-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Numbers 30 authority?
- Thread starter Pacman
- Start date
Absolutely not. The woman has no right or ability to assign authority to anyone. Only God does and He assigned that authority to fathers and subsequently husbands.
Doesn't Numbers 30 clearly state that a divorced woman's vow stands? Can she not make the vow placing herself under authority? Why would that vow be void?
Reading the passage, her ex can still negate her vow.
I would assume that a new marriage must be consummated in order to transfer the authority.
If there is a reason that it cannot be consummated, it would be Yah’s decision whether or not to accept the new relationship.
IMO
I would assume that a new marriage must be consummated in order to transfer the authority.
If there is a reason that it cannot be consummated, it would be Yah’s decision whether or not to accept the new relationship.
IMO
Why would that vow to some rando supersede a vow to God? You’re elevating the woman’s decision making up to a very high level.
And @steve beings up a good point, why can’t this relationship be consummated? And what precedent is there anywhere in scripture for a “headship” relationship outside of father or husband?
Widows?
I’m not familiar with widows being able to choose headship.
If dear old Dad is dead, and obviously hubby is too, then who exactly is there left to choose? And where does the Bible say this?
Exactly. The Bible is silent on the matter. She can take a husband if she wants a head but that’s the only option.
From Numbers 30 it would appear a divorced or widowed woman would be responsible for her own vows.
If the case that a widowed or divorced woman could go to a mam for headship/vow covering I think it would work as detailed out below:
I feel like the way the family/tribe group was structured in that time she would not have been just able to go to any man to be under authority. I think it makes a difference in the case of divorce/put away and widow.
Divorce would mean that she was given a bill of divorce by her husband which released her from his headship. This would mean she could remarry or go back to her family. If her father was alive her headship would revert to him or if he was dead to the male patriarch of the family. (EG: Father dies and headship passes to eldest son)
This might apply that a widow would be under a patriarch as well. As Yaweh wants us to provide for widows and orphans and it would make sense for her husbands family, if she had children with him, or possibly her own to look out for her.
If she was put away with no divorce bill, which is what Yeshua spoke against when the pharasees questioned him on divorce, meant she had was not released from her husbands headship. She was not free to marry or have a relationship without it being adultery. Her family would also not have wanted to take her back as she was not released. This led to the put away woman basically having to prostitute herself to survive. This is why Yeshua was so strongly against putting away.
I suppose a divorced or widowed woman could have placed herself into slavery, which I think biblically was more of an indentured servitude, which would have created a master/slave dynamic. Not sure if headship/vows applies to that in the same way.
Last edited:
What’s that?
The word translated as "marry" in vs. 6 it's quite different from the words typically translated marry...
What about this...
Luke 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
Luke 2:37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
Could she have placed herself under the Priest of the temple?? After all she was NOT a young widow v 36.
It doesn’t say that she did. And even if it did it doesn’t say that that would be a proper thing.
You’ll have to walk me through this. I’m not following.
Just because it is silent doesn't mean it did't happen. And if it wasn't "proper" I don't think she would be allowed to stay in the temple. IDK
I'm suspicious that the translation choices are why we read Numbers 30 as exclusively applying to father and husband... I suspect that it might apply to any female under a man's authority. For instance what about a maid servant? What about a slave woman? What about another male family member such as an uncle or older brother after a girl's father dies? Do these relationships exclude Numbers 30 authority?
I can't apply to any woman under man's authority.
Can her doctor, boss, pastor release her from her' wows? No way.