0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[Keith Martin]

You already know which passage but for others info : Exodus 22:16-17

This is the one exception, this is it. A betrothed woman counts as adultery for legal purposes. This isn’t a passage about forming one flesh.

Before the three of us take anyone else down a rabbit hole, I think you're both confused about Exodus 22:16-17, because the woman in question was not betrothed: "In case a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and he lies with her, he shall pay, yea pay her bride-price as a wife for himself. If her father refuses, yea refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out silver according to the bride-price for virgins." [Concordant Version of the Old Testament]

It says right in :16 that she wasn't betrothed. I agree that the passage isn't about one flesh, even though one-flesh occurred; it's about adultery, because the one-flesh episode occurred outside of an existing agreement with the enticee's father. With many translations, the combination of :16 and :17 confusingly reads such that one could almost interpret :17 to read that, in the event that the father refuses, then he, the father, must pay the bride price to the enticer, but that's just confusion based on translator vagueness. The point I see @Pacman making is that the enticer wasn't necessarily guaranteed to end up possessing the enticee long-term, and it is driven home by The Word emphasizing it by stating that the bride-price must be paid whether the father agrees to the marriage or not.

I don't read this passage as having as its main message defining marriage; on the contrary, I read it as an injunction that one cannot legitimately force a father's hand by seducing his daughter without permission from the father. The seduction does not eliminate the father's power to determine who marries his daughter.

One-flesh-definition occurs here, but long-term possession is not guaranteed, and I'm going to have to put this in my pipe and smoke it, because it may, even just by itself, indicate that one-flesh is insufficient on its own to define marriage. But . . . on the other hand . . . there is this: does this passage or any other passage assert that, if the man pays the bride price, the woman's father refuses to recognize the union, but the man and woman then refuse to dissolve their union in defiance of the father's refusal to recognize it, going on to live the rest of their lives together, would this continued union be considered fornication and/or adultery?

Another way of asking this question is to ask whether it may be reasonable interpretation to consider Exodus 22:16-17 as having as its main thrust assertion of the essential nature of properly paying for a bride before possessing her?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Before the three of us take anyone else down a rabbit hole, I think you're both confused about Exodus 22:16-17, because the woman in question was not betrothed: "In case a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and he lies with her, he shall pay, yea pay her bride-price as a wife for himself. If her father refuses, yea refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out silver according to the bride-price for virgins." [Concordant Version of the Old Testament]

It says right in :16 that she wasn't betrothed. I agree that the passage isn't about one flesh, even though one-flesh occurred; it's about adultery, because the one-flesh episode occurred outside of an existing agreement with the enticee's father. With many translations, the combination of :16 and :17 confusingly reads such that one could almost interpret :17 to read that, in the event that the father refuses, then he, the father, must pay the bride price to the enticer, but that's just confusion based on translator vagueness. The point I see @Pacman making is that the enticer wasn't necessarily guaranteed to end up possessing the enticee long-term, and it is driven home by The Word emphasizing it by stating that the bride-price must be paid whether the father agrees to the marriage or not.

I don't read this passage as having as its main message defining marriage; on the contrary, I read it as an injunction that one cannot legitimately force a father's hand by seducing his daughter without permission from the father. The seduction does not eliminate the father's power to determine who marries his daughter.

One-flesh-definition occurs here, but long-term possession is not guaranteed, and I'm going to have to put this in my pipe and smoke it, because it may, even just by itself, indicate that one-flesh is insufficient on its own to define marriage. But . . . on the other hand . . . there is this: does this passage or any other passage assert that, if the man pays the bride price, the woman's father refuses to recognize the union, but the man and woman then refuse to dissolve their union in defiance of the father's refusal to recognize it, going on to live the rest of their lives together, would this continued union be considered fornication and/or adultery?

Another way of asking this question is to ask whether it may be reasonable interpretation to consider Exodus 22:16-17 as having as its main thrust assertion of the essential nature of properly paying for a bride before possessing her?

I got turned around then. The enticed virgin clearly demonstrates that sex causes one flesh.

 

[Pacman]

Before the three of us take anyone else down a rabbit hole, I think you're both confused about Exodus 22:16-17, because the woman in question was not betrothed: "In case a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and he lies with her, he shall pay, yea pay her bride-price as a wife for himself. If her father refuses, yea refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out silver according to the bride-price for virgins." [Concordant Version of the Old Testament]

It says right in :16 that she wasn't betrothed. I agree that the passage isn't about one flesh, even though one-flesh occurred; it's about adultery, because the one-flesh episode occurred outside of an existing agreement with the enticee's father. With many translations, the combination of :16 and :17 confusingly reads such that one could almost interpret :17 to read that, in the event that the father refuses, then he, the father, must pay the bride price to the enticer, but that's just confusion based on translator vagueness. The point I see @Pacman making is that the enticer wasn't necessarily guaranteed to end up possessing the enticee long-term, and it is driven home by The Word emphasizing it by stating that the bride-price must be paid whether the father agrees to the marriage or not.

I don't read this passage as having as its main message defining marriage; on the contrary, I read it as an injunction that one cannot legitimately force a father's hand by seducing his daughter without permission from the father. The seduction does not eliminate the father's power to determine who marries his daughter.

One-flesh-definition occurs here, but long-term possession is not guaranteed, and I'm going to have to put this in my pipe and smoke it, because it may, even just by itself, indicate that one-flesh is insufficient on its own to define marriage. But . . . on the other hand . . . there is this: does this passage or any other passage assert that, if the man pays the bride price, the woman's father refuses to recognize the union, but the man and woman then refuse to dissolve their union in defiance of the father's refusal to recognize it, going on to live the rest of their lives together, would this continued union be considered fornication and/or adultery?

Another way of asking this question is to ask whether it may be reasonable interpretation to consider Exodus 22:16-17 as having as its main thrust assertion of the essential nature of properly paying for a bride before possessing her?

I was talking about two different passages.

 

[Pacman]

One-flesh-definition occurs here, but long-term possession is not guaranteed, and I'm going to have to put this in my pipe and smoke it, because it may, even just by itself, indicate that one-flesh is insufficient on its own to define marriage.

Exactly! Thank you

 

[Pacman]

But . . . on the other hand . . . there is this: does this passage or any other passage assert that, if the man pays the bride price, the woman's father refuses to recognize the union, but the man and woman then refuse to dissolve their union in defiance of the father's refusal to recognize it, going on to live the rest of their lives together, would this continued union be considered fornication and/or adultery?

It's harlotry. It's not a valid permanent union.

 

[Keith Martin]

It's harlotry. It's not a valid permanent union.

I'm assuming this would then apply to the vast majority of what our culture currently calls marriages, then, huh?

 

[Pacman]

I'm assuming this would then apply to the vast majority of what our culture currently calls marriages, then, huh?

Not necessarily. Most fathers don't object. They have long since abdicated their rights.

 

[Keith Martin]

Not necessarily. Most fathers don't object. They have long since abdicated their rights.

Well, that assumes that not objecting is the equivalent of granting permission, and I don't make that assumption. I ended up having a very good beginning of this whole conversation with my youngest daughter yesterday, and I made the point that my weakness and lack of leadership in this realm was the equivalent of not objecting to what I knew to be wrong. However, my abdication was not the equivalent of permission; it was, I would assert, more pernicious than even the fact that the permission was lacking. By abdicating, fathers become complicit in the outcomes with their daughters. Are you asserting that, if the father doesn't object, then the couple in question would be engaged in a legitimate relationship according to Scripture?

I bring in here one of my favorite laws of human nature: that which is rewarded will be repeated (oddly enough, too, that which is rewarded intermittently is even more likely to be repeated). Ipso facto, each time a father legitimizes a relationship through non-action, it increases the likelihood that others who are aware of that abdication will repeat such behaviors in their own lives.

Here's the question as I originally asked it . . .

does this passage or any other passage assert that, if the man pays the bride price, the woman's father refuses to recognize the union, but the man and woman then refuse to dissolve their union in defiance of the father's refusal to recognize it, going on to live the rest of their lives together, would this continued union be considered fornication and/or adultery?

. . . and here's the question reworded slightly (but significantly) to make another stab at removing another layer of the onion:

"Does this passage or any other passage assert that, if the man pays the bride price, the woman's father doesn't recognize the union and yet doesn't formally object, and then in response to this lack of objection or recognition the man and woman do not dissolve their union, going on to live the rest of their lives together, would this continued union be considered fornication and/or adultery? Would it also therefore be harlotry, or would it be "a valid permanent union?"

In other words, is lack of objection equivalent or nonequivalent to refusal to recognize? I'll show my hand by stating that I see "failing to object" as a cowardly avoidance of taking a stand between granting one's blessing and refusal to do so.

 

[steve]

I will just chime in here and say that the average father nowadays, Christian or no, has been so molded by society that he doesn’t even realize that his opinion matters at all anymore.
A far cry from his opinion being the focus of the matter.

 

[Pacman]

Well, that assumes that not objecting is the equivalent of granting permission,

The passage says "utterly refuse" so it's very much if he doesn’t actively object then it's a legit union. Same applies with Numbers 30 if he doesn’t say anything the day he hears it then her vow stands...

 

[Pacman]

Are you asserting that, if the father doesn't object, then the couple in question would be engaged in a legitimate relationship according to Scripture?

Assuming they were both eligible? Yes

 

[FollowingHim]

It's not about whether the father consents. It's about whether the father refuses.
Exodus 22:16-17: "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

There are three basic responses a father could take - consent, say nothing, or object. If he objects, no marriage occurs. By default that means if he either consents or says nothing, the marriage stands.

Yes, it might be cowardly @Keith Martin. But it's still the position he chose to take, and it holds. If we took any other position, we'd be saying that the woman can be with this man for years and then the father can get up the courage to realise he should object, then the marriage is broken up at his command and the woman with her 5 kids has to divorce their father because her Dad said so. That's not practical. What matters is how he reacts at the start.

Which is in complete accord with Numbers 30:3-5:
"If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth;
And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her."

Saying nothing is permission.

Edit: Written at the same time as @Pacman, independently. I think that confirms this by two witnesses!

 

[Keith Martin]

The passage says "utterly refuse" so it's very much if he doesn’t actively object then it's a legit union. Same applies with Numbers 30 if he doesn’t say anything the day he hears it then her vow stands...

Saying nothing is permission.

Edit: Written at the same time as @Pacman, independently. I think that confirms this by two witnesses!

Actually, it means you agree. I recognize each of you as having some understanding of Scripture, but that you wrote the same thing at the same time hardly elevates it to definitive authority!



I'm still sensing some vagueness, of two different varieties, in Exodus 22:16-17 and Numbers 30:3-8. The possibility exists that some crosstalk reading is going on when one asserts that the two passages confirm each other. They may be in total agreement, but they also may not be. The Exodus passage most definitely does not assert either (a) that there are three and/or only three legitimate and/or illegitimate potential reactions a father can have, or (b) that failure to refuse on the part of the father is equivalent to the union being blessed. Neither does it assert that it isn't acceptable in the eyes of YHWH, but it does not create equivalence between failure to refuse and acceptance/blessing. In fact, the passage isn't even about whether the union is acceptable long-term; the passage's sole purpose is to assert that a man who entices a non-betrothed virgin is compelled to offer up a standard bride price to the father and that he has to pay it even if the father refuses to accept the union as a marriage. Nowhere does that passage assert that failure to refuse implies acceptance, and to assert otherwise is to add to Scripture.

A different issue comes to the fore with the Numbers 30 passage. There, His Word speaks not of enticement but of the woman vow-binding herself either while in the house of her father or while possessed by another man. Again, the issue is not whether her union is acceptable in the eyes of YHWH; the passage is strictly focused on vows -- any vows, given that they aren't specified -- indicating that a woman is discouraged from making vows of any kind without approval from her father or husband, further indicating the manner in which they are to be dealt with. In this case, wording does indicate that vows about which her father or husband are silent are thereby confirmed -- but this passage simply isn't addressing anything about blessing or acceptance of a marital union.

We can choose to interpret the combination of these two passages to infer something about marital unions, but, logically, either by themselves or held up simultaneously, they do not prove the case.

I'm going to continue to search for confirmation or refutation of this conclusion.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What’s important is the “to give her to him”.

 

[Keith Martin]

What’s important is the “to give her to him”.

Excellent point, and that does lead toward the conclusion that failure to refuse is equivalent to giving her to him, but it doesn't answer the question to which I'm seeking an answer, which is whether the relationship receives full favor -- or whether, in the eyes of YHWH, it needs to find full favor (because maybe it already does; maybe the only issue is getting that bride price paid). Numbers 30, on the other hand, actually mentions the answer to what happens in the case of a husband nullifying her vows: YHWH then pardons her, which is a clear indication that making the vows in the first place was, at best, inappropriate, if it needs to be pardoned. The Exodus passage does not have a phrase that indicates that YHWH either pardons enticer and enticee or that their union is now to be considered acceptable or unacceptable.

 

[Keith Martin]

I will just chime in here and say that the average father nowadays, Christian or no, has been so molded by society that he doesn’t even realize that his opinion matters at all anymore.
A far cry from his opinion being the focus of the matter.

Well, amen to that. Abdication by definition implies that focus is not where it properly belongs. However, that doesn't justify inferring that one isn't accountable for the ramifications of one's abdication. Even being "so molded by society" is the consequence of an ongoing set of decisions to refrain from taking charge. It's the action of being passive, which doesn't indicate just a default lack of action. In the course of millions of opportunities for life actions, one has to demonstrate a pattern of first actively avoiding taking action and then resting in the self-inflicted bad habit of failing to take action, and it no more justifies the resulting outcomes than does asserting, "I couldn't help it; I was drunk."

I believe, if we're going to be true patriarchs, we're going to have to get in the habit of refraining from sweeping things under the rug -- even the actions of those around us who want to be called men. One important way to move in that direction is careful not to use the passive voice when describing the behaviors of others. @steve, I promise I'm not picking on you in this post -- I'm just using the occasion of it to make a point I'm pretty insistent lately that I not let myself relax about: instead of using phrases like, "the average father has been so molded by society," we are much more likely to assist such men in being powerful in their lives if we assert that, "the average father these days has abdicated his responsibility to be an active participant in all aspects of his life and instead is resting on the convenient excuse of supposedly being powerless to resist the so-called pressures of conformist society."

 

[steve]

Keith, imo to abdicate one’s responsibility is to actively make the choice to not exercise one’s authority.
If men have zero understanding that they have the authority/responsibility in their daughter’s lives, they are not making a conscious choice.
I’m not excusing them, I’m just understanding the dearth of good teaching that they are under.
Yes, we should shine the light of truth into their darkness, but your rephrasing seems too condemning.

 

[FollowingHim]

but it doesn't answer the question to which I'm seeking an answer, which is whether the relationship receives full favor -- or whether, in the eyes of YHWH, it needs to find full favor

I think you've hit the central problem with your position right here. You appear to have been assuming that a marriage must be accepted or even blessed by the father to be valid, hence here too:

but it does not create equivalence between failure to refuse and acceptance/blessing

I don't see that in scripture. All we have is a statement that the father can refuse to give his daughter to the man who took her virginity. That's all. As you have pointed out, it doesn't answer the deeper questions you are answering - and I think that is because those questions are based on unscriptural assumptions so are not addressed because they were never under consideration in the first place.

Making it all simple again, "this thing we call marriage" is the possession of a woman by a man.
Possession.
Possession is not just 9/10ths of the law, in this case it's the whole thing.

If a man has a woman, she is the woman that he has. She is his woman. They are therefore in this thing we call marriage.

Scripture is very clear that her father had the right to refuse to give her to him - and that is protection for a woman built into the Law. But there is absolutely no scripture I can think of (correct me if I am wrong) that states that every marriage MUST have the approval of the woman's father to be valid. If he chose not to refuse to give her to him, then she's with him. By default, she is now his. That's just reality.

Also, more controversially, if he refuses but does not have the ability to enforce his refusal (e.g. if he brings a gang and steals her anyway, or if she elopes with him against her father's wishes), I see nothing in scripture to say she is not his wife. On the contrary, there are regulations about women captured in war that make it very clear that a captured woman does become a man's wife. In most cases the father would either object strongly or would have been killed in order to steal her. It's an evil situation, not something I am endorsing at all. But it happens, even today. And scripture is clear that once it has happened, if he and her form a marriage-type relationship, it is a real marriage.

The blessing of a father is a very good thing. But it is not essential for marriage to exist, so the lack of it does not invalidate a marriage.

If you wish to propose that, you need to find some scripture to back it up. On this, you are the one making the most radical proposal, and need to find proof of it. I can't find any, @Pacman can't find any, so until and unless you find some scripture to back it up I think we should consider it false.

 

[steve]

I don’t see possession being 100% ownership.
What is the difference between stealing a man’s horse and stealing his daughter?

“The horse went with me willingly, so it was an elopement as opposed to a theft. And it likes me, so it is unquestionable that I now own it!”

If a man’s possession/ownership of his wife is accepted, why would his ownership of his daughter not be acknowledged?

 

[SonoLumen]

Making it all simple again, "this thing we call marriage" is the possession of a woman by a man.
Possession.
Possession is not just 9/10ths of the law, in this case it's the whole thing.

If a man has a woman, she is the woman that he has. She is his woman. They are therefore in this thing we call marriage.

Scripture is very clear that her father had the right to refuse to give her to him - and that is protection for a woman built into the Law. But there is absolutely no scripture I can think of (correct me if I am wrong) that states that every marriage MUST have the approval of the woman's father to be valid. If he chose not to refuse to give her to him, then she's with him. By default, she is now his. That's just reality.

Also, more controversially, if he refuses but does not have the ability to enforce his refusal (e.g. if he brings a gang and steals her anyway, or if she elopes with him against her father's wishes), I see nothing in scripture to say she is not his wife. On the contrary, there are regulations about women captured in war that make it very clear that a captured woman does become a man's wife. In most cases the father would either object strongly or would have been killed in order to steal her. It's an evil situation, not something I am endorsing at all. But it happens, even today. And scripture is clear that once it has happened, if he and her form a marriage-type relationship, it is a real marriage.

Doesn't this mean that practically it is man and woman's choice that defines marriage? Especially in the world where men collectively don't take authority seriously. Because no man has the ability to own through oppressive force for long (he will get caught in this day and age especially) - so a woman's choice would lead her to continue her search and be joined with whom she chooses. Then, eventually - that new possession becomes TTWCM and we do it again until we have some good enough reason to start over?

It's like a war of attrition against the spouse's ability/desire to choose a different person.