Click here to download in pdf format.
Sermon Notes of Rev.Dr.I.J.W.Oakley (29-7-1979 Strandtown Baptist Church)
Today’s passage deals with a difficult and
controversial subject, and is unlikely to carry the congregation as a whole. It
involves the place of women in the ministry, and raises a whole host of issues.
How should the relevant passages be interpreted? How much do our background and
culture influence our situation and interpretation? Why do we allow so many
inconsistencies? Why are women allowed to do on the mission field what they are
not allowed to do in their home churches?
There is a personal challenge here for everyone. It is
good to rethink our whole attitude. Are we certain the traditional outlook is
the correct one? It is necessary to respect each other’s viewpoint, to show
tolerance and sheer honesty, no matter how costly.
We are going to make some general comments about women’s behaviour as described in these verses, then give the usual evangelical interpretation of women’s ministry normally but not universally held. Then we will consider another way the evidence may be interpreted.
About women’s dress, Paul says
they are to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair
or gold or pearls or expensive clothes (1 Timothy 2:9). Rather than such
things, she should be adorned with good deeds, appropriate for women who
profess to worship God. This is to be her real attire. She ought not to be
given to display or cheap ostentation. No extravagance, and nothing shameful or
embarrassing. Nevertheless, she should be adorned – not frumpish or dowdy or
deliberately unattractive.
The historical background needs
to be considered. In Paul’s day women compensated for subordination by extreme
extravagance in dress. They wore braids that actually sparkled, clothes fastened
with pins of ivory and silver, with jewelled heads – the more expensive the
better. Gold and especially pearls (from the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean) were
fabulously priced, and beyond the means of the average woman.
A woman’s dress mirrored her
mind. Her character was displayed thereby. Ostentation was not in keeping with a
devout and spiritual approach. (C.f. James 2 suggests that some males could be
very showy in their dress too, with rings and good clothes.)
But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (1 Timothy 2:15). There are various interpretations of this verse:
· Those women will be saved by the child’s birth, i.e. Christ’s birth.
· That they will come safely through childbirth.
· That through childbirth woman will merit everlasting glory.
· That by childbearing woman finds real happiness, and that she will influence mankind through bringing up the child, not by teaching adults.
·
That she will be saved from a useless life, since she cannot take
leadership in the church.
Women are ministers to the spiritual welfare of children. Even those without their own children can beget spiritual children.
Compared with their position in Jewish and Greek society,
the position of women was greatly enhanced by the Gospel. They were considered
spiritually equal with men, for all are one in Christ Jesus. They were given a
most valuable role in Christian service in the early church: Some women actually
ministered to Jesus; Mark’s mother Mary lent her house for prayer meetings;
Lydia entertained Paul and Silas; Tabitha, Phoebe, the women mentioned in Romans
16.
Women were also able to teach in
private: Priscilla and Aquila together instructed Apollos in the way of the
Lord; Philip’s four daughters prophesied. Therefore a woman’s role, in light
of this, is in practice to pray, support the Gospel, help God’s servants,
speak at ladies meetings and to children, give private instruction in the home.
But though spiritually equal,
she has a different function from men. Here, and in 1 Corinthians 14:34ff, women
are instructed to be silent in church, debarred from the ministry in public, not
allowed to exercise authority over men. Some would argue from Scripture that, as
in the case of Eve, women are more easily deceived and more easily swayed by
their emotions, making them less reliable as teachers.
This interpretation undoubtedly leads to some anomalies. This instruction is not so rigidly followed on the mission-field because there is often a shortage of male missionaries. Many frown at a woman praying at the Lord’s Table – though have no issue with a woman thanking the Lord for salvation and for the Ordinance in the prayer meeting room. In some churches, women are also forbidden to be on the diaconate. Sometimes they may give a missionary report, or children’s talk in public worship – but certainly not public preaching to a mixed audience in a formal service. Some allow women evangelists but not to be teachers. This leads to the question what is the difference between the worship service and any other form of meeting?
Some general questions to
consider: Are women in the body of Christ? Have women received gifts? Are women
included in I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,
that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which
is your reasonable service (Romans 12:1)? Are women included in he led
captives in his train and gave gifts to men (Ephesians 4:8)? Do we
believe in the priesthood of all believers, and does that state include women?
Are not men and women all equal in Christ?
Do we realize how much our
culture, the ways of thinking in society in which we were brought up, influences
our interpretation of the Bible? Often culture is a stronger influence than the
Bible itself. Recall how Euodias and Syntyche laboured with Paul in the Gospel
– fellow workers, labouring side by side, part of the same team (Philippians
4:3). Priscilla, Mary, Junia, Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:3, 6, 7, 12) were
also spoken of as fellow workers. There was equality in labour there. The word
used for servant (diakonos) in
describing Phoebe (Romans 16:1), does not mean female servant, but the masculine
form in used – implying she was an official in the church. The word used for
“succourer” (Romans 16:2 A.V.) or “great help” (N.I.V.) (prostatis)
implies Phoebe was in a position of leadership.
In the light of these positive
passages, how should we interpret the negative? 1 Corinthians 14 makes no
reference to the ministry of women. Rather, If they want to inquire about
something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for
a woman to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:35). I do not
permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent (1
Timothy 2:12). How do we reconcile this instruction with Priscilla allowed to
teach Apollos? If it is permissible in private, why not in public?
We need to see 1 Timothy 2 in
its cultural situation of Paul’s day. In those days, women had no educational
privileges. The wife was to be under the headship of her husband, as today. But
unlike today, in the first century a husband would have been shamed by a wife in
a teaching role, because it would have implied his authority had been usurped.
Therefore for the sake of the husband’s position, the woman was not to teach.
In different circumstances, when
the husband’s headship was not threatened, Paul might have suggested
differently. Evidently Priscilla’s teaching did not suggest authority over
Aquila. If Priscilla was in order, how much more educated women, well instructed
in the scriptures, with the ability to teach, with the approval of or under the
authority of their husbands?
Nowadays in our culture there is the opportunity of equality of status. Women are competent in every branch of knowledge, and in the Scriptures. So we could conclude that Paul’s words were relevant to the particular culture of Corinth and Ephesus in the first century, where women were in a different situation, where their actions would have threatened their husband’s headship in a way that just is not the case today. Another difference is that in Paul’s day almost all women were married, and today there are more unmarried women than then. Under whose authority do they come? Are they still under their father’s authority?!
There are two points of view, and no doubt there are
things we can agree with on both sides. But the subject of a woman’s role in
the church deserves a thorough airing. Are churches less efficient and spiritual
because those who make up more than half the congregation are denied the
opportunity to exercise their God-given gifts? At the present time [1979], in
Northern Ireland there are 6 female missionaries for every 1 male missionary (in
the rest of Great Britain the ration is 2 to 1) because gifted women are denied
the opportunity to exercise their gifts at home.
Some have said that women are
not temperamentally suited to leadership – but that is not true of all women,
and the accusation could equally be applied to some men. Florence Nightingale
said, “I offered the church my hands, head and heart. She did not want them. I
was told to stay at home and do crochet, be at the head of my husband’s table,
and perhaps teach in Sunday School.” So the church was robbed of her very
considerable gifts of leadership, administration and ability to inspire.
In too many cases this subject has not been thought through thoroughly. It deserves to be honestly and carefully examined without prejudice. We are all told to consecrate all our gifts to the Lord, and to be completely under the authority of the Word.
