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

God tells Moses that his last act as leader of the Israelites will be to take vengeance on the Midianites for what they did at Peor.  This could lead one to think that the writer of this passage mixed things up, because in chapter 25 it says that the men of Israel indulged in sexual immorality with Moabite women.  Although the entire incident ends when Phinehas killed an Israelite man who brought a Midianite woman to his tent.  In addition, in this chapter Moses tells the Israelite commanders that the Midianite women followed Balaam’s advice to entice the Israelites to be unfaithful…and Balaam had been called to the area to curse the Israelites by the king of Moab.  To further complicate matters, Moses’ father-in-law was a priest of Midian and Moses spent 40 years living with him.  However, we get an insight into the situation when we discover that Balaam was killed among the Midianites.  Finally, the passage tells us that the Israelites burned all of the towns where the Midianites had settled as well as their camps.  So, it reads as if some of the Midianites, those that followed the five kings mentioned here, had settled in part of Moab, among the Moabites.

When I started writing this today, I thought writing about this would lead me to some spiritual insight about the passage, but that did not happen.  However, I still feel like I gained something of value from this exercise, even if I did not find a lesson to apply to my life today.

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

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

Reading Moses’ instructions on oaths to the Children of Israel you could think that he was making women second class citizens.  Moses says that if a man takes an oath, he is bound by that oath.  On the other hand, if a woman takes an oath, her father, if she is not yet married, or her husband, if she is married, can negate that oath.  However, that misses an important element of Moses’ instructions here.  First, I want to point out that the woman’s father, or husband, must forbid the oath as soon as he learns of its existence.  If he does not do so immediately, the oath is binding and he must support her in keeping it.  If the woman’s father, or husband, forces her to violate the oath after failing to override it immediately upon learning of it, he bears the consequences of breaking the oath.  It is important to bear in mind that, in that society, a father or husband had the ability to prevent a woman from keeping most of the oaths which she might make.  Further, Moses instructed that  a woman who was widowed or divorced, that is, a woman who had control over her material goods and actions, would be bound by any oath or pledge which they entered into.  So, without Moses’ regulation regarding oaths and pledges taken by women who had yet to marry or who were married, no one would have entered into business dealings with them.  Without Moses’ regulation, a woman could enter into an agreement to provide something in return for goods or services, receive those goods or services, then, when it came time to provide the goods or services which were promised, her father or husband could have just denied her permission to transfer those goods or services to the other party.  Whereas, with Moses’ regulation, all that the person doing business with the woman needed to do was make sure that her father or husband was aware of the agreement.  If they did not cancel the agreement before goods or services were transferred to her, her father or husband was bound to allow her to pay for them.

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

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.

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

The commands about vows given here are often used to make the case that the Bible is sexist, or even misogynistic.  However, let’s look at the situation.  These commands were given in a society where women had limited control over their economic situation.  One can argue that this was the case because of commands given in other places  (I do not believe that to be the case), but that does not change the fact that these commands protect women in such a society.  So, what do we learn here?  If a woman makes a vow, when her father or husband (whichever has control over her economic situation) hears that she has made this vow if he does not immediately reject the vow, the vow is binding.  That means that he is obligated to free up the economic resources needed to fulfill the vow and must allow her to take the actions specified in the vow.

As a result of this command, a woman can enter into a business deal, or other sort of deal.  Let us look at the options.  Option one: woman’s vows are exactly the same as for men.  In that society, her father/husband could say that she had entered into the vow, but he had not, so no economic resources had been committed (he controlled the resources) and he could forbid her to take whatever actions the vow called for…and he could do this after the person with whom the vow was entered had delivered their end of the agreement.  Option two: nothing is said about women making vows.  In this second option, women could not enter into binding agreements.

We live in a completely different society today and, as the Jerusalem Council determined, we no longer need live by these laws (one might make an argument about that regarding Jewish Christians, but that is for another time and place).  However, a wife should still not enter into a vow without her husband’s agreement…and a husband should not enter into a vow without his wife’s agreement (of course, there is also Jesus’ teaching on vows to be considered as well).

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

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

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

At first glance, the rules concerning vows seem to suggest that women have less right to bond themselves to a vow to God.  While there is some truth to that one should look a little closer at what it says.  The fact was that a woman in that society was generally economically dependent on either her father or her husband.  The result of that being that a woman could suffer significant economic harm if she was forced to keep a vow to which her father or husband objected.  Here is where it gets interesting.  If the father or husband failed to immediately object to the vow the vow would be binding, and if they later decided to object and then prevented her from fulfilling the vow, THEY would be responsible for breaking the vow as if they had made it themselves.  In that day, the father or husband of a woman had the ability to force the woman to break the vow.  Whether that was right or wrong is irrelevant.  This codifies their responsibility to decide immediately whether or not they would do so.  Without this, women would have trouble entering into business agreements.  I have always read this to mean that we today should not enter into binding agreements without the knowledge and consent of our spouse.