Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Family Forum' started by lynnie, Mar 28, 2009.
But this is not necessarily ideal though, is it?
Aaron this is what the world of the bible was like. Think about this as you are reading certain passages.
Now there is a good theological and exegetical answer. I have a picture of women working so that settles it.
So then Steve what does it mean, keepers at home? Would you answer that for us so it is consistent with your pictures.
In His Service.
I agree with Sarah.
That doesn't mean that was ideal either, though. Just because it happened in biblical times does not justify the practice. I think when we look at New Testament teaching we can come to no other conclusion.
I answered this in a previous post - scroll up the page.
I agree that there are roles that God has established. I just don't agree that you can say that "working in the home" is one of them. Otherwise, you end up with, to be consistent, the woman having the gender role of loving the children.
I agree that no Christian is exempt from loving their children, showing kindness and purity. The problem is that an exegesis of Titus 2:5 that makes "working at home" a gender role must, out of consistency, make everything else a gender role, or explain why it is that they are arbitrarly making "working at home" a gender role and not everything else in the context. The fact that those things are obvious, in essence, proves my point.
Also, the reason why Paul is going through group by group is not to address gender roles, but, rather, *Godly behavior.* Paul is telling each group how they are to behave in a manner that is honoring to God, not what their roles are as individual genders.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you completely here. Why exactly does that, out of consistency, make everything else in the passage a gender role as well? That seems like a jump in logic, what am I missing?
Is this what you would teach if you were on the mission field? Would you tell the women they must stop working in the fields, selling their goods at the market or they are disobeying God?
I know, that's why I added the bit about other denominations (and the need for people to learn different).
Sorry, I realize this is a serious discussion for you. Or at least it seems to be. I should not have used that face. I am still processing this for myself. I for one could not leave my child with others unless it was absolutely necessary but I know my husband would step up and get more work if it was necessary but as I have mentioned to you in some of our chats that I do try to seek ways to use my gifts in ways that could be profitable to our family. It is not what drives my gifts mind you but if I am able to profit (like the Proverbs woman) then I will. Especially as what I am gifted in is not easy to be profitable at unless you are really, really talented. Anyways, I am teachable. I am not trying to speak as though I have everything down pat in my understanding and certainly didn't mean to give airs that I do. I am still wrestling with it all. I think both sides have good points. I am not here to win an argument.
Ps..I should qualify "absolute necessity" but no time.
It would depend on the situation. Are they single women? Are they single mothers? Remember, I said that this is not the ideal situation, however, there may be seasons of life where the woman may have to work to support her family if there is no man in the picture. On the other hand, are they married? I would encourage them to stay at home and take care of the family and house. Let the husband provide for his family.
You mean the piper quote you posted?
The dynamic equivalent translation of Titus 2:5 by the niv, “to be busy at home,” catches the force of Paul’s admonition, namely, that a wife should be a diligent homemaker.
Besides I don't see how they made that consistent with the prov 31 woman they go one to say was out of the home buying a field etc.
Not being mean here just looking for clarity and consistency
But if you read about OT Israel, the bible is full of references to men having maidservants who served them. This was a society whose laws were designed by the God. In writing the fourth and seventh commandment he even presumed that men would have maidservant because he told them how to treat their maidservants on the sabbath, and not to covet their neighbours'.
Exodus 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
In an agrarian society she may be out in the fields with the kids. They would not be sitting around the house playing video games and on the computer so she may be outside the home with the kids training them, not in algebra and Latin, but how to grow corn.
You are right, but she is still raising her kids while doing this isn't she? She is still involved in "household affairs."
Who allowed you women to have an opinion anyway?
You are to think and do what we tell you remember.
But can you think of anything to tell me?
Good luck with that!
Stay at home be a good wife/woman and raise your kids.
If more women did that there would not be all these trouble with teenagers.
LOL! OK, but you still haven't told ME anything.
Okay cover up and be quiet
But you haven't bought me my Packer hat yet so still.....
Because, you cannot change your interpretation of a passage between one word and the word directly following it without some kind of justification, or your exegesis becomes arbitrary. Imagine if someone wanted to make the work in Proverbs 31 a gender role, but then ignored the working at home. That would be arbitrary. When you do exegesis, you have to be consistent from word to word, phrase to phrase, sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph, and narrative to narrative. If you take one word to be referring to a gender role, and then, without any justification, take the word next to it to not be referring to a gender role, then the appropriate question to ask is why it is that you take one word to be a gender role, but, the very next word in the list, you will not take to be a gender role.
I am not saying that there isn't a reason. It is just that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to use this passage as defining a gender role. I have not been convinced that this not arbitrary.
While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man must to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home.
Proverbs 31 is clear that earning income is one of the ways a godly wife helps her husband. There might be some debate as to how much of it was done away from home etc, but I think the principle is clear that that is one of God's approved ways for a woman to be a helper to her husband, and as such there is no compromise of his role as provider if he is doing his reasonable best in his own profession/trade/business.
Also, it is primarily fathers whom God has tasked with training children. Both Eph 6:4 and Col 3:21 explicitly single out fathers, not "parents". As such, there is nothing inherently godly about a man working 12+ hours and never being around for his children just to prevent the wife from having to work. The father needs time with his children, wife, church and a myriad of other duties so as long as he is doing his reasonable best and work hard at earning money, I see nothing biblically wrong with him wanting his wife to help him in earning income.
I was discussing this exact scenario with a friend of ours. His comment was that when dad is working two and three jobs for an extended period of time that "The father is in sin at that point. How can he be head of the household when dad is NEVER home?"
Again, there are ways to do this and still work part time (I'm currently looking for a job that is a different shift than my husband's...simply because I have to). It's also not good for the husband to be gone entirely (on the road, 2 jobs if it keeps him totally away from home), as the kids need the male influence as well as the female influence. A major problem with kids is in not having a father around. I've seen this both with kids raised by single parents and with kids who have a father on the road.
Agree, over here if you are a guy you do not even need an education to take care of children, they will pay you 22$ an hour just to play and simply be there, for just that reason of needing more male figures
To support what sort of lifestyle? I know those couples who both work and can 'barely make ends meet' in their 3,400 sq ft home with 2 SUV's in the driveway, kids in music lessons, soccer, etc. and cable TV on the big screen.
Don't get me wrong, lifestyle is a 'liberty' issue to a point, and I realize that most are not in excess, but I see a lot of idiocy in my business.