Biblical Rebuttal of SAHD Movement

[dripcurl]

TW: Rape is mentioned in this post

 

I was browsing for new SAHD blogs, and I found this article by someone who seems to be a Christian and study the Bible, but has a interesting perspective in interpreting Numbers 30, which is often used as the basis by fundies to command stay at home daughter hood.  

 

A snippet:

 

“So back to Numbers 30. Even for young women who've left the patriarchal paradigm, this passage remains troublesome. I haven't seen anyone convincingly argue for its relevance to today's daughters, yet I've never seen anyone figure out a logical rebuttal. It's a thorn to one and a holding peg for the other. Without further ado, I give you Numbers 30:
 

If a woman vows a vow to the LORD and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father's house in her youth, and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

-- Numbers 30:3-5

 

At first glance, this passage reads that a father has authority over his young daughter in the home in the area of her vows and by extension her. At the second glance -- and the third -- and the fourth -- it reads the same thing.  Even for those who disagree with the patriarchialists, this passage will not offer an alternate reading. Arguing otherwise is a very bad idea.

 

However, it's equally ludicrous to say that this passage is the prooftext that a girl may never, ever leave her father's authority as an adult, that she is his helper until marriage and that a woman must always have a male covering or she will fall to pieces. The girl in question is a young girl, a naur, a minor who is living in her father's house. This is not a grown woman by the law's or culture's standards. But even if she is a twenty-seven-year-old, the passage still cannot be twisted that she must stay home.

This is what I call a provisional law, which may or may not be an actual theological term outside my world. We see such provisional laws as in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the former dealing with a raped virgin and the latter with a divorced wife. They seem almost callous at first, a raped virgin marrying her attacker, a divorced wife being bounced around from man to man, none of whom find any favor in her. But closer examination reveals that the situations are not necessary, normative or right simply because the law "allows" them. It merely provides for the violated party in the situation as it arises.

Of course, a young daughter living with her father is not at all morally related to rape and divorce. I parallel the cases to show that merely because the law portrays a certain condition does not mean that it is a universally binding command. In the case of Numbers 30, the section on vows comes immediately after a long explanation on sacrifices. Vows and sacrifices went together. Sacrifices meant money and property, something the head of the house would surely be interested in. Thus, he was given authority to cancel the thoughtless vows of his young daughter and his wife -- persons legally under his jurisdiction.”

 

I agree and disagree with certain things in this article, but I appreciate thag someone who is looking through a biblical perspective is showing that the SAHD movement is a load of bullshit for the most part.

 

Link: https://bighouseinthelittlewoodsblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/numbers-30-and-todays-christian.html?m=1

[NachosFlandersStyle]

She now runs a Christian feminist blog: https://weareezer.com/

[MamaJunebug]

1 hour ago, NachosFlandersStyle said:

She now runs a Christian feminist blog: https://weareezer.com/

Thanks! Looks like some interesting reading.