(continued from the previous entry in this series)

Some passages in the Bible are intended as "case laws," similar to the idea of "precedence" in our legal system, so that their applications are not limited to the immediate context; rather, they set forth the principles upon which similar cases should be judged.

For example, Paul uses the law, "Do not muzzle an ox," as something like a case law and teaches from it the right of a minister to receive money from those to whom he ministers:

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? (1 Corinthians 9:7–11)

When it comes to principle 4, which is rarely taught, one of the relevant biblical passages is Numbers 30:1–16. It reads as follows:

Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands: When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

"When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

"If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

"Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.

"If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt."

These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house.

This is directly applicable to Christians. And although the immediate context refers to "a vow to the LORD," the principles applies to all kinds of promises, since the entire passage is God’s command "concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house." So not only is it applicable, but it is even more obviously applicable than some of the case laws.

(Concerning the applicability of the OT law, please see my Commentary on Ephesians and The Sermon on the Mount. And for more on the authority structure in the home, please see my Commentary on Ephesians and Renewing the Mind.)

Let us apply the above to an example.

Suppose a relative or a friend of a married woman wishes to borrow money. The woman has no right to promise a loan without first asking her husband. If the woman nevertheless promises the loan and the husband is present, then he has the right to immediately nullify the promise. The husband has not sinned by nullifying the promise illegitimately made by the wife, and the wife would not sin by withholding the loan that she has initially promised, since the promise has been nullified by the husband. Yet, the wife has indeed sinned by making the promise without asking her husband. Now if the woman promises the loan and her husband is not present, then he has the right to nullify the promise once he hears about it, and the rest is the same.

But whether or not the husband is present when the woman makes the promise, if he says nothing once he hears about it, then it is as if he has given his approval and confirmed the promise. Both the husband and the wife are then morally obligated to make good the promise and grant the loan. However, if the husband changes his mind and decides to withhold the loan once he has explicitly or implicitly confirmed the promise, then he commits sin, and it is as if he has personally made and then broken the promise. In this case (that is, when the husband changes his mind after confirming the promise), the wife should obey the husband and withhold the loan — she does not sin by doing this, but the blame falls upon her husband. On the other hand, if the wife decides to make good the promise even after the husband has changed his mind, then both the husband and the wife commit sin — he sins by breaking the promise, and she sins by disobeying her husband.

As for the husband, he has the right to promise the loan without first discussing it with his wife; however, out of love and respect for his wife, to protect the trust and intimacy of the marriage relationship, and to maintain order in the home, it would be wise for him to discuss it with his wife anyway, and he should usually (practically always) make the promise only if they both agree to it. Yet, the final decision always rests with the husband.

Of course, feminists don't like this, but I don't like feminists, so we are even. But I am still right.

Note not only the tremendous authority of the husband, but also the tremendous responsibility that is placed upon him. It is up to him to assess whether or not the family can afford to offer the loan, as well as to determine all the likely spiritual, social, and financial consequences of making the promise. Whether or not he thinks that it is a good idea (and especially if he thinks that it is not a good idea), if he approves and confirms the promise made by the wife (or if he is the one who makes the promise), and then if severe hardship strikes the family because of the loan — since the needed money is not there — then, assuming that there is no moral justification for making the family undergo such hardship, the blame again falls upon the husband, not the wife.

It is true that some wives are better than their husbands at analyzing the family’s financial situation. In such cases, the husbands should acknolwedge this, and discuss the matter with their wives, and then make their decision. But whether or not they do this, they must make the final decision and assume the moral responsibility for it. They are the ones with the greatest authority in the home, but they are also the ones who are most accountable for what happens in and to their families.

We have used the marriage relationship and a loan in our example, but the principle applies also to the relationship between a father and a daughter, and regarding other types of vows and promises.

Also, notice that although we have used it to illustrate principle 4, this passage also addresses other individuals and relationships, such as a man, a widow, and a divorced woman. A full exposition of the passage should not neglect these.

(to be continued)

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians

Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount

Vincent Cheung, Renewing the Mind

Martha Peace, The Excellent Wife

Elizabeth Handford, Me? Obey Him?

J. David Pawson, Leadership is Male

John Piper, Wayne Grudem, ed., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Stephen Clark, Man and Woman in Christ

Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective

George W. Knight III, The Role Relationships of Men and Women

John Benton, Gender Questions

Andreas J. Kostenberger, God, Marriage, and Family

Kostenberger, Schreiner, Baldwin, ed., Women in the Church

Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth

Susan Foh, Women and the Word of God

Mary Kassian, Women, Creation, and the Fall

Mary Kassian, The Feminist Gospel

Mary Kassian, The Feminist Mistake

Richard Hove, Equality in Christ?

Daniel Doriani, Women and Ministry

Wayne Grudem, ed., Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood

Wayne Grudem, Dennis Rainey, ed., Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood

Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Biblical Womanhood in the Home

Gordon Clark, Essays on Ethics and Politics

Gordon Clark, The Pastoral Epistles

John Murray, Principles of Conduct

Wayne Grudem, Evangelism Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? (not yet released)

Posted in Expositions, Spirituality | Permanent Link