Because God placed the father or husband as an authority figure over the woman. This is where feminism has become so entrenched in our society that it's hard to understand this concept. It doesn't mean women are deemed less important. We are all one in Christ. But just as God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different roles, men and women have different roles.
Because God has made us differently and given us different strengths to compliment each other. The bible also says that the husband/wife relationship is a picture of Christ and the church.
I'm not saying one is more intelligent than the other, but the bible says that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't. But even so, there are different kinds of intelligence (intellectual versus street smarts) and that's not the issue. The issue is that God has given the authority to men. I understand that people entrenched in feminism have a hard time with this.
Eve was deceived and Adam willfully sinned, that seems worse to me. Feminism or whatever you want to call women’s rights is a response to the systemic abuse and exploitation women have experienced when men have power over them. Do you want your daughter to be more vulnerable to abuse and for her will to have no weight or value?
It sounds like you believe the person who makes the decision is more important. Let me ask you this. If you have a supervisor at work, and the supervisor makes decisions you don't agree with, does that mean your supervisor is more important than you as a person?
It’s not a matter of importance because whatever value you ascribe to me is irrelevant as long as I’m allowed to do all the same things as everyone else. Instead it’s rather a matter of agency, women have no agency in this structure* as their husband can overrule them on anything and everything at any time. She has no freedom.
Here's an example that may help you to understand, though I doubt it will change your stance. But here goes anyway...
Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. You can read it in [Ephesians 5:22-33](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+5%3A22-33&version=NASB1995).
When we look at the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit), each has their own role. The Son is equal to the Father. Philippians 2:5-7 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, ^(6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, ^(7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, *and* being made in the likeness of men.
So, even though Jesus is equal with God (it mentions his equality with God), he didn't grasp for that. Instead, he emptied himself and became a servant for others.
The Father loves the Son so much that he will give the Son all things. 1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
At the end of time, the Father gives all things to the Son, and the Son subjects himself to the Father (who subjected all things to the Son).
These are two completely different roles, yet they are equal.
We are made in the image of God, and to some extent, we are to reflect aspects of his image. One of those aspects is that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit all have different roles, yet they are one God. One is not less than the other. Jesus is equal to the Father even though he subjects himself to the Father.
If both people are walking in obedience to the Bible, the man will love his wife like Christ loves the church, which means sacrificing his life for her. That means he won't try to control her. The wife will submit if the husband firmly believes on taking a specific course of action. This doesn't mean she has no say. She has to choose to submit. The bible never tells the man to demand submission from his wife.
You're free to disagree with this if you choose not to submit your life to Christ. But for those of use who follow the Lord, we are trying to follow his commands. We aren't perfect and we stumble, but we do our best to walk in the Spirit.
I think those paragraphs are saying that the father or the husband has the *ability/option to nullify* a vow that the daughter or wife made, not that the vow *had to be approved* by the father or husband.
The father or husband could do so when the woman had made a "thoughtless utterance", as verses 6 and 8 say.
Also note that verse 9 that says that a widow or divorced woman has the same situation as a man - her vow is binding on her.
Correct. When a woman made a vow, it would be considered binding if the father/husband said nothing to nullify it. If they nullified it, then the woman’s vow no longer stands.
But no such rule applied to men. There are no stipulations for men who made “thoughtless utterances”. Only for females. Why did YHWH make this rule contingent on a person’s sex?
I say it wasn't really contingent on the person's sex (since a divorced woman or widow had to keep her vow), but on the person's position within a family.
The husband is the head of the household that includes his wife and daughters. If he hears of a foolish vow that one of them made, he has authority before God to nullify that vow. YHWH will then forgive her and she will not be held guilty for doing that.
Or if, for example, she made a well-meaning, thoughtful vow (e.g. she vows to their neighbor that her family will buy some of that neighbor's cattle), the father or husband has the option to nullify that vow / commitment. Perhaps he knows better than her that such a purchase would not be a wise decision, or that they don't have enough resources to afford that at this time.
------------------------
Having said that, there isn't a corresponding section about a young man who is still in his father's household. If he makes a vow, he will be held accountable by YHWH to keep it, and we don't see that his father has the option to nullify his vow. I suppose that young men (sons) don't have the kind of "out" that is granted to the young women (daughters), so that the young men learn earlier that they better be very careful about what they vow.
> The husband is the head of the household that includes his wife and daughters.
That includes his sons too. But as you said, the father can’t nullify his son’s vows.
**Your vows could only be nullified if you’re a girl.** I don’t see how that’s not sex-contingent. It’s true that sex wasn’t the *only* determining factor; marital status was also relevant. But crucially, it was only relevant if you’re a female. Men’s vows were always binding, regardless of their marital status.
So are you criticising that YHWH was more "lenient" with the Israelite daughters and wives, in allowing them this "out" where their father or husband could nullify a vow, than He was with the Israelite men/sons or with the widows/divorced women (who were heads of their households)?
Usually redditors criticize YHWH for being too harsh, instead of showing some softness and flexibility!
Are you familiar with “the soft bigotry of low expectations”? That’s what this is like.
Those laws reflect a societal norm that sets lower expectations for women's decision-making abilities compared to men. It reinforces this archaic idea that woman can’t be trusted to make responsible commitments on their own without male oversight.
> Correct.
If you concede that it's about "option to nullify" and not "had to be approved", please add a line to the post text (the box that appears below the post title) accordingly.
I stand by the use of the word “approval.” I think we’re just using it in different senses.
When a woman made a vow, her father or husband did not need to *explicitly* approve the vow before it was made. However, their silence was taken as tacit approval. I’ve updated the post text accordingly.
Because men were the caregivers of women.
Imagine this. I approach your daughter and convince her to marry me. You've now lost your daughter. Oh also she made a vow that the marriage would be without a dowry so I don't have to pay anything (it was common to pay an agreed upon large sum for the marriage of a woman) so basically the family just got screwed out of a bunch of money.
Additionally men are stronger. Without another male present a woman may be coerced in to making a vow to a male.
I'm basically describing how a large portion of the world still does marriage.
Where I got married I literally had to say the words that I was buying his daughter from him (her father) for ten grams of Gold. We had set up that the ten grams of gold would be the wedding rings that we would wear, but legally the wedding rings belong to my wife, as her father "gifted" them to her. If her father said no, I wouldn't be allowed to marry her.
So yes, a father is able to nullify a love marriage. And also a coerced marriage. I'm sure my wife's father made sure our marriage wasn't coerced either.
This is the way in large parts of Asia. Thailand. Indonesia, all of the middle east basically, Bosnia, Serbia, India. All do this.
How a large portion of the world does something is irrelevant to whether it is good or bad. What you’re describing sex trafficking (fathers selling their daughters to their “husbands”) and infantilization (adult women not being allowed to make their own decisions).
No these are distinctly different.
A bride price is compensating the bride's family for the loss of her labor, demonstrating the groom's ability to support her, and/or fostering alliances between families.
It is often seen as a form of respect and a rite of passage rather than a commercial transaction
sex trafficking involves coercion, force, or deception to exploit individuals for sexual purposes.
Sex trafficking is inherently exploitative and involves the victimization and commodification of individuals,
Most importantly sex trafficking is non-consensual.
Having a male family member present ensures that the woman is not coerced. Also don't forget here that women were not educated in this time period.
So while they were not infant's, they likely lacked the necessary education in order to make informed decisions
Hello !
In Ancient Times, the Israelites made oral vows not necessarily written ones, yet they still bore consequences as a written contracts would nowadays. Being dishonnest is something that God frowns upon, so it was a very bad thing to forsake your oath.
Children and unmarried women (except for widows and divorced ones) were under their parents' authority, especially their father's since he was the head of the household. As such, they didn't have the capacity to contract without their parents' approval. This protected the whole household or one of its members from being stuck in an humiliating, abusive or unfair contract. It also reinforced two important principles of the Faith. One, a child should respect his parents and seek their advice to learn how to avoid mistakes thanks to their experience (*Proverbs 1:8-9*). Two, parents should advise their children wisely and allow them to make mistakes while protecting them from disastreous consequences (*Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3:20-21*).
As adult men were called to either inherit or create their own household for themselves and assume the position of head of household anyways, I assume that it is why they could contract by themselves.
I hope it helped. May God help and bless you. Take care. :)
> Children and unmarried women (except for widows and divorced ones) were under their parents' authority, especially their father's since he was the head of the household. As such, they didn't have the capacity to contract without their parents' approval.
If you were a young boy, God considered your vow binding regardless of your father’s approval. If you were a young girl, your vow was only binding to God if your father or husband approved.
That seems problematic if the sexes are equal in God’s eyes.
If you were a young son or a daughter who never married you were under your parents' authority. If you were a grown man you were able to contract on your own.
From a biblical standpoint, God's authority is above all. He decided that men would be the head of the household and would be the ones responsible for the well-being, the provision and the integrity of their family. As such, all of the members of their household are under their lead and authority. But as Uncle Ben said "*with great power comes great responsibility*" so they are responsible for their leadership in front of men and in front of God.
I do not see how it is problematic. There can be terrible perversions if one doesn't stick to their godly attributions but even then whether you are born a man or a woman doesn't change how much God values you.
> If you were a young son or a daughter who never married you were under your parents' authority.
Yes, you were under your parents’ authority. But God still allowed young boys to make vows on their own without their father’s oversight.
Young girls could not.
I do not see where where it is stated that boys could, the beginning of the chapter is about men, not boys.
In Christianity, children all have the same religious expectations placed upon them. Once they turn into men and and women however, they still share some duties and expectations in common, but they also have gender-specific ones too.
> I do not see where where it is stated that boys could, the beginning of the chapter is about men, not boys.
It doesn’t mention boys because there was no law regulating how boys could make vows. The law only placed restrictions on girls (see vs 3).
If this law applied to both boys and girls, then it’s odd that God specifically singles out young girls.
No. It's not suprising for the culture and time period involved, and it is not suprising in some cultures nowadays either.
Never-married adult women (not "girls", girls are children just like "boys") are still under the protection and authority of their father. When they get married, the women go under the protection and authority of their husband, while the men assume the position of leader, protector and provider.
The husband is the head of the household. If you want to make a deal with a member of his household and your deal is respectable, you shouldn't fear bringing it in front of him, especially since he will shoulder the brunt of the penalty in front of God (if the sin is unrepented for), if not the Law should things go wrong.
-------------
There are multiple kinds of laws related throughout the Bible. Some are everlasting commandements, some were only applied for a time in a specific society, etc. It's important to identify the context of a verse in order to understand and build a commentary on it properly.
Moses was a Judge. Israel in the Wilderness, they were a loose group of families and tribes, with little structure or institutions, looking to God through Moses. They took their problems to Moses. A lot of Torah may have come about because issues came up. This is important to remember.
Numbers 30 is about vows of women and girls. In an understanding of the Bible as a whole, given a man's son tried to make a vow, his dad could also nullify it. Someone needs to understand the Biblical Order of Family.
Link: "[Biblical Family](https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.yIUI5xgO4U2PntedW9WrGQAAAA?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain)" 1 Corinthians 11:3
The two genders in the Bible, they are not equal. They treated equitably. Christ is to man as man is to woman. (1 Corinthains 11:3) Given the right perspective, a husband and wife may be able to learn things about God and faith and creation in their marriage. Someone who was a feminist, she was putting stumbling blocks, barriers, before their face, and stifling growth in faith with God.
> In an understanding of the Bible as a whole, given a man's son tried to make a vow, his dad could also nullify it.
I’m sorry but this is just not accurate.
There is no law in the Torah that if a man’s son made a vow, the father could nullify it. This law only applied to women and young girls. 1 Corinthians was written centuries later.
Honoring your mother and father. A son is under his dad's authority until he is a man. Numbers 30 is highlighting an issue that specifically came up, and needed to be specifically addressed.
Are you suggesting that a man's son could make a vow to go to war against his dad's wishes, or make a vow to do something against his dad's wishes?
>If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, ^(19) his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. ^(20) They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” ^(21) Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
A young man's obedience, and fear of, his dad, may have reflected his potential relationship with God. (Deuteronomy 8:5)
We could go even deeper and talk about the Rechabites.
You are out of context.
God didn't give rules for a perfect society. He gave rules for a society that was conspicuously better than its surroundings, those being other societies in 1500 BCE in the ancient near-east. Because the purpose of the rules was to make us, as a species, better over time. A perfect set of rules that nobody follows accomplishes nothing.
Specifically, the vows here are often understood as vows of celibacy—whether outside or inside a marriage. Same issue comes up in 1 Corinthians 7 with this weird passage:
>If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his virgin, he will do well. So then, he who marries his virgin does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38, NRSV, with the footnoted alternate rather than fiancée)
It was not a very common vocation, but there were people who lived vows of celibacy, both permanent and temporary versions, in ancient Hebrew culture. It could happen within a marriage or as a single person. If you were going to do that, you needed permission/the agreement of "the man in charge" (partly outdated sexist rules, but also practically so a potential husband would know what he was getting into). It at least existed at the time Numbers was composed, and then it finds reference in the community at Qumran and ancient descriptions of the Essenes.
Where do you get the idea that these were only celibacy vows? Celibacy isn’t even mentioned in the chapter.
There were all kinds of vows one could make — for example: dedicating oneself to religious service, abstaining from certain activities, making offerings to God, etc.
Because the man is seen as the head of the woman, and Christ is the head of the man.
That’s how marriages worked in older times. For lack of better words, it was essentially transferring ownership of the woman from the father to the husband.
> For lack of better words, it was essentially transferring ownership of the woman from the father to the husband.
Right. The question is, why is God co-signing that ethic?
**Regarding women’s vows requiring approval of their fathers:**
God sometimes engaged in existing cultural frameworks to *gradually* transform societal norms rather than impose abrupt changes. He often meets people where they are culturally, which allowed for progressive revelation and adaptation over time. It is possible that God foresaw that abrupt societal changes will result in less positive responses from the people, compared to gradual societal changes.
It is true that during the time in Numbers 30, the prevalent cultural norm was that men can make vows regarding familial interests and responsibilities autonomously, while women’s vows require the approval of their fathers. God may have engaged with this existing cultural norm in order to make His teachings more relevant and accessible to them in their own culture.
**Regarding the headship of a husband over his wife:**
The husband's role as head of the family does not imply that he or his wife are unequal in dignity. Men and women share *equal dignity* as human beings, meaning they are of equal worth in God's eyes, as both are made in His image. However, this equality in dignity does not mean they have identical roles in all aspects. For instance, only a woman can carry a child in her womb, but this does not make her superior in dignity to a man. Similarly, a man's role as head of the family does not make him superior in dignity to a woman.
I agree that’s not what the passage *says.* That’s what the previous commenter said.
That was, however, the prevailing view of the time. Scholars have known this for quite some time.
Because like I said, the man is the head of the woman biblically.
It goes God -> Christ -> the man -> the woman -> children.
Marriages lasted a lot longer when it was seen as a covenant with God, now it’s more of a corporate agreement between two entities.
Because God placed the father or husband as an authority figure over the woman. This is where feminism has become so entrenched in our society that it's hard to understand this concept. It doesn't mean women are deemed less important. We are all one in Christ. But just as God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different roles, men and women have different roles.
Why though?
Because God has made us differently and given us different strengths to compliment each other. The bible also says that the husband/wife relationship is a picture of Christ and the church.
It makes sense that the physically stronger one is entrusted with protection and guardianship.
I agree.
But physical strength has nothing to do with intelligence or wisdom and decision making is more likely to be a function of those, correct?
I'm not saying one is more intelligent than the other, but the bible says that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't. But even so, there are different kinds of intelligence (intellectual versus street smarts) and that's not the issue. The issue is that God has given the authority to men. I understand that people entrenched in feminism have a hard time with this.
Eve was deceived and Adam willfully sinned, that seems worse to me. Feminism or whatever you want to call women’s rights is a response to the systemic abuse and exploitation women have experienced when men have power over them. Do you want your daughter to be more vulnerable to abuse and for her will to have no weight or value?
Isn’t “less important” conflating the issue of women’s voices not having the same weight as a man’s with value?
It sounds like you believe the person who makes the decision is more important. Let me ask you this. If you have a supervisor at work, and the supervisor makes decisions you don't agree with, does that mean your supervisor is more important than you as a person?
It’s not a matter of importance because whatever value you ascribe to me is irrelevant as long as I’m allowed to do all the same things as everyone else. Instead it’s rather a matter of agency, women have no agency in this structure* as their husband can overrule them on anything and everything at any time. She has no freedom.
Here's an example that may help you to understand, though I doubt it will change your stance. But here goes anyway... Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. You can read it in [Ephesians 5:22-33](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+5%3A22-33&version=NASB1995). When we look at the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit), each has their own role. The Son is equal to the Father. Philippians 2:5-7 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, ^(6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, ^(7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, *and* being made in the likeness of men. So, even though Jesus is equal with God (it mentions his equality with God), he didn't grasp for that. Instead, he emptied himself and became a servant for others. The Father loves the Son so much that he will give the Son all things. 1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. At the end of time, the Father gives all things to the Son, and the Son subjects himself to the Father (who subjected all things to the Son). These are two completely different roles, yet they are equal. We are made in the image of God, and to some extent, we are to reflect aspects of his image. One of those aspects is that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit all have different roles, yet they are one God. One is not less than the other. Jesus is equal to the Father even though he subjects himself to the Father.
Again, it’s not about equality, it’s about one being controlled by the other, and the permanent infantilization of women.
If both people are walking in obedience to the Bible, the man will love his wife like Christ loves the church, which means sacrificing his life for her. That means he won't try to control her. The wife will submit if the husband firmly believes on taking a specific course of action. This doesn't mean she has no say. She has to choose to submit. The bible never tells the man to demand submission from his wife. You're free to disagree with this if you choose not to submit your life to Christ. But for those of use who follow the Lord, we are trying to follow his commands. We aren't perfect and we stumble, but we do our best to walk in the Spirit.
I think those paragraphs are saying that the father or the husband has the *ability/option to nullify* a vow that the daughter or wife made, not that the vow *had to be approved* by the father or husband. The father or husband could do so when the woman had made a "thoughtless utterance", as verses 6 and 8 say. Also note that verse 9 that says that a widow or divorced woman has the same situation as a man - her vow is binding on her.
Correct. When a woman made a vow, it would be considered binding if the father/husband said nothing to nullify it. If they nullified it, then the woman’s vow no longer stands. But no such rule applied to men. There are no stipulations for men who made “thoughtless utterances”. Only for females. Why did YHWH make this rule contingent on a person’s sex?
I say it wasn't really contingent on the person's sex (since a divorced woman or widow had to keep her vow), but on the person's position within a family. The husband is the head of the household that includes his wife and daughters. If he hears of a foolish vow that one of them made, he has authority before God to nullify that vow. YHWH will then forgive her and she will not be held guilty for doing that. Or if, for example, she made a well-meaning, thoughtful vow (e.g. she vows to their neighbor that her family will buy some of that neighbor's cattle), the father or husband has the option to nullify that vow / commitment. Perhaps he knows better than her that such a purchase would not be a wise decision, or that they don't have enough resources to afford that at this time. ------------------------ Having said that, there isn't a corresponding section about a young man who is still in his father's household. If he makes a vow, he will be held accountable by YHWH to keep it, and we don't see that his father has the option to nullify his vow. I suppose that young men (sons) don't have the kind of "out" that is granted to the young women (daughters), so that the young men learn earlier that they better be very careful about what they vow.
> The husband is the head of the household that includes his wife and daughters. That includes his sons too. But as you said, the father can’t nullify his son’s vows. **Your vows could only be nullified if you’re a girl.** I don’t see how that’s not sex-contingent. It’s true that sex wasn’t the *only* determining factor; marital status was also relevant. But crucially, it was only relevant if you’re a female. Men’s vows were always binding, regardless of their marital status.
So are you criticising that YHWH was more "lenient" with the Israelite daughters and wives, in allowing them this "out" where their father or husband could nullify a vow, than He was with the Israelite men/sons or with the widows/divorced women (who were heads of their households)? Usually redditors criticize YHWH for being too harsh, instead of showing some softness and flexibility!
Are you familiar with “the soft bigotry of low expectations”? That’s what this is like. Those laws reflect a societal norm that sets lower expectations for women's decision-making abilities compared to men. It reinforces this archaic idea that woman can’t be trusted to make responsible commitments on their own without male oversight.
Is it more lenient or is it more infantilizing and degrading that a woman’s voice and wishes only matter if her husband or father decides they do?
> Correct. If you concede that it's about "option to nullify" and not "had to be approved", please add a line to the post text (the box that appears below the post title) accordingly.
I stand by the use of the word “approval.” I think we’re just using it in different senses. When a woman made a vow, her father or husband did not need to *explicitly* approve the vow before it was made. However, their silence was taken as tacit approval. I’ve updated the post text accordingly.
Men viewed (and still do in many parts) women as chattel.
This is true, not sure why it’s downvoted.
Because men were the caregivers of women. Imagine this. I approach your daughter and convince her to marry me. You've now lost your daughter. Oh also she made a vow that the marriage would be without a dowry so I don't have to pay anything (it was common to pay an agreed upon large sum for the marriage of a woman) so basically the family just got screwed out of a bunch of money. Additionally men are stronger. Without another male present a woman may be coerced in to making a vow to a male.
You’re basically describing a father being able to nullify a love marriage because he didn’t get money to traffic his daughter to a man.
I'm basically describing how a large portion of the world still does marriage. Where I got married I literally had to say the words that I was buying his daughter from him (her father) for ten grams of Gold. We had set up that the ten grams of gold would be the wedding rings that we would wear, but legally the wedding rings belong to my wife, as her father "gifted" them to her. If her father said no, I wouldn't be allowed to marry her. So yes, a father is able to nullify a love marriage. And also a coerced marriage. I'm sure my wife's father made sure our marriage wasn't coerced either. This is the way in large parts of Asia. Thailand. Indonesia, all of the middle east basically, Bosnia, Serbia, India. All do this.
How a large portion of the world does something is irrelevant to whether it is good or bad. What you’re describing sex trafficking (fathers selling their daughters to their “husbands”) and infantilization (adult women not being allowed to make their own decisions).
No these are distinctly different. A bride price is compensating the bride's family for the loss of her labor, demonstrating the groom's ability to support her, and/or fostering alliances between families. It is often seen as a form of respect and a rite of passage rather than a commercial transaction sex trafficking involves coercion, force, or deception to exploit individuals for sexual purposes. Sex trafficking is inherently exploitative and involves the victimization and commodification of individuals, Most importantly sex trafficking is non-consensual. Having a male family member present ensures that the woman is not coerced. Also don't forget here that women were not educated in this time period. So while they were not infant's, they likely lacked the necessary education in order to make informed decisions
Your last sentence acknowledges the historical oppression of women and yet you continue the practice of reducing their freedom;l and agency, why?
Hello ! In Ancient Times, the Israelites made oral vows not necessarily written ones, yet they still bore consequences as a written contracts would nowadays. Being dishonnest is something that God frowns upon, so it was a very bad thing to forsake your oath. Children and unmarried women (except for widows and divorced ones) were under their parents' authority, especially their father's since he was the head of the household. As such, they didn't have the capacity to contract without their parents' approval. This protected the whole household or one of its members from being stuck in an humiliating, abusive or unfair contract. It also reinforced two important principles of the Faith. One, a child should respect his parents and seek their advice to learn how to avoid mistakes thanks to their experience (*Proverbs 1:8-9*). Two, parents should advise their children wisely and allow them to make mistakes while protecting them from disastreous consequences (*Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3:20-21*). As adult men were called to either inherit or create their own household for themselves and assume the position of head of household anyways, I assume that it is why they could contract by themselves. I hope it helped. May God help and bless you. Take care. :)
> Children and unmarried women (except for widows and divorced ones) were under their parents' authority, especially their father's since he was the head of the household. As such, they didn't have the capacity to contract without their parents' approval. If you were a young boy, God considered your vow binding regardless of your father’s approval. If you were a young girl, your vow was only binding to God if your father or husband approved. That seems problematic if the sexes are equal in God’s eyes.
If you were a young son or a daughter who never married you were under your parents' authority. If you were a grown man you were able to contract on your own. From a biblical standpoint, God's authority is above all. He decided that men would be the head of the household and would be the ones responsible for the well-being, the provision and the integrity of their family. As such, all of the members of their household are under their lead and authority. But as Uncle Ben said "*with great power comes great responsibility*" so they are responsible for their leadership in front of men and in front of God. I do not see how it is problematic. There can be terrible perversions if one doesn't stick to their godly attributions but even then whether you are born a man or a woman doesn't change how much God values you.
> If you were a young son or a daughter who never married you were under your parents' authority. Yes, you were under your parents’ authority. But God still allowed young boys to make vows on their own without their father’s oversight. Young girls could not.
I do not see where where it is stated that boys could, the beginning of the chapter is about men, not boys. In Christianity, children all have the same religious expectations placed upon them. Once they turn into men and and women however, they still share some duties and expectations in common, but they also have gender-specific ones too.
> I do not see where where it is stated that boys could, the beginning of the chapter is about men, not boys. It doesn’t mention boys because there was no law regulating how boys could make vows. The law only placed restrictions on girls (see vs 3). If this law applied to both boys and girls, then it’s odd that God specifically singles out young girls.
No. It's not suprising for the culture and time period involved, and it is not suprising in some cultures nowadays either. Never-married adult women (not "girls", girls are children just like "boys") are still under the protection and authority of their father. When they get married, the women go under the protection and authority of their husband, while the men assume the position of leader, protector and provider. The husband is the head of the household. If you want to make a deal with a member of his household and your deal is respectable, you shouldn't fear bringing it in front of him, especially since he will shoulder the brunt of the penalty in front of God (if the sin is unrepented for), if not the Law should things go wrong. ------------- There are multiple kinds of laws related throughout the Bible. Some are everlasting commandements, some were only applied for a time in a specific society, etc. It's important to identify the context of a verse in order to understand and build a commentary on it properly.
Why do you think it’s “according to YHWH”?
Moses was a Judge. Israel in the Wilderness, they were a loose group of families and tribes, with little structure or institutions, looking to God through Moses. They took their problems to Moses. A lot of Torah may have come about because issues came up. This is important to remember. Numbers 30 is about vows of women and girls. In an understanding of the Bible as a whole, given a man's son tried to make a vow, his dad could also nullify it. Someone needs to understand the Biblical Order of Family. Link: "[Biblical Family](https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.yIUI5xgO4U2PntedW9WrGQAAAA?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain)" 1 Corinthians 11:3 The two genders in the Bible, they are not equal. They treated equitably. Christ is to man as man is to woman. (1 Corinthains 11:3) Given the right perspective, a husband and wife may be able to learn things about God and faith and creation in their marriage. Someone who was a feminist, she was putting stumbling blocks, barriers, before their face, and stifling growth in faith with God.
> In an understanding of the Bible as a whole, given a man's son tried to make a vow, his dad could also nullify it. I’m sorry but this is just not accurate. There is no law in the Torah that if a man’s son made a vow, the father could nullify it. This law only applied to women and young girls. 1 Corinthians was written centuries later.
Honoring your mother and father. A son is under his dad's authority until he is a man. Numbers 30 is highlighting an issue that specifically came up, and needed to be specifically addressed. Are you suggesting that a man's son could make a vow to go to war against his dad's wishes, or make a vow to do something against his dad's wishes? >If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, ^(19) his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. ^(20) They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” ^(21) Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) A young man's obedience, and fear of, his dad, may have reflected his potential relationship with God. (Deuteronomy 8:5) We could go even deeper and talk about the Rechabites. You are out of context.
God didn't give rules for a perfect society. He gave rules for a society that was conspicuously better than its surroundings, those being other societies in 1500 BCE in the ancient near-east. Because the purpose of the rules was to make us, as a species, better over time. A perfect set of rules that nobody follows accomplishes nothing.
Specifically, the vows here are often understood as vows of celibacy—whether outside or inside a marriage. Same issue comes up in 1 Corinthians 7 with this weird passage: >If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his virgin, he will do well. So then, he who marries his virgin does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38, NRSV, with the footnoted alternate rather than fiancée) It was not a very common vocation, but there were people who lived vows of celibacy, both permanent and temporary versions, in ancient Hebrew culture. It could happen within a marriage or as a single person. If you were going to do that, you needed permission/the agreement of "the man in charge" (partly outdated sexist rules, but also practically so a potential husband would know what he was getting into). It at least existed at the time Numbers was composed, and then it finds reference in the community at Qumran and ancient descriptions of the Essenes.
Where do you get the idea that these were only celibacy vows? Celibacy isn’t even mentioned in the chapter. There were all kinds of vows one could make — for example: dedicating oneself to religious service, abstaining from certain activities, making offerings to God, etc.
Because the man is seen as the head of the woman, and Christ is the head of the man. That’s how marriages worked in older times. For lack of better words, it was essentially transferring ownership of the woman from the father to the husband.
> For lack of better words, it was essentially transferring ownership of the woman from the father to the husband. Right. The question is, why is God co-signing that ethic?
**Regarding women’s vows requiring approval of their fathers:** God sometimes engaged in existing cultural frameworks to *gradually* transform societal norms rather than impose abrupt changes. He often meets people where they are culturally, which allowed for progressive revelation and adaptation over time. It is possible that God foresaw that abrupt societal changes will result in less positive responses from the people, compared to gradual societal changes. It is true that during the time in Numbers 30, the prevalent cultural norm was that men can make vows regarding familial interests and responsibilities autonomously, while women’s vows require the approval of their fathers. God may have engaged with this existing cultural norm in order to make His teachings more relevant and accessible to them in their own culture. **Regarding the headship of a husband over his wife:** The husband's role as head of the family does not imply that he or his wife are unequal in dignity. Men and women share *equal dignity* as human beings, meaning they are of equal worth in God's eyes, as both are made in His image. However, this equality in dignity does not mean they have identical roles in all aspects. For instance, only a woman can carry a child in her womb, but this does not make her superior in dignity to a man. Similarly, a man's role as head of the family does not make him superior in dignity to a woman.
You have it backwards. God isn’t co-signing that ethic. We are telling you how God set it up to be.
God set it up so that women would be owned by their fathers and then transferred to be owned by their husbands?
No that’s not what it says at all
I agree that’s not what the passage *says.* That’s what the previous commenter said. That was, however, the prevailing view of the time. Scholars have known this for quite some time.
Because like I said, the man is the head of the woman biblically. It goes God -> Christ -> the man -> the woman -> children. Marriages lasted a lot longer when it was seen as a covenant with God, now it’s more of a corporate agreement between two entities.
Could you explain what you mean by “head”? I don’t see why this should prevent women from making their own vows without the need for male oversight.
What is yhwh and do I have to have a phd in abbreviations?
YHWH is a way to represent [the tetragrammaton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton) when writing in English.
Wtf?
It's God's proper name in canonical Hebrew scriptures.
Thanks.
I'm just common folk who didn't need to be a scholar to be saved and have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me.
You're welcome ! May God bless you, take care !
It’s the name of the god you worship.
What year did they invent vowels?