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



## okcalvin (Oct 23, 2008)

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)


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 23, 2008)

okcalvin said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## okcalvin (Oct 23, 2008)

Thanks!


----------



## MW (Oct 23, 2008)

okcalvin said:


> 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


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Oct 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> okcalvin said:
> 
> 
> > Lemme know what you think.
> ...



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".


----------



## TimV (Oct 24, 2008)

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.


----------



## MW (Oct 24, 2008)

TimV said:


> It's the same in church courts today, at least in historic confessional churches.



A church court does not conduct criminal trials.


----------

