Should a submissive wife....

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 </font>[/QUOTE]There is no scripture that says, "Thou shalt not smoke pot." There is no Scripture that says thou shalt not burn down thy neighbor's house." Don't tell me it's wrong by giving me your opinion. I WANT SCRIPTURE. Ridiculous? Of course. Spiritual growth includes being able to take the principles of Scripture and apply them to every day life. Presumably, none of the participants in this discussion will do either of the two things I mentioned. Why? Because they have Scriptural principles that would forbid them, though neither practice is specifically forbidden in Scripture.

What Scriptural principles would support a woman's taking her husband's name? Many have already been put forth on this thread, such as:
- She was created by God for him, to be his
helper
- He is her head
- He outranks her (Meaning of the word submit)
- They are to be one
- She is to obey him. His authority extends
even to nullifying vows that she has made to
God. (Numbers chapter 30)
- When we become part of the bride of Christ,
He gives us His name. Marriage is a picture
of the relationship between Christ and His
church.
- The modern American practice of not taking
the husband's last name springs from the
feminist movement which is based on rebellion
and rejection of the traditional (Biblical)
family structure and roles.

What Biblical principles would support a wife not taking her husband's name? I don't believe a single one has been offered in this whole thread. The fact that pagan nations like Indonesia don't so it is hardly a legitimate argument for Christians. They also kill Christians in Indonesia.

 

This has turned into a hen-pecking thread and I am curious as to why it was started in the first place...

 

Mine didn't. Her name became Mrs. Guy R. Vestal when we got married (long ago). And she is actually proud of her name. She is on these boards roaming around somewhere.

Hey Blessedmamma! Love ya!

 

In other words, you have no scriptural principles to back your position.

 

Lots of scripture has been posted and ignored.

 

PastorGreg:

With all due respect, you do not have any scriptural principles to back your position either.

If a woman REFUSES to take her husband's name, then yes, she is unsubmissive.

If, on the other hand, a husband thinks it would be better if she did NOT take his name, she is being submissive.

It's no one's business why a wife does not take her husband's name. The people who make it THEIR business are WRONG.

I am to submit to my OWN husband, not anyone else's...

 

It is easy to be a submissive wife when both husband and wife are in agreement.

Why would a man marry a woman who REFUSED to take his name?

 

Amen! That should about settle it... but probably not

 

I am bowing out of this thread because I have asked for scriptures to back this up and have recieved none.

You are correct Betty. I don't know why a man would marry a woman who REFUSED to take his name.

That wasn't the case in our marriage, but I tire of repeating myself...

Blessings and wisdom to all,
§ue

 

Okay that me first say that as I read through these post I was overwhelmed by the bitterness expressed from some of the post concerning this topic.

I also want to add my two cents to this topic. I want everyone to know that I feel honored to have the title of Mrs. Guy R. Vestal! When we married this was not even a matter of disscussion because I could not wait to have my new title.

Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

 

Who needs the Comedy Channel when you can read a 7 page thread like this?

I'll not add my thoughts; suffice it to say that others have stated my position quite well already. Besides, I don't like to publicly disagree with my mother.

I'll allow the Word of God to answer the original question:

Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (KJV)

 

I agree with blessedmamma.

I love my wife. But when we got married, I would have been deeply hurt if she had not wanted to take my name.

Perhaps, other men are different and don't care. More power to them. But that's not me.

Cultural? Maybe.

But the Bible teaches that the husband is the head of the home, and for hundreds of years in England and America, that meant taking the husband's name.

I doubt that I would have married my wife if she had been bent on keeping her maiden name.

As to the question posed, for business reasons, why not use both names?

There seems to be more to this debate, because it is hostile from some of the parties involved.

 

Personally I don't know why any woman wouldn't want her husband name, unless it was a professional thing. Like the doctor I used to take the boys too had her maiden name becasue she was an established doctor when she married her husband, my doctor who was down stairs from her.
but I see nothing in scripture which say names must change, no one in scripture changed their name unless God told them too, and they were all men. So far no one has posted scripture for support of a pratice that was not even known or done during bible times. Women then had no trouble knowing who their husbands were, no one else seems to have had trouble knowing which man she belonged too, and everyone knew his and her name. This is a modern pratice with no biblical support for demanding it be done or you aren't a good enough wife.

I did ask earlier, what if the husband doesn't ask her to take his name, doesn't demand her too? How can she be a disobedient wife if he hasn't asked her to do anything?

 

She can't. But I wouldn't marry a woman who wouldn't. Like I said, more power to him.

 

Seems odd a man can claim to love a woman and then not marry her over a name change. Did he at first beleive God had put her in his life? Then what does it mean when he says he's not marring her?
Personally I would say he never really loved her at all.

If I didn't want to change my name and a guy didn't want to marry me over it, I'd say good ridance.

 

I can agree with scriptural requirements noted in previous post except the following:

This is old Testament Law

This is not scriptural

I would like to point out that this movement was started by Christian Women:

"The Union (Christian Women's Temperance Union) took on three main areas of concern - temperance, women's suffrage and purity. Through education and action, members would fight for women's rights, child protection and the preservation of traditional family values and morality, and also highlighted the sexual dangers of women and children."


Therefore, the statement is incorrect when it is stated that the feminist movement is based on rebellion and rejection of the traditional (Biblical) family structure and roles.

The women were actually fostering Biblical family values.

More information: Christian Women's Temperance Union

Some people use the women's movement as a scapegoat.

 

I don't think taking a name is necessarily an act of submission though it can be. I don't have a problem taking my man's name. But, there might be good reasons not to. Depends on what they agree upon.

 

I was mostly with you up until here.

If God has put the woman in my life for me to marry, and if He has been working on her heart for the same, then she will submit to my wishes and change her name.

I also would not marry a woman who would not submit to such a simple thing, for if she won't submit to that, then how will she be when a really big decision has to be made? I will surely give my wife a large voice in what decisions are made in my home, but when all is said and done, I am the husband and I will make the final decision based on what I believe is best for my family.

That authority and responsibility was not given to the wife and neither shall I let it go if I can still handle it.

If a marriage is going to start off in disagreement, then obviously you can look forward to more of the same down the road.

I agree there is no biblical mandate for changing your name, but I do believe, as I stated on page 1 or 2, that there are certain traditions that I enjoy and that happens to be one of them. Things like this occur, as pointed out from the articles posted, during liberal and feminist movements. I want my family to maintain the traditional role of an American, and moral, Christian, family. This is simply one way of maintaining that.

I have no delusions that my family will be perfect, but I will try my best to see that it is, and as husband that will be my responsibility. If I don't do it right, then I will be the one answering for it.

There is also nothing in the bible that says a woman shouldn't work outside the home, but I would venture to say that most of the women here would love to only work in their homes. The woman being the keeper of the home is also a tradition and is not a biblical mandate, but it is a tradition I believe we are best served in keeping.