I highly doubt that claim.
Why it would be?
And what pre-dated them?
"Parents permission" is not the same as "Father's permission".
Fathers permission comes from the Bible. Not parents, but father.
Pater familias is chief of roman family. And he could order children to divorce. Doubt that comes from Lord.
This will sound like splitting hairs, but to understand what we see here you must know it comes not from the Bible but from God, the Creator of earth, the Author of authority, and the Ordainer of the precept that the delegation of His authority in earth rests on men (in this instance: husbands to take and fathers to give women in marriage). We may call the Bible the Word of God, but the Bible did not become flesh and dwell among us. The Bible is a witness to the Word of God, these immutable things created through Him, and, among other things, a written record of His chosen people. This is an important distinction to understand because it is why we see this practice (and other significant things) in the surviving records of unchosen people, such as these Germanic tribes, those who never saw or heard of the Bible but knew His ways from Noah, who was righteous, and carried those ways with them in their culture with varying degrees of accuracy.
No, @MemeFan. This is what happens when a man disregards the authority of a father and entices that man's daughter to do the same. This is what happens when a woman rebels against her father. I know you champion that. You should stop blaming the consequences on the command and start pinning it to the rebellion where it belongs.
I think this is well articulated and a correct understanding.I thought you were supposed to be Torah observant. Here I am, someone who doesn't hold to that general approach to Torah having to argue Torah application with you.
Numbers 30:3-5 says that the father has the authority to nullify the vow of the daughter on the day that he hears of it. Marriage being a covenant falls under the category of vows.
This only applies to the daughter in her her father's house in her youth. It doesn't apply to widowed or divorced women (verse 9), or apparently an older unmarried daughter living independently.
It wouldn't have applied in the case of you and @windblown, though I agree it was considerate to request her father's blessing.
Deuteronomy 7:1-3 prohibited the Israelites from marrying the various Canaanite people. Among other things God said "You shall not give your daughter to their son". This assumes the father's authority to give or refuse to give his daughter in marriage.
The Israelite father did have the authority to tell his daughter "No, you may not marry Bob the Jebusite down the street".
Exodus 22:16-17 also makes it clear that the father has this authority over the unmarried daughter living in his house. He can refuse to give her even after a consensual one flesh sexual union has occurred.
The authority of a husband over his wife or wives is greater than that of a father over his unmarried daughters, but that father authority is still real.
Once the father gives the daughter (or fails to nullify on the day her hears of it) he no longer has the authority. The authority is permanently transferred.
King Saul had no authority (as father or king) to nullify the marriage of David and Michal after the fact.
Better than I have ever explained it, and I have tried.I thought you were supposed to be Torah observant. Here I am, someone who doesn't hold to that general approach to Torah having to argue Torah application with you.
Numbers 30:3-5 says that the father has the authority to nullify the vow of the daughter on the day that he hears of it. Marriage being a covenant falls under the category of vows.
This only applies to the daughter in her her father's house in her youth. It doesn't apply to widowed or divorced women (verse 9), or apparently an older unmarried daughter living independently.
It wouldn't have applied in the case of you and @windblown, though I agree it was considerate to request her father's blessing.
Deuteronomy 7:1-3 prohibited the Israelites from marrying the various Canaanite people. Among other things God said "You shall not give your daughter to their son". This assumes the father's authority to give or refuse to give his daughter in marriage.
The Israelite father did have the authority to tell his daughter "No, you may not marry Bob the Jebusite down the street".
Exodus 22:16-17 also makes it clear that the father has this authority over the unmarried daughter living in his house. He can refuse to give her even after a consensual one flesh sexual union has occurred.
The authority of a husband over his wife or wives is greater than that of a father over his unmarried daughters, but that father authority is still real.
Once the father gives the daughter (or fails to nullify on the day her hears of it) he no longer has the authority. The authority is permanently transferred.
King Saul had no authority (as father or king) to nullify the marriage of David and Michal after the fact.
Really? Read my response.
And where does that passage mention marriage?
And where is marriage a covenant? Or involve a vow? I know we’ve gone around and around about this but the objection still stands. We never see a covenant or a vow connected to marriage anywhere in scripture, Malachi being a POSSIBLE but extremely questionable exception.
You have to reread this. First off, the verse has nothing to with the extent of a father’s authority or the legitimacy of the marriage. It is simply about bride price if the father is able to prevent the man taking possession. It has not more import than that.
And I thought you were an honest debater. Among those other things you forgot to mention was that this passage forbids taking their daughters and making covenants or even showing them favor. This passage does not comment at all on a father’s authority. It isn’t even about marriage. It is a general condemnation of several nations. Nothing in this passage applies as law outside of those 7 nations.
If this is the best it can be explained then it’s a damnable lie. None of these verses are even about the topic.
What woman would even want to marry a man who could be dominated by her father?