The woman takes her husband's last name - biblical?

BobVigneault · #1 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 09:18 AM

I took a pretty firm stand at supper last night and really ticked off my 24 year old daughter. I have some good friends, a married couple, and the wife kept her maiden name.

I made the statement that this is a non-negotiable. My argument was that in marriage a man and woman become one flesh and that means there cannot be two names for one flesh - there is ONE name. Furthermore, because the man is the head of the family it is his name that represents the family.

I told her that lots of folks can have novel ideas based on politics and sentiment but my stand has 10,000 years of endorsement and it's non negotiable.

How firm is the ground I'm arguing from? Is there a Biblical argument for the woman taking the man's name? It seems like a no brainer to me but I'd better be sure.

Kim G · #2 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 09:35 AM

I prefer that the woman takes the man's last name. I was more than happy to take my hubbie's name!

However, having been in South Korea and now teaching ESL students from China and Brazil, I realized that our mindset is highly "western". In Asia, the husband and wife keep their own names, but all children take the name of the father. (It's the same in at least some parts of Brazil.) Even the Christians that I fellowshiped with in Asia do this. It's not considered a violation of the "one flesh" argument or a lack of submission on the wife's part. It's not a "maybe I will, maybe I won't"--it's just not done.

So, in our culture, yes, I prefer name-changing. But I can't make that a hard and fast rule for everyone in every location for all time.

PaulB · #3 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 09:50 AM

Bob,

Which of the practices are you opposing?

A) Woman keeps maiden name that is to be used in all forms of address & communication with a hyphen as in Hillary Rodham-Clinton
B) Woman keeps maiden name as her "new" middle name that as such is rarely used and referenced.

Thanks,

PaulB

BobVigneault · #4 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 09:57 AM

No problem with "B" Paul, I would oppose "A" and I would oppose the wife just keeping her maiden name to the exclusion of her husbands which is the case in the marriage of my friends.

PaulB · #5 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

No problem with "B" Paul, I would oppose "A" and I would oppose the wife just keeping her maiden name to the exclusion of her husbands which is the case in the marriage of my friends.

I think I'm on board with you, then. The reason I asked is that a friend of mine refused to allow his wife to keep her maiden name in any fashion whatsoever. He saw that as equivalent to what you are opposing. I do think that taking the husband's last name reinforces the one-fleshment of marriage.

Seb · #6 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:02 AM

It's funny. My wife really struggled with the idea of taking my last name when we got married.

I can't imagine why?

But ultimately she knew it was a husband headship / one flesh issue and submitted to it.

Since then she's tried to talk me into changing our last name a couple of times, for the sake of our daughter of course.

TimV · #7 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

I told her that lots of folks can have novel ideas based on politics and sentiment but my stand has 10,000 years of endorsement and it's non negotiable.

I trust that number is hyperbole; I took you as a Genesis means what it says person.

Japanese and other's often take the wife's last name like my White neighbor who's last name is Hiyashi, so I wouldn't argue from that position anyway. My own surname is Welsh, and I believe it wasn't until Henry the Seventh that the Welsh had to take last names.

Like everything (in my poor opinion) at least hints can be found in the Holy Scriptures. In this case, it's pretty much always "so and so the wife of so and so", rather than the reverse, so we can get a hint as to the optimum, i.e. the wife is known publically by the man's name, since that is the Scriptural pattern.

But at the same time, there are other principles involved, one being that while something might be optimum, like not eating pork or road kill or harvesting the corners of your field, where there's no civil or ecclesiastical penalty, the issue is between God and that person, and while we can instruct we can't demand.

BobVigneault · #8 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:03 AM

Ok, so what is the argument from Scripture?

BobVigneault · #9 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:08 AM

10,000 years was not hyperbole, I'm a young earther.

Seb · #10 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Ok, so what is the argument from Scripture?

I don't think you're going to find one more than the "leave and cleave", one flesh, husband headship verses that you already know.

Surnames are a fairly recent invention: Surname - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TimV · #11 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

10,000 years was not hyperbole, I'm a young earther

Aside from the fact that surnames have only been around a fifth as long, and even then only in limited areas of the world, what examples could you give of any sort of names 8,000 years ago? After all, you're appealing to tradition.

TimV · #12 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Since then she's tried to talk me into changing our last name a couple of times, for the sake of our daughter of course.

I take it you give your wife the option of picking the kid's names

Thomas2007 · #13 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:17 AM

Bob,

I think you are on the right track. The practice in our culture was developed through English Common Law which is customs derived from Biblical law.

The man is the covenantal head of the family, a woman takes a man's last name because she is transfered from her father's household to her husband.

The modern propensity of rejecting a husbands name, or attempting to play the father against the husband in hyphenated last names, is sinful and a rejection of the creation mandate. The latter is probably more common, as in the Rodham-Clinton example above. Who has dominion over this woman - her father or husband? I would interpret it to be neither, and I think that is the whole point of why the feminist culture advocates that.

Kevin · #14 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:21 AM

Bob I agree with you, but I think it is cultural not biblical.

Now I happen to believe that this part of our (western) culture is based on biblical principles & is worth saving & defending. I also think that those who undermine this tradition do so out of a desire to undermine the underlying biblical principal.

But, we are making a big leap to say "thus saith the LORD..."

IMO.

BobVigneault · #15 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:25 AM

I see what your saying Tim. What I mean by that is that since the creation of man, man has been the covenant head and the wife has cleaved to her husband . So the question is, once surnames are introduce, should they reflect the headship and authority of the husband?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

10,000 years was not hyperbole, I'm a young earther

Aside from the fact that surnames have only been around a fifth as long, and even then only in limited areas of the world, what examples could you give of any sort of names 8,000 years ago? After all, you're appealing to tradition.

BobVigneault · #16 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:27 AM

Well said Thomas. I agree totally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

Bob,

I think you are on the right track. The practice in our culture was developed through English Common Law which is customs derived from Biblical law.

The man is the covenantal head of the family, a woman takes a man's last name because she is transfered from her father's household to her husband.

The modern propensity of rejecting a husbands name, or attempting to play the father against the husband in hyphenated last names, is sinful and a rejection of the creation mandate. The latter is probably more common, as in the Rodham-Clinton example above. Who has dominion over this woman - her father or husband? I would interpret it to be neither, and I think that is the whole point of why the feminist culture advocates that.

Seb · #17 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

Since then she's tried to talk me into changing our last name a couple of times, for the sake of our daughter of course.

I take it you give your wife the option of picking the kid's names

She picked the first name, I picked the middle, God picked the last:

"Katie Camille Butts"

Semper Fidelis · #18 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

I took a pretty firm stand at supper last night and really ticked off my 24 year old daughter. I have some good friends, a married couple, and the wife kept her maiden name.

I made the statement that this is a non-negotiable. My argument was that in marriage a man and woman become one flesh and that means there cannot be two names for one flesh - there is ONE name. Furthermore, because the man is the head of the family it is his name that represents the family.

I told her that lots of folks can have novel ideas based on politics and sentiment but my stand has 10,000 years of endorsement and it's non negotiable.

How firm is the ground I'm arguing from? Is there a Biblical argument for the woman taking the man's name? It seems like a no brainer to me but I'd better be sure.

God called the man and woman together by the name Adam.

TimV · #19 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

So the question is, once surnames are introduce, should they reflect the headship and authority of the husband?

Of course, in most circumstances, as it's the clear Scriptural pattern, and as has been pointed out, the household transfer ship comes when the woman is married. And very few mature Christian women would argue with that, although in the case of special last names there can be a pre-nup that allows the woman to have the last say as to the kids names

Sorry, Seb!! As a young man I hoped my name meant the mighty dragon slayer or some such, and when I found out than Vaughan is the feminine form of the word small in Welsh, I was somewhat deflated

mangum · #20 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:32 AM

The assuming of the husband’s last name is a purely cultural convention. I have not, nor ever heard of, a biblical case for this practice. However, I can see how this practice / convention get's its inspiration from biblical principles, i.e., the males being covenant head of household.

That being said, I think it