BREAKING VOWS (NUMBERS 30)

As Wenham says, “In times of crisis men turn to God in prayer. And their prayers often take the form of vows...Many examples are found in the Scripture...But when the crisis passes and the prayer is answered, there is a temptation to forget the vow. Ecclesiastes warns: 'When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow (5:4; cf. Dt. 23:21-23)...But sometimes the vows could not be literally fulfilled.” Thus the need for the regulations in Numbers 30 arose.

There are a few problem issues concerning the legislation in this short chapter. I will briefly address them one at a time.

Definition of a Vow

“Vows either took the form of a promise to give something to God, usually a sacrifice, or a pledge to abstain from something.” (Wenham)

“The practice of making promises or vows to God seems ancient, both in Israel (Gen. 28:20-22) and in the rest of the ancient Near East. Vows may be positive promises to do or perform something (Judg. 11:30-31; 1 Sam. 1:11), or they may be negative promises to abstain from something (Num. 6). In general, the Hebrew word that encompasses both kinds of promise is neder. The present text uses neber only to express the positive vow. The negative vow is expressed, uniquely in ch. 30, by 'issar.” (Ashley)

Wakely points out that the noun 'issar is found only in this chapter and occurs seven times as 'issar and four times as 'esar...The vow is one of abstinence, i.e., it is a negative promise to abstain from something.

Negative View of Women

This is perhaps the harshest criticism levied against Numbers 30, with feminist scholars accusing the Jews of treating all women as if they had no sense and needed to have their every decision approved by either their father or husband. But as Stubbs says, “the ability of husbands and fathers to limit their wives' or daughters' religious commitments – and the portrayal of women as apt to make rash vows – does not seem to match well with the New Testament's trajectory toward the full equality of women.”

Ashley adds, “Ch. 30 reinforces the right of women to make vows to Yahweh, and limits a husband's right to void a vow by requiring that his objection be made when he first hears of his wife's vow and not after a long period of reflection.”

Evans has the same opinion on the subject. “Women were seen as having the right and the ability to make vows and were held fully accountable for the fulfillment of any vows they might make (Num. 30:3-16). The only exception to this was if a father or husband specifically overruled a vow. Thus..., there is recognition within the text of the realities of a patriarchal society alongside the recognition of women as independent and responsible beings.”

Wakely has even more to say on this subject, including the following: “A man was considered to be legally responsible for his own actions, and any vow made by him was automatically binding (Num 30:2). The situation was different in the case of women. Only the vow of these women in positions of independence (the widow and the divorced women) were unconditionally binding (v. 9). The majority of women had no independent right to make a vow...According to L'Heureux, the implication of Num 30 seems to be that, generally speaking, women had to be protected against their own lack of responsible judgment. A more likely explanation is that, given the economic dependence of women on men in ancient Israelite society, it was felt necessary to protect fathers and husbands from excessive commitments made by women who were not ultimately responsible for finding the resources necessary to fulfill those commitments. Another possibility is that this legislation was designed to prevent women from undermining the authority of men by, e.g., vowing away a child without the consent of its father.”

Two Old Testament examples add to our understanding of this ruling. The first one is found in Judges 11-12 and concerns one of the Hebrew judges, Jephthah, who rashly promised to devote to God the first thing that greeted him on his way home if he could win a key battle. Unfortunately, that happened to be his daughter, who was then doomed to death (or to eternal virginity, according to which scholar you listen to). This clearly illustrates that you can't accuse only women of being liable to make unthinking vows with which they must follow through.

The second pertinent story is that of Hannah, who vowed to give her first child to the LORD if she could just become pregnant (I Samuel 1:11). Later she did in fact have a son, but only offered him to the LORD after her husband had ratified her vow (see vv. 21-23).

Contradiction by New Testament Teachings

Kotva discusses the apparent complete repudiation of oath-taking in NT passages such as Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12. “Martin Luther rejected an individual's initiating an oath but taught that the state's command to swear must be obeyed...Most commentators do not believe that Jesus abolished oath-taking. They point to Matt. 23:16-22, where Jesus does not explicitly reject oath-taking but instead attacks a corrupt oath-taking system in which swearing by symbols for God's name were claimed to be nonbinding. Commentators also point to Paul's taking of various oaths and vows (2 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8) and to Heb. 6:13-20, where the practice is cited without criticism...What most commentators agree on is that in requiring of us a simple yes or no, James is calling us to straightforward and truthful speech at all times.”

Stubbs agrees with Kotva on this point when he says, “His [i.e. Jesus'] words point to one principle that guides the Numbers passage: followers of God must be people of integrity, people whose word is truthful and trustworthy.”

Placement of this Chapter Within Numbers

Ashley admits, “The connection of ch. 30 with its context is not immediately obvious...”

Stubbs speculates: “Given that Numbers gives prominent attention to both vows (6:1-21; 15:3,8; 21:2; 30:1-16) and laws concerning women (5:11-31; 27:1-11; 30:1-16; 36:1-13), one wonders if there is a deeper significance to the placement of this passage...”

And Wenham says, “Finally, one should ask why this group of laws is placed here.” He feels it has something to do with the fact that “vows were usually sealed with a sacrifice.” And this was the specific topic of Numbers 28-29. I believe that Figure 1 below provides a much fuller rationale since most of Numbers 30 deals with regulations protecting women, the subject which ends both the opening (A-C) and concluding (A'-C') series of three sections as well as in the exact center of the overall unit.

                                                 Figure 1: The Structure of Numbers 26-36

A. The Tribes Numbered (26:1-56)

B. Levites Numbered (26:57-65)

C. Inheritance Laws for Daughters of Zelophehad (27:1-11)

D. End of Moses' Leadership (27:12-23)

E. Final Legislation Before Crossing Jordan (ch. 28-29)

F. Women's Vows (ch. 30)

E'. Final Narratives Before Crossing Jordan (ch. 31-32)

D'. Summary of Moses' Leadership

A'. The Tribes' Inheritance (33:50-34:29)

B'. Levites' Inheritance and Cities of Refuge (ch. 35)

C'. Inheritance Laws for Daughters of Zelophehad (ch. 36)

 

   Figure 2: The Structure of Numbers 30

    1. “This is what the LORD has commanded” (v. 1)

            2. Men's vows unbreakable (v. 2)

                    3. Girl's vows breakable by her father (vv. 3-5)

                            4. Girl's vows breakable by her fiancee (vv. 6-8)

            2'. Widow's and divorcee's vows unbreakable (v. 9)

                    3'. Wife's vows breakable by husband without penalty (vv. 10-12)

                            4'. Wife's vows breakable with penalty (vv. 13-15)

    1'. “These are the statutes which the LORD has commanded” (v. 16)

And as you can see in Figure 2, Ashley is correct when he states, “The binding nature of the male vow [appearing only in v. 2] is not the point of the present law...but only a principle against which the issue of vows for certain classes of women may be approached.”

This symmetrical organization also addresses a concern pointed out by Ashley, namely, “A few scholars have concluded that this verse [i.e. 9] is a later interpolation or gloss [which]...interrupts the sequence of vv. 6-8 and 10-15.” That criticism is only valid if one expects a strictly logical presentation of ideas in the Bible, which is not always the case.