• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
redfox

redfox

Member
This discussion came up on another board I'm on, and the question came about in relation to the future husband asking for the father's permission to marry the daughter.

It was a rather lively discussion, and of course some of the ladies were pretty far off base (getting into slavery issues and making derogatory comments towards Ruth's choice of snuggling up under some guy's blanket ;) ), not to mention polygyny, things along those lines.

So anyway, Cecil's comment made me think of that, and now I'm curious what y'all think here.

:)
 
I guess it doesn't surprise me too much any more, redfox, that a question worded this way would be so divisive in post-Biblical, post-Constitutional "Amerika".

After all, having become conditioned to a collectivist mentality, the concept of property rights seems to have become foreign to a once-free people anyway.

But the real irony is that the proper question here (in the case of wives and daughters - the teachings of Numbers chapter 30) is not at all about property at all; it concerns God-given authority.

Daughters are born into that headship of their father, and wives, by their acceptance of the union, commit to submit to it. Most of the rest of the Book is about the nature and consequence of rebellion to His Word, His will, and His plan.

I submit that a look around this world will show ample evidence of the fruit which results from that failure to understand and honor such simple, but vital, concepts.
 
I very much agree, it's about authority, not ownership, at least not in the way we perceive ownership these days.

She brought up about how she was 'abused' by her father's 'ownership' of her, so she just doesn't like that idea :roll: Basically, someone abused the God-given system, so that makes the whole thing bunk. So few Christians seem to have a clear understanding of what true authority is, which makes it difficult to talk to them sometimes. :)
 
Only our Lord has a claim to us. (1 Cor 6:20). And I agree that ownership can get confused with authority. When I was in the military we were convinced the military owned us, however they actually just had authority over us. A person can find themselves under authority for various reasons, and some not by choice. (such as a traffic stop by the police, military, etc.) but ownership is not a goal or needed. This does not mean that all authority is just or proper.

Galatians 3:28 (King James Version)

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
 
As parents, we are entrusted by God as stewards of our children's lives. This is a huge responsibility, and not one to be taken lightly. As Christians, when God gives us something, it is our duty to be a good steward of that gift. Our children are not ours to do with as we please. They belong to their Heavenly Father, and we are COMMANDED to "train them up in the way they should go", to "teach them diligently", and many more direct commands.

So, the more pressing question should be, "Are you being a good steward of the precious gifts that the Lord put under your authority?"
 
I very much agree, it's about authority, not ownership, at least not in the way we perceive ownership these days.
Click to expand...

These days it's probably difficult to get across the meaning of true 'authority' as well as 'ownership'. In some foreign languages you own people, in English you own things. We have no problem with taking ownership of 'my car', 'my house', 'my book', 'my pencil'. In another language that sounds ridiculous... but 'My mom, goodbye!', or 'My brother, I want to talk to my dad!' is acceptable and 'Goodbye Mom!', or 'Hey bro, I want to talk to Dad!' is pretty much unacceptable.

In that case, to ask whether you 'own' your daughter would be comical in translation. The answer would be 'Of course!'. This comes to mind:

Psalm 68:6 God sets the lonely in families,
Click to expand...

They believe that what they are given by God directly is what belongs to them, not material goods. Family is everything to them, for better or for worse.

How can you say you own your pencil manufactured in some unknown factory, from who knows what tree, but you don't own the daughter that came into your family as a miracle custom made before your own eyes... maybe I'm straying from the real subject... just food for thought.
 
Addendum ;)

You may be at a BF retreat, having driven from some other state, and you may walk in the room and pull up a chair, and all of a sudden this chair you never saw before in your life, whose residency is many miles from you, becomes 'my chair'... :o

So on behalf of the subject of ownership, I propose that it is not the ownership itself that is at issue, but whether we consider what we own of value or common, personal or impersonal, God-given or man-ufactured.

We have to decide if ownership as we understand it, is a good thing or bad thing, applicable to a daughter or not. A father who takes his godly role in his daughter's life seriously, will probably have a daughter who is glad to have his ownership or authority, either way. A father who hurts his daughter will, of course, not be appreciated and his definition of ownership or authority will be a bad one.
 
Greetings brothers and sisters,

The issue surrounding this subject has been debated in translations for some time. You may be confused by the word debate among translations. By that I simply mean the most clear text on this subject is in 1 Cor. 7:36-38. The translators of the Greek differ in this area. Thus some translations say this applies to a man engaged to his virgin whereas others say it means a father with his virgin.

I take it to mean a Father. One of the best Greek scholars in the whole world, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, also concurs, or since I am younger I concur with him. He has written one of the best commentaries on chapter 7 in the entire world of evangelical literature. Literally the best way to translate this is to accept the rendering of the father over his daughter.

Theologically as well as naturally (natural law theory) whoever creates has rights what has been created. For example, God created the universe thus he has sovereign rights over his creation (a doctrine many fail to understand).

But, now let me qualify my statements. No earthly being has ABSOLUTE RIGHTS or ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY over something in God's universe. We are all stewards of his creation.

Thus, if a father has given up his child, or if a father has broken this stewardship then the father has lost his position as an overseer. Some young ladies go through their whole life struggling with the inner heartache of what their earthly father demands versus what God demands.

This all goes back ones ethical position. Three types exist: Unqualified Absolute Ethics, Conflicting Absolutism, Graded Absolutism or Qualified Absolutism.

In God's kingdom there are higher laws and lower laws. If a father commands his daughter to marry a pagan she has to follow the higher law of obedience to Scripture's command to marry only in the Lord. Basically, some laws trump or take precedence over other laws.

Dr. RED
 
If a father commands his daughter to marry a pagan
Click to expand...

I think this is one reason men must come to a girl's father to ask his permission to marry, and why he stands at her side when she is 'given' in marriage. We fathers are there to insure that she is marrying a Godly man - one who will provide her with headship that is a continuation of that which the father as provided. In a very real sense, the father is passing the baton to the groom who must carry on in the way He intended. It's a very serious thing which all father's struggle with when the time comes. After all, how well can they know the young man who is assuming their mantle of authority over their daughter? It's a tough call, but it's one of authority and responsibility, not one of ownership. A father is responsible the child (girl or boy) and has authority over them (authority must always come with responsibility) but does not own them.

Dave
 
the teachings of Numbers chapter 30) is not at all about property at all; it concerns God-given authority.
Click to expand...

Good point Mark. Some languages (and codes of law) distinguish between ownership and possession. Classical roman law, for example, did. A "textbook" example of this would be where a man owns a beachside house, which has been taken over by a band of robbers. He no longer has possession of the house, but he still owns it. Furthermore, the latin word translated "ownership" (dominio. if I remember right) has the root meaning of "authority". Thus "to have authority over, to domesticate, to tame (when used of animals.) So there's an interesting example of roman thought working along the same lines as the biblical!

Etymologically, the english word "own" is related to the "owe" So, the original idea, I suppose, was of something that you rightly possess, by virtue of having exchanged something (money, or other goods) for it. The old custom of Bride Price comes to mind. Historicallly, christian societies have prefered Dowry, which is where the bride comes with a (pre-agreed) some of money, and/ or property, which the husband then has free use of, for as long as the marriage lasts. Logically, this would make the husband the property of the wife, since she--or her family--have paid good money for him!Not sure I like that.

Anyway, according to Murdock's Ethographic Atlas, very very few polygamous societies use the dowry sytem--it's one of the pillars of monogamy-only.

But I've strayed from the topic, so I'll stop here.

---Ryenwine
 
Another thought:

You cannot "own" a daughter in the english sense of the word "own",because you did not receive her in exchange for something paid. Except perhaps in a metaphorical sense--"I loved my wife, and in exchange we were given a daughter." But authority and headship is the real point, of course. The words we use can trip us up!

:)
 
I married my wife in defiance of her father's rejection. I was not mormon and he required that her husband be such, and they get married in temple. He refused to give her away at our wedding, etc. At the time I did not realize I was marrying her mom, and the entire family :) I foolishly thought I was just marrying her. Since then we(her family and I) have come to a lukewarm relationship. They still plan to baptize me when I'm dead, and I still think they are legalists, with a superficial form of christianity. The question I have is, do you feel it is err to marry a girl against her father's wishes?
 
Seth said:
The question I have is, do you feel it is err to marry a girl against her father's wishes?
Click to expand...
That's a very important question and one which is usually ignored by Believers at large (much the same way as most Believers don't question whether or not they can lawfully marry a woman who separated herself from her rightful husband, for example). I believe it is error to do so, in most cases. Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, I would just say that I would only take a wife where I KNOW I have the lawful right to take her. In the case of a virgin, the right to give or veto ultimately lies with her authority (generally her father). Scripture is less clear in the matter of an unmarried fornicator living outside from her father's house and by extension, outside of his authority. With a widow or a lawfully put-away woman living on her own, we know she has the authority to give herself away.

virgin = requires daddy to give her away
fornicator = unclear (at least to me)
widow or lawfully put away = gives herself away

It would be a lot easier to address your particular situation had her father simply not understood he had the right to veto (as is most common in our western culture), but as he absolutely refused to give her away, this situation is unfortunately the equivalent of theft. She was not her own to give herself away (at least assuming virginity at the time of marriage) and she was effectively stolen from her father against his wishes. If these assumptions are accurate, my recommendation would be to obtain his blessing after-the-fact, if at all possible. At the same time, don't compromise the truth to accommodate her family.

In His love,
David
 
Ok, so what if the young woman doesn't know who her father is?

What if her father is not a believer?

What if she has no relationship with her parents?

What if she was raised by a single mother and has no close male relatives?
 
I'm a wife stealer...woot! I feel very old testament all of the sudden. I can steal a wife in the ot right?
 
God'sGirl88 said:
Ok, so what if the young woman doesn't know who her father is?

What if her father is not a believer?

What if she has no relationship with her parents?

What if she was raised by a single mother and has no close male relatives?
Click to expand...
for the first and last questions, i would ask her mother
if he is not a believer i would ask him anyway. even the "believers" do not believe a lot of biblical ways, so there may not be a huge difference
if she has no relationship? well, even a bad relationship where they have not talked in years is a relationship. i would ask, it shouldn't hurt anything. it could even sow a positive seed. the reality is that i would be marrying into his family even if they are estranged and our children, like it or not, will be his grandchildren.

now, i said that i would ask. i never said anything about obeying him if the answer was no ;)
 
Talking about bridenapping is actually a really good way to get conversation with a lady more in the direction of marital matters. Just make sure she's laughing hysterically and can't tell during the conversation whether you're joking about such or not. :lol: Also, be very descriptive after the first mention of it. Bridenapping is very romantic. Seriously. :mrgreen:

Oh, and you don't buy the fruit you grow from your land. Your wife is yours. So is the fruit of her womb. He who marries mommy is daddy.

If a girl is not in her father's house and doesn't belong to a man already, It is only the father that is ever given such authority over her. It is only her father that can void an oath from her own mouth. It is only he who can give her. If she is not in his household, then no permission needed.

As for the virgin thing, a father who's virgin daughter slept with a man... if the man comes to him wanting to marry his daughter he may refuse. Therefore, virginity isn't the issue. If she is in his household, and he regards himself as her authority and the one to give her, then she is his to give. God gave fathers a right to refuse a marriage to their daughters. But then there is more to the subject than that. Adultery in the Bible is never done or recommended by the righteous. But at times this is.
 
As I see it. You can not kidnap a woman and force her to marry you UNLESS IT IS (Old Testament) DURING WAR WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY THAN ISRAEL (as well as other conditions) from what I understand.

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. 15 If a man has two wives..............
Deutoronomy 21

What Japan did to Nanking China is strictly forbidden, because there is a one month waiting period.


If a man were to take an Israelite woman during OT times, the father could refuse the man from marrying her, therefor you can not just force any woman to marry you, it has to be under the right circumstances.

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
Exodus 22:16-17 NIV

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

[c] Deuteronomy 22:29 That is, about 1 1/4 pounds (about 0.6 kilogram)

Deutoronomy 22:28-29 NIV

It is also interesting to think about the following verses about kidnapping and notice how Deuteronomy 24:7 specifically refers to Israelites.

"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
Exodus 21:16 NIV

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
Deutoronomy 24:7 NIV

I do not know if Exodus 21:16 and Deutoronomy 24:7 refer to both men and women or men only.
 
steve said:
God'sGirl88 said:
Ok, so what if the young woman doesn't know who her father is?

What if her father is not a believer?

What if she has no relationship with her parents?

What if she was raised by a single mother and has no close male relatives?
Click to expand...
for the first and last questions, i would ask her mother
if he is not a believer i would ask him anyway. even the "believers" do not believe a lot of biblical ways, so there may not be a huge difference
if she has no relationship? well, even a bad relationship where they have not talked in years is a relationship. i would ask, it shouldn't hurt anything. it could even sow a positive seed. the reality is that i would be marrying into his family even if they are estranged and our children, like it or not, will be his grandchildren.

now, i said that i would ask. i never said anything about obeying him if the answer was no ;)
Click to expand...

I apologize if I am taking these questions out of context accidentally

There are some situations in which I believe the fathers permission is not required for marriage (Deut 21:10) and others in which it is (Exodus 22:7). I suspect that Deut 21 generally is the situation when a Christian man marries a woman who is not currently a Christian and who is not genetically and not nationally an Israelite with parents who are not Christians and exodus 22 is generally the situation when a man is marrying someone whose parents are genetically or nationally an Israelite or religiously a Christian. However that is just a guess, I do not claim to be able to prove that to be the meaning.

I believe if the woman is divorced or a widow she does not need her father's permission to get married to a new husband. And if her father is dead she does not need her father's permission to get married. However Numbers 30:9 may not necessarily apply to marriage because the woman might not be required to make a vow to get married.


Numbers 30:9
"Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.

The way I see it, if she does not know her father or her father is dead no one can say she is disobeying her father.

I may be taking the whole chapter of Numbers 30 out of context because I am adding assumptions that are not written there when I come to these ideas. Also I did not explain all my assumptions and how I came to my conclusion.
 
So you ask. The person who has the authority (whomever that is) says no. Then what do you do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top