By Ken Pierce
From the opening verses of the Torah, the Bible emphasizes the power and importance of the spoken word (Gen 1:3ff). In the NT, John drew on imagery from Genesis to frame the prologue to his “Promise of Life” message, in which He emphasized Jesus’ identity as the Logos—the Word who was in the beginning with God, who indeed was God, and through whom all things were made (John 1:1-5; cf. Col 1:16-17; Rev 4:11).
Considering the importance God places on the spoken word (Deut 8:3; Matt 4:4), it should come as no surprise that He directed His choice nation Israel to keep and honor their word. As He charged them with representing His image to the nations around them, God wanted them to be known as a people who kept their vows and oaths, distancing themselves from falsehood and deception (cf. Ps 4:2; 7:14; Prov 6:17; 21:6; Isa 28:15; John 8:44; 1 John 1:8, 10; 2 John 7).
As the nation prepared to enter the Promised Land, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes (Num 30:1), revealing a commandment he received from the LORD concerning vows and oaths. Several Tanakh passages speak to the importance God attached to keeping vows and oaths (e.g., Gen 14:22; Exod 13:19; 22:10-11; Lev 5:1, 4; 7:16; 27:1-7; Deut 23:21-23; 29:10-13; 32:4; Josh 9:19-21; Pss 66:13-15; 144:8; Eccl 5:4-5; Dan 12:7). Particularly interesting in the instructions recorded in Numbers 30, however, is the LORD’S promulgation of requirements for Israelite men not only to keep their own word, but to pay attention to the vows and oaths of their wives and daughters as well. Indeed, Numbers 30 contains just one verse on the need for men to keep their vows and oaths (v 2). The remainder of the chapter focuses on the importance God ascribed to the vows and oaths of Israelite women.
It bears noting that Yahweh’s guidance in Numbers 30 constituted a radical departure from the contemporary norms and standards of that day. In effect, He imposed unheard-of restraints on Israelite masculine authority: He prohibited fathers and husbands from ignoring and/or trivializing women’s oaths and vows. This was in sharp contrast to the customs of the nations around them. Israelite fathers would have to listen when an unmarried daughter contemplated taking a vow, because if “her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand” (v 4). In other words, God would hold a father accountable to support, encourage, and enable his daughter to fulfill her vow. Should he simply ignore her or disregard her words––or worse yet, actively seek to impede fulfilment of her vow––he would answer to God. It would be difficult to overstate how radically this provision was skewed from contemporary societal norms.
A similar concept of accountability applied to husbands regarding the oaths and vows their wives might wish to make. Men were at least equally capable of making “a rash utterance” (v 6), so this provision had nothing to do with insulting a woman’s ability to reason. Rather, the text emphasized the importance of a woman’s word, and her husband’s accountability before Yahweh to support her—as though he were still standing by his bride under the chuppah––the wedding canopy––promising to listen to her, care for her, and protect her. God indeed wanted husbands to listen, to pay attention, and to take account of what their wives were contemplating, long after memories of the wedding celebration faded. Acceding to her vow or oath bound a husband to support, empower, and encourage her. In God’s view, a husband should serve as his wife’s greatest counselor, champion, and cheerleader, mindful that Yahweh would hold him accountable to do so. Again, the radical nature of this divine injunction should not be missed.
In the special case of a widowed or divorced woman who returns to her father’s home, any obligation incurred under her husband’s authority did not transfer to her father’s account (v 9). Implicit in this provision, however, was God’s expectation that her male relatives would extend support and encouragement that the newly single woman might otherwise have expected from her husband— though such assistance was not mandatory (v 10).
With those provisions in place, it is also noteworthy that God imposed a time limit on a man’s opportunity to object to (and thereby nullify) his wife’s or daughter’s oath or vow. Once time ran out on “the day that he hears” (vv 5, 8, 12, 14), concurrence was locked in. This provision rather ingeniously incentivized men to pay more attention than they might otherwise have been inclined to. They would need to listen attentively when their wives or daughters said they were thinking of taking an oath or vow. If the man later realized that his burden to support, empower, and encourage exceeded original expectations, this would not entitle him to nullify her vow after the fact. The man would be bound before God to actively support her in its fulfillment.
A husband and wife could not later annul their obligation if they discovered, to their dismay, that fulfilling an oath or vow would prove more painful and/or costly than originally estimated. This principle prevails in parenting as well. Unlike the nations around them, Israelites were prohibited from inventing formulaic spells to break the force of an oath or vow, or from making counteracting offers (bribes) to competing pseudo-deities to annul it.
By imposing such ordinances on Israel, the LORD advanced several aims. First, He reinforced the point that Israel was to be holy (i.e., set apart), distinct from the nations around them, because the God they served is holy (Lev 19:2; 20:26). Second, He underscored the accountability to which He held Israelite men as spiritual heads of their households (v 16). Simply wielding power was not the point in God’s view, but incentivizing Israelite men to listen, protect, counsel, empower, and encourage the women He entrusted to their care was. Third, He elevated the concerns and intentions of Israelite women to a standard unheard-of in their day. The words of an Israelite woman—her vows and oaths—mattered greatly in Yahweh’s sight (a point that may have taken some time to register fully). Unlike the nations around them, Israelite men would trivialize a woman’s oath or vow at their own risk. Their God not only paid attention when a woman made an oath or a vow; He cared about whether they kept their word, just as He did with Israelite men. Finally, regardless of how the nations around them behaved, God expected Israelite men to protect and support their women, and to encourage and empower them to keep their word. Such expectation was fully consonant with the heart of God, who brought forth a woman as His crowning gift to Adam (Gen 2:21-23; Prov 12:4a), an act of grace that He never performed for any angel.
God’s views on the importance of keeping one’s word have not changed through the centuries. Though church age believers are not under the Torah (Rom 3:19; 6:15; Gal 5:18), God nevertheless expects His people to keep their word (Matt 5:37; Jas 5:12). Husbands walking in the light are commanded to “love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Eph 5:25, 28-29; cf. Col 3:19). A believing husband who is walking in the Spirit (Eph 5:18b; Col 3:16; Gal 5:16, 25) does well to encourage and champion his wife as she keeps her word. Likewise, a believing wife who is walking in the light does well to honor the King of Glory by seeking her husband’s counsel, concurrence, and support—particularly in a culture fervently opposed to any expression of feminine humility. In so doing, both partners in promise-keeping can look forward to hearing the Master say, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matt 25:21, 23; Luke 19:17).
____________________
Ken Pierce is a retired Navy intelligence officer. Ken studied Biblical Hebrew and Archaeology at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies. He is writing several commentaries for the forthcoming GES OT commentary. He and his wife Ana Maria recently celebrated thirty-eight years of marriage.
