Biblical fame. Catherine the Great of Russia. Marie Antoinette. Winny Mandela.

 

I agree that men are more aggressive and combative than women, more likely to jump into war quicker and with less provocation- and the younger the guy, the more apt to fight first and talk later.

 

But women who rise to power are also eager to protect their dominion by any means they deem necessary.

 

Who was it that said; "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."???

 

I love it when sarcasm flies a million miles over ray's head - although it could fly at ceiling level and still get over.

[ShackledNoMore]

It is sad, because the mindset that women are less worthy than men is detestable.

 

Who has espoused this mindset?

The authors of the Bible, and the majority of Christians throughout the ages.

 

From the very beginning of Genesis, biblegod created Adam. In one telling of the creation account, he brought all the animals to Adam and when none turned out to be a suitable companion to him, he creates woman, almost as an afterthought. Then it is the woman who corrupts the man by getting him to eat the forbidden fruit.

 

It does not get any better. Throughout the OT, women are seldom equal enough deemed worthy of being named compared to the men. What is the profession of most women in the bible? A harlot. Who is equal enough to be counted in a census? The men. How long is a woman unclean after she bears a daughter? Twice as long as if she had borne a son. Who gets the death penalty for not being a virgin on their wedding night? The woman. When men that biblegod approve of want to appease a lusty crowd, who do they toss out to get raped? Their daughters. Who owns the land? The men. Who is treated as property? Women. Who has the voice politically (not just in the church or in the home)? The men, of course. Who has legal recourse? The men, not the women. Who forfeits not only authority, but even permission to teach? The women. Notice the superior role of men continues through the New Testament, not just the Old Testament.

 

How about in practice? In the spirit of the old time religious values, who was denied the vote in the United States until the 1920s? Women. What was the gender of every US president? Male. Who lacked educational and career opportunities for almost the entire last 2000 years because it wasn't important if they were merely to be subjugated to men? Women. Different but equal?

 

In your own post, you recognize the biblical subjugation of women under men. Where were women ever equal? Where in this difference does equal ever come in under a biblical xian perspective, save for within the personal conclusions of some modern day liberal christians?

 

How can you not see it? If there is a compensatory mechanism to offset the extreme subjugation of women to men in the bible and make women equal, if different, as you contend, I would like you to point it out to me.

 

Suppose my teen-age daughter or wife comes home, having bought a car. I know that model has serious problems at 60,000 miles - and hers has 75,000 miles - and she paid too much $$ for it. Thankfully, most states allow 3 days to reverse such a purchase. So I nix the deal. Am I an over-bearing father? Or am I acting as a loving Dad?

 

Would the answer be different depending on whether it was your daughter or son that bought the car? Or whether it was the husband who vetoed the wife's purchase or the wife who vetoed the husband's purchase? For the christian god it would be.

 

 

Does Scripture prohibit a father from nixing a vow made by his son living at home?

It does not explicitly make any such prohibition that I am aware of, but it certainly address the subject and the idea is clear. Turn in your bibles, if you will, to Numbers, chapter 30, verses 1 - 9.

 

1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

 

3 "When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

 

6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

 

9 "Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.

 

This is the daughter. You notice that it spends half a chapter to surgically hone into the father's veto power over his daughter in great detail with nary a mention about any veto power over a son. All it says is that "When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said." What does it say about spouses? Continue reading versus 10 - 16:

 

10 "If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he must bear the consequences of her wrongdoing."

 

16 These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living at home.

 

Can the wife nullify the husband's vows? Of course not, no matter how stupid they may be. No matter how much more insight she might have into the matter at hand. This is all part of the authority that the bible says biblegod endows to the husband over the wife. This is not equal but different. The bible eventually gets around to the analogy of the man having authority over the wife as christ does the church. It is with spousal relationships that the inequity becomes really glaring, since we're dealing with two adults, not a child that has yet to mature and still needs guidance.

[ShackledNoMore]

Oops, Phanta already posted Numbers 30 in its entirety in the OP seven days ago as the main topic. I guess I'm plunging into early senility. In any case, there ya go: I think that chapter sums it up.

[Phanta]

Oops, Phanta already posted Numbers 30 in its entirety in the OP seven days ago as the main topic. I guess I'm plunging into early senility. In any case, there ya go: I think that chapter sums it up.

 

*laugh* no.... As they say, "Great minds."

 

 

Phanta

[SleeplessGhost]

I also notice it says nothing about a mothers authority over her sons. If a teenage boy buys a car that is crappy, then his mother has no control over whether or not he keeps it.

[Thumbelina]

When Promises Cannot Be Kept

 

 

The daughter of missionary parents had moved back to the United States from India.

 

Now she had a serious boyfriend and was sure they would get married several years in the future, when they had finished their education. In her excitement the girl promised an Indian friend that she would be maid of honor at the wedding. The romance progressed much faster than expected, and the couple married less than a year later. At this point in their lives they had no money at all to fly the friend from India to participate in the wedding. So the bride wrote a letter of deep apology and had to ask another friend to be maid of honor. The Indian girl did not write back and never communicated with her again.

What happens if you make a promise but then discover that you are not able to keep it?

 

 

Such a scenario is a recipe for frustration and hurt feelings. If your promise is to the Lord, the situation is even more serious. Numbers 30 helps people get out of this kind of dilemma.

 

To a modern reader the divine instructions in Numbers 30 could appear sexist. If a man or an independent woman (widowed or divorced) makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath, that person must absolutely keep his or her promise. However, the vow or oath of a young woman dwelling in her father’s house or of a wife living with her husband is subject to the approval of the father or husband on the day he first hears it. If he says nothing at that point, she is bound by her obligation. But if he objects and does not permit her to carry out the vow or oath, it releases her from her promise, and the Lord promises automatically to forgive her. It is only instance of forgiveness by statute in Israelite law.

 

Is the Bible prejudices against women here? The fact that independent women are treated like men indicates that the issue is not simply gender. Rather, it is the social relationship between a woman and her father or husband, who has jurisdiction over her in the area of vows and oaths that could affect him.

 

Israelite society regarded men as responsible for legal matters, including transactions involving property. So if a daughter or wife took a vow or oath regarding transfer of property, including to the Lord, she would likely need her man’s cooperation in order to fulfill her promise. If she put pressure on him to cooperate and he did so grudgingly, there could be resentment in the home. Should he refuse to cooperate, she would not be able to fulfill her vow, and would be guilty of a serious crime. God prevented these problems by releasing women from obligations if their men registered unwillingness to go along with them.

 

“Any vow or any binding oath to deny herself, her husband may allow to stand, or her husband may nullify” (Num 30:13, NRSV). The passage refers to physical self- denial, which could include a vow to abstain from sexual relations for a period of time. Obviously, keeping such a promise would require the husband’s willingness, and he could be resentful if he felt forced into a situation that he did not want. Again. God made a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women. Similarly, the apostle Paul recognized the need for husbands and wives to cooperate in the area of sexuality:

 

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and like-wise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by aggrement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control” (1 Cor. 7: 3-5, NRSV).

 

Two aspects of Numbers 30 are remarkble. First, the Lord could have insisted on His own rights as diety and king by requiring fulfillment of all vows to Him and oaths taken in His name, regardless of consequences to anyone else in the family. But he was more concerned for harmony in Israelite homes than for His own rights.

 

Second, the Lord worked with an ancient society. He did not make the society, but regulated it in order to improve conditions and solve problems. Although He is supremely powerful, He did not engage in social engineering by trying to overthrow the patriarchial way of doing things. In modern times we have seen how destructive social engineering can be. Forcing Russian and Chinese societies into the mold of Communism destroyed the lives of millions of people. Estimates of Chinese deaths under the leadership of Chairman Mao range as high as 75 million. ... Romania ... this beautiful country and its society have not yet fully recovered from the ravages of Communism that ended with a revolution in 1989.

 

As we seek to reach people of various cultures with the message of God’s love, we can learn from His wise and gentle approach. In the process of receiving Him and living according to His principles, others do not need to become exactly like us. Genuine loyalty to the Lord can flourish in a wide variety of cultural contexts.

[Phanta]

When Promises Cannot Be Kept

 

 

The daughter of missionary parents had moved back to the United States from India.

 

Now she had a serious boyfriend and was sure they would get married several years in the future, when they had finished their education. In her excitement the girl promised an Indian friend that she would be maid of honor at the wedding. The romance progressed much faster than expected, and the couple married less than a year later. At this point in their lives they had no money at all to fly the friend from India to participate in the wedding. So the bride wrote a letter of deep apology and had to ask another friend to be maid of honor. The Indian girl did not write back and never communicated with her again.

What happens if you make a promise but then discover that you are not able to keep it?

 

 

Such a scenario is a recipe for frustration and hurt feelings. If your promise is to the Lord, the situation is even more serious. Numbers 30 helps people get out of this kind of dilemma.

 

To a modern reader the divine instructions in Numbers 30 could appear sexist. If a man or an independent woman (widowed or divorced) makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath, that person must absolutely keep his or her promise. However, the vow or oath of a young woman dwelling in her father’s house or of a wife living with her husband is subject to the approval of the father or husband on the day he first hears it. If he says nothing at that point, she is bound by her obligation. But if he objects and does not permit her to carry out the vow or oath, it releases her from her promise, and the Lord promises automatically to forgive her. It is only instance of forgiveness by statute in Israelite law.

 

Is the Bible prejudices against women here? The fact that independent women are treated like men indicates that the issue is not simply gender. Rather, it is the social relationship between a woman and her father or husband, who has jurisdiction over her in the area of vows and oaths that could affect him.

 

Israelite society regarded men as responsible for legal matters, including transactions involving property. So if a daughter or wife took a vow or oath regarding transfer of property, including to the Lord, she would likely need her man’s cooperation in order to fulfill her promise. If she put pressure on him to cooperate and he did so grudgingly, there could be resentment in the home. Should he refuse to cooperate, she would not be able to fulfill her vow, and would be guilty of a serious crime. God prevented these problems by releasing women from obligations if their men registered unwillingness to go along with them.

 

“Any vow or any binding oath to deny herself, her husband may allow to stand, or her husband may nullify” (Num 30:13, NRSV). The passage refers to physical self- denial, which could include a vow to abstain from sexual relations for a period of time. Obviously, keeping such a promise would require the husband’s willingness, and he could be resentful if he felt forced into a situation that he did not want. Again. God made a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women. Similarly, the apostle Paul recognized the need for husbands and wives to cooperate in the area of sexuality:

 

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and like-wise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by aggrement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control” (1 Cor. 7: 3-5, NRSV).

 

Two aspects of Numbers 30 are remarkble. First, the Lord could have insisted on His own rights as diety and king by requiring fulfillment of all vows to Him and oaths taken in His name, regardless of consequences to anyone else in the family. But he was more concerned for harmony in Israelite homes than for His own rights.

 

Second, the Lord worked with an ancient society. He did not make the society, but regulated it in order to improve conditions and solve problems. Although He is supremely powerful, He did not engage in social engineering by trying to overthrow the patriarchial way of doing things. In modern times we have seen how destructive social engineering can be. Forcing Russian and Chinese societies into the mold of Communism destroyed the lives of millions of people. Estimates of Chinese deaths under the leadership of Chairman Mao range as high as 75 million. ... Romania ... this beautiful country and its society have not yet fully recovered from the ravages of Communism that ended with a revolution in 1989.

 

As we seek to reach people of various cultures with the message of God’s love, we can learn from His wise and gentle approach. In the process of receiving Him and living according to His principles, others do not need to become exactly like us. Genuine loyalty to the Lord can flourish in a wide variety of cultural contexts.

 

Who wrote this? Are these your thoughts? Are you able to speak on the ideas here in a reciprocal conversation? I have questions, but am not sure if it is functional to ask them of you or if I should seek out another author. If you aren't the author but feel grounded in discussing what you posted, let me know.

 

Thanks,

Phanta

[ShackledNoMore]

The passage refers to physical self- denial, which could include a vow to abstain from sexual relations for a period of time. Obviously, keeping such a promise would require the husband’s willingness, and he could be resentful if he felt forced into a situation that he did not want. Again. God made a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women. Similarly, the apostle Paul recognized the need for husbands and wives to cooperate in the area of sexuality:

 

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and like-wise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by aggrement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control” (1 Cor. 7: 3-5, NRSV).

I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time, which would not require the husband's willingness, but he could still overrule. Even assuming it referred to sexual abstinence, the OT passage in Numbers and the NT passage in 1st Corinthians are not consistent with each other: In Numbers, there is no reciprocal entitlement to a woman for the sexual favors of her husband. In Numbers, this is a command, in the rare egalitarian passage from 1 Corinthians, it is a concession (according to the next verse). At the end of the chapter, Paul deviates from the OT rules by allowing a widow to remarry whoever she wants, as long as he is xian. Numbers 30 codifies some of the patriarchal rules of bronze age Hebrew culture, 1 Corinthians 7 encourages fidelity for those who can't suffer themselves to live within the framework of Paul's disdain of sexuality. They are not consistent guidelines offered by the same god for our own good.

 

Two aspects of Numbers 30 are remarkble. First, the Lord could have insisted on His own rights as diety and king by requiring fulfillment of all vows to Him and oaths taken in His name, regardless of consequences to anyone else in the family. But he was more concerned for harmony in Israelite homes than for His own rights.

If concern for harmony in Israelite homes is his motive, then how come Jepathat had to murder his own daughter as a burnt offering in Judges 11 because of his vow? Did that promote harmony in his home?

[rayskidude]

At the end of the chapter, Paul deviates from the OT rules by allowing a widow to remarry whoever she wants, as long as he is xian. 1 Corinthians 7 encourages fidelity for those who can't suffer themselves to live within the framework of Paul's disdain of sexuality. They are not consistent guidelines offered by the same god for our own good.

 

What OT rules are you referring to? How do you conclude Paul has a disdain for sexuality?

 

If concern for harmony in Israelite homes is his motive, then how come Jepathat had to murder his own daughter as a burnt offering in Judges 11 because of his vow? Did that promote harmony in his home?

 

Many Biblical scholars - given the context of the girl's gathering with her friends, conclude that Jephthah's daughter was kept a virgin throughout her life, not murdered.

[rayskidude]

Why is it she is foolish to think she can change a loser suitor, and you are wise to think you can change her heart? Or do you mean to advocate merely for total authoritarian control?

 

Authority. Children naturally understand the authority that parents have regarding their children, and good kids take that principle seriously. And convinced of their parents' love - though they disagree now, they understand their parents are acting out of love. So it is mo\re likely that - given time and opportunity - parents can hep their daughter see her error in choice.

 

The husband - does he regard his wife as in authority over him? Will he seriously change his ways because of his wife's influence? Or do men regard themselves as in authority - and they will make changes that they see as vital only when they realize that they change out of love for their wife? But even then, would they not press that in the wife's love for him, she should change her attitude toward his behavior?

 

Who's ideas rule the day? Do they take turns? Do they seek arbitration from professionals? Who's ways are followed when agreement cannot be achieved? Who has the ultimate responsibility?

 

Authority is to be exercised by love and concern. Love being a commitment of my will to the welfare of another. Ergo, God's instruction for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church - giving Himself up for her. Men tend to be selfish, and they take advantage of their wife's desire to please. So God commands men to be motivated primarily by selfless love.

 

This was written to a Greek culture wherein many wives were used for procreation and to manage the household, and the men had mistresses or courtesans for pleasure and relationships. Song of Solomon teaches man's affection to his wife.

 

Malachi denounces the practice of "trophy wives."

 

God's motive is His Glory and Man's welfare.