Question on of marriage w/o consent of parents

[TryingToLearn]

I was reading Polanus and he argues both that:

1) marriages contracted between children (before lying together) w/o the consent of parents are invalid.

And

2) after the lying together of these children, the marriage cannot be broken by the parents.

I’m having a hard time putting these two together in my mind. How can one hold that the consent of parents is essential to a valid marriage while also holding that if the children lay together, the marriage is made valid? What exactly is the the essential act that validates a marriage? If its the consent of the two parties, then how can 1 be true? If it includes the consent of parents, how can 2 be true?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Probably in a similar way to how an unequally yoked marriage would be forbidden, but if the two who are unequally yoked are already married, then divorce is forbidden provided the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer. Once they’ve laid together, two become one flesh, and it is thus thought to be consummated and binding.

I’ve not read Polanus, but that’s my best guess.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Probably in a similar way to how an unequally yoked marriage would be forbidden, but if the two who are unequally yoked are already married, then divorce is forbidden provided the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer. Once they’ve laid together, two become one flesh, and it is thus thought to be consummated and binding.

That’s my best guess.

The analogy is dissimilar here though because an unequally yoked marriage would still be a valid marriage since it meets its essential requirements yet is still illicit. Polanus is arguing consent of parents doesnt even meet the essential requirements of a marriage and so is invalid.

 

[davejonescue]

In my limited knowledge on the subject this is not a strange position for its day, and many still practice it today. Richard Greenham I believe takes the same position in his "A Treatise of a Contract Before Marriage." I think the position is basically saying that properly; parents should either choose (or approve) of the spouse of their children. But marriage is consummated, or made official by the deflowering of the bride. "Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her...." So the greater sin in this area would be to separate a couple in union; (whom God has joined let not man separate) and have the daughter marked as not a virgin (and possibly a harlot,) which would make finding a husband for her, even harder, and, maybe impossible. We have to realize at one time, virginity was taken very, very seriously; which sometimes can be a shock to our contemporary minds.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

The analogy is dissimilar here though because an unequally yoked marriage would still be a valid marriage since it meets its essential requirements yet is still illicit. Polanus is arguing consent of parents doesnt even meet the essential requirements of a marriage and so is invalid.

Valid counterpoint, friend. I do find Dave’s explanation compelling also.

 

[TryingToLearn]

In my limited knowledge on the subject this is not a strange position for its day, and many still practice it today. Richard Greenham I believe takes the same position in his "A Treatise of a Contract Before Marriage." I think the position is basically saying that properly; parents should either choose (or approve) of the spouse of their children. But marriage is consummated, or made official by the deflowering of the bride. "Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her...." So the greater sin in this area would be to separate a couple in union; and have the daughter marked as not a virgin, which would make finding a husband for her, even harder, and, possibly impossible. We have to realize at one time, virginity was taken very, very seriously; which sometimes can be a shock to our contemporary minds.

Would sex before marriage (between the unmarried) then always constitute a marriage? And if so, then why is it that the act of sex (without parental consent) constitutes it but the mere consent of the parties (without parental consent) does not? This is what Im trying to figure out.

 

[davejonescue]

Would sex before marriage (between the unmarried) then always constitute a marriage? And if so, then why is it that the act of sex (without parental consent) constitutes it but the mere consent of the parties (without parental consent) does not? This is what Im trying to figure out.

Maybe because there is an application of intent. If the couple intends to get married without consent, the parents can annul it if it has not been made official. But under the same intent, if it has been made official, by sexual consummation, the parents cannot annul it.

Maybe this goes under the heading "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife." So that before they are joined, they are still under the authority of the parents, but once they are joined, they are under direct authority of God?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Would sex before marriage (between the unmarried) then always constitute a marriage? And if so, then why is it that the act of sex (without parental consent) constitutes it but the mere consent of the parties (without parental consent) does not? This is what Im trying to figure out.

I think it’s the notion of two becoming one flesh. I believe Mark 10:8 KJV where it says “no more twain” hints at this. John 4:18 KJV may also.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Maybe because there is an application of intent. If the couple intends to get married without consent, the parents can annul it if it has not been made official. But under the same intent, if it has been made official, by sexual consummation, the parents cannot annul it.

Polanus would say that even after the “marriage” is made official between the parties w/o the parents consent it could be broken up since it is not a valid marriage.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Polanus would say that even after the “marriage” is made official between the parties w/o the parents consent it could be broken up since it is not a valid marriage.

In what way is the marriage thought to have been made official? By the completion of a ceremony or the consummation of the marriage by the couple? Perhaps that’s how both conditions could be true. If the ceremony is complete but the couple hasn’t consummated the marriage, then perhaps it could be annulled and rendered invalid post-ceremony but pre-consummation?

 

[davejonescue]

Polanus would say that even after the “marriage” is made official between the parties w/o the parents consent it could be broken up since it is not a valid marriage.

But was it made official by oath or consummation?

And if a woman in her father’s house during her youth makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge, 4and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all the vows or pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5But if her father prohibits her on the day he hears about it, then none of the vows or pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. The LORD will absolve her because her father has prohibited her.
Num 30-3-9

Again, maybe Polanus takes the position marriage is certified not by the oath, but by the consummation.

 

[TryingToLearn]

In what way is the marriage thought to have been made official? By the completion of a ceremony or the consummation of the marriage by the couple?

The first, which is why its weird to me he thinks it cant be broken in the second

 

[Deleted member 13126]

The first, which is why its weird to me he thinks it cant be broken in the second

I think Dave and I are thinking the same thing. It could be annulled before it’s been consummated but after the vows are taken in the ceremony.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Again, maybe Polanus takes the position marriage is certified not by the oath, but by the consummation.

Could be, but this would be very strange as almost all other Reformed take the view that consent, not the sexual act certifies marriage (https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/family/marriage/)

 

[davejonescue]

Could be, but this would be very strange as almost all other Reformed take the view that consent, not the sexual act certifies marriage (https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/family/marriage/)

Then the answer is simple. Maybe Polanus came to a different conclusion than others?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Could be, but this would be very strange as almost all other Reformed take the view that consent, not the sexual act certifies marriage (https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/family/marriage/)

Good men have been wrong before. Numbers 30:3-9 KJV would need to be taken into account. So would 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 KJV.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Perhaps he’s assuming the civil magistrate is doing its job and the marriage necessarily results as a result of fornication per Exodus 22:16? Idk

Edit: Nvm that makes less sense considering the father can still reject it. If anything, 22:16-17 makes me want to say Polanus is just wrong on premise 2.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I was reading Polanus and he argues both that:

1) marriages contracted between children (before lying together) w/o the consent of parents are invalid.

And

2) after the lying together of these children, the marriage cannot be broken by the parents.

I’m having a hard time putting these two together in my mind. How can one hold that the consent of parents is essential to a valid marriage while also holding that if the children lay together, the marriage is made valid? What exactly is the the essential act that validates a marriage? If its the consent of the two parties, then how can 1 be true? If it includes the consent of parents, how can 2 be true?

He's talking about marriages entered into upon a lawful condition, like a sufficient dowry, and he's saying the marriage didn't occur if the condition wasn't fulfilled, because fulfilling the condition is part of consent, and consent (both of the parents and the spouses) is part of marriage. But that's only the case if they haven't consummated the marriage yet.
Obviously if the couple already consummated the marriage and is living together, the parents can't step in and say "hey, the dowry wasn't paid, we're calling this off." It's too late at that point.

If the parents never gave their permission, even conditionally, that's a different scenario, and the couple having sexual relations is not sufficient to validate the marriage.
These issues are discussed on p. 4434 of the Syntagma, if anyone's interested.