Numbers 30: The sexist bible

Numbers 30: Vows Made by Women
You know what would get more hits for the blog? If this post was titled "The sexiest bible." But it's not.

Every now and then I consider doing a feminist reading of the bible; mapping out the gender inequalities of a passage. This is one of those times. Doing it too often would make it repetitious and alienate all three of you that read this blog - so I don't do it. But today's passage is rather explicit in its statement. Though I do not recommend reading the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, because it is frequently historically insensitive, theologically misinformed, does not understand the importance of metaphor or symbolism, and begs the wrong questions of the text due to its blindingly literal interpretation. However, it does pick up on the sexism of this chapter. The sexism is a product of the culture that created the document. We can read the historical norms by taking a look at the documents of the past.

Vows Made by Women: Numbers 30
Frequently a passage will begin, "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying..." after which Moses delivers the law given by God to the people. Here this is not the case. Numbers 30 begins: "Then Moses said to the heads of the tribes of the Israelites: This is what the Lord has commanded..." We never see God giving the commandment, but as readers we would generally accept that this is in fact has happened. There is no reason to suspect Moses of making up the law of God; the text provides no evidence, so there is no basis for doubt. In fact, this verse forms a nice repetitious couplet with the previous verse, which closes Numbers 29:

So Moses told the Israelites everything just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
Then Moses said to the heads of the tribes of the Israelites: This is what the Lord has commanded.

This time, though, only the 12 heads of the tribes of the Israelites (all men, of course) are told what God has commanded. God has commanded thus: a man who makes a vow to the Lord or swears a binding oath shall keep his word. That idea is pretty straight-forward.

Moses continues. If a woman makes a vow to the Lord or swears a binding oath in her youth, while still under her father's care, and her father hears it and says nothing, the vow will stand. If the father hears and speaks his disapproval, the vow or pledge will not stand. The Lord will forgive the girl because her father expressed his disapproval.

If a woman is still under the vows "or any thoughtless utterance of her lips" which her father did not disapprove of, and is married, and her husband hears them and does not disapprove,  her vows will stand. But if the husband hears and expresses his disapproval, the vows will not stand. The Lord will forgive the woman because her husband expressed his disapproval.

Every vow a widow or divorced woman makes is binding, presumably because the woman is not under any man's authority.

If a woman makes a vow while married and her husband hears it and does not express disapproval, the vow stands. But if the husband hears and expresses his disapproval, the vow will not stand. The Lord will forgive the woman because her husband expressed his disapproval. A specific commandment is made that a husband can allow or nullify a pledge of fasting.

If disapproval is not expressed for a given vow by the next day, the vow is considered validated and the woman is obligated by it. The husband may nullify it at some later time, but he shall bear the woman's guilt.

So What?
In the sex-marriage economy of the bible, a female is the "property" of her father until she is married, at which time she becomes the property of their husband. This passage demonstrates this idea clearly through the notion of guilt. The woman might bring guilt upon herself by breaking a vow, but her "owner" can clear the guilt if he decides the vow is illegitimate. Only a man is able to make an action that will prevent a woman from incurring guilt. It is the man's responsibility to determine if what the woman has vowed is legitimate, and if it is not, he is obligated to express his disapproval immediately. He will suffer the guilt of a woman breaking her vow if he nullifies the vow after the day it is made.

Logically (and this is explicated) the only way a woman may make a vow that may not be scrutinized for its validity is if she is widowed or divorced. This puts her in the same position as a man.

One argument against this unequal legislation is that women actually receive a free pass and are prevented from making any foolish oaths that they may break. Men, however, are always bound by contracts. This argument champions protectionism. But why should only women be protected for the words they utter? What is it about women's words that makes them subject to scrutiny? Also, the power to "protect" lies only in the hands of males. Women may not nullify an oath of another, whether male or female. And that is unequal treatment.

Speaking of... Tomorrow: War.