Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 47 of 47

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post

    Here are some examples of the basic way of surnaming a married woman:


    Notice in each case, that the "second name" to describe who this woman is identifies the woman with her husband; this is the function of our surname, and reflects Eve's identity as Mrs. Adam, and the church's identity as the Mrs. The Lamb.
    Thanks for correcting me. (That's why I added "right?" at the end of my sentence. I guess I should edit it to say "wrong!")
    Kim G
    Mitchell Road Presbyterian Church
    Greenville, SC

    Teach me Your way, O LORD; I will walk in Your truth; Unite my heart to fear Your name.
    Psalm 86:11

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Archlute View Post
    I always get a kick out of the false dichotomy brought about when people attempt to argue that something is either cultural and therefore of little consequence or biblical and therefore we should take it more seriously. Culture is never neutral, it is either more biblical or less biblical in how it has been influenced. Dismissing something as being unimportant to change/reclaim under the guise of it being "merely a part of Western culture, etc." shows more the negative impact of modern missiology than it does a Christian view of culture. That view would say, "It is both Western and correct, because the Western view is, in this instance, founded on a Christian view of life while the Asian culture is wrong at this point, because it is a cultural practice founded on principles that are devoid of Christian knowledge."
    I understand what you're saying. However, you can only take it so far. What you are presenting I would consider a "false dichotomy"=everything is either Christian or non-Christian. In ancient Asia, women wore pants and men wore robes. In the West, men wear pants and women (traditionally) wear skirts. Neither is a Christian vs. non-Christian view of life. It's just . . . clothing styles. Same with types of food eaten, traditional music styles, etc. Unless maybe you wouldn't consider this neutral.

    In the Bible, I would have been called Kim, daughter of Ken. Upon getting married, I STILL would have been Kim, daughter of Ken, not Kim, wife of Josh, right? So maybe the biblical precident is that the daughter retains the name of her father.
    No, you would still have been called Kim, the wife of Josh; see Gen. 24:15, 36:10, etc.

  3. #43
    Guess I got there a bit late.

  4. #44

    I took it as a question, and my response more of an answer than correction, but thanks for confirming your intent



    Quote Originally Posted by Kim G View Post
    Thanks for correcting me. (That's why I added "right?" at the end of my sentence. I guess I should edit it to say "wrong!")
    Adam B., Old Dominion, RPCNA

    Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile

  5. #45
    Hate it when that happens!

    It is nice when two responses are the same though...

    Quote Originally Posted by Archlute View Post
    Guess I got there a bit late.
    Adam B., Old Dominion, RPCNA

    Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Not that it realy mattered to me at the time, but when my wife and I married, she took my name and kept her middle name dropping her maiden name entirely.

    She's quite comfortable with that discision and as we have grown more covenantal over the years she finds it to be appropriate as she is no longer under her father's headship but mine.

    Just the way things have worked out in the Jacobs' household anyway.
    Donald Jacobs
    Roanoke VA.
    Covenant Reformed Episcopal Church.

    Cum vero infirmor tunc potens sum.

  7. #47
    Johnnie Cochranesque
    Is that one in the lexicon yet?


    [B][I]These toadies just keep holdin' me down, man! [/I][/B]:D

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
About us
The PuritanBoard exists to promote robust discussion of theology in a Confessionally Reformed context. The modern trend of short statements of faith belies the many places where the Scriptures teach with great clarity. Though our respective Reformed confessions sometimes disagree, we believe that Churches have been given the gifts of teachers and elders to lead to the unity of the faith and the result of that unity is a Confessional Church confessing together: "This is what the Scriptures teach." The Confessions are secondary to the authority of Scripture itself but they arise out of Scripture as a standard exposition of the Word of God.