Paul urged Timothy
to sort out the false
teaching that had crept into the church at Ephesus. This letter
(as were all the letters of Paul) was
written in response to specific issues
and problems which had arisen in some of the churches that were brought into existence
as a result of his preaching on his various missionary journeys. These letters are so very valuable today, for they form a part of the Holy Scriptures which constitute our
source of authority and a
reliable guide for our church practice.
Today’s passage is
difficult, particularly verses
11-15. How shall we understand this text? I am not here to give you a lecture on what many interpreters have said concerning the text. That might be
appropriate for our Thursday evening School of the Bible, but not for
a Sunday worship service. And yet I cannot get around introducing you to
some important rules in terms of interpreting the Bible
responsibly. I have benefited much from John Stott’s commentary[1]
in this study. I have always appreciated
him for his balanced mind in matters of responsible interpretation. In his introduction to this passage, he deals
first with “Hermeneutical
principles”. Hermeneutics is the
science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures. The best I can
do is to
give you a brief, and I trust
understandable synopsis of some principles which ought to undergird the
interpretation of such a complex passage.
One of the important
principles in biblical interpretation is to understand the difference between
a fixed principle (unchangeable) and a
cultural element (which may be variable).
“… We
have to discern in Scripture between God’s essential revelation (which
is changeless) and its cultural expression (which is changeable).” [2] So, how shall we distinguish between them?
How shall we know what is a fixed biblical
principle and what is cultural,
and therefore variable? What cannot
change and what can change? We will apply these questions to our passage
in a moment. Before we do, we need to consider a few typical
to hermeneutical approaches to
such passages in the Bible. I will
mention three, and the last one will be that of John Stott. I would agree with him substantially.
1. there are those who see no difference between principle and cultural expression in the Bible. The Bible is considered literal in every respect. This school believes that you cannot tamper with the Bible by deciding which is which. All belongs to the Word of God, and if this school is consistent in interpreting our passage in 1 Timothy 2:8–15, then they must insist that men must always lift up their hands when they pray (2:8), that women must never plait their hair or wear jewellery (2:9), and that under no circumstances whatsoever may women teach men (2:11–12). The problem with staunch literalists is that they are never consistent in their application of this principle.
2. On the other hand there are those who see such texts in the Bible as anachronistic, outdated and of no value for our times. So, for instance a commentator named William Barclay (a liberal scholar) whose commentaries were extremely popular a number of years ago, dismissed everything in this passage saying, “ all things in this chapter are mere temporary regulations to meet a given situation”[3]. Everything becomes merely a cultural expression and simply relates to the times in which this was written. The problem with this school of interpretation is that they ultimately make us believe that the Bible has little to say that is relevant today. This school often glories in its own cleverness and makes the mind of man the final arbiter of truth.
3. John Stott introduces a third view, which he calls cultural transposition [4]. He takes a middle road by saying that we need to make a distinction in the Bible concerning what is God’s essential unchangeable revelation, and what is cultural and bound by specific and peculiar circumstances of the day, and which is therefore changeable.
1. there are those who see no difference between principle and cultural expression in the Bible. The Bible is considered literal in every respect. This school believes that you cannot tamper with the Bible by deciding which is which. All belongs to the Word of God, and if this school is consistent in interpreting our passage in 1 Timothy 2:8–15, then they must insist that men must always lift up their hands when they pray (2:8), that women must never plait their hair or wear jewellery (2:9), and that under no circumstances whatsoever may women teach men (2:11–12). The problem with staunch literalists is that they are never consistent in their application of this principle.
2. On the other hand there are those who see such texts in the Bible as anachronistic, outdated and of no value for our times. So, for instance a commentator named William Barclay (a liberal scholar) whose commentaries were extremely popular a number of years ago, dismissed everything in this passage saying, “ all things in this chapter are mere temporary regulations to meet a given situation”[3]. Everything becomes merely a cultural expression and simply relates to the times in which this was written. The problem with this school of interpretation is that they ultimately make us believe that the Bible has little to say that is relevant today. This school often glories in its own cleverness and makes the mind of man the final arbiter of truth.
3. John Stott introduces a third view, which he calls cultural transposition [4]. He takes a middle road by saying that we need to make a distinction in the Bible concerning what is God’s essential unchangeable revelation, and what is cultural and bound by specific and peculiar circumstances of the day, and which is therefore changeable.
A good example of such a distinction may be made
from John 13, where Jesus
washes the feet of His disciples, and
then commands His disciples to wash one another’s feet. Now do we do that
here at Eastside? Why not? Do we not
believe the command of Jesus here? The answer is this: We
are making a distinction between essence and form. What is the essence of Jesus teaching in John 13: 1-17? It is surely
the matter of being servants to one another. Jesus came to be a
servant to us, and He wants us to serve
one another. That is the essence of
His teaching, and it is timeless.
But what is the form in which He communicates His teaching? By way of washing their feet, and it is cultural! It was totally
appropriate to the situation in Jesus’s day. Middle eastern feet were always
dirty because there was so much dust. Everyone walked, and people wore
sandals. We don’t do that in the city. But
what about today? How would you
communicate being a servant to your
brothers and sisters at Eastside? How
about looking after the little ones in
crèche while their young parents are been given a moment of quiet to sit under the Word of God? What about serving
our visitors with friendship and tea after the service? The possibilities are endless.
Let’s look at our text then in terms of essentials and form.
Ask yourself, “What is
essential and non-negotiable here, and what is form or what is
cultural and therefore changeable and negotiable?”
In our text we find the apostle Paul giving direction to Timothy and the church in Ephesus in three
areas, in the context of the
public worship of the church.
The instruction regards, (i) men’s prayers (2:8), (ii) women’s adornment (2:9–10) (iii) Women’s roles in public worship (2:11–15).
The instruction regards, (i) men’s prayers (2:8), (ii) women’s adornment (2:9–10) (iii) Women’s roles in public worship (2:11–15).
1. Men and their
prayers (2:8)
“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands, without anger or quarrelling.” The application is not difficult. What is the essence here? Men should pray. Men should pray with clean consciences, without anger or quarrelling. God does not hear the prayers of men who harbour unforgiveness, anger or bitterness in their hearts. God wants holy hearts. What about the form? The form employed here is ‘lifting of holy hands in prayer’. The point is that bodily posture is a revelation of the soul, and so you can show your holy heart in the form of raising your hands, but also by standing, kneeling or sitting. It is cultural. It is variable, and therefore it is secondary to the principle or essence.
2. Women and their
adornment (2:9-10)
“…likewise also that should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self- control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness – with good works.”
Likewise… certainly Paul expected women to engage in public prayer! But he makes a particular application to women participating in worship. He says that he would not like them to be ostentatious in their appearance. So the principle relates to modesty, self-control, good works, and this with respect to displays of clothing, hairstyle and jewellery which Ephesian women wore. But is hairstyle , clothing and jewellery a problem in every culture? No! These have different meanings in different cultures. Stott reminds us that “Christian women in Ephesus needed to make sure that their attire in no way reflected that of the hundreds of prostitutes who were employed in the great goddess Diana’s temple…”[5] The principle is modesty; the form is dress, hairstyles and jewellery, and so we are going to have to determine at local church level what hinders the progress of the gospel in our public worship. What about being underdressed and being too revealing in terms of your body?
3. Women and their roles (2:11-15)
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
Let us see whether we can apply the same logic with reference to principle and to culture or form. What is the unchanging biblical principle here? Surely the established principle is found in verses 13 & 14 which refers back to Genesis 2, the creation of man and woman. The context of created order clearly establishes the doctrine of the headship of men in society. In v.15 the role of the woman is established: “she will be saved through childbearing… “ (v.15). This is not easy to see at face value, but it is utterly profound.
The salvation spoken
of here is not salvation from sin. The context
is still about the woman’s role
in the church. The primary role
of the man in church is to lead in worship. What is a
woman‘s primary role? It is in the bearing and raising of little worshippers for the glory of God! This
logic may stun you for a moment, but
consider the deeper theological reason for the redemption of a woman behind
this. Since the woman led mankind into
the fall, and hence into death, the
bearing of children – the giving
of life delivers or saves her from that stigma. Think about it. Mary gave birth
to the Lord Jesus, the incarnate Son of God. By this act she gave the world our
Saviour. All who look to Him will be saved!
The woman who
led mankind into death is now given the privilege of replenishing
mankind. And that’s not all. She has the
wonderful privilege of
nurturing and praying her offspring back to
the position where her children
rise to call her blessed ! (Prov.
31)
What about single Christian women? Normally,
God’s plan is for women to be
married and to have children. Those that do not
have children by God’s providence, will be able by God’s
grace to focus their energies into fields in
the church, in which they can be
greatly used in terms of nurturing
spiritual children. God’s plan for a
woman (generally) is that she
should influence mankind by way of the child , the cradle and not by
way of usurping the role of the
man.
I must end here for today. Now clearly, there was a problem
in Ephesus. The cult of the goddess Diana had tempted women
to work against creation order. So at face value, Paul’s statement here appears to be quite harsh and quite
radical, because the life of the church
was at stake. Radical times require radical responses. But understand the context. Christian women
in Ephesus needed to find the biblical
balance. They needed to submit
themselves to qualified male
church leadership, because God demanded
it. Does this mean that women must always be quiet, and that they never
have anything profitable to say to men?
Surely not! According to Scripture the spiritual gifts of God have been equally
given to men and women, BUT this needs
to be worked out against the background of male leadership. And
under godly leadership,
submissive to God and the church, an environment is created which ought to
cause both women and men to
flourish in terms of teaching and in
terms of employing their gifts. In God’s economy there is no place for rivalry
and competition. The church is created
by God for all to exist in unity by submitting to one another out of reverence
for Christ (Eph. 5:21), as we all
partake in our God given roles,
spiritual gifts and callings in a context where men lead
with Christ- likeness and in
which women are enabled to flourish in
Christ-likeness in every way.
Amen
Amen
