I think several of you are right…here’s my personal view:
I do believe in literal interpretation of Scripture, and when Titus 2 says to “teach the women to be keepers at home (among other things) so that the WORD OF GOD IS NOT BLASPHEMED” we had better sit up and take notice.
Also notice that the “blaspheming of the Word of God”, I think, refers to what we are teaching. I think we should be teaching young women to be keepers at home…and it is a HARD lesson for some ears to hear.
By the same token, as Terry pointed out, there are times and places (maybe a woman came to embrace this teaching in the middle of a financial crisis) where it is not possible, AT THE MOMENT for her to come home.
If that is the case, though, it should be viewed as a negative situation that should be as temporary as possible.
It’s like I posted about a few days ago–it’s what we’re thinking, and therefore teaching that is the crux of this matter. If we are bringing up girls saying to them, “honey you just do whatever your heart desires”, then we are giving them false teaching. We should be rejoicing with them that the Lord has already given them a WEALTH of things to do from the home…a whole world to which they can minister, generations to raise up like an army. AND, we should be revealing to them the tremendous opportunities and obligations that lie within a keeper’s domain. That’s a BIG job.
But if we find a sister “caught”, we should be gentle with her, giving her truth, and holding her hand at the same time.
Be prepared though…if you say, in any terms, that you feel women should be keepers at home, you WILL be criticized for being judgmental, haughty, and condemning, no matter how gently you say it. But we must keep pointing back to the Scriptures–God said it, not me…no place in history have people ever won popularity contests by speaking the truth of God’s Word. So decide in advance what it is you want!
11 comments
“But if we find a sister “caught”, we should be gentle with her, giving her truth, and holding her hand at the same time.”
“If that is the case, though, it should be viewed as a negative situation that should be as temporary as possible.”
Amen, Kelly. I agree with your position 100%. So often I read blogs that offer NO GRACE to women in these transition period and it breaks my heart. The older I get the more I understand that our truth has to be tempered with love and grace or it will not be well received. That was the point I tried (however unsuccessfully) to make.
Thanks for a thought provoking discussion!
“that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
One possible interpretation for what this means is that the culture Paul and the early church lived in believed that a woman’s place was in the home. A woman out of the home was seen to be a shameful thing.
That isn’t to say that they were right or wrong, but rather, that’s just the way they were then.
So Paul’s advice about women managing their homes lest the word of God be blasphemed may have had to do with his other advice to “be all things to all people.” Paul said that many times in many ways—that the thing to do was to not be offensive, unless one had to be (ie., unless the person was offended by Christ).
I’m not saying that is the only possible interpretation, but it certainly is a strong possible one, especially given the fact that both the Jewish and the Roman cultures were so deeply engrained against women being out of the home.
I’m not sure it’s a wise thing to say that it a woman out of the home *today* is emphatically blaspheming the word of God. It is one possible way of interpreting the passage, sure. But is it the Right Way? I’m not sure about that.
For example, Paul (who wrote Titus) had a woman deliver the gospel of Romans (which was *quite* the journey, then–see Rom.16 for his impressive commendation of this non-homekeeping woman). Jesus had women in his band of disciples that followed Him around, some of them married women, and seemed just fine with it.
Both Jesus and Paul didn’t seem to think that a woman’s place was in the home at all, in other words. I’m a big fan of letting Scripture help us interpret Scripture (because if your interpretation of Titus 2 is correct, then Jesus and Paul were both out of line).
Warmly,
Molly
(sahm homeschooling mom of five)
Molly,
Are you referring to Phoebe in Romans 16? Nothing is written in that passage that would lead us to believe that she wasn’t a homemaker. All it says about her was that she served the church and that she delivered that letter. For all we know, her husband(if she was married) went with her. We can’t read into what is written.
As to Jesus’ women disciples, we can’t read into this either. For all we know, the married ones(if there were for sure married followers) had their husbands right there with them. They may have had no real home-they could have been nomads of sorts, when they followed Christ. We really can’t read into these different passages.
It’s evidant in the Scriptures that it’s the man’s responsibility to go out and provide for the family, whereas the woman is to be at home, serving the household. The virtuous woman that we are to emulate, was clearly a homemaker. Also, we need to take a literal interpretation of Scripture. These commands regarding a woman’s role are just as applicable and commanding today as they were back when they were written. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction and training in righteousness, so that we will be thoroughly equipped for every good work. We cannot pick and choose what commands may or may not have been cultural, and which ones apply to us today. We simply do not have that authority. It’s evidant in some passages, (such as some OT passages) that some of the things that were done were simply cultural. But there’s absolutely nothing that would lead us to believe that these commands regarding a woman being a homemaker were simply cultural and not valid today.
In Him,
Rebekah
I agree, Mrs. Crawford.
Rebekah,
You said,
We cannot pick and choose what commands may or may not have been cultural, and which ones apply to us today. We simply do not have that authority.
[this is said in a warm voice, while sipping coffee]:
Then be consistant with your hermenueutic.
I used to say the same thing you did, above. But the thing is, I *did* pick and choose which Scriptures were cultural, and you are too. For example, the NT records 5 times (or is it 6) that we are told (in command-type language) to, “greet eachother with a holy kiss.” FIVE TIMES. Why do we not obey this Scriptural command, and yet teach that women are in sin who work outside the home, based on ONE verse (that has a plausible other interpretation)?
I guess that’s what bothers me—the inconsistant approach to deciding what’s cultural and what’s not, and yet the trumpeting of “taking Scripture literally.” Yet you are doing just as much interpreting as everyone else.
When you decide that Phoebe probably had a husband with her, you are interpreting and adding into the text what the Bible does not say (nor ever alludes to), because you have already reached a conclusion about what the Bible says. Fine. I think we all do that to some degree. But please don’t add in stuff about how we should just all take the Bible literally, because you just demonstrated that you don’t.
I hope this makes sense, and I don’t say this to be mean or rude. I lived in this camp for a long time, and I never realized just how much inconsistancy was involved in what I believed—how much I was forcing Scripture to fit into my grid (about women), instead of letting Scripture be what it is (as messy and complex as that can be sometimes). The fact is, twice in the NT we have records that Jesus had women who followed Him around on a regular basis. Meaning, they were not home-keepers. And He didn’t try to stop them—rather, they seem to be spoken of in a positive light.
Was He in sin? Was He blaspheming the Word of God (er, Himself)?
If not, then we have to take Paul’s words in Titus with at least as much weight as what Jesus did when He lived. By taking Paul’s words (interpreting them the way you are) and placing them *above* what Jesus did as a daily practice, what are you saying about who you respect more?
I hope that makes sense (and I”m not trying to say that you don’t respect Christ—I’m just trying to point out the inconsistant approach to Scriptural interpretation here). One verse can’t lord over all the others. We have to take all the verses and put them side by side, giving them equal weight, and consider what we’re being taught.
This is why I don’t believe that slavery is God’s ideal, even though if I took a few verses out of the NT and let them stand alone, I could build a Scriptural case FOR slavery. Because those few verses certainly seem to support slavery! But when I let a multitude of verses speak, I learn that the system of slavery is man-made, that it is not an Edenic ideal, and that as a Christian, I am to walk in mutual respect toward my fellow man. Owning him as a slave sure doesn’t fit well within the framework of us all being brothers and sisters of Yahweh, you know?
In the same way, I wish we would be as wise in our approach to what the NT says about women. Take *all* the Scriptures about women and let them stand side by side, Romans 16 alongside Titus 2, etc, instead of taking a few verses and elevating them above all the rest.
My humble opinion,
Molly
When I was younger, my ideal situation would be to be married and keep home, whether I had children or not. My life right now is not that “ideal”, but I am quite happy with where I am. I never wanted to work outside the home, ever. I was raised to be a ‘keeper-at-home’!
Things change… When I married, my husband and I had already agreed that I would work outside the home until our first child is born (his idea more than mine). We need the money (and will after the baby comes in August), but more than that, we both want me to be at home with our baby.
Now, I don’t see my ‘having a job’, so to speak, as dishonoring God. Why? Because the verse in Titus 2 says that we wives are to be ‘subject to [our] own husband’. If you are a ‘working woman’ only because your husband has requested that you have a job (as mine has), then you should honor your husband’s wishes. If you are not in dire straights financially (the only reason I can see for any woman having to work), then find out why it is that your husband would want you to work. Have you become lazy in keeping your home?
Just my ramblings… Thank you, Kelly, for your wonderful blog! =)
That is what Matthew Henry, a famous Bible scholar wrote on the Holy Kiss:
“His salutation: Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss, v. 26. (1Thes.5)Thus the apostle sends a friendly salutation from himself, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, and would have them salute each other in their names; and thus he would have them signify their mutual love and affection to one another by the kiss of charity (1 Pet.5 v. 14), which is here called a holy kiss, to intimate how cautious they should be of all impurity in the use of this ceremony, then commonly practised; as it should not be a treacherous kiss like that of Judas, so not a lascivious kiss like that of the harlot, Prov. vii. 13.
So you see Molly, the accent was not on kissing each other, but on this ceremony being kept holy. Kissing each other was a custom in those days, just like it is still a custom in some countries now, and there were people which abused this ceremony.
Now considering the role of women, the Scriptures are consistant in describing it from beginning to end. We read in Genesis that the woman was created for the man, that after the Fall it was his curse to work by the sweat of his brow for his bread, that the wives had to obey their husbands etc. In prov. 31 we have an OT example of a homemaker, and then in NT we have verses like Titus 2, and others, too. This is not one isolated verse as you are trying to present it. How about the admonition to young widows to marry and guide the house?
You wrote:”By taking Paul’s words (interpreting them the way you are) and placing them *above* what Jesus did as a daily practice, what are you saying about who you respect more?”
Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. There can be no contradiction between the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul, at least if you believe that all Scriptures are divinely inspired. You cannot use a precedent to deny an expressly given command.
Again you use Phebe as an example. She is called a servant of the church – so what? Many women have served the church in the time free from their domestic duties. You seem to think that being a homemaker means being locked in the home 24 hours a day. There are enough housewives doing all sorts of charity and volunteer work out there. I am a housewife and yet I don’t stay at home the whole day.
The Biblical division of labour (men outside home, women at home) has been the foundation of Western civilisation, because it is the foundation of a healthy family. All Christian churches prior to radical feminists taught the same about women’s role, even though they couldn’t agree on many other things. Some churches like the Catholic, allowed women to become nuns and forego marriage, but they still taught that a married woman’s place was in her home and her role was that supportive of her husband.
Finally I don’t see how the society has become much better after we abandoned those traditional roles, do you?
I’m very grateful that women have branched out. Female doctors, therapists, writers; these are ALL essential. How inhumane to imagine a society where only men are the ones to come to with intimate female problems; disgusting. I’m glad most don’t share your views, Sandra.
the focus of the scripture was not so much it being a kiss or a handshake or a hug, but that number one, they were to be sure to greet each other and number two, it was to be holy and not be able to be turned into something impure. Just be sure you greet each other, warmly and with Christian love, not sensually. People make the same mistake with Revelations, getting all concerned about who the 40 elders represented, and missing the fact that they were all bowing down to Christ, which was the main point. People read the Proverbs 31 woman the same way: missing the point that she was guiding and guarding her own home, minding her own business, being careful of waste, being busy. They get caught up in a small detail about how she purchased a field. They get convinced that a woman should sell real estate and be in business outside of the home. They do not realize at the time that fields were common to grow food in, and many people had to buy them…the same way we go to the grocery store. It is something the woman was greatly concerned about. It could have been a small piece of land like a back yard garden–we do not know, but it would not have been a real estate deal like today.
So? Wrangling the Scriptures to keep women out of something like Real Estate would just be ridiculous.
Hello, Molly!
Forgive me for just now responding-we just arrived home from a family conference late last night. 🙂
You said: “For example, the NT records 5 times (or is it 6) that we are told (in command-type language) to, “greet eachother with a holy kiss.” FIVE TIMES. Why do we not obey this Scriptural command, and yet teach that women are in sin who work outside the home, based on ONE verse (that has a plausible other interpretation)?” If you look at the whole counsel of God, it doesn’t have another plausible interpretation. And, it’s not just one verse! You have to take into account this Titus verse, 1 Tim. 5:14, Gen. 3, Prov. 31 and others. And it doesn’t matter how many times a command is issued-a command is a command.
There are areas where some commands are clearly cultural, whereas others aren’t. The one about the holy kiss was obviously cultural-in the US, we don’t greet one another this way. Other cultures still do. However, there’s no reason to think or to even guess that the homemaking commands were cultural. Because, in fact, we have proof that they weren’t just cultural-because, this teaching began in Gen. 3, with the curses. Women working outside the home are burdened with the double curse-something that no man is capable of.
You said: “When you decide that Phoebe probably had a husband with her, you are interpreting and adding into the text what the Bible does not say (nor ever alludes to), because you have already reached a conclusion about what the Bible says.” I never said that I had decided that. I said that it was possible. I wasn’t saying that that was absolutely the case, but that it was a possibility. However, when you first brought the subject of Phoebe up, you did exactly what you are telling me not to-you read into the passage. All the passage said was that she served the church and that she delivered that one letter. The traveling to deliver the letter could have been a one time thing, and she could have been accompanied by her husband. Delivering this letter would be like my mother going on a vacation to deliver a gift to someone. Does this mean my mother’s not a homemaker? Of course not.
You said: “The fact is, twice in the NT we have records that Jesus had women who followed Him around on a regular basis. Meaning, they were not home-keepers. And He didn’t try to stop them—rather, they seem to be spoken of in a positive light.” Please refer to one of the other recent threads, where I responded to this arguement in length. Just one more thing on this subject: these women were not Christians when they first started following Him! So, of course, He would praise them for their service-attaining salvation is more important than obeying a command given strictly to Christians(Titus 2 is given to Christians, not non-Christians, although non-Christians would definitely benefit from obeying this command!).
“One verse can’t lord over all the others. We have to take all the verses and put them side by side, giving them equal weight, and consider what we’re being taught.” I agree fully!
I agree that slavery isn’t a good thing. And I see no where where we could even attempt to Biblically think it is. However, if someone is a slave, or owns slaves, the Bible does offer strict commands as to how this ordeal is to be worked out.
Have a blessed day,
Rebekah