William V. Beasley
Boca Raton, Florida
While buying her daughter a two piece bathing suit, which by her own description, began TWO INCHES BELOW HER DAUGHTER'S NAVEL, a mother (also a member of a conservative congregation of the family of God), knowing her husband would not approve, encouraged her daughter to defy her father by saying, "Your daddy can't fight both of us ! " Being a loyal American I am all in favor of motherhood, Old Glory, and apple pie, but, being a child of God, I am more in favor of husbands being the head (master) of the house, with children and wives being in subjection thereunto. In all seriousness, I fear that this mother has done her daughter a grave injustice; yea, even to the point of sinning against her own daughter.
FIRST, she has encouraged her daughter to sin (I Tim. 2:9) by exposing herself to the public eye in IMMODEST APPAREL. Surely, no one but a mother would say that being bare TWO INCHES BELOW THE NAVEL is modest! Brethren, my BVD's cover more! Another mother said she thought no more of seeing young girls in two piece bathing suits than she did of "seeing the bare bottom of a baby." (I am sure my fellow parents can readily appreciate her comparison. I have absolutely no doubts that this mother can look at her daughter in a two piece bathing suit and see no more evil than in looking at the bare bottom of an infant, BUT, to many teenage boys (older men too), her daughter is not little Miss Pure and Innocent, but is someone they would like to "make" (a potential sex partner)!!!
These men and boys are reacting normally to the sight of a nude or near nude body of a young woman. Most women, mothers who should know better included, have no comprehension of how easily the male is sexually aroused. I KNOW -- and so do all other normal men who are not ashamed to admit it what the sight of an attractive woman in a two piece bathing suit can cause in the heart of man.
SECOND, she has given her approval for her daughter to disobey her father. By heeding her mother the daughter sins against her father and against God. "Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing in the Lord" (Col. 3:20}. The word here rendered "obey" means "to listen, attend.., to submit, to obey..." (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words Vol. III, pg. 124). This cannot be done while dressing contrary to the expressed wishes of one's father. In a case such as this, when parents disagree, whom should the' children obey? Our first duty is to God (Acts 5: 29), even at the expense of both parents. Next comes the father! Wives are to "be in subjection to their own husbands..." (Tit. 2:5). W. E. Vine, in defining the Greek word, HUPOTASSO, here translated "subjection" (ASV), and "obedience to" (KJV) wrote, "primarily a military term, to rank under (hupo, under, tasso, to arrange), denotes . . . (b) in the Middle or Passive Voice, to subject oneself, to obey, be subject to..." (W. E. Vine, Vol. IV, pg. 86). Anyone who has even been in the service know what it means to "rand under" someone else. The Mother is to "rank under" the Father! I am reminded, when I think of this incident, of Rebekah's helping Jacob sin against his father, Isaac (Gen. 27).
THIRD, she has taught her daughter, by example, that husbands are not the head of the wife (Eph. 5:23), and that wives do not need to obey (be in subjection to) their own husbands (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5, see definition (HUPOTASSO) above; I Pet. 3:1). This article could be extended to deal with the father's obligation to "fight both of us," BUT that is another subject.
A third title for this article might very well have been: Sarah! Sarah! Where Are You? "For after this manner aforetime the holy women also, who hoped in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord..." (I Pet. 3:5-6).
TRUTH MAGAZINE XIV: 16, pp. 8-9
February 26, 1970
