Should a submissive wife....

People in bible times did not have last names. Bar Jonah simply means son of Jonah, you can not read more into scripture then it says to make it say what you want it too.
As I can remember there are two name changes in scripture, Jacob (O.T.) and Saul(N.T.). If there are other instances of name changes please post those.



SURNAMES
ORIGIN & HISTORY
European surnames first occurred between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, with some patronymic surnames in Scandinavia being acquired as late as the nineteenth century. Prior to this time period, particularly during the "Dark Ages" between the fifth and eleventh centuries, people were largely illiterate, lived in rural areas or small villages, and had little need of distinction beyond their given names. During Biblical times people were often referred to by their given names and the locality in which they resided such as "Jesus of Nazareth." However, as populations grew, the need to identify individuals by surnames became a necessity. The acquisition of surnames during the past eight hundred years has been affected by many factors, including social class and social structure, cultural tradition, and naming practices in neighboring cultures.



http://www.intl-research.com/surname.htm


To say a woman biblically has to change her name when she marries is not scriptural.

 

During bible times names reflected who a person was, names weren't just choosen becasue they liked the sound of it, thought it was a pretty name, it was choosen for it's meaning. Your name was who you were.
In the bible there are a few name changes
Abram/Abraham
Sari/Sarah
Jacob/Israel
Saul/Paul
Simon/Cephas (Peter)
Notice in every instance in scripture names were changed it was God Himself who made the changes, and He told them so. Seems to me if it were a mandate, an instruction to be followed God would have told us in scripture to do it, no way around it, no choice to do so or not. But He did not. That is not to say a woman should not change her name, only that is it as a cultural thing and not in scripture, her option.
Link said his wife was from Indonesia, and in her culture women do not change their names when they marry, same in other cultures around the world, I've heard of(but can't verify) there are cultures where the men change their names instead.
No matter which of these cultures you belong to, the pratice of changing names is still only cultural, man made.
You can not demand a woman do what men made up, not God.

Looking at some of these bible names and meanings you can see the person in their name.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/etymology/qt/JewishNames.htm


The one most people know is Jacob/ supplanter, which suited him, who he was.
When Pharoah's daughter found baby Moses she said she was naming him Moses becasue she had taken him out of the wat( you'd have to look it up if you want the exact words) Moses means taken out; drawn forth (as in out of the water).
We see the many (in Herbrew) names God is called, they reflect who He is, and how He revealed Himself to people.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/Names-Of-God.htm

So yes, apparently to these people(in the bible) your name was who you are.

 

Dear donnA,
You made some useful points. Last names are a fairly modern development.
And as far as that goes, European countries have always handled it differently than each other.

In my understanding, what we think of as traditional is traditional English or German from the last several centuries, because so much of American ancestry is English or German.
However, Dutch, Welsh, and Spanish last name patterns were different, to name a few.
The reason it is so difficult (how about impossible) to do genealogy before about 1400-1500 for one's peasant European ancestors is that last names essentially did not exist.

Karen

 

Thanks Karen, you proved my point, before the 1400-1500's last names did not exsist.
Therefore changing names when marrying can not be a biblical mandate as it did not exsist at that time when scripture was written. Though theres nothing wrong with changing names when marringg, scripture can not be used to back it up, becasue it didn't exsist.

 

Refuse was the operative word.

 

Excuse me, did you read the post? It quoted your words. It was you who referred to "noseybodies." That is name calling. My post did not call you a name.

[ March 12, 2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: PastorGreg ]

 

Donna said:

Uh........ I beg to differ.

William Shakespeare 1564-1616

Johannes Gutenburg was born around the year 1400, perhaps as early as 1394 (invented printing press in 1436)

Leanoardo Da Vinci Born 1452, Died 1519.

Martin Behaim 1459-1507. Invented the world globe in 1492

And then there are women authors during the mentioned time period.

Notice the last names.

 

That's not opinion, that's fact, and that's the very reason it's done.

When God made a covenant with Abram (exalted father), He changed Abram's name to Abraham (father of a multitude). The name change reflected the purpose of the Covenant.

Jacob was changed to Israel.
Simon to Peter.
Saul to Paul.

Could any one of those have righteously refused the name change?

Man was created first, woman was created after from man's rib. Woman was made for man, not man for the woman. She is given to him as his helper.

The head of every woman is the man.

These are the things reflected in the name change when a man and woman enter into a covenant relationship. (Let's not forget that God is a third party in that union.)

So, no. A submissive wife cannot righteously refuse to take her husband's name. She is denying the very institution of marriage (and the God who instituted it) by doing so.

 

I am consfused!

I do not think that Donna specified particular persons as "noseybodies". I read it as if it were a general statement about people who make assumptions about others business.

It seems that what Donna said was scriptural.

1 Peter 4:15 KJV: But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

 

Dear Diane,

I don't see anything in your list that disagrees with my statement.
William Shakespeare,for example, was born in the 1500's.
It was a gradual process. It is not that it was all different on 12/31/1399 than on 1/1/1400.
Your list actually bears witness to one of the main ways last names began in Europe.
Many, such as Catherine of Aragorn, were differentiated by where they were from.
Royalty or lesser nobility and gentry had last names first.
For example, even William the Conqueror, himself, is listed on most genealogical charts as William of Normandy.
Leonardo da Vinci means of Vinci. I haven't looked it up, but presumably he or ancestors came from such a place. d' and de likewise.
Some on your list have the German "von". That also means from.
You have quite a selection of names from all over the world. I confined my comments to the little I know about European names.

Karen

 

Thanks for the verification and great post, Aaron.

 

Keeping the name is not an option for the submissive wife or wife to be I should say.
It's like saying, I'm married on MY terms.

not a good thing.

It should be an honor to accept the husband's name.It's a unity of two to one.

 

I agree, Mommyperson. I'm glad to see a young lady agree with me.

The Maiden Name Debate
What's changed since the 1970s?
By Katie Roiphe

 

In Bible times, there were no last names. There is no Biblical mandate to support the changing of names, that I could find.

We have discussed this topic many times, on this very board, and my opinion has not changed. I am NOT a 'women's libber', nor am I rebellious.

I don't think it has anything to do with being submissive OR rebellious and I also don't think it's anyone's business. It is between the husband and the wife.

We keep saying the government should stay out of our homes. We have no privacy. I think other Christians should stay out too, if their only reason for being there is to pry!

I have my maiden name. I did not refuse to take my husband's name. We discussed it and made the decision together (for several reasons). We were not of an age to have more children when we married, so that was a non-issue.

I don't know why people can't just take care of themselves instead of getting so involved with other people's lives and wondering if they are behaving properly (and ultimately judging them by their OWN standards and opinions).

I have too many beams in my OWN eye, that need to be taken care of, before I start looking for the motes in someone else's.

Let ye without sin cast the first stone...

 

Excuse me, did you read the post? It quoted your words. It was you who referred to "noseybodies." That is name calling. My post did not call you a name. </font>[/QUOTE]PastorGreg said

Addressing me, this is name calling and a personal atttack.
Now, show me who I called a name on this board? Please point that out.

donnA

One who doesn't mind their own business is a nosiebody.
nos·y or nos·ey
Given to prying into the affairs of others; snoopy.
Prying; inquisitive

Diane

And who is wondering about these things about a couple? (see above definations)

Taken in context, the posts as a whole to the point I posted.

Context, context, a pastor should know this.

 

Karen, I still agree with you,and Dinae's evidences also agree with you. Thats actually historic evidence.

Betty, thank you, thats exactly right, and it is biblical.

Sue, It seems whenever someone disagree they are called feminist, women's libber(name calling is against BB rules isn't it), false accusations against those who can site scripture.

And scripture supports this very thing.

1 Peter 4:15 KJV: But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

 

Quoting a study on the resurgence of women in the 1970's refusing to take the husband's name in marriage is not name calling.

NO ONE called anyone a women's libber or feminist. False accusation by YOU!

Will those who believe it's okay for a submissive wife to refuse to take her husband's name in marriage answer the thoughts that:

How can those who believe it's okay for a submissive wife to refuse to take her husband's name in marriage explain the fact that our (board member) Pastors disagree with them?

 

If you are speaking to me, Diane, I will reiterate.

I did NOT refuse to take my husband's name. If I had, then that would have been un-submissive, but that was not the case.

Have you never disagreed with any Pastor's interpretation of scripture?

By your statements, you are saying I am not a submissive wife because I have my maiden name. Wouldn't that be judging ME by YOUR opinions?

Judging is covered in scripture, taking your husband's name is not (at least I haven't found it).

I would like scriptures please, if anyone has any, stating that a woman MUST take her husband's name in order to be a submissive wife...

 

She could legally change her name to that of her husband, but continue to do business with her maiden name.

Perhaps giving her full name until people know her married name.

For example. Jane Doe marries John Smith.

She could be Jane Doe Smith until people make the connection.

 

Diane, why are you so hostile? I spoke to Sue, not you.
I do not lift a pastor to the infalliable level of pope.
I think I'll ask my pastor, after all he is a pastor too, and if the opinion of pastors is t be treated as infallable as the pope is in teh RCC then my pastors opinon counts for me since he is my pastor. Which reminds me, not one of the pastors on this board is my pastor, I am not under the authority of a single one of them. Ba[ptists believe in autonomy(sp?), to be under the authority of a supreme pastor is false RCC doctrines.
No scripture, means no scripture.
And I have seen none that says a woman is to change her last name. How can a woman be unsubmissive is her husband does not ask or demand her to change her name?

Scripture? (about the husbands name).

Sue, thats the problem, they have no scripture and have to resort to attacks to try and prove their opinion.
According to scripture we do have on name changes, it is God who issues a new name, not man, and it is not a name relating them to man, but thier relationship with God