In Proper Perspective: Fathers and Daughters
Against the background of the particular stress some Christian groups apply to the relationship between fathers and daughters, as well as the claim that the headship verse of 1 Cor 11:3 places daughters under the authority of their fathers in the same way a wife is under the authority of her husband, I searched Scripture for what it has to say about father-daughter relationships, trying to find biblical backup for the above stress and claim. The result of my research is that there is no such thing as a special authority a father has over his daughters that would resemble that of a husband over his wife, and that making a father the guardian of his daughter’s purity is a modern, not a Scriptural approach.
Before addressing the topic more specifically, let me say a few introductory words about the responsibility that YHVH’s Torah places on the parents when it comes to raising their children properly.
“Train a child in the way he [should] go; and, even when old, he will not swerve from it.”
Proverbs 22:6“These words, which I am ordering you today, are to be on your heart; and you are to teach them carefully to your children. You are to talk about them when you sit at home, when you are traveling on the road, when you lie down and when you get up.”
Deuteronomy 6:7-8
Scripture clearly places the task of educating children not into the hands of some institution, but into the hands of the parents. They are called to raise their children properly, i.e., according to YHVH’s law and precepts, so that they may not be a burden or even an evil to the brethren community when they come of age. You see this responsibility reflected also in the following verses:
“If a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey what his father or mother says, and even after they discipline him he still refuses to pay attention to them; then his father and mother are to take hold of him and bring him out to the leaders of his town, at the gate of that place, and say to the leaders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he doesn’t pay attention to us, lives wildly, gets drunk.’ Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death; in this way you will put an end to such wickedness among you, and all Isra’el will hear about it and be afraid.”
Deuteronomy 21:18-21“A congregation leader must be above reproach, he must be faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, orderly, hospitable and able to teach. He must not drink excessively or get into fights; rather, he must be kind and gentle. He must not be a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, having children who obey him with all proper respect; for if a man can’t manage his own household, how will he be able to care for God’s Messianic Community?
1 Timothy 3:2-5“A leader must be blameless, husband to one wife, with believing children who do not have a reputation for being wild or rebellious. For an overseer, as someone entrusted with God’s affairs, must be blameless – he must not be self-willed or quick-tempered, he must not drink excessively, get into fights or be greedy for dishonest gain.”
Titus 1:6 -7
If a person turns out to be unruly and insubordinate, a glutton and a drunkard, it falls back on the parents. The adult child’s behavior proves that the parents were unable to raise their child properly, and the consequences according to YHVH’s Torah, as depicted in Deu 21, are dire. Mind you, we are talking about adult children here who are gluttons, drunkards, insubordinate, and deaf to reproach, just like Paul talks about adult children of “overseers”. The education must be finished, the children of age and accountable for their actions before Deu 21 will apply, and a person should not, according to Paul, become an overseer before his children, all of them, are of age and have shown that they are not departing from the way in which they were raised. Otherwise it would be impossible to determine if a man has been leading his house well, i.e. if he meets the requirements.
All of this being said, and notwithstanding the fact that it is certainly not wrong to impart on your children the importance of purity in mind, spirit and body, we do not find a special relationship between father and daughter being spelled out in Scripture that would justify reading the headship verse of 1Cor 11:3 as more universal, i.e. not directed to the relationship of husband and wife in particular, but to the relationship of fathers and daughters as well. Some present day Christians, however, stress the “headship” role of the father over the daughter (just like over his wife) and somehow make the father the guardian of his daughter’s purity. While it might be a worthy goal and certainly biblical practice that a daughter of age enters marriage untouched, having her pledge her virginity to her father, thus making him the guardian of her purity, is not a biblical approach.
Looking at YHVH’s Torah as well as practical examples of father-daughter relationships in Scripture, we cannot conclude that a father is the head of his daughters as he is the head of his wife. He and his wife are responsible for sons and daughters as described in the beginning, and both bear the burden of admitting to failure in the worst case scenario of Deu 21, but there is no indication anywhere in Scripture that children of age are to wear signs of their father’s authority on their heads like wives do, neither girls nor boys. To infer this from Paul’s headship verse means to add to Scripture what YHVH’s Torah does not bear out, neither in this verse nor in its entirety.
The only chapter in the Scriptures which describes a scenario in which a father and a husband have explicitly similar responsibilities over a daughter or wife is Numbers 30 where we find that fathers and husbands can nullify a daughter’s or wife’s vow on first notice, if they choose. The type of vow we are talking about here is specified a chapter before, which sets the context so that chapter 30 cannot be read as pertaining to any vow, but just to specific vows. The vows and pledges in question are those made in connection with freewill offerings, and so, to protect a family from financial ruin or a girl of age or a wife from personal ruin, fathers and husbands have the right to nullify their daughter’s or wife’s silly vows, and the Lord will forgive the woman. To conclude from these chapters that fathers and husbands have similar authority over daughters and wives generally speaking would be pulling them out of context in a way that, again, is not supported by the totality of Scripture. The concern that is expressed in chapter 30 is that of economic ruin brought over the family by a silly pledge made by a daughter or wife, and the head of the family has the right to protect his household from such ruinous vows.
Pertaining to a daughter’s purity in particular, we find only few statements in the case laws :
We read that the physical purity of a girl is something a husband can expect upon marriage. Basically, he pays the bride price for it. (Exo 22:16; Deu 22:16-21 for how to deal with fraud in this regard)
Furthermore, we read that daughters are not to be made prostitutes for it will be the downfall of the land, and that a daughter of a Levite will pay with her life for whoredom because her behavior falls back on her father, as we saw above, and profanes him. (Lev 19:29 and Lev 21:9)
But apart from the general rules on who is not to lie with whom, this is about all we find concerning a daughter’s purity, and the father does not play a special role in either of these other than receiving money for his daughter’s ruined reputation according to Deu 22, if she was accused falsely. Since the bride price was usually given to the bride as her private fortune to fall back on should she be dealt with deceitfully, this was “extra money” for the father that served as reparation for the fouled name of his daughter. So much for what the Law says about the matter.
The only practical example of a daughter’s physical purity being taken without the parents’ consent we find in the “Dinah-incident” in Gen 34, and the ones who seem to be most upset about Dinah being defiled are her brothers (Gen 34:7). They deal deceitfully with Dinah’s seducer and his people and revenge their sister in such a fashion that their father Jacob rebukes them for putting Jacob and his whole household in jeopardy over it (Gen 34:30). The possible ruin of the whole family is a more important matter to Jacob that should not have been risked just to revenge the defilement of his daughter Dinah.
Other practical examples are even worse that Jacob’s reaction: We find two incidents in which fathers offer their virgin daughters to a mob of sodomites in order to protect their guests (Gen 19:8 and Jdg 19:24). Not that these are examples to emulate, but they certainly show that it is not exactly biblical to elevate the father-daughter relationship to something that has as one of its main features the protection of the daughter’s purity. Biblical fathers have shown to place another concern far over their daughters’ purity, namely that of the safety of their household including guests residing under their roof.
If there are any “special” relationships between one parent and daughters or sons, they are between mothers and daughters as well as fathers and sons:
We find the proverb “like mother, like daughter” quoted in a negative sense in Eze 16:44 and explained in Eze 16:45, and we find that son will turn against father, daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law in Mic 7:6, and then again in Mat 10:35 and Luke 12:53, each time linking the father to the son and the daughter to the mother, or daughter-in-law to the mother-in-law, and Micah and the New Testament verses implying that there would be a close connection between father and son/ mother and daughter, and that even those connections will be severed (above scripture).So if you absolutely wanted to see a “special” relationship between one parent and a child, it would be to a child of the same sex as the parent. From a practical standpoint, this seems logical, as girls will have learned their skills mainly from their mother and boys theirs from their father. The Titus 2 woman might be a mother too, but more likely, this particular guidance is directed towards fellow brethren whose children are raised already and who have the time to help the younger ones out – the grandmothers, if you will. But over all, and certainly in terms of purity or authority, children are under the authority and responsibility of both parents, with the wife and mother herself being under the special authority of her husband, and the husband and father responsible for the whole house.
In conclusion, any attempt to create special relationships between fathers and daughters that place particular stress on the daughter’s purity, or on the father’s special authority over his daughters that should be shown by the daughters wearing a covering on their heads, might very well be well meant and give the daughters the feeling of a special bond to the father, but there is no biblical background for such a practice. Attempts to argue for such practices from Scripture have to rely on general statements while ignoring the particulars.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The commands found in the Scriptures on a child obeying their authority is directed towards the father AND the mother, not just the father. The father-daughter relationship should be no more intimate than the one between mother and daughter. As young ladies keeping our hearts for one man, that we will become one flesh with, we cannot afford to jeopardize this goal in giving it away to anyone, including our father in this way.
About The Author
Post topics: biblical living, children, christian life, daughters, fathers, headcovering, husband, marriage, men, modern, mother-daughters, practical, prophets, purity, relationship, scripture, Torah: first five books, wives, women, YHWH-God
I wonder though, if unruly children can always be 100% contributable to the parents? I agree that the parents are absolutely repsonsible for teaching their children to live lives of honor, worship and lead first by example. But doesn’t the actual heart change (Ezekial 36:26) rest in the Lord’s capable hands? He alone can change a heart of stone to a heart of flesh.
Sometimes the Lord gives parents difficult children in order to keep the parents diving to the foot of the cross in total desperation for Christ. God alone decides when and if children will “get it.” I’m not interested in raising children who will obey me on the outside but whose hearts are far from me. I want their hearts to get it and then have them act out of a heart that loves and honors God and me as their parent.
Just thinking out loud…I absolutely agree that God has given parents the authority and task of raising Godly children, but ultimately, even the best, most Godly parent can’t force a child’s heart to change.
What do you think? I know I’m only responding to a small part of your article.
[Reply to this Comment]
Mrs Avigail's reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Brooke,
Thank you for your comment. Let me be brief:
Scripture is clear about the responsibility of the parents. There are no exceptions mentioned, and Scripture says that your child will not depart from the way he should go if he is trained up in the right way (Proverbs 22:6). This is a an assertion, a promise, if you will: Do it right and the outcome will be a faithful (adult) child.
You are certainly right that it is Yahweh’s sovereign grace that changes hearts. We see, however, what was expected of the parents of unruly and unrepentant (adult) children in Deu 21. This passage, incidentally, also shows that Yahweh’s sovereignty includes refusing to change someone’s heart.
As far as love and obedience are concerned: Loving Yahweh means to fear and obey Him. You show Yahweh that you love Him by keeping His commandments (Joh 14:15).
Mrs Avigail
[Reply to this Comment]
Very well written.
It has always bothered me to see Torah observant families with their little daughters-infants even with their head covered. Now I have a great resource to back up what I always believed….the husband is head of his wife-none other,period. A man, as well as woman, has two different roles..parent and spouse. And as you very well put, the father does not exercise any special “headship” over their daughters.
Blessings in Messiah,
Teresa/Navah
[Reply to this Comment]
[...] In Proper Perspective: Fathers and Daughters – How important is the father-daughter relationship? This article explains that it should be no more important than the mother-daughter one and should not have so much stress placed on it. I don’t agree with everything in the article (particularly the part about children departing from the path always being the parents fault), but on this I do agree. [...]
This article is LOVELY. My dad left my mother and I before I was born, not wanting to take responsibility for our family. Nearly every ministry class or Scripture class I have taken since has espoused the belief that a suitor must ask a girl’s FATHER for permission to date/court/marry her. In one of my Bible classes in college, Preparation For Marriage, it was even suggested by a guest speaker that the man should TRACK DOWN the girl’s absent father and ask for his permission. That was just insulting to me. I have a perfectly capable, protective, loving, responsible mother who has poured her entire life into raising me and caring for me – SHE is the appropriate person to ask if a young man desires my hand, NOT a man who has never even met me, nor wanted to share any part of my life! And I have a heavenly Father who protects me, also. I do have a purity ring, and I have promised to remain a virgin until marriage, but neither my father nor my mother pressured me into that – it was my own decision. Thank you for writing this. It sheds Scriptural light on a controversial subject in the church today, and comforts my heart that I am not “out of luck” for simply not having a good earthly father.
[Reply to this Comment]
Wow, lots to think about. Thanks for all the research that obviously went into this. I will have to study it more, but appreciate your post.
I do take issue with the fact that a grown child’s behavior can be brought back to the fact that a parent didn’t raise them right. Ultimately there is man’s free will, and if a son or daughter of say, 25, decided to do something that is against how the parent’s raised them, I don’t see how that can come back on the parents. But like I said, I will have to study this more
Shalom
[Reply to this Comment]
Cattie: Great perspective! As a single mother, I can relate to your mom’s position. While my daughter’s father is in her life, it is part time at best. I am the one who held her when she was sad, or stayed up all night when she was sick.
Ultimately though, it is Yah who I will let do the deciding and giving permission. Thank you for sharing.
[Reply to this Comment]
Stephanie,
Deu 21 places the responsibility to rebuke adult, wayward children on the parents – please note the community aspect of this. Wayward children are a danger to the community, and if they do not listen to the parents’ or the community’s rebuke, the parents , or more precisely, the father is the one who will have to throw the first stone to put the evil away from the brethren, just like the witnesses do in other cases.
Scripture is clear on the issue in many places. You will find plenty of examples in Proverbs that indicate that wayward children are both the grief and the shame of the parents, and Paul upholds having raised the children properly (“by their fruits you shall know them”) as one criteria for elders and deacons. The way adult children behave does indeed fall back on the parents according to Scripture.
And let me paste again what I said earlier:
“Scripture is clear about the responsibility of the parents. There are no exceptions mentioned, and Scripture says that your child will not depart from the way he should go if he is trained up in the right way (Proverbs 22:6). This is a an assertion, a promise, if you will: Do it right and the outcome will be a faithful (adult) child.”
Does that mean that a glutton and drunkard is not responsible for his lifestyle ? Certainly not. It is not the parent who is stoned in Deu 21. But the shame and the grief are on the parents’ side, as well as the responsibility to protect the brethren community from evil brought on by their own children (“Love your neighbor as yourself”).
Incidentally: The post was written with the presupposition that ultimacy lies with YHVH’s sovereign will, word and decree alone.
Mrs Avigail
[Reply to this Comment]