I think you’re misunderstanding me. I was responding to memefan.
-
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.
A dating daughter is a father's failure
- Thread starter NVIII
- Start date
Oh no, I understood. I was saying thanks to you and then the rest was to others. I probably should have packaged that separately.
So to get right back to scriptural principles, this really comes down to general authority over children. The fundamental questions I see are
The only scripture that I can think of that overtly says a child must obey their parents is the punishment for a rebellious son, Deut 21:18-21. Interestingly however the word "obey" is actually usually translated "hear", "hearken", "listen", and does not necessarily mean "obey" (though it often does). The child is rebellious because he will not listen to his parents, he will not heed their advice. It is not necessarily saying he is rebellious simply because he would not obey some of their instructions, but he has a wider and more serious problem of not listening to their advice at all.
And although it is simple logic that a child must obey their parents, does an adult need to? And when is someone an adult?
We have examples in scripture of arranged marriages, where the parents choose a husband for their daughter, and she does not object to it. But these are descriptive, not prescriptive. Were there other examples where the daughter did object? Were these daughters wrong? We cannot learn this from the examples given.
So the first question is very fundamentally: Must an adult daughter obey her father? And by "adult" I mean "old enough to marry". For this, we need a law. Where is that law?
- Are children required to obey their parents?
- If so, what are the limitations of that requirement - under what circumstances does it cease?
The only scripture that I can think of that overtly says a child must obey their parents is the punishment for a rebellious son, Deut 21:18-21. Interestingly however the word "obey" is actually usually translated "hear", "hearken", "listen", and does not necessarily mean "obey" (though it often does). The child is rebellious because he will not listen to his parents, he will not heed their advice. It is not necessarily saying he is rebellious simply because he would not obey some of their instructions, but he has a wider and more serious problem of not listening to their advice at all.
And although it is simple logic that a child must obey their parents, does an adult need to? And when is someone an adult?
We have examples in scripture of arranged marriages, where the parents choose a husband for their daughter, and she does not object to it. But these are descriptive, not prescriptive. Were there other examples where the daughter did object? Were these daughters wrong? We cannot learn this from the examples given.
So the first question is very fundamentally: Must an adult daughter obey her father? And by "adult" I mean "old enough to marry". For this, we need a law. Where is that law?
Good comment, Samuel - although I would differ on only a single difference.
The Hebrew word "shemar," or 'shema,' depending on tense, is in fact best rendered in the Olde English, 'hearken' - which really means hear, AND obey. (I.e., "Shema Israel, YHVH Elohenu, YHVH Echad" - the "most important commandment in Scripture, says HaMashiach.)
Over and over the Bible says problems come when people don't hear AND obey Him.
Because hearing and ignoring wouldn’t be an example of truly hearing.
True. But then it is also incumbent upon the parents to be honorable.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention Ephesians 6:1-4 where children are instructed to obey their parents, and fathers told not to provoke thei children to wrath. It seems pretty relevant to this discussion.
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." NKJV
Sadly, a some do abuse that position....and husbands do as well. In the Lord, means if obedience is right and honorable.
Women have abundantly proven that when it comes to choosing a mate, wisdom need not apply.
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?
Are you a man who leads and sticks to his principles or are you weak to bow to the emotional manipulations of your children?
Why do you characterize the father as the bad guy here and not the rebellious daughter?
One could say this of the husbands authority over the wife. There is potential for abuse in any situation of authority. To use that as justification for no authority is the satanic 'do what thou wilt'.
Can there be problems with 100% arranged marriage. Yes like in any social system. But a lot fewer than in our modern system and it's not contradicted by the scriptures; we even have examples of it such as Abraham's servant picking a wife for Isaac.
Exactly, that passage makes plain what can be ignored in the OT by taking 'honor your father and mother' out of context: to honor is to obey. There is no honor in disobedience.
The modern idea that adulthood confers to the daughter authority over her own life is not found in the scriptures. We only see her under her fathers authority, then under her husbands. Both Exodus and 1 Cor 7 make plain that a man may prohibit his daughter from marrying someone. There is nothing in scripture to suggest otherwise; that he can't is an artifact not of scripture but feminism.
I have heard this from several who I respect and trust, but don't recall the evidence given. It is an important distinction, I think, between a male child, who leaves and takes, and a female, who is given and taken. That distinction seems to be consistent with everything else we know about how God has made us.
I've also heard the usual protest, "But what if the father is not in the picture." I've only heard this question answered this way one time, and wish I'd saved it, because once again I don't recall the evidence given, but the answer was that headship of a woman transfers to kin, to the firstborn male (brother), and if none then to further extended relatives, never leaving the girl uncovered.
This is a decent approach if we have any doubts as to whether or not a father has the authority. Maybe we've satisfied that question now? Colossians 3:20 is another good reference for this.
The way I see it, that question is easily and thoroughly answered by scripture and historical practices still recent enough to be in memory for most everyone, even if only quaint traditions. I'm more interested in solving whether or not it is a father's duty to arrange the marriage. As in, if I sacrifice her on the altar of American individualism, sending her out and wishing her well because she's an "adult" now, am I sinning? It certainly is the easy way out. Or what exactly has God shown us is His will in this matter? Is it just a disputable matter, or is it bigger than that?
Whatever I decide, my conscience needs to be clear, so thank you all so much for your careful contributions.
Ruth. Although she had Help.
Is the answer not found here?:
3If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; 4And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
I don’t see a time when the father is released from this responsibility until he hands her off to her new husband.
3If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; 4And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
I don’t see a time when the father is released from this responsibility until he hands her off to her new husband.
Ahh. You've activated my trap card!
Ruth went to a kinsman redeemer and invoked the custom. But, he was not first in line, and so he went to he who was and settled the matter between them. Had the other man decided to take her, she would have belonged to him. No, Ruth chose nothing. But, as a widow, she did obey her mother-in-law.
I would say if the choice was a good man, most fathers, and men so "chosen" would be fine with it....ESPECIALLY if the understanding of polygyny is there too. She might not be his first pick...and he may be very pleased to have her. I think men being limited to one puts a huge amount of pressure on him to get the best ONE. Knowing he can expand his household might help him value and choose other "team players."
Mark... She obeyed Naomi. In fact, Naomi said, "My daughter, should I not try to find a home for you?" Which is a reference to duty, isn't it?
Now, Naomi has no husband or sons, which I believe is the special circumstance that placed her as Ruth's head. If this is what Naomi understood to be her duty to arrange, what does that say about a father? It may be a stretch, I'm not sure, because in this instance, was she acting as a mother or a father? In either case, was it simply a cultural thing, or, like almost all old Hebrew cultural things, was it based on an understanding the Word of God and the nature of His creation? In other words, should it be dismissed as we are prone to do?
Great reference! Should definitely put to bed all doubts as to the father's authority in this matter or pretty much any matter.
Some might point out, "In her youth!" Of course, that's a side-issue.
Now I ask, does he have God-given authority and responsibility to go beyond vetoing? Does he have authority to cause her to leave him and be bound to another man of his choosing who has agreed to take her, and is it his duty to her before God to work out this arrangement for her? As Boaz didn't rest until the matter was settled for Ruth, as Abraham sent a long distance and paid a high price for a bride for Isaac, is that how we fathers should be laboring for our sons and daughters? According to written history and fragments of tradition that remain, the answer I believe has been demonstrated to be yes.
Is that a tradition of man or of God?
Or does it matter.