Women in the workplace.

[Scarlett O.]

The only way that Adam could save his wife was to stoop and become acquainted with her sin nature much like Christ did for us. Christ did not sin, mind you, but He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

In Adam's perfect state he could have no communion with fallen Eve. (II Cor.:14-16)...
Since Adam could not lift Eve to his level without the Redeemer seed, he must lower himself to her level, assume her guilt, become partaker of her sin and condemnation, and then, the separation between them being removed, he could become the father of her seed. And so Adam deliberately, willingly, and with full knowledge of the consequence, took the fruit from Eve's hand and did eat...(I Tim. 2:14) Adam was not deceived. He knew it meant his death, but it was the only way to save his beloved bride. And this salvation would be by the bearing of a child...

Adam's transgression was different from any other. We sin because we are sinners. He became a sinner because he deliberately chose to share in the sin of Eve...Jesus also loved the church, His bride, and gave Himself for it. His bride too had been deceived by the enemy and alienated from God...He identified Himself with our sin..Jesus took our sin upon Himself. It meant His death, but his love knew no bounds..."

Cutter, I find this statement to be not only misogynistic, but much more importantly, extremely unbiblical.

Putting the misogyny aside ("stoop" - your implication that only the woman was at fault and that Adam was a martyr and her romanticized savior), Adam could not have saved Eve AFTER she had tasted the forbidden fruit. He did not have that power nor authority.

If there was a time for saving her, it would have been BEFORE.

The Bible says that he was with her when she sinned. Why didn't he stop her before she ate?

"And the serpent said to the woman, 'You shall not die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil'. So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her and he ate." Genesis 3:4-6

Adam was with her. He ate willingly as a sinful participant - just like she did. She ate because the serpent deceived her and he ate - well, because he just took it from her hand and did it.

If Adam were this romance novel martyr who couldn't bear the thought of his dear wife suffering God's wrath all alone and sacrificing himself for her sake, then why did he throw her under the bus by blaming her and why did he tempt God's wrath, himself, by rebelliously blaming God?

Your romantically sacrificial and noble martyr-Adam does not match the Biblical-Adam who hid from God, blamed his wife, and most of all blamed God for his own wrong behavior.

Adam and Eve were both sinners.

Different in their desire and motivations, but equal in their culpability and equal in their apparent disdain of God's Word and equal in their sin.

I know that you will disagree with me, but c'est la vie. I've heard this Adam-Savior-Romance Novel Martyr theory many times before and it never holds water with me as I interpret the Fall of humanity from a Biblical interpretation.

 

[ccrobinson]

His bride too had been deceived by the enemy and alienated from God

It's an interesting theory, but I don't agree with it. If Adam had this understanding of the need for a redeemer, then why did he blame his sin on Eve? I've always thought that the reason that Adam ate the fruit is because he would have rather died with Eve then lived without her.

 

[annsni]

Wow - it's amazing what some men will do to put down women and to build men up.

Fortunately we have the Scriptures to know the truth and not lies.

 

[Shortandy]

who says women work 9 to 5? if you any you'd know they work more then 9 to 5

where does it say she didn't?

couldn't be done, then or now

But the Titus passage says at home. Look up the phrase "busy at home". It meas work at home. Im not trying to be mean just trying my best to compare scripture to scripture. Proverbs 31 is silent about the nature or extent of the woman's work but Titus 2 says at home.

How do you reconcile these things?

 

[annsni]

But the Titus passage says at home. Look up the phrase "busy at home". It meas work at home. Im not trying to be mean just trying my best to compare scripture to scripture. Proverbs 31 is silent about the nature or extent of the woman's work but Titus 2 says at home.

How do you reconcile these things?

Every woman is busy at home whether she has a job outside of the home or not.

 

[PastorGreg]

Haven't been on for a while, so don't know all the history here, but I don't see the OP claiming some of the things assigned to it. Have to agree, though, the Adam thing is ludicrous, whether from DeHaan or anyone else. Adam ate the fruit because he was a man (read stubborn) and no one (including God) was going to tell him he couldn't do it.
The Prov. 31 arguments don't hold up because women couldn't purchase property in that day, so she would have done it as her husband's agent. No, she was not confined to her home, but all her "working" was about caring for her home. It is clearly God's best for the wife to be focused on the home, especially if there are children. TItus 2 has yet to be refuted. "Keepers at home" means her job is the home. It must be her primary focus. Certainly the mom can be involved in helping to provide, as the Prov 31 wife did, but God did not give kids to families to be raised by daycare providers. Obviously, you have special situations with single moms, divorced, widowed, etc. The church needs to graciously step in and minister as much as possible for those types of needs.
BTW - A careful study of history and Scripture will reveal that the norm ahs been for both parents to be at home. The men didn't "go to work," they worked their own fields or tended their own shop with the family, at emeals wit hteh family, etc. I believe that having either parent (much less both) absent from the home for 50 - 80 hours a week is contrary to God's plan. Thou mayest commence throwing thy projectiles.

 

[annsni]

Haven't been on for a while, so don't know all the history here, but I don't see the OP claiming some of the things assigned to it. Have to agree, though, the Adam thing is ludicrous, whether from DeHaan or anyone else. Adam ate the fruit because he was a man (read stubborn) and no one (including God) was going to tell him he couldn't do it.
The Prov. 31 arguments don't hold up because women couldn't purchase property in that day, so she would have done it as her husband's agent. No, she was not confined to her home, but all her "working" was about caring for her home. It is clearly God's best for the wife to be focused on the home, especially if there are children. TItus 2 has yet to be refuted. "Keepers at home" means her job is the home. It must be her primary focus. Certainly the mom can be involved in helping to provide, as the Prov 31 wife did, but God did not give kids to families to be raised by daycare providers. Obviously, you have special situations with single moms, divorced, widowed, etc. The church needs to graciously step in and minister as much as possible for those types of needs.
BTW - A careful study of history and Scripture will reveal that the norm ahs been for both parents to be at home. The men didn't "go to work," they worked their own fields or tended their own shop with the family, at emeals wit hteh family, etc. I believe that having either parent (much less both) absent from the home for 50 - 80 hours a week is contrary to God's plan. Thou mayest commence throwing thy projectiles.

This I agree with. I do think it's best for a mom to be home if possible and to work part time when the child is in school (or to work like I do - with my kids going with me) is not against God's Word. I thank God that I've been able to be home with my kids all through their lives and have never had to get an outside babysitter except once or twice for DH and I to go to a wedding or something (when our parents were not able to watch the kids).

I also do think that churches need to step in to assist those families who need the help (widows, single moms, etc.) and I see that happening in our church right now with a widow. It brings tears to my eyes to see the church doing what God designed it to do - it just works so well!

 

[gb93433]

Several have used Proverbs 31 in defense of their view but I have a question. Where in that text do you see her working a 9 to 5? Couldn't these things be done from her home? Not trying to sound harsh I am just curious about your use of the text.

Buying a field and planting it cannot be done at home.

 

[PastorGreg]

Sure it can. THousands of people do it every year. Not in the house, obviously, but at home.

 

[RAdam]

A woman working is only a problem when it prevents her from guiding the house and raising children. For instance, if a woman spends all her time working and neglects her family, she is not doing what God has instructed and it is then a problem. Obviously things work ideally when the woman is able to stay home with the kids, but as long as she is able to fill her role in the home, there is no problem.

Now, I want to remind you that us men have roles too. We, likewise, shouldn't spend all our time working to the neglect of our family. We also shouldn't come home and prop up our feet every evening while the wife slaves away cooking and cleaning. Treat your wife in accordance with the knowledge that you are heirs together of the grace of life.

 

[Peggy]

What makes you think that a working woman doesn't have her home as her primary concern?

 

[Revmitchell]

What makes you think that a working woman doesn't have her home as her primary concern?

Some do...many do not

 

[annsni]

I'll give you two examples:

1 - Mom has two young children ages 2 years and a 2 month old baby. Baby gets fussy in the morning while mom is trying to get ready for work so she has hubby run baby over to daycare so she can get ready then she brings the 2 year old to daycare too. She doesn't need to work but couldn't imagine being home all day with her kids and she doesn't want to give up her "career" (she's a secretary).

2 - Mom has 3 young children at home. She needs to work because they can't afford their tiny two bedroom home without her income. She has her mom watch the kids and leaves work immediately when she's done so that she can get home to them. She will take time off here and there just to be able to be home with sick children or whatever and her employer is more than happy to work with her so that she can continue bringing in a paycheck yet still be there for her kids.

So, the differences here are that mom #1 has abandoned her place at home and with her children. The second mom has not. It's a matter of heart priorities and mom number one now wonders why her 2 teen boys are so disrespectful of her and so disobedient. The second mom's three kids are now grown and started working at 14 to be able to bring in money so that mom doesn't have to work so much. They are all married now and have families - and continue to help their mom and dad whenever they can. Yes, both are true stories of people I know well.

Working outside the home is not horrible but where the heart is can make it that way.

 

[go2church]

Perhaps the problem is men not stepping up and being responsible?!?!

 

[PastorGreg]

"So, the differences here are that mom #1 has abandoned her place at home and with her children. The second mom has not. It's a matter of heart priorities"

Well stated, Ann.

 

[Aaron]

read the op.

I did. No where are "all" the ills of society are blamed on women.

to take care of, but be imprisoned to never leave, to scour to floors and scrub the toilets day and night to serve men. thers just so much to do in the house, then you got nothing.

You haven't answered the question. Aren't men supposed to "take care of," the home? But no man is commanded to guide the house or be a keeper at home.

no, after reading your postings on this for years this is exactly how you view women.

You know you're being disingenuous.

this is how aaron views women, and it's nto all of what we've seen him post, it gets worse.

I got rave reviews from the women on this board for some recent advice I gave a man concerning his Catholic wife. Where were you?

 

[Aaron]

Actually Aaron, I didn't have the 19th ammendment in mind. LOL, I've been watching way to much of HBO's Tudor series and had that time period in mind for the first comment and yes, I had Biblical times in mind for the second. Nothing in scripture encourages such a position even though it persisted for centuries and not just in Judeo/Christian societies, but in most societies around the world.

People might want to look back and say "oh, in the good ol' days women stayed home and kept the house and the kids. yada, yada", but they don't want to talk about what happened if a woman lost her husband or if HE decided he didn't want to be married. They don't want to talk about the prevailing theory of the time that woman was more prone to sinfulness than man and thus needed "protection" from that so-called fault all the while ignoring the fact that it was ADAM who sinned knowingly while Eve was merely deceived.

I'm all ears.

 

[Aaron]

Hopefully this is not a slander against Adam. The only way that Adam could save his wife was to stoop and become acquainted with her sin nature much like Christ did for us.

So Adam fell because of his virtue?

So wrong. So, so wrong.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Considering women leaving their God ordained duties of keepers at home and entering the workplace creating loss of jobs for breadwinners (men), children being raised with gender identification problems, divorce and adultery, etc... has it really been worth it as a whole for our society?

The ideal is for women to be in the home, but that isn't always possible.

Has it really been worth it? Well, that depends on what you believe the goal is.

There's no question that women in the workplace has had a detremental impact, but there are instances, such as WWII, where it was necessary.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I'm all ears.

Did you want links, Aaron?

To a lenghty but good article on women during Tudor times:

http://tudors.crispen.org/tudor_women/

To the Showtime series, sorry I said HBO earlier:

http://www.sho.com/site/tudors/home.do

On the double standard that existed on the treatment of men's adultry compared to a womans:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/828954

On the fact that the view of women as inherently sinful was NOT just a Christian belief:

http://faculty.luther.edu/~kopfg/interesting/papers/ROBIN.HTM

A quote from your fav, John Calvin, on his idea that women are more likely to push for sinful activities, dress provactively in the 1500s and enjoy running around rather than finding things to occupy them at home:

http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwardsk/hist310/reader/calvinmarriage.pdf

Really the one above shows more that there is nothing new under the sun, than anything else. Calvin complained about exactly the same things as are discussed frequently on this board.

A rather good article on how Martin Luther changed views on women (first few paragraphs):

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/howreformation_changedworld.htm

Enough?