Who’s in Charge?
So, too, if, while in her husband’s household, she makes a vow or imposes an obligation on herself by oath, and her husband learns of it, yet offers no objection – thus failing to restrain her – all her vows shall stand and all her self-imposed obligations shall stand. But if her husband does annul them on the day he finds out, then nothing that has crossed her lips shall stand, . . . Numbers 30:11-13 JPS
Does annul them – In other contexts, I have argued that not only are women equal before YHWH, they are also specifically designed under covenant relationship to act as guides for their husbands. Far from being the subservient members of the marriage, they are intended to act as the directors, the boundary-setters and the relationship managers. But now we come to this passage. The conditions outlined in Numbers 30 involving vows and oaths that women made might appear as if the father or the husband has universal power to overturn the decisions made by a daughter or a wife. Suddenly it looks like the man is the head of the household no matter what. What happened to equality? What happened to the role of the ‘ezer kenegdo?
Before we import these regulations into our cultural view of authority, let’s think about the situation among the Israelites in the 16th century BCE. There is little doubt that the dominant social structure of Egypt was based on male supremacy. In fact, this motif was so strong that the Daughter of Pharaoh (that’s her name, not only her position) ruled for sixty years after the death of her father while dressing as a man. When Israelite slaves came out of Egypt, this is the social structure they knew. Not only did they know it as part of the pagan culture of Egypt, patriarchal hierarchy was also part of their culture. Men were in charge of the community.
Of course, that does not mean women did not take on these roles (cf. Deborah), but it does mean that for the most part men were responsible for the smooth operation of the community at large. If this is obviously true, if it is de rigueur, then why do we need explicit instructions to enforce it when it comes to women’s vows? Maybe what is happening here is not about social hierarchy at all. Maybe it is about protection.
If no one spits on the walls, I don’t need a sign saying “Don’t spit on the wall!” I only need the sign if the action is occurring and I want to prohibit it. The same applies to this situation. I only need a regulation concerning annulment of a vow if something unsuitable is happening. What could that be? Put yourself in the place of an Israelite family recently removed from Egypt. Imagine that a woman makes a vow that might have unforeseen detrimental consequences to the family. For example, suppose she vows that she will finish making a garment for her children no matter how long it takes. But now it is approaching Shabbat. She needs to stop working, but if she does so, she will break the vow. What can she do? If she breaks the vow, she sins. If she does not break the vow, she sins. How is she to be protected? If her father or her husband hears about this vow, he might anticipate such compromising consequences. Therefore, he has the option of annulling the vow and protecting her from stress. Of course, you will notice that he needs to act immediately upon hearing it. If he waits, he tacitly endorses the vow and if the vow later turns out to be harmful, and the woman repeals her vow, God will forgive her (automatically) but He will not automatically forgive the man. With this explanation, we see that annulment of vows is not an endorsement of a male hierarchy. It is rather a means to protect the people within the family from unanticipated errors in judgment. Annulment means taking on the responsibility and the consequences of the vow. Do you think Peter might have remembered this passage when he suggested the husband needs to protect his wife? In my opinion, there is far less emphasis on hierarchical authority here than there is on shielding and preserving others. Maybe that’s why the Hebrew verb is parar, to break or frustrate. Annulment is not without consequence. The husband or the father must break the promise in order to protect, and breaking a promise always has consequences.
Of course, there is a contemporary application of this very ancient principle. Husbands, are you ready to step into the promises made by your wives and take those burdens upon yourself in order to protect her? Fathers, would you do the same for your daughters? Women, will you recognize that your husband or your father is acting on your behalf?
Topical Index: vow, oath, women, annul, parar, Numbers 30:11-13
All the more important to never make an important decision or say or promiss something important (even in everyday life) without consulting each (the) other and first think about it together, husband AND wife!
If there is equality between men and women why is there no protection provision in this regard for men? A man could easily make a vow that would harm the family.
–If there is equality between men and women why is there no protection provision in this regard for men? A man could easily make a vow that would harm the family.–
Robin, if a man (any man) were to make a vow that would harm the family, would he be doing the will of G-d? Does it please G-d for (any) man to harm the family? Would this bring the smile or approval of our Father? I have no problem in giving an answer to this. Absolutely not! Who established the family? lol!- The family was His design! Brothers and sisters..how wonderful, -what a blessing it is for us to be part of the family of G-d! Amein!
So, Carl, if there is equality with men what is the difference between a man or a woman not doing God’s will. Why is the woman able to be released from the potentially destructive oath and not the man? A direct answer will do, please.
–So, Carl, if there is equality with men what is the difference between a man or a woman not doing God’s will. Why is the woman able to be released from the potentially destructive oath and not the man? A direct answer will do, please.–
Does the Husband have authority to annul?
Does the Son of man have authority to forgive, in totality (our) sins? -Yes, -past, present and future..
(John 8:1-11)
Does a Father (or Mother) rejoice over disobedient children?
What do the scriptures say concerning our “oaths?” (Matthew 5:34-37)
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. (Revelation 19.7 And it was given unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. (Revelation 19.8)
Once again..- Who is the Lamb? (and who is this bride?)
We (you and I) are (honestly) Ruth. He is our Kinsman-Redeemer, our Boaz. We are united in holy blood-covenant union with Yeshua HaMashiach, the LORD Jesus (who is the) Christ.
The principle of “headship” or chain of command has clearly been revealed unto us. Yeshua, the Second Adam, the Son of Man during His short stay on the very planet He created always acted under the authority of the Father. Why? To show us, to demonstrate to us- how it’s done. We too, everyone of us, are under authority, for He has said, -“without Me or apart from Me (that is, Christ) we can do nothing.” (John 15.5) We must, we must, abide in Him. Our prayers, must be in His name and have His seal of approval. If we are to be His ambassadors, His representatives, His disciples, His children in this world, we must live under the authority of our Father. Christ is the Head. Number ONE. LORD of all. If He is not LORD of all- He is not LORD at all. There is no way to say- “No,LORD.” This is impossible. Either He is or He is not. He is large and He is in charge. Far more than you or I could possibly know. No doubt, -it is so. Need more proof? No, we need to make a choice to “follow Him” and do what He says to do. His mother Mary said unto the servants (that’s us folks!) -“whatever He says unto you- do it.” (John 2.5) G-d’s directions/laws,commandments/imperatives are clearly revealed to all His children in His Book of Instructions Before Leaving Earth. “Serve (avad) the LORD (ADONAI) with gladness.” Do we? “Come before His presence with singing..” – Do we?
Love your wives as Christ loved the “ecclessia” (may we say “Bride?”) and gave Himself for her. (Remember the cross?) – Do we? What manner of love is this? Oh, I do hope you know the answer to this one.. He loved her (and loves her) sacrificially, intensely, immensely, intimately. Is this (husbands) how we love our wives? And how does Yeshua treat His bride today? Softly and tenderly, a gentleman par excellence, kind, compassionate and caring.. Husbands? -Are we listening? Wives, would you desire a husband such as this?
“It is written:”
Submit to one another in fear of the Messiah. Wives should submit to their husbands as they do to the Lord; because the husband is head of the wife, just as the Messiah, as Head of the Messianic Community, is Himself the one who keeps the body safe. As the Messianic Community submits to the Messiah, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. As for husbands, love your wives, just as the Messiah loved the Messianic Community, indeed, gave Himself up on its (her) behalf, in order to set it apart for G-d, making it clean through immersion in the mikveh, so to speak, in order to present the Messianic Community to Himself as a bride to be proud of, without a spot, wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without defect. This is how husbands ought to love their wives – like their own bodies; for the man who loves his wife is loving himself. Why, no one ever hated his own flesh! On the contrary, he feeds it well and takes care of it, just as the Messiah does the Messianic Community, because we are parts of His Body. “Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and remain with his wife, and the two will become one.” There is profound truth hidden here, which I say concerns the Messiah and the Messianic Community. However, the text also applies to each of you individually: let each man love his wife as he does himself, and see that the wife respects her husband.
Once again.. we are “the wife.” We are Ruth. We should respect our Husband. Yes,- He is the Husband, the head of the body, who is the bride of Christ. My you’re looking beautifully radiant today sweetheart! -Have I told you lately that I love you?
We are in blood-covenant union with our Kinsman Redeemer and have been bought with a price and sealed with the Ruach HaKodesh, the very Breath of G-d, the glorious gift of the ever present Ezer Kenegdo, guiding us, guarding us, empowering and enabling us to do that which is pleasing in the sight of our Abba. We today are the children of YHWH, and are His body, His hands, His feet, His sons, servants, stewards during our temporal stay here on this green planet. But there is coming a day when we will party. There is a marriage supper that will happen and Christ will reveal Himself to the Bride (that’s us!) in a heavenly honeymoon that will only last forever.
Do we have reason to rejoice? Are these things true? -(just the facts m’am..) lol!- Amein! Read it for yourself- it’s in His book.
While there is no debate about the headship of Yeshua, many English translations mistakenly affirm the idea that the husband in the “head” (in the sense of authority) over the wife. This is simply not sustainable as good exegesis. See my book and Belezikian’s and others. Furthermore, for wives to “submit” has nothing to do with authority. Authority is always granted, not inherent. This is true even of Yeshua. So, the wife retains the power when she submits. The husband has no control over a wife without her permission. And submission is always mutual (notice that the verb must be supplied since it is absent in the Greek text in Ephesians). Our historical misunderstanding perpetrated by a catholic hierarchy has lead to this heresy. It’s time to read the text correctly and stop with the “man is the head of the home” nonsense.
The proof is in the pudding – if we truly lived the Truth of the Ezer Kenegdo – there would not be as many divorces because men would understand women’s position in their lives & what it is meant to be & therefore the mindset of the world would be different – instead of irreconcilable differences… just my humble feelings/thinkings (imagining what it would be like)…
jan
Skip, if you have time, I would appreciate your response to my question. Thanks.
I wish I could give you an answer that would satisfy, but I can’t. This is all the text says. This is all we are given. In that culture, the emphasis falls on protection of the woman, not the man. If there is an answer, it would come from speculation based on the text. But since we have only what the text reveals for these circumstances, we are left without a sufficient, direct answer. Certainly the community had plenty of checks and balances, but there is nothing here that says why this applies only to the oaths of women.
I have often wondered why Yeshua said, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3.20)
This is one of G-d’s wonders to me, that He would wait for and want my permission to cross the threshold and enter in. Absolutely amazing. G-d is asking for my permission. It is my choice to enter into this relationship. Love, dear friends, is never forced. It is always first and foremost- a choice, a voluntary choice. I must choose to say “yes, -let’s do this..”. G-d is the Initiator (He started this relationship) and we are the Responders. We love Him because He first loved us. He sought me and He bought me with His redeeming blood. It is indeed.. a wonder. Amazing love- how can this be? That Thou, my G-d would die for me.. “This is love: not that we loved G-d, but that He loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice (a propitiation) for our sins.” (1 John 4.10)
Our (collective) problem (as husbands) is -we do not love our wives as Christ loved the church. Ask your wife, (seriously..) “Honey, if I loved you with the very same love Christ demonstrated toward us (His bride) would you then respect me? For my friends, also know this “-authority is given, but respect is earned.” Would, husbands, our wives respect us if we loved them with Christ-like love? And do we “give ourselves” unreservedly, whole-heartedly, singularly devotedly to them, as He gave Himself for each of us?
Why is marriage (according to scripture) a good thing? Why are we to be the husbands of one wife, till death do us part? Because we are living parables of another Marriage- our (covenant) marriage to Christ Himself. May we be dead-honest and “pop” the question? -Do I, or do I not today, in this very moment know I belong (in all entirety) to Him? Intimate, infinite, human, yet divine, may we (with His permission!) say it, know it, show it- we belong to Him. I am my Beloved’s and He is mine! Dear friends (and family).. -“it is so.”
“Headship” is not lordship. We are not (I repeat) not- ‘little lord haha’ over our wives. Is this the way Christ loves the church? Is He a harsh husband to us? Is He? No, no, and no- He is not. For the LORD is good, all the time, and to everyone. Is He or is He not? A wise husband listens to the counsel of the Ezer, our help, our comfort, our strength. Do we “own” our wives? Not hardly. We live in mutual submission- one to another. I listen to her-she listens to me, we both listen to Him. It takes three to tango. “Serve one another in love.” Love is voluntary (selfless) submission to one another or the other. It is “other love.” It is to love someone other than, greater than myself. As we both (she and I) submit to our Savior (in all things and in every place) love blossoms and grows,-daily.
One of the first words I learned as a child (other than McDonald’s) was “mine.” I grew up thinking (erroneously) I was the center of the (then known) universe. This type of thinking (which many people still to this day, practice) is self-centered or eccentric or off-center. There are many self-centered people wandering the streets of our cities today. How many of them know Christ? Not know about Him- know Him? The question I hear many times is “what’s in it for me?” How will this relationship, business deal, benefit good ol’ King Carl? (Please know- Carl is not king!-lol!- Someone Else is!) and we (all) hopefully, by this time, know, realize and recognize, “my G-d is King.” King of righteousness. King of peace.
I now live under His authority, for I am His and He is mine. He does not and will not operate in my life or in your life without our permission, for love (once again..) is a voluntary choice. Love is not love, if it is forced. Amen? G-d never, (never) forces Himself upon us. The choice is (ever) ours.
What did G-d say to Abraham? Do what I say or “else”? No, (remember?) -He said.. Abraham.. “please..” Please (na) do what I ask.. How many times have I said to my son, how many times have you said to your son?- “please.. do as I ask you to do..” Why? because “Father, (our Father) knows best..”
When we first discovered this passage we were fairly new in messiah. At about the same time we also discovered Mt 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
We realized that careless resolutions were hindering our ability to be ehad. We didn’t know any better so we just decided to obey God’s word. Over a period of weeks as Pam remembered anything she had said or resolved in her heart inadvertently, she would bring it to me.
As she began to confess even her unspoken decisions to act in certain ways and I disavowed them, our life was freed up in miraculous unexplainable ways. We have pointed this out to many other couples since then with the same results.
One pair in particular had been separated in the same house for years. We met her at a retreat. She had been severely abused before their marriage and had said things to herself like I will never allow ____ to happen again. She had never spoken these things to her husband before.
When we pointed out to her that she was keeping them apart with these “vows”, she was broken hearted over what she had done and called him to come join her. They went straight to her room when he got there and spent the night together her confessing, and him disavowing. They emerged late the next day arm in arm their marriage literally a new creation never to return again to it’s original state.
When the wife makes decisions that would harden her husbands heart, he ceases to cling to her even though he doesn’t know that this is what she has done. This may not be THE correct application for these passages but we have found it enormously useful. Praise YAH!
This is not a matter of who’s in charge. It’s a question of will both legs walk in the same direction?
Carl and Skip, In Matt 5:33-37 Yeshua forbids making any oaths for everyone. It seems that Bushnell may have made an astute observation in Genesis about only Adam being expelled from the garden for intentionally missing the mark whereas Chava didn’t miss the mark because she didn’t intentionally miss any mark.
After YHWH stated the consequences, she turned toward Adam voluntarily away from paradise in obedience to YHWH to carry out her Ezer Kenegdo roll. She did this even though Yah had described what would happen. This was a sacrificial move on her part to help the Adam, the intentionally disobedient one. I’m sure she realized that she had indadvertedly been his stumbling block.
May I suggest that maybe the Scriptures treat women differently and their firstborn do not need to be redeemed because of what happened in the garden. It was only after Yeshua corrected things were we are again reinstated with equal responsibilities if we are born from above and walk in the Spirit.
Please show me where 1st born women need to be redeemed. Thanks.
Look at Numbers 18. Notice that verse 15 says “every first issue” gender unspecified. It goes on the say that you shall redeem the first born of man, but it does not say only males. Furthermore, you will notice several instances in this chapter where both sons and daughters are included in the rituals.
Skip,
Having taken a good look at Numbers 18 as well as Numbers 3. From my study, I believe it indicates only 1st born males are to be redeemed. I don’t see how a case for female 1st born redemption can be made simply because daughters of of Aaron and everyone who is clean in his house are also included in the eating of the offerings mentioned. Clearly, Numbers 3 states that only male 1st born must be redeemed. I’d say the evidence points to only male 1st born redemption.
Yes, I see that this does not parallel the Numbers 30 oath.
Is there anymore insight into this Oath/Vow section?
Thank you.
There are some things that stand out to me about this text. This chapter has often been used to teach male headship but there are limitations to the husband’s authority. He is limited to vows and oaths only and this does not extend to other areas of decision making in the marriage.
(1) Here is what the text does NOT say. That a husband may make or enjoin a vow of his own upon his wife.
(2) The wife does not have to ask prior permission from the husband to make the vow to begin with. She is free to initiate it on her own, and it is only upon his hearing it that he binds or looses her.
(3) There are four other pairs outside of husband and wife. A man and the vow he takes himself, the father and daughter, a widow, and a divorced woman. While the husband has the right to void all of his wife’s vows, the text highlights a certain type of negative oath that is different from all the other pairs mentioned.
(4) There is a restriction in the father and daughter pair. This restriction is limited to a daughter *in her youth* this is repeated two times once in 30:3 and the second time in 30:16. “These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, …, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.” Any of the widow or divorced woman’s vows are self-binding as she does not fall back under her father’s jurisdiction. This youth clause of a father’s right to nullify his daughter’s vow may have been preservatory in nature so that any vows she made did not hinder her chances at marriage in the future.
(5) The language encompassing the wife’s vows is slightly different. It uses the very specific words “by a rash utterance from her lips.” The word origin is from the same as Bata which means to speak rashly or thoughtlessly. Only the wife’s vow is defined by these criteria out of all the other pairs and this is repeated twice in 30:6, 30:8. A rash utterance is such a serious offense, that Leviticus 5:4 condemns any person who makes an oath by speaking rashly with their lips, whether they intended it for evil or good. A sin offering was required to remedy it. Notice that Lev 5:4, Num 30:6, and 30:8 use the exact same words “makes an oath by rash utterance from lips.” See also Psalm 106:33.
(6) Finally, it all sums up to a very interesting word choice in Numbers 30:13. These are the types of vows or oaths that *Afflict* a wife’s soul. The word afflict has the primary definition of defile, oppression, mistreat, be brought down, etc. Nowhere else is this word “afflict” used in the other pairs who took vows in the chapter.
“Every vow and every sworn agreement to afflict her soul her husband may confirm it or her husband may make it void.”
So the text uniquely addresses the type of vows or oath-taking by the wife that have negative connotations and damaging long term consequences for her. The kind that were spoken out of thoughtless rash utterances and put affliction upon her soul. Given this criteria, I think the point of authorizing the husband to nullify her vows and oaths was a protective measure.
(7) I want to really stress and point out that this whole chapter in Numbers 30 is about vows and oaths that bind and not about decision making in everyday life. The husband’s veto power was limited to oaths only, and this had nothing to do with banning a wife from having leadership in the family or cutting her out of decision making in the marriage. It was not a restriction on her from making her own personal decisions in any other area of life outside of binding oaths made before God. It was not an invitation by God for the husband to exercise authority over his wife in any other area of their marriage.
(8) Then, of course, there is always that Woman in history who breaks all the rules. Consider how smart Hannah was who uttered her oath to God silently for neither her husband nor Eli the priest to hear and how God himself authorized her vow by sealing it with the son she asked for.
When it came to the age for the dedication of Samuel, her husband even told her to do what she deemed best and encouraged her to make good on her vow to the Lord. We can see from this example of how good Hannah’s husband treated her that the point of the vow thing in Numbers 30 was not meant to enforce a husband over wife hierarchy for the sake of power, rather it was a protective measure.