The Work of Married Men in the Home
David S. Hill

It has been said by many over the years “Parenting is on-the-job training.”  I believe this is true to a great extent.  I also believe it is a true observation related to marriage and the family in general.  Married men do learn on the job if they apply themselves to do so.  This is not to say that one can do no preparation for marriage, parenting, fatherhood, etc.  There should be much preparation for the job, and the beginning and foundation instruction should come from the father’s home and rearing.  That is the Bible principle (Prov. 22:6; Titus 2:1-8; Eph. 6:1-4).

First, the married man has an obligation and a charge to love his wife (Eph. 5:25).  The man is most certainly challenged to the highest level when his love for his wife is said to be like the love that Christ had for the church.  In case one missed that, another statement is given that the man is to love his wife as his own body (v. 28).  After all, the very beginning of the home pictured the man and women in marriage as being “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).  There is a lot of difference in love and lust.  The world around us pictures through television, movies, music, novels, etc., lust as love.  Apparently lust of the flesh is a most prominent means of attraction and marriage in the world today.  Men are attracted by provocative women, usually while in the wrong places and improperly dressed.  The sexual desires race and often in the promiscuous society of the United States the ending of the first night’s meeting is the sinful act of fornication (Gal. 5:19).  The love that God designed for marriage is a selfless love (Eph. 5:25, 28).  Our Lord said that the plan was one man for one woman for a lifetime (Matt. 19:4-8).  The fleshly desire between a man and woman has its place in the attraction process of marriage, but the physical attraction cannot and will not carry one through a lifetime of marriage.  The physical union between the woman and the man is satisfied in marriage (I Cor. 7:3; Heb. 13:4; Rom. 1:26-27).  A man who is too lazy to do his part in the marriage contributes to the demise of his home.  If he is too lazy to be the head of his house (Eph. 5:23-24), then he robs the world of a good home and leaves the wife and children without proper direction.  True satisfaction comes from true obedience to the will of God (Eph. 5:21; Prov. 19:23).  If a man loves his wife as God bids him, then there will be no abuse, extramarital affairs, selfishness, laziness, or neglect (I Tim. 5:8).  Failure to honor the wife can hinder the husband spiritually (I Peter 3:7).

Next, the married man is responsible for the spiritual training of the children (Eph. 6:4).  It is not sissy to pray with your children.  It is not effeminate to teach your children the Bible and the ways of the Lord.  In fact, it is the most masculine thing a man can do.  Be a man like God would have you to be.  Dad, do you look in on your children and their Bible study?  Are you willing and able to teach them the Bible both in word and deed?  It is ultimately the man’s responsibility to see that his children grow and develop spiritually.  Which disturbs you more — your son or daughter getting in trouble at school or at the worship service of the church?  Which one will get the greater attention from you?  Is your child more likely to be punished for neglecting their schoolwork or their Bible class work?  It is quite revealing sometimes to evaluate your response in the home.  How could a child get the idea that worldly things are more important than spiritual?  It might just be they have been listening closely to you, dad!  It is a grave responsibility to train up a child, and it is one that we must do with all our might to be the fathers God would have us to be.

Finally, don’t forget the little things.  A hug, a kiss, a statement of love, all will go a long way to develop the home as well as keep it together.  A father must set aside time to be with his children.  If not, it can very well be the case that children come up lonely in a nice, big house with designer clothing on their backs.  Some dads are too busy and the hit song of the 70s stated it well when it turned the timetable to show the grownup son saying, I don’t know when I’ll be home but “we’ll get together then, dad, you know we’ll have a good time then.”  Yes, the time rolls by, and we do reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7).  Don’t forget the most important work you can do, fathers:  do your work in the home.  The world and the church need you.

Editorial

We are living in troublesome times.  There is a great threat of war just over the horizon, and nations are unsettled.  Our minds are stirred over a number of issues and all things seem to be coming apart.  All of us have learned in a hurry that no nation is safe, no matter how strong and brave.  It seems that almost every person is dazed by what is going on around them.  It seems that men are running in all directions not knowing where they are headed and without anything settled in their minds.

We are hearing of wars and rumors of wars.  Nations are rising up against nations, and kingdoms are rising against kingdoms.  Starvation is taking place in many nations throughout the earth; we have sickness, disease, and disaster all about us.  Great earthquakes are taking place throughout the world from time to time.  All kinds of sin and wrongdoing are going on everywhere.  Mothers and fathers are killing their children, and children are killing their mothers and fathers.  In many cases families are hating and betraying each other.  False teachers and false religions are running rampant throughout the earth.  Iniquity is truly abounding, and the love of many is growing cold.  Cold-blooded murder is taking place throughout the world as little unborn babies die by the thousands at the hands of doctors and nurses who cut their little bodies into pieces and take them out of the womb part by part while the whole world turns and looks the other way.

Worry and fret is in the heart of people these days, which in turn produces high blood pressure and heart failure.  Middle-aged and older-aged people are dying in great numbers and not a few young people.  Families are being ripped apart because of materialism, worldliness, and forsaking God and His Bible.  Sometimes people think they cannot ever straighten up and get their marriages right.  But this is not so.  All marriages could be saved if the husband and wife would act like grown people.  Many families are broken apart because of selfishness and self-centeredness.  It is often the case that some married people never think of others.  If they have little children, they are the last to be considered when it comes to breaking up the family.  Many little boys and girls do not know who to call mother or daddy; thus, they do not know to whom they may turn when they need guidance, love, help, and security.  Such little boys and girls are as mixed up as geese in a hailstorm.  Is there any wonder that our world is spinning around and around with such a problem all around the world?  No stability, no love, no security, no anchor, no steadfastness, no firmness, no direction, no guidance of love, no care and concern, leads us to a world like the one we have described in this article.  The home is the foundation of society and as the home goes, so goes society.  Society gets lost when homes get lost and torn apart.

There are many threats to the home today.   Homosexuality is a threat.  Lesbianism is a threat.  Living together out of wedlock is a threat.  Rejecting the Bible as a guide to society is a threat.  Evolution is a threat.  Humanism is a threat.  Vain philosophy is a threat.  Ungodly television and radio is a threat.  The lyrics to many of the songs is a threat.   Overemphasis on worldly things is a threat.  All the sexual immorality is a threat.  On and on the list goes.

The only hope for the world to get better is for man to turn to God and His Bible.  Man does not have the ability to direct his steps apart from God (Jer. 10:23).  The Bible contains the old paths and the good way (Jer. 6:16).  When we return to God’s ways, we will return to the Bible.  When we return to the Bible, then there will be the restoration of the home as God would have it.  When we return to the home as God would have it, then we will have children trained in the proper things of this life.  When we return to the proper things of this life, then we will have the right kind of society around the world.

Atheism makes man nothing more than a glorified monkey.  If men are taught that they are nothing more than animals, then they will act like them.  Secular education alone will not get the job done.  Pleasure alone will not work.  Material possessions fall far short of real, genuine happiness. The real purpose of man is to fear God and keep his commandments (Eccles.12:13-14).   When this is done, the home will be right and so will society.
—Malcolm L. Hill

Scholarship
Kerry Duke

What passes as religious scholarship is incredible.  A few examples from writers in churches of Christ substantiate this charge.

Carroll Osburn has waxed more bold in his unscriptural views of the role of women in the church. Osburn, according to his earlier book Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, is “an internationally respected New Testament textual scholar” at Abilene Christian University.  His book Women in the Church: Proclaiming the Ideal is his most brazen attempt yet to do away with New Testament teaching on this subject.  One almost unbelievable case of his “scholarship” is his explanation of I Timothy 2:9-15.  In his interpretation of verses thirteen and fourteen, Osburn says Paul “is using a common Jewish analogy in which Eve was caricatured as a deceived and bumbling fool who constantly led Adam into trouble” (p. 248).  He further claims that “Paul does not draw from Genesis 1-3 a universal principle from the historical Eve, but an ad hoc analogy from the later caricature of Eve in Jewish tradition.  The point of similarity between v.12 and v.13 is that just as it is commonly remarked that Eve was deceived and led Adam astray, so certain women in the Ephesians church lack information and teach false information that leads people astray” (p. 249).

What is Osburn’s basis for this remarkable claim?  It certainly is not I Timothy, for Paul says nothing about this Jewish perception of Eve or about women in the church at Ephesus who were false teachers.  Osburn answers: “The image that Eve, rather than Adam, was deceived is drawn from traditional Jewish interpretation of Gen. 3” (p. 249).  Osburn says Paul is drawing from a first century Jewish perception of Eve found in such books as Sirach, Apocalypse of Moses, and Life of Adam and Eve.  He quotes Sirach 25:24: “from a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all will die.”  How he gets out of this statement the idea that the Jewish writer viewed Eve as a “bumbling fool” is a mystery indeed.  How he arrives at this interpretation is as puzzling as how he draws out of I Timothy 2 the ideas he states.  We should not be surprised.  A man who is this irresponsible with God’s Word cannot be trusted to interpret anything.  But this kind of exegesis is typical of men like Osburn.  Not content with the plain declaration of Scripture, they leave the solid ground of the Bible and float in the outer space of vain speculation.  And gullible people call this “scholarship.”  Most of what is considered biblical scholarship contains little genuine Bible study, and most who are termed scholars spend far more time analyzing views about a passage of Scripture than they do interpreting the passage itself.  They are generally so enamored with historical and linguistic books, which they feel shed some faint beam of light on the Bible text, that they often fail to understand the text.  Of course, I recognize the need at times to consult such works.  A person could hardly understand a passage like Daniel 11 without some understanding of history.  But the Bible contains within itself all that pertains to life and godliness (II Pet. 1:3; II Tim. 3:16-17).  Paul gave enough information in his writings for us to understand his teaching on the role of women; we do not have to read the Apocalypse of Moses to understand him.  The Bible is indeed its own interpreter, but scholarship, not satisfied with the simple and direct (as well as unpopular) statements of Scripture, must find room for futile imaginations to play.  The finished product of the scholar may be impressive to those who admire human wisdom, but the basic questions must be asked: what does this work say about the Bible text, and what is the proof of its claims?

I realize also that Paul sometimes alludes to noninspired sayings (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12).  But when he does so he clearly tells us.  Who can imagine that the meaning of such an important passage as I Timothy 2:9-15 actually hinges on what Osburn claims was a first century Jewish tradition?  More importantly, how could he prove that this idea was in the mind of Paul when he wrote these verses?  As Osburn himself shows, one must go outside the Bible to get such an idea.  If we listen to the text itself, we will get no such notion:
11  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
The word “for” in verse 13 is from gar, which gives the reason or reasons for the preceding statement in verse 12.  Why is a woman not to teach or usurp authority over the man?  There are two reasons, and these two are connected with the word “and” in verse 14: (1) the order of creation — verse 13; (2) Eve’s role in the transgression — verse 14.  Paul wrote these words; if verse 13 refers to an actual historical event in Genesis, then verse 14 refers to the actual historical event in Genesis 3, not to a first century Jewish tradition.  This passage teaches that Paul’s regulations regarding the role of women were grounded in the creation, not culture, and these regulations therefore apply to our time.  This plain meaning is what Osburn is trying so desperately to avoid, and this is why he must concoct the ridiculous interpretation he gives.

In a seminar a few years ago on “Women in the Church,” Osburn made the arrogant claim that the question of the role of women is the first issue in the church that the scholars have been able to examine before the preachers do.  He said that preachers usually are the ones to look at issues first, and then the scholars analyze it.  With this issue, the scholars have spoken first.  So now we know the situation, and we have as our authority Carroll Osburn: preachers are not scholars.  This disgusting arrogance is as ungodly as Osburn’s twisting of the Scriptures.  Frankly, if Carroll Osburn is a scholar then I never want to be one.

Why does Osburn go to such absurd lengths to get around the plain teaching of Paul on the role of women?  He gives the answer at the end of the book: “Scripture does not teach that it is sinful for a woman to preach or serve in a leadership capacity” (pp. 266-267).  These last few pages are the rare times when Osburn tells us what he believes without citing others as his authority.  I am glad he finally said what he really thinks, for when we compare this statement to I Timothy 2:8-15 and I Corinthians 14:34-35, we will see clearly and immediately that Osburn is a false teacher.

Consider next F. LaGard Smith, “Scholar in Residence for Christian Studies” at David Lipscomb University.  His book Radical Restoration shows again what kind of scholar Smith is: one who values his own speculation above the Word of God.  Smith has for years shown his arrogant unbelief in the Word of God by denying the absolute essentiality of baptism and by refusing to accept the Bible doctrine of eternal punishment.  His pattern of writing is to observe that the Bible appears to plainly teach something but upon closer inspection (given of course by Smith) it teaches something quite different.  In Appendix I of Radical Restoration Smith examines the institution of the Lord’s Supper by our Lord.  He first cites these verses recorded by Luke: “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.  And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. . .And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover . . . And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:7-8, 13, 15).

If we just read these words of the Bible, we will get no other idea than that Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples.  We would need “help” from an outside source to get any other idea.  Smith admits this: “On the evidence of those statements alone, any jury in the world would be justified in finding that the meal in the upper room that night was in fact a Passover meal” (p. 279).  Then comes Smith’s “insight”: “Yet, interestingly enough, that eminently reasonable conclusion is put in doubt by a number of other equally compelling facts” (p. 279).  He then gives three reasons why he believes Jesus did not eat the Passover meal with the disciples the night before His crucifixion.  First, “the Passover meal in the first century was typically a family affair, including women and children” (p. 279).  It is true that Jewish families generally observed the Passover in this fashion.  But neither the Old Testament nor Jewish tradition forbade them to observe the Passover in other groups.  In fact, the Mishnah gives a good deal of latitude in regard to who is gathered and where they are gathered to observe this feast (Pesahim 8:1-8).  Jewish rabbis were more concerned about the rituals themselves than they were about the place or grouping of those who observed it.  Smith is even more subjective on this point when he says this meal does not have the “feel of a first century Passover celebration with all its prescribed ritual” (p. 279).  Is this what he considers evidence?

Second, Smith cites the fact that when Jesus said to Judas, “That thou doest, do quickly” but “some of them thought that Jesus had said unto him, But those things that we have need of against the feast. . . “ (John 13:27, 29).  Smith argues, “If the Passover were already underway, there is not a chance that any shop in Jerusalem would have been open at that hour” (p. 279-280).  And what evidence does Smith give?  None, of course, except his own statement.  Does Smith really think it was impossible to buy these items at this hour either from a local seller or from a private individual?  Did not Jesus teach that persistence pays off even at midnight (Luke 11:5-8)?  But Smith’s “evidence” is again typical of men who for some reason think it is their prerogative to change the obvious meaning of Scripture.

Smith’s third reason is unbelievable and shows how utterly disconnected he is from the Bible story of Jesus’ crucifixion.  “The clincher,” Smith says, “is the fact that the Sanhedrin would never have met during the Passover night to put Jesus on trial.  Certainly, many procedural rules were broken during the trial, but for the Sanhedrin to have met at all for any purpose would have been a scandal” (p. 280).  Some “clincher”!  Smith stakes his claim on the character of Jews who were mostly hypocrites and liars!  Who would believe these Jews who “sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death” (Matt. 26:59) would be concerned about a scandal?  The whole affair, not just the “procedural rules,” was the biggest scandal the world has ever known!  The whole purpose of the gospel accounts in recording these events is to expose this sinister plot.  These Jews paid the soldiers who guarded Jesus’ tomb to lie about what happened the day of His resurrection (Matt. 28:11-15).  Does this bribery sound like they were concerned about a scandal!

What, according to Smith, is the meaning of the words in Luke 22:7-16?  Smith suggests that “Jesus did not eat a Passover lamb in the upper room, but the following day was himself the Passover lamb” (p. 280).  Apparently, Smith believes that Luke’s record is to be taken figuratively in regard to Jesus’ statement about eating the Passover.  But look at the record again: (1) “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed’ (v.7); (2) Jesus told Peter and John to prepare the Passover (v.8); (3) Jesus said He would eat the Passover with His disciples in the house of a man (v.11); (4) they prepared the Passover (v.13); (5) Jesus said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer (v. 15).  One would need help from a man like Smith to miss the meaning of these plain words.  Amazingly, Smith cites and emphasizes the very words of Christ that make his position impossible: “before I suffer.”  If Jesus’ eating of the Passover is a figurative reference to His suffering on the cross, then how could Jesus say He ate the Passover before He suffered?

Smith makes the reverse mistake of Catholics in their view of the Lord’s Supper.  Catholics give a literal meaning to Jesus’ metaphorical words “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:28).  Smith gives a symbolic meaning to Jesus’ literal words “I have desired to eat this passover” (Luke 22:15).

The frightening part of this whole fiasco is that people could take a man seriously who engages in such verbal gymnastics.  Yet he is “Scholar in Residence” at David Lipscomb, and young people are listening to his infidel teaching.  If Smith is a scholar, then God deliver us from such!

Smith, of course, has a purpose behind this bizarre exegesis: to deny that we have a biblical obligation to use unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper.  He ridicules this position, saying that “the evidence to support our use of unleavened bread is wafer thin” (p. 281).  And he thinks the “evidence” he cites to prove that Jesus did not eat the Passover is solid?  Would you want a lawyer to present such  “clincher” arguments in your defense in court?  The truth is that the Jews rid their houses of any leaven for this feast; unleavened bread was the only bread available.  The law demanded this (Exod. 13:6-7), and Jewish custom observed it (Mishnah, Pesahim).  Smith makes the further mistake of claiming that the early Christians observed the Lord’s Supper as a common meal: “Our pinch of unleavened bread bears no resemblance whatsoever to the robust first-century practice of actually eating together in memory of our Lord” (p. 281).  Has he never read Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians for turning the Lord’s Supper into a common meal (I Cor. 11:17-34)?  No, Smith shows that he gives more credence to his own imagination and to other sources than he does the Word of God.  He cites the liberal book The Crux of the Matter as his authority for saying that early Christians used leavened rather than unleavened bread until the ninth century (p. 281).  Again, that is some proof!  But then notice as Smith speaks out of the other side of his mouth.  He admits there is no “‘backup principle’ in support of leavened as opposed to unleavened bread” (p. 281).  He admits he has no Scripture authorizing the use of unleavened bread on the Lord’s Supper, but he teaches that there is no sin in using it!  Adding to his stubborn rejection of the Bible, he smears the Word of God itself, calling the Bible story of the Last Supper an “unusually-opaque textual record” (p. 281)!  Such audacity!  Are we to accept Smith’s argumentation as crystal clear and regard the Word of God as “unusually opaque”?  This arrogance is typical of such men.  They create problems of understanding about a simple text of Scripture and then present the grand solution, expecting that others will praise them for finally unlocking the mystery of the passage.

The Bible contains some hard sections.  Even Peter admitted this (II Pet. 3:16).  But we must remember that the Bible is a book for the common man.  “The common people,” Mark records, “heard him gladly” (Mark 12:37).  Jesus said, “If any man” — not just the highly intelligent — “will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine” (John 7:17).  The will of God is only “opaque” when a person wants it to be.

Sometimes I am completely baffled by the statements of teachers in universities.  C. Leonard Allen was a professor at Abilene Christian University when he wrote The Cruciform Church.  He made the incredible claim in this book that N.B. Hardeman misrepresented the teachings of John Calvin, insisting that Hardeman did not know the difference between Calvinism in America at the time from Calvin’s own theology.  I wrote to Allen, asking him what he thought Calvin’s theology actually was.  He wrote back a few months later, promising that he would try to answer my question when he had time.  He never did.  Has Allen ever read Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion?  I do not know, but if he has, he should know that Calvin’s theology is one of the most cruel, cold, and heartless systems of religion ever devised, teaching that babies are born in wickedness and that God causes every evil as well as every good event to happen.  Monte Cox, head of the Center for World Missions at Harding University, was interviewed by the Christian Chronicle (July, 2001).  Cox made the incredible charge that “because of the dualism of our Enlightenment heritage, evangelism means only ‘get them in the water, get them into Christ.’ It doesn’t even include discipling” (p. 20).  How or where he got this idea I do not know.  And missionaries that are loyal to the gospel are certainly not guilty of this.  I am not sure what books he has been reading, but he seems oblivious to the fact that a lot of preachers have been explaining and preaching the concept of discipling taught by our Lord in Matthew 28:18-20.

True scholarship involves humility and common sense.  God give us men and women who love the Bible and believe it, and are content to rest assured in its teaching.  May God deliver us from futile and dangerous speculation disguised as “scholarship.”

Children and Their Place in the Home
Ronald D. Gilbert

We don’t read far in the book of Genesis until we come in contact with the home.  The home as we know it is a divine institution.  The home is the basic fabric of society.   Someone well said, “As the home goes, so goes the nation.”  Needless to say, our nation is in trouble.  Since God is the author of the home, He has given roles and responsibilities to every member of the home. God has decreed in His word that the man is to be the head of his home (Eph 5:23; I Cor 11:1-3). God has placed the woman in a subordinate role in the home (I Cor 11:1-3; Eph 5:22; Col 3:18; I Pet. 3:1-6). God has placed children in subjection to their parents (Eph 6:1: Col 3:20).

Rebellious children in the home is nothing new.   One can read about such in many places in the Old Testament.  Many individuals have looked to the wrong source when it comes to child rearing.  For many years people looked to Dr. Benjamin Spock as the expert on how to rear children.  Dr. Spock’s approach was one foreign to the Bible.  He did not believe in disciplining as is taught in God’s word.  As a result of reading Dr. Spock instead of the Bible, a generation grew up self-centered and rebelling against all authority.  As most two-year-olds only think about themselves, so it is with many of Dr. Spock’s disciples.

One of the greatest books ever written on child rearing is the book of Proverbs.  A passage all parents need to read is Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”  The book of Proverbs is rich with information that will help parents and children.   Proverbs 23:13 says, “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”  This Hebrew word that is translated “beatest” in the KJV is nakah.   Strong defines this word as “to strike, smite, stripe, scourge, chastise, punish, receive a blow...”  Sometimes this same word is used meaning to kill or slay.  The context must determine the use of the word.  Note the context “he shall not die.”  He is saying it won’t kill your children to discipline them.

Rebellious, disobedient children are in abundance today.  Many today do not feel that it is a big thing for children to be disobedient and rebellious.  Let us consider some passages from God’s word.  When children violate Ephesians 6:1-3, they sin in so doing.  In Romans 1:28-32 the apostle Paul lists many sins that those individuals were guilty of committing.  In this list he includes fornicators, covetous, haters of God, proud, inventors of evil things, and those disobedient to parents.  In II Timothy 3:1-5  Paul mentions many of the sins that people would be caught up in and lose their souls.  Among the sins listed was being disobedient to parents.  God does not view being disobedient to parents as a small matter. Parents are the first authority figure in the lives of children.  Many times, one who will not respect his earthly father will not respect his Heavenly Father.

In his book, The Christian Home, P.D. Wilmoth listed ten rules for bringing down a child.  This book was written in 1955.  Read carefully these ten things and as parents avoid them:

1. Let him have plenty of money to spend as he likes.
2. Permit him to choose his companions without restraint or guidance.
3. Let him spend Sunday hours on the street or with companions with low ideas as to the Lord’s Day.
4. Allow him to go out at night as he pleases and return when he gets ready.
5. Make no inquiry as to where and with whom he spends his leisure time.
6. Teach him to expect pay for all help at home and for all services to others.
7. Allow him to think good manners are a good substitute for good morals.
8. Do not trouble to interest him in the Bible or to win him to Christ.
9. Let him see that you think church attendance is not important.
10. Never let him hear you pray, especially not for his salvation.

Brother Wilmoth was right on target, but sadly, today many are doing the above ten points, not refraining from them.

The Work of Married Women in the Home
Glenn B. Ramsey

Almighty God honored womankind by creating her to be a “help meet” for her husband in the home (Gen. 2:18-25).  This means that she is man’s needed complement.  Surely godly women will regard this as a most important work in their life.  This is not to suggest that the only expected work of Christian women today is related to their husbands.  But if Christian ladies do not honor God’s role for them in this matter, it is unlikely that they can or will excel in any other area.

The New Testament’s instructions elevate the woman to the position God originally intended for her.  Several passages come into consideration in this matter.

Paul writes in Titus 2:3-5, “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.”

It is obvious that the women Paul has under consideration are Christian women — those who have obeyed the Gospel of Christ and are, thus, Daughters of God.  While their first obligation is to serve God, this obligation requires them to follow the injunctions of the passage here in Titus.  The woman in the home is to be serious minded — she considers her role as a wife and mother very seriously.  This role is a priority in her life.  She is to be discreet (moderate in opinion and passion).  She is to be “chaste.”  This means that her life is kept clean and pure.  She is to be a “keeper at home.”  This means that she is inclined to be a good housekeeper.  Man can never be the keeper at home that his wife can be.  She is elevated above man in this matter — as far as her life role is concerned.  She is to be “obedient to her own husband.”  This means the same as submitting to him.  She “arranges her affairs under his headship.”  As the Bible teaches, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is Christ (I Cor. 11:3).  In doing these things she loves her husband and her children.

Her obligations continue as she grows older.  She is to teach the younger woman the virtues she has learned from God’s word and through life experiences.

From a study of the Scriptures it is seen that the Christian woman is obligated to serve her Heavenly Father, then render proper service to her husband and to her children in the home that is constituted by her marriage.  Paul discussed the responsibility of women to their husbands.  “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:22; see also Col. 3:18).

If the first work of a Christian woman in the home is to submit to (arrange her affairs under the headship of) her husband, the final and full accomplishment of her work may be in properly guiding the house so that the Lord is glorified and the children are reared in an atmosphere of love, respect, and peace.

The Christian woman shares with her husband the responsibility of bringing up the children in the “nurture and admonition” of the Lord (Eph. 6:3).  It is in this way that the gracious woman keeps her honor (Prov. 11:16).

A Christian woman makes her husband glad.  She is a crown to her husband (Prov. 12:4).  The virtuous woman is glorified and praised in Proverbs 31:10.  Indeed the woman who “fears the Lord” shall be praised (Prov. 31:30).  She, like Dorcas, will be full of good works (Acts 9:36).

There are occasions when a Christian woman may not have a husband, yet have children and grandchildren as did Lois (Timothy’s grandmother, II Tim. 1:5).  Paul said that Timothy had known the Holy Scripture from childhood.  Evidently this resulted from the efforts of Eunice (Timothy’s mother) and Lois.

Space fails us to talk at length of Lydia (Acts 16), a business woman who worshiped God and became a Christian after hearing the Gospel of Christ.  It is evident that women may often, of necessity, need to financially support their family.  This was the case with Lydia.  Yet the Christian woman finds her greatest fulfillment in her service to God in the home.