Saturday, July 24, 2010

What’s the Big Deal?: Presenting the Crucial Importance of Stay-at-home Daughterhood to the Kingdom of God Part 2

The mission of this particular article is to help Christendom to come to a fuller understanding of the importance of stay-at-home daughterhood to the Kingdom of God. The magnitude of this importance must not be underestimated, but rather thoroughly pondered, considered, and researched. With this thought in mind, we will proceed with a contemplation of the second truth which girds this doctrine, on the topic of the Biblical family unit, with its importance.

As clearly portrayed in Genesis 3, terrible things can occur when women are on their own, independent of the protection, involvement, and leadership of husband or father.

This is a truth which Satan understands very well. While this is the case, it is also a truth which Christendom has largely forgotten, much to its detriment. Without a sturdy, solid, balanced, and fair understanding of this truth, Christendom begins to be chipped away and attacked by the Adversary, with his minions and ploys.

Now before I continue, I want to make something very clear. The belief presented above is not to say, as the wicked Islamist does, that women have half the brain of man and so therefore must be carefully scrutinized and meticulously controlled, so as to prevent them from making stupid mistakes and blunders which will completely destroy the family. It is likewise not to say that women should be under the domineering, watchful eye of a controlling man every minute of every day. Such is a terribly confused misunderstanding propounded by those, such as the Islamist, who rely upon their own man-made belief systems rather than upon the sure foundation of God’s Word. Now that that has been understood, we can proceed with today’s lesson.

Genesis 3

This chapter is perhaps the worst in all of Scripture in terms of the events told of therein. In this passage, man falls from a state of purity and innocence to one of total depravity, rebellion, and wickedness. In this chapter is presented the account of how sin entered into the world and the terrible consequences brought about by it. Verse 1 says, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” This verse is noteworthy for several reasons, but for our particular study today, we will only discuss two of these.

Notice first how the serpent, possessed by the Devil himself, is described: he is said to have been more subtil than any other beast. Some translations describe him as being tricky, cunning, deceitful, or crafty. All of these words describe him well, and this subtlety has been what the Adversary has used ever since to slyly deceive and ensnare countless people-even those who claim the name of Christ. Satan is portrayed elsewhere in the Scriptures as parading around as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). This craftiness and worldly wisdom provided him with a method to use in his mission to tempt mankind into committing sin and rebellion against God. What did Satan’s sly, seducing “smarts”, if you will, lead him to do? Go straight to the woman!

This is the second issue to contemplate. Verse 1, after describing the serpent as being subtil goes on to say that he “said unto the woman”. This was by no means a mere coincidence or even a mistake! Satan knew exactly what he was doing when he planned his scheme of deception so as to launch it when he found Eve alone. This is precisely what he wanted, for he knew that he would be far more successful in his mission to deceive mankind and to drive man into rebellion against God if he sought to tempt Eve when he found her alone, at a time when she was without the companionship of her husband, Adam. Speaking on this very issue in a wonderful sermon, Dr. John MacArthur says the following [presented in transcript form from a sermon on the fall of man]:

“First of all, just to note, I ask questions when I study the Bible, my first question is…why did he [Satan] go to Eve and not Adam? Why did he go to Eve and not Adam? Well I think maybe the best answer is 1 Peter 3:7, that woman by God’s design from the physical standpoint, from the emotional structure standpoint is the weaker vessel. God has poured into the lives of women sensitivities, compassions, a certain level of tenderness. She is not by created design the warrior, the fighter, the defender, the protector, she is the one to be defended, to be protected. She is the one who needs to be covered and cared for. That’s why in Ephesians 5 husbands are to love their wives and they’re to be the guardians of their wives’ purity and the guardians of their wives’ character and they are to nourish them and to cherish them. At the same time they are to be their savior, as Christ is the Savior and provider of His church. And [in] 1 Timothy 2 the Apostle Paul says, ‘I do not permit a woman in the church to take leadership, to teach, but rather she is to learn.’ And the New Testament even says she is to go home if she has questions and ask her husband. The husband is the leader, the husband is the spiritual guardian and the spiritual protector of this woman because she is wired to be tender, she is wired to be compliant, she is wired to be compassionate because that is such a critical matter in the rearing of children and in offsetting the strength of her husband. The balance is wonderful. But when a woman is taken out of that protection, there is a level of vulnerability there. That is why [in] the Bible it is normal, it is the standard approach, there are some exceptions by God’s design, but it is normal for women to have a husband, that is the design of God because a woman was designed by God to be a helper to man, to be covered, protected, sheltered, cared for by a man and to take that tender side and use it in the lives of children as well as in the life of her husband. And where a woman does not have a husband, she is still to be the special care of a father who offers her that oversight and that care that she cannot receive from a husband. And we’re reminded by the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy that when a young woman loses her husband and becomes a widow, she should marry because she needs that covering, she needs that protection. And that is also why wherever you have divorce with biblical grounds, you have the allowance for remarriage because God knows that women are designed not to go through the world in an unprotected fashion, particularly those women who need to be married who have been designed by God to be married, they need the covering and protection of a husband. Now this situation is exactly what Satan would have wanted, an uncovered, unprotected, sensitive Eve. This is what the Apostle Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 3, ‘I’m afraid lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.’ What happened was, Eve was led astray. She wandered off. She was found, I’m sure, by Satan in an unprotected condition and that’s exactly what he wanted. Now he may well have succeeded with Adam, but he believed he had a better opportunity to launch this thing with Eve.”1 (emphasis added)

As we have established previously in this series and as Dr. MacArthur articulated above, God has designed the family in such a way so that women, regardless of age or marital status, will be protected and led by either husband or father. Granted, we live in a fallen world and so having a godly father or husband to lead you may be rare these days (we will discuss that in a future article). However, we cannot take this consequence of sin and use it as an excuse to live however we want to, independently from the family. Two wrongs do not make a right. Interestingly, if we as daughters strive to live independently from our families due to what we see as “less than perfect circumstances” or our own whims, then we are falling into the very trap of Satan with which he ensnared Eve. God desires for daughters to be under the care and authority of their fathers until they are given to their husbands in marriage. As Dr. MacArthur stated above, this is a beautiful and wonderful design! Ladies were created and designed by God to be more emotional that they might be true nurturers, characterized by understanding, sympathy, deep, abiding love, caring spirits, sensitivity, compassion, and tenderness. With this emotional nature, however, also comes vulnerability in some ways. How often have we heard stories of women opening their doors to door-to-door salesmen and, instead of refusing to buy whatever it was due to not having a need for the item or else not having the finances for it, proceeded to buy the worthless item because she “felt sorry for the salesman”? Instances similar to this are very common; they come as a result of our caring nature! However, it can also get us into deep trouble, as well! As Kay Arthur has explained, women are, by nature, more subjective, while men are more objective. Men see the facts that are associated with this choice or that, this event or that, while women are more likely to see another person’s feelings and think of how a certain choice might affect another person’s happiness. This can lead to dangerous situations.The Lord understands this (as did Satan, didn’t he?), and therefore has so ordered matters as to provide the woman with a strong, logical companion to protect her from seducing schemes and dishonest, untrustworthy people. Without this covering, terrible things can occur, and we females can find ourselves in dire circumstances. This is precisely the reason why the laws outlined in Numbers 30 were issued to us by our all-wise God! This is also the reason why we must take seriously the fact that when women are left alone (or go off alone), unwanted events can occur, much as they did in the Garden of Eden.

Correctly Interpreting the Meaning of “With Her”

Some would deny that Eve was alone in the Garden when she was tempted by the Devil, appealing to Genesis 3:6 for support. This verse reads, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.“ At first glance, this passage could be made to suggest that Eve was not in fact alone, for Adam was right there beside her in the Garden when the serpent came. However, there are a few issues with this interpretation, which can be outlined as follows.

The wording of verse 1 makes it clear that Adam was not present when Eve was deceived.

As noted above, Genesis 3:1 says, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, ‘Yeah, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” The serpent spoke to the woman, implying that she was alone. Furthermore, we never see the Lord telling Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Rather, in Genesis 2:15-17 (prior to the creation of Eve in verse 22), God proclaims to Adam that he must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and that if he were to disobey this order, he would suffer death. Never does the Lord go to Eve and say the same thing. From this, we can deduce that from day one, man was ordained by God to be the spiritual leader. Adam had the responsibility of teaching Eve what God had said and warning her to not sin against Him. Therefore, in all likelihood, had Adam been there standing beside Eve in the Garden when the serpent came to her, he would have strongly protested the devil’s scheme and striven to protect Eve against his wiles. Therefore, from verse 1 of chapter 3, we are introduced to the fact that Eve was alone when the serpent came to her. Yet again, here is proof that Satan found Eve in the precise condition he wanted her-alone, without the protection and oversight of her husband.

Adam’s own testimony makes it clear that the deception took place when Eve was alone.

Following Eve’s sin and her subsequent enticement of Adam, which led to his own disobedience, Adam gives an account to God of what took place and why he committed his act of sin. Genesis 3:11b-13 says, “’Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?’ And the man said, ‘The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat.’ And the Lord God said unto the woman, ‘What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, ‘The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.’” Nowhere does Adam speak of being with Eve when the serpent suddenly appeared and deceived them. Adam was not somehow standing close to Eve when she was being deceived by the Devil, simply whistling and minding his own business (thereby somehow not being deceived) while he watched the deception taking place. He simply was not there with her when the deception occurred! Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. After being deceived, Eve gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. Obviously, shortly after the deception, Eve either went to find Adam to give him the fruit, or perhaps he appeared not long after. Either way, Eve was alone when the deception took place, for Adam testifies plainly that he was not deceived by the serpent-he simply took the fruit that Eve offered him. The way the verses read, it even appears that perhaps Adam did not yet know about the serpent’s appearance, for he speaks solely of Eve giving him the fruit-he does not mention a serpent deceiving Eve. Eve is the one who places the blame on the serpent; therefore, it is perfectly valid to state that perhaps Adam had not yet been notified of the serpent’s deception. Another proof of the fact that Eve was alone when she was deceived!

The testimony of the Scriptures present the fact that Eve was deceived; Adam was not.

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

~1 Timothy 2:13-14

The verse speaks for itself-Adam simply was not deceived. Had he been present with Eve when the deception took place, the entire account would have likely been different-he may have been deceived, as well. But he was not. This is not to say that man is infinitely stronger than woman when it comes to dealing with temptation and that Adam would have definitely resisted the deception had he been with Eve when it occurred. However, based on this verse, we can know without a shadow of doubt that Eve was in fact alone when the serpent seduced her.

The wording “with her” makes perfect sense when it is understood that Adam would have, of course, been in the same garden as Eve.

The phrase “with her” does not have to (and Biblically speaking, cannot) be taken to mean that Adam was right by her side in the garden when Eve was deceived by the serpent. Furthermore, it is perfectly understandable for verse 6 of Genesis chapter 3 to say “with her” when we understand that Adam was in the same garden as Eve, the Garden of Eden. Therefore, for the verse to say “with her” is not deceptive in any way. Adam was certainly “with her” in the garden. He simply was not in her presence at the time of the deception.

In Conclusion:

Applying Lessons from Genesis 3 to Our Day

What do we always hear from feminist circles? What is a notion that is always taught in each and every feminist circle, regardless of how liberal or conservative they may be, their race, religious worldview, etc.? That women should be free to be on their own, living independently from any father or husband, that they should freely make all their own decisions without seeking the advice, wisdom, or input of husband or father, etc. As we will study further in a future article in this series, our modern day feminism has its roots in the pagan Gnostic religion of the late 2nd and 3rd centuries, a pagan witchcraft religion which Satan used (and is still using to this day) to attempt to weaken the Church. Clearly, Satan is using the same ploy as he did in time past-lure the women away from the home and family and, by so doing, influence them with the lies of Satan. The women, in turn, (as Eve herself did) will heavily influence their families with the lies of the Devil. This is the second reason why stay-at-home daughterhood is so very crucial to the kingdom of God. Not only is this doctrine presented throughout the Scriptures as we outlined in the first part of this article, but stay-at-home daughterhood also protects daughters from the vile, seducing wiles of Satan. Undoubtedly, between the time of the fall of Satan and the fall of man, the Devil had been eagerly waiting for the perfect time to tempt mankind to rebel against God. Evidently, he had been waiting for the perfect time to pounce, so as to assure victory. What was that perfect scenario? The time when Eve was separated from Adam and alone, without his leadership, covering, and protection. All of this is not to say that women are weak-minded and weak willed and are nothing more than little children when it comes to standing up against temptation. Throughout the Scriptures, we are given examples of strong, feminine, women who fought bravely against the Devil and his attacks. However, as stated above, women tend to be far more subjective than men, and therefore more readily give in to situations that may not be the wisest, simply because they feel sorry for someone else. For this reason, God has given husbands and fathers to guard, protect, and lead their wives and daughters. Again quoting Dr. MacArthur, “She [Eve] was the object of his attack, being the weaker one [this is perfectly true-1 Pet. 3:7-and does not go against what I just said above!] and needing the protection of her husband. He found her alone and unfortified by Adam’s experience and counsel.”2 He goes on to say, “By leaving Adam’s protection and usurping his headship, she was vulnerable and fell, thus confirming how important it was for her to stay under the protection and leadership of her husband.”3

Sadly, in our day, the Christian church is experiencing a dangerous, very destructive problem. There are, thankfully, people who readily admit, as Dr. MacArthur does above, to the need wives have for their husbands to lead and protect them. However, these very same people, many of whom may be good Complementarians, when it comes to the topic of stay-at-home daughterhood, angrily shake in their boots at the very thought, proclaiming that the doctrine is legalistic and that it deprives daughters of the opportunity to do and be everything they should. I’m sorry to say, there is a major disconnect here. Are we supposed to think that daughters do not need the protective oversight and wise leadership of a father, when we know that a wife needs her husband’s leadership and protection? Are we going to say that somehow wives are in great need of that leadership and protection, but that daughters (who are generally younger and more naïve, I might add!), are not? That it is somehow ok to ship them away from home to do their own thing and take full care of themselves immediately following high school graduation? Excuse me for ranting, but how dare we be so foolish! How can we even begin to think that a husband is sinning if he is not lovingly leading and diligently protecting his wife and yet not think the same of a father who sends his daughter off to live on her own? It is high time that the Christian church be Biblically balanced rather than being contradictory and picking out the Scripture passages that they like and ignoring the ones they do not. It is high time we follow God’s Word rather than the idol of self or the idol of the world and its teachings.

Not only do we see in Genesis 3 the importance of women remaining under the protection and leadership of husband or father, but we also see the crucial importance of husbands and fathers actively leading and protecting. I will not dwell on this for very long, as it is not my jurisdiction to teach men. However, I do want to point out to the daughters, for a minute, the importance of that protection-that it is not something to shirk or disdain or even run away from. Rather, it is something to joyfully, wholeheartedly embrace and something in which to delight. Had Adam been actively fulfilling his duty to lead, protect, and guard Eve, the deception would have been far less likely to have been victorious. However, Adam was being negligent in that duty. He then went so far as to, rather than being a man and bearing his responsibility manfully, blame Eve for his eating of the fruit. “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. (Gen. 3:12)” Ever since that day in the Garden, men have struggled with refusing to strongly, yet tenderly, lead their families. Instead, ever since that day, men have largely been either domineering tyrants or else couch potatoes who refuse to actively lead, but instead negligently do their own thing. Likewise, ever since that day, women have largely (either simply inwardly in their hearts, or blatantly like the modern day feminist) disdained the authority, leadership, and oversight of men.

May we, the Church of Jesus Christ, refuse to continue wallowing in the mire of those paths! May we, as young women, instead learn to view male leadership, protection, and active involvement in our lives as a great blessing from our Lord Who desires to protect us from the wiles of Satan to which Eve fell prey!



2. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible -NKJV (Word Publishing, a division of Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1997), pg. 19

3. Ibid., pg. 1864


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Hello,
    I just thought I would make a point that is pertinent to what you have written. If you believe in the literal word of the bible, then the following statement does not support your argument:

    "As noted above, Genesis 3:1 says, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, ‘Yeah, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” The serpent spoke to the woman, implying that she was alone."

    The word "ye" is not second person, singular. It is second person, plural. I don't know why the word has fallen into general disuse, but you can see it used in another way:

    "Come all ye faithful."

    The word "all" denotes multiple people. While people nowadays do not use "ye," the translaters for the KJV would have been well aware of the distinction between "you" and "ye."

    Hope this helps you to refine your argument.

  3. A Sister in ChristJuly 25, 2010 at 1:49 PM

    Dear Rebekah,

    It is clear that you wish to honor the Lord and that your heart is soft to Him. I am so glad for this and ask Him to guide and strengthen you in all things. I hope that you see my statements here today not as an attack to undermine you, but as thoughts to edify you as you seek wisdom with a diligent, earnest heart.

    Part of your argument for stay at home daughterhood is illustrated, as you've done, through the dangers that Eve faced as she partook alone of the forbidden fruit. You acknowledge that she was not "alone" alone, as in Adam was in the garden even while not in her immediate presence. However, to apply this argument to your topic we would have to conclude that protection from the enemy must then mean a literal, side by side presence of a woman's husband or father. Consider that the garden might be analogous to a family's sphere of dominion. According to the logic presented here, a father could be present within a home and yet as Eve stood alone-but-not-alone, could this same thing happen, by your logic, to a daughter who is not literally in the side-by-side presence of her father (who still may be nearby, like Adam)?

    It seems that, according to your logic, the only true protection is a side-by-side continual presence. I would agree with you on this, Yes! However, it seems we would disagree with Who that should be.

    I am limited in my snatches of time but hope to return to address more, if that's okay. I do appreciate your honest, sincere study of Scripture and know that I can learn from your example.

  4. Several things here I simply don't understand. First, the illustration of the woman as the soft one who will buy out of compassion. Cannot relate to that at all. The women I've known are the practical ones -- such as my mother and myself -- who would say "I don't need that so won't buy it" -- while it was the men, my husband and father, who would feel compelled to buy it out of compassion. I have several items in my house never used or needed that my husband bought to be kind. I know way too many examples of this to accept that one can generalize men and women in this way.

    Second, I don't understand these "terrible things" that will happen when a girl goes away to college or whatever and isn't under the "guidance" of a man. I went to college -- away for five years, and then into the mission field for many more. Wonderful things happened to me -- my relationship with God grew much closer. The most wonderful, of course, was meeting the man God wanted to marry -- in another country. That would hever have happened hadn't I followed the series of miracles that led me there. All my friends went away from home too. Not one single person had something terrible thing happen to her. Instead, many good things happened that also drew them closer to God.

    Third, I've never heard someone claim that women should be free to make decisions independently, without seeking advice. I've always been taught that all people -- men and women -- are wise to seek advice from those who have knowledge in the appropriate area -- whether man or woman. And that sort of ties into something I've wondered about many times when you've stated you couldn't publish your article because your father hasn't read it over. While it is certainly lovely that your father takes an interest in what you do, shouldn't it be your mother that would be the ultimate authority here? After all, you are talking about females, not males, so she is the expert, not him. Surely if there was an important article to publish he wouldn't be so selfish as to hold it up just because he hadn't looked over it -- surely he would be able to trust that she had the knowledge in that area -- more so than he did -- to guide you correctly.

    Generalizations of this sort in parts of the article weaken it and make me wonder how accurate you were in other parts.


  5. Schy B,

    Hi! Thank you for your comment. When I logged into my blog this evening, I noticed that it had been deleted. It says that it was deleted by the author, but I don't know that those who post comments on my blog can then delete them. So, in case there was a glitch in the system, I'll re-post your comment here for you:

    "First I would like to ask you about subtil..? Do you mean subtle? :) I think these are good points and a good lifestyle but not commanded and not for everyone."

    I'm glad you brought up the subtil/subtle issue, as I wouldn't want to cause any confusion. I use mainly the KJV now in my writings, and subtle is simply spelled subtil in the KJV. Different spelling, but same meaning! :)

    As for not being commanded, I agree with you to a degree. There is no passage issued to daughters that says, "Thou shalt remain in thy father's home until you are given in marriage." And, you know what? It's a good thing there isn't! ;) If there were, daughters could be stuck in terribly dangerous situations if they had violently abusive fathers. And our gracious Lord would never try to ensnare young women in traps of danger and destruction. It's a lot like the way the Lord handles divorce. He absolutely hates it, but it is allowed in situations of sexual immorality. Likewise, the Lord's heart breaks when He sees young women struggling out on their own without the protection of father or husband. But He does provide alternate protection (be that from a mother, older brother, friend, pastor's family, aunt and uncle, etc.) when a safe father's home is not available. What is commanded, however, is that fathers actively lead and protect their daughters until they give them in marriage (Numbers 30). So you see, while daughters are not expressly commanded to remain at home while they are yet unmarried, fathers are indeed commanded to lead and protect them while they remain unmarried. There is great blessing in this, as I said, for it provides daughters with guidance, oversight, and protection, yet it provides a way of escape for those daughters who find themselves in dire circumstances. I'll elaborate on this further in a future article! :)

    As for stay-at-home daughterhood not being for everyone, in a perfect world, I believe it would be for everyone (it's part of the beautiful design God has for the family). I know, however, that people today have been so deceived in areas pertaining to family dynamics that to say what I just did would shock or even despair those who don't fully grasp the beauties of stay-at-home daughterhood. I hope you see where I'm coming from, though! :)

    Thank you again for your comment!
    Blessings to you,

  6. Anonymous,

    Thank you for pointing that out regarding the use of "ye"; I really appreciate that! You make a great point. However, I wouldn't say that the use of the word "ye" in verse 1 weakens the argument that Eve was in fact alone. Satan could easily have been, when speaking to Eve, referring to the command issued to Adam (and, consequently, to both Adam and Eve) to not eat of the tree. In other words, he could have been speaking of the command that was issued to the couple, while he was yet speaking to solely one person. I believe this to be plausible for the reasons stated in my article as to why we can believe that Eve was alone.

    Second, the word "you" can also refer to a plurality of people. There are instances in writings (such as letters and books) from around the time of the translation of the KJV where the word "ye" is used when speaking to only one person alone, being used much as we do the word "you". It appears that both "ye" and "you" can be used to refer to singular, as well as plural, subjects. So, again, I don't think that the presence of the word "ye" in verse 1 has to make us think that Eve somehow was not alone in the Garden after all.

    Thank you again for the comment!

  7. A Sister in Christ,

    Hello! Thank you for your input! :) I always greatly enjoy hearing from my readers.

    You kind words mean a lot to me; thank you for taking the time to leave those! :) That's a great blessing! And I definitely do not see your comment as an attack at all! Please feel free to come on back whenever you like! :) You're always welcome.

    I think you make an excellent point! I agree with you. One of the reasons why I said what I did about Islamists in my article was so that those who read my article would understand that I was not advocating women having to be under the watchful eye of a man every second of the day. This is not even plausible or Biblical given the jurisdictions given to men and women-that men go out and earn a living and that women remain at home and care for that sphere and the family that lives there. When we read of the Proverbs 31 woman, we read of her going to town to acquire food for the family, purchasing the needed goods for the furthering of her home business, etc. We also read of her husband sitting with the elders (civil rulers) of the land. So, God does not force women to be in the side by side presence of a man at all times. My purpose in the article was not to say that women have to be with men at all times of the day. Rather, it was to show that the modern day notion of sending young women out into this dog eat dog world once they reach the "magical age of 18" is highly dangerous and terribly unwise (not to mention unBiblical!). To illustrate this, I presented the account of how sin came into the world and showed that Satan planned and unfurled his deception at such a time when Eve was alone, thereby showing how vulnerable women can be when they are living alone or leading independent lives (I'm not saying Eve was living alone, I'm simply using the account of sin entering the world to prove my point about independent lifestyles not being wise for women).

    I agree with you wholeheartedly that the only true, perfect, complete, lasting protection comes from the Lord alone. And what a great blessing His precious protection is, too! :) However, I've had people object to my articles on fathers protecting and leading their unmarried adult daughters by saying that the only protection adult, unmarried women need is that of the Lord and that these women shouldn't be "enslaved" in their father's homes. Well, I have more than one problem with that viewpoint! First, I believe that stay-at-home daughterhod, if lived out according to the Scriptures alone, is anything but enslaving! Likewise, to say that the only protection adult unmarried women truly need is the Lord's and so therefore they do not have to remain at home is problematic, as well. That is like saying that wives only need the Lord's provision, and that therefore husbands are not required to provide for them. Well, 1 Tim. 5:8 states that men who do not provide for their families have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers. Likewise, while God is the Ultimate Protector, He commands men to protect their wives and children (1 Pet. 3:7, Numbers 30, etc.).

    It is a great blessing, though, that in those times of the day when we do not have the physical protection of husband or father, we always have the all-seeing, protective oversight of our Heavenly Father!

    Thank you again for your comment!

  8. I disagree, Adam WAS with Eve. He wasn't deceived because he knew the command not to eat the fruit; God left it to him to instruct his wife, and he clearly didn't do so very well. He also stood idly by while the serpent addressed only Eve, knowing she could be deceived. This is why the Bible names Adam as the one who sin came through: he knew his sin, and she was deceived and did not. MacAurthur makes a lot of mass assumptions of women that don't fit; never ONCE does the Bible call the woman emotionally weaker, and this is another faulty belief of men like him to keep women dependent emotionally on men always being there. You are wise, Rebekah; I've just come to believe from evidence presented that Eve wasn't alone after all.

  9. Elisabeth,

    I appreciate your input and you make some good points. I also appreciate the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding about my father, as well.

    First, I readily agree that there are women (such as my own mother and I both!) who would be more likely to refuse to buy something that was unneeded, rather than buy the product out of compassion. Having said that, however, (and my mother would admit to this freely), as amazingly industrious, wisely frugal, financially savvy, and diligent to guard her home against worthless, detrimental splurges, as she is, my mother because she has such a big heart, would also struggle, to a degree, with saying no to the salesman, out of her love for others. I'm sure you can relate to feeling like this, as well! Likewise, the Prov. 31 woman, while certainly strong and industrious also had a kind, caring heart. Being wise does not mean, of course, that we have hearts of stone or something. I've recently been watching the most wonderful series on marriage by our neighbor, Kay Arthur (which I quoted from in this article). She made the point that women (as I said) tend to be more subjective, while men tend to be more objective. But she was quick to immediately (as I did as well) state the fact that this is not the case across the board-there are certainly exceptions. But, by and large, it tends to be the case. I was not in any way trying to make a "broad generalization" with no exceptions whatsoever. I thought that was clear in my article. If it was not, I apologize and appreciate your bring this up so that I could clarify!

    As for great things coming from women going off to college, I agree that this does happen. God brings wonderful events (and people into our lives! :) ) through less than perfect circumstances or even through tragedies, too. I've made that point many, many times on this blog in regards to people stating that I'm wrong in my beliefs simply because great things can come about from attending college. As I've also stated before, though, we cannot and should not base our beliefs upon our wonderful experiences, but solely on God's unchanging Word. Just as wonderful things happened to you while you were at college, likewise countless girls have also been brutally abused and defrauded through their terms at college. And, in saying all this in response to your comment, I am in no way meaning to disrespect you or discredit your great missionary service or anything like that! Just wanted you to know that. :)

    You said, "Third, I've never heard someone claim that women should be free to make decisions independently, without seeking advice." It sounds far-fetched, doesn't it? Well, I wish it were. The reason I mentioned that in my article was because I have actually received comments from people on my blog who have said that women should never have to seek the input, counsel, advice, direction, or leadership of a husband (or father if the daughter is an adult). While this is a very sad notion, I've heard it expressed on here nonetheless, and so felt it to be important to address it.

  10. As to my father, you apparently have misconstrued what I have posted on my blog regarding my father's involvement in my series. He has never, ever told me that I must give him my articles to look over before I post them. Ever. In fact, I was the one that approached him about him reading my articles and giving me his input before I post them. I (as he does, too!) wanted him to be actively involved in my projects and pursuits, and so, out of my respect for him and admiration for his wisdom, sought his input and advice. There have been times when he, through reading my articles, has brought up an excellent point that otherwise would have never made it into my article. I'm so thankful for his input. My mother has also, through reading my articles before they're posted, offered not only outstanding grammatical advice, but also wonderful points, as well. But, you want to know something interesting? There have been a couple articles in this series that Daddy did not read until after they were posted. You know why? Because he trusts me. There have been times when he was simply busy and knew that I wanted to post an article by a certain time if at all possible and so has told me that he was sure my article was fine and that I could go ahead and post it. Once when he said this, out of a desire for his input, I chose to postpone the posting of the article until he had time to read it. At another time, I went ahead and posted it. As a prime example is this present article-Daddy has not yet read it. Mama did, but he hasn't. On the rare occasions when he doesn't read them before they're posted, he does read them afterwards, because I want him to be kept up to date in the series and because, again, I so appreciate his input. My father is a very selfless man and is anything but selfish. To be completely honest with you (while I mean you no disrespect whatsoever in saying this!), I do not appreciate your insinuation at him being selfish in "holding up" the series. He has never done that and would not. And, even if he did, he would do so out of a desire to work with me on a particular article-not because he wanted to somehow "selfishly" hold up the series. To be totally honest and frank, I get rather tired (I'm not specifically speaking about you now, so don't worry! ;) ) of people reading my beliefs about men's and women's roles and then stating that my father must be a wicked tyrant, or they misrepresent him or state that I view him as a god, etc. Instead of attacking my father, I would appreciate it if people would instead defend their views on topics of men and women from the Bible if they disagree with me rather than attacking me or my family personally. Again, that little rant was not at all directed at you. It's just something that's been on my mind lately and that ended up coming out when I read your comment. I'm sorry you were the one that had to bear the brunt of that rant! ;) I do agree that my mother is more of the authority on females themselves, and I do so appreciate her amazing input in my writing projects. We're definitely a team. :) But, I do want to clarify that I don't have to postpone my articles until Daddy reads them. I simply want to honor his wisdom and input. I'm the one that actively sought his reading of my articles; he has not pushed that on me whatsoever.

    Thank you for the opportunity to clear that up. :)

    Blessings to you,

  11. Dear Rebekah,

    I deleted my own comment and I was going to rewrite it. I realized you were just using a different version than I was I have started using the ESV and it uses craft so subtil really threw me off for minute. If remaining at home until marriage is what some daughters & their families wants for them I think it's great. I myself signed a lease for a dorm in another city 2 hours away and I am probably going to return home after the lease expires. I want to be around family, and help them. Typically, family has your best interests at heart! Therefore, I do not completely understand my reasoning for why I did this besides the fact that the dorms were brand new and all my schooling is paid for. However, I do not agree with it when it is preached as “God’s design” for ALL girls, with the unspoken implication that every other way of living is unbiblical(not saying you are doing that). A few points:

    The last commenter mentioned how even though Eve was in the same dwelling place as her husband he was not able to protect her.

    In Luke 8 it mentions women that travelled from city to city with Jesus (He is our best protection & it only mentions one of them as being a wife if they each had a husband I think it would be mentioned but I did not write Scripture just making an observation..they may have been widows?). They certainly do not appear to be worried about serving at home and in my opinion it parallels the Martha&Mary (who lived with their brother) issue. Serving is a wonderful thing and so is mission work. So what are your thoughts on unmarried daughters leaving home and going out on missions in Christ's name?

    Enjoying the banter,

  12. Hi, Jennifer. Nice to hear from you.

    You wrote, "He wasn't deceived because he knew the command not to eat the fruit; God left it to him to instruct his wife, and he clearly didn't do so very well. He also stood idly by while the serpent addressed only Eve, knowing she could be deceived. This is why the Bible names Adam as the one who sin came through: he knew his sin, and she was deceived and did not."

    You make it sound as if Adam must have been there but that he wasn't deceived because he knew of the command and Eve did not know of it, and therefore she alone could have been deceived. However, it is evident that Adam had instructed Eve as to what God had commanded, and she knew full well about the command (we see this from her response to the serpent). It's not that she didn't know about the command and therefore was not responsible. Everybody is a sinner whether they know of the commands that God has issued or not. And we can't excuse their sin with the idea that they were simply deceived or didn't know any better. What Eve did was much like what we do today....we get ensnared in the world's lies of "Did God really say that? I don't think He did, because such a command would be enslaving. You'd be missing out on all He has to offer you!" And rather than holding fast to His Word, we fall prey to the world's sly teachings.

    Likewise, we can know full well what God's commands are but then still be deceived by Satan...after all, he parades around as an angel of light! This is why we have to be so incredibly discerning and diligent to heed God's Word alone.

    We have no reason (based on what the Scriptures alone present) to believe that Adam stood there idly by while Eve was deceived. You said yourself that Adam knew full well what God's commands was. Granted, he showed himself to be less than manly and strong when he just blamed everything on Eve rather than manfully taking the blame for what he himself did wrong. Likewise, Adam was indeed to instruct his wife (as we see that he clearly did, for again, Eve knew about the command)! But do we really believe that Adam really was there beside Eve when the deception took place and just willingly stood idly by while the serpent attacked Eve, not even caring about the consequences of such action? This doesn't make sense. Also, I presented other passages in my article, as well, which, I believe, present the proof that Eve was in fact alone.

    You said that you've come to believe that Eve was not alone based on evidence presented. First, what do you think about the evidence I presented, and second, what is your evidence? I don't want to sound rude at all, I really am just curious to know where this evidence comes from that you're talking about.

    Regardless, though, of whether Adam was right there beside her or not is not ultimately the point (thought I still firmly believe that he was not, and I believe that can be backed up and is important). The point is that regardless of where he was, he was not doing his job of actively protecting her and guarding her and leading her as he was commanded to. Satan went to Eve to tempt her because she was in fact the weaker vessel. And whether Adam was not by her side at the time of the deception or whether he was, the point is that he was not actively guarding her against the wiles of Satan as he should have been. Again, it just goes to show you how important it is for women to be protected and guarded and led lovingly. So whether Adam was there or not, it still shows that women need protection and that independent lifesyles for them simply is not wise.

  13. Having said that, however, there are again numerous reasons to believe that Eve was alone. Puritan Matthew Poole writes, "'He said unto the woman', who had upon some occasion retired from her husband for a season (an advantage which the crafty serpent quickly espieth, and greedly embraceth, and assaulteth her when she wanted the help of her husband)." On verse 6 he writes, "'Gave also unto her husband with her,' who by this time was returned to her, and who now was with her." Now, how do we know without a shadow of any doubt that she was alone when the serpent deceived her? Well, for one thing, who did you and I both say was given the command from God to not eat of the tree? Adam. He alone was issued the command and in turn was to instruct Eve in what God had commanded. So, are we to think that the *subtle* and *crafty* serpent is going to come to try to deceive when Adam was standing right there with Eve? Such a plan would be anything but subtle. To go deceive when Adam is standing right there would be terribly foolish if the serpent was hoping to be successful in his tempting! Secondly, when Adam gives an account to God of what he did, if he were right there beside Eve when the deception took place, then why didn't he mention the serpent? You and I both, if we had been watching the serpent deceive Eve would not bother to waste the breath to say, "This woman you gave me did it!" We would say, "That serpent deceived us!". From the way the Scriptures read, the serpent came to seduce Eve. The serpent then left at some point, Eve ate, and then Adam came on the scene and ate what Eve offered him. This is precisely the way the event is described to God. If, however, Adam had been there with Eve he would have undoubtedly put the blame on that wicked serpent! For example (my dear mother provided me with this analogy!), if you're driving down the highway and you see way out in front of you that an 18 wheeler ran into a car, and then that car ran into another, and on and on until you yourself run into one of the cars, when the police come to ask you what happened, are you simply going to blame the car in front of you that you hit? No, you're going to tell the officer about the 18 wheeler and how the accident went on down the line and became a big pileup. Likewise, Adam would have put the blame on the serpent if he had witnessed it's deception. That's just common sense; he would have had no reason to not mention the serpent if he had been there to see his deception.

  14. Furthermore, before I go into addressing what you said about women not being emotionally weaker, what do you mean by that? Because if you're denying what I said in the article and here in the comment section about women tending to be more emotional and subjective , then I have to admit I'm surprised by that....after all, I think most people, through their experience and observation would admit that what I said was true. But the fact that women are generally more compassionate, sensitive, emotional, etc. is not at all an attack against women! Nor is it to say that it makes them severely weaker emotionally. Yes, it does sometimes place them in dangerous circumstances and sometimes their emotions (again, I'm not saying this as a slight against women; I'm a woman myself!) make them weaker when it comes to remaining firm against attacks, deceptions, etc. from others. But to say that is not at all to say that I or Dr. MacArthur, by believing this, are trying to keep women weak and focused on men always being there. Yes, God has designed family dynamics to where women would always be protected and led lovingly by husband or father or some other relative. The Lord tells the church and family members of widows to care for them. On and on throughout the Scriptures, God gives instructions in His Word that show that women are to be carefully guarded, protected, and cared for regardless of age or marital status. But to say this in no way says that women are therefore less than men or are to be viewed as such. Sadly, that's one of the lies of feminism that has crept into the church-that if women are taught that they are to care for the home and family (and have that be their full time job), etc., then those who teach those things believe women are less than. That is simply preposterous! There are, indeed, some chauvinists who simply want women at home because they think they're good for nothing and are to just be as slaves. But this is not at all what I or Dr. MacArthur are advocating at all when we say that women tend to be more emotional and more subjective than men.

    Ok, sorry for the rant. ;) Thank you for your comment, Jennifer. It's nice to hear from you because, while you may disagree with me in some areas, you always present your beliefs in a kind, respectful manner, rather than (as some others tend to do at times) outright attacking me because of my beliefs. So, thank you again for your kindness! It is much appreciated. :)


  15. Perhaps I am misreading, but you seem to be implying that women are ruled by their emotions, but that is not Biblical. The Proverbs 31 woman was hardly someone who would buy something from a stranger just because she let her emotions get a hold of her. There are also many stories in Bible of men doing foolish things because of their emotions and feelings (David and Bathsheba; Abraham lying about Sarah as his wife). So I don't believe it is as black and white as you are making it. Proverbs 7:4 refers to wisdom and understanding as a woman, would God have done that if women's decisions were going to be ruled by their emotions instead of facts? And IMO if a woman or man are so silly that they buy stuff they can't afford or don't need just because of their feelings, then I would strongly suspect that their parents did not raise them correctly.

  16. It wasn't a rant, Rebekah :) Your sweetness is appreciated too, and something I hope I can come to emulate to others.

    Women can be more emotional, but this doesn't mean they're mentally weaker; sometimes it makes them emotionally stronger, in fact. The idea of women being weaker in mind or heart is one that strengthens the idea of female dependence. I know you don't think women weak, but MacArthur's not so pure in beliefs.

    "However, it is evident that Adam had instructed Eve as to what God had commanded"

    Not very well. Eve said they weren't to touch the fruit; God never said that, only to not eat it.

    "Puritan Matthew Poole writes, "'He said unto the woman', who had upon some occasion retired from her husband for a season (an advantage which the crafty serpent quickly espieth, and greedly embraceth, and assaulteth her when she wanted the help of her husband)." On verse 6 he writes, "'Gave also unto her husband with her,' who by this time was returned to her, and who now was with her.""

    Poole said this, but the Bible didn't? If so, he's simply offering his own interpretation, much like Matthew Henry subjected an idea that Dinah sinned without her father's permission, lacking evidence.

    I think the evidence from John MacArthur is tainted by his own agenda, one which can be very faulty about women. The Bible says "her husband with her"; why would it mean "her husband in the garden with her"? This reasoning of MacArthur's is silly; we already know he was in the garden with her. It sounds clear to me that the Bible was confirming that Adam was with her at THAT moment; the serpent simply didn't address him. Crafty Satan knew Eve would be deceived. Adam didn't answer the serpent because he acted foolishly; his weakness is compounded when he blames Eve. She, on the other hand, takes the more honest road and blames the serpent. Eve was responsible for her sin, but it was still lesser; Paul discusses how people who teach falsely and who do so because of deception are less at fault than those who deliberately teach falseness. Likewise, the Bible says sin came through man, not woman, even though woman was first to sin! The idea that Adam was neglecting her just by not being there is silly; there was no sin, no reason for him to constantly guard her, and no reason for them to be together 24/7 anyway. MacArthur can be a good teacher, but some of his teachings about women are very faulty. He chooses to believe Adam was there because he'd prefer to present a picture in which man wasn't guarding woman and woman got hurt because of it; this idea supports the one that women are dependent on men. He'd rather present this picture than one that shows a man guarding a woman and not doing a good job of it; that puts the fault on the man and weakens the idea that men are prime protectors. Therefore, he rejects it.

    "So whether Adam was there or not, it still shows that women need protection"

    Yes, that's true. I believe they need physical protection, not mental. Not by default.

  17. Hi. I came across your blog through another blog I follow and have signed up as a follower. When you’re free, please do visit me and let me know what you think of my blog and leave a comment. If you like, do follow as well. I am always open to great new people and interesting websites. Look forward to hearing from you.

  18. "Having said that, however, (and my mother would admit to this freely), as amazingly industrious, wisely frugal, financially savvy, and diligent to guard her home against worthless, detrimental splurges, as she is, my mother because she has such a big heart, would also struggle, to a degree, with saying no to the salesman, out of her love for others. I'm sure you can relate to feeling like this, as well!"

    No, in this case you are wrong. I cannot relate to that feeling at all! I absolutely would never struggle with saying no -- and I am very much a female. I am much more logical -- as is my mother -- than either my husband or father -- when it comes to this type of situation. It weakens your other arguments when you generalize about males and females in this manner. I know many females who are like I am and many males who are not.

    I'm very glad to see that I misunderstood that you felt you had to take your articles through your father. That was how it came across to me.

    I certainly agree that our beliefs should be based on something more than experiences. However, I have always found that experience has supported what is true in the Bible. It really couldn't be otherwise -- God doesn't make up arbitrary rules for us but rather tells us you should do this because it is good for you -- and it is! Experience has shown me that lying isn't a good idea because it breaks down trust. I haven't found that lying made life easier. So I can't help but wonder why experience doesn't match in this case. Perhaps you could share these "countless cases" where all these bad things have happened to girls who didn't stay at home. Because honestly, I have never heard of them. I know absolutely that God led me to work overseas in China and in Eastern Europe. I know that from the miracles he performed. I'm much more of a homebody who doesn't like change and would normally sit at home, not out of a belief it was right but out of a desire for my comfort. Please back up what you say. If all these things are truly happening, you should easily be able to give examples. Also, while I fully agree that God can be good out of tragedy or bad situations, my time at college was not a tragedy or a bad situation by any stretch of the imagination. No one who knows me would ever consider saying it was. Only someone who believes the things you do would label it as a bad situation just because you believe that going away from home (if you're a girl) is bad in general.

    Thank you.

    Oh, one more thing. I just noticed that you seem to have changed or misunderstood what I wrote about getting advice. I did not specify that women had to get advice from a male. I don't feel that at all. I feel that all people (women AND men) are wise to get advice from whomever is best suited to give it -- whether male or female. I do think it silly to look for a male to give you advice just because he's male - just as silly as it would be to exclude someone from giving you advice just because that person is a specific gender. So it is possible that, if I saw the context, I might agree with the people you quoted as wrong since you quote them only about males. It might very well be possible that a specific women could go her whole life getting advice -- just not ever from a male.


  19. Commenting on some of the other comments. You say: "Because if you're denying what I said in the article and here in the comment section about women tending to be more emotional and subjective, then I have to admit I'm surprised by that...after all, I think most people, through their experience and observation would admit that what I said was true." (I don't want to sound petty -- I wish you could hear my tone of voice to know I'm not being -- but it seems like you are inconsistent with when it is ok to use "experience".)

    Now, back to what you said. No, I would not be able to honestly admit that what you said about women being more emotional and subjective rings true to me. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have lived over twice as long as you -- and also that I wasn't raised to believe that men were this one way and women this other so I filter every action of men and women through that view. (I'm sure I'm guilty of having other incorrect views -- everyone is). Whatever the case, there are all types of people and from my experience (if I am permitted to use it as you did) I have seen emotionalism and subjectivity spread pretty equally between men and women. Yes, it will look different because there are general differences between men and women. Many years of marriage have taught me that men can be just as blatantly subjective and emotional about matters as any woman could be -- it just looks different coming from a man and I didn't recognize it at first because I am a female and was more used to my way of being subjective (because, of course, everyone is subjective about some matter or other). I think that when you have had more experience knowing males -- most easily gained through marriage, but it can also come from good friendship -- you will start to see this as well -- if you are open to it. However, if you have already determined that men are objective and rational, women are subjective and emotional, it may very well be that you will subconsciously ignore the signs and fit every action into what you believe. Again, I wish you could hear my tone of voice -- I'm not saying this is a sarcastic or rude manner -- we all do this about something or other.

    But, to conclude -- no, my experience doesn't support what you've said -- that women are more emotional and subjective so I can't agree with that generalization.


  20. Ok, sorry, you're going to get tired of my comments. I did just want to clarify one thing -- which is a good reminder of how hard communication is. You stated I had misconstrued about your father and went on to explain that he has never asked you to show him his articles. The funny thing is, I never really thought about your father being the demanding one and expecting you to show him is articles. No, in my mind I was wondering why YOU felt you had to go to him and show him every article before it was published. I was wondering why you couldn't take care of the matter with your mother. Coming from a writing family, of course it makes sense that a person has their work reviewed, critiqued, and edited. I never once thought of your father as being a "tyrant" or anything of that sort. I couldn't draw any conclusions about him since he has never "spoken" here that I know of. I drew conclusions about your beliefs based on what you wrote and it came across as if you believed your article had to be approved by him because he was the male and thus the authority. The whole point of this series seems to be to prove that a female cannot really do anything unless she is supervised by a male or else bad things will happen (certainly that is the impression I draw so I would love to hear it corrected if I'm wrong) so perhaps you can see how your comments (more than one) about your father reading before publishing, and no mention that I know of, of your mother reading, could lead people to the conclusion that you felt the articles had to receive the final stamp of approval from him? It didn't come across as you later explained, that you go to him because he is a parent that you love and respect the wisdom and advice of. If that had been the case, I would never have wondered anything.

    Looking back at what I wrote, I can see that my wording wasn't clear and when I talked about him being selfish it might certainly look as f I believed he was forcing you to show articles to him, but honestly, that is never what I thought.


  21. From reading through this blog, it seems like you believe women who go off alone to be missionaries are sinning. Am I misreading you, or is this statement correct? Do you believe that women like Elizabeth Elliot, Amy Carmichael, Lottie Moon, or modern day female missionary Katie Davis (she was only a couple of years older then you when she moved to Uganda by herself and started caring for those in need.) were living in sin when they left home to follow what they believe is God's will for their life?

  22. For those of you who are asking about female missionaries and those women who traveled with Jesus and funded his ministry with their own monies:

    The Christian Church has been recognizing the contributions of women for over 2000 years. They have been deaconesses, considered "equal-to-the-apostles", Queens, martyrs, mothers, and daughters. And only a very small number of them fit into the mold that patriarchalists try to paint as "biblical". I've been writing about it on my blog for a few weeks now.

    Those are just a few. Poke around and you'll find many more.

  23. As far as the emotional issue I will say that I have to agree that women tend to show more emotion than men. Feminine gender roles traditionally include such attributes as being nurturing, affectionate, warm and caring, while masculine characteristics are generally the opposite: aggressive, powerful and assertive. Am I saying that only women can be like this and only men can be like that? No. It's not that black and white but across the board thats how it most commonly appears. I am not saying women are weaker (I am a Southern girl and come from a long line of strong women so I would never say women are weaker). I am just saying we express certain emotions more readily such as sympathy whereas men express anger more readily (overall) from what I have experienced in my own life and from data I have researched.

    2 studies>>
    Ann Kring, whose findings on sex differences in emotion have appeared in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    "It is incorrect to make a blanket statement that women are more emotional than men," she says. "It is correct to say that women show their emotions more than men."

    Even in viewing victims in accident scenes, men showed no expression, while women indicated sympathy. Again, physiological measures indicated that both sexes were equally affected.

  24. Rebekah, have you had a chance to check out any of the links posted by Genevieve? Especially the one titled, "Their feet were not at home". This provides Biblical proof that God DOES call women to leave the home and serve Him. Nothing in those verses show that Jesus talked to the men in those women's lives. He spoke straight to them and called them to leave their homes and follow Him. And He can and does do the same today. Not everyone is called to be a SAHD.



Hi!! Thank you so much for visiting my blog! Please come back often. Thank you for your comment as well; your input is always most welcome! Even if you disagree with something, I encourage you to leave a comment; I just ask that you do so in a loving and Christ-like manner.

God bless you!

~Rebekah S.