Featured Question about God's will for marriage.

This is not Scriptural.

Throughout scriptures the woman is never without the authority over her unless she is a widow or orphan.

Again, not Scriptural. "Godly or selfish" doesn't enter into any discussion of two desiring marriage in the Scriptures.

The only time such discussion occurs as pertaining to after marriage and is when Paul shares that when a spouse becomes a believer that the spouse should remain married to the unbeliever.

Nope - again not Scriptural.

The Scriptural principle is that the woman is under the authority of the family head until such authority is transferred to the husband.

Widows and orphans are the exception.

Sorry you can't find it. Such is even exampled from the time Eve was presented to Adam.

"The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man."

I realize that the "modern" times desire to negate parental authority over grown children, but the Scriptures do not say, "therefore a woman will leave her mother and father..."

 

A woman has every right in God's eyes as does a man. In marriage she may choose to place herself in a union with a man, but grown women are no more under their parents authority than grown men.
​

 

Isn't this proof texting?

Are you married to a male?

Are you married to a female?

Are you a slave?

Are you free?

I won't even go into the "one in Christ" questions for fear some might think I am suggesting free love polyamory.

Folks, the verse has NOTHING to do with the authority structure God established over every person.

If it did, we would all be in some kind of ether-land of no identity, no responsibility, and no accountability.

 

Those whom the LORD has brough together, let non tear asunder....

IF God wants those 2 to become one flesh in his sight, even if the parents disapprove of it, and there are NO scriptural reasons not to be married, can be !

I am thinking of parents objecting based upon the persons race/colr, not belonging to my church etc!

 

Woohoo! G @ y marriage in the Bible!

 

The verse you quote in part is about the physical union, not the attraction.

Parents have a right to object and should have the right of refusal in any matter concerning their immediate family.

The church should honor that decision by the parents.

Here is why:

The church was not first, the marriage and family was, and as such standing is to be given to that institution when there is a conflict between the two.

The church and by extension the pastor should never take a stand against the parents in this matter - even if the parents are wrong thinking.

What the church can do is encourage right thinking and right living. It can educate and even indoctrinate.

I have encountered a pastor who will wed a couple in the pastor's home, in direct conflict with the parental authority, and claim the church had no say. Such is not only misguided, but shows an attitude by the pastor of considering he has Scripture authority above all - which is not the role of the pastor.

What the pastor should do, is counsel that two that desire to be married to set aside the resolve to marry until the parental issue is resolved.

If it is not resolvable, they should not marry.

Because the physical has been brought up, it is not unusual (though they may not admit such) that the couple has already "coupled."

In that case, the parents need to be informed, and shown that by Scripture the two are already married in the sight of God, and the parents allowed to either bless the marriage or subject the couple to church discipline.

Rare will be the parent who would embrace church discipline in this matter, but give the couple their blessings.

This post may sound harsh in comparison to the modern worldly view of bedding being the natural right and privilege of dating.

That the church has actually moved in some manner to accept the worldly, in my opinion is sad.

 

Man and woman are both legal age by the Law, both saved by grace of God, and the parent of the wife object due to the man feeling called to missionary work, and they fear for daughters life!

Shouldn't they have the choice to marry and become a partnership where God led them to go?

 

Short answer - nope.

If the parents are standing "against God" (so to speak) He will deal with them.

But there is another problem - that concerning "legal age by the law."

What is that age?

Do the Scriptures indicate at what age a woman could no longer be accountable to the parents or husband?

Wasn't the break actually occurring when the woman could be considered a widow and orphan and therefore when no authority was shading them?

 

So far, anyone who has objected to getting married without approval has only given anecdotal evidence or Jewish cultural customs as reasons. And some have even said (implied) that it's better to leave the will of God for your life than to marry without approval.

Fact is, the only scripture we have on the matter speaks of betrothal. So unless you're following the betrothal method (which, if you don't know, essentially places a man and woman into a wedding contract BEFORE the courting process), then you can't point at those customs as law.

 

Untrue.

More accurately, what one feels is the will of God for his life.

 

Clearly a very personal and emotional issue for you. Perhaps you are too close to situation to really see the wisdom in some of things that have been shared here.

 

Considering that the entire question challenges the bedrock of my marriage, and whether or not my wife was God's will for my life, yeah I'd say it's a personal issue for me.

But that doesn't change facts. Like the fact that I've seen the claims of having both parent's blessings equal no divorce totally debunked. Three times. Again, one of them my own sister in law's marriage. Of the same parents who hated me but now admit that they were wrong.

The only inch I'll budge on that is (without giving details because I DON'T want to dishonor them) in my case, my in laws weren't exactly in a place to give ANY advice on marriage, and my FIL relinquished his authority over my wife 20 years prior.

But regardless of my personal circumstances, if a parent gets in the way of God's will, then they are in sin. And if two people are God's will, then they'd be fools to break up because of someone else's sin. And so far, I haven't seen scripture that says otherwise. Only opinion.

Edited to add: I'm not saying don't ask your parents, or even just do what you want. But ultimately, only you know God's will for your life.

 

I understand in part you feel a certain challenge, and I also understand in part your statements as to the condition you are placing in view.

Would it be correct to view the first is emotion based, and the second is based upon the difference between the what is common among judeo/christian design and what may be actually a consideration of what is the will of God?

What I would encourage you to consider is that this issue isn't a "bedrock" issue to your marriage.

What is bedrock is the marriage vows and the commitment that you bring to the union.

It matters so very little the extraneous parental influences by the in-laws on either side, for you have your own family and that is what is all important in every aspect of living.

On a personal level, I would commend you and your marriage success thus far.

It is sad when a couple reach the point in which they no longer can build a life, together. The splash down is hard on all, but often the ripples last far long into the future and may never be extinguished.

"The same parents" had to learn a rather hard lesson, and it is one that I have witnessed in more than one situation. It's refreshing that you are willing to set aside the scorched ground of ill will from the parents and bring a measure of healing to them. By allowing them to reflect with some element of pride on your marriage, without having thrown up in their face how opposed they were to it, it furthers the building of a lasting relationship of friendship between you.

You do present an interesting side to the thread, especially bringing up an issue that hasn't been addressed - the relinquished authority aspect.

The transfer of authority is the basis of the judeo/christian thinking in which a woman is secure under constant protection.

However, when that initial authority is relinquished, then it follows that the woman is "orphaned" and free to choose for themselves.

In that understanding, your marriage did not violate the judeo/christian design and should not be characterized as such.

Folks, that doesn't mean that any woman can willy nilly declare their parental authority null, but when life circumstances oblige that authority can no longer be recognized and is not placed into another, then frankly that is as a death of the authority (but not the person) which would place the woman into the relationship of "widow/orphan" and the church is responsible for the care.

Perhaps others of the BB may see a different aspect of this matter and a thread open to further discuss this issue.

 

Truly, where did this idea women must be under the authority of either her father or a man arise?

Too many men playing God perhaps? I mean, putting the earthly father in the position of our Father God is rank idolatry.

So yes, GOD gave Eve to Adam, but that doesn't mean all women must remain under their father until he gives her in marriage.

My dad approved of my choice of a husband wholeheartedly. Had he not, given the tremendous love and respect I had for him, I would have certainly taken his counsel to heart.

That is not the same as saying, had I been single at 42 I would have needed his permission rather than his blessing.

 

For starters, let's go to the ten commandments.

They tell us to honor our father and mother. Note it says honor, not obey. Over in the NT, I think Ephesians, tells CHILDREN to obey their parents. Note we are not talking about children getting married, but adults.

Back to the ten commandments where we are also told to have no other gods but the Lord. If we make fathers the absolute rulers of their grown up offspring, we are putting him in the place where God should be.

This logic of dear daddy being in charge forever seems to me to be an offshoot of seriously bad teaching about his role in the marriage. Women are told to submit to him "as unto the Lord." Time was, we all knew that meant we did not expect the little woman to obey a sinful order. Today in our town one Baptist preacher says she is to obey all orders from her husband, no matter what. If it is sin God will deal with her husband.

Sounds good maybe sitting in a church pew. But what if dear old pops orders her to take part in wife swapping? Beating the kids seriously? Lying to the IRS? Stealing a car? Still think she must just obey?

Again, the deadly root of all this nonsense is the erroneous belief that God has made the husband and father the ruler or dictator. He has not. God made him the LEADER.

For a military analogy, these men seem to think God made them supreme general when actually God reserves that for Himself. The Holy Spirit is to fill and rule us, pointing us to Jesus, sent by the Father. The earthly husband/father is the platoon sergeant. He is the first one over the wall and charging into the face of the enemy. He takes the first blows, the first bullets, the most danger. Only when he is sure his team can follow does he shout "Follow me." And that is only when he is sure he is following the orders of the Supreme leader, God.

That type of father will not forbid adult offspring to marry. He may ask for a chance to voice, lovingly, his objections. And then, if the offspring is truly marrying counter to scripture he may not give his blessing or attend. But if there is no SCRIPTURAL hindrance to the marriage he will put away his OPINION and support and bless the couple marrying.

Note I said scriptural hindrances. Sometimes previous marriages and divorces are not according to scripture. In today's world, there is the whole lgbt thing also. There is the idea of not marrying an unbeliever.

But those are very different than refusing to bless when the issue is different denomination, race, social and educational background, geography, or just plain don't like the choice.

 

Thank you for your excellent questions!

I am not God, and I doubt any true manly Godly believer would consider themselves as speaking for God - other than the prophets and apostles.

The first placement wasn't so much when God brought Eve to Adam although that is a type of transfer of the authority, but at the fall.

Eve, the Bible records, was deceived by the adversary; however, Adam took freely knowing that he was choosing Eve over God.

Because of that, God first dealt with Adam by calling him and not Eve, not that Eve was far away, but again showing that Adam choice was deliberate and God was holding him responsible.

Then recall the actual visit with God, Adam, Eve and the Serpent? Recall how God said to the woman?

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”
​

Now the latter part of your post is a bit more problematic.

Paul gives instructions in 1 Corinthians 7 that reaffirms the role of the father in permission to marry or not.

One must remember, though, that during the writing of Corinthians, the church was under great persecution, which in my opinion is why Paul expressed that folks not be married unless they cannot contain themselves. And why Paul was concerned that the distraction of marriage might hinder a person from fully serving the Lord.

Please note that Paul states the instructions as NOT coming from the Lord, but what he sees as practical living in the times. So, there is room to apply or adjust what Paul says to our times, as long as the principles presented of dedication and marriage are not violated - for they are Scriptural.

Also, remember that up until about a century or more ago, marriage was typically arranged by the family, many times without regard to either partner's wishes. The same is done in much of the world still. The breaking of engagement by the man was a cause to be charged with a crime, and had significant effect not only financially but social standing, too.

Also do not forget that Issac had no say in the matter, but a servant was sent abroad to acquire a kinsman bride. The father of the bride had to consent to the marriage.

In the modern age, we do face the "career" woman who, because she is "out of the home," is considered by society no longer under the rule of the parental unit. Being out of the home isn't a violation of Scripture, but the thinking that the woman is no longer responsible to the parental unit is most problematic in attempting to align with Scriptures.

I am reminded that back in the day female teachers were not allowed to be married primarily because their husband was the authority, and not the school board.

What you present is a good.

It is good to see the standard and examples presented by Scriptures and in comparison the social aspects of what is acceptable practice in the "modern" world.

The problem will always be, which will the believer ultimately embrace. Some try to walk a compromise line, considering that is acceptable to God.

I just don't consider that God would be comfortable in compromise.

 

I thought I posted a response to this, this morning, but apparently left it in "preview."

In short:

I agree that some fathers think they rule the world as dictators, and God never expresses that is the role of the Father.

What God does say to fathers is that they are to care for the home. That isn't just in the financial realm, but all aspects that go into the care and upkeep/upgrade of the home. God does not place such a command upon the wife or children. God expects the fathers to "rule wisely" as Paul says.

Another point I was making in the longer post that wasn't published was the respect for the wife as shown particularly in Proverbs 31. She is not a "stay at home mother" (nothing against that though) but is engaged in using her talent and marketing skills to bring to the home contributions that are unique to her abilities. She is praised and esteemed not cowed and mousy.

I addressed the "bad teaching" you mentioned in another post, and I want to mention the "military aspects."

I do think that you presented a more "hollywood" style picture of combat, in attempting to picture the role of the father in the home.

However, using your own labeling, the general can (as I posted to Woody) be found "unfit to command." Men sin, and sin has consequences. If the father has placed himself in such a manner as to endanger the home and the family as to directly by his own actions cause them hurt, then he is not "fit for command."

This is were the church discipline becomes a part of the mix.

See, the church (especially the deacons) are to take care of the "widows and orphans." If a father is no longer "fit to command," the church should assume that role and appoint deacon(s) and their wife(ves) to care for the "orphaned" daughter(s).

I am not saying specifically that the daughter(s) are removed from the home - unless necessary for safety - but rather than heathen services being in the lead, the assembly needs to step up and deal with their own "near kinsmen."

Then it follows that the daughter would then seek the caregiver's consent to marry.

I expressed the thinking so much better in much longer statements, but this will kind of tease your thinking.

I realize that "modern society" is far removed from much of the Scriptural standard and even the "portraits" given that picture aspects of the heavenly. I also realize that I am a dinosaur (actually had one as a pet) when it comes to accepting what the typical society offers up as the "standard." Example: The bed swapping "Good Wife" is just a filthy show making something evil to appear good.

But, Nodak, it is my hope that you see something of the principles the Scriptures establish and notice that they are not burdensome, or archaic, or even not applicable to the modern woman. But when followed, bring great blessings.

This point was the last of the points I made on the post that wasn't posted.

Often folks assume that a marriage that takes place outside of following the principles of Scriptures is cursed.

NOT AT ALL, is that presented in the Scriptures!

Rather, such a marriage is removed from significant blessings.

Here is why.

When the transfer of authority happens, the woman is still a part of her original parental unit. ONLY the man is said to leave his father and mother, not the woman. So how does this work out?

The wife's parents provide a huge benefit to the daughter as a resource of goods and services, and a buffer (listening ear), and a good baby sitting service.

God intends the woman to network, and to have the gathering of women about them that seems necessary to them. Men, well let's just say, we enjoy a man cave - a place to "hide out."

This is just one of the blessings that are brought to the marriage when it is approved by "Daddy." As you probably can construct, there are many more.

It is so unfortunate that many of the modern women do not have that extra blessing(s) that would make everything a lot easier on them.


I would encourage the wise members of the board to examine this part of the thread and make comments as to the wisdom and in particular if it would violate the Scriptures. I don't think the thinking does, but I am not ashamed to ever have my writing held accountable.

 

The parental authority was to be until the children became able to make decisions for themselves as adults, and you cannot take the OT customs of that as manditory for us under the new covenant now!

Would say that in a majority of times, it will indeed be the Will and plans of God to receive parental blessings for marriage, but NOT an absoluet requirement, as again, know of cases where the parents would not accept the peron due to skin color, relious background, did not want to have daughter a pastors wife etc!

In those cases, still have freedom to marry in my opinion!

 

What is bolded is the problem with all assumptions and not just those expressed in this post but ALL assumptions. Assumptions based upon opinion are generally subject to modifications according to maturity, age, feelings, health, wealth ... such assumptions can in fact can be corrupted. I saw this "corruption" in of some "opinions" expressed as "your not right with God if ..." statements made in both the IFB and SBC when folks wanted to put forth their own agenda and not face truthful questioning.

Yeshua's post is certainly not corrupt, and, that many do have this thinking, is why I think that a response is in obliged.

What I presented in this thread previously is what is consistent with the Scriptures, and although we do not live under the Jewish customs and Law, it nevertheless brings certain blessings - as Yeshua states - when a form of it is still followed as it pertains to parental authority.

First, look at the age problem:

No where in Scriptures is age considered a factor when it comes to marriage. There is no "legal age" or "under age" or any other age related element to marriage (Lest someone think that Paul did, remember Paul in Corinthians stated he was not giving information from the Lord - but his own feelings for the time the church was under huge persecution).

The thinking of the parents having authority "until the children become adults" is not found in Scriptures. Certainly, the scriptures portray the single males as responding to the head of the family long after what we could consider adult age, and females were under the head of the family authority until marriage.

So, to have an age related condition of who gets to decide on marriage, just isn't part of the Scriptures and when there is structures exampled and followed for millennia, then it follows that it is applicable in some form in the modern times.

Here is another danger with the "age related" decision making. WHO sets the age?

Is it the willful teen who thinks love is forever?

Is it the stogy old librarian who would find more warmth in a book?

Is it the local preacher who may be no better than a snake oil salesman?

Is it the legal representative that is embedded with political graft?

Is it the Scriptures that are silent on when an adult becomes an adult?

Is it the traditions of the ancients that are not static but changed by geography?
​

See, the problem is that there can only be one true standard - that which unchangeable - the Scriptures.

As the Scriptures do indicate, the final authority of the home is placed as the responsibility of the father.

The woman then is given from the authority of the father to the authority of the husband at the marriage.

Modern folks may not like it, but neither do they like to keep the ten commandments - especially number 7 and closely followed by 10.