Closed Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Unbinding the Woman's Hair in Numbers 5:11-31

  1. #1
    okcalvin's Avatar
    okcalvin is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Lawton, OK
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts

    Unbinding the Woman's Hair in Numbers 5:11-31

    In the ordeal in Numbers 5:11-31, the woman suspected of adultery has her hair uncovered / unbound. Commentators sometimes refer to the loosing of the hair of the leper as a symbol of uncleanness, and liken what is in Numbers 5 with it.

    However, I'm not entirely satisfied with that interpretation. The woman has not yet been found guilty. She is there due to a jealous husband, who suspects she is guilty, but the matter hasn't yet come to its conclusion.

    What do you think of this interpretation:

    1. The unbinding of the hair is symbolic of the temporary removal of the husband's covenantal headship for this matter of adjudication. Think of 1 Corinthians 11 and headcoverings.
    2. In Numbers 30:13, the husband may annul an oath taken by a wife.
    3. Since the woman in the ordeal in Numbers 5 takes an oath (apparently twice), this temporary removal of the woman from the husband's headship places her directly in line with the judgment of God, covenantally-speaking. She is calling upon God to judge her in this ordeal. The husband in this matter has no say-so to annual what she says in her oath in this circumstances.
    4. If the matter does indeed turn out that she has not been unfaithful (i.e., God hasn't caused her thigh to rot and belly to swell), then the matter of the jealous husband is at rest. Her oath is good, and he must receive it and let the matter rest.

    Lemme know what you think.

    JOB
    __________
    John Owen Butler
    Pastor-teacher
    Beal Heights Presbyterian Church (PCA)
    Lawton, OK (USA)
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to okcalvin For This Useful Post:

    Pergamum (10-24-2008)

  3. #2
    Iconoclast's Avatar
    Iconoclast is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    St.James ,NY
    Posts
    1,516
    Thanks
    713
    Thanked 258 Times in 181 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okcalvin View Post
    In the ordeal in Numbers 5:11-31, the woman suspected of adultery has her hair uncovered / unbound. Commentators sometimes refer to the loosing of the hair of the leper as a symbol of uncleanness, and liken what is in Numbers 5 with it.

    However, I'm not entirely satisfied with that interpretation. The woman has not yet been found guilty. She is there due to a jealous husband, who suspects she is guilty, but the matter hasn't yet come to its conclusion.

    What do you think of this interpretation:

    1. The unbinding of the hair is symbolic of the temporary removal of the husband's covenantal headship for this matter of adjudication. Think of 1 Corinthians 11 and headcoverings.
    2. In Numbers 30:13, the husband may annul an oath taken by a wife.
    3. Since the woman in the ordeal in Numbers 5 takes an oath (apparently twice), this temporary removal of the woman from the husband's headship places her directly in line with the judgment of God, covenantally-speaking. She is calling upon God to judge her in this ordeal. The husband in this matter has no say-so to annual what she says in her oath in this circumstances.
    4. If the matter does indeed turn out that she has not been unfaithful (i.e., God hasn't caused her thigh to rot and belly to swell), then the matter of the jealous husband is at rest. Her oath is good, and he must receive it and let the matter rest.

    Lemme know what you think.

    JOB
    __________
    John Owen Butler
    Pastor-teacher
    Beal Heights Presbyterian Church (PCA)
    Lawton, OK (USA)
    Sam Waldron opens up these texts dealing with The idea of the "long hair" neatly done up in a sermon he preached on the head covering of 1 Cor 11.
    I think he is in Kentucky now, near Lexington if you needed to track down the message, or perhaps his email address.
    Anthony D'Arienzo
    Sunday School Teacher
    Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
    Medford, N.Y.
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  4. #3
    okcalvin's Avatar
    okcalvin is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Lawton, OK
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
    Thanks!
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  5. #4
    armourbearer's Avatar
    armourbearer is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    7,852
    Thanks
    973
    Thanked 6,064 Times in 2,217 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okcalvin View Post
    Lemme know what you think.
    The loosening of the tie to the husband's authority is a good insight; Poole also makes a suggestion along these lines; but it is difficult to not associate "shame" with the ordeal. It may be that we naturally read an "innocent until proven guilty" idea into biblical jurisprudence which might not be there.

    PS. Welcome to the board
    Yours sincerely,


    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to armourbearer For This Useful Post:

    Rev. Todd Ruddell (10-24-2008)

  7. #5
    Rev. Todd Ruddell's Avatar
    Rev. Todd Ruddell is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Lavon, TX
    Posts
    886
    Thanks
    489
    Thanked 350 Times in 142 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by okcalvin View Post
    Lemme know what you think.
    The loosening of the tie to the husband's authority is a good insight; Poole also makes a suggestion along these lines; but it is difficult to not associate "shame" with the ordeal. It may be that we naturally read an "innocent until proven guilty" idea into biblical jurisprudence which might not be there.

    PS. Welcome to the board
    This has been my understanding as well. Her hair is let loose as a sign of shame. In other words, since she is suspected of lewdness, the letting down of her hair, (something which she would only do in the presence of her husband) is tantamount to her being, in a sense, undressed before the priest, and therefore, before God. However, the Lod will vindicate her if she is truly clean, and she can place herself in His hands--this is her "Amen".
    Rev. Todd Ruddell
    Pastor, Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCGA)
    Wylie, TX
    www.christcovenantreformedpc.org

    Our best marks can contribute nothing to our justification, ...that is proper to faith. Faith cannot lodge in the soul alone, and without other graces; yet faith alone justifies before God.--G. Gillespie
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  8. #6
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oceano, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,228
    Thanks
    2,151
    Thanked 2,864 Times in 1,355 Posts
    I'm with John. Under Biblical law, a person really is innocent until proven guilty, and public shame is a punishment. It's the same in church courts today, at least in historic confessional churches. For instance if a Pastor tells a congregation that someone is guilty of sin in the midst of a church trial, the Pastor is immediately recused from judging that trial, since he's technically committed slander, even if everything he says is true.

    I think John went through the subject Biblically and systematically. The woman has temporarily been put under the direct headship of the church. A man has no right to annul her vow until the ordeal is over.

    I see it as strictness mixed with compassion; a way of giving the woman her day in court rather than public shame.
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  9. #7
    armourbearer's Avatar
    armourbearer is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    7,852
    Thanks
    973
    Thanked 6,064 Times in 2,217 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TimV View Post
    It's the same in church courts today, at least in historic confessional churches.
    A church court does not conduct criminal trials.
    Yours sincerely,


    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69