A dating daughter is a father's failure

[Keith Martin]

Thank you, Nick. Scriptural, please.

For instance, Exodus 22:16-17 seems to demonstrate it's up to the father, purely. Some may dismiss it because extraordinary circumstances are in play.

Well, I'd assert that Exodus 22:16-17 doesn't in any way firmly assert that fathers have the absolute right to arrange their daughters' marriages. The closest one can come to making that passage a mandate is to say that it implies that that kind of absolute power might be inferred. But that's still just an implication combined with an inference. [And don't fail to note that the passage is immediately followed by a more adamant demand that enchantresses are to be executed, which, if it were to be enforced today would dissuade a great many daughters from being provocative in pursuit of their own choice of husband.)

However, I don't doubt that this collective group could parse through the entirety of Scripture and come up with a very firm joint conclusion that Scripture considers arranged marriages not only entirely acceptable practice but perhaps fully enforceable or even fully required. My personal general hunch is that arranged marriages have the blessing of His Word.

If, though, @NVIII, you consider current legal restrictions, sociological input or even anthropological dynamics to be of no concern to your OP, why then haven't you already declared this discussion to be finished and asked for it to be closed? What is it you're waiting for?

My question is somewhat rhetorical, because unless one were to have been seeking spiritual justification for enforcing arranged marriage on one's daughter no matter what anything but Scripture has to say in the matter, I'm now a bit befuddled about what the purpose of this thread is.

I would venture to say that I've experienced the same type of befuddlement when reading a great many other biblicalfamilies.org threads in which the OP or other participants demand that anything beyond Scripture is verboten as far as having any weight in the discussion. Such threads come across to me as fundamentalism designed to foster hostile argumentativeness, the only net effect of which is to promote doctrinal division -- and, just like the Hebrew Roots folks have what I call their own private playground which is also considered by some of them to be a ghetto, I sometimes wonder why we don't have another playground/ghetto that's labeled something like Ancient Scriptura Sola? That way, those of us who don't want to be spanked for having the temerity to think that advanced wisdom wasn't curtailed after 100 A.D. would know to avoid such threads.

The absence of such a roped-off area, though, will mean that I'll still probably always feel free to weigh in.

What am I missing? Where have I gone off the tracks?

 

[Keith Martin]

But there is no truth that is not founded in scripture.

Well, that's a perspective I'd never considered.

Are you asserting that no truth existed in the world before Moses put pen to papyrus?

 

[Keith Martin]

What I'm trying to say is without a solid lifelong foundation and extremely strong ties binding a young woman to her father's leadership, there can not be any success in arranged marriages in western culture america. It just doesn't work, there is too much pressure from the world telling her she is her own person who can make her own decisions and screw whoever she wants whenever she wants, she's a bad boss B and doesn't need no man! The tide is rushing too fast to expect an emotional teenage young woman to think clearly and resist the cultural current without STRONG training from a very young age. Most people don't bother doing that. Or waited too long.

Boom!

Scripturally, there is a very strong case to be made for the absolute authority of the father.

Absolutely, but as you note, this is tempered by your earlier ^^ paragraph.

 

[Keith Martin]

Man's law for many of you says if you take a second wife you should be punished, but that doesn't stop you, does it? The likelihood of that law being executed is near zero. Is that the reason why you appear confident in His Word on that issue but on the issue of a father's duty you tell me to think of whether it "works in real life"? It won't be long before acknowledging Jesus before men will come with severe consequences. What will you say then?

This is an excellent clarifying paragraph. Great questions. I will clarify from my own point of view; I'm not pretending this is The Voice of God.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself and for most men I observe, I don't believe that men are generally more apt to appear confident about polygyny than about arranged marriages because the relevant laws are less likely to be enforced [in fact, arranged marriages are practiced even in America where the laws don't permit it but the dominating culture blesses it, so that's pretty much like the situation with polygyny]. I believe they're more confident because they're less likely to worry that they may be pushing personal agendas to the point of scriptural breaking points. Polygyny has tremendous evidence throughout Scripture of not only its acceptability but perhaps even its mandate in certain circumstances for certain numbers of men. Arranged marriages, however, don't seem to be able to boast anything beyond being a frequent acceptable practice in the context of all surrounding cultures; no indication is given that arranged marriages were initiated by YHWH or that they were solely practiced by His Chosen People.

Also: polygyny requires no coercion for women, whereas forced arranged marriages do require coercion.

Arranged marriages still exist in our world, but they exist in cultures where they're not illegal and within the context that they're considered acceptable and/or preferable by the individuals for whom the marriage is arranged. However, they also exist within another context, one that no longer holds sway in our cultures: a patriarchal framework that venerates the value of family tribalism. Evidence is that, absent that framework, acceptance of forced arranged marriages crumbles.

I'd be in favor of the option of arranged marriages, but it's a matter of putting the cart before the horse. First, we must reestablish the legitimacy of patriarchy, then we can implement a wide variety of things, including taking much of the yoke of tyrannical government off our necks. But we're currently light years away from that, because, as I was discussing with another member of Biblical Families today, this group of men is representative of men who are among the most intellectually supportive of patriarchy, but, even besides the fact that the number of people in the spiritual culture we represent are small to the point of being insignificant, even among our numbers the majority of us haven't even achieved headship with our own wives -- and if we can't take the lead in our own families (and you can't if, for example, you're waiting around for your wife to be 'on board'), then how are we ever going to be able to stand tall with locked arms in sufficient numbers to establish the patriarchal foundation to do much of anything beyond guarding our own henhouses, much less making it legal to force our daughters to marry the men of our choosing?

 

[Keith Martin]

Just for legal reasons, I will reiterate that this ministry does not support illegal underage marriage in any way, and remind readers that @Keith Martin's interesting thought experiment is set in a hypothetical future. From a legal perspective it is in the same class as a post-apocalyptic scifi novel discussing the merits of owning a presently-illegal machine gun.

Yikes, Samuel. I'd say you have to be kidding me, but instead I'll just rest my case about us not being ready for Patriarchy Prime Time.

When we're hand-wringing about someone who writes in a thread coming close to demanding we limit our references to Scripture that if he had a magic wand he would allow for young women to marry at 14 if they so chose -- when they were marrying at 12 in Yeshua's day -- then we know those aren't male members but tails tucked between our legs.

There's a certain level of narcissistic hubris embodied in fearing that these forums are in danger of being embattled by the authorities for hypothetical musings when it's evident that nowhere on the site does a mission statement promoting underage marriage exists. Hell, we can't even actualize our actual mission statement, but the FBI or the CIA are going to conclude that we're in danger of implementing underage marriage?

Lions and tigers and bears -- oh my!!!

And beyond that, I'm pretty sure (haven't researched it in the last decade or so) that there are still places in America (the formerly-brave home of this organization) where young ladies are permitted to marry at age 14 with a parent's permission -- which would be the case in my 'sci-fi' thought experiment. I know I'm an old man at 69, but when I was growing up here in Texas, girls graduating from middle school were permitted to marry any man aged 18 or older who had a high school diploma -- without any parental permission, and close to half of my female peers left school to do just that after 8th grade. And most of those marriages are intact today.

That framework is what I used as inspiration for my fantasy.

Double yikes.

 

[Keith Martin]

Without having read through more than the first few posts here, I want to offer my perspective. I have been trying to speak with the father of a young lady for quite some time now, but I don't expect him to do anything other than reverse her fears regarding polygny, and pass along to her how I feel about her. I see him as the gatekeeper, but ultimately I wouldn't expect him to make the decision for her, per se. However, I am hoping and believing he can be persuasive enough, if I can get him to realize that this could in fact be God's will, which of course is always a possibility for anything that is not forbidden.

Now when it comes to dating/courtship, I am happy to have everything chaperoned!

I applaud you, Daniel, for your tenacity, your optimism, and for your ongoing intention to follow Yah's Path as you pursue your objectives in this matter.

 

[Keith Martin]

True. But then it is also incumbent upon the parents to be honorable.

Is it incumbent upon YHWH to be honorable before we honor Him?

 

[Keith Martin]

Does the command to 'obey your father and mother' only apply to those areas which don't conflict with modern women's liberation such as choosing a husband? And where do we see in the scriptures ever a woman choosing her husband?

This is an excellent set of points.

It's not submission or obedience if it only occurs when the child or wife wants to do it anyway.

 

[theleastofthese]

You're right that most men are unfit for duty.

Upon first reading this thread, I admittedly let my attitude get the best of me. I said to myself the typical I'm a grown woman; I don't need my dad to choose a husband for me thing. I got defensive and thought of all of the things my father has done wrong over the years. I thought of how much power and control something like this could give undeserving men, among other things, yet I still settled on what a wonderful idea it is. While I agree with MeMeFan that it most likely won't work in practical everyday life, that doesn't really change the premise.

I'm not even convinced that a father needs to be particularly spectacular to take on this role. Men, by default, will have insight into other men that women aren't blessed with. The majority of father's who are actively involved in their daughter's lives in any capacity (positively or negatively) will most likely instinctually want what's best for her, combined with the instinct to protect her.

I couldn't help but think, could it be the worst idea in the world to let the one man who knows men better than I do, who wants what's best for me and instinctually wants to protect me, choose my husband?

This is coming from a woman who respects and loves her father but doesn't always see eye to eye with him. My father is controlling, inpatient, and rude. I don't think he makes wise decisions when it comes to leading the family, and he was very abusive to us growing up. However, once I put my personal feelings to the side, I still think he would be perfectly capable of finding me a good husband because he also has good qualities, and even if he didn't, he would still instinctually possess qualities that women simply don't, thus still making him more suitable.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Men, by default, will have insight into other men that women don't.

This is a huge thing. Women see men differently then other men do, are more likely to look past red flags, or get emotionally involved with someone who is not really suitable. Men are more critical of other men, and have expectations as a man of what a man should be. They also shed no tears when someone doesn't make the cut for their daughter.

Once I put my pride to the side, I couldn't help but think, could it be the worst idea in the world to let a father who knows men better than I do, who wants what's best for me and instinctually wants to protect me, choose my husband?

I don't know if it's instinct as much as it is a God given responsibility that they feel. Whatever the case, statistics prove children are less likely to be abused by their natural father, and that those natural fathers tend to make choices that are are in the interest of their children's well being.

 

[theleastofthese]

This is a huge thing. Women see men differently then other men do, are more likely to look past red flags, or get emotionally involved with someone who is not really suitable. Men are more critical of other men, and have expectations as a man of what a man should be. They also shed no tears when someone doesn't make the cut for their daughter.

I don't know if it's instinct as much as it is a God given responsibility that they feel. Whatever the case, statistics prove children are less likely to be abused by their natural father, and that those natural fathers tend to make choices that are are in the interest of their children's well being.

Spot on!

 

[MemeFan]

While I agree with MeMeFan that it most likely won't work in practical everyday life, that doesn't really change the premise.

I didn't say that. I'm not fan of arranged marriage since relationship between husband-to-be and bride-to-be is by far most important. Anyone else can only provide veto. As a man I prefer avoiding all c..kblockers.

Remember, any additional person in "selection commite" means probability of things falling aparts goes way up. Proven in B2B sales. One new person just doesn't like something and potential opportunity is verboten.

So, while father can probably help in avoiding downside, I don't see at all how they help upside. At in worst case, father and daughter wouldn't be able to agree, so both can block good opportunities.

And try to think from husband to be perspective. Each new person means another person to be satisfisfied to get yes. And if think "It's just 2 yes, what a problem", well it won't stay. Like mother will be happy not existing in whole process. And siblings will add their comments. Like siblings and mother can't sabotage good guy. So it's more like 5+ yeses.

Now let's get real. How much persons must be active in checking before husband-to-be gives up? And don't forget time dimension. Is 2 years enough or maybe 5 years? Man, thinking about this makes me to try convert local whore. At least I won't wait years for sex.

If these is something to cause wastage of time on this thread, it's from not checking husband to be perspective.

I don't see what father brings what properly trained daughter can't notice. Systematic approach based in reality is by far best approach. And if you like meddling into your daughters love life, ask her to meet any her "It could be something serious" interest.

What I did put emphasis is on mandatory daughter participant in choosing her husband. And that she needs to be trained how to select the man.

I didn't specify process of husband selection since it's very rare, so it's hard to develop anything aproaching "best practices" for her. All "best practice" we have are due to lessons from vast amounts of marriages in human history. Problem is customizing them for situation we are.

And maybe best question isn't who is best husband for my daughter, but for whom would my daughter be best wife.

 

[theleastofthese]

I didn't say that.

I apologize for misunderstanding.

I'm not fan of arranged marriage since relationship between husband-to-be and bride-to-be is by far most important.

And who better to take it seriously than a father?

As a man I prefer avoiding all c..kblockers.

This is precisely why it's a good idea: the thought of a father interfering is not supposed to make a potential husband comfortable.

So, while father can probably help in avoiding downside, I don't see at all how they help upside.

Avoiding the downside is essentially helping the upside; the rest is negotiable.

And try to think from husband to be perspective. Each new person means another person to be satisfisfied to get yes. And if think "It's just 2 yes, what a problem", well it won't stay. Like mother will be happy not existing in whole process. And siblings will add their comments. Like siblings and mother can't sabotage good guy. So it's more like 5+ yeses.

Now let's get real. How much persons must be active in checking before husband-to-be gives up? And don't forget time dimension. Is 2 years enough or maybe 5 years? Man, thinking about this makes me to try convert local whore. At least I won't wait years for sex.

People are going to always have an opinion, that can happen with or without a father involved in the courting process. Also, I was under the impression that most arranged marriages have a fairly short courting process. If you want sex right away, arranged marriage may be your best bet

I don't see what father brings what properly trained daughter can't notice.

Being properly trained doesn't make one void of mistakes. If a father trained her this way, then it's his job to see her through it until she finds a good husband.

And if you like meddling into your daughters love life

I don't see it as meddling in her love life until after she is married. She doesn't really have a love life until then; she has a courtship. Meddling in the actual marriage after the fact should be completely off-limits.

What I did put emphasis is on mandatory daughter participant in choosing her husband. And that she needs to be trained how to select the man.

I didn't specify process of husband selection since it's very rare, so it's hard to develop anything aproaching "best practices" for her. All "best practice" we have are due to lessons from vast amounts of marriages in human history. Problem is customizing them for situation we are.

And maybe best question isn't who is best husband for my daughter, but for whom would my daughter be best wife.

That's all very important as well.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Avoiding the downside is essentially helping the upside; the rest is negotiable.

Bingo!

I don't see it as meddling in her love life until after she is married. She doesn't really have a love life until then; she has a courtship. Meddling in the actual marriage after the fact should be completely off-limits.

Yep! Well said.

 

[frederick]

Meddling in the actual marriage after the fact should be completely off-limits.

It is off limits. Everyone needs to understand that.

 

[Keith Martin]

It is off limits. Everyone needs to understand that.

One reason why some don't understand this is that it's common these days for people to substantively misunderstand both patriarchy and tribalism. They are designed to be decentralized forms of government. Too often men mistakenly conclude that patriarchy and tribalism put them in the driver's seat of what amounts to generational bullying -- once in charge of everything, always in charge of everything.

 

[Keith Martin]

THIS! I'm glad you pointed this out. It's something @CatieF and I have discussed on our walks. When I thought monogamy was the only thing. I was under great pressure to find a woman who checked all the boxes.

I wrote an essay about this for Patriarchs Journal, focusing on how differently men would choose wives if they didn't assume they were limited to just one. An inescapable dynamic in this is that, with monogamy-only, and because looks are so important to men, they feel compelled to get a real looker, and not least among the reasons is that they want to guarantee that their libido will be consistently and fully inspired.

 

[Earth_is-]

I wrote an essay about this for Patriarchs Journal, focusing on how differently men would choose wives if they didn't assume they were limited to just one. An inescapable dynamic in this is that, with monogamy-only, and because looks are so important to men, they feel compelled to get a real looker, and not least among the reasons is that they want to guarantee that their libido will be consistently and fully inspired.

The man being the head of the household - whose well acquainted with God’s Holy and Righteous Law - can use Lord Jesus’ guidebook to truly build up his household. Perhaps one wife is equally yoked, submissive, and very attractive. Another wife may not be as attractive, however, she contributes in other ways - for example, she is also equally yoked, submissive, and has a passion for cooking, gardening, teaching (homeschooling children), productive, brings income, etc; so each wife has something she brings to the table. The house is never quiet - being full of kids - and when they grow old and the kids move out - the wives can enjoy growing old together, and not alone like in monogamy. God’s Law protects women - Satan’s law seems like it’s pro women on the surface - but under the facade it can lead to turmoil and loneliness.

Another thing I want to add - in a monogamy only perspective - the man looking for a wife wants a wife that fits all of his criteria, which is extremely, extremely rare. Therefore, there’s likely many women that he’s shutting the door to - since he’s looking for his “soul match.” What ends up happening to so many Christian women - they end up marrying men they are not equally yoked with - because it’s not easy finding a equally yoked husband - but that’s the fruit of feminism and ignoring what the Creator of the Heavens and Earth wrote in His Book.

 

[Keith Martin]

The Commandment says "honor your father and mother", and the apostolic application of that Commandment to children in the book of Ephesians is "obey them".

Off topic or not, clearly discussing these passages and the interpretation of the English word 'obey' is considered relevant enough by sufficient people to have become a temporary centerpiece of this discussion.

Not to be Nerdy Ned about this, but we all know that Scripture was written originally in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. When we read 'obey' or any other word in 90% of English-language Bibles, at a bare minimum this is a matter of a translation from a tertiary common-language that was a translation from a secondary (usually Latin) tome that didn't even translate from the original languages, but, on average, there were approximately 7-10 translations. Maybe they all got it right, but the modern efforts to translate directly from the oldest sources puts the lie to that (which, by the way politely ignores the fact that the KJV, the Latin Vulgate and even other translation projects were commissioned with mandates to ensure that certain Church-desired concepts were inserted or retained from other faulty translations). Even if every other step along the way exhibited led-by-the-holy-spirit godly perfection, the original word for 'honor' in Exodus 20 originated with Hebrew, and the original word for 'obey' in Ephesians originated with Greek. The Concordant Publishing Concern's translation for Ephesians 6:2 translates its reference to Exodus 20 as 'Honor,' but in :1 uses 'obeying,' as Samuel asserts, directing this interpretation of how children should honor their parents. [Concordant Literal New Testament]

However, in the Concordant Version of the Old Testament, Exodus 20:12 reads, "Glorify your father and your mother." Note that the Concordant versions make every effort to translate every Hebrew and Aramaic word in WWCTOT into exactly the same English word, but they also do the same with every Greek and Aramaic word in WWCTNT -- so apparently the closest thing the word Paul chose in Greek meant 'honor' in English, and it may even be the case that, as he wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking audiences that the original Hebrew OT was translated from that language into the closest thing in Greek the authors of the Septuagint could ascertain (whoops! another translation process!).

The most original, though, was originally Hebrew, and it translates literally into 'glorify.'

Wouldn't obedience be an essential component of glorification of one's parents when one is a child? And in our known history, wouldn't full obedience by an adult of one's parents be somewhat anomalous? I just had this discussion with my then 62-year-old younger brother a couple years ago, because our 91-year-old father was jerking him around in an attempt to sustain full dominance over him -- and I told him, we are to either glorify or honor our dad, but it isn't truly honoring him to treat him like he's a man who could never get past needing to subjugate his sons utilizing guilt-trip techniques.

Now, one last return to context, which is either hundreds of years before Christ or during His Lifetime. We do know from many contemporaneous historical records that children became adults in the Judaic community between ages 12 to 14 in Yeshua's time, and we also know that the vast majority of them entered into TTWCM sometime after becoming adults. We have numerous scriptural recordings of adult females and adult males whose parents (or even servants) arranged marriages for them, but we have little testimony to enlighten us about whether they might have wanted help in the matter or even about whether or not they were just plain hapless.

The more I contemplate this, the more convinced I am that our religious heritage not only existed within a highly distinct context from our own, but that that heritage probably involved very little fatherly marital coercion of daughters. I wish I could remember the source, but several years ago I was studying something else and came across a set of teachings that married OT Scripture with concurrent rabbinical historical records, and the clear assertion was that weddings were actually very rare in late B.C. and early A.D., generally only occurring among the upper castes (from which Yeshua came due to his parents' lineages), as well as that, in the majority of cases, the occurrence that brought attention to That Thing We Call Marriage was not a wedding or a betrothal or even any kind of public pronouncement -- but instead when someone noticed a baby bump. (After all, Constantine hadn't yet created his paganism/Christianity hybrid, the Roman Catholic Church, so marriage wasn't declared a 'sacrament' until sometime several hundred years post-Christ.) In most cases, 'marriage' was recognized at the point of pregnancy, and only in the minority of cases were people going out of their way to bring attention to the fact that they were sexually active.

 

[Keith Martin]

*meets guy with a demon*
*keeps dating him for months on end*

The poster child for women's empowerment.

She had two intelligent, seemingly caring parents, one of whom became famous as a teacher on the ways of men and women. What's the source of your contention she wasn't taught properly?

Have you been paying attention to Jordan Peterson in the last 5 years?