Then please explain what it is, and when, a woman, aka 'isha,' finds her vows (Numbers 30) subject to the jurisdiction of whatever that new guy is called, in lieu of her father.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Does a single woman always need her father’s approval to marry?
- Thread starter Aaron_D
- Start date
A comment here:
I do find this whole "one flesh" kerfuffle a bit unsettling. The term is not QUITE an accurate translation, IMHO, of the original Hebrew.
The term is more literally, "flesh echad." And, again, the translation is not literally inaccurate, but flawed. Because 'achat' or 'echad' (depending on the noun gender) can mean the cardinal number "one" - but is often, depending on context, something "bigger."
It more generally means "a UNITY." A "flock" is, for example, "echad." The people (ha-am) of "kol Israel," started out in the wilderness as a 'mixed multitude,' of twelve tribes plus, but - at least briefly - eventually became a people who were 'echad.' Ezekiel's famous "two sticks" (chapter 37) became "echad" in his hand. And, vitally importantly, in Deuteronomy 6:4+ (which the Messiah Himself said clearly is "the Most Important Commandment in His Book) that "Shema, Israel...YHVH Elohenu, YHVH Echad..."
Yes, we've all heard it rendered, with the Name omitted, that He "is One." But, then that refutes the whole "trinity" thing, and results in knock-down, drag outs. (I have often said that I can related to trig, differential equations, and integral calculus, but have trouble understanding "3=1")
The point is, He is a Unity, arguably, even "All."
So, I contend, to repeat, that "echad" means more than just a single cardinal number.
And that a husband and wife become a "flesh, echad," makes sense on so many levels. It also helps explain what Adam said Chava was "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone," and a father, too, has a unified flesh relationship with the daughter of his own seed, at least until he chooses to transfer such.
All of which, again hearkens back to why I contend some concepts can be hard to translate, particularly into a single word in another language, without context or explanation.
I do find this whole "one flesh" kerfuffle a bit unsettling. The term is not QUITE an accurate translation, IMHO, of the original Hebrew.
The term is more literally, "flesh echad." And, again, the translation is not literally inaccurate, but flawed. Because 'achat' or 'echad' (depending on the noun gender) can mean the cardinal number "one" - but is often, depending on context, something "bigger."
It more generally means "a UNITY." A "flock" is, for example, "echad." The people (ha-am) of "kol Israel," started out in the wilderness as a 'mixed multitude,' of twelve tribes plus, but - at least briefly - eventually became a people who were 'echad.' Ezekiel's famous "two sticks" (chapter 37) became "echad" in his hand. And, vitally importantly, in Deuteronomy 6:4+ (which the Messiah Himself said clearly is "the Most Important Commandment in His Book) that "Shema, Israel...YHVH Elohenu, YHVH Echad..."
Yes, we've all heard it rendered, with the Name omitted, that He "is One." But, then that refutes the whole "trinity" thing, and results in knock-down, drag outs. (I have often said that I can related to trig, differential equations, and integral calculus, but have trouble understanding "3=1")
The point is, He is a Unity, arguably, even "All."
So, I contend, to repeat, that "echad" means more than just a single cardinal number.
And that a husband and wife become a "flesh, echad," makes sense on so many levels. It also helps explain what Adam said Chava was "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone," and a father, too, has a unified flesh relationship with the daughter of his own seed, at least until he chooses to transfer such.
All of which, again hearkens back to why I contend some concepts can be hard to translate, particularly into a single word in another language, without context or explanation.
I don't see the connection. Whatever authority a man has over his woman's vows does not stem from a vow that she took. The man's authority over vows stems from the one flesh relationship. What we're looking for is some kind of indication that the one flesh relationship is established in any way through a vow. I maintain that its not. No one has been able to show me proof that it is.
Case: Numbers chapter 30.
How is that NOT a "vow" somehow "attached to [flesh echad]?"
And since you're big on demanding "proof" in the form of citations directly from Scripture:
I will contend that it is EASY to demonstrate the CONVERSE, even in the general case (men, women then become a special case):
"If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."
- Numbers 30:2
ANY man can "bind his soul" by swearing to, and "shall not break his word."
The burden of proof is to claim otherwise.
And, I contend, this IS fundamental.
Where is one flesh in Numbers 30? You’re focused on the vow, show me the one flesh.
No, I don't think it is. It just appears to be a disagreement because we use words differently. Exodus 22:16-17 is a very good illustration of how we agree, provided you explain it without using that pesky extraBiblical word "marriage".
When a man and woman have sex, they become one flesh. The father, vows, covenants, whatever have nothing to do with it. They're one flesh because they had sex.
But if the man is a complete bastard the father's obviously going to refuse to actually let him run off with his daughter - if he would have refused had that man asked his permission to marry, the fact that the man then managed to seduce the daughter is not exactly going to endear the father to him. This verse describes the fact that the father may refuse to physically hand over the daughter. It's all about possession.
And this is something I actually learned from you! I'm sure you've said it more clearly than this in the hundreds of posts you've made on it, but a quick forum search gave me this from way back in 2016, and you've stuck to it consistently ever since:
And to clarify in a more recent thread:
It's all about possession.
Now, what do you need to actually physically have a wife living in your home and sleeping in your bed? Both "one flesh" and possession - you actually need to have her physically with you if you're going to have a marriage with her. If her father won't give her to you, then you "aren't bound because of some one else's intransigence", and are "freed from the marriage" - your own words, as quoted above. Because you need BOTH possession and one flesh to actually have a wife. Which you have repeatedly said yourself for at least 8 years.
So the problem that will arise from this interpretation is that it gives the father a role the scripture does not. It assumes that the father’s intransigence is justified and is disqualifying of the marriage. It is not. This passage is simply about practical realities.
Had the young man gotten away with the young women then the one flesh is valid. If possession is interrupted some other way it doesn’t invalidate the one flesh.
Well, I was just repeating your own words. It is entirely possible that you were wrong! 
Seriously though, there isn't actually a problem here. Scripture never suggests that the father's intransigence is justified or not - the verse would apply to a wide range of practical situations, some of which would be justified (e.g. man is a violent rapist) and some not (man is great but the father is being a jerk). This applies regardless of whether the father is justified, and as you say is simply about practical realities - who physically possesses the woman.
The father cannot break the "one flesh" relationship. Nor can the young man. Nobody can. It's a physical reality also. And whether or not he possesses the woman doesn't change it.
Under what two circumstances could a man honestly say "I possess a woman", or "This is my woman"?
1) If the father gives her to him.
2) If he manages to steal her away and the father doesn't manage to stop him.
If he takes her, she's his woman. If he doesn't take her, she isn't his woman. Again, practical reality.
Seriously though, there isn't actually a problem here. Scripture never suggests that the father's intransigence is justified or not - the verse would apply to a wide range of practical situations, some of which would be justified (e.g. man is a violent rapist) and some not (man is great but the father is being a jerk). This applies regardless of whether the father is justified, and as you say is simply about practical realities - who physically possesses the woman.
The father cannot break the "one flesh" relationship. Nor can the young man. Nobody can. It's a physical reality also. And whether or not he possesses the woman doesn't change it.
Under what two circumstances could a man honestly say "I possess a woman", or "This is my woman"?
1) If the father gives her to him.
2) If he manages to steal her away and the father doesn't manage to stop him.
If he takes her, she's his woman. If he doesn't take her, she isn't his woman. Again, practical reality.
Last edited:
I see that the discussion has headed into depths of which I am very ignorant of, so I'll just keep to my personal experience regarding this topic. Getting my father's approval of my marriage was perhaps the greatest challenge of all. My family comes from a background where monogamy is the rule, so when I presented the idea of becoming the second wife to a man who was already married, it was met with disapproval from almost everyone. I knew I could legally marry whomever I wanted, but I also love my parents and wanted to have their blessing of my marriage. Also living under my father's authority meant that I couldn't just do whatever I wanted. It took a couple of years and the help of a friend (the one who introduced me to my husband) to make my father realise this was the best for me.
I'm not trying to.
The bigger question is that other word (ok, words: marriage, ownership, 'his isha', covenant...etc...)
WHATEVER that relationship is, is called - how does that man acquire 'authority' over that woman with respect to her vows?
If it's not "flesh echad," then what is it? There are 'dots' here - I can connect them. But you seem to have a different pencil.
There is no word. It's by nature of sex because sex creates new organization (family, needed due to children).
And since family has multiple people as members, there is need for governance which falls naturally into man's hands as more dominant person.
And since man is superior (in governance sense) he needs to be able to decide which commitments are acceptable since any large commitment has risk existence of entire family. Therefore man has authority over his woman wovs.
So, you're saying that if some creep rapes my daughter he now is in authority over her and I am not?
Think about it for a bit. That simplistic view would validate the actions of every dirty public school teacher and paedophile priest, at least the heterosexual ones - once they've done the deed they're now in authority and can order the kid to do it again tomorrow. Now, I know you don't believe that. Obviously, nobody truly thinks that. But the position you just espoused leads directly to that conclusion. Therefore either this is true, or your statement that sex gives a man authority is wrong.
It does make them one flesh. But authority? That's not necessarily the same thing.
I do NOT disagree that the authority is acquired by 'carnal knowledge', sexual intercourse, to "yada" her...etc. But I contend that the missing element is that it is VOLUNTARY. She is asked (see Rivkah, first, then others) and agrees. (I sometimes quip that she became 'his isha' - even though she had never met Yitzak - when she "got on the camel." She not only consented, but took the step that demonstrated her obedience and intent.)
Then Genesis 24:67 summarizes the process about as succinctly and unequivocally as is possible:
And Isaac [1] brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and [2] took Rebekah, and [3] she became his wife; and [4] he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
There are benefits for a woman's father choosing a man that is already married, and has children. He can see his fruit.
We do the same exact thing throughout our lives. Would you rather go to a well established restaurant with great reviews, or take a chance with a new restaurant with zero reviews? When choosing a product or service to purchase - we check reviews.
So a man that already has a wife and children - the girl's father for the potential 2nd wife - at least he can see the fruit of the man's first marriage. The same can't be said if she was entering into monogamy. The man may look great on the surface. But a few years down the road his daughter may end up getting physically abused, and it comes out he was hiding the fact he's a violent drinker.
If a man takes a woman's virginity - but does not take her as his wife - no where in the Torah (from my own understanding) is she forbidden from finding a husband. And I don't believe they are married just because they became one flesh together. Here is an example:
The Rape of Tamar. After the act - the man no longer liked her - and here's what she responded with:
2 Samuel 13:13 (after the sexual relations took place):
Please, just speak to the king (her father) about it, and he will let you marry me.
So that tells me that just because her virginity was taken - and they became one flesh - they weren't married as of yet. Same with Jacob's daughter. They didn't become married after the one flesh union. Jacob found out quickly about the entire situation, and he had the authority to cancel the marriage union. Thankfully, YAH blessed him with 12 sons, so he was in a strong position to negotiate. (He held his peace until his sons returned).
If the following happens:
1. Man takes her virginity but chooses to dis obey the Creator’s instructions and not marry her. (Even if her father approves of him).
Or
2. The man takes her virginity - he wants to marry her - but in this instance her father quickly found out and stopped the marriage from taking place.
She does not have a husband. The Torah says if a man takes a woman’s virginity “he must marry her.” It does not say “he is now married to her.” This implies the man still has a choice. A choice to obey or dis obey. A choice to marry her (obedience), or not marry her (dis obedience).
I personally don’t see anywhere in the Torah that a woman is no longer allowed to seek a husband (in the case the man that took her virginity chooses not to marry her, or if her father finds out and stops it from taking place).
Nor do I see that it would be adultery if she seeks a husband (since she never had a husband). I don’t think we should add or take away from the Creator’s Torah if it does not speak about such cases.
How should the marriage take place after her virginity was already taken (and her father approves)? I think this is a clue:
2 Corinthians 13:1
“The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”
Deut. 19:15
A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
A public announcement/acknowledgement with at least two witnesses that confirms - “This woman is now my wife.” If the marriage occurs then what YAH has joined together; let no man separate (Matthew 19:6).
The Rape of Tamar. After the act - the man no longer liked her - and here's what she responded with:
2 Samuel 13:13 (after the sexual relations took place):
Please, just speak to the king (her father) about it, and he will let you marry me.
So that tells me that just because her virginity was taken - and they became one flesh - they weren't married as of yet. Same with Jacob's daughter. They didn't become married after the one flesh union. Jacob found out quickly about the entire situation, and he had the authority to cancel the marriage union. Thankfully, YAH blessed him with 12 sons, so he was in a strong position to negotiate. (He held his peace until his sons returned).
If the following happens:
1. Man takes her virginity but chooses to dis obey the Creator’s instructions and not marry her. (Even if her father approves of him).
Or
2. The man takes her virginity - he wants to marry her - but in this instance her father quickly found out and stopped the marriage from taking place.
She does not have a husband. The Torah says if a man takes a woman’s virginity “he must marry her.” It does not say “he is now married to her.” This implies the man still has a choice. A choice to obey or dis obey. A choice to marry her (obedience), or not marry her (dis obedience).
I personally don’t see anywhere in the Torah that a woman is no longer allowed to seek a husband (in the case the man that took her virginity chooses not to marry her, or if her father finds out and stops it from taking place).
Nor do I see that it would be adultery if she seeks a husband (since she never had a husband). I don’t think we should add or take away from the Creator’s Torah if it does not speak about such cases.
How should the marriage take place after her virginity was already taken (and her father approves)? I think this is a clue:
2 Corinthians 13:1
“The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”
Deut. 19:15
A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
A public announcement/acknowledgement with at least two witnesses that confirms - “This woman is now my wife.” If the marriage occurs then what YAH has joined together; let no man separate (Matthew 19:6).
Last edited:
I have recently stated, possibly in this thread that rape is a difficult topic. Unfortunately we have scripture that does imply that rape results in a one flesh. I’ll have to look it back up. It’s a deeply troubling verse and I don’t have a box to put it in. But it is a verse and we can’t act like it doesn’t exist.
That would make me very happy.
Tamar? The half sister? She was so unlearned in the Law she didn’t know that if he asked the king for her he would need to be stoned? You’re taking her teaching on one flesh as authoritative?
The Torah says if a man takes a woman’s virginity “he must marry her.” It does not say “he is now married to her.” This implies the man still has a choice. A choice to obey or dis obey. A choice to marry her (obedience), or not marry her (dis obedience).
And that is only if her father approves. Based on her comment about asking the King - that tells me she knew her father had final authority. Which is what it says in the Torah:
Exodus 22:17
But if her father refuses to let him marry her, the man must still pay him an amount equal to the bride price of a virgin
Her father may of said no because that’s her brother - but nonetheless - she knew her father had final authority in allowing or dis allowing the marriage to proceed. So one flesh union (sexual relations) alone does not constitute a marriage. The case of Tamar and Jacob’s daughter - is just supporting evidence that the taking of a woman’s virginity alone does not constitute to marriage.
Last edited: