Titus 2:1-15

We're in Titus 2 verses 1 through 15. As I mentioned, we'll be using this same handout going through this this Sunday and the next, okay? And so we start there, Titus 2.1, but as for you, Titus, right?

Speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. So, so is he telling speak loudly or what's what's the sound thing about here? He repeatedly used a word with Titus that has translated sound from a Greek word from which we derive our English word hygiene. The original word implies healthy. He had used it more than once in each of his letters to Timothy. Here are the passages in Paul's letter to Titus where he uses that word.

So we have Titus 1.9 holding fast the faithful word, this is a qualification of an elder, which is in accordance with THE teaching, specific teaching, so that he will be able to exhort and sound, that is, that healthy doctrine, right, and refute those who contradict.

Titus 1.13, this testimony is true.

For this reason, reprove them severely so that they may be sound in THE faith. We've made the point that THE faith is the specific set of teachings of the apostles. Used starting in Acts 6, and used repeatedly on into the book of Revelation throughout the epistles of the New Testament. Then Acts 1, Titus 2, 1 and 2, which starts this passage here, here is, As for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.

Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in, and the English a lot of times they drop it out, but the Greek has the faith again. And so he's specific. As a matter of fact, we'll see in a little bit, it's the faith, the love, the perseverance. He's specific about each one.

Titus 2.8, sound in speech, which is beyond reproach so that the opponent will be put to shame having nothing bad to say about us. So why all the emphasis on the word sound? Does it have anything to do with Puget? No, that's not the meaning, right? Okay. So this has nothing to do with Seattle and Vancouver and all that stuff.

So why all the emphasis by repeating the word sound? Why write to Timothy about it in each letter and then again and again and again here in Titus? I mean, it's like, is he going crazy or what's the deal? Why this Without the basic truth, there's no point in putting your faith anywhere. Yeah, faith is in a specific content, isn't it? And it does matter. Sometimes you hear the term people of faith, and that's pretty generic. I wouldn't want to just be a people of faith. Because the faith is specific, isn't it? Specific as to content and specific as to person.

So why is Paul saying it is important to establish and keep a sound, or what is Paul saying is important to establish and keep a sound in these verses? What needs to be sound besides Pugin? The doctrine, the teaching, and what you find is where he'll use it with the word doctrine, with teaching, occasionally, you know, sound speech. What's the idea?

It refers to truth. Yeah, and he is talking about the truth as to content, that that matters. What about the idea that we really can't know what the Bible says, I even heard, there was a professor at Colorado Christian University, he says, anybody that thinks that they know what the Bible says is a heretic. He must be a heretic. Yeah, actually that's the case.

Because here is the faith, not some kind of faith, right? And there is a sound doctrine, so if doctrine isn't sound, what is it? It's unsound, right? What's that? Yeah, corrupted. So there is a specific defaith. There is doctrine that is sound. Paul is emphatic about it with Timothy in each letter and multiple times here in Titus. Yes? It's almost like Paul's a doctor and he's got his PDR and he's telling you exactly, you know, spiritual-wise. This is healthy. And whatever isn't this is not healthy. Right? Not healthy.

Okay, we have the slide we've included before, The Faith, and one of the things it says, not an exhaustive list, we've actually, Titus 2.2 is not on that list, and that's another place where The Faith is listed. So, what you see there looks like a fairly extensive list of places that talk about The Faith, it's not all of them. So there are more.

Okay, Titus 2.2-8.

Older men, and the Greek there, almost interestingly, is presbyteros. Sound like anything you've heard before? Presbyterian, right? So, presbyteros, and that's the older men, are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in the faith, in the love, in the perseverance, An older woman, and that's presbyteras, which is different only in that it has the "-as-" instead of the "-os-" ending.

So the older women, likewise, are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young woman to love, and that's a phileo-love, which is, interestingly, not agape. It's phileo that's an affectionate attachment. Interesting. To love their husbands. To love their children. Same word. To be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

Likewise, there is a young man to be sensible, and all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity and doctrine dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us." So Paul gives instruction here on roles and moral and spiritual character according to age and gender. Older men, older women, younger women, younger men. Note carefully what Paul says to each group and how he says it. These points of moral and spiritual character direct believers in ways that stood in contrast to the prevailing culture.

One of the things that, I don't know if Randy got a chance to touch on it more than incidentally last week, And that is in the culture of Crete, this is a unique book Paul wrote to Titus and he talked about the God who cannot lie. Well, he never said that and wrote that to anybody else. Why write it to Titus? It's because lying and deceiving in Crete was looked upon as a fine art. If you wanted somebody to lie and deceive, you would hire a cretin. Because they were very good at it. They were famous for doing it. As a matter of fact, the person who would befriend someone and then turn around and sting them was looked upon as a hero.

Sounds like a politician. Anyway, okay, here we go. So, Paul also directs Timothy to stand out as an example. Tupos, that's where we are, we're tight. See the PowerPoint slide set and slides indicate on page four, the handout. What we'll do is just rely on page four here. So, with that, let's take a look through the page four, which is a color printout page there. You got that? No. You don't have that. Well that's terrible! That's awful! I'm looking for a color but I don't see it. Well that's awful. And you weren't color blind so... No, not that I know of. Okay. New discoveries. Yeah. Sorry about that. Okay.

This is going over a section of something we covered a while back in 1 Corinthians chapter 4. Paul writes to the Corinthians, he says, I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers. For in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. Now is that arrogant or what? Or is it? Let's take a look. For this reason I have sent you Timothy who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ just as I teach everywhere in every church.

Now there are two words that are used throughout the New Testament that talk about imitating or copying and one of those is mimetish. We get our word mimic And the word imitate is also related to that. The meaning in the Greek New Testament is to imitate the behavior of another in a positive way.

And I think a key verse there is the one quoted on that same page, 1 Corinthians 11.1, be imitators of me just as I also am of Christ. See that? Be imitators of me just as I also am of Christ. Why? Because it's the same book. Why does it matter that he says be imitators of me as I also am of Christ? Why does that matter? Does Paul want to have a bunch of Paul clones?

No, that's not his intent. Alright, you're shaking your head with very great certainty. Why do you say no? Well, it's not the person, it's the Christ. You could have ten people, and if they all wanted people to worship or follow them, you'd just have ten followers of men. This is, don't follow me, follow me only because I speak the word of Christ. That's right. In other words, look to Christ in me is ultimately what they're looking at. Yes.

And it also says to me that if he has one father, one spiritual father, then that goes along to confirm that when you become a believer, it's a one-time event. It's not something that happens over and over again. Like a lot of people who walked out four or five different times getting baptized are trying to be saved. It happens once. you can have numerous fathers. If I walk the aisle four different times, that must mean I'm really saved, right?

Yeah. Be imitators of me just as I also am of Christ. So that's one word. The other word, and he's used it with Timothy here, is which is where we get our word type. It means to be a pattern or example. The word is tupos. The word was used of a stamping die where the image or symbol on the tool made a visible impression on the receiving metal or other material. Maybe you've seen this where somebody will put their name or their initials on tools and they'll get a stamping die and you'll go and put it on the tool and bang, hit that solidly with a hammer and it'll make the letters or numbers that the person wants in the tool. And he can go and put that on several different tools, a number of different tools, because the stamping die is typically a really hardened material. So you can make an impression a number of times. So that word was also used for an example.

So here's Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.1, be imitators of me just as I also am of Christ. And now this isn't just superficial imitation.

If you got someone who's a really good actor or actress to imitate Paul, is that what Paul has in mind? That's not the point, is it? Why? Why does getting a really good actor or actress fall short of Paul's intent here? I don't think it's being like Paul physically as it is being like Paul spiritually where his focus is totally on Christ and wanting to be like Christ. This imitation is not a superficial imitation even to the finest detail as an actor or an actress might try to do. It's not superficial at all. It's not even something that an expert actor or actress, paying great attention to mimicking, is going to carry out.

And why? It's because the imitation is based on a spiritual reality and a spiritual pattern. Not, you know, how do I turn my hand, and do I wink just the right way, and do I turn my head in the same... No, it's not all those superficial things, is it? It is a deep imitation that is spiritual and based on, ultimately, the person of Christ. That's why Paul points to Christ. So here's Paul in 1 Thessalonians 1, 5-7. It's about the fifth slide here in your handout. For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit, and with full conviction, just as you know what kind of men we prove to be among you for your sake. You also became imitators of us, and who? And of the Lord. Ah! This is consistent with the imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ, right?

Because the ultimate learning is from the Lord Himself. The Lord does in fact use other believers to be an instrument of conveying that, but ultimately it's the Lord, not just this person or that person. having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit so that you became an example, here's the other use of those words, to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. Both of those words are then used together. You imitated us and the Lord and then you became an example for others to imitate. not in superficial imitation, but in depth, spiritual depth. Now, at the last slide there you have a listing of all the scripture passages that have the word imitate, the Greek mimesis, and or. Example, Tupas.

And what we have here is in Philippians 3.17 and 1 Thessalonians 1.5-7, in the slide right above there, those two have both words included in it.

What's interesting is with one exception, Romans 6.17, the pattern seems to be the first part of the New Testament puts almost all the focus on imitating, and the last part of the New Testament puts almost all the focus on examples. Interesting pattern. Here we are at Titus 2-7, which is the second to the last instance of this word type showing up here. Okay, now, turn back to page 2. Have your hand down. Are you with me so far? Okay. And you do have page 2. Okay. Did you get an extra? Now we have some mind-boggling, stimulating questions.

If in Christ there is neither male nor female, this is Galatians 3.28, why does Paul make male and female distinctions in this passage? Is Paul just a chauvinist? If in Christ there is neither male nor female, why does He make twice in this passage these distinctions? Older man, older woman, younger man, younger woman. Is there a problem? Positional and conditional situation. So do we need to call a plumber or what's the deal here?

What's Galatians 3.28 talking about when it says there's neither male nor female? This is in our position in Christ, masculine or feminine doesn't matter.

This is why 1 Peter 3.7, Peter could say, live with your wives in an understanding way, and he says in there, show them honor as joint heirs of the grace of life. Why joint heirs? They have the same position. You're right. Our position in Christ is not different between male and female.

That's what Galatians 3.28 is saying. And any other kind of earthly distinction. And I hope none of you are disappointed terribly, Once you walk through heaven's gates, male and female isn't going to matter either. Male and female counts for earthly times. But it does count. Because what did God do in Genesis 1? He made them male and female. Let's make man our image. In the image of God, He created him male and female.

For earthly times, that distinction matters. And so what he's saying here when he makes this distinction is not saying, you know, there's a difference in position, but there is in fact a difference in male and female and the roles and even character issues, right? Need to be addressed there. Okay. Should we set aside the contents of this passage as irrelevant in today's culture? I mean, we've got unisex, we've got, matter of fact, I was reading one sociologist said that we have 11 different genders in our culture. Yeah,

11. I went down the list, okay, I guess so. 11 different genders. So, if that's the case, and we've got, you know, people having all sorts of, you know, sexual preference and no preference. I think in California, where it says you're supposed to mark out some form, male, female, you can put down anything.

It doesn't matter. Those distinctions just don't matter. Because if they don't have all 11 different choices, then you've got you boxed in illegally. So, at any rate, It doesn't matter. You could mark all 11 or you pick three of your favorite ones. And it really doesn't matter because basically what they did is they legislated any of those distinctions out. What if you didn't mark any of them?

That doesn't matter either. Yeah, they don't care. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you answer anymore in California. Good. Yeah, doesn't make any difference. So, is this passage irrelevant now? Do we now say, well, you know, that was good for then, but now, who cares? In fact, in California, you can't make those distinctions. So that would be asexual, right? Oh no, that's only one of them. A would be nine, right? Yeah. And that's only one of the 11. Oh, that's true. Right. Right. It's confusing.

And another sociologist says, no, it's not 11, it's 13. So anyway, scratch your head about that one. Does that does that sort of mindset then make this passage irrelevant? All the distinctions. It makes it more relevant. It makes it more relevant. Now that's interesting. Why would you say that? Because there is a definite distinction between a male and a female as far as God is concerned. Okay. It's interesting. It's not a positional difference, but for earthly times the distinction matters, doesn't it? Yeah. It's not a positional distinction, but for earthly times the distinction matters.

Okay. If there is neither male nor female, in the earthly sense, in eternity, in other words, we're like the angels, is Matthew 22-30, why should maleness and femaleness make any difference while we're here on earth? I mean, if eternally it's not going to matter, I mean, don't people say eternity, that's what really counts? So isn't it more spiritual to say it doesn't matter here?

It's created. Bob's shaking his head, right? It does matter here, that's the reality, and God predestined it. Yeah, in other words, for the earth, God had an intent from the beginning. Right? In the beginning, Genesis says, Jesus says, in the beginning he made the male and female. He had an intent for here, and the intent is not just arbitrary, it is an eternal, unchanging, all-knowing God that made that distinction. Right? From the outset. Okay. Next one. Are women never to teach in the church or among the body of Christ? Are women never to teach in the church or among the body of Christ? No. What's that? You say no. Not never. Not never. Okay. That sounds like a double negative. Not never.

Okay. That means they can teach certain people. Okay. And what are those distinctions? Other women and children. Okay. Alright. And how do we arrive at that? Because of the order of the fall. Okay. 1 Timothy 2 talks about two different reasons why. And that's one that we studied earlier, but just to quickly go back to it, you're right. One is creation sequence.

The man was created first. And the other reason is because Eve was deceived. Now, what that does is Adam was not deceived. He knew he blew it. Right? And so what it does, it says that the man is to take on a responsibility that he blew in the garden. Part of it is, look man, be a man. Going back here, this is where Adam blew it. The way to day by day, moment by moment, restore this is to be the man. That's what the message is here.

Okay. Should women be prohibited from learning about spiritual things? No. Have you ever heard that? Now, women shouldn't go to college and shouldn't go to Bible college and they certainly shouldn't go to seminary and, you know, they should keep absolutely quiet in the church and not say anything. I've heard some people espouse that.

However, here's 1 Corinthians 14.31-35, Philippians 4.9 and 1 Timothy 2.11.

Those all say that the woman should learn. So what's interesting is while there's a specific distinction in what the woman ought to be teaching in the body of Christ, who they ought to be teaching, there is no prohibition, as a matter of fact, there is every encouragement and no limitation on the woman learning. So, learning for women in the body of Christ is actually consistently encouraged. Then they couldn't teach younger women. That's right. There is a place here. So, as we go to this, that's the next bullet.

Why are women never told to agapeo love their husbands? This is different from phileo love that is used here. Why are women not told, as men are, consistently, to agapeo love their husbands, while husbands are told repeatedly to agapeo love their wives. Here the women are encouraged to have an affectionate attachment to their husbands, but the husbands are to agapeo, this is agape love, the wives. It's very interesting. It's a consistent pattern. I haven't found any exceptions. How come? Agapeo is a different kind of love. It's a sacrificial love. Agapeo is a different kind of love, yeah. It is a love that comes from God himself.

And what's interesting, it's also presented as a love that's an act of will. Our culture tells men that love is a feeling. and love is a because of thing. I love you because you bake really good pies, or I love you because you're the hottest thing on two legs, or whatever it is. And that's what our culture tells us. And besides that, it can't be wrong if it feels so right. So our culture communicates a feeling kind of love. But Scripture consistently directs the man to exercise his will.

That's what it is. It is an exercise of will, selfless kind of love that he is to have for his wife. Yes? Is that different from the fact that a woman was created from man's rib? I mean, that was a portion. Does that have anything to do with that? I think indirectly, indirectly, but I think ultimately... It's a real connection, I guess that's the way I think.

There's a wound in the side reason. How'd the rib come about, right? God essentially made a wound in the side, did he not? To take the rib out? And then healed it back up? Ultimately, Christ had a wound on his side too, right? When he was sacrificed for us.

And it is ultimately, you look at the four kinds of love that Ephesians 5 spells out, that the husband is to love with, he is deliberately and intentionally to have this agapeo, act of love kind of love, that doesn't say, I love you because, and in fact, it's better if the wife can't figure out why the guy loves her.

It's better. Why? Because it's an act of will, not because she did this or doesn't do that or looks this way. That's not the reason he loves her. That's right. It doesn't depend on something she does or doesn't do or a way that she looks. I mean, it's classic for guys to say, oh, you're so beautiful and all that. And, you know, I hope they think that. But that's not why they're to love the wife.

And if you go back to Genesis, it talks about cleaving. And there is a different role there. father and mother and be cleaved to his wife. Right, and to be joined to his wife. So that indicates the wife continues with her family where the husband is separated more or less from him, cleaving to his wife, right? Here is the deal. The wife is assumed to also separate from her family, but it is the husband who is taking the initiative.

And that's what you see in Genesis, that's what you see in Ephesians 5, that's what you see in 1 Peter 3-7. The husband is designed by God to take the initiative in the love relationship. But again, it's a different love, because you're talking about phileo. I'm surprised that he didn't say snorgate, but he did say phileo, which is definitely love. it includes masses of people where men don't necessarily function that way. It's more of a one focus on conditional love.

Well, and let's ask this. Does it mean that women are not to love their husbands and their children? No, it doesn't mean that. But let's ask this question. If Christ, from Ephesians 5, if Christ and the Church are the example for husband and wife, And the husband is the one who is to take the initiative to love, just as Christ did for us, right? While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. So then, think of this, what does 1 John say?

We love because He first loved us. So the woman's loving, that's why you don't find scriptures that say, wife, you better love that guy. Her love is a response for his expression of love, not that she is commanded to initiate it. So she is to love in return and express love to her children because he has, as an unconditional act of will, taken the initiative to deliberately love her. Not because of anything, but he has chosen to do so.

You know, you brought up the Genesis passage about cleaved to his wife. That word there means joined, and in both the Hebrew and in the Greek, in Ephesians 5, that word joined means superglued. Intensively glued. But the man is the one who is to take the initiative. The man is to take the initiative with the God we love.

So what you find here in this passage is the older women have a specific role in encouraging the younger woman to have this affectionate attachment. But it doesn't order the younger women to do that, does it? Isn't that interesting? And it's because the real loving in the husband-wife and family relationship is to be initiated by the husband. Yes.

And that's interesting when you look at the culture today and the rapid increase in divorce and separation and all the rest of it. And what's really sad is the fact that it's almost as bad in the church as it is outside the church. No. No. If the man is to leave his mother and father and to be superglued to his wife, what do we do? Because we have these, you know, a goodly number of people, even some Christians.

Let's do this moving in together thing and see how that works. Excuse me, is that superglued? That's post-it note. Okay? Let's try a post-it note marriage arrangement and see if it sticks. But guess what? It doesn't stick! You know? That isn't going to work. Right? Yes? It's also, with the female and the male, husband and wife eating from each other, emotionally and cognitively, the way it is to be, it's feeding that need also. Let's look at the next bullet down.

Considering the prior question, why are younger women to be encouraged to phileo love their husbands and their children? Phileo love, a lot of times it's called brotherly love. Ultimately, I would give it a little bit more detail and say it's an affectionate attachment. Affectionate attachment.

Why is that important? And why would that be encouraged? that, again, plays more to women than an affectionate attachment. And I'm thinking specifically for children, you know, that sometimes that's, when they're two years old, that may be the only way you can get at it. Sometimes that you kind of overlook some of the behaviors. Emotionally, you're very drawn and committed.

It may seem a strange question, is affectionate attachment just natural? Does it come automatically? Does the wife's affectionate attachment to the husband and the affectionate attachment to the children, does it come automatically? Is it a given? Carol's shaking her head no and I see a few other puzzling looks. What do you think? You said no. Why did you say no? It's not automatic.

Well, there are people who are exceptions to that general And in fact what you find out there, there are degrees, right? There are degrees in which women will have attachment to their husbands and to their children. The reason I think it's automatic, because if you go, and I know that, you know, we are not, we're higher than the animal kingdom, but if you look at the animal kingdom, I think you can see a definite pattern that exists throughout, you know, the highest hierarchy of animals, almost to the lowest hierarchy of animals. And that is that the female will become almost, it's an almost instinctual ingrained attachment to the young.

Sometimes it doesn't work that way, and the young therefore die, and there seems to be a problem there. But if you would look at it percentage-wise, it's probably in the high 80s or low 90s that this is what occurs. I agree. I think there's an initial... I think it's there, but I think it also has to be nurtured. Yes. It's interesting.

Actually, oxytocin is the substance that makes for attachments and that kind of thing. But what's interesting is while that may or may not be there physiologically, what he's saying is that there's a place for encouraging it. which may also help deal with the fact that there can be things interfering with that attachment, can't there? Right? And so what it says is those attachments that many women have naturally, but some may not have so easily, ought to be encouraged.

That's part of what he's saying. Yeah, Marla? In that culture, was there a problem with that taking place? Now, interesting. Who was the attachment to first encouraged here? Husband or children? First to the husband and then to the children. That's very interesting.

In answer to your question, there was a tendency throughout the Greco-Roman culture, so Greek and Roman, so throughout the whole Roman Empire in varying degrees, there was a tendency for the husband not to foster an emotional attachment with his wife. The wife was someone who was supposed to have the kids because he had a kind of responsibility to have kids, but it was fairly common for men both before marriage and even after they're married to have other kinds of intimate relationships and not particularly have a real strong bond and connection with the wife. And so it would be common for her just, you know, similarly, to just say, well, you know, you're not all that attached to me, and so I'm not all that attached to you. Yes?

Was it common in the Greek culture at this time to sacrifice firstborns? You know, the sacrificing of the firstborn was more of a Canaanite issue. But, let's put it this way, it was legal in the Roman Empire, completely legal, to carry out any abuse or neglect, even to the point of accidental or intentional death to any of the children. You know, here's a cruel thing. It was perfectly legal, and it would even happen sometimes. The husband may say, well, I'm going off to work today, and I know you're pregnant if you have the baby today, and it's a girl. Kill it before I get home.

No, this is not, so there were things within the culture that would be, you know, not only would there be a resistance to attachment, but there would be a, you know, I hate your guts, and I don't want to, you know, do this. Yeah. look at the different cultures at that time, which I'm not that well versed on, but I have read some about Persians and Muslims, Islamic, well Canaanite, you mentioned that.

So there was a definite cultural thing where this existed. And if you look at Romans, a lot of people say that has to do with which the God-given way for the wrong way. And I think it's because they became assimilated indirectly to the other cultures that were teaching them these wrong ways. So the exchange, and I think we're touching on this here, I don't know how to put it into words, but I think Romans 1 just really sticks out here. It is quite possible, either in a culture or in specific instances, for things to go horribly wrong.

Horribly wrong. And like the Canaanite culture, here's a firstborn, and you ought to be thinking, oh, this is such a dear, precious child. Instead, what are you doing? You go and sacrifice it. Just awful. Terrible, awful things. And in the Roman culture, the Greco-Roman culture, horrible things happened.

There was no child protective services. And awful, awful, terrible, terrible things happened regularly. And as a matter of fact, if a man carried out some of these awful things in the household, it was considered a good wife would not mention it. All sorts of physical and sexual abuse and all that, a good wife was considered one who didn't mention it and just ignored it.

Now we have abortion. Yeah. So now we've got this strange oddity where we'll have, you know, this extreme, you know, we've got Child Protective Services, but then we have abortion and you have people, you know, pushing the rights for, you know, people to do that as much as possible and have people pay for it. So yeah, we've got a very strange set of circumstances. But let's look at one other thing. Husband is listed first, then the children. Why does that matter? Why is the husband listed first and not the children? Why doesn't it just say affection and attachment to the family members? Leave it at that. Why husband first?

Yeah? The first thing that pops into my mind is the fact that God does everything in this hierarchical order. Okay. And it's almost like like it's almost a military regime type thing the way that the Bible is listed because certain things come first and then other things come second and once you have or you have this natural order of things then things are in sequence, they're in sync and they work well together. So I think primarily that's what you're going to say is probably different but I think that order is always very distinctive.

But if you look at it, okay, Does the relationship with the Lord count first? Yes, it does. So relationship with the Lord counts first, even to the wife. He is to be as Christ is to the church, to you. And so he'll use statements like, as to the Lord. It means the relationship with the Lord is first, relationship to the husband is second.

And notice, here's Ephesians 5, kids are not even spoken about until the next chapter. Does that mean the kids aren't important? No. The kids need to know that mom and dad love the Lord and that mom and dad's relationship is cemented around their relationship with the Lord. That's what kids need to grow up with.

That's the thing that makes them secure. Yes. An interesting circumstance, I heard of one instance, there was this couple that was sitting on the couch together. And there was a little four-year-old girl there, and she came running up to them and put their hands together. She wants to know, everything's okay with mom and dad, right? And that's because as important as it is that she has attachment, she wants everything to be okay with them. Ultimately, it's their relationship with the Lord comes first, then the husband and wife relationship, then the children. And so this is consistent with that.

We're about to get the buzzer, you know, come again. And I don't know what happens, you know, my pants drop or what, but we probably better stop. We'll continue on here with the next part. Just right here, we'll pick up and continue on in our study here, this passage. So hold on to this or put it back or, you know, hide it somewhere or whatever. But just we'll pick these up next week. OK. Questions? Comments? Inspirations? Exasperations? I have a question, but maybe you can address it later, but about women teaching, what about human missionaries who definitely do teach men?

I'll try to answer that quickly. My grandmother was in that circumstance as a missionary in Fiji to the cannibals. You'll find on one scale, here's Achilla and Priscilla talking to Apollos, right? So what you find is in teaching in more of a group setting, the biblical picture there is for the man to be teaching if other men are present.

The women missionaries get in kind of an awkward spot because, you know, if you look at it explicitly, should they be teaching men? No. I think it's difficult when they go out, you know, a single missionary at a time. It's possible that you have a place there with evangelism where that restriction might not be there, but pretty soon you get to a place where Something about this isn't right, because even though you say, well, who's going to teach them? Well, you need men out there, ultimately, for this thing to proceed properly.

Part of what happens is then you have a church that's established, and all of a sudden you've got women teaching over men, and things have gotten out of order when that goes very far down the track. Don't you think some of that has changed a little bit, though, with culture, the way culture has progressed? Because when you look at the patriarchal society, which is way back when, but that basically continued through the beginning of the New Testament and even into the 1st and 2nd and maybe even 3rd century. But it's progressively become more acceptable It is progressively more acceptable, but here is the issue.

If you look at 1 Timothy chapter 2, Paul gives two reasons, and they're both based on Genesis 1, 2, and 3. Those three chapters. And it's based on, he gives two principles. One is which was created first. The other is who was deceived. And so that's not cultural. I've seen people try to dismiss it as cultural. Lacking that, I've even seen people try to dismiss the book as, well, maybe that wasn't written by Paul or something in order to get rid of the problem. But Paul clearly founds it on Genesis 1, 2, and 3 rather than something cultural.

And I'm going to pray and dismiss because otherwise we'll have them breaking down the doors. Okay? Thank you, Lord, for your word. Thank you for what you have made clear. Thank you for the insights, the spiritual insights that you have placed in your word for us to read and discover and learn from. And we just pray that you bring it home to our hearts and minds and lives. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.