Fathers, Manage, But Do Not Micro-Manage Your Spiritual Children

 1 Peter 5:1-7 is continually abused and misused by egalitarian pastors who want to see elders as just one of the gang. Any exercise of authority is seen as abusive and then viewed as "lording it over" the people because, apparently, "lording it over" means "telling me what Scripture tells me to do when I don't want to do it and making me feel bad about not doing it."

The passage is actually about willingly shepherding without external motives that have nothing to do with loving God or his people, but are rather expressions of love of self. So the elders are told to not shepherd under compulsion but willingly. 

They are also told not to katakurieuontes. This is the word most abused. What does katakurieuontes mean? Well, if we do the etymological thing, which doesn't always yield the right answer, it's made up of two constituent words kata "down" and kurieuo "to exercise ownership over." The kata would indicate a negative type of doing this. Hence, to "lord over" would refer to exercising ownership over others in a bad way, specifically in a "down" way, i.e., an oppressive way. 

More information is given to us in the use of the word by Christ in Matthew 20:25-28. Despite all of the hullaballoo of Peter being behind the Markan account, Peter seems to refer to Matthew's Gospel in his first letter which makes this quote by Jesus in Matthew significant.

Christ says, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Here, we can see that Christ is contrasting the way the pagans exercise ownership over their people versus how Christ calls us to think of ministry. The contrast, however, is not between serving/sacrificing and exercising authority. In fact, the translation of the NIV here is unfortunate, since the word for authority here also has the kata preposition on it indicating that this is an oppresive authority, not just an exercise of authority which Jesus clearly gives to his apostles and elders of the church.

So we must ask, in what way do the pagans oppress their people and rule over them? They tax them beyond what they should for personal luxuries. They place all sorts of their personal preferences over them so that everyone has to conform and practice their personal preferences. They place laws over everything. They demand to be exalted in praise and in seating and in being served in gatherings. They view their people as existing for them rather than them as existing for their people.

So what does "lording it over" mean? It doesn't mean exercising authority and demanding that people do what God has told them to do, for that would be functioning as a herald and a servant of God and the people as many a prophet has done throughout history. It seems to mean using people for one's personal benefit and comfort. This expresses itself often in manipulating people and micro-managing their lives so that one's personal preferences are forced upon the people. 

This seems to correspond to the exhortation of the fathers in Ephesians to not "exasperate their children." Micro-managing people with one's own laws of preference and personal servitude can exhaust and frustrate them so that they just give up. Christ calls his shepherds to father his family in such a way so as to be examples of wisdom rather than constantly heap up laws upon people because we think doing things this way or that way are the best ways since its the way we do them. He also calls us to refrain from heaping financial burdens and burdens of favors upon people as though they exist to serve us. We are their servants as fathers are servants of the household in their authority and they need to use their authority for the good and well-being of the household.

I have seen so many pastors use people for their personal gain and have no regard for how it will harm the people, the children of God. Hence, as Paul instructed biological fathers so Peter instructs spiritual ones. Do not use your authority for your own selfish ends. 

It has nothing to do with harsh rebuke. It has nothing to do with exercising authority or discipline. It has nothing to do with telling people to do what God told them to do. It has to do with one thing and one thing only, using one's authority for selfish reasons instead of sacrificial reasons that would build up rather than tear down the children of God's household.

"He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him [doing so] with all propriety. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) (1 Tim 3:4-5)

Honor Thy Spiritual Mothers

 In a similar fashion to that of spiritual fathers in the church, spiritual mothers are to be honored as well, and I would then also make the parallel to biological mothers as I did between the two kinds of fathers.

In 1 Tim 5:1-16 states:

Do not rebuke an elder harshly but exhort him as a father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need.  But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan. If any woman who is a believer has widows in her care, she should continue to help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

 This passage essentially argues that older women are to be honored as mothers, and that when they can no longer be supported by a husband as widows and their children cannot or will not support them, they are to be financially honored and supported by the church. Notice that younger widows of marrying age are not in the same category. Women who also have grown old but have not acted as mothers through the example of their good deeds toward the children of the church, brothers and sisters, in terms of the things listed by Paul here are not given that same title of mother and honor is not obligated.

The same condemnations occur when one does not honor his mother as representing his father in Scripture. This is how the older woman in the church is a mother. She displays the teaching of the fathers in her conduct. Hence, she is a teacher of the family through wisdom and conduct as the father is a teacher through both conduct and wisdom, albeit in a different role since she is not in a role of authority. However, this does not mean that she is not in a role of honor, so we see here that she is in a role of honor as a mother without her own authority, but rather by subjecting herself to the authority of the fathers in her obedience/submission to the elders, she carries with her the honor of the fathers.  

Hence, to disregard her, mock her, treat her as lesser, ignore her financial needs, etc. is damnable. This is why the obligation to the widow is a display of true religion in the Bible. To honor her is to honor God who is represented by the old mother who represents the father who has passed away.

With that in mind, read again the post concerning honoring the mother in the household. It will be enlightening and perhaps give a better understanding of how the women who meet this description ought to be treated.

Likewise, this passage talks about women who have not represented the fathers but rather have divorced themselves from their teaching in their conduct and disobedience even though they still hang around the church. These women are not mothers and ultimately should be put out of the church (i.e., the opposite treatment of those who actually represent the fathers/elders of the church). 

Honor Thy Spiritual Fathers

Since the church is a family, the right view of elders is important within that context. If an elder is an employee then he can be hired and fired. If he is a father, he will always be honored as one, whether he has the ability to continue to work into his old age, or through illness, or not. 

But beyond this, if it is really true that the elder is a father then all of the commands that are given to honor the father apply to the elder. So I want to go over these commands concerning fathers again but encourage you to read them within this mindset.

Let's first look at the fact that they are fathers though.

The very command to honor one's father, and Christ's interpretation of this in Matt 15 that it includes financial support is used by Paul in 1 Tim 5:17 when he uses the word "honor" instead of just referring to it as wages or compensation, which he brings up in another analogy in v, 18, letting us know that this is financial, not just some general honor.

In fact, the chapter starts out by saying, Do not rebuke an elder harshly, but exhort him as a father (5:1). Whereas some translations translate this "as if he was your father," the text actually states "as father." Likewise, what is translated as "old man" is just the word for "elder," and given the context it is likely talking primarily, even if not exclusively, about elders. If one is inclined to see the word as old men in general then it still does not detract from the point since what would be true of old men in the family in general would certainly be true of the official "old men" in the community who are in leadership.

Hebrews 13:17 states, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch over your souls as those who must give an account."

If we remember that the church is a household, a family, then who are those who are placed over the family to watch over and guide it and to whom the rest of the family must submit themselves and obey? Fathers.

Elders take over for the apostles, and in John 21:15-17, Christ gives the instructions to Peter, who represents all of the apostles here and what they are to do over the church, to "feed My sheep/lambs." Although the analogy here is one of the shepherd and sheep, it is important to note that this act of feeding both spiritually through the Word and physically through deacons is given to the apostles/elders to oversee in general. If combined with the familial understanding of the church, who is it in the family given the responsibility to feed the household? Fathers (the paternal role of shepherds over sheep even captures this idea without the familial context).

Likewise, who guards the household? Fathers.

The analogy of honoring given to elders and older women in 1 Tim 5 is important because it shows that they are in distinction from regular brothers and sisters, and are instead viewed as the parents of the household. Hence, they have obligations to their children and their children have obligations to them.

With that in mind, let's look at the commands concerning the father again. I'll repeat much of what I said before concerning one's father.

A summary of what follows if applied to spiritual fathers would be the following: The obligations the adult child has to a father seems to be total obedience, respect, financial commitment, and emulation in wisdom and moral conduct when the father lives a wise and moral life. A member of a church who undermines the authority of an elder, disrespects him, does not fear him, does not support him financially, and does not seek to emulate his wisdom and moral conduct when it is actually Christ's wisdom and moral conduct he gives has broken the commandment and is worthy of eternal death, both now and in the age to come.

The Ten Commandments of course command the following.

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee” (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16).

The commandment indicates that the inheritance of the land of promise is contingent upon the child honoring the father and the mother. Paul reiterates this in Ephesians 6:1-3 when he says, Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life in the land," and in Colossians 3:20, "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."

The correct worship of God directly has to do with not worshiping other gods, making divine images, fearing God's name, honoring God's sovereignty through the Sabbath, and honoring/obeying one's father and mother. In fact, Leviticus 19:3-4 has the first table represented in a few of its commands (e.g., observe the Sabbath, no divine images), including the command that "Every man is to fear his mother and his father."

One worships God in whatever manner one treats his spiritual parents, particularly focusing in on the spiritual fathers here. He cannot claim to worship God better than he treats his spiritual fathers.

Jesus rebukes the Pharisees who think they can. They think they can treat their parents poorly but treat God well. They even contrast the two relationships by saying that they are giving to God by taking away their obligations to their parents. He confirms to them that they have set aside the commandment (and the reward with it I might add) by doing so. Notice the dialogue.

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.7 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Christ here says that they actually do this with many things, but note that this is what he decided to focus on because it contrasts true worship with false worship. They are concerned with externals like physical cleanliness rituals and tithing. Christ is concerned with actually worshiping God through the honor and treatment of parents. The Pharisees, being very devoted, religiously pious men, don't know God and it evidences itself through their treatment of their father and mother.

Now, let's look at some texts that talk about a grown child's commitments to their parents.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Notice here that this is not a five-year-old kid. He is a drunkard and a glutton. He also lives somewhere else. Note that it says that they are to bring this son to the elders of "his," not "their" town. So he lives in another town. He is still obligated to take care of them and obey them and yet refuses to do so. God says that he is to be violently executed by all of the men of his own town. He is not to inherit the land any longer. He is cut off from it. This is to purge the evil from among them, a phrase quoted by Paul when speaking of excommunication, and to cause other covenant members to be afraid to do the same thing lest they also lose their inheritance. This same things can be applied to fathers in the church and the church as Christ's family. Hence, not obeying the elders, not contributing to their financial well-being as honor, not speaking well of them, etc. is worthy of death.

Christ reaffirms the command in Matthew 15:4, a parallel to the Markan passage above, by noting not only the original command but the subsequent understanding that if one speaks poorly of his father or mother he is to be put to death. The word kakologion means one who insults or speaks bad about one's father or mother. Christ is alluding to the LXX of Leviticus 20:9 here that expands the original command concerning cursing father and mother and makes it even a lesser speech of just speaking bad about them. Nothing is said of whether the things spoken are true or not. It is the fact that the adult child (the Pharisees being spoken to here are all adults, and mostly much older adults) who is commanded to honor his father and mother is dishonoring one or both of them by speaking about their parents in ways that would cause others to think less of them. In Proverbs 20:20, the one who does this has his lamp go out, metaphorically meaning that he will lose the ability to see what is true and be blinded to what is right and good.

Proverbs 23:22 commands, "Obey your father who begot you, and do not reject your mother when she is old."

Hence, in Proverbs 6:20 (also 1:8-10; 15:20), the command is given to the adult son to "keep your father's commandment, and do not abandon your mother's instruction." The two are in parallel because they are viewed as one and the same.

In Deuteronomy, the actual covenant promises that are made by the people who are stating they wish to be in God's covenant include the declaration, "Cursed is anyone who dishonors father or mother." All the people are to shout, Amen!

Proverbs agrees and says that "the eye that mocks a father and refuses to obey a mother will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by vultures."

The eye represents one's thinking about his father and mother. Again, his eye, his ability to see, is cursed.

In fact, the entire Book of Proverbs demands that the adult son obey his father's instructions and listens to his advise or he is branded a fool and wicked (Prov 4:1; 13:1).

Notice that the wise son in Proverbs 13:1 obeys his father's instructions but the scoffer does not listen to rebuke. In other words, the wicked and foolish son rolls his eyes at his father in contrast to the wise son who harkens to his fathers instructions.

All fathers, spiritual or biological, are sinners, so one could easily excuse himself from obeying the command here by saying that his father doesn't deserve honor, but God doesn't position authority over us and then allow us to judge them as unworthy of that honor. God is the judge of those things, and in the church He judges them by other fathers so that the children never stand over the fathers in judgment. We are to honor and obey a father in the Lord who, like any authority, is exercising an authority on God's behalf and to the glory of God. Excuses are the roadways of the damned, or as Proverbs puts it, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is the pathway of death" (Prov 14:12).

This is a night and day difference between the way the rebellious modern church views church authority. It sees it as optional. It can disagree with it as it pleases. It can disobey, disregard, and disrespect it because we are an egalitarian bunch even when claiming to be otherwise. There are not fathers in egalitarianism. There are only members of equal status that belong to the same mutual club. Deacons are not household servants, even though that's what the word means. They are all the same as elders. Members are all equal in authority and have individual autonomy they can choose to exercise in any given matter. Fathers don't exist in the church except over their literal families, but God's church is directly fathered by God alone without mediation (very religiously Enlightenment-oriented rather than biblical). But biblically, God places fathers over His people and always has. Elisha calls Elijah his father in 2 Kings 2:12. King Jehoash in return calls Elisha his father in 2 Kings 13:14. Spiritual leaders are fathers because they mediate the fatherhood of God over His people. Hence, from biological families to governments to the spiritual family of God, He places fathers as representatives so that no one can claim to honor, obey, and speak well of God without doing the same to His patriarchal ambassadors. 

The Church Is a Family

Let me get the stupid objection out of the way. Yes, the church is not just a family. I get it. However, it is primarily a family, and that emphasis is incredibly important and transforming.

One of the things I think I've identified as a deficiency in the evangelical church at large (including Reformed churches) is an understanding of biblical ecclesiology and how this influences one's understanding of ethical obligations one has to the church.

If the church is a business, then my obligations are that of my obligations to a business (financial, external work-oriented). If the church is a therapy session then my obligations are emontional (making sure everyone feels valued and heard). If the church is a school, then my obligations are educational (learning the correct theological box-checking). But if the church is a family, then my obligations are those that belong to family, which would include much of the above but far, far more.

In fact, if it is a family, a household, then the obligations are to other people rather than to myself, as many of the above views of church tend to be individualistic and self-centered. Getting my emotional support, my contribution toward the business, my furthering education and knowledge, etc. is a selfish outlook. Family, however, looks to the church as having a goal as a group for the group. 

The church as a household, a family, to which I belong, changes my obligations from self to the group and the individuals of that group. It has a balance between the community and individuals thereof that the others do not. Let me give some examples.

As a pastor, I have witnessed the other models applied to pastors when these pastors no longer fulfill the function of the leader of these groups. In the business model, he can no longer do his job so he loses it and is on his own. This often has led to pastors being abandoned in their old age or illnesses. It's logical. He can't do his job, his position is a job, and therefore, one who can't do his job needs to be let go. It's just good business. Horrible ethics, but good business, and everyone goes along with it because they've been taught the logic of their ecclesiology by the way we treat the church as a business. We hire pastors as employees, so we fire them as employees. BTW, the business model is essentially the club model of church.

In the therapy model, if a pastor isn't good psychologist, he's not as qualified. He has to be a Mr. Rogers figure who is in step with the feelings of the congregation. Although most pastors I know would not categorize their churches this way, I would say that most of them fall into this category. This is the church that cares a lot about how people feel, and how words are spoken in a way that caters to how it will land on people emotionally. They are churches that evaluate to what the congregation responds positively and leans into that. This is the tickling of the ears that Paul talks about. It is to be concerned about the emotional response, how the pastor makes them feel, that truly matters. This doesn't mean that doctrine or the Bible isn't taught. It's just all taught with people's personal emotional responses in mind.

In the school model, their is an emphasis on checking the right theological boxes. Calvinist? Check. No women pastors? Check. Trinitarian? Check. This model tends to emphasize teaching as confessionalism and often confuses that with transformation. This is often seen in a disconnect in these churches between theology and ethical wisdom. One can usually see this clearly in the distinction between what is taught in the pulpit in theory and what one sees a pastor say in counseling or in private when giving advice for living. Wisdom is optional when picking a pastor because the emphasis is on whether he believes the right things and the wisdom is just a nice bonus if it exists at all. If not, it doesn't matter because the church is a school and he has the right curriculum by having the right fill-in-the-blank answers when it comes to theoretical theology.

In the family model, however, a church looks to its pastors as fathers, its older women as mothers, and one another as brothers and sisters. When is the last time you saw a good family fire their father? Why would anyone select a father of a family if he wasn't wise just because he had the right answers on a multiple-choice theology test? What father do you know cares so much about how his children feel that he doesn't say things that need to be said so that his children become what they need to become in the world? 

In the business or club model, fellow Christians are just connected to you because they work for the same institution. They're fellow employees as they seek to promote the club and they work to increase its appeal to the consumers. If someone in that group can no longer work to make the club/business more appealing, they are seen as a liability. The one who makes the club most appealing to the consumer is valued the most as a representative of the church. Hence, a hierarchy of value based on who can increase the finances, membership, and positive PR of the church is created by this model.

In the therapy session view, the people who are the most in-tuned to others emotions in order to endear others to the church and to themselves are the most valuable. The hierarchy of value here is created by viewing those who have the most relational equity as being the most valuable to the goals of the community. Those who don't have the gift of schmoozing, who aren't extraverted, are less valuable in the community, and even expendable. Churches like these feel the loss when these people might leave but feel little loss when those who are lesser valuable in this regard might be lost.

In the family model, everyone is your father, mother, brother or sister. You can't lose one without feeling a massive loss. All have such a high value that fathers aren't going to be left in the cold once they can't bring in the bacon. Mothers are going to be valued as one values his mother. Brothers and sisters are going to be valued equally as brothers and sisters. All are loved because family is not a group of individuals who are external to me. They are me. I cannot lose a limb without feeling the absolute loss of it. I would never cut one off unless it was filled with cancer and I absolutely had to. I value me, so I value everyone who is me. I may say that some parts of my body are more vital for the life of the body but I can't say that any member of my body lacks enough value for me to treat it as expendable. 

But we don't want to be pragmatic. Truth is truth. What model does Scripture teach? 

In 1 Tim 3:15 and Eph 2:19-20, the church is called the household of God. It's further descriptions of the church as a race, nation, etc. are all familial terms (probably not something understood by modern Western readers). We are called brothers and sisters everywhere throughout the NT. 

On top of these explicit teachings, however, is the central one that describes the church as the body of Christ, and therefore, that we, as members of Christ's body, are therefore members of one another. In other words, we are family, and I am my family and my family is me.

The business model, the therapy model, the school model, and any other model of the church that does not see the church as a family and act accordingly is ecclesiological heterodoxy. It isn't just a preference. The church isn't something Christians get to redefine because they like how a business runs better than a family. They like the way a school is run better than a family. They like therapy time better than family time. Christ gets to say what his church is and it is his family, his body, the household of God.

This will influence how fathers are chosen, how older women are treated, how fellow Christians are cared for. The obligations of family are more than the obligations of the others. There are financial obligations to the business model but far more to the family. God never commanded employees to honor their bosses or fellow employees in such a way so as to aid them financially. Yet, he does command that devotion to fathers and mothers. He doesn't command the emotional support of one's fellow academics in school but does command to comfort our sisters and brothers in prison, in sickness, in distress. He doesn't command to rebuke, correct, exhort and to train people we're just trying to endear to ourselves and connect to emotionally but he does command that it be done in the family of the church for the sake of building up the family in Christ. And all of these obligations within a family are done from love rather than some external duty to an institution or project that may lack the motivation of love. 

If the church was a family, no father would ever be put out to pasture to die in homelessness and poverty because he can no longer get his reports in by the end of the day. No one would choose pastors based on likeability but on their ability to lead their children in wisdom. No one would treat a fellow Christian with envy because whatever a Christian has received, I have received because they are me. No one would see their brothers and sisters as taking up their time because my time is their time. We would long to be with one another as family longs to be with one another. We would long to take care of one another as family takes care of one another. And they will know that you are His disciples, not by your ship-shape operations of a church service, not by your likeability as a vacuous emotional support, not by your theoretical theological box-checking, but by your love for one another. 

And that is why the church is a family because its Father is love.

Husbands, Love Your Wives

The primary explicit texts that address the husband's obligations to his wife are the same that address the household in general. Scholars refer to these texts as the Haustafel or household code. The Greek word used is often oikonomia, which refers to the order of a household or creation itself. Ephesians 5:25-33 is the largest one in the NT and the instructions to husbands consists of the largest portion of the code, which may indicate that the largest weight of responsibility falls upon the husband's obligations to his wife in the household.

Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious—not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body, but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is great—but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The husband must love his wife in the same manner that Christ loved the church. Since Christ loved the church by sacrificing himself for the church so that it might be made holy and blameless (the theme of Ephesians) the man is to work toward her sanctification by washing her in the message of the gospel. He does this not only by teaching her the Word but also by demonstrating the gospel of Christ to her through understanding and forgiveness.

Colossians 3:19 states, Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them. 

This also seems to refer to the idea that the love of the husband is displayed in his continual application of mercy and grace to her when she fails to submit to him, and yet continually calls her back to the holiness and blamelessness to which the gospel calls her.

This seems to be the same sentiment in 1 Peter 3:7: Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker vessels and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

His rule over her is never to be physically abusive, which is why Peter references her physical strength as weaker than his. This brings about an ability to abuse his power and to dominate her through physical intimidation but this is not what Christ does to the church. Although he is able to scare us to death with his power, he shows us love and uses his power for our good. Likewise, the man is to remember that she is a daughter of God, who will inherit God's favor to the point of eternal life, and that God, as her Father, will take kindly to her being mistreated. He will hide his face, turn the man over to the devil, excommunicate, the man who abuses his wife rather than leading her in word and deed to a further love for and holiness in Christ. It is a given then that he is forbidden to command her to sin against Christ which would be contrary to his God-given authoritative role.

He is to love his wife as he loves himself, noting that he and his wife are one, and no one neglects to take care of himself but feeds and takes care of himself. Likewise, since a man is one flesh with his wife, he who loves her loves himself. The man who neglects to take care of him throws shame upon himself and distorts the Person of Christ to her, his children, and the world. Christ cares for His own body, the church, saving the church every day; and so the man should do the same with his wife.

In short, his obligation is to represent Christ accurately to her, and this places his obligation as the foundational one. His authority governs the entire family from his wife to this children, and yet, this authority is to be used for God's purposes of making the family holy and blameless, not for his own selfish needs. Hence, he sacrifices his own selfish needs to represent Christ both in directing through the Word and in his grace and mercy when they fail to attain to that holiness and blamelessness by calling them to repentance and applying the cross of Christ to them. In this way, the husband's role is to be the means through which the man worships Christ through his family.

Mothers, Look to Your Households

When instructing his sons what to look for in a woman, after instructing them to be wise and righteous for thirty chapters in the Book of Proverbs, the author now turns to talk about what the kind of woman a wife and mother should be as she exemplifies the themes of a wise person seen throughout the book.

Who can find a wife of noble character?
For her value is far more than rubies.
11 Her husband’s heart has trusted her,
and he does not lack the dividends.
12 She has rewarded him with good and not harm
all the days of her life.
13 She sought out wool and flax,
then worked happily with her hands.
14 She was like the merchant ships;
she would bring in her food from afar.
15 Then she rose while it was still night,
and provided food for her household and a portion to her female servants.
16 She considered a field and bought it;
from her own income she planted a vineyard.
17 She clothed herself in might,
and she strengthened her arms.
18 She perceived that her merchandise was good.
Her lamp would not go out in the night.
19 She extended her hands to the spool,
and her hands grasped the spindle.
20 She opened her hand to the poor,
and extended her hands to the needy.
21 She would not fear for her household in winter,
because all her household were clothed with scarlet,
22 because she had made coverings for herself;
and because her clothing was fine linen and purple,
23 Her husband is well-known in the city gate
when he sits with the elders of the land.
24 She madelin en garments then sold them,
and traded belts to the merchants;
25 her clothing was strong and splendid;
and she laughed at the time to come.
26 She has opened her mouth with wisdom,
with loving instruction on her tongue.
27 Watching over the ways of her household,
she would not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children have risen and called her blessed;
her husband also has praised her:
29 “Many daughters have done valiantly,
but you have surpassed them all!”
30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is fleeting.
A woman who fears the Lord—she makes herself praiseworthy.
31 Give her credit for what she has accomplished,
and let her works praise her in the city gates

Titus 2:3-5 likewise states:

Older women likewise are to exhibit behavior fitting for those who are holy, not slandering, not slaves to excessive drinking, but teaching what is good. In this way they will train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, pure, fulfilling their duties at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the message of God may not be discredited.

Notice in both of these texts, the former often dismissed because the modern woman has different aspirations she wants to obtain and strive for, that a woman cannot be a good mother without being a good wife. The two are tied together. Much of this is because the woman is the picture of the church in submission to her husband. She teaches the children, not only by teaching them wisdom, but also, and perhaps even primarily, by way of her service and submission to her husband how they are to submit to God. Hence, she instructs not primarily with her mouth but with her conduct, her wisdom in action. 

Much of that conduct is her looking to the household of her husband. She does this out of fear of the Lord, as mentioned before. She runs her household as the manager. She makes sure the household is fed and clothed, she invests for the household (not just herself), she makes her household a service to others who are in need, and she includes her children in her endeavors. 

In contrast, as we see in Titus, she is not someone sitting around slandering others, gossiping, getting drunk, or being flirtatious or promiscuous with other men, but rather, as is fitting for a saint, she works on loving/being devoted to/caring for her husband, her children, at home, looking to be kind, i.e, looking to the needs of others, and submitting to her husband (of course, her also refusing to obey when commanded to sin as talked about in a previous post is also instructive to her children). 

In other words, Titus 2 is the NT version of Proverbs 31:10-31, and both indicate that in order for a mother to be a good mother by fulfilling her obligations to her children she must be a good wife because the one is the activity of doing the other. They cannot be divorced from one another. No one who is a bad wife is a good mother. No one who is a good mother is a bad wife. Hence, the obligations of a wife to her children is to instruct them both by virtue of her mouth and by virtue of her hands, and the home, therefore, is the focus of her obligations to her children.

Fathers, Manage But Don't Micro-Manage Your Children

 The instructions to fathers to their children show their obligations to their children that our modern society often completely neglects. 

It seems clear that fathers have the obligation to discipline their children, even to the point of excommunicating them from the household and their lives. We've already looked at the passage in Deuteronomy but Paul makes the parallel argument for anyone wishing to be an elder. He must be above reproach in the area of how he handled his children, both in discipline so that they are not free to go their own ways and become involved in wicked behaviors like sexual immorality and a frat boy lifestyle, but also in a way that is non-abusive so as to lead to the despair of the children. 

1 Timothy 3:4-5 states:

He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?

Likewise, Titus 1:6 states that he was to discipline his children in such a way so that are faithful to his conduct of life and can't be accused of any rebellion toward him or participation in debauchery. However, on the other hand, he is to do this in a way that is attainable and not exhausting or abusive toward the children.

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but raise them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4)

Fathers, do not provoke your children, so they will not become disheartened. (Col 3:21)

No one should read these texts as saying, "Hey, fathers, don't make your kids mad." That's not the point. The idea here is of a micro-managing father who sets the bar so high that his children cannot obtain it and become disheartened. 

Children desire to please their parents but if it becomes impossible they lose the will to do so and rebellion soon sets in. Likewise, an undisciplined child does whatever he wishes and rebellion becomes the status quo. In both of these scenarios, the micro-managing father who places too much upon his children so that they cannot obtain the prize of pleasing him and the father who places very little to no boundaries on his children, are wicked fathers, as both push their children into the stumblingblock of sin and rebellion.

Fathers must guard their children from partaking in any sins that God lays out, but not so in a way that increases the amount of hoops they must jump through in order to receive praise from their fathers that they lose their desire to become faithful since it is an impossibility that cannot be accomplished.

Fathers who do so do not represent the Lord either way. They represent their own lordship and display a fleshly understanding of their paternal governing role, and as such should not be elders of the church as the text states above since they would govern the church in one of these two diabolical ways (licentious or overbearing).

The micro-manager evidences a lack of faith in the Lord and places himself in the position of Christ, not as an emissary but as though he were the Lord Himself, lording it over others for his own personal benefit of creating the world as he wishes it to be, and the licentious father does the same and shows his true sinful character through his children. The truth is that a man with licentious children has been a man in rebellion against God himself. His children merely reflect him. 

Paul indicates that these types of fathers are immature at best and not Christians at all at worst. The new man that works to become the image of God in Christ must become a good father who both disciplines and educates his children in a way that does not exasperate them nor in a way so as to let them remain in rebellion against God. He is to teach them the Word of God, discipline them when they rebel, and be an example to them as one who has committed his life to Christ. He should save up for his children to leave them an inheritance but if he is poor, he is to leave them an inheritance that cannot be bought by gold and silver. This is the obligation of the man of God to his children.