Marriage in England

[Bartato]

This is nice but even this still has to square with the world we live in. A father who goes to court to nullify or annul a lawful marriage that he is not a party to will be facing a very serious uphill climb even if his daughter is 16-17. And if the daughter is 18+ he'll be laughed out of court.

Then let's talk about the husband involved here.

A father who tries to cancel his daughter's marriage just might have to deal with a patriarchal and dominant man who doesn't agree with him. Such a husband might not be interested in entertaining a fascinating theological discussion of why his wife's father is trying to bust up his new marriage.

View attachment 6122

I'm not making a pragmatic argument on what is feasible, or an argument based on current American legal standards. I'm just pointing out what Torah says. In addition, as an Evangelical/Reformed type Christian (rather than Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant) I'm not even sure if it should directly apply today.

Memefan and Revoltingman are incorrect. It is in the Bible.

 

[NVIII]

Yes, this is not a question of power, but of authority. We could all go to arms right now and the most powerful would win. That does not say anything one way or another about authority...it truly is off-topic. Rebellion also is always a choice, and it's a good idea to come prepared to do violence if you are going to rob a man. @Bartato's post was good, the verses were not off-topic. Deut 7 and Exodus 22 definitely require a better answer than loud scoffing.

The question of a father's authority already received a good dressing-down here where we had to answer it before we could address the follow-up topic, which was whether or not the existence of the authority implied a duty to find a husband for one's daughter in the same way as a wife for one's son. Those who were willing to hear received the written evidence as proof, and the others will not hear even if the dead return to warn them.

 

[Bartato]

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.

In marriage, the man has responsibility to love, lead, protect, and provide for the woman, and the woman has the responsibility to submit, follow, and have sexual relations with no other man.

This is an agreement that the man and woman are entering whether or not particular oral or written vows are exchanged.

Normally there are actual promises exchanged, but even apart from those this basic agreement still exists.

Numbers 30 tells us that the authority of a young unmarried woman in her father's house to enter into agreements/vows/covenants is superceded by that of her father. He can annul on the day he hears of it.

You might not like it, but it seems to be the case.

 

[FollowingHim]

It is simply about bride price if the father is able to prevent the man taking possession.

So, does the father have a legitimate right to prevent the man taking possession?

Let's say the man is a scumbag who we'd all agree should not marry that woman - pick whatever example you like. I'm not asking "Can" the father prevent this - that depends on relative strength and will differ. I'm asking "May" the father prevent this, which is a universal question.

 

[MeganC]

Yes, this is not a question of power, but of authority. We could all go to arms right now and the most powerful would win.

Power is a function of authority. Authority is a function of power. One does not exist without the other.

If one claims an authority from Scripture and lacks the power to enforce it then it is not an authority at all.

Note that power is not limited to raw physical force. Plenty of people exercise power without lifting a finger.

A handy example comes to mind:

 

[FollowingHim]

Power is a function of authority. Authority is a function of power. One does not exist without the other.

If one claims an authority from Scripture and lacks the power to enforce it then it is not an authority at all.

Note that power is not limited to raw physical force. Plenty of people exercise power without lifting a finger.

A handy example comes to mind:

So, whatever I have the power to do, I have the legitimate authority to do? If I have the power to steal from my neighbour for instance, I have a legitimate authority to? While if I don't have the power to stop my neighbour stealing my stuff, I have no legitimate authority to own that stuff?

There's a major flaw in your logic @MeganC.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So, does the father have a legitimate right to prevent the man taking possession?

Let's say the man is a scumbag who we'd all agree should not marry that woman - pick whatever example you like. I'm not asking "Can" the father prevent this - that depends on relative strength and will differ. I'm asking "May" the father prevent this, which is a universal question.

The verse is neutral on the righteousness of the father and the husband both. It only deals with the bride price. There is no other action item listed.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is an agreement that the man and woman are entering whether or not particular oral or written vows are exchanged.

Where is this agreement in the Bible? You’re just making stuff up now.

Numbers 30 tells us that the authority of a young unmarried woman in her father's house to enter into agreements/vows/covenants is superceded by that of her father. He can annul on the day he hears of it.

So if the seducing man takes the young woman out of the house and moves her in with him for one day then the father can’t say anything?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yes, this is not a question of power, but of authority. We could all go to arms right now and the most powerful would win. That does not say anything one way or another about authority...it truly is off-topic. Rebellion also is always a choice, and it's a good idea to come prepared to do violence if you are going to rob a man. @Bartato's post was good, the verses were not off-topic. Deut 7 and Exodus 22 definitely require a better answer than loud scoffing.

The question of a father's authority already received a good dressing-down here where we had to answer it before we could address the follow-up topic, which was whether or not the existence of the authority implied a duty to find a husband for one's daughter in the same way as a wife for one's son. Those who were willing to hear received the written evidence as proof, and the others will not hear even if the dead return to warn them.

The verses were completely off topic. And don’t imply that those who disagree with you are as bad as the Pharisees. If you have good scripture then give it. If all you’ve got is Numbers 30 then you got nothing, and also you don’t understand Numbers 30.

 

[MemeFan]

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.

So Margery's childer are bastards.

Uh, I forgot additional possibilty. Margery's father can show at her house with new man, claim new man is her real husband and ahe has leave her existing children and current man to start living with new man. After all, father didn't approve current man, so no marriage exists.

I think sometimes people here are so into verses that they forgot real life consequences. I don't power and what we can enforce..., but thinking strictly legally. What law says and how people will react to that.

And I don't champion rebellion. We just disagree where limits are. And it's probably your protective instincts pushing you into having more control. I personally prefer good instruction since children will anyway make decisions for themselves.

And where does that passage mention marriage?

And where is marriage a covenant?

I believe it was Gary North who mentioned that covenant includes self-maledictionary oath and spilling of blood. Virginity loss includes spilling of blood. So marriage is covenant.

Issue isn't can father break wow, but covenant. I doubt it. Self-makedictionary oath is call upon deity to punish you for breaking terms.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to look into what happened to Charlemagne’s daughters or the epidemic of unmarried young people in quiverfull communities. Forbidding to marry is heavily discouraged.

Charlemagne isn't good example. He allowed his daughters to have man and children, just nothing official.

His real problem was Franks custom of civil war between all heirs for throne. Franks law made mandatory breaking kingdom into smaller parts and each heir receiving part. If only heirs were happy with smaller kingdom, but everybody wanted whole inheritance.

Having less official heirs makes inheritance war less likely.

Obviously a father should exercise discretion and apply guidance and sometimes even pressure, but acting like a father can legitimize or deligitimize a one flesh Union is just outside all bounds of scripture.

Problem with young girls is favouring of dominant men, but not prosocial men. Any mafia "muscle" is dominant, but not prosocial. Helping daughter avoid such men is good.

Anyway, status consideration and social pressure do influence with from women will sleep and marry. So, her family will have a lot of influence.

 

[MemeFan]

I'm not asking "Can" the father prevent this - that depends on relative strength and will differ. I'm asking "May" the father prevent this, which is a universal question.

"May" and "Can" are practically same. Both are question of power. Can he turn his desire into reality.

Conversation here is about authority. Can he issue command which somebody else must follow.

Infirm man can't have power, but can still have authority.

 

[MemeFan]

What would be good to check is following.

Hebrews have twice received Law. One is recorded in Exodus and another in Deuteronomy (I believe). It would be got to compare versions.

If there are differences, well something is off.

 

[FollowingHim]

The verse is neutral on the righteousness of the father and the husband both. It only deals with the bride price. There is no other action item listed.

I agree the wording is neutral. I was going to respond that the very fact that the law exists implies that he has the right to refuse - but on consideration realise that by that logic the previous verse could imply that the man who seduced her had a right to do that also. Which would be problematic. So I can't dispute your point.

 

[NVIII]

I agree the wording is neutral. I was going to respond that the very fact that the law exists implies that he has the right to refuse - but on consideration realise that by that logic the previous verse could imply that the man who seduced her had a right to do that also. Which would be problematic. So I can't dispute your point.

The previous verse describes a man acting in his power, not his authority. To say it suggests he had the right to do that is the same as to say that 22:1 suggests a man has the right to steal an ox. No, the previous verse is the fallen scenario for which the following verse is the remedy, the redemption. That whole chapter is full of little setups like that. How can the wording be neutral? The man has done something which he had no right to do, and now he must make every effort to make it right, including paying the price he should have paid up front and keeping the girl (forever, as we find out in another place), but the latter is still the father's choice, not his. The wrongdoer didn't wrest authority from the father's hands. He doesn't have authority to say, "This is now my girl because I have seduced her." Rather, the instruction says, "You must pay the price for what you have done (in another place it says "violated") and volunteer to keep her."

 

[steve]

Zec, this point seems to be a trigger for you for some reason.
An agreement to be married is a vow. It doesn’t say that the father has the right to nullify any vow except marriage, it just says a vow. He has the responsibility to decide whether a wrong decision has been made.

Yes , I get it that few would accept that a father has that responsibility in this day, and few accept the reality of polygyny being ok also.
Not that I would recommend a harsh line for fathers to take here, it’s just that non-acceptance by society does not nullify Yah’s intent.

 

[Bartato]

The Bible speaks of fathers giving (and sometimes refusing to give) their daughters into marriage in a number of places (Genesis 29:18-30, Deuteronomy 7, Judges 21:1, Judges 1:12-13, 1st Samuel 18:17-27, Luke 17:27, Matthew 24:38, Matthew 22:29-30).

The phrase "give his daughter" means something. There is some kind of real authority there, to give or refuse to give even if it offends Zec's modern liberal sentiments.

I never thought I'd get a chance to use the words "modern liberal" and Zec together.

 

[MeganC]

So, whatever I have the power to do, I have the legitimate authority to do? If I have the power to steal from my neighbour for instance, I have a legitimate authority to? While if I don't have the power to stop my neighbour stealing my stuff, I have no legitimate authority to own that stuff?

There's a major flaw in your logic @MeganC.

No, you're separating power and authority.

I said they're complementary to each other.

Citing the Torah as granting a man authority is also invoking the Power of Almighty God as the Fount and Enforcer of that authority. It's quite a claim if you think about it. It is anything but a passive claim of Scriptural authority. In any case, you can't have one without the other.

In the case of stealing from your neighbor you could have the authority to do so but where is that authority coming from? Government? Yourself? It's not coming from Scripture, that's for sure.

Let's say you decide on your own to go steal your neighbor's property. We can also assume you have to have the power to steal it and the power to keep it. The latter part may prove difficult. It usually does.

Your government, however, has the authority and the power to steal or seize your neighbor's land, property, and assets if they wish. Lots of cases of this.

new zealand government seizes property - Google Search

If they abuse this power and authority then at some point you and your fellow Kiwis might just rise up against them. Maybe they'll respect the outcome of an election, maybe they won't (see that part about abuse).

If they hold sufficient power to enforce their authority despite your collective disapproval then they might retain power for a time. But where their authority is derived from the consent of the people they govern then eventually all they will have is power. And people will passively or actively resist their false claim of authority.

Which is why I say power and authority are complementary.

The US government is the most powerful government in the world. But when people no longer recognize their authority then that massive power can suddenly become very fragile.

You have to have both.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Issue isn't can father break wow, but covenant.

Interesting distinction, it deserves further study. For those who think marriage is a covenant this would take Numbers 30 out if the conversation.

An agreement to be married is a vow.

Then it will be labeled as such somewhere in scripture, and defined as to what constitutes such a vow. It is not. This is adding to.

 

[steve]

Then it will be labeled as such somewhere in scripture, and defined as to what constitutes such a vow. It is not. This is adding to.

If you could please point out where a vow is defined in Scripture, then you might have a case.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If you could please point out where a vow is defined in Scripture, then you might have a case.

No, it’s the other way round. I’m not tying to expand the idea of vow to include marriage. The definition of vows is irrelevant to my position because I correctly point out that view are nowhere in scripture connected to marriage.

Applying Numbers 30 to a marriage is adding to the text, which, if I’ve failed to bring it up, does not tell is that forming one flesh requires in any way a vow.