-
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.
Are you married, or are you committing adultery?
- Thread starter Anthony Clark
- Start date
And remains there until he gives her to be under another's authority unless, of course, he's died.
If someone steals something it doesn't change the rightful owner's ownership or authority over it.
So where is this father’s authority laid out in scripture? Is it just Exodus 22:17? It can be Numbers 30 for reasons I’m about to show you but what exactly are you basing this idea of a father’s covering on?
If it’s Numbers 30 then fantastic. I can deal with that pretty easily, but if there’s something else I’m missing please enlighten me. So far we’ve got Leviticus 22 and what else?
It starts in Genesis - the man was made in the image of YAH - and it’s the man that was created to have dominion over the earth. The man even has rulership over the women within his household.
The rest comes from other instructions. A little here. A little there. Line by line. Precept by precept. But it’s very consistent - the man has the authority over his own daughters.
Just a quick example:
Leviticus 19:29
You shall not permit your daughter to become a whore, lest the land fall to whoredom and the land become full of wickedness.
If the father does not have authority over his daughter - how can he keep this commandment?
The father’s children eventually do leave his household - the sons do not need the father’s permission in terms of who they choose to marry - but the daughters are expected to receive permission in marriage. Eve is the first example. Eve was given to Adam by her Father (YAH) - the Creator.
When women choose to find their own men - without seeking their father’s approval - things don’t tend to work out very well. Today women are choosing, and women are divorcing:
Isaiah 65:2
All day long I opened my arms to a rebellious people. They follow their own evil paths and their own crooked schemes.
Last edited:
Another scriptural example - probably less mentioned - but it’s in Judges 21. The men of Benjamin needed wives. Due to certain circumstances - the other tribes were not able to give them any women for marriage - without breaking a vow they made. So they came up with this plan:
Judges 21:21
When you see the young women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to the land of Benjamin to be your wife! 22 And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be sympathetic. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find wives for all of them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not actually give your daughters to them in marriage.’”
So these daughters were taken - almost certainly against their own will - and the text assumes the fathers had the authority to protest and stop this from happening. What does the rest of the text say? “Please let them have your daughters - don’t worry - you won’t be guilty of breaking your vow.”
Why would they say, “Please let them take your daughters and marry them”, if the fathers had no authority? They wouldn’t plead with the fathers. It would just be done - as it’s written in Deut - and the father wouldn’t have any authority. But the fathers do have the authority - and Deut - when it’s rightly divided with the rest of scripture - is consistent.
Judges 21:21
When you see the young women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to the land of Benjamin to be your wife! 22 And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be sympathetic. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find wives for all of them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not actually give your daughters to them in marriage.’”
So these daughters were taken - almost certainly against their own will - and the text assumes the fathers had the authority to protest and stop this from happening. What does the rest of the text say? “Please let them have your daughters - don’t worry - you won’t be guilty of breaking your vow.”
Why would they say, “Please let them take your daughters and marry them”, if the fathers had no authority? They wouldn’t plead with the fathers. It would just be done - as it’s written in Deut - and the father wouldn’t have any authority. But the fathers do have the authority - and Deut - when it’s rightly divided with the rest of scripture - is consistent.
For a guy who claims to be "hyper-literal" you sure make a lot of ASSUMPTIONS.
I don't think you know the meaning of the verbs used in those verses, either. Much less when "entice" becomes "coerce."
Okay, so it’s not a command laid out in scripture. It’s a principle you infer from indirect teachings. That’s not completely illegitimate however when you are dealing with whether or not a binding one flesh relationship has been formed you are actually dealing with adultery; a sin punishable by death.
Your implied principle can not take precedent over a direct teaching, especially not when the stakes are so high. If a man and a woman break their one flesh relationship because of your teaching about an inferred principle then you have done severe damage to them.
You have set them up for an almost certain adultery. You need a far better scriptural support for your claim.
You have to read these passages before you quote them. The men of Bemjamin were weak and had just been destroyed. These fathers could have easily gone and taken these daughters back and killed the Benjamites.
And again, as with the pagan rapist in the Dinah story; is this the example you’re going for? Is anyone in this story an example of a righteous man whose precedent you should follow? Why would such a. Important idea rest on such an obscure narrative and not be laid out clearly in the text?
I know these are two different situations that are handled two different ways and neither one says that a father has an absolute veto over one flesh.
Deuteronomy doesn’t even give an option for the father to absolutely refuse to give her to him. But if you have some insight into the passages then please give it to us.
I’ve already said that I’m uncomfortable with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and don’t like to deal with it. If you can explain it then please do so.
Tally
New Member
I had always be
Thank you for chipping in, I appreciate that much. I do believe fully in the bible scriptures you mentioned that speaks about persons being counted as righteous through faith. There are righteous people in this world today, but being righteous doesn't mean perfect, psalm 51:5 (I was shapen on iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me) proverbs 24:16(for a just man fallen seven times, and riseth up again). We are only made perfect when we are free from our sins and we all seems to agree that the blood of animals sacrifices could not wash away their sins to free them. I do believe that the animal sacrifices only covered the sins of those before Christ, and it wasn't until Christ came and was made a sacrifice that all their sins were washed away and they were made perfect, a part of the reason for the coming of Christ.
I've recently read the entire story from its origin with the Levite and his concubine. The fathers could had retaliated, but the text doesn't say they did. The Benjamites had already suffered extreme losses, and their whole tribe was at risk of being wiped out. Why beat a dead horse?
It's based on the Scripture. Rightly divided. Exodus 22:17. You just choose to ignore it as if it doesn't exist.
A man is righteous but not perfect. Since all of us have sinned. Noah was righteous but he found grace. Righteous - according to the Scripture - means they've chosen to put their their faith in their Creator - and choose to walk in his ways. There is only one that's perfect - and that's the Father in Heaven - who yes - he appeared in the flesh as the Son. The Messiah's name in Hebrew also tells us that - "I AM is Salvation." Yahoshua - YAH (I AM) is Shua (salvation).
No, I have pointed out repeatedly, and no one has offered me even the slightest hint of a response; what happens if the father is unable to block the man from taking possession of the woman?
The text just says that if the father “utterly refuses to give her to him” then the man still has to pay the bride price. That is a far cry from what you’re claiming.
So what happens if the man is able to take the woman and the father can’t prevent it? Let’s assume that the father does invoke his alleged right to nullify the marriage. What is the status of the one flesh if the father isn’t able to separate them?
What is the woman’s status if the father does separate them? Is she eligible to marry someone else? Why?
If the man does not proceed to take her as his wife - then there is no marriage. That man treated her as a prostitute. The woman may still find another man to be her husband without fear of adultery. Adultery can’t be committed without harm to a husband. She never had a husband - she had a man that treated her as a prostitute. That’s not a husband. There is no covenant there.
The God of the Bible is the God of covenants. So his people should walk in his ways.
I’m sorry, where is the Scripture about stealing being ok if the man can’t block someone from taking from him?
I’m sure that you have quoted it multiple times, but please humor me.
Thanks for the clarification. I think you and I are on the same page in the same Book.
Those who are righteous have been justified through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (cf. Romans 5:12-19). Yes, we were born sinners, and sinners commit sin, but righteousness is imputed as a gift to all who are justified through faith in Him. As it is written, we are begotten to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God... (1 Peter 1:3, 4, 5).
Justified, righteous, and kept by the power of God. That's an awesome blessing for those who are sinners saved by grace through faith in Him.
Tally
New Member
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
Tally, please put your comments outside of the post you are quoting. it makes it very difficult to understand the conversation otherwise.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Tally
New Member
Maybe my cup has already been filled so I'm trying to empty it that I can understand clearly. Hebrews 10:4 (for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins) I understand that scripture is saying that only the blood sacrifice of our Lod and savior Jesus Christ is able to wash man sins away. Please correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying the righteous men of God befor Christ, sins was already washed away because God called them righteous due to their faith and sacrifice?
Tally
New Member
Thanks for the clarification. I think you and I are on the same page in the same Book.
Those who are righteous have been justified through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (cf. Romans 5:12-19). Yes, we were born sinners, and sinners commit sin, but righteousness is imputed as a gift to all who are justified through faith in Him. As it is written, we are begotten to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God... (1 Peter 1:3, 4, 5).
Justified, righteous, and kept by the power of God. That's an awesome blessing for those who are sinners saved by grace through faith in Him.
Mathew 5:48 (Be ye therefore PERFECT,even as your father which us in heaven is PERFECT) Job 1:1 (there was a man in the land of uz, whose name was Job; and that man was PERFECT and upright) Job 1:8 (And the lord said unto satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a PERFECT and an upright man). Please explain.