-
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.
Do fathers "own" their daughters?
- Thread starter redfox
- Start date
- Status
A
Anonymous
Guest
Obviously there are differences in RELATIONSHIP between a Husband/Wife and a Father/Daughter, but I was speaking of AUTHORITY, not RELATIONSHIP. I wasn't suggesting the authority is the EXACT same, only that its the SAME FORM of authority. Related to the subject at hand, if the father absolutely refuses to give his permission for his daughter (in her youth, living in his house) to marry a given man, then her marriage vow does NOT stand. She remains under the authority of her father. I assume you would agree that marriage is a covenant vow?DiscussingTheTopic said:If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.djanakes said::shock: So, if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that a Christian man can really take any girl he wants, irrespective of her father's permission. Since Scripture demonstrates the authority that a father has over his daughter is the same form of authority that a husband has over his wife, I wonder if Joseph was wrong in not laying with Potipher's wife. After all, Potipher was certainly not a physical descendant of Jacob, so if we can steal his daughter, surely we can steal his wife too.
Deuteronomy 22:22 NIV
If the authority a father has over his daughter was always exactly the same as a husband over his wife then....
" 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
Leviticus 18:17 NIV
So the rules for a father and daughter are different from the rules for a husband and daughter.
Besides where does it say "the authority that a father has over his daughter is the same form of authority that a husband has over his wife,"
Just because it is similar in some cases does not mean that it is the same in all cases.
Correlation does not prove causation.
A daughter in her youth in her father's house:
Numbers 30:3-5: "Or if a woman vows a vow to Yahweh, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father's house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father has kept silent towards her, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself stands. But if her father forbids her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself stand. And Yahweh pardons her, because her father has forbidden her."
A wife:
Numbers 30:6-8: "But if she at all belongs to a husband, while bound by her vows or by a rash utterance from her lips by which she bound herself, and her husband hears it, and he has kept silent towards her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her agreements by which she bound herself do stand. But if her husband forbids her on the day that he hears it, then he has nullified her vow which she vowed, and the rash utterance of her lips by which she bound herself, and Yahweh pardons her."
A widow or divorced woman:
Numbers 30:9: "But the vow of a widow or a divorced woman, by which she has bound herself, stands against her."
Numbers 30:16: "These are the laws which Yahweh commanded Mosheh, between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter in her youth in her father's house."
The last verse in Numbers 30 tells us the entire passage are the laws concerning a husband/wife and a father/daughter. They are different RELATIONSHIPS but the form of AUTHORITY (the ability to allow a vow to stand or the ability to negate a vow he disagrees with) is the same. This is precisely why the father can absolutely refuse to give his daughter, even to a man who has already taken her virginity (Ex. 22:16-17), because his permission is not optional. Her vow cannot stand against his will.
"if her father forbids her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself stand"
In His love,
David
I discussed this further with Dr. Raegean this morning and we both have the same ideas on this. There is a difference in the HEADSHIP of a man over his wife and the HEADSHIP of a father over his children for a key specific reason: one is designed to be temporary (child under father) and the lady under her man (marriage/union).
Thus the degree or the essence of the headship is different in purpose and duration. The purpose of the HEADSHIP of a father over a child is to train the child to be mature and holy. Just like God for a period trained his creation and people until the time of Christ came. He then transferred his people unto the HEADSHIP of Christ in the marriage union of Christ to the bride (the churches). A Father's rule is for a purpose of brining people to maturity. Then that implies and means the duration is only a temporary.
But the purpose and duration of the HEADSHIP of a man to his lady (husband to wife) is not to train the wife to maturity to send her away but to love her and keep her as you grow her and with her until the very end. There is no purpose of transfer included in this form of HEADSHIP. Just like Christ never intends to transfer his bride to another a man should never intend to give his bride to another. Thus the purpose defines the duration which is not to end. Therefore, the man to woman HEADSHIP is signified by the one flesh sexual union, something no father has with his immediate natural children (or should not anyway). I specifically use the term immediate because I must allow room for the one time period with sexual relations among close kin was accepted, immediately after Adam and Eve but before the Mosaic Law period. We know brothers and sisters had sexual relations with one another to populate the earth. Did Adam, or any other man, have any other sexual unions with any great great great grandchildren who were more distant to him than a brother or sister since they lived several hundred years? The Bible does not tell us so I can't say one way or the other. But there had to be some type of sexual relations among family members for awhile, at least to a degree. TODAY, in this era, sexual relations with close kin due to the breakdown of the DNA is not holy or intended. But anyway back to the main point.
The Authority of a Father over the children is more limited in purpose and duration than the headship or authority of a man over his wife. The degree, purpose, and duration of the two areas differ.
A Father is HEAD over his child in a natural sense or in an indirect sense that he and the wife produced or brought in (adoption) the child. But the position is not permanent in the sphere of ruling over. Jesus showed us this in the way he began to treat his own parents, and later with his mother at the Wedding celebration in Cana. He addressed her as woman, not mother, to show her he had the time had come for transition.
With children, there comes a time when they are to be out from under the head of the Father. They are to be out from under their tutor, their guardian so to speak. The purpose was not for it to remain forever. Yet when the child bonds with a mate/partner/spouse that union is to be permanent.
And this is why the Bible is so very precise. The Bible never explicity uses the term that a Father is the HEAD over a Child. The absence of this is because their was a different purpose underlying the concept. Father to child is temporary. Husband to wife is permanent and thus it is was why the NT uses the term HEAD for the man to his lady (a member of his body).
of course the headship over a daughter is temporary
of course the relationship is not the same
but read what david has to say in the post above yours about how the fathers responsibilities are the same in both the lives of his daughter/s and wife/wives
i think that what i propose here is consistant with His plan and His word;
that a female is intended to always be under headship (WITHOUT IT BEING A LEGALISTIC, CONTROLING, SMOTHERING THING)
that there is a consistancy that starts with her father and is handed off to her husband
no, she is not to be treated as a 5yr old when she is 26, living on her own and supporting herself
the hebrew word (in strongs) that is translated "house" in the phrase in her fathers house is also translated household in other places. i feel that if she is produced, fed, clothed, raised and trained in his house that, in some respects, she remains part of his household untill she becomes one with her husband and part of his house.
the time in which she is under her own headship is when her husband divorces her and untill she has a new husband
of course the relationship is not the same
but read what david has to say in the post above yours about how the fathers responsibilities are the same in both the lives of his daughter/s and wife/wives
i think that what i propose here is consistant with His plan and His word;
that a female is intended to always be under headship (WITHOUT IT BEING A LEGALISTIC, CONTROLING, SMOTHERING THING)
that there is a consistancy that starts with her father and is handed off to her husband
no, she is not to be treated as a 5yr old when she is 26, living on her own and supporting herself
the hebrew word (in strongs) that is translated "house" in the phrase in her fathers house is also translated household in other places. i feel that if she is produced, fed, clothed, raised and trained in his house that, in some respects, she remains part of his household untill she becomes one with her husband and part of his house.
the time in which she is under her own headship is when her husband divorces her and untill she has a new husband
Well that depends Steve. What takes priority in God's kindgom?
If you want to hold to the idea that physical relationship take priority over spiritual relationships then your view would hold water. But since Christ place the spiritual relationships family as priority over simple DNA kinship it does not hold water. Who did Christ say was his mother, brother and sisters? it is those who do the will of God.
That is the very reason why if a father is abusive and outside the bounds of just authority there are other verses in the Bible that shows us the daughter may be under other authority figures, such as the ones listed in the bible: brothers, another lady, elders, another relative, etc.
God's law is more than physical connections; it is more about heart and mind connection than simple DNA connection. A elder in a church may be more a father to a daughter than a physical father. A mother may be more of a leader, or a brother may be more of a leader, or whomever that woman is under may be more of a head than the actual DNA father who is sometimes nothing more than just a sperm donor.
Again, it goes back to the issues in the NT. Many women had no true father after converting to Christ, or at least not in the sense of what the term father meant. But if they followed Christ's teaching these ladies still had a family and others could step in and be in that role over the woman, like elders, brothers in the Lord, another lady, etc until that woman came under another head such as a husband.
It sounds like to me you are saying that so long as the DNA father is alive that no matter what that DNA father has the authority or headship over that daughter? Is that what you are trying to say? If not maybe I'm missing something.
If so the Bible presents more to the story than simple DNA fatherhood proves absolute rights or ownership over a daughter. In normal cases where the delegated rule of God through the earthly father is being carried within reason and with no clear contradiction against the Bible then that would stand. But to say it is absolute, always, with no other boundaries or options is to reject many other portions of Scripture by trying to elevate physical bonds above the heart and spirit of the Bible. Many fathers don't care to rule with any sense of truth. Some want to abuse their daughters, some have abused their daughters, some try and make their rule above Christ's rule. etc. etc. In those cases where a father is not present, or is not involved, or is doing evil with his involvement the Bible presents others options that are holy and righteous for women in such cases. to say less is to do the same thing that the Pharisees did with the law, to focus on one piece and miss other pieces and to focus on the lesser matters instead of the weighter matters. In short sometimes people "strain at gnats and swallow camels" (Matt. 23:23).
The goal is right to preserve fatherly rule. But to stretch that to such ends that it is absolute and without checks or without other options with exceptions would be a violation of th laws of love in the Bible.
If you want to hold to the idea that physical relationship take priority over spiritual relationships then your view would hold water. But since Christ place the spiritual relationships family as priority over simple DNA kinship it does not hold water. Who did Christ say was his mother, brother and sisters? it is those who do the will of God.
That is the very reason why if a father is abusive and outside the bounds of just authority there are other verses in the Bible that shows us the daughter may be under other authority figures, such as the ones listed in the bible: brothers, another lady, elders, another relative, etc.
God's law is more than physical connections; it is more about heart and mind connection than simple DNA connection. A elder in a church may be more a father to a daughter than a physical father. A mother may be more of a leader, or a brother may be more of a leader, or whomever that woman is under may be more of a head than the actual DNA father who is sometimes nothing more than just a sperm donor.
Again, it goes back to the issues in the NT. Many women had no true father after converting to Christ, or at least not in the sense of what the term father meant. But if they followed Christ's teaching these ladies still had a family and others could step in and be in that role over the woman, like elders, brothers in the Lord, another lady, etc until that woman came under another head such as a husband.
It sounds like to me you are saying that so long as the DNA father is alive that no matter what that DNA father has the authority or headship over that daughter? Is that what you are trying to say? If not maybe I'm missing something.
If so the Bible presents more to the story than simple DNA fatherhood proves absolute rights or ownership over a daughter. In normal cases where the delegated rule of God through the earthly father is being carried within reason and with no clear contradiction against the Bible then that would stand. But to say it is absolute, always, with no other boundaries or options is to reject many other portions of Scripture by trying to elevate physical bonds above the heart and spirit of the Bible. Many fathers don't care to rule with any sense of truth. Some want to abuse their daughters, some have abused their daughters, some try and make their rule above Christ's rule. etc. etc. In those cases where a father is not present, or is not involved, or is doing evil with his involvement the Bible presents others options that are holy and righteous for women in such cases. to say less is to do the same thing that the Pharisees did with the law, to focus on one piece and miss other pieces and to focus on the lesser matters instead of the weighter matters. In short sometimes people "strain at gnats and swallow camels" (Matt. 23:23).
The goal is right to preserve fatherly rule. But to stretch that to such ends that it is absolute and without checks or without other options with exceptions would be a violation of th laws of love in the Bible.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Your understanding of the father/child vs. husband/wife relationship is exactly the same as I've used to explain the differences between the Mosaic Covenant and the Messianic Covenant. Temporal vs. Permanence. Immaturity vs. Maturity. External vs. Internal. Stone vs. Heart. Slavery vs. Freedom. Law vs. Grace. Father vs. Husband. Preparation vs. Experience. Promise vs. Fulfillment. It was always understood that the Father would give the bride to His Son, just as He gave Eve to Adam and they became fulfilled as one flesh again. Excellent insight!Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Errr...how do we know this??Dr. K.R. Allen said:
In His love,
David
we do agree a lot more than you seem to think that we do. this is not an OT vs NT argument on my side. to me the Bible in one unified book. not one with a spiritual "flood" that drowned out all of the spiritual and societal past.
what is wrong with asking his permission and working forward from there?
just cutting off his right to even be asked does not seem to be a Christ-like attitude that would contribute to his eventual salvation
i could be wrong, but it seems that all of the examples of others being the authority figures were when the fathers were completely out of the picture, as in dead.
where do we draw the line about which fathers desires we will honour and which one deserves no such honour? DNA provides a very clear starting point. the raising of and providing for of a stepchild are also a strong point. the point at which we have the right to deny a father the right and honour of having his wishes considered is a HUGELY grey area and may involve a large amount of presumption.
what is wrong with asking his permission and working forward from there?
just cutting off his right to even be asked does not seem to be a Christ-like attitude that would contribute to his eventual salvation
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes, I believe only Adam and later Eve were created originally. Yes, I believe no others were created after. No, I don't believe that for Seth to have a wife and children required him to have sex with his sister or mother. Leviticus spells out the exact and precise list of disallowed relations and both the possibilities you've suggested are on that list of prohibitions. I believe God was very precise and very exact, both in what He DID and DID NOT say. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother (Leviticus 18:7) and a man may not uncover the nakedness of his sister (Leviticus 18:9). If we assume that God changed His mind regarding permitted and forbidden sexual relations over time, then we could say that the sexual laws (both permitted and forbidden, as they are interconnected) changed sometime between Adam and Moses.Seth said:
Oh and no, I don't believe in the cloning/storks/rocks thing either :lol:
In His love,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
Correct. There are no examples in Scripture where a daughter was still living with her father, yet someone else (brothers, other women, elders, another relative, etc.) was in the position of authority over her. A daughter in her youth living in her father's house was ALWAYS under the authority of her father, first and foremost. There are no Biblical exceptions.steve said:
In His love,
David
Seth, you are correct in the Adam and Eve and the children issue.
David, you are assuming that the Mosaic Law ruled in the day of Adam and Eve. This is historically false and theologically false. The Mosaic Law code came precisely when God delivered his law unto Moses. The 613 laws of God were not in play, which is obvious when one reads the transitions through the book of Genesis. At one point everyone was vegetarian and then at another point they were not. Also, at one point there was no law or promise against a universal flood but then came the promise that there would never be another flood. At one point they were then allowed to eat meat, etc etc.and later not allowed to eat certain meats. Other adjustments were there as well. This is called the doctrine of Progressive Revelation, which is a central component to a valid hermeneutic.
But to try and force God's law that he precisely delivered to Moses back to the time of Adam and Eve is not a valid hermeneutic. In short, there were only two parents. Adam and Eve. All people came forth from them and thus we know that there had to be sexual relations between the siblings in some degree. Why was it ok then? This is a question with underlying medical implications and can be answered simply: The DNA was not broken down at that point. Does the Bible confirm that? Yes! People live hundreds and hundred and hundreds of years. It was not until later that the Spirit's grace allowed the DNA to break down to such a degree that a law was needed against incest. Why? Because sexual relations with two people with DNA so closely linked made it likely that the child would be injured. This goes back to the law of love your neighbor. If you are going to love your child you do not bring a child into the world by doing something you know would injure it. The Bible and medical science support this position. You should not have a problem with this concept seeing the way you see and view the temporal versus eternal, stone versus heart issue, etc. as all of that arises from a progressive revelation concept that allow for natural progression in the biblical text.
BUT that is not the issue here in this thread so we should not focus and there without moving to another post or thread.
Back to the point, Steve you stated:
Where do we draw the line? We do so with specific statements of Scripture. First one must ask if that Father acting off of biblical precedent and with specific support from the Bible. If not then sure people are left with all kinds of grey areas. For example, suppose a Father has a daughter and she is under his rule and he says to do something that the Bible neither commands nor forbids and there is no natural state law against it either. The lady under this authority should do that which the father says. Plain and simple, period! But now suppose a father says to the lady under his authority: "Now don't you read that bible and believe that junk about Jesus Christ in it. It is all myths." Now at that point the father has overstepped his bounds and he has no legitimate right to rule in that area. The lady should obey Christ. Plain and simple, period! Additionally, honor and obedience are not the same thing. We can show honor and respect without obedience, which I think you correctly noted in a post where you implied "asking" but not per se "obeying."
Other factors are involved in this to. Does the lady live at home? Is she under the father's daily care as it is? If so then there is a relationship bond there. If not and the father has ousted the lady or has forfeited his position then another would fill that position. Very practical questions can normally highlight and illuminate whether or not there truly is an authoritative bond there or not and to whom one should be looking and asking for guidance.
You use the word presumption. How about we use the Word, "led by the Spirit," "in step with the Spirit," all NT words that speak of the new relationship where people can know the will of God because of the Spirit in them. BUT, of course with a qualification. No one can honestly say, the Spirit told me to do this if it contradicts any direct statement of the Bible, especially any NT statement that has ultimate priority over NC believers who are now in Christ and the body of Christ.
And herein is the point where being led by the Spirit matches up with the issue of who is the authority figure over the unmarried lady. The passage in 1 Cor. 7 about the authority over unmarried virgins is very precise, clear, and it leaves room for it to be more than just a earthly father. Why? Well for one we are in the NC and relationships are now defined more by the Spiritual bonds than by earthly DNA bonds. This is one of the great transitions from the OC or the NC where Christ taught us to see brothers and sisters in the Lord as primary and ultimate, though without, if possible, breaking earthly bonds. This was taught to us when Christ said he came and in his coming this would "divide families" and that "those who do the will of his father are his brothers and sisters, and mothers." In short, if a woman in Christ, who now has the Spirit, walks in step with the Spirit and in accordance to the bible she will know if the DNA father is her authority or not. Whoever is looking out for the woman and her best interest is ultimately the authority figure over that lady, and thus it can be more than just a physical father.
Do some women abuse this position in Christ? Sure they do like we all sin. B ut if one is mature, walking in the Lord and in step with the Spirit, then that woman recognizes who is her spiritual authority. If she still sees the Father as her overseer then she will be led by the Spirit to ask her father. If she knows she is not under the rule of the father but under the leadership of another she will go ask that other person.
Again this goes back to the heart and spirit and purpose of the law. Is the Law of God designed to protect or to control? the pharisees always wanted control, wanted to be religious, wanted to be seen as the "authorities" who had the right to rule and they wanted people to see them in that light. But that is not the purpose of the law. The law is about love and relationships. if there is a relationship between a father and his daughter then YES she should show the father honor in this way. But if there is no relationship, if the relationship has ceased because of him being antagnistic to the things of Christ, then Christ has provided other means for that woman, his daughter who is now in his family with other spiritual fathers and leaders who can fill in that role for the woman.
You also used the word "cutting of his right." This is again assuming the woman is in rebellion. If she does have a godly father, one who has a true relational position over the woman then it would be WRONG to reject the father's counsel and guidance. But for a woman who does not have this it is not "cutting off" something that has already ended at some earlier point. You can't cut off what is either not there or has already been forfeited. The very words: "cut off" implies something exists. But in some cases there is no relationship and thus the bond is already broken because of sin and others in the Lord's family fill in it. Additionally, to lay a law on some woman who is in Christ and who is being led by others to go and ask her father who is physically alive but relationally dead unto her is to press the letter of the law without seeing the spirit and heart of the law, the exact error of the pharisees who did this time and time again. God's spiritual family is larger than physical DNA ties.
Therefore, at times a woman who still has a living father will not be under that father's authority. Thus for her to even go ask is to be hypocritical. Ask knowing that in your heart it does not mater what he says before you ask is hardly honor. One might even be able to argue that it is not a good steward of time and could be an arrogant act depending on the heart. Furthermore, it may be asking the wrong person to begin with if that woman truly has herself under another godly leader that truly is giving her guidance and support in life. If she has not asked for her Father's guidance in 20 years because that father has nothing to do with her then to go ask for permission when the relationship is already dead is not necessary or required by God. No sin is done if this is not done. As with an earlier post, the point of the oversight (by a father, mother, brother, elder, extended relative, etc) is not about control but about safety and protection, to make sure outside objective sources have insight into the relationship. Throughout the entire Song of Songs we see that the friends were constantly around involved in this developing relationship. We have no idea who they were. But they were there.
Now let me stress again, just to strike balance here. Should a man marry a rebellious woman who does not want authority in her life? God forbid, that is an awful idea. The issue is exactly there, not with who the person is. A woman should show signs of humility to authority. It may be to an extended relative, or a grandmother, or a brother, or an elder, or a father or someone or group of persons. If she will not submit to them then indeed she will almost invariably not submit to a husband's rule either. This is clear and vitally important. It is indeed a very practical issue that must be examined. Just as a woman should never join to a man who is rebellious and not willing to submit himself to older elders in the Lord. If a man thinks so highly of himself that he will be submissive and trained by those who are more mature than him in the word and in the Christian life then he too is a rebel and he will likely produce a rebellious family and children who continue in his footsteps.
So rebellion is out of the question either from the woman or man.
But at times, because of a father's sin and rebllion the woman may be under another authority because the spiritual aspects and the hearts apsects of the law are priority. Christ's family takes priority over the physical family. The key is then simple: a man and woman should be able to answer one simple question of, "who is the authority over your heart and life besides Jesus Christ. Who gives you guidance and leadership in your life pointing you to Christ and his truth." Any man who cannot answer that question with specific names of people who they go to for guidance is a rebellious man, and any unmarried woman who cannot answer that is a rebellious woman. The answer of: "I follow Christ" is always, according to the holy saints of God, qualified with actual people within the discipleship process. Those who want to claim they follow Christ and only Christ alone are generally dangerous people who are simply too proud to be in submission to those older than them in the Lord. Sometimes there are exceptions to that but that is the norm most of the time.
As for the last point: could asking not influence his salvation? If the Holy Spirit were to lead a woman to do this for this purpose then so be it, but we could sit around all day and speculate about what if this and what if that. The Holy Spirit will guide a woman who is truly seeking his will in light of the specific commands of the bible. If there is no specific command for a woman to ask someone who is truly not in authority over the lady then this is simply a conscience issue that must be left to the woman, her conscience, and her guidance in the Spirit. We no more right to tell all women to do this than we do to tell all women whether or not to they should or should not drink a glass of wine.
David, you are assuming that the Mosaic Law ruled in the day of Adam and Eve. This is historically false and theologically false. The Mosaic Law code came precisely when God delivered his law unto Moses. The 613 laws of God were not in play, which is obvious when one reads the transitions through the book of Genesis. At one point everyone was vegetarian and then at another point they were not. Also, at one point there was no law or promise against a universal flood but then came the promise that there would never be another flood. At one point they were then allowed to eat meat, etc etc.and later not allowed to eat certain meats. Other adjustments were there as well. This is called the doctrine of Progressive Revelation, which is a central component to a valid hermeneutic.
But to try and force God's law that he precisely delivered to Moses back to the time of Adam and Eve is not a valid hermeneutic. In short, there were only two parents. Adam and Eve. All people came forth from them and thus we know that there had to be sexual relations between the siblings in some degree. Why was it ok then? This is a question with underlying medical implications and can be answered simply: The DNA was not broken down at that point. Does the Bible confirm that? Yes! People live hundreds and hundred and hundreds of years. It was not until later that the Spirit's grace allowed the DNA to break down to such a degree that a law was needed against incest. Why? Because sexual relations with two people with DNA so closely linked made it likely that the child would be injured. This goes back to the law of love your neighbor. If you are going to love your child you do not bring a child into the world by doing something you know would injure it. The Bible and medical science support this position. You should not have a problem with this concept seeing the way you see and view the temporal versus eternal, stone versus heart issue, etc. as all of that arises from a progressive revelation concept that allow for natural progression in the biblical text.
BUT that is not the issue here in this thread so we should not focus and there without moving to another post or thread.
Back to the point, Steve you stated:
Where do we draw the line? We do so with specific statements of Scripture. First one must ask if that Father acting off of biblical precedent and with specific support from the Bible. If not then sure people are left with all kinds of grey areas. For example, suppose a Father has a daughter and she is under his rule and he says to do something that the Bible neither commands nor forbids and there is no natural state law against it either. The lady under this authority should do that which the father says. Plain and simple, period! But now suppose a father says to the lady under his authority: "Now don't you read that bible and believe that junk about Jesus Christ in it. It is all myths." Now at that point the father has overstepped his bounds and he has no legitimate right to rule in that area. The lady should obey Christ. Plain and simple, period! Additionally, honor and obedience are not the same thing. We can show honor and respect without obedience, which I think you correctly noted in a post where you implied "asking" but not per se "obeying."
Other factors are involved in this to. Does the lady live at home? Is she under the father's daily care as it is? If so then there is a relationship bond there. If not and the father has ousted the lady or has forfeited his position then another would fill that position. Very practical questions can normally highlight and illuminate whether or not there truly is an authoritative bond there or not and to whom one should be looking and asking for guidance.
You use the word presumption. How about we use the Word, "led by the Spirit," "in step with the Spirit," all NT words that speak of the new relationship where people can know the will of God because of the Spirit in them. BUT, of course with a qualification. No one can honestly say, the Spirit told me to do this if it contradicts any direct statement of the Bible, especially any NT statement that has ultimate priority over NC believers who are now in Christ and the body of Christ.
And herein is the point where being led by the Spirit matches up with the issue of who is the authority figure over the unmarried lady. The passage in 1 Cor. 7 about the authority over unmarried virgins is very precise, clear, and it leaves room for it to be more than just a earthly father. Why? Well for one we are in the NC and relationships are now defined more by the Spiritual bonds than by earthly DNA bonds. This is one of the great transitions from the OC or the NC where Christ taught us to see brothers and sisters in the Lord as primary and ultimate, though without, if possible, breaking earthly bonds. This was taught to us when Christ said he came and in his coming this would "divide families" and that "those who do the will of his father are his brothers and sisters, and mothers." In short, if a woman in Christ, who now has the Spirit, walks in step with the Spirit and in accordance to the bible she will know if the DNA father is her authority or not. Whoever is looking out for the woman and her best interest is ultimately the authority figure over that lady, and thus it can be more than just a physical father.
Do some women abuse this position in Christ? Sure they do like we all sin. B ut if one is mature, walking in the Lord and in step with the Spirit, then that woman recognizes who is her spiritual authority. If she still sees the Father as her overseer then she will be led by the Spirit to ask her father. If she knows she is not under the rule of the father but under the leadership of another she will go ask that other person.
Again this goes back to the heart and spirit and purpose of the law. Is the Law of God designed to protect or to control? the pharisees always wanted control, wanted to be religious, wanted to be seen as the "authorities" who had the right to rule and they wanted people to see them in that light. But that is not the purpose of the law. The law is about love and relationships. if there is a relationship between a father and his daughter then YES she should show the father honor in this way. But if there is no relationship, if the relationship has ceased because of him being antagnistic to the things of Christ, then Christ has provided other means for that woman, his daughter who is now in his family with other spiritual fathers and leaders who can fill in that role for the woman.
You also used the word "cutting of his right." This is again assuming the woman is in rebellion. If she does have a godly father, one who has a true relational position over the woman then it would be WRONG to reject the father's counsel and guidance. But for a woman who does not have this it is not "cutting off" something that has already ended at some earlier point. You can't cut off what is either not there or has already been forfeited. The very words: "cut off" implies something exists. But in some cases there is no relationship and thus the bond is already broken because of sin and others in the Lord's family fill in it. Additionally, to lay a law on some woman who is in Christ and who is being led by others to go and ask her father who is physically alive but relationally dead unto her is to press the letter of the law without seeing the spirit and heart of the law, the exact error of the pharisees who did this time and time again. God's spiritual family is larger than physical DNA ties.
Therefore, at times a woman who still has a living father will not be under that father's authority. Thus for her to even go ask is to be hypocritical. Ask knowing that in your heart it does not mater what he says before you ask is hardly honor. One might even be able to argue that it is not a good steward of time and could be an arrogant act depending on the heart. Furthermore, it may be asking the wrong person to begin with if that woman truly has herself under another godly leader that truly is giving her guidance and support in life. If she has not asked for her Father's guidance in 20 years because that father has nothing to do with her then to go ask for permission when the relationship is already dead is not necessary or required by God. No sin is done if this is not done. As with an earlier post, the point of the oversight (by a father, mother, brother, elder, extended relative, etc) is not about control but about safety and protection, to make sure outside objective sources have insight into the relationship. Throughout the entire Song of Songs we see that the friends were constantly around involved in this developing relationship. We have no idea who they were. But they were there.
Now let me stress again, just to strike balance here. Should a man marry a rebellious woman who does not want authority in her life? God forbid, that is an awful idea. The issue is exactly there, not with who the person is. A woman should show signs of humility to authority. It may be to an extended relative, or a grandmother, or a brother, or an elder, or a father or someone or group of persons. If she will not submit to them then indeed she will almost invariably not submit to a husband's rule either. This is clear and vitally important. It is indeed a very practical issue that must be examined. Just as a woman should never join to a man who is rebellious and not willing to submit himself to older elders in the Lord. If a man thinks so highly of himself that he will be submissive and trained by those who are more mature than him in the word and in the Christian life then he too is a rebel and he will likely produce a rebellious family and children who continue in his footsteps.
So rebellion is out of the question either from the woman or man.
But at times, because of a father's sin and rebllion the woman may be under another authority because the spiritual aspects and the hearts apsects of the law are priority. Christ's family takes priority over the physical family. The key is then simple: a man and woman should be able to answer one simple question of, "who is the authority over your heart and life besides Jesus Christ. Who gives you guidance and leadership in your life pointing you to Christ and his truth." Any man who cannot answer that question with specific names of people who they go to for guidance is a rebellious man, and any unmarried woman who cannot answer that is a rebellious woman. The answer of: "I follow Christ" is always, according to the holy saints of God, qualified with actual people within the discipleship process. Those who want to claim they follow Christ and only Christ alone are generally dangerous people who are simply too proud to be in submission to those older than them in the Lord. Sometimes there are exceptions to that but that is the norm most of the time.
As for the last point: could asking not influence his salvation? If the Holy Spirit were to lead a woman to do this for this purpose then so be it, but we could sit around all day and speculate about what if this and what if that. The Holy Spirit will guide a woman who is truly seeking his will in light of the specific commands of the bible. If there is no specific command for a woman to ask someone who is truly not in authority over the lady then this is simply a conscience issue that must be left to the woman, her conscience, and her guidance in the Spirit. We no more right to tell all women to do this than we do to tell all women whether or not to they should or should not drink a glass of wine.
Seth said:
As far as I know a brother marrying his sister was not forbidden until Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 which occurred after the flood. One possibility is that Seth married one of his sisters (if you are talking about Seth from Genesis)
you can look up more about this on Answers in Genesis with Ken Ham and others.
I think it was okay for a man to marry his sister before Moses was born.
There is still nothing in the Bible even today to forbid a man from marrying his first cousin or his sibling's daughter who is a woman that I know of.
The official website might be below
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
A
Anonymous
Guest
I doubt this particular subject (and Scriptural evidence) would be considered appropriate on these forums. As I'm sure you're aware, there are many times where we can see what Scripture says, and yet not accept it. A man having multiple wives was demonstrated throughout Scripture all our lives, yet most of us never stopped to consider the truth regarding marriage. Sometimes our paradigms prevent us from seeing the obvious.steve said:
But in any event, if you are right and the sexual laws given to Israel at Sinai were not retroactive, then the point is moot. They could have had sex with anyone they wanted in order to reproduce however they chose. But then we have to face the conclusion that the definition of marriage must have CHANGED sometime after Adam and Eve. And we'd have to consider that gentiles were never given (or subject to) the laws of Sinai, so the prohibitions against specific sexual relations given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were only ever applicable to national Israel. Things can get messy really quickly if we decide that sexual prohibitions in the Mosaic Covenant ended when the Old Covenant was fulfilled.
My suggestion would be to go back and read Leviticus 18 carefully, ideally translated word for word. Beyond that, in deference to the BF moderators, you can always e-mail me at webmaster@righteouswarriors.com and I'll answer your question off the public forums. We've already moved too far off the original topic.
In His love,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
My wife just noticed that "Seth" is here asking where "Seth's" kids come from! Might want to check with your wife on that one, my Brother! :lol:Seth said:
But "kidding" aside, Seth took his niece as a wife and produced children with her. You have to back your question up a generation.
In His love,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oh no, not at all. I actually agree with you here. The Mosaic Law did not apply before it was given at Sinai, and it was only ever applicable to those it was intended for, the physical descendants of Jacob. I was referring specifically to the sexual prohibitions recorded in Leviticus, which I recognize to be eternal as part of God's natural law (as is the case regarding murder, adultery, theft, sodomy, coveting, etc.). I was saying that God didn't permit adultery one day and then disallow it the next, or define marriage one way and then redefine it later on in history. Laws intended for ALL mankind could not have been exclusively restricted for Israel alone, or He wouldn't have punished Sodom for sexual sins they did not understand were forbidden. I believe Adam (and Noah much later on) understood what was sexually permitted and what was sexually forbidden, prior to any codified law given at Sinai.Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Errrr....well no, that's the assumption I was speaking of. You're assuming that a brother and a sister had to be married in order to populate the earth, despite the fact that God told Adam to be fruitful and MULTIPLY. But let's assume that your understanding is true and that brother-sister marriages were begrudgingly tolerated by God as a necessary evil, even if just as a means to an end. Now we're faced with determining precisely where and when God changed His mind regarding sibling marriage? Does God's Word permit or disallow sibling marriage for gentiles? Before, during or after the Mosaic Covenant? What Scriptural basis do we have to support this assumption?Dr. K.R. Allen said:
More food for thought...
In His love,
David
David, my assumption is that it was indeed not SIN until the law stated it to be sin for siblings to marry or bond sexually. Therefore, the burden of proof rests upon the ones who say it was sin but then say God "allowed a necessary evil" which is taking the lesser of two evil ethical positions, which would in essence make God out to be responsible for the sin itself by approved it and then making it to where there was no other option but to act on the lesser of two evils. That ethical position is less than desireable.
If God who is omniscient knew when he created only two people that this would make it an absolute for for the siblings to marry yet that was for sure going to be a sin then God would have been the responsible agent for enticing them into the sin by making only two parents and no other way around this.
A better and more holistic explanation that fits both with the progression of Scripture as well as natural science regarding why the law at the Mosaic era was given would be that it was indeed not sin immediately after Adam and Eve because at that time the DNA code had not broken down to where sibling marriages/unions would produce deformed offspring.
If God who is omniscient knew when he created only two people that this would make it an absolute for for the siblings to marry yet that was for sure going to be a sin then God would have been the responsible agent for enticing them into the sin by making only two parents and no other way around this.
A better and more holistic explanation that fits both with the progression of Scripture as well as natural science regarding why the law at the Mosaic era was given would be that it was indeed not sin immediately after Adam and Eve because at that time the DNA code had not broken down to where sibling marriages/unions would produce deformed offspring.
- Status