"But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed (Titus 2:1-5)."
Coming
from the mouth of a male specimen of the human race, what I am about to express
might incur the wrath of the feminists, as well as those who fallow within the
mire of pragmatism and secular humanism. I say unashamedly that women ought to
be diligent homemakers, and this statement is especially directed at those who
are Christian wives and mothers. It is fairly unimaginable for a mother to find
time to educate and care for her child, and at the same time, manage her
household and hold a full-time job. But this describes exactly the cultural
phenomenon within this country and perhaps for most developed nations as well.
Singapore is one of those countries that give little or no regard to biblical
roles of male and female, husbands and wives. As long as the mother can
contribute substantially to the economy by working outside the home, it is
inconsequential to the nation if the children are taken care of by the
parents-in-law, the domestic helper, or Rufus the Labrador Retriever. After
all, is it not convenient to plop the toddler onto the sofa in front of the
goggle box, and allow Barney or Harry Potter to feed the gullible mind of the
prepubertal lad? In the mean time, daddy and mummy have to feed the
condominium, the V6 engine, and the Visa bills commensurate with the lifestyle
choice of the average Singaporean, Christian parent. And the formative years of
the Singaporean, Christian child are built around the television, the maid, the
family pet, and his cussing friends from the neighborhood school. But this is
all acceptable and manageable, as long as the family receives the blessings of
health and wealth allegedly indicative of God’s approval upon the
materialistic, carnal, and self-seeking Singaporean family. Of course, the
children must remember to be in their "Sunday’s best" behavior. The
show will go on, but only for two hours during church service, and after which,
things will return to the usual routine of maid, money, and Sunday matinee.
Lea and Griffin have rightly commented that, "It is possible that in the
preaching of the gospel, with all of its implications for Christian freedom
(variously interpreted) and equality in Christ, the God-given order of
authority within marriage and the home life was becoming confused and
compromised." (T. D. Lea and H. P. Griffin, The New American
Commentary: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, p. 302). Likewise, the Danvers Statement
expressed concerns regarding "the widespread ambivalence regarding the
values of motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many ministries
historically performed by women."
But one might ask, "Where do we find the teaching within the Bible that
the mother or wife should be a homemaker?" Inevitably, this is found in
Titus chapter two, and particularly, verses 4 and 5 (cf. Proverbs 31 and 1 Tim
5:14). There is little debate amongst conservatives that the Pastoral epistles
are authoritative for the church today. I must also clarify that Paul is not
requiring the wife or mother to be confined to her home. In other words, I am
not saying that the woman cannot work in any capacity within the workforce, and
that she must be placed under house arrest. What I am saying is that Paul is
emphatic that the married woman must be the manager of the home. Her greatest
responsibilities lie with her home, her children, and of course, her husband.
The keyword here is "vocational homemaking" in the Danvers Statement. To
attempt to wrestle with Paul’s teaching in Titus 2 by asking, "How many
hours of work may the mother work outside her domain of vocational
homemaking?", or "Does the Bible state a particular time limit for
secular work, beyond which the mother disqualifies herself as a homemaker?",
or "Is a mother still a homemaker if she is working a certain number of
hours outside her home?", is really a red herring.
The emphasis of Paul seems to be the vocation of the mother.
To be a homemaker, the mother’s vocation ought to be that of homemaking. This
tautology is paradoxically necessary, as there are certain Christian women who
argue that having a full time job outside of home does not disqualify one as a
homemaker. These ladies contend that, since their greatest priority and desire
is for their home, and that they have tried their best to ensure that the home
is in order, they are essentially still homemakers. This is despite the fact
that they are full-time executives, managers, doctors, nurses or other kinds of
professionals. To turn this argument around, is it not logical to say that,
since their vocation is that of a full-time manager, doctor or nurse, they are
not homemakers, but vocational managers, doctors or nurses who are incidentally
part-time homemakers? Just as the Bible does not give the specific job
specification of a vocational homemaker, Paul did not feel it necessary to
restrict the amount of time spent in the home by the homemaker. This is
because, as a matter of clear logic, a vocational homemaker has for her
vocation homemaking, and not full-time nursing or doctoring.
Paul’s instructions concerning the "younger women" are clear. They
are "to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be
discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that
the word of God be not blasphemed." Whether the exegete might categorize
these qualities into two or three groups is not the point. The point is that
these instructions are not the divine suggestions of an inspired misogynist.
These are didactic commandments of the Voice of One who speaks from the
heavenly throne. These are the roles of the woman according to our Creator’s
design and good will. God’s will for the younger women is to be sober, to love
their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at
home, good, and also to be obedient to their own husbands. Conversely, to be
indiscreet, unchaste, or to be unloving towards their husband and children is
to be against the will of God. Similarly, it is against the will of God to reject
the vocation of a homemaker for married women, and especially, for those who
are mothers.
Again, some might ask, "How young is young?" It seems that Paul’s
perception of young widows, as opposed to older ones (1 Tim. 5:9-11), consists
of those who are below sixty of age. Happily, this might be an adequate
solution according to the principle of analogia fidei (WCF,
I:9). So, the aged women are to teach the younger women (or those below sixty
years old) concerning the God-ordained roles of a woman within the family
(Titus 2:4-5). William Mounce notes that the behavior of these godly young
women "contrasts with the conduct of the younger Ephesian widows who were
lazy and ran from house to house (1 Tim. 5:13)." (Mounce, Pastoral
Epistles, p. 411). In the present society, the younger women are seldom
lazy. Contrariwise, the younger female executives run from office to office,
and from job to job in a bid to be prosperous.
One of those words that grate against the ears of the feminist is
"oikourgous" or "homemaker" found in Titus 2:5. This word
is derived from the Greek words "oikos" and "ergo(n)."
"Oikos" means a house, a dwelling, and by metonymy, a household or
family, while "ergo(n)" means "work." "Oikourgous"
thus has the meaning of "house-worker," "home-worker," or
"one who works at home." As opposed to the variant reading
"oikourous," "oikourgous" is the preferred reading by
Lackmann, Tischendorf, and Alford. Textually, it is the more difficult reading
because of its rarity. And it is understandable why the feminist hates the
vocation of an "oikourgous," because this word literally means
"working at home" or "busy at home." Some commentators join
the next word "good" or "agathas" with
"homemaker" to mean "good housewives." For example,
Dibelius and Conzelmann state, "The two words [oikourgous] and [agathas]
should be taken together and translated ‘fulfill their household duties
well.’" (Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 141).
Nevertheless, most translators and translations take these two words separately.
The variant reading "oikourous," on the other hand, is derived from
the Greek words "oikos" and "ouros." The word
"ouros" refers to a guardian or keeper, and implies direct oversight
and responsibility for something. "Oikourous," therefore, has the
nuance of "one who actively watches over a household and family."
This "housekeeper" sees to it that the husband and children are
appropriately cared for, and the home maintained in good order. No matter which
variant is preferred, one thing is for certain: it is impossible, be it
exegesis or eisegesis, to do away with the thrust and overtone of the word
"oikourgous" or "oikourous." Most commentators, including
the Puritan scholar Matthew Poole and the Lutheran exegete R. C. H. Lenski,
agree with this understanding of the role of the married woman.
Here, I would add a word of caution. George W.
Knight aptly observes that "some Christians have interpreted Titus 2:5
(“workers at home,” nasb) to mean that any work outside the
home is inappropriate for the wife and mother. But the fact that wives should
care for their home does not necessarily imply that they should not work
outside the home, any more than the statement that a “overseer” in the church
should “manage his own household” (1 Timothy 3:4–5) means that he cannot work
outside the home. In neither case does the text say that! 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. ... Furthermore, we must realize
that the emphasis on the home is the very point of the
Proverbs passage. The woman in Proverbs works to care for her family and to
fulfill her responsibility to her family (cf., e.g., verses 21 and 27). She
does this not only for her children but also to support her husband’s
leadership role in the community (verse 23). She is seeking the good of her
family." (Knight, “The Family and the Church: How Should
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Work out in Practice?,” in Recovering
Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 348).
The married woman’s household will always be her priority; it is her domain of
work and responsibility. She is to commit her time and energies to the
management of the home, and to the nurture, care, and education of her
children. This is inevitably a career all in itself. Whatever supplementary
work performed outside the home by her should not detract from this primary
responsibility and vocation of homemaking. Kenneth Wuest reinforces the fact
that, "‘Keepers at home" is oikourgos, "caring for the home,
working at home.’" (Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament).
And
for the woman to be a keeper at home is not a cultural bias of Paul. As Knight
has aptly argued, "Certainly for a wife and mother to love her husband and
children and be sensible, pure, and kind (vv. 4-5) are intrinsically right and
not just norms of first-century culture. It appears quite arbitrary, then, to
single out the requests that women be homemakers and be subject to their
husbands (v. 5) as something purely cultural. They are treated on a par with
the other items in this list, and elsewhere Paul defends the latter of these
two as a creation ordinance in the face of a cultural situation that wanted to
go in the opposite direction (1 Cor. 11 :3ff.)." (George W. Knight
III, The Pastoral Epistles, 317). If homemaking is a
cultural bias of the Apostle Paul, then one has to accept the fact that virtues
such as being discreet, chaste, and loving are similarly cultural preferences
of first-century Christianity. Perhaps we should remain consistent and swiftly
dispose ourselves of the entire requirements of Titus 2:4-5.
Other biblical texts likewise corroborate the
testimony of Titus 2:4-5 concerning the role of wives and mothers. Knight is
quick to note that "the care and management of the home and children is
another area in which Christians need to implement Biblical principles
carefully. The Scriptures present the direct management of the children
and the household as the realm of responsibility of the wife and mother. First
Timothy 5:14 says that wives are “to manage their homes” (NIV). The
Greek word oikodespoteō, which is rendered “manage,” is a very
forceful term." The authoritative Greek lexicon BDAG explains that the
verb means to "manage one’s household" and to
"keep [the] house." Knight continues, "Proverbs 31
indicates some of the many ways in which this management is carried out (cf.,
e.g., verses 26 and 27: “She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of
kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, and
does not eat the bread of idleness,” NASB)." (Knight, “The Family and the Church: How
Should Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Work out in Practice?,” in Recovering
Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 350)
My
dear sister-in-Christ, if you are married, your primary responsibilities are to
manage the home, nurture your children, and be a helpmate for your husband.
Your husband has complementary roles, and he is to be a spiritual leader,
protector, and provider for your children and yourself. While your husband is
away at work to bring back the bread and butter, you are to ensure that the
home is in order. Do you think that your children are best educated and taught
by your parents-in-law, the maid, or the child-care centre? Which of these
options provide godly care and counsel for your children’s growing minds?
When both husband and wife fulfill their appropriate, biblical roles as father and mother, the
family is functioning according to the design of our most-wise God. The husband
can work with a peace of mind knowing that his children are in the good hands
of his able wife. Likewise, the wife need not fret at work, wondering whether
the domestic helper or her parents-in-law have disciplined, fed, or taught her
children. In like manner, she will not have the surprise of hearing the first
cuss-word from her toddler’s mouth, which is acquired through the diligent
observation of quarrels between grandpa and grandma. Do allow me to ask you
this question, "What would be the very first word you would like to hear
from your child’s mouth?" "Would it be something you have taught him,
or would it be something learnt from the other carers?"
Ultimately, there is a very good reason why Paul had given us these prescribed
duties or roles for the married woman. And that reason is found in Titus 2:5b,
"that the word of God be not blasphemed." Sometimes, believers
dishonor God and His Word, not by the evil that they have done, but by the good
that they have failed to do. As James said, "Therefore to him that knoweth
to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin (Jas 4:17)." The world
judges the Christian faith not by its theological richness or accuracy, but by
the lives its professors live. In other words, unbelievers learn about our
Savior Jesus Christ, not by the testimony of Scripture alone, but also by the
testimonies and lives of those who profess to believe in Him. "Show me
your redeemed life and I might be inclined to believe in your Redeemer,"
declares the German Philosopher Heinrich Heine.
Therefore, within a society that decries the God-ordained roles for the woman,
it is paramount that the Christian lady is convicted to live out the
commandments of Scripture. When the world sees that there are actually very
little differences in attitude and behavior between the heathen woman and the
professing Christian mother, what testimony is there left for the world to
behold? While the heathen woman strives to earn more money at the expense of
her home and children, the Christian mother does likewise. While the heathen
mother spends most of her time outside the household at the workforce, the
Christian mother does likewise. While the heathen mother leaves her children to
the care of God-hating pagans, the Christian mother does likewise. While the
heathen mother leaves the indoctrination and education of her children to
God-hating teachers, the Christian mother does likewise. It is of little
wonder, then, that the Church has now lost her testimony to the unbelieving
world. Even as the Church continues to bicker about fine theological
difficulties and nuances, the pagans laugh at our disintegrating covenant
families, executive Christian mothers, and rebellious children.
Dear Lord, may you give faith to the Christian father and mother to fulfill
their respective roles within the covenant home, and may the covenant children
be raised in godly counsel. And this is for the sake of the testimony of the
Church, and for your Son’s sake, amen.
