Reflecting the Creation Order

8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Reading and teaching about what the word of God says concerning the role of women is not a politically correct thing to do. I think most of you know that. But I also want you to know that that’s okay. Jesus never gave the impression that following Him was going to be easy or popular. In Matthew 7:13, He said, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Jesus called His followers to deny themselves and take up their cross. That self-denial includes a turning from sin, but it also includes turning from ideas and philosophies and methodologies that stray from God’s revealed design—no matter how unpopular that makes you.

The Apostle Paul knew that he wasn’t going to win any popularity contests with the world. In Galatians 1:10, he ask rhetorically, “For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

To preach Christ and follow Christ is to denounce and to actively fight against the spirit of our age, which is the spirit of independence and autonomy. It is the spirit that says, “I am in charge of my own life, and no one is allowed to tell me what to do.” That is the expression of the sinful heart, and it is a distinct expression we see in culture today. There is a rejection of authority, and ultimately, it is a rejection divine authority.

Helping us understand the world’s aversion to truth, Paul says in

1 Corinthians 2—The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

That’s an important reminder as we continue talking about this issue of church order. What we see in Scripture is the mind of Christ. Jesus, by His Spirit, and through His word, is keeping us from being conformed to this world, and He is transforming us by the renewal of our minds.

Last week, I gave you a crash course in what is known as the egalitarian position. That is those who reject the biblical distinctions between men and women. My goal was to help you understand what I would call the myths of egalitarianism.

The first myth is that the equality of men and women means there are to be no distinctions. That’s the myth—we are equal with no distinctions. The Bible, however, while teaching that men and women are equal, also teaches that there are clear distinctions. We have different roles in God’s design. Men and women complement one another, and that’s where we get the term complementarianism, which is the position contrary to egalitarianism.

A second egalitarian myth is that the fall into sin introduced the hierarchy between a man and his wife. That is not what the Bible teaches. The authority of a man in the family, and a wife’s submission to him, is God’s original design. The woman was created second as a helper for the man. The fall into sin did not change God’s design; it introduced frustration and friction and difficulty and pain in accomplishing it. So, the myth is that the fall introduced the headship of man, but the truth is that the fall introduces a rebellion to the headship.

The final myth I covered last week was that the Bible gives us examples of women pastors and preachers. The truth is that while the Bible gives many examples of women ministering in a variety of ways, even in teaching others personally, Jesus did not appoint a female Apostle, and Paul did not appoint any female pastors or elders. There are no instances in the Bible where God endorses a women leading His people or addressing the congregation as the preacher of the assembly.

In fact, contrary to that possibility, we see in our passage today that a woman, when it comes to the structure of the church, is to be marked by silence and by submission. She is not to teach the congregation, and she is not to have authority over the men. This principle rules out any woman from serving as an elder, because, as we’ll see when we get to chapter 3, the role of an elder—or overseer or pastor—is to teach and to have authority.

I exposed you to the general arguments of those who want a woman to teach, but now it’s time to look specifically at First Timothy 2, verses 11-15. Verses 11 and 12 say this: Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

How can someone read that and then allow a woman to preach to the congregation? The main contention is that what Paul is saying is specific to the time and the place of this letter. In other words, it only applied to the Ephesian church at that time.

Some argue that when Paul says, “I do not permit,” what he means is “I am not allowing this right now.” This is a view that wants to minimize the force of the word “permit.” There are a couple problems with that.

First of all, the word “permit,” though it might sound soft to us, is used in the rest of the Bible for some very strong authority. It is used to talk about the authority oof Pontius Pilate concerning the body of Jesus. It is used by Jesus used to speak of the authority of Moses. And it us also used for the authority of Jesus over the demons and over his disciples.

Understanding how this word is used, we could trade out the word “permit” and use the word “authorize,” which carries more of the force.

The Apostle Paul would not authorize a woman to teach the gathered congregation or to have a position of authority over it.

There are churches today, however, who claim that they can authorize what the Apostle Paul doesn’t. They say, well a woman can’t assume she has the authority, but if the elders of that church agree to let her speak, then that’s okay.

Here’s the problem: there is no power in the people of God to undo the commands God has given. A child can’t legitimately say, “My parents said it was okay for me to steal the candy.” A husband can’t say, “My wife said it was okay for me to sleep with other women. She authorized it.” No human concession can undo God’s command and God’s design.

A second problem with minimizing the strength of the term “permit” is that it opens the door for a dangerous separation between Paul’s intent and the meaning of God’s word. We believe in what is known as dual authorship. God is speaking, but He is speaking through a man. Therefore, what the man intended to convey is what God intended to convey. We study Scripture primarily by asking the question, “What did the author mean by what he said?”

Paul, as a human author, will use various words and phrases to give instruction. He doesn’t always say, “You must…” or “Christ commands…” He also says things like, “I urge you,” or, “I exhort you,” or “you ought to…” If we start allowing people to determine levels for Paul’s commands, we get into serious problems because we make ourselves the authority over the Scriptures.

The end of that path is the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson had his own version of the Bible, and it was much shorter than ours because he cut out all the portions he didn’t think should be there, and that included anything connected to the supernatural.

There are two occasions in 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul says he gives a charge, but not the Lord. And the best way to understand that is that he is adding to Christ’s teachings. That’s all that’s happening. He is giving a new instruction that wasn’t given directly by Jesus during his earthly ministry. Paul never intended his authoritative teachings to simply be taken as advice. This was the word of Christ, and it was to be read to the congregations.

So, there are those who want to minimize the strength the term “allow,” but more commonly, there are those who argue that Paul’s instruction here is not a universal command. Instead, they say, this command is rooted in the culture of that place and time.

How should we respond?

First of all, we should recognize that there are commands in Scripture that are cultural or distinct to a time and a place. For example, the Old Testament commands were given to Israel, not to the New Testament church. If you want, you can enjoy shrimp and bacon, and not feel guilty about breaking God’s law. Christ declared all foods clean.

To the Corinthians, Paul said that the women were to wear a veil in the church, and the men were to have their head uncovered. Jesus also commanded His disciples to wash one another’s feet, which is not a part of our services. And Paul told the churches to greet one another with a holy kiss—something the elders don’t seem to be enforcing.

The question is: how do you and I know when a command is cultural or absolute? There is going to be disagreement on specific issues, but if you believe that a command is cultural rather than absolute, I think there are three main questions you need to answer.

Number 1: What does the immediate context tell you? Number 2: What do we see in broader biblical instruction? And number 3: What is the overarching principle. You need to be make the case by looking at the immediate context and at broader biblical instruction, and you need to appeal to an overarching principle. Those are three important factors. And I want to help you see how this works.

Let’s look at an example from 1 Corinthians 7. Paul tells the single men not to seek a wife. Why? Is it because getting married is bad? No, we can’t say that because the broader biblical instruction tells us that marriage is good. But right before his instruction, in the immediate context, Paul says it is “in view of the present distress.” So, there was some difficulty in the Corinthians’ situation that led Paul to give the advice that single men should stay single for a time. And I say it’s only advice because Paul himself adds, “If you do marry, you have not sinned.”

So, the immediate context tells us this is a limited command. The broader biblical instruction supports that. And lastly, we need to ask: So, what is the overarching principle? We can’t just throw this passage away; it has to be teaching us something. The overarching principle is that while marriage is good, there may be times and seasons, where it would be wise to put those plans on hold.

Let’s talk about washing feet now. In John 13:14, Jesus says, “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.”

What do we know about the immediate context? Well, this is Jesus talking to His disciples in the upper room, and they have just had their feet washed by Jesus after nobody else wanted to do it. We also know that this is part of John’s gospel, which is narrative which can often give us a description of what happened without commanding us to do the same.

What about the broader biblical instruction? Is foot washing mentioned again in the Bible? Well, it’s mentioned a bit in the Old Testament as part of life, but there is no explicit command in the New Testament epistles. Luke speaks of a woman washing Jesus’ feet, which, again, is narrative.

But the only other time washing feet is mentioned in the New Testament is in 1 Timothy 5:10 which says that an honorable widow has shown hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, and cared for the afflicted. So, there’s not a lot of reinforcement to this as an absolute command.

If you believe this is cultural, though, you still have to answer the final question, which is: What is the overarching principle? In this case, the overarching principle is that we should humble serve others, and in ancient times, washing feet was one way to do that. It was the job of a servant, if there was one.

What 1 Corinthians 11 which says that a married woman must cover her head and a man must not? I think that is similar to washing feet. It’s not supported anywhere else in the Bible.

So, what’s the overarching principle. It is that the married women are to demonstrate humility and submission to their husbands when the church gathers. And for the Corinthians, that meant they wore head coverings.

What about kissing one another. That command is repeated five times in the New Testament. But it’s always in the final verses of the letter, which tends to be more personalized. And if you take that as a cultural expression, what is the overarching principle? It is that the church is to demonstrate a familial affection and love. We are a family, and it should be evident.

Ok, so having give you that long parenthesis, what about what Paul says here in 1 Timothy 2? Is this command repeated elsewhere? I showed you a couple weeks ago that it is. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 that a woman must be silent rather than prophecy to the congregation. In 1 Corinthians 14:33, Paul even adds the phrase, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”

Paul speaks of the churches, plural, and he points to the Law. That’s pretty compelling. Paul explicitly says this is for everyone, not just Corinth and Ephesus.

Now, for those who still maintain that this is cultural, they need to answer the question: Then, what is the overarching principle? What is Paul getting at? And there are a variety of answers.

Some groups say that the principle here is that people who are loud and boisterous shouldn’t be allowed to talk. In other words, they don’t think Paul was banning all women from speaking, just the annoying ones.

Others say that the principle here is that those who teach false doctrine should be silenced, which is what women were doing. So, a woman can teach the congregation, but she can’t teach false doctrine.

Others say that a woman is allowed to teach, but the principle here is that when she teaches, she should do it in a gentle way, with a quiet, humble spirit.

And there are some who say that the principle is that no one should teach who is uneducated, and they say that man women at that time were not.

Here’s the problem with those views: First of all, as you can tell, they can’t agree on the principle.

Secondly, their claims don’t line up with the evidence historically or biblically. Most of the men were uneducated as well. They were poor. Also, why would Paul only say that a woman can’t teach false doctrine? Does that mean that a man could teach false doctrine?

But the most critical element here is the immediate context. We don’t have to struggle to understand Paul’s point, because he explicitly lays it out for us in the next verse. Why shouldn’t a woman teach or have authority? First Timothy 2:13—For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Adam was formed first, then Eve.

That term “first” can talk about time, but it also can also mean “first” in terms of rank. And here, Paul is saying that the chronology points to a hierarchy. The man was made first.

So, this passage is not about academic education. This is not about being new to the faith or being an interruption. This is not a cultural argument. This is an argument from creation.

Let me give you an example of what Paul is saying. Let’s say that little Timmy is grounded because he hit his sister . He is confined to his room for 30 minutes. And then, 5 minutes later, Timmy’s sister comes crying to Dad because while she was outside, Timmy pushed her again.

What is Dad going to say? He could give another lesson about the sin of pushing and shoving his little sister. But he could also get behind that, and increase the guilt, by saying, “Timmy, you’re supposed to be in your room! You weren’t even supposed to be outside in the first place!” Instead of talking about the immediate problem, Dad could appeal to something behind it.

So, even is Paul is addressing specific problems in Ephesus—like loud, boisterous women, or women who were teaching false or inaccurate doctrine—he is appealing to something behind all that. A woman is not supposed to be teaching in the first place! At least not to the gathered congregation.

This is a violation of God’s created order. And we talked about this last week, so I am not going to spend a lot of time. God made Adam first. Eve was made second as his helper. She is equally made in God’s image, but she was placed in a complementary role where she would serve and submit for the glory of God.

This is the created order that God wants displayed and expressed, not only in a marriage, but in the church as well. The man is the head of the woman.

That’s not because men are smarter or better than women; it’s because that is the way God has structured humanity for his glory and for our good. For a household and for a local church, God has placed man in authority. The woman is not to step past the man’s authority. That is the divine design.

That doesn’t mean, however, that it’s always going to be expressed. We have single moms. We have woman who have been divorced. We have widows. Those kinds of situations are going to happen, but those are exceptions to God’s design because we live in a fallen world. They are not the way God created families to function. That’s why those situations are especially painful and difficult. And God calls the church to step up and serve the widows and the orphans.

But just because a church has orphans, doesn’t mean that a church should let all the other children rebel against the authority of their parents. Do you see what I’m saying? It’s one thing to have a failed expression of the design due to the curse on this world; it’s another thing to deliberately rebel against the design.

That’s what was happening in Ephesus. The church was rebelling against God’s created order, and through Paul and Timothy, Jesus was restoring the natural, created order. A woman is not to teach the gathered congregation, and she is not to have authority over them.

Now, last week, I told you that when we rebel against God’s design, there will be consequences—both physical and spiritual. Verse 14, now, speaks to those consequences by continuing the story of Adam and Eve. It says—and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

What is Paul saying? Well, in verse 13 he’s referring to Genesis 2, when God made Adam first, and then Eve. Here, Paul is referring to Genesis 3 where Satan tempted Eve and she ate the fruit of the tree which had been forbidden by God.

Satan wanted Eve to distrust God’s wisdom and love. And he wanted her to believe she could be like God. So, when she saw that the fruit, and that it looked tasty, and that it would improve her life, she ate. That’s the gist of Genesis 3:1-7. You can read that on your own if you like.

Why does Paul bring this up? What’s the point?

Before we answer that, I think we need to be clear about what he’s not saying. Paul is not saying that Adam was without sin. Romans 5 tells us that sin came through Adam’s transgression, and as a result death came into the world. So, Adam is not off the hook.

Now, if Adam was not deceived, but he sinned, we could say that his sin was worse than Eve’s. He went into the whole thing knowing what was going on. But went ahead and ate anyway. He watched it happen, and said nothing until God came looking for him.

Secondly, regarding Paul’s point, it doesn’t seem clear to me that Paul is trying to make some general conclusion about women. I don’t think he’s saying that women are more gullible or that they can’t handle sound doctrine. Paul doesn’t say that.

I believe a case can and should be made about the differences between men and women, but I don’t think that’s the point Paul is making in verse 14.

So, what is he doing? It seems to me like all Paul is doing is giving an example of how disastrous it is when God’s design is ignored or rebelled against.

God gave the instructions concerning the tree to Adam before Eve existed. Adam was the one responsible to teach and to lead his wife. But what happened? Satan came, and he didn’t talk to Adam. He went around him and talked to Eve. He went to the woman.

And, to me, the most shocking part of the story is not that a snake was talking. It could be that the other animals in the garden talked as well. Or maybe this was so close to creation that Eve didn’t know any better. I can’t say for sure. But the scandalous part of the story is that after Satan and Eve’s conversation, it says that Eve ate of the fruit, and she gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

It's like the camera is only showing Eve talking to the serpent, but in the end, it zooms out a bit, and we realize that Adam was there the whole time. He was jus sitting by watching his wife give in to the deception of Satan. He wasn’t fulfilling his role as leader and protector. He was an absentee husband, content to let his wife make major decisions regarding God’s will on his behalf.

And what an appropriate picture that seems to be of what was happening in Ephesus. The men had stepped away from their God-ordained roles, and, for the sake of peace or comfort or whatever, they were content to let the women do it instead.

When the men in the church allow the women to do their jobs for them, the consequences will be devastating. Men are weakened. Masculinity and femininity are twisted. And Christ is dishonored.

Men, you were created to lead and to love and to provide and to protect. And the most significant expression of that is not physical; it is spiritual. You are called to know the truth and, by it, to lead your family. You do not lead like a general. You lead in gentleness and in confidence and with sacrifice, like Christ did.

Wives, your job is to submit to your husband, but in that you are to help him and support him. Together, your marriage is a beautiful display of the love and submission between Christ and His church. And in a similar way, the leadership of men in the church, and the humility of women glorifies Christ as well.

We’ve got one final verse to cover, and then we’ll be done with the chapter. This is Paul’s final word on this topic. Verse 15—Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Again, Paul, what are you saying? In verse 13 he makes a connection between the women in the church and Eve. And now, he is going in the opposite direction. He’s going back to addressing the women in Ephesus. The first half of the verse says “she” singular, but the second half says “they,” which is plural. So, again, though Eve is only one woman, her story teaches us and helps us understand certain things about womanhood.

So, what does it mean that “she will be saved through childbearing”? Obviously, this can’t mean that women are saved by the physical act of having children. That would be salvation by works, and it would rule out any woman who never has kids.

So what does this mean? There are a bunch of interpretations, and I’m not going to hold you to a specific one, or even to my position, but I do want to share them with you and tell you where I fall.

Some people say that this is specifically talking about Eve. In Genesis 3:15, God promised that the seed, or the offspring, of the woman would crush the serpent. So, it is true that through childbirth, salvation would eventually come. But I don’t see how that principle would apply to the women in Ephesus, or to women today, because Christ has already come.

Some people have also said that this verse is talking about Mary who literally gave birth to Jesus, but that has the same problems as applying this only to Eve, and worse, it’s a huge jump because Mary is nowhere in this passage.

Others think that the word “saved” here is talking about physical protection. So, they argue that Paul is saying that women, in general, are protected from the effects of childbirth. They say that because the word “saved” could be used in a physical sense, meaning “to be healed” or “to be protected.” It is used like that in the gospels sometimes.

This is a tough interpretation for me to accept because I counted 29 times that Paul used the Greek word for “saved,” and they all were talking about the salvation of Christ, not physical protection or healing.

Some have said that what Paul is saying is that women, by having and raising kids, are saved from the stigma of having been deceived by Satan. That’s not impossible, and I think it’s getting closer to Paul’s intent, but I don’t think this passage is intended to talk about a woman’s shame that then needs to be fixed. I think Paul is simply talking about God’s design and the dangers of ignoring it.

Another interpretation says that bearing children isn’t the means of salvation; instead, Paul means that women will be saved despite the pain and grief of childbirth.

The biblical parallel here is 1 Corinthians 3 which says that on the day of judgment a man’s work may be burned up, but he will be saved through fire. It’s not that the fire brings salvation; it’s that salvation will come even though the fire will bring a type of loss.

So, according to this interpretation, women shouldn’t be discouraged when they see the pain and the danger of childbirth, which is a product of God’s curse for sin. Despite that pain and danger, women will be saved, if they continue in faith and love and holiness.

Again, I don’t think I can be too dogmatic here, and you don’t have to agree with me, but I lean toward understanding this verse a lot like the way we understand the message of James chapter 2.

James says that we are justified, or saved, by works. He doesn’t mean that our works bring salvation; he makes that clear, and so does the rest of the Bible. What James is saying is that that the proper expression of genuine faith is works. The evidence of genuine salvation is works, like that of Abraham and Rahab.

James uses the phrase “by works” not “through works,” so I recognize the preposition is different, but I think the idea is similar. I think Paul is using childbirth in the same way that James uses works.

It’s not that the physical act of having kids that brings salvation. It is that bearing children is the proper general extension or general expression of a woman who has accepted the role God has given her. I’m not saying that a woman must have a child to be saved or to qualify as a real woman. I’m simply saying that part of what defines womanhood is the potential ability to bear a child. Not all women will have that opportunity, but that is the role of women in general; and it is a glorious one. It is the task of helping prepare and protect the next generation. And it starts from the very moment that baby is born.

My main concern as a pastor isn’t with a woman who isn’t married or who can’t have children. I have a much greater concern for a woman who desires to cast off the “shackles” of tradition and absolutely refuses to entertain the possibility of having a child.

I think it’s possible that some women in Ephesus were doing that. They either refused to have kids or refused to tend to them, because they wanted to teach in the church. That’s a rebellion of God’s design.

I would say the same for a man who refuses to work or to marry and have children. In general, that demonstrates a lack of maturity. It’s a rebellion against God’s order.

Leading a family is part of what expresses manhood. And part of what expresses womanhood is having children and loving them and caring for them and instructing them. Paul talks about that in 1 Timothy 5 and in Titus 2. It’s a wonderful, beautiful, and vital part of the health of a culture and of a church.

So, again, I’m not saying that women must have children to be women. I’m saying that a woman should embrace God’s pattern that the woman’s general role is to bear, to care for, and to raise children.

Now, even if a woman does that, that in itself doesn’t save her. And that is why Paul adds the final phrase—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

What is it that saves a woman? It is her faith in Jesus Christ—the same thing that saves a man. We trust in Christ’s sacrifice and in His resurrection for our sins.

And having trusted in Christ, a woman lives out her faith in love and holiness and self-control. She embraces the beautiful calling on her life to raise children, to support her husband, and to minister in the name of Jesus Christ.

Ladies, our culture needs you. Our church needs you. And just like it would be wrong for man to ignore God’s calling on his life, it is wrong for you to ignore God’s calling in your life and step outside the pattern He has set in place and communicated to us.

It’s not a sin to work outside the home. It’s not a sin to make income for the home. The Proverbs 31 woman did that.

You just need to make sure that what defines you most is your relationship to Christ and your submission to His design for the family and for the church.

I’ll just close with Paul’s words from Ephesians 4:16, and this applies to all of us. This is Christ’s design and Christ’s desire—From [Him] the whole body [is] joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped. [And] when each part is working properly, [that] makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

Let’s all be working properly, so that the body of Christ is built up in love for the glory of our Lord.