Husband/father's authority

[Mark]

If a husband or father has the authority to annul the vows of his wife or daughters, does he also have the authority to place them under his own vow, i.e., arranged marriage (as an extreme example) or committing them to a service or activity without first consulting them (asking the neighbors and their fifteen cats over for dinner)?

If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. And if she had at all a husband, when she vowed, or uttered aught out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.
(Numbers 30:3-8)

[Nashdude]

I don't think so. I don't have any scripture to back this up at the moment, but I think it would be unfair to demand something out of the daughter that she herself did not promise to do. It would be similar to a man promising that his daughter would accept Christ, when we all know that salvation is an INDIVIDUAL thing that cannot be bestowed by a third party. It's strictly between the individual and God.

The father or husband having authority to relieve the woman of her vows, I can see that. It implies that her bond was not hers to give, as she is under the authority of another. However, for the father or husband to commit her to a vow she did not make herself would be to reduce her to PROPERTY, rather than the individual that she is.

a la Nash

[droeh]

It's interesting that in the case of Rebekah, they asked her what her choice was. . .

[Nashdude]

Jul 25, 2008 11:48:57 GMT -8 droeh said:

It's interesting that in the case of Rebekah, they asked her what her choice was. . .

Seems pretty common sensical to me. I mean, you might have the "authority" to affect someone else's vows, but you might not like the reaction you get.

Consider Abraham. Sarah tells him to sleep with Hagar, and he gets Ishmael. God steps in, Sarah gets Isaac, and she tells Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Ishmael.

What's Abraham to do? He's the man of the house, king of the castle, ruler of the roost! What he says, goes! "Abraham, get rid of that woman and her son." So he hitches up his belt, squares his shoulders back, looks her dead in the eye and says, "Yes, dear. Right away."

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient." You may be the king of the castle, but when Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. You may have the authority, but will your exercise of it be worth what you may have to endure because of it?