Is giving birth fundamental to the nature of woman?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Is it their telos? Not merely that women give birth, but that woman's purpose is fulfilled by giving birth (collectively). Is this concept tied in any way to the verse about woman being saved in childbearing?

Can we say that ontologically the goal of woman is to give birth and raise children? Scripture proofs?

What of singles who are called to be single?

I am seeing push-back to this idea.


The WCF Catechism says our chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever....no additional chief ends or telos is given.
 
Last edited:
I saw something similar on a Facebook group when someone posted a tweet claiming that marriage and children were the essence of manhood. To which I replied, "That is bad news for Jesus and Paul." Ordinarily, most people should get married and have children, but there are exceptions to the general rule.
 
This kind of thing is bad news for women who are sterile if that is indeed the sole purpose. I can understand the pushback.
 
This kind of thing is bad news for women who are sterile if that is indeed the sole purpose. I can understand the pushback.

I can also understand the push-back.

But aren't women made to be mothers? As harsh as it sounds, we do recognize that barrenness is a sad defect of womenhood that is not normally desired, just a being a eunuch is not desired by men. Unless they are called to singleness.
 
So, ontologically sounds a little strong, but parsing that language probably requires someone else. It does seem like there is a point that things aren't the way they are supposed to be. Part of the curse for Eve (not yet named at this point it seems) was "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children." The pain part is new, because you had pre-fall "...God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion...". So I think there we have an example. But due to sin, that may [not] be possible.
 
Last edited:
Reducing either sex to their biological-reproductive purpose is not Christian, it's more akin to treating men like animals. "Getting one's genes into the next generation" grounds the evolutionary paradigm.

To "fill the earth" is one imperative, but that is not the telos but the means to subduing the earth. Those are a common direction--Gen.1:27, "male and female he created them," v28, "and God blessed them and said to them: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion" over the creatures.

So, if women "exist to have babies," then men exist to give them babies, full stop. If the latter is objectionable, then so is the former.
 
"Barefoot and Pregnant"?

Even Joseph Goebbels had a less narrow view: "The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world."

The Kaiser was even more broad minded, going with,

"Kinder, Küche, Kirche"

Older formulations used the "5 Ks' "Eine gute Hausfrau hat fünf K zu besorgen: Kammer, Kinder, Küche, Keller, Kleider."

So it appears that narrowing the view of women to focus only on the functionality of their reproductive systems is a modernist trend. And can be either negligently or intentionally hurtful to many women.
 
Thanks, good answers.

On one side we have evangelical feminists spouting some serious nonsense, and on the other side we have "red-pilled" men who go too far in the other direction. It's really hard to find a balanced view nowadays.
 
The virtuous woman in Proverbs 31 is pretty busy with a lot of things. She is a provider and a companion.
 
Rev. Buchanan already answered satisfactorily, in my opinion, but perhaps it will be profitable for us to look also at the state of affairs post-Consummation. Will women have children then? "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt 22:30). I assume this means that there will in fact be no child-bearing in the New Heavens and New Earth. Would this be a correct assumption? If it is correct, are the women there any less women?
 
The woman was made to help the man--in whatever he needed. To replenish the earth, surely. But also to aid him in having dominion, in all it's aspects. To encourage him, to speak to him, to give him a reason to build and accomplish and do, to join her voice to his as they sang praises together (the most beautiful singing I know is a man and woman singing a duet. The two voices belong together).
After the fall the man's need became greater; and I think both their responsibility more. Now they (ideally) balance each other's excesses, comfort one another in sadness, care for each other when weak or sick. Now the man must protect the woman from the violence of the fallen world, and she must make sure he doesn't go out in public with uncombed hair and that disreputable cardigan. I trust my wife and I will have no more babies, but I'll still need her to the end of my days.
 
Paul fathered many according to conversion. I think begetting is an important aspect of life, which ordinarily occurs through child-bearing, and that especially for women, but not exclusively.
 
This kind of thing is bad news for women who are sterile if that is indeed the sole purpose. I can understand the pushback.

That's the situation with my wife and I. Even adoption fell through...which is one of the big reasons for my wife's consistent depression...
 
I think we would be blind not to see the important role childbearing has played in God’s redemptive purposes, and it seems that motherhood is the norm and should be praised. I do not think a strong enough case could be made from Scripture that the sole, or primary, purpose of women is childbearing. I think we should be very careful not to reduce gender-specific purposes to a singular thing (which I have also seen with much of the “manhood” material). I think the better way forward is to look at the range of gender specific purposes found in Scripture and realize that there are several things men and women were made to do in order to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
 
I have sometimes felt that there must be a certain, limited truth to this, or else there wouldn't be such a visceral anguish for those of us who are regularly reminded of both the longing to bear children (believe me, I certainly feel that I am "made to be a mother"!) and our repeated "failure" to fulfill that longing. It's consoling to remember that this perceived unfulfillment is just one aspect of the larger purposes Christ is fulfilling in me even now--even if I don't yet understand what they are. But sometimes it's a daily effort to remember that.

All that said, recommendations for good commentary/sermons on the 1Tim childbearing verse would be welcome.
 
I have sometimes felt that there must be a certain, limited truth to this, or else there wouldn't be such a visceral anguish for those of us who are regularly reminded of both the longing to bear children (believe me, I certainly feel that I am "made to be a mother"!) and our repeated "failure" to fulfill that longing. It's consoling to remember that this perceived unfulfillment is just one aspect of the larger purposes Christ is fulfilling in me even now--even if I don't yet understand what they are. But sometimes it's a daily effort to remember that.

All that said, recommendations for good commentary/sermons on the 1Tim childbearing verse would be welcome.

Limited truth...

But it seems lots of labels have popped up in recent decades like egalitarianism, complementarianism, patriarchy, etc., and each camp seems to push against the rest and over-speak sometimes.

What did we do before these labels? How did we speak of roles before without referring to complementarianism, etc?
 
Limited truth...

But it seems lots of labels have popped up in recent decades like egalitarianism, complementarianism, patriarchy, etc., and each camp seems to push against the rest and over-speak sometimes.

What did we do before these labels? How did we speak of roles before without referring to complementarianism, etc?

These are really good questions I've been wondering about, too. Just within the last few days, I've started reading William Gouge's Domestical Duties (the Joel Beeke edition titled Building a Godly Home) in the hope of learning how one of the Westminster divines talked about these things... I haven't gotten too far, but already I can tell it's going to be edifying and well worth the time.
 
These are really good questions I've been wondering about, too. Just within the last few days, I've started reading William Gouge's Domestical Duties (the Joel Beeke edition titled Building a Godly Home) in the hope of learning how one of the Westminster divines talked about these things... I haven't gotten too far, but already I can tell it's going to be edifying and well worth the time.
Yes. I avoid anything anymore that is less than 50 years old when it comes to marriage or the home, or it will be tainted by current Western cultural concerns. I avoid all labels like complementarian or patriarchal, etc.
 
These are really good questions I've been wondering about, too. Just within the last few days, I've started reading William Gouge's Domestical Duties (the Joel Beeke edition titled Building a Godly Home) in the hope of learning how one of the Westminster divines talked about these things... I haven't gotten too far, but already I can tell it's going to be edifying and well worth the time.

Ever since I read Gouge I've been recommending him regularly. He's excellent and I'm glad to see someone else reading it!
 
I avoid the labels too, but am aware of how some of the realities were at work before the labels came in, in sad and destructive ways. The over-reactions enter for reason -- not just against a competing label, but against real evils. It's important to remember that too.

Fruit-bearing is part of all of our telos:

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.... By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love .... You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." (John 15)​

-- For women that often takes the form of the 'good work' of bearing and bringing up children (1 Timothy 5:10). But Christ never even mentions children in his dealings with various women throughout the gospels, like Mary and Martha. He didn't urge bearing a child as the one thing needful, to either Mary or Martha. Yet He was not relenting on His call to fruitfulness.
He calls us his 'mother' -- those who listen to His word and do His will. (https://www.esv.org/Mark+3:31–35;Matthew+12:46–50;Luke+8:19–21/) Think of that for a bit, dear Sarah.

Ray I hope your wife can be encouraged with some of these things ultimately too.
 
Last edited:
It's one thing to say that aspects of womanhood is designed for birth. Granted. But wannabe patriarchalists on the Internet (almost all of whom are unmarried) think it means, "Ungus make woman breed."
 
Since Sarah referenced it I went back and reread, and wanted to add that I think the 'she will be saved in childbearing phrase' follows naturally on the reference to Eve, the woman who was deceived, but who received mercy in the form of the promised seed. -- Faith, love, holiness, and self control [fruits of the Spirit!] are enjoined to all women who embrace that gospel promise.
Paul is always magnifying the gospel against our sins (or his, 1:13-15). He is always tearing down our own works as a way of salvation. So I think this is a reference to the mercy of the gospel promise. I can't help seeing the Eve deceived/but saved in childbearing comments in light of the faithful saying that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
I think there are some discussions devoted to this one that address the Greek pronouns and articles but it's always hard for me to dig things up!
 
Last edited:
It's one thing to say that aspects of womanhood is designed for birth. Granted. But wannabe patriarchalists on the Internet (almost all of whom are unmarried) think it means, "Ungus make woman breed."

"almost all of whom are unmarried"....ha ha..... The two things might be connected.
 
Well I was not going to post, but providentially came across something relevant to the OP from Matthew Henry's Commentary on 1 Chronicles 2:30-34.
I added emphasis to the section that made me internally say AMEN! Matthew Henry still edifies even in his commentary on the genealogies. I hope this quote is a blessing to some.

"3. Here is mention of one that died without children (v. 30), and another (v. 32), and of one that had no sons, but daughters, v. 34. Let those that are in any of these ways afflicted not think their case new or singular. Providence orders these affairs of families by an incontestable sovereignty, as pleaseth him, giving children, or withholding them, or giving all of one sex. He is not bound to please us, but we are bound to acquiesce in his good pleasure. To those that love him he will himself be better than ten sons, and give them in his house a place and a name better than of sons and daughters. Let not those therefore that are written childless envy the families that are built up and replenished. Shall our eye be evil because God’s is good?":detective:

Source: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-chronicles/2.html
 
Pergs, I keep thinking about this because of what it means about our relationship to Jesus ... I hope it's okay to further add that (though I'm not able to articulate it clearly) I do think there is something integral about childbearing to woman as the symbol of the church in relation to Christ -- even her inability to bear children becomes part of that symbol. I think it would require twisting a lot of Scripture (as well as being abusive) to say its every individual woman's telos. But the unique capacity of women to bear and nurture a new life does seem integral to the 'female' aspect of the 'male and female' image of God -- and the way even men are part of the bride of Christ rather than the groom, as they are in the church, etc.

Definitely childbearing has been dignified in a special way by God coming into the world. [-- which is also part of what I think Paul is pointing to in 1 Timothy 2, right after pointing out the particular role of the woman in sin's coming. It's still Christ who has to save, as it was Adam who failed. But the woman gets a part in Mercy's entrance as she did in sin's.] One of the most bizarre and sad aspects of our culture is that though we value the natural world so much in other ways, the natural childbearing capacity of women is despised and viewed as gratuitous. I think that's at least in part because in this we are not like men, and somehow men set the standard for what we think we should be even -- perhaps even more -- when we are trying to throw out the implications of Adam and Christ.

One reason I avoid labels is because I think the teaching (both about fruitfulness and about marriage) should focus not on the images but on their realities. All our temporal relationships should be coming more into the light of the eternal relationship we have to Jesus corporately and individually. Not every individual woman is called to marriage or childbearing but they are all called to Christ and to what that means in Christ. I'm not sure the focus of a lot of the discussions helps with seeing that.

[edit: what would be horribly twisted, as was touched on above, would be to take from verses like 1 Timothy 2 or from the integral aspect of childbearing to the symbolic feminine, that women's thoughts and other gifts -- especially in spiritual matters -- are not valuable; only their bodies are useful. That belies Christ's own treatment of and interaction with women, as well as the symbolic feminine in wisdom literature etc. It *has* been the approach of too many folks throughout history. People don't really need any theological excuse to behave that way and it's not just women to whom it's been done -- sometimes it's women doing so to others. But it's very destructive to us and others wherever we feel we have a theological reason to show contempt.]
 
Last edited:
Pergs, I keep thinking about this because of what it means about our relationship to Jesus ... I hope it's okay to further add that (though I'm not able to articulate it clearly) I do think there is something integral about childbearing to woman as the symbol of the church in relation to Christ -- even her inability to bear children becomes part of that symbol. I think it would require twisting a lot of Scripture (as well as being abusive) to say its every individual woman's telos. But the unique capacity of women to bear and nurture a new life does seem integral to the 'female' aspect of the 'male and female' image of God -- and the way even men are part of the bride of Christ rather than the groom, as they are in the church, etc.

Definitely childbearing has been dignified in a special way by God coming into the world. [-- which is also part of what I think Paul is pointing to in 1 Timothy 2, right after pointing out the particular role of the woman in sin's coming. It's still Christ who has to save, as it was Adam who failed. But the woman gets a part in Mercy's entrance as she did in sin's.] One of the most bizarre and sad aspects of our culture is that though we value the natural world so much in other ways, the natural childbearing capacity of women is despised and viewed as gratuitous. I think that's at least in part because in this we are not like men, and somehow men set the standard for what we think we should be even -- perhaps even more -- when we are trying to throw out the implications of Adam and Christ.

One reason I avoid labels is because I think the teaching (both about fruitfulness and about marriage) should focus not on the images but on their realities. All our temporal relationships should be coming more into the light of the eternal relationship we have to Jesus corporately and individually. Not every individual woman is called to marriage or childbearing but they are all called to Christ and to what that means in Christ. I'm not sure the focus of a lot of the discussions helps with seeing that.

[edit: what would be horribly twisted, as was touched on above, would be to take from verses like 1 Timothy 2 or from the integral aspect of childbearing to the symbolic feminine, that women's thoughts and other gifts -- especially in spiritual matters -- are not valuable; only their bodies are useful. That belies Christ's own treatment of and interaction with women, as well as the symbolic feminine in wisdom literature etc. It *has* been the approach of too many folks throughout history. People don't really need any theological excuse to behave that way and it's not just women to whom it's been done -- sometimes it's women doing so to others. But it's very destructive to us and others wherever we feel we have a theological reason to show contempt.]

I am always thankful for your thoughts.

I grew up in a traditional household and married a traditional woman. Therefore, I never kept up with the latest labels.

But since about the 1990's it seems various labels have sprung up like egalitarianism, complementarianism, patriarchy, etc. Folks have asked me what I am. But I don't like any of the camps. I am suspicious, because these labels were not used 200 years ago. Then Grudem tied complementarianism to the Trinity, and folks are attacking complementarianism becuase of that (though a poor defense of complementarianism does not mean complementarianism is wrong, only that Grudem used a bad argument). And every woman blogger out there seems to be trying to say that help-meet means fellow-warrior instead of a helper fit for the man.

Simply put, there is not a single modern author I trust on any of these issues.

I do agree with your statement: "I do think there is something integral about childbearing to woman as the symbol of the church in relation to Christ -- even her inability to bear children becomes part of that symbol." And yet again, both women and men can bear fruit and "birth children" spiritually. And also, many are called into singleness (though even the single Apostle Paul knew this was not the norm), and these are not deficient in any way. Though if all Christians went this route, what would happen?

Maybe you ought to write a book! ;)
 
I am always thankful for your thoughts.

I grew up in a traditional household and married a traditional woman. Therefore, I never kept up with the latest labels.

But since about the 1990's it seems various labels have sprung up like egalitarianism, complementarianism, patriarchy, etc. Folks have asked me what I am. But I don't like any of the camps. I am suspicious, because these labels were not used 200 years ago. Then Grudem tied complementarianism to the Trinity, and folks are attacking complementarianism becuase of that (though a poor defense of complementarianism does not mean complementarianism is wrong, only that Grudem used a bad argument). And every woman blogger out there seems to be trying to say that help-meet means fellow-warrior instead of a helper fit for the man.

Simply put, there is not a single modern author I trust on any of these issues.

I do agree with your statement: "I do think there is something integral about childbearing to woman as the symbol of the church in relation to Christ -- even her inability to bear children becomes part of that symbol." And yet again, both women and men can bear fruit and "birth children" spiritually. And also, many are called into singleness (though even the single Apostle Paul knew this was not the norm), and these are not deficient in any way. Though if all Christians went this route, what would happen?

Maybe you ought to write a book! ;)

I think I'd much rather write a fairy tale :). For one, it would garner *Far Less* attention.

Personally I would rather not go to war. I'm very grateful if in the last reckoning I can have been some help to my husband (he's so kind to me and puts up with a lot). But I'm also grateful if I can be a help (in a more limited way) for a female friend. I don't think we should feel denigrated by being a help to anyone. Insofar as men have taken that to justify an attitude toward their wives or daughters (or other women) that you exist to serve *me* and *I* define your identity (an attitude which I have witnessed in real life, which I don't think particularly Christian: you've probably seen it in the village lots) -- I can understand the pushback. There's a lot of advantage that gets taken if the teaching about this is poor. Each soul exists to serve Christ, and He defines who we are. That is a relation no one can come between, and I think marriage is supposed to help us understand that a little better.

I don't keep up with the blogs about this I'm afraid. But interestingly (to me) over fifty years ago -- in his letters Lewis expresses an impression that American culture generally encouraged far more practical household tyranny in men than English culture did, and he held very firmly to heirarchical roles. It made me wonder if this whole misunderstanding is not a more particularly American problem. Since your own upbringing and marriage are traditionally sweet and wholesome, it's probably baffling that traditional language could be understood as advocating any kind of abuse! But where the experience has not been at all so wholesome, it really does become harder to hear it healthily. I don't think a blog or a book can heal that so much as being cared for by people who have true humility and Christlike tenderness.

It has been profitable for me to think about it. I hope I will do a better job living it out -- the authentic being before Christ and the helping role to a particular man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top