Thanks for that last post. It helped me to understand where you’re coming from a little better. I’m sorry that I’ve had part in drawing you into something that grated against your conscience. And again, I do very much appreciate your consideration for Abigail and me.

Sigh…If you knew ME, you would know that it’s very difficult for me to NOT respond, too! And I suppose that is why we’ve been going at this as long as we have.

May we both relax and enjoy the fact that we aren’t discussing this topic here any longer!

Blessings to you, Beka!

In Christ,
Lauren

Beka

“If singleness is acceptable, then it would seem that women are not, in fact, created solely for marriage.” So true! Women, like men, are all created first and foremost for the glory of God! Most women do marry, and so that is God’s design for women in general and why the commands for wives are so important. But you’re right, a complete discussion on God’s will for women shouldn’t fail to include singleness—so we will get to that eventually! I’m sorry I didn’t make this more clear before now.

Thanks for pointing me to those Greek words. I think I see where you’re going with them. I’ll continue to consider them and will address them when I write those articles. In the meantime, please look up all the uses of hupotasso in the New Testament. I believe this gives further insight into what Paul means for us in Ephesians. This is indeed a complex topic! Much to consider!

You didn’t really answer question number 2 as to what Paul means by using the relationship of the church to Christ as an example for the relationship of the wife to her husband–but you don’t have to answer it here, you can just think on it. Whichever you’d like.

That’s all for now! This is a fun study. I love how we’re spurring each other on to dig a little deeper!

~Lauren

Beka

I’m only going to respond to your second post right now. I do have thoughts on the first one, but I’m limited on time this morning. I suspected that I would agree with you on many of the “unbiblical standards” that you had in mind, and indeed I do. I think that the church is sending mixed messages to women–no matter what church you find yourself in! The ultra-conservative camp and the not-so-conservative camp alike place unbiblical requirements upon women. The contrdictory demands upon women (be they from society at large or from within the church) make for much confusion and frustration! We simply can’t please everyone!

But God makes it simple for us: we are to please Him. And I know you agree with that!

This is why I believe it is so important to go back to Scripture and build our beliefs about what a woman should be from there (which means laying aside both the “women should always work outside the home and try to dominate men” and “women should never leave their home and should be walked all over by men” extremes–and every other view in between). We have to separate ourselves from our culture and our own presuppositions and immerse ourselves into God’s word in hopes of discovering what it teaches we are to do wth ourselves! I think you’ll agree with this approach, though I know you don’t agree with the outcome of mine and Abigail’s study. But that is the goal in our handling of the Scriptures. What does it say? What does it mean (what did it mean for Paul’s original readers)? How do I apply it?

I will clarify some things in response to your first post. But this is all I have time for right now!

God bless!
Lauren

Some churches relegate women to “positions of servitude” that wholly segregate them from men, some put women down if they’re not in the pulpit, others put women down if they even consider taking a job. Some churches shun single women completely, while others fail to obey the command to care for widows.

Then there are the churches that teach women not to resist when raped or sexually assaulted, and teach women to be “on command” for their husbands whenever they want it.

And the churches that have repeatedly told my mom that she’s harming her children by keeping them at home instead of having them out in the world (public schools), and the churches that have made mothers with children in the public school system feel completely worthless because they don’t have their children in private or home school settings. Ah, the list could go on and on, leaving women discouraged, frustrated and devoid of joy or energy, just like the Pharisees tore down the Jews when Christ dwelled on earth.

Quick answers to your questions:

I’m very glad that you do find room for single women. However, the premise of your argument was that “women are …created to be helpers to their husbands.” If singleness is acceptable, then it would seem that women are not, in fact, created solely for marriage.

Truthfully, if I thought it was appropriate for me to debate your views on your blog, I would have done so in my original comment. So how about this… when you two write your thoughts on this, I’ll link and respond to your post on one of my blogs. Then if you or your readers WANT to read my thoughts, you can click the trackback instead of being “forced” to read them in the comments. While you’ve both been very kind and reassuring, it still bothers me that this takes away from your original post.

I’m glad that you looked up what English translators refer to, but what I meant was to look at the Greek passage. You see, “hupotasso” does not appear anywhere in Eph. 5:22, which is where English translations insert the verb “submit.” The Greek in Eph. 5:21 indeed is reflexive, and begins with the wife to her husband and ends with the husband to his wife (5:22-25). As you study this topic, I encourage you to look into Greek syntax, especially the active, passive and middle voices, and the words “arche, kephale, hupakouo, peitharcheo, agapao”. The literal Greek translation is “be responsive to one another,” not “be subject to” as you referenced in your second question. However, in response to your third question, let’s say for discussion that it’s “be subject to.”

It’s interesting that we can cast aside the slavery commands because of cultural changes, yet are unwilling to consider its adaptation to Jewish women, who were without rights, regarded as possessions, unable to testify in courts, and entirely at the disposal of their fathers or husbands. If we can understand that Paul was instructing within cultural constructs in regards to slavery, how is it that we cannot understand this application to women? I’m afraid I don’t understand your question in regards to children. Are children still under parental authority? Or are people under the age of 18 in our culture allowed to marry, sign contracts, own property, vote, fight in wars, or purchase alcohol or tobacco?

I think that I clarified everything that you asked for, so hopefully that will help with your future posts. I know it’s hard to understand another’s perspective from just a few paragraphs when we’re discussing such a complex topic.

Thanks!

Thank you for yet another thought-provoking and gracious comment. I wanted to let you know that I don’t see you as “hijacking” our blog—your comments are welcome and appreciated. And indeed they are worth wrestling with.

I also wanted to let you know that I was very intentional in avoiding any application for single women (or widows/abandoned women), though I did make one comment about preparing for marriage. I was not disregarding the subject; I simply see singleness as a separate issue. Lord willing, we will address it in the future to the best of our knowledge and experience.

There’s a lot to think about in what you have commented, and I thought of some initial responses. But I agree with you that we don’t need to carry on a debate in the comment section of this article. I am familiar with most of the arguments you raised, and I would like to take some time to fully develop and organize my thoughts in response. So I’ll present our case (mine and Abigail’s) from Scripture and deal with these issues in a series of articles sometime in the near future. Then I’d be happy for you to comment and we can discuss things in detail in that setting. Does that sound good to you?

Before signing off on this thread, I’d like to leave you with one point and two questions related to your post—just to give us something to chew on while I prepare some articles on this issue of women’s roles.

1) I did look up the Greek as you suggested. The Greek word translated “submit” or “be subject” in Ephesians 5 and Titus 2 is hupotasso. Strong’s definition of this word is: to place or rank under, to subject, to obey. Vine’s says it’s actually a military term meaning to rank under. And the verb itself is not reflexive—only the use of it in conjunction with the Greek word for “one another” in Eph. 5:21 makes it reflexive. When this verb is used in Eph. 5:24, Titus 2:5, and Col. 3:18 in the context of women being subject to their own husbands, this word is not reflexive at all. So… ?

2) Regardless of what the word translated “be subject to” literally means in the Greek, what do you think Paul means by it in the context of the passage?
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” ~Ephesians 5:22-24
How is the church subject to Christ? What does that tell us about what Paul means by “wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord…as the church is subject to Christ…in everything”?

3) Lastly, if the fact that slavery is mentioned in the same passage means that we shouldn’t cling to Paul’s teaching on the wife’s subjection/submission to her husband, then what of parent-child relationships mentioned between the commands to wives and those to slaves? Do children no longer have to honor and obey their parents? And for that matter, do husbands no longer need to love their wives as Christ loves the church?

I am by no means ignoring everything else you said, I just felt I should at this time bring these three key points to your attention. You don’t have to respond. Just give these some careful consideration. I’ll be giving all of your arguments careful consideration as well. Thank you for the challenge to do so! I hope that we can discuss this more in the future!

So…anyone else who’s been following this discussion…stay tuned!

Love in Christ,
Lauren

While Biblical debates are fascinating to me, I do want to be respectful of this blog that you and Abigail cultivated for a purpose. I don’t want to distract from that or and to “hijack” this post. So I will answer your response because I truly appreciate the time you put into writing it, but then I will say no more unless you would like to continue this discussion, because this is your space, and I respect that.

Your mom’s experiences with balancing her job and family parallel my mom’s experiences of homeschooling 14 kids, of being a grandma while caring for an infant son. They both feel the pressures of not having enough time or energy. Which is precisely the reason for my caution: already women are burdened not because of “serious consequences to a woman working outside the home” but rather by the world that doesn’t value home or family, and by the church which imposes unbiblical standards in the tradition of the Pharisees.

There are a few things that you said came directly from Scripture, but in actuality, they do not. For example: you said, “women are created to be helpers to their husbands—they are to seek to make him successful in what he does…” The Bible states that women are created to “glorify God”—as wives only if that is in His plan for their lives. Secondly, you said “women are commanded to love, respect, and even obey their husbands in all things.” This base is Ephesians 5:22-24: “wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord….wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Interestingly, this passage also commands slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5-9). Now, I know very few Christians who condone slavery based on this passage—but if we no longer believe that, then why is it that we today hold women, but not slaves, to the Jewish culture under Roman rule? I would encourage you to look at the original Ephesians, as there is no equivalent verb for “submit” in Greek. Rather, it is a reflexive verb, applying to both husband and wife—for example: “submit to one another as unto the Lord.”

You also said that women “are commanded to be workers at home… This is the way that God commands women to serve Him.” In Proverbs 31, “an excellent woman” is a lover of her husband, a wise teacher of her children—and a buyer of vineyards, a maker and seller of garments, a woman who is praised and whose husband is known for being married to such a woman. She clearly engages in business as much as she cares for her family. Titus 2 describes young women as lovers of their husbands and children, sensible, pure, workers at home, kind and subject to their own husbands. Nothing in this makes a career out of the question. Workers at home? I have a career and I still have work to do around my home. This is written in a rebuke of gossip—quite possibly, to instruct women to embody Proverbs 31, with hands never idle and no time to gossip. But let’s take the leap to conclude that this passage means that young women are always to be only keepers at home. In the culture of the time, what sense would it make to command women to be engaged in commerce and politics, when they had no property and no rights? Again, I encourage you to look at the Greek that is translated as “subject to their own husbands”—you’ll be surprised at how much it changes the way this verse reads.

I was concerned by the disregard for single women in your argument that women are created to be wives and mothers. Women are created to serve God as women just as men are to serve God as men. As the Apostle Paul said, if a woman marries, praise the Lord. If she does not, praise the Lord. The Bible extols the blessings of singleness, yet there was no room in your comment for these blessings. Additionally, there are many women for whom being a mother is a physical impossibility. Such statements are very hurtful and guilt-inducing for women who, through no fault of their own, can’t bear children.

Finally, I would refer you to God’s use of women throughout Scripture. Look at Deborah, who led men into battle. Refer to Lydia, who had a thriving business. Consider Mary Magdalene, whose singleness uniquely qualified her to serve Jesus. Think of Rahab, whose career as a prostitute I (obviously! do not condone, yet it allowed her to have men coming and going from her home—and through her, the people of God were victorious.

A “career-minded woman” is not necessarily “ignorant of God’s word or in rebellion to it” nor is she only “in the workplace because she doesn’t have any other choice.” These are certainly possibilities, but it is also possible that they are neither. You say “working outside the home does not in any way help a woman to be a keeper at home—in fact it hinders her every effort to do so!” But as the Proverbs 31 woman proves, career-focus and home-focus are not mutually exclusive. Finally, sometimes men die or leave their families, and then their wives often work multiple jobs to care for their children because they have no recent work experience. Had they continued their career, these women could better care for their children. I noticed that you mentioned having a business from your home, in which case the only difference between your job and another would be geography. Again, “career-minded” and family-focused are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Then there are those like myself, who were raised by amazing stay-at-home mothers, and while millions of women leave the marketplace to go home, we will be there, in business, politics, culture and science, daily fighting the battle for your right to do so. Women trying to follow God’s word are all imperfect, but are trying to live by the book. I encourage you to look beyond womanhood as wife and mother only, for the Scriptures teach that women can have many roles, some which do not even include a family.

Again, my intent with my original caution was not to start a debate, and I will leave it at that because this space belongs to you and Abigail. My hope is that “as iron sharpens iron” so this discussion will sharpen you and me, and those who read it, to the glory of God.