I have said this before but it bears repeating; there's refusing and there's utterly refusing.
-
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.
Where is this marriage covenant doctrine taught in the Bible?
God has the role of both the master (father) and the husband in that example... it’s similar to the slave wife or the prisoner of war. Her owner makes the decision/ agreement instead of her physical father. And he is also (potentially) the husband...
Ok so, I realize this may come off as feisty since I didn't provide my own scriptural support lol, but, can you show me where you are getting this from as well?
Well the passage we are discussing comes to mind. He is receiving payment for her. Implies ownership does it not? Also numbers 30 the father has the exact authority with regards to vows as he has over his wife... I’m sure there are others. Also it’s important to point out that the same standard would not apply to a widow, she is her own authority. Numbers 30 talks about that as well. I personally would put any woman who’s father has abdicated his responsibility in the same category as the widow...
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you but I’m curious what do you think the distinction is?
No. According to Exodus 22:16-17 sex and marriage can not be equivalent, because this illustrates a two step process: 1. Sex. 2. They should get married.
There would no need for step 2 if sex was equivalent to marriage.
The fact that he can pay to avoid it proves that the marriage has not taken place, yet.
No divorce required, because no marriage has happened despite the sex that has already happened.
Covenant is just another word for agreement.
You can not have a marriage without agreement, otherwise it would be rape or slavery.
So marriage implies agreement.
No. If you give someone sheep they have to agree to accept the sheep or there is still no transaction. The agreement (or covenant) is required.
If your sheep are blocking the road and someone says "Get your sheep off the road!" you can't say "10 minutes ago I gave my sheep to Bob!", without Bob even being aware of it. Is it now Bob's responsibility to remove the sheep from the road? No. Bob did not agree (covenant) to accept the sheep.
So, I took myself up on my own challenge lol, and did a study last night. I cannot find a single verse that anywhere says parents have ownership over their children, or that the parents' desire/intent matters in forming a marriage. Firstly, that seems contradicted by the spirit of every OTHER verse where God says that single/divorced/etc women can choose 'as they will'. Does He not care about their will as long as their parents live? Seems silly to think so.
Payment does not imply ownership to me, it implies a resource. The daughter is a resource to her father as a helper and family member who was going to help do work and things. The payment is to make up for that loss. But note that nowhere is a specific 'bride price' described (so God doesn't care about the amount) and nowhere is that required for marriage...it's simply required to 'honor thy father and mother' it seems to me.
And actually, Numbers 30...it is NOT exactly the same...because while the HUSBAND can nullify a vow made for marriage, the father cannot.
(Numbers 6-8)I like cnystrom's image that a daughter is like an employee in the family business. Of course her employer tells her the expectations for the job, but that doesn't mean he owns her soul.
I would do my absolute best to never tell my daughter to or not to marry. I would instead seek to cultivate a relationship such that she respected my wisdom and opinion so much that she would trust me and seek it out when analyzing a marriage partner, and that my opinion would carry great weight in her decision. But I would not command: I don't believe fathers have that authority. And I have yet to see anyone prove it in scripture. In fact I really don't see anywhere in scripture where that sort of 'arranged marriage' (obviously not really, but you know what I mean) is instructed by God. I see a few examples of it happening (Isaac, Samson, etc) but all the times that I see God speaking of a woman marrying, it refers to her own choice. I'd argue that where it was allowed, God worked within the culture of the time, similarly to how He worked with their desire for a king (but clearly never intended them to have one to begin with).
And actually, Numbers 30...it is NOT exactly the same...because while the HUSBAND can nullify a vow made for marriage, the father cannot.
Your misreading that...verses 3-5 spells out the fathers authority with regards to an unmarried daughters vows... verses 6-8 are the teaching about the husbands authority after the ownership has been transferred from her father.
Amen.
So, reading this this morning I was struck that we (I?) are missing something simple but important here.
It has ONLY EVER been about intent.
Covenants, spoken or not, sex, etc... it all comes back to intent. It always has. Hence the 'looking at (another man's wife) with (intent to commit adultery with her) is the same as actual adultery'. The actions (saying the words, doing the deed, etc...) are largely irrelevant. Probably because it looks so different from person to person. What matters is the heart intent, which is what God sees and judges by
Bingo!!!
About 50 shekels
There’s a pretty good example in both Genesis 34 and Genesis 31 just off the top of my head.
While it is true that certain divorced women and widows are free to choose their next spouse, I’ve not found the passage that shows that a single woman is free to do so.
The one caveat that I have found for that is in the Babylonian Talmud. It states that a single betrothed woman who exercises her right of refusal is thereafter considered an orphan. This was both good and bad for her. Good in the sense that she got to pick her own husband, but it came with a steep price. Her father was not obligated to find another spouse for her and was not obligated to maintain her after the betrothal period was ended as I recall.
So, I took myself up on my own challenge lol, and did a study last night. I cannot find a single verse that anywhere says parents have ownership over their children, or that the parents' desire/intent matters in forming a marriage. Firstly, that seems contradicted by the spirit of every OTHER verse where God says that single/divorced/etc women can choose 'as they will'. Does He not care about their will as long as their parents live? Seems silly to think so.
Payment does not imply ownership to me, it implies a resource. The daughter is a resource to her father as a helper and family member who was going to help do work and things. The payment is to make up for that loss. But note that nowhere is a specific 'bride price' described (so God doesn't care about the amount) and nowhere is that required for marriage...it's simply required to 'honor thy father and mother' it seems to me.
And actually, Numbers 30...it is NOT exactly the same...because while the HUSBAND can nullify a vow made for marriage, the father cannot.
I like cnystrom's image that a daughter is like an employee in the family business. Of course her employer tells her the expectations for the job, but that doesn't mean he owns her soul.
I would do my absolute best to never tell my daughter to or not to marry. I would instead seek to cultivate a relationship such that she respected my wisdom and opinion so much that she would trust me and seek it out when analyzing a marriage partner, and that my opinion would carry great weight in her decision. But I would not command: I don't believe fathers have that authority. And I have yet to see anyone prove it in scripture. In fact I really don't see anywhere in scripture where that sort of 'arranged marriage' (obviously not really, but you know what I mean) is instructed by God. I see a few examples of it happening (Isaac, Samson, etc) but all the times that I see God speaking of a woman marrying, it refers to her own choice. I'd argue that where it was allowed, God worked within the culture of the time, similarly to how He worked with their desire for a king (but clearly never intended them to have one to begin with).
You're reacting emotionally instead looking at it rationally. It helps if you think of it in terms of authority not ownership. Deut 22 and 1 Cor 7 both demonstrate that the father has absolute authority to marry or not marry a women to whom he will.
But when you consider that a father could also sell his daughter into concubinage slavery; ya, ownership is a fair description.
I know that doesn't fit modern sensibilities; but that is the way it was in scripture. You have only to look at the choices women make today when left to their own devices to see the wisdom the ancients had in their method. Even women themselves don't think they're good judges of mates ('why do I always fall for the bad boy?' 'where are all the nice guys?').
Maybe it would be better to have a separate thread about children (daughters) choosing husbands versus fathers. IE authority. Let's get back on track
Those passages show that God recognizes the fact that ownership transfers from the father to the husband. And yes those wrongs are against her husband...
This is a common approach that most Christian men take. The statistical results of that approach make me think that it’s not a good idea... I also don’t find any support for it in scripture.
I don't find any support for your position and have tried to explain why, but you don't like my answers or find them unsatisfactory, so...I guess we agree to disagree
The statistical results are damning. But we shouldn't be surprised. When you search for a mate based on love (actually lust) we shouldn't be surprised that those marriages fail when the emotions which was their foundation fades with time.
You can see then how this all short-circuits with arranged marriage. The fact of that transfer of authority from father to husband never changes. Authority just is and is not subject to fleeting emotions.