“Every vow and every binding oath to humble herself, her husband may confirm it or her husband may annul it. But if her husband indeed says nothing to her from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all her obligations which are on her; he has confirmed them, because he said nothing to her on the day he heard them. But if he indeed annuls them after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt.” (NUmbers 30:13-15).

We learn that under the Old Covenant a husband may annul vows rashly made by his wife. If he does it when he first hears of them, then there is no repurcussion, the vows are nullified, the wife is forgiven any consequences regarding the failure to fulfill the vows. However, the above text suggests that if he does not annul the vows right away but waits till some time "after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt." Wow! Now, the husband was free to annul or not to annul. If he did not do it immediately, this text says that he can still do it, but he would then bear the consequences she would have incurred for her failure to fulfill the vows. The husband would, then, have to be a substitute to bear the wife's punishment.

Where do we find this kind of scenario again? Now, we are no longer under the Old Covenant, so this law has no direct bearing on Christians; however, this text reminds me of an even greater rule for husbands regarding their wives in the New Testament:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body (Ephesians 5:25-30).

In the husband and wife relationship is pictured the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He died for the sins of the church. Husbands are called to demonstrate this kind of love for their wives.

Even as the husband under the Old Covenant was alllowed to annul his wife's rash vows and bear the consequences for it, in the New Testament the husband is called to even put his life on the line for the sake of his wife's holiness and purity. This New Covenant principle seems to me an even greater and higher calling. There are others like it. For example, while the Old Testament did teach the principle of loving one's neighbor, Jesus magnified this by saying,

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).

The love that Jesus taught went so far as even "laying down one's life for a friend" (John 15:13). We are called to have this kind of love for our wives. 

This is also why it is completely irresponsible and sinful of husbands when they divorce their wives for this or that reason. Consider what Jesus bore on the cross for us. Did He die for merely small and inconsequential sins? Were not liars, murderers, and adulterers also covered by that blood? How much more, as husbands, ought we to bear with whatever faults or shortcomings we may find in our wives?

Remember, the command from the Lord was not conditional. He did not say, "Love your wives as Christ loved the church" if she submits to you "as to the Lord." If you have spent anytime in my comments on this site, you would recognize what a far cry the church is from any kind of genuine submission to the Lord. Yet, Christ still died for her and saved her and will never forsake or divorce her. Can we, as husbands, do any less? Are we greater than the Lord?

In the Old Testament the husband could annul the vows made by their wives; however, who will annul the vow we made to the Lord when we committed ourselves to our wives? Do we recognize that greater than any promise we made to our wives, we made a promise to God? The sanctity of the marriage vow is not so much in what the husband and wife have committed to each other, but what they have committed to each other before God. 

I say this also to preachers that sometimes counsel divorce, even for matters that don't involve adultery. Do you not realize that when you do this, you are being an anti-witness for Christ? If marriage is sacred and pictures Christ's substutionary atonement, what do you think you are doing when you support or counsel divorce?! When I protested such counsel by a certain pastor, I was chided for not understanding the emotional duress by those involved? While I can understand the need for sympathy and sensitivity in approach, this should not mean that we compromise God's truth. Thus, we "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15).

Dear brothers and sisters!
 
I've learned a very important lesson today from chapter 30 that God has given such an authority to man to be a godly leader for his family.  Chapter 30 deals with the issue of the self-imposed vow made by either a daughter or a wife.  The text indicates that when either unmarried daughter or wife makes a vow, her father or husband can annul it when he hears it the first time even though the vow was made to God.  When I read it, I couldn't believe it.  How can a man nullify something that is bound to God?  I believe that it tells us the utmost importance for a man to lead his family in Godly way so that the legacy of faith can be conveyed to the next generation and beyond.  We must, as a man, offer a sincere, daily prayer to God to be duly equipped for this task.  As it is written in Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," and in Ephesians 6:4, "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord." 

In Numbers 30, the topic of the keeping of vows as it pertains to a daughter & father as well as wife and husband reminds me of the hierarchy God has established in Ephesians 5:22-6:4.  Isn't it interesting that a father and husband can uphold or nullify a vow spoken by a daughter or wife.  In fact, it says once heard by the man the responsibility is transferred to him.  Both instances in Numbers 30 as the relationship established in Ephesians 5 are one of headship and exemplified in and given by analogy to Christ's relationship with the Body of Christ and God's relationship with his children.  One should be warned though.  The underlying principle with the headship is that of holiness.  If the act of discernment of absolute truth is not exercised in the keeping or nullifying of the vow then the way I read what is described as guilt in Numbers 30:15 is the consequence of not discerning the will of God.  What's interesting is that this passage does not talk about the woman's response to the father or husband's decision to keep or nullify the vow.  Again, I think if the man is aligned in God's word then any proper response can only be one of submission (Eph. 5:22-24).

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Here's my two cents on why the Simeonite tribe is reduced...In chapter 25 there is an incident where an Israelite named Zimri brings a Midianite woman into his tent (for sex) right in front of Moses and everybody.  To make things worse the foreign women (Moabites) are using sex to turn Israelite men to idolatry.  So blatant idolatry & adultry seem to be good reasons for God to reduce a families numbers.  Zimri as it turns out is the son of the Simeonite leader, Salu.  Yujin?

Yujin responds... That's right.

Those are good thoughts, and could agree, but i think yujin had mentioned a clan or two did grow... Yujin, when you post the answer can you title the post so i don't read it sooner than i want. Question: There was lots of blood flowing from the tabernacle. i just realized i have not distinguished between how much blood (a little) was from the priests, and the people ( a lot more considering there was over a half million sacrifices possoble) can you give a run down (doesn't have to be thorough) of how many different blood sacrifices a common person would do in a year? (or if you know an article to read)

Yujin responds... It's really hard to assess the number of sacrifices because a lot of it depends on their lifestyle. Many of the sacrifices were conditioned on sins committed, whether unintentional or intentional. There were also free will offerings that were given in thanksgiving. Of course there were also national offerings for the people in general. For example, there is one sacrifice per year for the sins of the nation on the Day of Atonement.

I guess this is from yesterday's reading. Ok, you mentioned in the intro that if we couldn't figure out why the census hadn't changed then we should ask you. Well I'm clueless. I seems like they should have grown over the last 40 yrs. Is it a curse from God? Is it because he doesn't want them to think that the only reason that they can defeat the Cannanites is because they have more people, so he is reminding them that it isn't their strength, but his that defeats them?

Yujin responds... Yes. It is a curse from God. Remember the reason for the forty years of wandering. It was a judgment for disobedience. When they were at the edge of the Promised Land in Kadesh-Barnea, God told them to take the land, but they refused and grumbled and talked of returning to Egypt. After forty days of spying out the land, 10 of the 12 spies reported negatively, and the people trusted the negative report. Because the people did not trust in the LORD, He told them that they would wander forty years in the wilderness until every adult of that generation, who had seen God's mighty acts, would die. Furthermore, the extreme reduction in numbers for the tribe of Simeon is likely because of their sin of intermarriage and idolatry with the Moabite women following the enticement of Balaam.