Today, I am reading and commenting on  Numbers 30-31.

This passage says that when  a man takes a vow or an oath he must fulfill that oath.  However, if a woman does the same her husband, or father if she is not yet married, may nullify her oath.  This seems rather sexist, until one realizes that this merely codifies something which was already true.  In that culture and society, a woman’s husband, or her father if she is not yet married, controlled all of her assets, so he could accept the benefits and agreement she entered and then claim he did not agree to give up whatever assets she had sworn to exchange for that benefit and decline to do so.  This passage declares that as soon as he learned of the agreement, of the vow or oath the woman had sworn, her husband had to reject it and if he did not do so immediately, the vow or oath was binding upon him.  So, while a man could not make an oath binding his wife, a woman could make an oath which would bind her husband, unless he repudiated it as soon as he learned of it.  Of course the most important thing about this passage is that, whichever way you look at this passage (as giving a woman’s husband veto power over her decisions, or as allowing a woman to bind her husband to her oath’s) it does not apply to those under the New Covenant introduced by Jesus’ death and resurrection.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.