Untitled Sermon
Sermon • Submitted • Presented
0 ratings
· 1 viewNotes
Transcript
(2) An Appeal to Women (2:9–15) 9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. Paul, as observed earlier, was generally addressing women and not merely wives. He also was prescribing for the church and not the home, although the directives about dress (vv. 9–10) can apply in both. The general tenor of the passage is more appropriate when applied to women in worship. Moral Behavior of the Women (2:9–10) 2:9 The NIV obscures the link of v. 9 with v. 8 brought out by “in like manner” (KJV; hōsautōs). This expression shows that vv. 9–10 are still dependent on the “I want” of v. 8 and that Paul was discussing the dress and deportment of women in times of public prayer. Although Paul discussed dress, his true emphasis was not merely that women should dress modestly but that genuine ornamentation is not external at all and consists of an attitude of commitment to good works. To dress “modestly” demands that the women dress tastefully and not provocatively. The term “dress” (katastolē) describes the outward deportment of the women as expressed in the clothes they wear. To practice “decency and propriety” demands that the women not flaunt their wealth or their beauty. The former word shows reserve in matters of sex, and the latter word indicates a mastery of the appetites, particularly in matters of sex. The two terms refer to inner virtues. The prohibition against “braided hair” or expensive jewelry or clothing prohibits a gaudy, showy display, not normal attention to neatness and good taste. Paul perhaps referred to a style in which “women … wore their hair in enormously elaborate arrangements with braids and curls interwoven or piled high like towers and decorated with gems and/or gold and/or pearls.” At best such a style demonstrates pride and self-centeredness and should not be the concern of Christian women (cf. 1 Pet 3:3). The fact that some Christian women could afford gold or pearls indicates that the Ephesian church had some members of substantial wealth (cf. 1 Cor 1:26–28). Acceptable standards of modesty will vary with place and generation, but Paul wanted the women to cultivate the fear of God rather than vanity. 2:10 Paul urged the women to produce good works instead of devoting attention to mere physical appearance. Some women in Ephesus had a desire to fulfill their sexual urges in any manner (2 Tim 3:6) and probably expressed this in their dress. Paul warned against indulging these drives and appealed for good works. This is healthy teaching for godly women. Paul later would explain that the good works he had in mind must first appear in the home (1 Tim 2:15; 5:9–10, 14). Ward aptly says that the women are to show their religion not by “barefaced dazzle but character and conduct.” The “good works” Paul demanded represent more than a performance of general benevolence, for they include an appeal to a reverent godliness (2 Tim 3:5) which begins in the home. The Ephesian women in these passages doubtless were wealthy. Their costly clothing, ornate hairstyles, and expensive jewelry suggest luxuries only the wealthy could afford. There is evidence from outside these passages that wealthy, prominent women were among those converted under the preaching of Paul (Acts 16:15; 17:4, 12). Peter’s description of the women in the churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 3:3) also suggests that some of the women were wealthy. Barnett points out that the leading women of Roman imperial society were wealthy, politically powerful, patronesses of the arts, and educated; and he feels that it is likely these wealthy women in the Ephesian congregation had the same characteristics. The probability is that the presence in the church of prominent, powerful women called for comment by Paul on their dress, adornment, and behavior. Barnett says: This does not mean, however, that the teaching in these Petrine/Pauline passages is thereby limited in application to wealthy/educated women. The presence of wealthy women in church was a historical catalyst which raised the more general question. Problems posed by women from this socioeducational background created the need to address these questions in broader ways, as relating not merely to wealthy women, but to women and wives in general. This Paul does in the passage under discussion. Church Activity of the Women (2:11–12) The church life that this section presupposes allows more congregational involvement than most twentieth-century churches practice. Probably varied speakers arose to teach, exhort, and prophesy; and in this situation Paul commanded that the women learn. Women may have rudely interrupted speakers, and Paul found it necessary to confront this insubordination as well as the previously mentioned immodesty. 2:11 Paul’s words here spotlight a role women are to play in church meetings. They are to learn spiritual truth. Lenski suggests that the use of the singular “woman” indicates that the issue concerns all women and not merely wives. Paul’s command that the women “learn” reflects Christian practice which differed from the customs of Judaism. Judaism would enforce physical silence on women without concern for their growth in knowledge. At this point Paul was not borrowing from his Jewish heritage but was reflecting as a Christian a greater appreciation for the role of women in spreading the gospel. Paul’s commands encourage the women to give attention to God’s message in order to learn the essentials for Christian growth and development. Paul specified two features about a woman’s attitude in learning. First, she was to learn in “quietness.” The word hēsychia emphasized the attitude or spirit with which the woman was to learn and prohibited her dashing about as a busybody (5:13). Paul was not demanding physical silence but a teachable spirit. Second, she was to learn in “full submission.” Paul was not specifying to whom the submission was due, but it at least included the leaders of the congregation, who were responsible for giving instruction in doctrine. The submission did not demand a surrender of the mind or conscience or the abandonment of the duty of private judgment. It was a warning against abusing the leadership of the congregation by disrespectful, boisterous actions. 2:12 Paul referred to activities in the public meetings of the congregation, and he continued to speak of females in a primarily generic sense. The role of these women as wives and mothers, however, was not far from Paul’s mind. His comments call for three observations. First, Paul did not permit a woman to teach. He used the Greek present tense for “I do not permit” (epitrepō). This tense indicates that Paul was delivering authoritative instructions for the situation he encountered at Ephesus, but it is tenuous to decide for or against the permanence of Paul’s injunctions based on the evidence of tense alone. Teaching involved official doctrinal instruction in the Scriptures (1 Tim 5:17) and was a task delegated to the pastor-teacher (Eph 4:11). The heavy emphasis in the Pastorals on proper doctrine (1 Tim 1:10; 4:6, 13, 16; 6:1, 3; didaskalia) implies the need for a trusted source of doctrine. The fact that Paul next discussed the elder/overseer (3:1–7) who needed to be “able to teach” may have indicated that he viewed the occupant of the position as the official declarer of doctrine. Doubtless, the immediate occasion for Paul’s prohibition against teaching by the Ephesian women was due to their gullibility and instability (1 Tim 5:11–13; 2 Tim 3:6–7). However, Paul consistently refrained from appointing a woman to a place of authoritative teaching responsibility in a congregation. Second, Paul did not permit a woman to “have authority over” a man. This rare word (authenteō) occurs here only in the New Testament, and its meaning is greatly disputed. The best evidence suggests that it refers to the authority a teacher has over those who are learning. Why would it have concerned Paul if the teacher were a woman? Two reasons may have been in his mind. The first stems from the likelihood that the women would have authority over any other elder/overseer in the congregation. If the elder/overseer were under the authority of the woman teacher in the church, it could hinder his ability to manage his household in private; and hence it could hinder his ability to manage the church of God (1 Tim 3:4–5). Barnett points out that the submission of the elder/overseer to the woman teacher would limit his ability to serve as a role model to other married men in the church and could prove to be a liability. A second reason may be related to Paul’s concerns about marriage and the raising of children. There is evidence in 1 Timothy that some women were neglecting their roles as wives and mothers (1 Tim 5:11–15). Paul may have feared that a combination of personal ambition and the demands of the office of elder/overseer would prevent the women from serving effectively as wives and mothers. He was perhaps taking steps to prevent this situation from developing further. Nothing in Paul’s words need be seen as a suggestion that women were incompetent to serve in the office of elder/overseer. His concern was for marriages in the church and the mothering role. Third, Paul wanted the women to “be silent” (lit. “to be in silence”). The word for “silence” is identical to “quietness” in v. 11 and calls for the women to demonstrate a teachable spirit. Most modern translations suggest Paul intended that the women show their teachable attitude by remaining physically quiet (cf. “she must keep quiet,” Williams). It is more likely that Paul was banning disruptive behavior rather than enforcing complete silence on women in worship settings. (See 1 Cor 11:5, where Corinthian women prayed and/or prophesied.) The role of the teacher mentioned in this passage is most closely linked with the office of the pastor or senior pastor in contemporary churches. The normative principle behind Paul’s directive is that the woman should not carry out the role of senior pastor. This does not amount to a prohibition against a woman’s teaching or against her ministry to men. The New Testament has examples of significant teaching roles by women (Acts 18:26—both Priscilla and Aquilla were involved; Titus 2:3–4; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15—women teach the faith to other women and children; 1 Cor 11:4–5—women prayed and prophesied). Paul was not suggesting that the woman is incompetent to occupy the role of pastor/teacher. His concern related to the effect the woman’s position would have on marriages in the church and on the value of the mothering role. Paul would assert the value of the role of motherhood in v. 15. For additional discussion on the normative principles of this passage, see Excursus 2: Women in Ministry. An Explanation of Paul’s Appeal (2:13–14) Paul elaborated on the reasons for his appeal to allow the woman to learn in submission but not to teach. 2:13 Using the biblical history of creation from Gen 2, Paul argued that Adam was chronologically prior to Eve. The fact of the chronological priority of Adam was established before the fall of humankind and the subsequent entrance of sin. The fall of humankind would not alter Adam’s chronological priority. The chronological priority of Adam becomes the support of Paul’s command that the women were to show a spirit of attentiveness to learning and were to avoid an attempt at domineering men. In 1 Cor 11:8 Paul had inferred the dependence of Eve from the chronological priority of Adam. Paul apparently felt that the spiritual privileges of men and women in Christ (Gal 3:28) do not negate differences due to creation. The designation of Adam as “formed first” reflects the Jewish practice of primogeniture, where the firstborn male inherited a double portion of the inheritance and the responsibility of leadership in the home and in worship (Deut 21:15–17). Paul’s point was that Adam’s status as the oldest carried with it the leadership role suitable for the firstborn son. Paul transferred this quality of leadership role in the congregation to the male. What Paul seems to have suggested is that a woman’s assumption of the role of teacher would make her an overseer and would overturn the principle of headship in marriage (1 Cor 11:1–8), jeopardizing the God-ordained foundation of husband-wife relationships in marriage. Paul did not want the practices of the church to weaken marriages in any way. 2:14 Paul’s additional explanation for his prohibition concerning women’s teaching in v. 12 relates to the history of the fall in Gen 3. Paul saw Eve as the representative woman who broke God’s law due to Satan’s deception. In describing Adam, Paul denied that he was deceived. In describing Eve, the apostle used an intensive form of the same verb employed in reference to Adam. Williams translates it as “utterly deceived.” Paul saw Eve as thoroughly duped by the serpent. His use of the Greek perfect tense for “became” suggests that Eve passed into a state of sin and remained a sinner. What was Paul declaring about Adam and Eve? Paul’s favorable comments on women as teachers (2 Tim 1:5; Titus 2:4) seem to rule out the likelihood that his intent was to characterize all women as naive and gullible. The Ephesian women may have been credulous pawns in the hands of false teachers, but Paul knew most women were not. Nor was Paul commending Adam while disparaging Eve. Paul had made clear his view of Adam’s guilt in Rom 5:12–21. Eve listened to Satan and fell for the vanity of his promises. Eve let herself be betrayed by the serpent and fell into the condition of a sinner (cf. 2 Cor 11:3). Adam listened to her and sinned with his eyes open. Paul’s point was that men, including those in Ephesus, are more susceptible to mistake and error when they carelessly surrender leadership to the woman. A Promise for Obedient Women (2:15) 2:15 Paul expressed a promise for those women who showed obedience, but few verses have caused such vexing problems for interpreters. To arrive at the proper understanding, it is important to observe that Paul used the Greek word for “saved” in the spiritual sense of obtaining the forgiveness of sins. The NIV translation obscures the fact that Paul made a subtle shift from Eve to “the women” in Ephesus in v. 15. Paul used the feminine singular “she” or perhaps “a woman” instead of the plural “women” in the first part of v. 15. His shift back to the plural “they” at the conclusion of the verse applies the words to all the Ephesian women. Paul employed the term “childbirth” as a synecdoche for that part of the woman’s work that describes the whole. Paul’s words are a reminder that a woman’s deepest satisfaction comes from her accomplishments in a Christian home. Paul was teaching that women prove the reality of their salvation when they become model wives and mothers whose good deeds include marriage and raising children (1 Tim 5:11, 14). His words contain an implicit warning that the wealthy women in Ephesus were not to aspire selfishly to the office of teacher or overseer. Paul may also have been aiming a blow at the false teachers who had disparaging views about sex (1 Tim 4:3). His comments assume (cf. Gen 3:16) that motherhood is a divinely appointed role. Four other possibilities for interpretation appear. No serious interpreter accepts the first alternative that Paul promised women salvation by their having children. A second interpretation is suggested by the translation of the 1978 edition of the NIV: “Women will be kept safe through childbirth.” The fact that even Christian mothers sometimes die in childbirth would nullify this as a viable interpretation. A third view sees a reference to the birth of the Messiah in the verse. The word “childbirth” follows an article in the Greek so that an acceptable reading of the phrase may be “the childbirth,” Mary’s giving birth to Jesus in the virgin birth. However, Paul located the salvation event in Jesus’ death (2:6), not in his birth. Also the noun “childbirth” refers to the act of bearing children, not to a single birth of a child. Fourth, Paul may have meant that women would avoid the errors of vv. 11–12 by childbearing, but giving birth to a child does not necessarily affect a woman’s theology (other than increasing her understanding of suffering and may also awaken awe at God’s gift of life and her sharing in it [cf. Gen 4:1]). Fulfillment of motherhood alone does not assure the woman salvation, for she must continue in faith, love, and holiness combined with good judgment. It is assumed that such a woman has the faith that will activate her love and holiness so that her salvation does not spring from works alone. Paul’s words spotlight the importance of the domestic role for the woman. They do not preclude the possibility that a woman can serve as a model wife and mother while also adding to the family income. No wife (and no husband) should permit career opportunities to precede domestic commitments. Summary. Paul faced a problem in Ephesus because some church leaders had lost any semblance of godliness. They were apparently influencing women to follow them in their practice of contentious, self-seeking rebellion. The women in Ephesus had neglected home responsibilities and had selfishly tried to claw their way to a position of dominance in the local church. Paul wanted to see the practice of serious Christianity make a return to Ephesus. The need for saints has scarcely ever been more evident than it is today. In a world that alternates between viewing Christianity with a sneer and a yawn, only saintly (godly, unselfish, consistent, sacrificial, courageous) living can make an impact on our society. Both men and women must assume places of responsibility in the home. Further, both must respond to one another with mutual respect and love and must demonstrate the behavior of servants of Christ rather than that of contenders for ecclesiastical office. Excursus 2: Women in Ministry Is there a place for a woman in ministry? If we define ministry as the service that all Christians are urged to render (Eph 4:12), it seems ludicrous even to ask the question. In a Christian church that has seen accomplishments by Susanna Wesley, Selina Countess of Huntingdon, and Lottie Moon, it is flawed to overlook the marvelous contributions women have made to the forward progress of Christianity. Do Paul’s words provide any direction for interpreting the role of women in ministry in the twentieth century? Do they provide any limitation to the female role? Do they make any contribution to decide the issue of the ordination of women that nags at the unity of many denominations today? The first two questions deserve a yes response, and the final question should receive a more hesitant not necessarily. First, Paul’s words make little specific contribution to the question of female ordination. The issue of ordination surfaces in 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6, where the practice of “laying on hands” is mentioned. There is no detailed discussion of ordination in the Pastorals, and there is no confrontation with the question of female ordination. The practice of ordination in most churches today has roots more in tradition than in biblical teaching. It is difficult to find in the Bible any clear information concerning the practice of the ordination of females. In fact, there is so little information in the Bible on ordination even of men that acrid debates about it seem strangely out of place for churches that use the Bible as a pattern for church organization. For further discussion of the practice of ordination, see Excursus 3: Ordination in the New Testament. Second, the Pastoral Epistles and the entire New Testament envision a broad role for women in ministry. The New Testament presents women who prophesied (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5) and some who served undefined roles as helpers (1 Tim 3:11). Paul commended two women as his fellow workers (Phil 4:1–3) and explained that Phoebe was a “servant” (diakonos) of the church in Cenchrea (Rom 16:1) and a “help” (prostatis) to many, including Paul himself. Paul presented women as teachers in 2 Tim 1:5 and Titus 2:3, and Luke presented Priscilla in a teaching role (Acts 18:26). The teaching mentioned in these passages seems to be less formal and structured than that in 1 Tim 2:12, from which Paul excluded females. Third, the teaching of 1 Tim 2:12 appears to limit the role of women in ministry. Paul prohibited women from teaching in an authoritative position in 2:12 and supported the prohibition with the reasons of vv. 13–14. It is difficult to support the view which holds that Paul’s reasons for limiting female involvement in ministry applied only to his own day. In v. 13 Paul suggested that as God gave Adam certain leadership functions with respect to Eve, he has given men certain leadership roles in the church. In v. 14 Paul warned that Adam fell into trouble when he heeded Eve’s advice. He implied that men would fall into difficulty by submitting to a woman as an authoritative teacher. The position taken in this commentary is that the difficulty comes because the actions in the church might “overturn, deny or detract from the roles and relationships of men as husbands and fathers and women as wives and mothers.” The position of an authoritative teacher relates most closely to the modern office of the pastor in Protestant churches. Paul’s advice would limit that office to men. Some evangelicals will respond differently to the data of this passage. G. Osborne says that the normative principle from 1 Tim 2:8–15 is the idea of submissiveness by the women. He avers that at the time of Paul’s writing a woman who taught a group of men would be “lording” it over them. He feels that Western society today does not accord the same position of authority to the teacher as was true in the New Testament era. Thus, according to Osborne, a woman serving in the position of a teacher would not violate the attitude of submissiveness Paul demanded. He cautions women not to demand their rights or force the issue, suggesting that proclaiming the gospel is the chief concern. He suggests that women in ministry may need to work within the confines of today’s culture to alter entrenched attitudes against women in ministry. Even Barnett, who opposes women’s serving in the role of teacher/ overseer, suggests that the prohibition against their serving in the teaching role is more applicable in a family church. He adds that there is no reason why women “should be prevented from the whole range of pastoral, didactic or sacramental ministry under the leadership of the senior teacher in a team or in their own right in specialist, single sex congregations.”
Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, vol. 34, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 95–105.