Hyphenated last names

[Bluecheese]

One of our daughters has hyphenated her maiden name and married name. I wish I had done so when I married in the late 60s. Women are equal to men, and no man should tried to lord it over his partner.

 

[ScottA]

One of our daughters has hyphenated her maiden name and married name. I wish I had done so when I married in the late 60s. Women are equal to men, and no man should tried to lord it over his partner.

While all that is true...there is a purpose of names and lordship under God, that we can either respect and support, or disrespect and not support.

I choose to respect and support God's purpose as set forth in the biblical model of marriage and names.

 

[mkgal1]

While all that is true...there is a purpose of names and lordship under God, that we can either respect and support, or disrespect and not support.

I choose to respect and support God's purpose as set forth in the biblical model of marriage and names.

I have no idea where you're getting this idea about "lordship under God" (even that doesn't make sense? That sounds as if we are lording under God. Isn't it His lordship over us?).

Whatever was meant by that........Christ seemed to have a different take on family--especially when He mentioned here about his biological family compared to His spiritual family:

"But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."~Matthew 12:48-50

To me.....the OT speaks of biological descendants of God (Israel) and the NT is all about His spiritual family and the spirit of adoption (which is all a tangent away from the OT....but I wondered where you were going with all this and I just wanted to point that out). Even us taking on a name that represents Christ isn't our sign of unity--our behavior and attitudes are---which has nothing to do with hyphenated sur names.

Anyway....as others have already posted, I'm pretty sure there's too wide of a theological gap for there to be any productive discussion.

 

[ScottA]

I have no idea where you're getting this idea about "lordship under God" (even that doesn't make sense? That sounds as if we are lording under God. Isn't it His lordship over us?).

Whatever was meant by that........Christ seemed to have a different take on family--especially when He mentioned here about his biological family compared to His spiritual family:

"But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."~Matthew 12:48-50

To me.....the OT speaks of biological descendants of God (Israel) and the NT is all about His spiritual family and the spirit of adoption (which is all a tangent away from the OT....but I wondered where you were going with all this and I just wanted to point that out). Even us taking on a name that represents Christ isn't our sign of unity--our behavior and attitudes are---which has nothing to do with hyphenated sur names.

Anyway....as others have already posted, I'm pretty sure there's too wide of a theological gap for there to be any productive discussion.

This is all just blown too far our of proportion. The simple point I have been trying to make is:

If Jesus is Lord of your life, you should show it by doing exactly what He has shown us in His word. That is, the biblical marriage model includes a man and a women with the man being the head of the woman (just as Christ is head of the church)...where the two become One. Which then includes taking on the name of "Christian"...rather than Me-Christ (a house divided).

This is really basic stuff.

 

[mkgal1]

This is all just blown too far our of proportion. The simple point I have been trying to make is:

If Jesus is Lord of your life, you should show it by doing exactly what He has shown us in His word.

....and no where is there any mention of sur names (as it's been posted already: that's a modern thing).

That is, the biblical marriage model includes a man and a women with the man being the head of the woman (just as Christ is head of the church)...where the two become One. Which then includes taking on the name of "Christian"...rather than Me-Christ (a house divided).

This is really basic stuff.

....some of that is assumed [by you] but has nothing to do with the what's written in the Bible. Things that we've settled on do make sense in our own minds (that's why this is all "really basic stuff" in your mind).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Ok...so..you're telling me that my culture does things "wrong" according to "God's law". Please provide chapter and verse.

 

[ScottA]

....and no where is there any mention of sur names

No where did I mention sur names either. I addressed them in the original post as it is applicable to current customs...but regardless, the biblical principal takes precedence.

....some of that is assumed [by you] but has nothing to do with the OT.

Straight out of the books of Genesis and Chronicles...begot, begot, begot. Read your bible.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

And that has what to do with surnames? My parents are listed on my birth certificate. If I had children, my name and my husband's names would be listed. Wouldn't be hard to figure out your family line. IOW...you have yet to come up with a real biblical reason for a woman to change her last name at marriage.

 

[ScottA]

And that has what to do with surnames? My parents are listed on my birth certificate. If I had children, my name and my husband's names would be listed. Wouldn't be hard to figure out your family line. IOW...you have yet to come up with a real biblical reason for a woman to change her last name at marriage.

Please use the "Reply" function. Who are you talking to?

 

[ValleyGal]

Please use the "Reply" function. Who are you talking to?

I believe she is talking to you. I had the exact same thought when I read what you said. You said something to the effect of "man begot man who begot man who begot man..." All that does it trace a male lineage; it does not address women changing their last name to the husband's.

 

[Bluecheese]

While all that is true...there is a purpose of names and lordship under God, that we can either respect and support, or disrespect and not support.

I choose to respect and support God's purpose as set forth in the biblical model of marriage and names.

That is just an excuse to threat women badly. The Biblical treatment of women is terrible!

 

[ScottA]

I believe she is talking to you. I had the exact same thought when I read what you said. You said something to the effect of "man begot man who begot man who begot man..." All that does it trace a male lineage; it does not address women changing their last name to the husband's.

I can't help you if you can't connect the dots: The first women came "out of" man. The lineage of God's people is named by men. Christ (male) is head of the church (female)... All designed by God the Father (male), with a purpose. Whether you like it, see it, respect it, or follow it...or not.

 

[ScottA]

That is just an excuse to threat women badly. The Biblical treatment of women is terrible!

I can't help you if you can't connect the dots: The first women came "out of" man. The lineage of God's people is named by men. Christ (male) is head of the church (female)... All designed by God the Father (male), with a purpose. Whether you like it, see it, respect it, or follow it...or not.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

So again...my cultural tradition of children having hyphenated last names is "unbiblical"? Funny, it's been going on for at least the last 500-600 years or more. You don't like it? I don't care.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I can't help you if you can't connect the dots: The first women came "out of" man. The lineage of God's people is named by men. Christ (male) is head of the church (female)... All designed by God the Father (male), with a purpose. Whether you like it, see it, respect it, or follow it...or not.

That might be a good reason for a CHILD to have the father's last name but does NOT justify a woman taking her husband's last name...so once again you get an F in biblical exegesis

 

[ScottA]

That might be a good reason for a CHILD to have the father's last name but does NOT justify a woman taking her husband's last name...so once again you get an F in biblical exegesis

God decides.

 

[HannahT]

God decides.

This is true. Not ScottA, but God.

 

[HannahT]

I can't help you if you can't connect the dots: The first women came "out of" man. The lineage of God's people is named by men. Christ (male) is head of the church (female)... All designed by God the Father (male), with a purpose. Whether you like it, see it, respect it, or follow it...or not.

There is no dots to follow. It's almost like saying God needs dots to follow, otherwise he can't figure out lineage. It's just plain silly. You are applying cultural rules to something that isn't there.

Jesus warned that people would add to scripture for the sake of tradition. Our tradition here is different in other parts of the world, and in different cultures that follow Christ. You are placing western lenses on something, and sadly it seems you need this demonstration - as you put it - to be comfortable with your view on faith. The bible clearly warns of people that teach merely on human rules.

 

[ScottA]

There is no dots to follow. It's almost like saying God needs dots to follow, otherwise he can't figure out lineage. It's just plain silly. You are applying cultural rules to something that isn't there.

Jesus warned that people would add to scripture for the sake of tradition. Our tradition here is different in other parts of the world, and in different cultures that follow Christ. You are placing western lenses on something, and sadly it seems you need this demonstration - as you put it - to be comfortable with your view on faith. The bible clearly warns of people that teach merely on human rules.

I did not list the things of men, but the things of God. You, on the other hand, hold to your own traditions, the very thing you accuse me of.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I can't help you if you can't connect the dots: The first women came "out of" man. The lineage of God's people is named by men. Christ (male) is head of the church (female)... All designed by God the Father (male), with a purpose. Whether you like it, see it, respect it, or follow it...or not.

You're not married to her. Trust me, she can "connect dots" quite well. If you're not able to see the Lordship of Christ in ALL things, and that ALL fall under HIS Lordship, then there is something wrong with your biblical perspective, not hers.