There are myriad misunderstandings here. We've gone over this Ezekiel verse before in the context of a covenant and we showed it's a pretty limited event. God metaphorically had sex with this (woman which created a one flesh covenant. There is no further application to this covenant then to demonstrate once again that sex is a covenant that creates a one flesh situation. You have to stretch like hell to get it to say anything else ESPECIALLY as this is merely an aside in this passage on the way to the main point. Ezekiel is not talking or giving instructions on how to vow to your wife.Ezekiel 16:8
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.
Why should a woman ever contemplate submitting to a man (through this construct of marriage) without some semblance of a guideline or authority that he is under and without a vow from him? As a father, I would remove a man that attempted to get one of my daughters to covenant under those conditions and I would negate her vow in the day I heard of it. Period. The consequences for him would be Biblical at the least.
I get what you’re saying @Pacman, and I understand where you’re trying to get, but this idea that a husband should not vow to a wife to reflect the image of God is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. Every covenant that God creates involves swaring and oaths on both sides.
True, be careful what you say and what you agree to with your wife or anyone else, but, IMO your wife and family should be the one that you keep your word to, whether you do to anyone else or not. Why should a wife be an exception to the instruction to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay?
It’s probably also important to keep in mind that the father allowed her vow or assent on the betrothal/wedding day because of the husband to be’s vow. Leviticus 6 comes into play in a big way.
And a father can't negate a daughter's marriage vows, at least it's not all that cut and dried. Numbers 30 tells us that a father can negate the vows of either his wife or virgin daughter that are made to God. The father's ability to do this seems to be taken away after her virginity is lost. And as far as keeping the seduced daughter from her husband, that seems to only come in effect as an escape clause if the father refuses to allow physical custody to take place. There is nothing to imply that a father could retroactively nullify a marriage later on. That authority passes on to the husband. You risk tearing apart what God has joined together. And that's not to be done.