"Keepers at Home"

A few weeks ago, a packet of papers arrived at the office. Each of the nine pages was on 8y   on 8½ by 14 notepad paper, with hand-printing rather than type. It looked as though what I received came from a copy of the original. It was not personally addressed to me; apparently copies were mailed to numerous churches of Christ. The regular-sized envelope (into which the nine pages were stuffed) sported two curiosities. The first was that it had a return address from another state, which is seldom the case with material like this; it is usually anonymous. Rather than identify him, however, I shall just call him Jack. The second peculiar feature on the envelope were the words, Preach on! The irony became clear when the contents took issue with what most of us teach on certain subjects.

This article will deal with just one of the issues raised—what the Bible teaches about women. At the top of one page was a brief article about lawyers and the fact that 47% of the leadership positions on Bar committees are held by women (men occupying 53%). The writer asks: “So what are we to conclude from these stats [sic]? I note that Titus 2:5 (NKJ) does not seem to describe these women: ‘to be discrete, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands that the word of God may not be blasphemed.’”

What the New King James calls “homemakers,” the King James calls “keepers at home,” and the New International Version describes the ladies as “busy at home.” The American Standard has “workers at home,” and the English Standard has “working at home.” Young’s Literal Translation has “keepers of their own houses.” The Greek word, according to The Word Study Concordance, is a compound word consisting of oikos, meaning “house,” and ouros, referring to “a guardian.” A textual variation, however, has the second word as ergon, meaning “work.” Thus, one can see the reason for the rendering of “workers at home.” Titus 2:5 is the only verse in which the word is found in the New Testament.

The writer of the letter employs a bit of sarcasm regarding the meaning of the verse. He points out, concerning the definitions: “What? No option to be employed outside the home as a lawyer or a businesswoman?” It could be pointed out that educational opportunities were not available to women until the past two centuries, which is a significant factor (although Portia did fairly well in her impersonation of a lawyer’s apprentice in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice). The writer of the letter further scolds today’s brethren with these words:

So what is the point of this article? Simply to show we are nothing like the 1st century church. Women working outside the home is just an example, but it creates all kinds of problems unknown in the 1st century church.

No Outside Work?

Probably, everyone gets the message that the home must be a woman’s primary concern. But does what Paul says in Titus 2:5 mean that no woman can work outside the home? Not full time? Not even part time? We are no longer living in the patriarchal society of Abraham, where women need protection from travelers who might prey upon a woman. In today’s world we have policemen and home safety security services. Also available are weapons, and an armed lady may well be able to protect herself. Jobs are also available.

But changes in society aside, how was this passage understood before the twentieth century? Adam Clarke contrasted the woman described by Paul with a busybody. He writes:

A woman who spends her time visiting, must neglect her family. The idleness, dirtiness, impudence, and profligacy of the children, will soon show how deeply criminal the mother was in rejecting the apostle’s advice (6:652).

Of course, the reader can see that visiting would take much longer back in apostolic times. By automobile one could travel thirty miles in a half hour with little effort today. She could only travel 1 and ½ miles back then in the same amount of time—and probably would have expended a great deal of energy. Also, today her children would be in school, but back then she would be in charge of them, and there were probably more of them. Albert Barnes wrote similarly:

This does not mean, of course, that they are never to go abroad, but they are not to neglect their domestic affairs; they are not to be better known abroad than at home; they are not to omit their own duties and become “busybodies” in the concerns of others (12:2:275).

A long time ago, the United States ceased to be agrarian; the majority of people are no longer working on family farms. We are now an industrial and service-oriented society. Transportation is easily available, and jobs are plentiful. Does our friend Jack not want men to have second jobs or teenagers to work outside the home, either? Or is it only women he seeks to restrict?

Not only is he in error about today’s world; his position has not been valid—maybe ever. He specifically mentioned that Titus 2:5 did not mention a wife being a businesswoman. He selected a poor example. What about a woman who would make garments and sell them for money? What about a woman who considers a piece of property and uses it to make a profit? (Can she participate in a “Flip or Flop” with her husband?) Is this woman violating Titus 2:5?

Before answering, be advised that this is part of the description of “the worthy woman” in Proverbs 31:16 and 24. Hmm. It sounds like she had at least a part-time job as an entrepreneur.

Lydia

Is Jack willing also to condemn Lydia? Paul met her in Philippi (Acts 16:11-13). She is described as “a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God” (Acts 16:14a). So why don’t we find Paul saying, immediately after her baptism, “Lydia, now that you are a Christian, you will need to quit being a businesswoman and become a worker at home” (v. 15)? Paul and Silas stayed with her both before and after their time in the jail.

We read about Lydia and her household. Pedobaptists make the most ridiculous argument, claiming that they know she had small children who were sprinkled. How do they know that? Lydia could have had three teenagers—or no children at all. Her household could have consisted of servants (employees). She could have been supporting her mother and maybe an aunt or two. She might have had sisters or an invalid brother. Why don’t we know? Because the text does not specify. She may have been a widow or a woman who never married. But we do know that she was a businesswoman, apparently with God’s approval.

As far as female lawyers go, some of them are probably single. A few may be widows. One might find some among them who cannot have children. And if some are married—and have children—that is not necessarily wrong, either—so long as the home is their first priority. If a woman forsakes her domestic duties and pays everyone else to do her motherly chores, then we can agree with Jack that something is wrong. If she only shows up at bedtime each day to tuck the children in and give them a goodnight kiss, then she may be an excellent worker—but not at home.

Dangers

Although Jude’s primary point fails to take into consideration all that the Bible has to say on the subject, he is right on a related point. He writes:

Women lawyers work closely with male lawyers most of whom are in supervisory capacities as compared to the females. Same situation in the business world. This frequently results in conflict; e.g., her husband wants the family to take a trip, but her supervisor wants her to work on Saturday, which precludes the trip.

Sure, this always has a potential for conflict, but the same is true of the husband. How many wives have been disappointed when their husbands had to work late or on Saturday (and Sunday)? If this imposition on her time becomes frequent, then, yes, she should say, “I have a higher commitment.” They can keep her or fire her, but she must stand firm.

A second problem is stated succinctly: “Of course, working with males always has the potential of adultery—particularly when the female admires her boss as being more successful than her husband.” The last part may or may not be the case. It may be a contributing factor to adultery, but the sin can easily occur without it, also.

For example, one man was teamed up with a female officer in a police car every day. Eventually, he divorced his faithful wife to be with his co-worker on a more permanent basis. One female university professor dumped her husband (also a teacher) for another faculty member. And the number of times men and their secretaries have committed adultery is probably too numerous to count. So it would not be a surprise to learn that a male and female attorney starting seeing each other on the sly. It might also occur with a judge and a female attorney.

As long as men and women remain males and females, the opportunity for adultery exists. But being a worker at home is no guarantee of faithfulness. Perhaps Jack has heard tales of women seducing the gardener, the pool guy, a neighbor down the block, or the teacher of one of her children. Although being in close proximity with the opposite sex on a daily basis may increase the odds, the fact is that none of those circumstances are necessary if someone is thinking about straying. And what about those who are committed to their marriages and their children who have worked closely with others without ever getting involved? Adultery is not a foregone conclusion, but it is something to guard against (Pr. 4:23-27). Incidentally, even in a very different society than ours Solomon gave many warnings against this temptation (Pr. 5:15-23; 6:24-35; 7:6-27).

Equality

One other potential problem was expressed by Jack:

What % of these Florida female attorneys are submissive to their husbands—i.e., “obedient” to them? If you guessed zero, you would be pretty close. My guess is that they would consider themselves as equals with their husbands under the most favorable conditions.

Guessing may well be part of the problem. The fact is that we do not know, but maybe a better question is, “How many lawyers—male or female—are Christians, period?” Has such a situation become a pressing problem in the Lord’s church?

But lawyers aside, some bizarre situations could occur. What happens, in a business, if the wife should be the boss of her husband—or even be the CEO? Would it not be awkward? The husband is the head of the wife in the home (Eph. 5:22-25). The man had been appointed to leadership in the church (1 Tim. 2:8-15). Business and Law are different realms. But headship does not imply inequality. We must be committed, however, to God’s pattern in the home and the church.

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: