Practical Implications of Numbers 30

[Maddog]

I am wondering about the practical implication of Numbers 30 where the Patriarch has veto authority over his Isha and his daughter. Next question is Does this really apply to our modern society seeing as how we are NT Christians and not bound by OT rules (or are we?).
I personally believe it is a protective measure for the vulnerable in our care and highlights the need for a covering (coverture and headship) for single and widowed women.
How does this work in the modern legal sense?
Do wives and daughters feel a security in this passage or a suppression knowing that dear ol' dad can override their decisions?
Why does this not apply to sons?

 

[steve]

A Torah following Christian would probably agree that it would apply today.
Most non-followers would probably disagree.

Women should feel more secure, but most are untaught.

Sons are a whole different category.
I’m not going to go into a list of reasons why.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Why does this not apply to sons?

Note that the following applies to both boys and girls.

Rules for Christian Households
Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

So, if an underage boy said that he would do such and such, his father simply has to tell him no. Tell him not to do such and such and so it is.
Same for a girl.

But, when dealing with an adult, everyone knows that a male is operating under his own authority and as such, is obligated by his own words/vows and promises. With adult females, that is not to be the case and so scripture clearly states this so that there is no confusion.

I think the point is simply that daughters are under their fathers headship and authority until it is passed off to her husband.

 

[steve]

So, if an underage boy said that he would do such and such, his father simply has to tell him no. Tell him not to do such and such and so it is.
Same for a girl.

I’m not following you here.
The passage specifically says that any agreement made by a daughter can be cancelled by her father.
A son, no matter what age, is not included in this instruction.
The implication is that if a son makes any agreement, he must carry it out. He doesn’t get a get-out-of-jail free card like the females have.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I’m not following you here.
The passage specifically says that any agreement made by a daughter can be cancelled by her father.
A son, no matter what age, is not included in this instruction.
The implication is that if a son makes any agreement, he must carry it out. He doesn’t get a get-out-of-jail free card like the females have.

Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Children do NOT have autonomy. They have to obey their parents regardless of gender.

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise


So, if a male child told someone that they would to do XYZ for them, that child's mother OR father could simply tell him, "No. Your not doing that."

That is because they are still a child.

 

[Mojo]

That is because they are still a child.

In your understanding, at what age or event do they cease to be a child?

 

[steve]

Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Children do NOT have autonomy. They have to obey their parents regardless of gender.

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise


So, if a male child told someone that they would to do XYZ for them, that child's mother OR father could simply tell him, "No. Your not doing that."

That is because they are still a child.

I think that we are talking past each other.
The answer to Mojo’s question will help clarify.

 

[Heavens Declare]

In your understanding, at what age or event do they cease to be a child?

Well, if we are going to use the book of Numbers for our argument that the daughter or wife's vows are subject to their father or husband, it would be consistent to use the Book of Numbers also to determine when the sone is no longer a child. It is funny that Galatians speaks about being a son vs being an adult, but provides no age guideline on when that would occur. It was just always understood!

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

In your understanding, at what age or event do they cease to be a child?

Men go to war. Women and children do not. This forms the basis for determining an age of adulthood biblically.

A Census of Israel's Warriors
Num 1:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
Num 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
Num 1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
...

Num 1:17 And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed by their names:
Num 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.
Num 1:19 As the LORD commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai.


So, as we see accounts in the bible of the men doing XYZ, they are of the age of 20 or greater or they would not be called men.

 

[MemeFan]

I don't believe father has veto authority over her marriage because marriage itself is established by sex and therefore isn't oath or promise, so there is nothing to "undo".

For rest it makes sense.

 

[Bartato]

I'm a Reformed Baptist, and not generally Torah observant, but I still tend to think it generally applies. I lean toward taking OT Law more seriously than most modern Christians. Patriarchy seems to be a universal principle in the Bible.

 

[Heavens Declare]

I don't believe father has veto authority over her marriage because marriage itself is established by sex and therefore isn't oath or promise, so there is nothing to "undo".

For rest it makes sense.

Totally off base. Read the passage on what it says when a man takes hold of a virgin. He has to pay the bride price even if the father refuses to let him have her.

 

[MemeFan]

Totally off base. Read the passage on what it says when a man takes hold of a virgin. He has to pay the bride price even if the father refuses to let him have her.

So what if man has to pay. This doesn't prove marriage didn't exist or has stopped existing. There is no "undo" for sex.

And btw, you should read Jesus commentary on divorce. One flesh shouldn't be broken. And since one flesh is sex, man and woman who are doing sex, by Jesus commentary, should keep doing sex.

Anything else is breaking one flesh, or in another words: doing divorce which no person should try to do. Therefore father is forbidden from divorcing her daughter which basically means is he isn't allowed to break daughter's fun with her lover (if it's already being done).

If you have issues with that, find yourself acceptable husband for her.

 

[Maddog]

Either Numbers 30 is the authority or it is not. One flesh is not the overriding principle because it is possible to be one flesh everyday of the week.

 

[MemeFan]

And Jesus direct words should be priority in understanding Scripture. They come before Numbers 30.

What's so hard to get? What comes first? Book or it's author in understanding meaning of words in book?

 

[steve]

And Jesus direct words should be priority in understanding Scripture. They come before Numbers 30.

What's so hard to get? What comes first? Book or it's author in understanding meaning of words in book?

If you think that there is a disagreement between Yeshuah and the OT, it can only be because you misunderstand one or both of them.

 

[Mojo]

What's so hard to get? What comes first? Book or it's author in understanding meaning of words in book?

Every word in the book comes from the same author. If someone sees confusion or contradiction, it doesn’t come from the author, it comes from the reader. Folks are hoping to refine their comprehension of a united text and not be in contradiction to the author. They’re trying to harmonize the two portions.

 

[Heavens Declare]

So what if man has to pay. This doesn't prove marriage didn't exist or has stopped existing. There is no "undo" for sex.

And btw, you should read Jesus commentary on divorce. One flesh shouldn't be broken. And since one flesh is sex, man and woman who are doing sex, by Jesus commentary, should keep doing sex.

Anything else is breaking one flesh, or in another words: doing divorce which no person should try to do. Therefore father is forbidden from divorcing her daughter which basically means is he isn't allowed to break daughter's fun with her lover (if it's already being done).

If you have issues with that, find yourself acceptable husband for her.

You missed the point so I will reiterate with emphasis on the phrase that is relevant.

He has to pay the bride price even if the father refuses to let him have her.

 

[MemeFan]

You missed the point so I will reiterate with emphasis on the phrase that is relevant.

He has to pay the bride price even if the father refuses to let him have her.

And I'm telling you father can't refuse since only husband can issue valid divorce.

I'm willing to bet translation is something like "father utterly refusing" which means father isn't someone normal.

Man who prefers seduction over asking father is man who wants girl very very much. Maybe man who will sign being beaten to death if he makes daughter cry. Heard some guy did sign that in Babylon for real. And Bible has case of man willing to work 7 years for one girl.

So what kind of man wouldn't be able to get written favourable contract terms for his daughter?

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I'm willing to bet translation is something like "father utterly refusing" which means father isn't someone normal.

Nope... Father is the one that has the final say over which man will be able to have his daughter. God designed it this way and God knows best.
Having sex alone is NOT marriage despite what some people would have you to believe. Scripture gives multiple examples that we can draw on to understand this.