Is it just a tradition that man created or is it Biblical (and where) for a woman who becomes married to replace her last name with her husbands? Is there a problem based on Scripture if a woman doesn’t do this?
Erich <><
changing the last name?
changing the last name?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I believe that the woman's changing her name reflects an awareness of the biblical concept of marriage. A person's name is more than the mere word by which others address him or her. It is the tag that represents the whole identity of the person, the legal standing, the status and the reputation. "A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches..."(Prov.22:1).
God changed the names of a number of people at the point of making some new covenant or striking some new change in relationship weith them (e.g., Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Isrtael, Solomon/Jedidiah,Simon/Peter, etc.).
When a child is born, he/she has his/her father's family name, identifying him/her with the father's bloodline—all that that family name involves, whether good or bad. Possessing the father's last name does not indicate what kind of person he/she is or will be, but it declares to which solidarity and under what headship he/she belongs.
When a woman is married to a man, she exchanges the name of her father for the name of her husband. You may recall that, in the marriage ceremonies, the father "gives the bride away" to the groom.
This indicates that she is now part of a new solidarity and under a different head. Some modern women refuse to give up their maiden names at marriage because they realize that doing so has carries these implications, and they are protesting the idea of male headship (in other words, they are rebelling against God's ordinance).
The irony is that, if these women reject their husband's name, they simply retain the name of another male, their father (indicating his continuing headship over them).
It is not uncommon, in our society, for a woman who works for a corporation to wear a uniform, a badge or a name tag that displays the name of the company that employs her as well as her own name. Some of these same women, who submit to corporate bosses and wear their names on them are nonetheless ashamed to submit to and wear the name of the man who loves them enough to forsake all others, to rear children with them, and to cleave only to them for life. This anomaly exhibits either a great confusion and irrationality among modern women, or else a mere preference for their profession over their family identity—which, I guess, is another way of exhibiting irrationality.
Is there biblical precedent for a woman taking her husband's name? Yes. This happened in the prototypical marriage, which (according to Jesus— Matt.19:1-9) sets the standard for all authentic marriage in the sight of God.
When God brought Adam's wife to him, Adam named her "woman" (Gen.2:23) and also "Eve" (Gen.3:20)—but God called both of them by the man's name, "Adam" (which is Hebrew for "Man"):
"[God] created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Adam in the day they were created."
Even though Western marriage customs, vows and ceremonies are not found in the Bible, they were formulated for the purpose of reflecting the realities of marriage that are taught in scripture. Therefore, the custom of the bride taking her groom's name is significant and biblical.
God changed the names of a number of people at the point of making some new covenant or striking some new change in relationship weith them (e.g., Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Isrtael, Solomon/Jedidiah,Simon/Peter, etc.).
When a child is born, he/she has his/her father's family name, identifying him/her with the father's bloodline—all that that family name involves, whether good or bad. Possessing the father's last name does not indicate what kind of person he/she is or will be, but it declares to which solidarity and under what headship he/she belongs.
When a woman is married to a man, she exchanges the name of her father for the name of her husband. You may recall that, in the marriage ceremonies, the father "gives the bride away" to the groom.
This indicates that she is now part of a new solidarity and under a different head. Some modern women refuse to give up their maiden names at marriage because they realize that doing so has carries these implications, and they are protesting the idea of male headship (in other words, they are rebelling against God's ordinance).
The irony is that, if these women reject their husband's name, they simply retain the name of another male, their father (indicating his continuing headship over them).
It is not uncommon, in our society, for a woman who works for a corporation to wear a uniform, a badge or a name tag that displays the name of the company that employs her as well as her own name. Some of these same women, who submit to corporate bosses and wear their names on them are nonetheless ashamed to submit to and wear the name of the man who loves them enough to forsake all others, to rear children with them, and to cleave only to them for life. This anomaly exhibits either a great confusion and irrationality among modern women, or else a mere preference for their profession over their family identity—which, I guess, is another way of exhibiting irrationality.
Is there biblical precedent for a woman taking her husband's name? Yes. This happened in the prototypical marriage, which (according to Jesus— Matt.19:1-9) sets the standard for all authentic marriage in the sight of God.
When God brought Adam's wife to him, Adam named her "woman" (Gen.2:23) and also "Eve" (Gen.3:20)—but God called both of them by the man's name, "Adam" (which is Hebrew for "Man"):
"[God] created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Adam in the day they were created."
Even though Western marriage customs, vows and ceremonies are not found in the Bible, they were formulated for the purpose of reflecting the realities of marriage that are taught in scripture. Therefore, the custom of the bride taking her groom's name is significant and biblical.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve, I looked at this passage you referred to in Matthew; could you explain to me a little more were this idea of a woman taking her husbands name is alluded to there? I think I'm missing something because I'm not really seeing it or maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you said above.Steve wrote:Is there biblical precedent for a woman taking her husband's name? Yes. This happened in the prototypical marriage, which (according to Jesus— Matt.19:1-9) sets the standard for all authentic marriage in the sight of God.
Erich <><
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Matt 19:4-7
"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
NKJV
I think the general idea is that when a man and a woman are married, God sees them as one unit, instead of two individuals. Like Steve said, when a woman leaves her home and joins together with her husband, her identity is changed in the sense that she now identifies herself as being subject to her husband rather than her father, hence the name change. Changing your name is changing your identity, or who you identify with.
I see marriage as a physical type of our spiritual relationship with Christ. When we become believers, we take on His identity. He bought us with His blood, so He owns us, much like the bride price paid by a man to the father of the bride in the Old Testament. We call ourselves Christians, we put ourselves in subjection to His authority and happily do what He wills us to do. We are in a sense "one" with Him in that we are in His body and therefore we take on His name.
Just my opinion.
"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
NKJV
I think the general idea is that when a man and a woman are married, God sees them as one unit, instead of two individuals. Like Steve said, when a woman leaves her home and joins together with her husband, her identity is changed in the sense that she now identifies herself as being subject to her husband rather than her father, hence the name change. Changing your name is changing your identity, or who you identify with.
I see marriage as a physical type of our spiritual relationship with Christ. When we become believers, we take on His identity. He bought us with His blood, so He owns us, much like the bride price paid by a man to the father of the bride in the Old Testament. We call ourselves Christians, we put ourselves in subjection to His authority and happily do what He wills us to do. We are in a sense "one" with Him in that we are in His body and therefore we take on His name.
Just my opinion.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Hi Erich,
I didn't say that Matthew 19 provides the basis for a woman taking her husband's name. I said that that passage shows us that Jesus took the original marriage of Adam and Eve to be a prototype for all marriage. It is the Original marriage that provides a precedent for a woman being called by her husband's name.
Guest,
Of course, the people of biblical times did not have family "last names" as we do in modern western culture. However, we do live in a society in which men and women have "last names," and where a woman either bears the last name of her father or of her husband...thus identifying which family she belongs to. In such a culture, what argument can be made for the woman retaining her father's name after he has given her away to another and she has become one flesh with her husband? I can think of none.
I didn't say that Matthew 19 provides the basis for a woman taking her husband's name. I said that that passage shows us that Jesus took the original marriage of Adam and Eve to be a prototype for all marriage. It is the Original marriage that provides a precedent for a woman being called by her husband's name.
Guest,
Of course, the people of biblical times did not have family "last names" as we do in modern western culture. However, we do live in a society in which men and women have "last names," and where a woman either bears the last name of her father or of her husband...thus identifying which family she belongs to. In such a culture, what argument can be made for the woman retaining her father's name after he has given her away to another and she has become one flesh with her husband? I can think of none.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve