A dating daughter is a father's failure

[NickF]

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."

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. She needed to be a decent cook, disciplined enough to have a decent figure, family minded, believer, chaste, pure in heart, not loud and obnoxious, not foolish (I detest silly foolish women). And she needed to be beautiful. It was really tough to find one that fit that list.

I was probably too picky in the looks department cause it took me a decade to find one that thought I was beautiful enough to marry.

But now, I think more like a master carpenter. He has a job and mission to accomplish. The mission might need a hammer, a fine toothed finish saw, and a chisel. Each woman can have different strengths, and he can pick women who might be less than ideal in multiple areas but excel in one or two that perfectly fit with his mission. Not every wife needs to be skilled at cooking, or at organization and running the home. Not every wife needs to have all the physical attributes he's looking for. There's more grace and room. I think that's one of the most beautiful things about biblical marriage.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I agree. My hubby jokes about needing a third because we are too similar....have some of the same weaknesses. Lol
That we can share shoes and clothes is certainly not a downside.

 

[The Revolting Man]

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.

If that’s your trap then you’re a terrible trapper. The New Testament is explicit that a widow can marry whoever she chooses.

 

[steve]

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?

Earlier in the story Ruth put herself under Naomi.
It appears that Naomi was doing her due diligence in attempting to get Ruth placed under a male authority. My belief was that she was having Ruth offer herself as a concubine but Boaz chose to take her as a full wife.

 

[FollowingHim]

I should reiterate that I am obviously fully agreed that a father is the patriarchal head of his household, children should obey their parents, and even that arranged marriage is a very good idea. It is obviously a very good idea for a father to find a suitable husband for his daughter - that goes without saying in this company.

However, @NVIII is exploring the far more controversial aspect of whether the father has the authority to compel his daughter to marry someone against her will. For that we need to examine the Law in far more careful detail, which I am doing - partly, to be honest, I am deliberately assuming an opposing position in the discussion to ensure it is thrashed out adequately and we don't just sit around agreeing with each other until we drift into error unwittingly. So, from that perspective:

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

Obviously, for a child, "honour your parents" basically translates to "obey your parents" in practical terms. And Ephesians 6:1 specifically says "child" - not "son" or "daughter" (which apply throughout life), the word fundamentally means somebody dependent on the parent, a young child. Literally Paul is saying that while young and dependant upon your parents (while a child) you must obey your parents. Paul is not telling adults to obey their parents (even if that is true, this verse does not say it).

Note too that this is not talking about daughters, but all children. If this verse applies to adults, then it also means that men must obey their parents. @Bartato, honestly, do you obey your father? For instance, if he told you to never take a second wife, would you obey him? If the answer is "no", then you recognise that this verse does not apply to adults.

Honour does not always mean obey. To take the opposite extreme, you would honour your aged father with dementia by disobeying his orders to let him walk outside in the snow wearing only his pyjamas, and instead dragging him inside against his protests and warming him up. At this extreme end "honour" is no longer synonymous with "obey". At what point does this change? I would say "gradually".

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.

This passage is very interesting as it gives the father veto power over the daughter's decisions. This is a very powerful authority - but also specific. It does not technically give the father the right to choose a husband for his daughter. If the daughter wants to marry Tom, her father can veto this decision. However, if the father wants her to marry Fred instead, but the daughter does not want to, where does the father stand? The father can approve or veto her decisions - but if she never makes the decision to marry Fred, he has no decision available to approve. This passage does not give him a way forward.

This passage gives the father very powerful authority over his daughter - all the authority he needs to prevent her from making bad decisions - but not unlimited authority.

Is there is another passage elsewhere that gives him the wider authority to compel her in this way? Or:

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?

 

[steve]

This passage is very interesting as it gives the father veto power over the daughter's decisions. This is a very powerful authority - but also specific. It does not technically give the father the right to choose a husband for his daughter. If the daughter wants to marry Tom, her father can veto this decision. However, if the father wants her to marry Fred instead, but the daughter does not want to, where does the father stand? The father can approve or veto her decisions - but if she never makes the decision to marry Fred, he has no decision available to approve. This passage does not give him a way forward.

Seriously, the father has all of the authority that his daughter accepts. Period, exclamation point.

If she accepts his authority to decide her husband for her, more power to the both of them. If she doesn’t, Yah might not be happy with her, but there doesn’t seem much that he can do about it.

 

[FollowingHim]

Well put. Or to put it another way, the daughter should choose, willingly, to marry the man her father believes is best. But it is still the daughter's choice to follow her father's strong advice or ignore it.

It is also our choice whether to follow any of God's instructions for our lives, or to ignore them and try to do better ourselves. We might listen to the still small voice telling us to go talk to that tramp, or may ignore it and walk on. He doesn't compel us to do that either.

 

[Bartato]

I should reiterate that I am obviously fully agreed that a father is the patriarchal head of his household, children should obey their parents, and even that arranged marriage is a very good idea. It is obviously a very good idea for a father to find a suitable husband for his daughter - that goes without saying in this company.

However, @NVIII is exploring the far more controversial aspect of whether the father has the authority to compel his daughter to marry someone against her will. For that we need to examine the Law in far more careful detail, which I am doing - partly, to be honest, I am deliberately assuming an opposing position in the discussion to ensure it is thrashed out adequately and we don't just sit around agreeing with each other until we drift into error unwittingly. So, from that perspective:

Obviously, for a child, "honour your parents" basically translates to "obey your parents" in practical terms. And Ephesians 6:1 specifically says "child" - not "son" or "daughter" (which apply throughout life), the word fundamentally means somebody dependent on the parent, a young child. Literally Paul is saying that while young and dependant upon your parents (while a child) you must obey your parents. Paul is not telling adults to obey their parents (even if that is true, this verse does not say it).

Note too that this is not talking about daughters, but all children. If this verse applies to adults, then it also means that men must obey their parents. @Bartato, honestly, do you obey your father? For instance, if he told you to never take a second wife, would you obey him? If the answer is "no", then you recognise that this verse does not apply to adults.

Honour does not always mean obey. To take the opposite extreme, you would honour your aged father with dementia by disobeying his orders to let him walk outside in the snow wearing only his pyjamas, and instead dragging him inside against his protests and warming him up. At this extreme end "honour" is no longer synonymous with "obey". At what point does this change? I would say "gradually".

This passage is very interesting as it gives the father veto power over the daughter's decisions. This is a very powerful authority - but also specific. It does not technically give the father the right to choose a husband for his daughter. If the daughter wants to marry Tom, her father can veto this decision. However, if the father wants her to marry Fred instead, but the daughter does not want to, where does the father stand? The father can approve or veto her decisions - but if she never makes the decision to marry Fred, he has no decision available to approve. This passage does not give him a way forward.

This passage gives the father very powerful authority over his daughter - all the authority he needs to prevent her from making bad decisions - but not unlimited authority.

Is there is another passage elsewhere that gives him the wider authority to compel her in this way? Or:

@FollowingHim
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".

As a grown and independent man, the head of my own household, the application of "honor" is different now than when I was a child. I am not required to obey everything my parents say. I am generally required to respectfully listen to, and seriously consider their input. I am also to esteem their persons, to publicly show respect to them, and as they are now elderly to assist them as needed.

That's all off topic anyway.

The father may technically have the authority to order his daughter to marry whoever he wishes, but I doubt that the wise and godly father would thus abuse his authority.

That would seem to fit in the category of "not provoking your children to wrath".

The father should not be a despot, who invites revolution. Instead, he should be wise, good, loving, and strong, like our Father in Heaven and our Master Jesus Christ.

There is a huge area between "throw your daughter to the wolves" and "micromanage every minute detail of her life". The right course is somewhere between those extremes.

I've seen men guide their daughters well, and I've seen them fail badly.

 

[steve]

People usually make authority to be about power, when it’s most often about responsibility. (The responsibility of the person in authority.)

 

[steve]

Seriously, the father has all of the authority that his daughter accepts. Period, exclamation point.

If she accepts his authority to decide her husband for her, more power to the both of them. If she doesn’t, Yah might not be happy with her, but there doesn’t seem much that he can do about it.

If you raise your daughter in a way that causes her to feel protected and cared for by the way that you express your authority, she is going to trust you with more of it when decisions get hard.

 

[MemeFan]

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?

Why would Naomi be head of Ruth? This is simple situation. Naomi is matchmaker. To behave as matchmaker being head isn't requirement.

 

[steve]

Why would Naomi be head of Ruth? This is simple situation. Naomi is matchmaker. To behave as matchmaker being head isn't requirement.

Matchmaker? What Bible are you reading?

And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: 17Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

Ruth specifically chose to be Naomi’s “follower”. Meaning that she put herself under Naomi. Not with Naomi as her matchmaker, but as her head.

 

[MemeFan]

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.

Time for another fundametal insight.

This time Haller* has provided soil and I will start with his ideas. By the way, Haller was Catholic and reactionary during time of French Revolution. As such person, his writing are inspired by faith.

This time as axiom I take that people are unequal. Easy to prove. There are observable difference in height, looks, smartness etc... Because these differences exists people find it advantageous to enter into relationships (in extreme general sense). They can be equal or master/servant type. Examples of master/servant type are family, general/soldier, employer/employee.

Why people enter into relationships? Because they are mutually beneficial. They must be win/win. But what if relationships becomes win/lose? Word for this situation already exist. Abuse. This implies that any role has proper behaviour and going over "role borders" is unacceptable in absolute sense (there is no acceptable justification). Example of going over border would be your employer being interested in your sexual life.

Only involuntary relationship in human life have children in parent/child relationship. Still same rules apply for family as for any other relationship.

So first implication is that father's rule must be limited to his proper role. So question is what exactly is proper role and what are it's limits? Child molesters are proof that role borders for parents do exists because they can also molest children.

Second, Haller claims that people have absolute rights. Absolute, again meaning, nothing can override them. And Bible confirms this with "Thou shall not kill". Again, absolute command. No override possible. No father can kill daughter due to disobedience.

Also important to note is that this command forbids direct action where you do murder. I believe it also forbids indirect action like convicing somebody to do suicide or hiring professional killer.

Also important to note is that this command forbids greatest offense against body (murder). Can we extend it towards smaller offense against body like beating or finger slicing? I'm not sure can beating or finger slicing be forbbiden by implication from this command. In any case, Bible allowing beating or finger slicing doesn't sit right with me.

What is point? Well, daughter has rights which are absolute and no father can override. Any attempts to override them is automatically
abuse. So question is which rights daughter has?
Life is obvious. What are others?

*More about Haller here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society: The Case of Karl Ludwig von Haller | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle.

mises.org

 

[MemeFan]

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?

Key question is what are father's limits?

Any man, no matter influence of Scripture on him, will desire to dominate his family, if he has any balls remaining. And he will mental and physical strength to push his will. So question isn't should he or not rule his family. I believe we here don't to quote Scripture here to prove affirmative answer.

Question is what is good rule? And limits are first bus station on this trip. First do not do harm.

 

[NickF]

Question is what is good rule? And limits are first bus station on this trip. First do not do harm.

Do not do harm? That's extremely simplistic. So don't tackle someone to the ground to save them from being struck by a speeding truck. Tackling would do harm.

 

[southernphotini]

Do not do harm? That's extremely simplistic.

This is also the primary philosophy of Wicca and Thelema. Which isn’t a ringing endorsement of the phrase.

 

[Mark C]

Mark... She obeyed Naomi.

Can she not still choose?

Why does Yah tell US to 'choose life?'

 

[Mark C]

I liked several of the above comments. Yes, there is a MAJOR difference between Authority (lawful, particularly then "God-given") and 'power'. We live in a world which has largely lost that discernment.

Likewise, the issue of 'choice'. And the correct discernment that a father has "VETO Authority" over his virgin daughter's vows, including choice of submssion to a husband. His daughter, as did Ruth even after voluntarily submitting to Naomi's authority, has a choice. She can choose to accept or reject a 'husband.' And she can choose to accept, or reject, her father's advice, but not his authority.

And all of that is true when Father is spelled with a Capital-F.

 

[Mark C]

BTW, @NVIII, I couldn't help but note that in leaping on the still-appropriate example of Ruth, you ignored the reference to Tamar.

She fits this discussion in a number of ways: She was no longer a virgin, there's no reference to her [earthly] father's wishes, but she clearly had a CHOICE. And she made it, at risk to her very life. I find that inspiring. AND - YHVH protected her. And - arguably, rewarded her, too!

 

[NVIII]

@Mark C The thread has strayed off topic farther than I care to deal with. I think it's run its course, and I was content to let it go to sleep. That's why I was giving little effort by the time you got here. But, I don't want you to feel ignored, so here goes.

Power vs authority has already been mentioned. Lacking the power to execute your authority and having power to do things not within your authority has already been touched on. It's also a concept we Americans should all feel very familiar with as we possess authority but lack power to execute it while the gov has shown us repeatedly that it took all that power and now may do plenty that it has no authority to do.

You keep mentioning choice, and your examples keep referring to examples of or inferring ability to choose rebellion over submission to authority. I'm not sure why someone having the choice to rebel is part of this discussion. It's an ever-present temptation that applies to everything, as you said, and probably the biggest reason why we today no longer know if fathers have authority and duty to arrange our daughters' marriages.

Tamar is a story of 1) a woman's marriages are arranged unless 2) her male head is derelict in his duties to her (she remains unmarried) or she 3) rebels and deceives. Also 4) a kinsman-redeemer is cursed if he does not accept his position. No choice, except between blessings or curses. Is this the illustration you think it is?