4. 1 Tim. 2:8-15 The Second Priority, Rescuing Eve
As we saw in the previous post in the “Timothy” series, Paul gave his protege a charge which consisted of several specific commands intended to prioritize his teaching to the leaders of the Ephesian assembly. Paul’s initial command, which he prefixed with the words “first of all,” dealt with what Timothy was to teach concerning the Christian community’s stance towards the civil authorities. This topic was first in priority because humble submission to civil authority sets the tone within the whole society for a peaceful existence for Christian families, the opportunity to truly be “salt and light” by representing Jesus’ Christ accurately, thus drawing others to Him. By consistently projecting a peaceful, non-threatening, and submissive attitude towards civil authority officials could see the Christian community as beneficial to society rather than a threat to their power. The Sanhedrin used false accusations against Jesus, that He was an immediate threat to Roman civil authority, to manipulate the Roman officials to have Jesus crucified.[1] Jesus, on the other hand, assured Pilate that His Kingdom was not of this present world system, thus He was no threat to Rome’s civil authority.[2] Unfortunately, in modern times, many Christians have become politically polarized and devoted to changing society externally through activism and even public disobedience. Such Christians are “salt” that has lost its distinct Christ-like savor, “It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.”[3]
While commanding Timothy that “petitions, prayers, pleading, and thanksgivings” are to be made concerning all those in authority, he linked this with the manner in which we are to approach God.
1 Tim. 2:8 (LGV) Accordingly, I desire the men to pray in every place raising clean hands without anger and disputing.[4]
The word “accordingly” (οὖν) links the previous command with the desired result, that is, in accord with the submissive attitude towards government officials, the men of the assembly are to approach God with “clean hands and a pure heart.” There is little question that Paul had the following Psalm in mind here.
Psalm 24:3-5 (NKJV) 3 Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who may stand in His holy place? 4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully. 5 He shall receive blessing from the LORD, And righteousness from the God of his salvation.
It is doubtful that Paul was commanding that Christian men must assume a specific bodily position with hands raised when they pray as was a common ancient Jewish practice.[5] The point was that when one did raise his hands in public prayer, he should have no reason for shame in approaching God, showing openly that he has “clean hands.” Having “clean hands” is a metaphor for innocence, that one has been obedient to God’s commands. Since this statement immediately follows Paul’s exhortations regarding interaction with civil authorities, and since it begins with “accordingly,” it implies innocence regarding the previous injunction which Paul placed first in priority.
The next command in priority concerned the critical role of Christian women in the home, the assembly, and the culture. If the previous command seems counter-cultural, this one is even more-so. But it should not come as a surprise given how Paul described the appalling state of Christianity in the end-times,[6] a state that has become so normal among Christians in our time that the true biblical and apostolic standards are foreign to most.
Paul’s teaching concerning Christian women was controversial in his own time. For example, immediately following his explanation of why women should cover their heads in the assembly, he wrote: “But if anyone seems to be obstinate, such is not our practice nor the assemblies of God.”[7] Paul anticipated some blowback and resistance about head-coverings, but cautioned those who might be inclined to resist that such obstinance is not the practice of the assemblies of God. This statement shows that the apostolic command regarding head coverings was universal among Christian assemblies.
Similarly, Paul anticipated resistance to his instructions regarding women discoursing in the mixed assembly.
1 Cor. 14:34-39 (LGV) “34 Let your women hush in the assembly, for it has not been permitted to them to discourse, but to submit themselves according as the Law also indicates. 35 But if any [women] desire to investigate, let them interrogate their own men at home. For it is disgraceful to women to discourse in the assembly. 36 Or did the Word of God come forth from you? Or did it reach unto you only? 37 If anyone presumes to be a prophet or spiritual, let him fully understand what I am writing to you, that they are the instructions of the Master. 38 Yet if anyone is ignorant, be ignorant!
Paul’s statement in v. 36, “Or did the Word of God come forth from you? Or did it reach only you?” was quite sarcastic. The implication is that their own local culture does not dictate the universal practice of the assemblies of God which existed throughout the empire across many different cultures and customs. The Christian practice regarding women was standard for all Christian assemblies regardless of local customs or traditions, and was not to be subjected to such customs but simply obeyed.
The consistent teaching of Paul and Peter regarding Christian women was willing, humble submission to her own husband in the home, in the assembly, and in the culture. Yet he was well aware that the Christian teaching regarding humble submission would be met with resistance. Despite such, Paul did not mince words.
Eph. 5:17-24 (LGV) 17 Consequently, do not be foolish, but consider what the will of the Master is. 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is ruin; instead be filled in breath: 19 speaking to yourselves with instrumental music, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music to the Master with your heart, 20 offering thanks always for everything to God the Father, in the name of our Master, Jesus Anointed, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God – 22 the Wives to [their] own husbands just like to the Master, 23 because the husband is head of the wife, just as the Anointed is head of the assembly; and He is Savior of the Body. 24 Therefore, just as the assembly is subordinate to the Anointed, so also wives [should be] to their own husbands in everything.”
The statement in v. 23, that the husband is the head of the wife, is the same reason he gave for women wearing a head covering in the assembly.[8]
Like Paul, Peter also stressed humble submission to the governing authorities for the Lord’s sake the first priority.
1 Peter 2:11-15 (LGV) 11 Beloved ones, I beg you, as foreign residents and refugees, abstain from fleshly cravings which wage war against the soul, 12 having your behavior excellent among the nations so that in whatever ways they defame you as offenders, they should honor God in a day of examination by observing your good deeds. 13 Be submissive, then, to every human institution for the Master, whether to the king as supreme,14 or to officers being sent by him for extending judgment for evil-doers, but commendation of those who do well, 15 since this way the will of God [is accomplished]: by doing good to silence the ignorance of stupid men. … 21 For this is what you were called unto: that the Anointed suffered for us leaving us an example so that you should follow His footprints, …
Just as Paul in 1 Timothy, Peter followed the injunction to humbly submit to governing authorities with commands for Christian women to do the same with their own husbands, even if they are unbelievers.
1 Peter 3:1-6 (LGV) 1 In the same manner the women [should follow Jesus’ footsteps[9]], being submissive to their own men so that also if any are disbelieving the Message, they might be won over by the behavior of the women without a word, 2 observing your clean, reverent behavior, 3 from whom have [their] beautification not be the external garnishing of the hair, decorations of gold, or the wearing of apparel, 4 but the hidden person of the heart in the undiminished [beautification] of a meek and calm demeanor which is highly prized in God’s sight. 5 For in this way the holy women – those hoping in God – were previously beautifying themselves, being submissive to their own men, 6 just as Sarah harkened to Abraham, calling him “master,” of whom you became [his] descendants, doing well and not fearing any consternation.
In their instructions regarding submission to authority, both Paul and Peter also instructed servants and employees in the verses that follow the above. In all of the commands for Christians to be humbly submissive to whomever God has placed in authority over us, the reasons are clearly stated. It is always that in doing so we project the same humble obedience that Christ Himself had to the will of the Father. God has a plan to use us to project certain aspects of His character and plan, to submit to our place in His plan, so that His will in the world is accomplished through us just as it was accomplished through His Son.
In our day the biblical commands regarding humble submission to God-ordained authority are scorned, not only in the culture, but also within the Christian community. Most Christian leaders are afraid to boldly teach the truth among their own congregations. Because the Christian community has become so much like the world, taking a stand on the issue of submission brings an avalanche of scorn upon any “Timothy” who dares teach what Paul instructed Timothy to teach.
Here are Paul’s instructions regarding what a “Timothy” must teach about Christian women. It is the same as what Peter wrote above.
1 Tim. 2:9-15 (LGV) 9 In the same way [I desire] the women to adorn themselves in clothing arranged with modesty and sensibility, not with plaited hair,[10] or with gold, or with pearls, or with elaborate clothing, 10 but [with] what is proper for women claiming reverence for God, [adorning themselves] through good deeds. 11 Have the women learn in quietness with all subjection. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or be independent[11] of man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived. But the woman, having been deceived, has become[12] in violation. 15 Yet, she shall be rescued by the child-bearing if they continue in faith, love, and purity with sensibility.[13]
The command is for Christian women to be modest in appearance and manner, to allow their inner beauty to shine brightly rather than external modifications. Learning in quietness means more than not teaching or holding authority in a mixed gathering. It also means to be agreeable, willing to allow the men to lead, not opinionated or pushy.[14]
The usual objections to the biblical teachings regarding Christian women’s roles and behavior is that such was applicable to ancient cultures, but not to ours. Yet neither Peter nor Paul appealed to culture (which is relative) but to unchanging theological considerations. In 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 his instructions were based upon the theological fact that the husband is the head of the wife. In 1 Corinthians 11:10 his instruction is also based on the fact that the angels are observing the assembly. The sin of the fallen angels was insubordination regarding their assigned rank,[15] and the local assembly is one of the channels by which God’s wisdom is declared to the “principalities and powers.” In 1 Corinthians 14:37 Paul stated regarding his instructions about women, “what I am writing to you, that they are the instructions of the Master.”
In 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul wrote two theological principles that undergird these commands.
1. “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman, having been deceived, has become in violation.”
The first reason concerns the creation itself, that Eve was created to be a helper to Adam. Being first in sequence always implies first in priority, whether it refers to parents and children or birth order. This principle derived from the creation of the first couple is applied by Paul to all Christian couples.
The second reason given, that Eve was deceived and the first to sin, implies that all of Eve’s daughters inherit Eve’s punishment. This is evident from the fact that women still greatly suffer in childbirth.
Genesis 3:16 (NKJV) 16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
Just as the curse upon Adam continues for all men – working by the sweat of the brow to supply food for his family until he returns to dust – so also the curse upon Eve remains upon all women until the curse is removed[16] when Christ’s Kingdom arrives.
Note especially verse 15. “Yet, she shall be rescued by the child-bearing if they continue in faith, love, and purity with sensibility.” The verb translated “she shall be rescued” is future tense, third-person, singular, and its antecedent is Eve. But “they continue” is third-person plural referring to Christian women. In other words, Paul stated that “Eve” (the feminine gender) can be rescued from her assigned curse only if her Christian daughters do not follow in her insubordinate footsteps, but rather “continue in faith, love, and purity with sensibility.” In this context it means to humbly, willingly, and joyfully submit to her biblical role. The mechanism whereby “Eve” can be rescued from her punishment is found within the punishment itself – childbirth. Bringing forth and raising daughters to willingly embrace the curse and their roles as women of God will multiply the throng of godly women in the resurrection and inheritance. This female throng will consist of those who follow in the footsteps of Sarah and the godly women of old. “For in this way the holy women – those hoping in God – were previously beautifying themselves, being submissive to their own men, just as Sarah harkened to Abraham, calling him “master,” of whom you became [his] descendants, doing well and not fearing any consternation.”[17]
In case no one is paying attention, our modern society is in open rebellion against all God-ordained authority structures. The latest lurch toward trans-genderism is merely the complete rejection of God-assigned biological gender. This has quickly progressed after complete rejection of family structure and sexual order found in the glorification of homosexuality. God’s first institution was the nuclear family of husband and wife who are charged with bearing and raising children to submit to God. The rejection of the headship between husband and wife is the first step away from God ordained order on the path that leads to transgenderism, and eventually will even reach the glorification of the sexual exploitation of children.
The Christian community at large has already rejected the first and primary institution of the biblical nuclear family. While some Christian denominations have openly accepted homosexuality and transgenderism, even ordaining such as pastors, others are not far behind by rejecting the biblical prohibitions on women pastors and elders. Head coverings (which was the common Christian interpretation and practice until the women’s rights movement) went by the wayside nearly a century ago.
The question is this: If male Christian leaders are not willing to be a “Timothy” and publicly teach the biblical instructions and the reasons for them regarding godly women, who will? Those few who take a stand and teach the above biblical doctrines will most definitely be castigated, fired, mocked and ridiculed by Christians. That also applies in many cases to those who teach humble submission to the governing authorities. Trust me, I know first-hand regarding both of these topics. This is one of the reasons why genuine “Timothys” are so badly needed as we approach the end times when the “bride” is supposed to make herself ready, when the wise virgins are supposed to be securing the necessary oil for the vigil immediately ahead. A real “Timothy” won’t buckle or retreat. He will not twist, ignore, or apologize for Scripture in order to patronize the women in the assembly or the men who do patronize them.
Finally, it is really up to perceptive Christian women to begin a counter-cultural movement in our times to rescue Eve. She is in great distress right now, in far worse shape than when she first listened to the whispering of the serpent. Back then Eve sinned in ignorance. Now she sins in open defiance against God. Paul has an assignment for bold Christian women seeking to fulfill their gifts and assigned role in rescuing Eve.
Titus 2:3-5 (LGV) 3 The older women similarly [are to have] appropriately reverent behavior, not gossips, not having been enslaved to much wine, but teachers of the good 4 so that they may disciple the young women to be affectionate to their husbands and to their children, 5 sensible, pure, guards of the home, good, submissive to their own husbands so that the word of God should not be blasphemed.”
While this blog is a call for men to become a “Timothy” and faithfully uphold sound teaching for the end times, it also includes a call for Christian women to take up the challenge of rescuing Eve, to organize and become “teachers of the good,” instructing the younger Christian women and consistently modeling the above behaviors to their daughters, in the assemblies and fellowships, and in the culture. It will take a great deal of strength of character and endurance of scorn from other women. Peter was aware of the difficulty facing women who follow these commands. This is why when giving this assignment to Christian women he wrote: “For in this way the holy women – those hoping in God – were previously beautifying themselves, being submissive to their own men, just as Sarah harkened to Abraham, calling him “master,” of whom you became [his] descendants, doing well and not fearing any consternation. Fearing consternation means being intimidated by others to go along and not stand out, being a coward rather than standing for what is right regardless of ridicule, enduring it because one is determined to follow Christ’s footsteps who also endured the ridicule. This was Peter’s point in the verses that follow in 1 Pet. 3:14-18.
Go to: 5. Qualifications of “Supervisors” of Local Assemblies
[1] John 19:1-15
[2] John 18:33-38
[3] Matt. 5:13 (NKJV)
[4] That is, in the absence of disputing over myths, genealogies, etc. See: 1 Tim. 1:3-7.
[5] Psalm 28:2; Psalm 63:4
[6] 2 Tim. 3:1-13
[7] 1Cor. 11:16 (LGV)
[8] 1 Cor. 11:3
[9] Continuing the thought of following in Jesus’ footsteps from ch. 2:21
[10] That is, weaving gold or other ornaments into the hair. Here and in 1 Pet 3:3, women were forbidden from seeking attention by doing elaborate things with their hair. However in 1 Cor. 11:15 Paul said that her long hair was a “glory to her,” and was given to her in place of a luxurious mantle. It is clear therefore that a woman’s long hair was to be viewed as a God-given thing of beauty and attractiveness. However, taking this to excess becomes a thing of vanity. The assembly was no place for extravagance and drawing attention to one’s self. Therefore, her natural “glory” was to be veiled, so as not to distract from the glory of Jesus or her husband (1 Cor. 11:2-16).
[11] αὐθεντεῖν – from “autos” (self) and “hentes” (a worker). Strong defines it as “to act of one’s self.” That is, to act independently. This word appears only here in the NT.
[12] The use of the perfect tense indicates a present state arising from a past action. The result of Eve’s violation remains for all of her daughters. Paul was not implying that women in general are more easily deceived, but rather that women in general must suffer the consequences of Eve’s deception. This should not be considered strange since women in general suffer pain in childbirth also as a result of Eve’s sin (Gen. 3:16). Likewise, men in general must eat of the ground “in toil” all his days because of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:17). Thus, the penalty on Adam affects all of his sons and the penalty on Eve affects all of her daughters.
[13] See verse 9 where this term is a synonym for modesty (without extravagance or excess).
[14] The Greek word here and in verse 12 does not mean “silence” (without uttering a word) as in the KJV & NKJV, but rather a state of calm, peace, and rest. This is virtually always the meaning in the LXX. The sense here is to learn without being the cause of any commotion, distraction, or dispute, being peaceful, subordinate, and respectful. That it does not mean total silence is shown from 2 Thess. 3:12 where employees were instructed to work with their own hands in “quietness.” Women were forbidden from challenging or interrogating the speaker with leading questions, as was commonly done by the men in the synagogue. (See 1 Cor. 14:34 where the prohibition is against “lalw” – present an argument, speak with authority, make a declaration, or to offer a contrary opinion).
[15] Jude 1:6
[16] Rom. 8:20-25
[17] 1 Pet. 3:5
9 thoughts on “4. 1 Tim. 2:8-15 The Second Priority, Rescuing Eve”
Hello Tim,
I understand the command to wives to submit to their husbands. But doesn’t that also imply that the husband must have Christian leadership qualities as stated in Titus 2:3? Patience, sound in faith, etc? What if the wife is the one who is the one who is closer to Christ and studies scripture and prays more etc and the husband doesn’t display the qualities he should to either his wife or children? Why would a wife want to submit to her husband in every case if that were the situation? Shouldn’t wives first submit to Christ? Ideally I see how the hierarchy would work but unfortunately there aren’t a lot of strong Christian men out there for Christian woman to submit to. I have 2 daughters and I can attest to this fact. Plus I have always been the one in my family who taught my children ,who are young woman now, Christian ideals. When I married young I was coming out of the Catholic Church and didn’t know the truth until I was much older. Unfortunately my husband has not grown in the faith as have I. So we have been unequally yoked for 30 years. This has been a tremendous burden on me and I have done the best I could. Sometimes it meant I had to disagree with my husband and take the lead when raising my daughters or when a decision needed to be made that reflected Christian beliefs. My point is I think for the submission of wives to work their husbands must be worthy of their submission. One shouldn’t submit to a husband who doesn’t reflect Christian leadership qualities. Eve sinned first but Adam was not much of a leader to get sucked in by Eve. Regarding the head coverings. Do woman in your church wear head coverings? Are we supposed to do that still in your opinion? I like the message about woman rescuing Eve but men also need to rescue Adam as well don’t you think? They need to not be wimpy and they need to be strong examples to Christian woman.
Andrea,
Thanks for your thoughts. Scripture commands that wives submit to their own husbands as unto Christ Himself. There are no caveats or exceptions. No husband measures up to Christ. Yet, if the wife is going to follow Christ, she will submit to her husband in the same manner that she would submit to Christ (Eph. 5:22-24).
So what if he is not a strong Christian or not a good leader? It makes no difference. Peter instructed Christian wives to even do this with unbelieving husbands (1 Pet. 3:1-6). Of course submission never means to obey commands that conflict with Christ’s commands.
What if the husband said the same thing about what Scripture commands concerning loving their wives as Christ loves the church? What if he said that my wife is unlovable and needs to be “lovable” before I will obey this command? The fact is, the command for the husband to love his wife and for the wife to submit to and respect her husband are commands of Christ. So the one is not dependent on the other. Both are responsible to Christ regardless of what the other does.
There are a lot of Christian women who are smarter and better leaders than their husbands. But that does not change what God commanded. Many Christian wives, because they recognize that they are smarter, more mature, are better educated in the things of God, or have better leadership skills, think that this means they should assume the leadership role, especially if the husband seems unwilling. But that gives the husband an excuse to be lazy and causes many to not even bother to take their role seriously because it seems too difficult.
The wife, by willingly encouraging her husband to lead, and making it as easy as possible for him to lead, (by not trying to manipulate him to get her way), can actually be the catalyst and motivate the man to step up his game and become the man God created him to be.
Many men are non-confrontational in personality and many wives of such men are strong-willed. Such men tend to avoid conflict, and strong-willed women know how to get their own way and control their man. The secret to biblical submission is for her to determine NOT to get her own way, NOT to manipulate the husband, but to look to her husband (the one who is charged by God with leadership authority) as standing in the place of Christ.
Women hold the most power in the relationship over whether both partners can fulfill their God-given roles. This is because they can make it extremely easy or extremely hard for a man to lead. They can help him achieve his God-given role, or they can hinder him, or make it totally impossible for him.
As far as the children are concerned, both parents are charged with training them. If the husband is failing, then of course the wife must make up the difference. Yet, she can do it in a way that can encourage him and be conducive to his stepping up. If she acts as his replacement, she is not helping him.
Also, how the wife interacts with her husband in front of the children is teaching them by example. A wife can teach the children to honor and respect their father simply by taking a submissive attitude towards him as the example to the kids of what a biblical wife looks like. If the kids see their mother manipulating their father to get her way, that is what they will learn to do with their own husbands, and the Eve-problem and Adam’s capitulation to his wife continues generationally.
Peter said that the wife of an unbelieving husband can potentially win him to Christ “without a word” (of instruction or preaching) by her respectful, meek, and submissive manner and attitude. She can also teach her daughters “without a word” how they should respect and submit to their father and thus to their future husbands. If she is sarcastic, manipulative, passive aggressive, or is constantly oppositional by pressing to have her way, then she will teach her daughters to do the same. If her sons watch her disrespect and manipulate their father, and he allows it, then those sons may become weak leaders in their own homes, and abdicate their roles also.
She will also push her husband to neglect his wife and family if he tends to be a beta-male or become mean and aggressive if he is an alpha-male. This is because a man needs respect as much as air, as much as a woman needs love. He will start looking elsewhere for the respect he needs.
Yes, men need to step up their game. That is what the vast majority of my blog is about. This series of articles is a verse by verse exegesis of 1-2 Timothy, so I am dealing with the subject matter in the order that Paul wrote it.
Regarding head coverings, yes when I pastored a church for about 10 years the women wore head-coverings. My wife also always wears a head-covering at all Christian gatherings, and even when we read and pray together every morning privately. She does so because she wants to, not because I require it. She used to cover her head whenever she prayed when she was single before I knew her. It is one of the things that attracted me to her. She saw it in Scripture, and wanted to do it because she wants to please Christ.
Thank you for your explanation. I see your point about the commands of God being unconditional. All I was trying to get at was that once a wife has submitted to her husband and tried for years to allow him to lead in the teaching of the children Christian ideals, and he does not take the lead and does not assume the responsibility then it is the wife’s job to do so. She has no choice. And that is not the wife’s fault if that does not happen. So we blame a man’s mother if he’s a beta male? Then should we blame a woman’s father if they are passive aggressive? I believe God gave us these commands as a model for marriage and it takes both husband and wife to do their part for it to be successful so I think we agree. They have equal responsibility to model Christian ideals to their children and if one doesn’t step up to the role then the other must. Every marriage is different and has different circumstances. Thank you again for taking the time to reply.
Andrea,
Many men (perhaps most) do not take the responsibility of leading their family. The causes can be varied, including that they had no strong but compassionate father as a role-model leader in their own home, or they may have had a mother who was overbearing and oppositional, or she was a “smother” instead of a “mother.” Or, they may have been born with an introvert temperament, or any combination of these. Also, our culture is constantly demeaning the strong and confident male leader as a male-chauvinist-pig, and constantly promoting the concept that housewives and women who submit to their husbands are weak and pathetic creatures. In order to fulfill our roles in the manner that God designed and still requires, both Christian men and women have to overcome a lot of negative stereo-typing and cultural brain-washing.
A wife cannot help any such deficiencies that her husband may have brought to the marriage (just like he cannot help any deficiencies his wife may have such as extreme insecurity, inability to manage money or time, is a slacker, or has a “princess” mentality, etc.). The time to discern that kind of thing is before one says “I do.” Unfortunately, once you commit to a marriage, it is what it is. But in any case, the Christian wife is directly responsible to God to be the “helper” to her man that God created her to be, to allow her husband to “rule over her” which is her part of the “curse” until the Kingdom comes (Gen. 3:16), to understand his deficiencies and her assigned role, and then to strategically do the things that motivate him and make it easier for him to overcome his fears and lack of knowledge and example regarding leadership. Or, she can look down on him as a slacker, belittle him, demean or brow-beat him in front of the kids, and by doing so ensure that he never takes the lead, and eventually finds his fulfillment outside of his family. That approach will also ensure that the children will have similar deficiencies when they get married, and the problems will continue to perpetuate generationally. Bad fathers will tend to produce sons who will also be bad fathers, and bad mothers will tend to raise daughters who will also be bad mothers. This is because we teach far more by example than we do by instruction.
Eve CAN be rescued within one generation by smart Christian women who understand both the biblical roles of husbands and wives, the reasons for them, and who are committed to being a “helper” to her man and a “teacher” by example to her children, and committed to “embrace the curse” in the same way that a man must “embrace the curse” of having to work by the sweat of his brow until he returns to dust (Gen. 3:17-19,23-24). Those wise Christian women who take up the task of rescuing Eve, and are thus successful at home in raising their own daughters, will then be assigned the task in the church of teaching the younger women to do the same. “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled (Titus 2:4-5 ESV). See also 1 Tim. 5:9-15.
The “head-covering” issue is just one of the ways that she can signal to her husband and her children that she has submitted to both her role as a “helper” and to the temporary curse of Eve. A Christian woman cannot rescue Eve until she takes up her cross to follow Christ. Christ’s cross meant that He was willing to “embrace the curse” upon Adam (death). The cross of all Christian women is to “embrace the curse” of Eve, both the pain in childbirth and her husband ruling over her. If she does not embrace Eve’s curse, then she is not taking up her cross to follow Christ. Women who take up the task of rescuing Eve are not weak and pathetic creatures any more than Christ was weak and pathetic “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6-8 ESV).
One final point for the men who may be reading this: You cannot be a “Timothy” until you are first fulfilling your role at home and also are willing to teach the above as part of your “Timothy” ministry beyond your home.
I totally understand what you are saying and what the Bible says regarding how woman should submit to their husbands and men should love their wives. I suppose I didn’t make it clear in my original email what my concern is. In my case, when I married I did not have the biblical knowledge or faith to understand this. I came from a Catholic background and was lost spiritually albeit I still knew deep down that I loved God but didn’t know how to seek him. I married someone who called himself a Christian and had some church background and naively thought we could find Christ together. It wasn’t until I was a bit older and we had our first child that the LORD touched my heart and I began avidly reading scripture and praying for wisdom and increasing in faith. I have always believed the husband should be the leader. My father always was. However, my mother, a Protestant, had to agree to raise her children Catholic in order to marry my father. This was the ultimate “ submission”. It was very confusing growing up and my mother knew she had made a mistake in allowing us to be indoctrinated in the Catholic Church. So she quietly taught her beliefs as we got older and when we would question the Catholic Church. My point is I entered my marriage ignorant of things I should have known. I have always supported my husband as the leader in all family decisions EXCEPT when it contradicted what I knew the LORD wanted me do. I made certain decisions raising my daughters that he didn’t necessarily agree with such as what TV shows they could watch, when they could date, teaching about premarital sex etc. We didn’t argue about this in front of the children but me overriding my husband’s decision protected my children and taught them to be good Christian woman. Isn’t that exactly what you said woman and mothers should do? If this somehow makes the husband look weak that is on the husband. For the hierarchy of marriage to work, both parties need to do their part that God requires. Just as Christ did his part. I believe this is a model for us to aspire to but every marriage has its individual circumstances. Obviously people should choose a mate according to the qualities God commands but unfortunately some people were never taught these and don’t figure this out until after they marry. I know my brothers ran into this issue as well and are struggling with domineering wives and/or the princess mentality you mentioned. Some people are way more fortunate to have had the ideal situation modeled to them by their parents or they had this knowledge before looking for a spouse. That is a blessing. It’s not that simple for others… I was asking advice on what to do in my situation. So what I’m taking away from what you wrote is I should go along with whatever my husband’s decisions are even if they don’t align with what Christ wants me to do? So in the end when we are asked to flee to the dessert and if my husband is the one who wants to stay, should I submit to him and tell my daughters to as well? I believe God’s purpose for me is greater than being a helper to my husband. I’ve done that for years and will continue to as long as it doesn’t interfere with God’s plan for me. There are many messed up men and woman today thanks to woman’s lib and Satan’s agenda. Thank you again for your time and comments.
Andrea,
I agree with virtually everything you said. My intent on a public forum is never to give personal advice, but only to explain the Scriptures and how that applies generally in the specific situations I described. You gave a lot of personal information (which is probably not a great idea on a public blog). In any case, every situation is different.
It is equally the responsibility of both husband and wife to raise the children in the fear of God, and to provide a good role model. If one partner is doing their best to follow the Word and the other is not, then one must try to make up the difference. I think in the situation you described where the husband demands that the children be raised Catholic, the wife should comply and take the children to the Catholic church and not be oppositional. But then she should also teach the children the Scriptures accurately as best she understands at home.
There are Catholics who are genuine Christians and love God and will inherit immortality and the Kingdom, not necessarily BECAUSE of Catholic theology but in spite of it. Salvation is a heart matter far more than a theological matter. So it is certainly possible for a Protestant mother to submit to her husband and raise the children in a Catholic church, while at the same time teaching and modeling proper Christian principles and conduct. I can tell you this: The concept of willing submission to God-ordained authority is far more important to being a Christian than what denomination one associates with. The issue of humble submission is THE primary characteristic and is THE thing that is valued by God most, far ahead of any theological question. The simple statement that “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” is THE overriding principle of Scripture. It explains on what basis God extends His grace to us sinners. So teaching and modeling humble submission to all God-ordained authority structures (the home, the church, and government) is THE most important thing that a parent can teach their child, especially by using the example of Christ’s submission when He emptied Himself to become human, and then even submitted even unto death for the sake of obedience and the benefit of others. This is the very core of Christianity, and will determine (far more than theological differences) whether the child will make good choices and will experience God’s grace in the resurrection.
Again, I am not analyzing your specific situation, or giving personal advice. I am only speaking generally.
Thank you for your explanation.
Hi Tim, this is well argued overall. I just want to point out that 1Co 14:34-35 is likely an interpolation not in the original text. It doesn’t detract very much from your argument, but I believe verse 36-38 is referring to the whole chapter about tongues and interpretation, rather than the seemingly random, brief topic change behind it (some manuscripts even have those two verses at the end of the chapter instead).
Thanks for your writings, as always.
Gilbert,
I agree that verses 36-38 refer to all of the previous commands in this chapter, not only to verses 34-35. But I do not believe vss. 34-35 introduce a significant topic change, but provide yet another example of “confusion” in the churches as stated in the previous verse. The point of this chapter was to head off the “confusion” in the gatherings and get them back on track with things that instead lead to “edification” (vss. 12, 17, 26, 40). So Paul listed the confusion created by some of the women in Corinth along with the confusion created by the abuse of the gift of tongues. It is also quite possible that the abuse of tongues at Corinth was in part by women, which would make vss. 34-35 very relevant to Paul’s overall argument.
I am not sure on what norm of textual criticism one can argue that vss. 34-35 were not in the original text. They are included in this location in all of the Greek editions — the Critical Texts as well as the Majority Text and Textus Receptus. They are included here in the oldest codex manuscripts Aleph and B, and in the very earliest extant Greek papyrus manuscript of Paul’s letters, P46 (circa AD 175-225). I am not aware of any reputable textual critic who claims these verses are an interpolation.
In the late second or early third century these verses were cited by Tertullian in his work “Against Marcion,” quoted verbatim in his work “On Baptism,” and again in his work “On the Veiling of Virgins.” Other ECFs also appealed to them. For example, Cyprian (AD 200-258) wrote in Treatise 12, Bk. 3, Testimonies, as follows: “46. That a woman ought to be silent in the church. In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: ‘Let women be silent in the church. But if any wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.’ Also to Timothy: ‘Let a woman learn with silence, in all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to be set over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not seduced, but the woman was seduced’.”
I am not aware of any early manuscripts which omit these verses. Also, even if they are placed after vss. 36-40 it does not lessen the impact of Paul’s statement that what he was writing to the Corinthians are the commandments of the Lord. Paul was careful to distinguish between his own personal opinions and what was given to him by inspiration from the Lord. This can be seen clearly in chapter 7. So, IMO, his reminding them that the commands in his epistle are the commands of the Lord extends to all imperative statements in the entire book except those which he specifically said were his own opinions such as 7:6,12-16,25-28.
Also, why would Paul even make such a statement that what he wrote to them were the commands of the Lord? The only reasonable explanation, IMO, is that some in Corinth were arguing that since they were exercising a spiritual gift (such as tongues), that the Spirit of God was in fact urging that person to speak in the assembly. Such an argument would have sufficient weight to possibly overturn the norm which had been previously established there by Paul. The entire chapter argues against the following implicit reasoning: “Should we listen to what Paul taught us (allegedly by inspiration of the Spirit) or should we let the gifts of the Spirit operate freely since the Spirit of God is the source of them?” The entire chapter argues that the “gifts,” while dispensed to the individual by the Spirit of God, are under the control of the person with the gift, and that each must use sound judgment in using them and in what context based upon the limitations. Consequently, he commanded that no more than two or three speak with tongues. The command for the women to be quiet fits in well with this concept. It is not foreign at all to the logical flow of argumentation, IMO.
IMO, the argument by some that these verses are not original fails regarding textual criticism norms, as well as internal evidence of logical flow.