The legal code in the Old Testament was heavily skewed towards the male population. That’s not an argument for the patriarchy, that’s just the way it was.
Before we go any further down that rabbit trail of doom though, we have to address one other aspect of the Bible: It was extremely favorable towards women, especially when you consider the cultural setting. Most societies then didn’t afford women any protection. The Bible did, which is just one more reason it’s so unique.
Nevertheless, critics will argue that passages like Numbers 30 reveal an unfair status shift between men and women. As the Text goes, men are able to make a vow (and are required to keep it), but a woman’s vow is only enforceable if a man hears and approves it.
How is that fair?
Per our earlier point, the fact that a woman’s vow held weight at all is a testament to this society. They can make vows—even in a religious sense, as did Hannah—that speak directly to God’s ears. This represents a deliberate empowerment that other civilizations of the time lacked.
To understand this passage specifically, we have to see it in the context of a household. Legally speaking, the man held all the authority. It was his house, after all, and anything that came out of that household, good or bad, was his responsibility.
As such, this section dictates the legal rules regarding the household. They are as follows:
- Every man’s vow must be kept (Numbers 30:2)
- Every woman’s vow must be kept if the father doesn’t overrule her (Numbers 30:3-5).
- Once she is married, that responsibility transitions to her husband. Her vows are intact as long as her husband doesn’t overrule her (Numbers 30:6-8).
- In the case of a divorced woman or widow, every vow made after her husband’s “departure” is her own. If made in the presence of her husband, and is approved by him, she is bound to keep it even after he’s gone (Numbers 30:9-12).
- If the husband or father approves the vow (even tacitly), then she is bound to keep it. If he intervenes later, he bears the guilt in her breaking her vow (Numbers 30:13-15).
Those are the rules, as God puts it in Numbers 30:16, between man and wife, and father and daughter. It’s a way of creating order inside the household; otherwise, a family member could make a vow, break it, and everyone would be guilty as a result.
But…is it fair to women?
I’ll ask you: If God really hated women and loved men and wanted to create a patriarchal society that kept women in a state of subjection and servitude, why did He allow the same autonomy to widows and/or divorced women that He did for men?
Numbers 30:2 gives men the ability to ratify their own vows, just like Numbers 30:9 gives a woman the ability to ratify her’s. If sexism really was an argument here, that wouldn’t exist. God would surely have found some way to put a widow under the authority of some other male figure, right?
Viewed through the lens of the household, this section makes much more sense. It’s not about sexism, but about order inside a household. And if that household is one, adult, independent woman, she speaks for herself.