Gender, Bible and General Revelation

[timfost]

Concerning Prov. 31, I'm not sure exactly what you are contradicting... The husband sitting at the gate would be easier done by an unmarried man. Marriage is not designed to make life easier. This is all I meant.

The desire of a wife should certainly be for her household. This plays out whether she is primarily in the home or working outside. The ideal is not that she works in the home per se, but that she puts her family first. The ideal you promote creates an unnecessary dichotomy between in the home and out of it, thus making working outside an exception to the rule. In home may be the norm practically speaking, but it is because her family is better served in that circumstance in that capacity, not because it is the ideal capacity of serving for a wife.

A future husband has every right to expect that his wife will be domestic to some degree and able to care for the home and the children. If not, she would certainly be a poor choice as a spouse. And a future wife has every right to expect that the husband will sacrificially provide and protect the household.

Did I ever disagree with this?

You then seem bothered that I generally expect that the wife will focus more on “household chores” and the husband will focus on being the “protector and provider.” I cannot fathom what is controversial about this statement. It seems biblical to expect that the wife will take the role of a keeper at home and the husband will be the provider and protector. What are your objections to this exactly? Do you reject male headship?

Did I ever object to this? I've tried only to explain what biblical headship looks like. In this way I'm establishing male headship, not rejecting it.

Perhaps I was unclear, but I feel as if you haven't heard or responded to any of my concerns...

 

[Pergamum]

I would say that being in the home is, indeed, ideal for the wife since she is to be a quiet, discreet, keeper at home. It is not of no consequence, therefore, if she works outside the home for another employer as boss.

 

[Parakaleo]

In chapter 2 of his letter, Paul tells Titus that women should be instructed to be οἰκουργοὺς, a compound word from the two Greek words for home and worker. Some translations have "keepers of the home". Paul gives this instruction as something that falls under the umbrella in verse 3, that they are to teach "what is good".

Combine this with what Paul taught Timothy, that the woman "shall be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control". (1 Tim. 2) God will use childbearing and rearing as a profound means of sanctification in women.

Combine both of these with the strong words of Deut. 22:5, "A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man... whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God." The Hebrew word for what a woman shall not wear is the same word used for David's or Jonathan's armor. In other words, it is an abomination for a woman to deck herself out in such a way that she would be mistaken for a man from more than a few yards away.

As mentioned earlier, even reading these verses as written in Scripture without comment conjures up feelings of injustice or abuse... in the church! How backwards this is. Within the walls of the church, all of these instructions should be received with zeal and relief, knowing that this is the path of blessing, beauty, and dignity for women. When a woman wants to have a career outside the home, the collective response of the church should be, "Dear sister! Why diminish your blessing in this way?" Instead, the collective response is, "You go, girl." When a woman becomes discontent in the home and nags her husband to do more and more work around the house, the collective response from the church should be, "Dear sister! Why disturb the peace of your home in this way?" Instead, the collective response is, "That boy needs to do the dishes!" Just look at this thread. A brother, Pergamum, makes standard arguments for the domesticity of women and is viewed (by some) as skirting abuse or injustice. How did we go from teaching "what is good" to such suspicions?

 

[timfost]

I would say that being in the home is, indeed, ideal for the wife since she is to be a quiet, discreet, keeper at home. It is not of no consequence, therefore, if she works outside the home for another employer as boss.

I agree that, practically speaking, this is the norm. My wife primarily stays at home, though she does some regular volunteer work in our community. I simply want to caution against painting the picture that a working wife/mother is by necessitty occupying herself in something less than ideal. It may be the case, but if she is able to serve her family while doing this (like the Prov. 31 woman), this is not a deviation from the biblical model. Conversely, a man needs to take his family equally into account, though practically speaking this will often times take expression with him working more outside of the home.

Scripture does speak to the specific roles of men and women, but there is significant overlap in the tasks. I'm hoping to take attention away from the norm (what you call "ideal") so that we can focus on intent and purpose, using biblical example which is not only ideal, but mandated. We should define our terms using biblical example, not societal re-interpretation or religious abuse.

A wife is to be good for her husband. Speaking for myself, I need someone who will challenge me and help me become more like Christ, not someone who panders to my weaknesses. The Lord has blessed me with this kind of wife.

 

[Taylor]

As a friend once noted to me, words have gender; people have sex.

What better way to use your thousandth post?

 

[Pergamum]

I would say that being in the home is, indeed, ideal for the wife since she is to be a quiet, discreet, keeper at home. It is not of no consequence, therefore, if she works outside the home for another employer as boss.

I agree that, practically speaking, this is the norm. My wife primarily stays at home, though she does some regular volunteer work in our community. I simply want to caution against painting the picture that a working wife/mother is by necessitty occupying herself in something less than ideal. It may be the case, but if she is able to serve her family while doing this (like the Prov. 31 woman), this is not a deviation from the biblical model. Conversely, a man needs to take his family equally into account, though practically speaking this will often times take expression with him working more outside of the home.

Scripture does speak to the specific roles of men and women, but there is significant overlap in the tasks. I'm hoping to take attention away from the norm (what you call "ideal") so that we can focus on intent and purpose, using biblical example which is not only ideal, but mandated. We should define our terms using biblical example, not societal re-interpretation or religious abuse.

A wife is to be good for her husband. Speaking for myself, I need someone who will challenge me and help me become more like Christ, not someone who panders to my weaknesses. The Lord has blessed me with this kind of wife.

Tim,

You said:

I simply want to caution against painting the picture that a working wife/mother is by necessitty occupying herself in something less than ideal. It may be the case, but if she is able to serve her family while doing this (like the Prov. 31 woman)

I'm sorry but I do believe that a working mother is, in fact, occupying herself in something less than ideal. This may be needed due to finances but it is, nonetheless, a less-than-ideal situation.

I quoted the Lutheran commentator Lenski before, but this is again what he says about this:

Nonetheless, in accord with the spirit of our age that looks in disdain upon the notion that the sphere of a married woman’s work is her home, many in the church have rejected the earlier consensus understanding of “keepers at home.” Instead, to be “keepers at home” is interpreted to mean that a wife and mother is “to be busy at home” (NIV), i.e., she “should not be idle or derelict in fulfilling home duties.”[4] In other words, “keepers at home” does not define the married woman’s calling or the sphere of her work, but is simply an admonition not to neglect her domestic duties. Therefore, a wife and mother may pursue a career outside of the home — as a lawyer, teacher, sales clerk, etc. — as long as she fulfills her responsibilities in the home.

The difference between the traditional interpretation of “keepers at home” and the modern version is considerable.

While the traditional interpretation established the home as the sphere of a married woman’s work and calling, the modern understanding says that the term does nothing of the kind. While the traditional interpretation defined a married woman’s “career” as homemaking, the modern view teaches that a married woman may pursue a career outside of the home as long as she does not neglect homemaking. While the traditional interpretation calls the woman to focus her energy, time, and talents in the home in the service of her family, the modern view says that she is not so “restricted” and may go outside the home for her employment.

Which is the correct understanding?

It is our belief that the traditional interpretation is the correct one. We base this opinion on the meaning of the Greek word translated “keepers at home,” and on the wider Biblical teaching on the roles of the wife and mother.

It appears you interpret the verses about wives being keepers at home in the first way that Lenski describes, and I am pushing for the older traditional approach that Lenski describes second. A mother's career is home and hearth.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

As a friend once noted to me, words have gender; people have sex.

What better way to use your thousandth post?

I can probably think of a dozen or so.

 

[py3ak]

I'm sorry but I do believe that a working mother is, in fact, occupying herself in something less than ideal. This may be needed due to finances but it is, nonetheless, a less-than-ideal situation.

This expectation can be just as destructive of a marriage as the expectation that husbands will do household chores, by the way. A wife who considers her husband a failure because she needs to contribute to the domestic economy also can produce great strain. You can't say expectations destroy relationships (as was done earlier in the thread), and then just swap one set of expectations for another. Perhaps the original statement needs to be qualified?

 

[Miss Marple]

I would say that being in the home is, indeed, ideal for the wife since she is to be a quiet, discreet, keeper at home. It is not of no consequence, therefore, if she works outside the home for another employer as boss.

During the two years I worked full times outside the home (full time, no kids yet) the clash between my boss and my boss (my employer and my husband) was really stressful. Their expectations and demands would conflict and I'd be very torn. I was miserable upon occasion. "Work as unto the LORD," "Submit to your husband," well, there were times I COULD NOT do both. So glad that's over.

Upon reflection I remember working PT (for an elder's wife, no less!) for a couple of years and my husband and she would "fight" through me. Both demanding certain attention, time, respect, etc. That was awful.

 

[Parakaleo]

You can't say expectations destroy relationships (as was done earlier in the thread), and then just swap one set of expectations for another.

Unbiblical expectations destroy marriages. A man with an able-bodied wife expecting his home to be orderly, his children cared for, and a decent meal ready when he comes home without a side of nagging has thoroughly biblical expectations.