If we take 1 Timothy 3:15, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God as the statement of purpose for first Timothy than we have at the outset a planned destination of study; namely searching through First Timothy to determine what our "church experience" should look like.
In the first chapter we discovered the foundation of Pastoral Authority Grounded in Good Christology as well as the necessity of pastoral Longevity to the health of the church. Moving from that point we established the goal of church teaching balanced against the proper use of the Old Testament Law. And the chapter ends with the application of that church teaching resulting in the centrality of the gospel and worship for what God has done in saving those who trust in Christ Jesus as their Sacrifice, Savior and Lord.
Having established all of that as the foundation we move into the second chapter of first Timothy and we immediately come up to what Paul considers the first directive in the terms of the most important activities of the church; and it should come as no surprise to anyone that his directive is prayer.
Now, Somehow I know what happens whenever the topic of prayer is mentioned. Almost everyone in here starts to think the way I do "I don't pray enough, and I don't know if I can change" becomes the predominant thought pattern in here.
But I want us to step away from that for a moment and to recognize that Prayer is not a requirement, it's a privilege as we who are small and powerless open our mouths to speak and immediately find ourselves ushered into the presence of the Almighty God who is not only eager to hear our conversation with him but is ever more eager to actually do something about our conversation with him.
I want you to notice that I have intentionally refrained from using the word Prayer just then because as a word "Prayer" has been relegated to strictly religious conversation and by and large hasn't got much meaning associated with it today.
There was a time when Prayer meant "conversing with or requesting something of someone who had the power to grant your needs" But it has long since fallen out of common use for anyone but people of religion.
There was a time - probably flavored by religion - but a time when the phrase, "Mother I pray that you will give me a cookie"¦" might have been understood as something of a common phrase. Nowadays kids just say, "Can I have a cookie Mom?"
So this morning when I talk about a Call to prayer, let's change that to A Call to Conversation. Of course in doing that we can't get away from the religious language of prayer completely and I'm not certain we have to but I want us to stop thinking about "prayer" as something we have to do, and to start looking at conversing with God as a privilege and joy that we get to do.
If the church is going to receive a general list of duties it has to begin as it does here in 1 Timothy 2:1 with a broad instruction to pray. Never are we deeper in relationship with God than when we are talking with Him. Just as there are lots of ways for couples and friends to converse in their relationship there are lots of ways for us to talk to God.
Paul acknowledges this in Ephesians 6:18 "With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints"¦." Notice that Paul says "With all prayer"¦" that is, using every method of talking to God.
1 Timothy 2:1 introduces four types of conversation with God But take a look first at the WHO before We Get to the HOW
Look at who we're supposed to pray for as we talk to God. "I urge that (all types of prayers) be made on behalf of all men, For kings and all who are in authority"¦"
I'm fairly certain Paul doesn't mean that we are required to get out the phone book and start praying. The world's population is something around 6.5 Billion people. That would make your prayer list significantly long and frankly impossible. The point isn't necessarily praying for each person but rather that no-one is to be excluded. When we get down to the why in a few moments it becomes clear that if the offer of salvation should be to all, than so also the conversations we have with God shouldn't be limited to anyone either.
In short we're supposed to pray for everyone. No body is to be left behind. If you ever sit down to pray for a few moments and you can't think of what to pray for we'll deal with that in a minute but try thinking about world leaders, local leaders and your next door neighbor. You'll have more than enough to talk about, and chances are pretty good every name that comes to mind will come with some ready made prayer requests.
But prayer requests aren't all. Take a look at the four words Paul uses to describe prayer here and determine "How to talk to God"
Paul uses four terms here to describe conversation with God. It's not so much that Paul is saying "These are the four ways you can talk to God" but rather he's trying to cover the entire spectrum. We don't limit ourselves to four kinds of dialog among friends but we do sometimes tend to limit ourselves to just one kind of dialog with God.
First he says Entreaties in the NASB or Requests in the NIV the Greek word is (DE-AYSIS). And we might think of this as the "Grocery lists prayers" The original meaning of the word stems from the idea of need or lack and out of that evolved into a general term for prayer in the sense of "an urgent request based upon need<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->. This is where real and specific requests are made to God.
We kind of major on this from time to time but it's perfectly legitimate way to talk with God. He has told us in James 4 "We have not because we ask not." So don't ever feel ashamed to share a need with God. Tell him what's needed in your life or in the lives of others and ask for his supply to fulfill those genuine needs.
Second he mentions simply prayers. Where as the first one is always associated with "real asking" this second word (PROS-EUKAY), is used merely to indicate prayer without referring to it's content.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> Think of this kind of prayer simply as a conversation. When's the last time you just sighed and started out saying, "God I need to talk to you about something"¦" Sometimes you know what you need and other times you don't even understand the need.
This is the kind of praying you do when you just need to talk to someone who will listen.
The third method of talking with God is called intercessions, it comes from another word (ENTEUXAIS). It literally means "To encounter" or "To meet with" The idea being that You and God are going to meet in order to discuss someone. This is a stand in the gap conversation. You know someone living outside of God's will? You know someone who needs a touch from God? You know someone too weak to come to God on their own? Or someone who just needs help? Then it's time to play the intercessor, get between God and them and be their advocate before the Lord. Intercession is definitely hard work; but necessary.
The Fourth and final word is (EUCHARISTIAS) Thanksgiving! Probably the most underused style of talking with God is just telling him thanks. We even established a holiday in November for just that purpose and we've turned it into a glut-fest instead.
Don't forget however, what God has done, and don't forget to give him thanks for it.
So now you've heard again how to talk to God, and you know who to talk to Him about, but what are we supposed to be seeking in all these prayers for other people?
Look at what Paul says at the end of verse two is supposed to be the content of all this conversation. Pray that we'll lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. What's at issue isn't the selfish desire for a comfortable life of ease; but rather - if you look at the following context, a life free of both external and internal problems which would get in the way of spreading the gospel.
Our conversation with God should be bent in such a way so that the spread of the gospel is not hindered by the activities of men around us (be they kings or grocery clerks) and neither must the gospel be hindered by that secret life inside of each one of us which more than any other has the capacity to short-circuit the spread of the gospel. So that neither we nor the government nor anyone else will get in the way of the gospel's spread.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. Edited by Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich. electronic ed., Vol. 2, Page 807. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976.
When it comes time for public prayer, I have two questions. The First is Q: Why Should we pray? I suppose we could come up with lots of reasons of our own accord, but as it pertains to God's view in 1 Timothy of what the church should do it really comes down to the fact that A: prayer pleases God. So last week we looked at prayer, and we saw four types of prayer representing the entire spectrum of prayer, and we came away with the injunction:
"Pray for All Kinds of People, With All Kinds of Prayer, So that nothing hinders the gospel."
In the context of the second chapter of 1 Timothy, Prayer as the first duty of the church is wrapped around a cause and effect of Salvation. Prayer is the effect of salvation meaning that saved people in the church are called upon to pray. And Prayer is the cause of salvation meaning that the content of our prayers ought at times to be bent towards the salvation of others; praying that we don't get in the way of the gospel, and praying also that God would draw a specific person to himself in order to save that one.
The Second Question is Q: Why Is God Pleased When We Pray? And the answer is A: Because He wants Everyone To Be Saved and prayer is a vital component to salvation.
Everything we read in 1 Timothy 2:1-8 is given squarely in the context of prayer so that prayer is the function behind Paul's statements here. So let's take a look at prayer as the Pleasure Of God. And Let's read 1 Timothy 2:1-8 for context, knowing that our study text is verses 3-7.
Paul says that this prayer for a tranquil and quiet life is good and acceptable in the sight of God. He then begins to unpack the character of God - again in the context of prayer and it becomes evident that God is pleased with prayer because He wants everyone to be saved. Thus a component of our prayers (intercession) is for the salvation of everyone from the kid that pushes the carts in the store parking lot to world leaders.
The fact that God desires all men to be saved neither limits salvation to men excluding women, nor does it limit his sovereignty. The same scriptures that declare "No one comes to the father but by me..." (John 14:6) and "No one comes to me unless the father draws him" (John 6:44) also declares "whosoever will, come unto me..." (Matthew 11:28) The scripture clearly teaches that we have a free will but it also clearly teaches the absolute sovereignty of God apart from which our free will, will not bring us to faith in Christ - for even faith is a gift of God.
Augustine argued that no one "is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished."1
The next four verses are offered as three proofs that God desires salvation for everyone.
(1st proof) There is only one God for all men.
(2nd proof) Our Mediator came at the appropriate time, and
(3rd proof) God's chose Paul as the Apostle to bring the gospel to the gentile nations.
The first thing any Jew learned was the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear O Israel God is one"¦" By Jesus' day they had turned that into something exclusionary. God was their God and if anyone else wanted to worship God they had to become Jewish. But Paul uses the doctrine of monotheism in order to show that since there is only one God - it follows that he is supposed to be everyone's God. So then the very identity of God being one God is proof that he wants all men to be saved.
Monotheism: Which means "There is only one God" is no longer a given in our society, but remember that it wasn't the main pattern of thinking in Paul's day either.
The second proof that God wants people saved is that he has provided a mediator. Too many would imply that they cannot approach God for they are too sinful, and that would remain true if there were no-one to take us to God. The fact that God has established a mediator to bring the sinful to Him is proof again that God wants all people to be saved.
Jesus is certainly not a mediator in the sense that he brings both parties to various compromises but that he is the only intercessor who is able to bring us to God. He himself became a man - and it is his humanity that enables him to take our place as our substitutionary sacrifice and as our faithful high priest he is able to represent us before the Father.
Note the issue of the Deity of Christ inferred here in verse 5. Elsewhere Christ is called our savior and here God is called our savior. There is no disagreement in the text, Christ is nothing (no-one) less than God in the Flesh. Jesus is the Son of the Father - they share the same nature as deity for there is only one God.
Jesus' death was sufficient to pay the price of sin for all men. Yes I am aware that many of my fellow Calvinists would love to clarify and say that he gave himself only for the elect but I would not see that in this text or in others like it. The death of Jesus was sufficient to save everyone, it is therefore the greater sadness that many will not be saved because they reject the provision made for their salvation.
Jesus, the mediator who gave himself for all men, Is God's testimony that he truly does desire for all men to be saved. That testimony was given at the proper time. The word translated for time refers not so much to chronology as to the appropriateness of the time in which he came.
The time was appropriate perhaps because it was a time conducive to the spread of God's good news. Much has been said about the timing of Christ's life which I only want to summarize.
Jesus was born in an age and a time where He would be certain to be crucified and buried according to the prophets2. He was born in an age in which a foreign tongue was commonly spoke in Israel, which was according to the prophets3. He was born in an age in which a common tongue of Greek was spoken by all people at least as a second language so that the spread of the gospel was made easier by it.
Neither early nor late, Jesus came at the appropriate time in order to prove that God wants all men to come to the saving - experiential - knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Why else would God take a man who was, by Paul's own testimony the chief of sinners, and transform him into a nonstop around the world evangelist? The only reason available is that God wants the gentiles to come to a saving knowledge of the faith. Therefore he picked the man who was tenacious enough to never quit.
God wants people to be saved.
My question to you this morning is this: What are you doing about it? People need the Lord, and yet no-body comes to Jesus unless the father draws them. Are you praying that God will draw them?
I want to urge you to take at least three names - three people who do not know God and I want you to write them down. I want you to start praying today for their salvation. Pray that God will draw them to himself. Pray that God will show them their sin and his righteousness. Pray that God will send workers to harvest those people, and pray that God will give you boldness to speak the truth of the gospel to them as you ought. And pray. Pray that God will open their hearts to his Son, and that they will be your crown of joy when you enter heaven knowing full well that they also will be there with you.
God is pleased when we pray because God wants all men to be saved. Therefore "¦ Pray!
1 Oden, Thomas C. First and Second Timothy and Titus. Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching, Page 48. Louisville: J. Knox Press, 1989.
2 Isaiah 53
3 Isaiah 28:11 "Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue"¦"
If there's one thing the church needs, it's more prayer. It's an obvious statement perhaps but it's also one that periodically needs repeated because we have quite a habit of forgetting that it is what God desires. Even more, it's what we NEED.
In First Timothy 2:1-7 we learned that God is pleased with prayer because it leads to men being saved which is his goal; the only fitting response then is that the men in every place will pray without "Posturing". God wants praying men in His church so that His purposes can be accomplished.
Look with me at the eighth verse of our chapter today as we learn how to pray in church.
<Read 1 Timothy 2:8>
I want to share with you today Four Principles of prayer in the church, the first of which is PEOPLE.
Paul begins with "therefore I want the men…"
There are two words to communicate desire, the first is emotional the second is well reasoned. This is the second word; Paul has determined that the church will reach its goals through praying men. Having decided this then Paul wants us to pray, not the mumbly effortless prayers of adolescence but the hard wrestling prayers that take all of our concentration and effort.1
And in this context, this isn't just for anyone - this is a man's job. Once again, in the New Testament language there are two words for men. One is able to be translated as mankind in general and the second refers to men as opposed to women. It is this second word which Paul uses.
Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul allows women to pray in church as long as they are clearly under the authority of their husbands, here He's calling for men to pray. So in the broader context of scripture Paul doesn't exclude women from praying in the church service, but what he does here is call on the men to take the role of leadership given to them and use it for the furthering of the gospel.
"Paul wished to encourage the male religious leadership to take a lead in public prayer. The point is not that men only should pray but rather that everywhere the church of Jesus Christ exists there should be men who pray." This is not to the exclusion of women praying, but it is a call focused upon the men leading the church."2
In the more direct context, Paul is careful to state that it is the men, and not merely everyone that he wants to pray in the service of the church - it is categorically the men.
Men, God is calling you to take on the hard challenge of praying like you mean it. Put down the remote and pray with your families. Step out of the pew and pray in public. As we saw in the last several verses - prayer comes in all forms and it includes all people. That is a tall order, and we need more than a five minute prayer life. We need to be like Jacob in the book of Genesis, wrestling with God through the night in order to obtain his blessings upon us, upon our families, upon our church, upon our country and on the world.
Are you ready to take the challenge men? In the next chapter we're going to get into the strict requirements of leadership in the church; so it's only natural that he would turn to prayer now, before he ever get's there because it is in the prayer closet that God's leaders are made.
When Moses would go out to the tent of meeting to meet with God face to face his servant Joshua would go out there with him, but even when Moses would leave, Joshua would remain in that tent and in God's presence (Exodus 33:11).
It's not just the people it's also the Place
Since Paul is talking specifically about our behavior in houses of worship (cref. 3:15) "in every place" must by necessity mean the church. Every church location is supposed to be a house of prayer. Here at fame, prayer should be the norm. And praying men should be the backbone of this church.
Every Sunday there is a time set apart at 8:45 for prayer in the room behind the baptistery. It's not limited to leadership in the church or anything of that sort, it is a pre-arranged time to fuel the Sunday ministry with prayer. Anyone that wants to pray during that time is welcome.
Wednesday nights we have prayer meeting in the fellowship hall. It's probably one of the spiritually most important and physically least attended events in the church, and not just our church but every church of which I'm aware.
Remember Jesus' words, "It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer…"3
He says "pray lifting Holy Hands" The early Christians adopted their methods of praying from the Synagogues. Today we pray with heads bowed and eyes closed and hands folded - but the early Christians would stand and lift their hands to heaven palms turned upward.4
It's not that our hands act like a satellite dish, kind of sending and receiving signals from God somewhere out there in outer space. Raise them high and you get good reception, cup them together and you get static. No, it's not like that. The particular posture mentioned is certainly not mandatory in the sense that this is the only style of praying available to us because throughout scripture we see everything from
Standing: Gen. 18:22; I Sam. 1:26; Matt. 6:5; Mark 11:25; Luke 18:11; Luke 18:13.
Hands Spread Out or/and Lifted Heavenward: Ex. 9:29; Ex. 17:11, 12; I Kings 8:22; Neh. 8:6; Psalm 63:4; Psalm 134:2; Psalm 141:2; Is. 1:15; Lam. 2:19; Lam. 3:41; Hab. 3:10; Luke 24:50; I Tim. 2:8; James 4:8.
Bowing the Head: Gen. 24:48 (cf. verse 13); Ex. 12:27; II Chron. 29:30; Luke 24:5.
The Lifting Heavenward of the Eyes: Psalm 25:15; Psalm 121:1; Psalm 123:1, 2; Psalm 141:8; Psalm 145:15; John 11:41; John 17:1; cf. Dan. 9:3; Acts 8:55.
Kneeling: II Chron. 6:13; Psalm 95:6; Is. 45:23; Dan. 6:10; Matt. 17:14; Mark 1:40; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:60; Acts 9:40; Acts 20:36; Acts 21:5; Eph. 3:14.
Falling Down with the Face Upon the Ground: Gen. 17:3; Gen. 24:26; Num. 14:5, 13; Num. 16:4, 22, 45; Num. 22:13, 34; Deut. 9:18, 25, 26; Jos. 5:14; Judg. 13:20; Neh. 8:6; Ezek. 1:28; Ezek. 3:23; Ezek. 9:8; Ezek. 11:13; Ezek. 43:3; Ezek. 44:4; Dan. 8:17; Matt. 26:39; Mark 7:25; Mark 14:35; Luke 5:12; Luke 17:16; Rev. 1:17; Rev. 11:16.
Bowing with the face between the knees: I Kings 18:42 5
What's the intent of all of these? Reverence. Dependence. Awe. Submission. Hope. Adoration. Repentance. All of these and so much more. The issue isn't the posture of the body but the posture of the soul it is intended to reflect. But I say why not try a different posture and see how it affects your conversation.
What is the importance of lifting Holy Hands? When a sacrifice was made it was lifted towards God. Holy Sacrifices are the only sacrifices acceptable to God. This is why Paul says that we men need to be lifting "Holy hands, without wrath and dissension".
We lift up holy hands in prayer. Holy hands is the type of language used to describe the priesthood which had been consecrated / set apart and made holy for God's purpose. Like the posture it's not the hands themselves where the real issue lies, it's the actions of life, the works we do which are symbolized by the hands which do so much work.
See Psalm 24:3, 4, is there unconfessed sin or unrepented sin in your life? The Lord will not hear your prayers until the prayer you pray is one of repentance. Sin towards God will prohibit your prayers, and so also will sin towards other men...
Notice that the Apostle says pray without wrath and then quickly adds Dissension. The difference between the two is intended to be comprehensive. The word "Wrath" or "anger" (NIV) here is external and the word "Dissension" or "Disputing" is internal. In other words when we pray, we must pray without anger pouring out in our visible lives and we must also pray without anger quietly brewing in our hearts (Psalm 66:18 if I regard wickedness in my heart, The Lord will not hear).
Perhaps, Gentlemen this is why Peter warns us not to be harsh with our wives lest our prayers be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)
Men in public worship are urged to lift holy hands without anger or quarreling. To lift holy hands is to pray sincerely, in a way congruent with one's behavior, without hypocrisy, single-mindedly, with a pure heart focused upon the one thing needful-attentiveness to the will of God.6
1 The words "I will" are boulomai (βουλομαι), speaking of a desire which proceeds from the reason, as against thelo (?e??), a desire which originates with the emotions. Wuest, Kenneth S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader, 1 Ti 2:8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, c1984.
2 Oden, Thomas C. First and Second Timothy and Titus. Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching, Page 91. Louisville: J. Knox Press, 1989.
3 Isaiah 56:7; Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46
4 Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, A. R. Fausset et al.;. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary., 1 Ti 2:8. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
5 Heavily Borrowed from: Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Vol. 4, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary, Page 103. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
6 Oden, Thomas C. First and Second Timothy and Titus. Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching, Page 91. Louisville: J. Knox Press, 1989.
A young woman was recovering from surgery and happened to notice the row of stitches running well below her neckline. "
Oh Doctor!" said the young lady, "Will the scar show?"
The wise physician simply replied. " Hopefully not in church but anywhere else, it's entirely up to you..."
We like to say "clothes make the man". But there is another part to that phrase we need to add: "
Clothes make the man
turn his head!
" And while in the world of fashion magazines, television commercials and centerfolds that may be the goal, it is an altogether ungodly attribute to dress in such a way that you intentionally or otherwise draw sexual attention to yourself or seek to produce envy in others. Today we finally return to our study of "œChurch 101"; and we're waltzing right into one of the most hotly debated sections of scripture today.
The Title Of This Series, "œChurch 101" is taken from what Paul says
in the third Chapter at verse 15.
1 Timothy 3:15
"œ...
I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
" Paul wrote so we would know how we should "œdo church".
So far he's covered Pastoral authority, the measure of Good doctrine which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the purpose of the law which is to convict sinners and to point us to Jesus Christ who's very purpose in coming is to save sinners. That reminder moves Paul to summarize his own testimony which results in an outpouring of his love for God because unimaginable Grace results in unparalleled worship. Finally, the first chapter ends with the purpose and implications of church discipline; the goal of which is always remedial.
In the second Chapter Paul moves into prayer as the heart of church life "“ the vital link between ourselves and God. It's more than grocery
lists, it's all kinds of prayers for all kinds of people that God is interested in. The end goal of all of this prayer is two fold. First that we might live out our faith and second that others might come to faith in Jesus Christ.
But when we get to 1 Timothy 2:8 we venture into an area of both correction and direction. There were some men in the Ephesian church who were argumentative and who were bringing their anger and their arguments right into church even to the point of public prayer. I can almost see it now, as one man stands to pray and says, "œDear Lord, please keep Murphy from being such a fathead!" It's that kind of situation which would cause Paul to say something like, " I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.
" (1 Timothy 2:8).
When we open up on 1 Timothy 2:9 we find out that it is not just the men who have problems; the women have a problem also which he begins to
correct in the ninth verse. Over the next seven verses Paul talks about attitude and action expressed in worship and the role of women in the church.
Despite all of the debate, I'm convinced that the meaning of the text itself is fairly straightforward. But because it has been the seat of so much debate and because it has strong implications for the church, I plan on working through it methodically in the coming weeks.
Just as the pride of men makes them typically prone to bullheaded "“ argumentative attitudes, the pride of women makes them prone to paying inappropriate attention to their own beauty either over-accentuating their body or dressing in inappropriate ways at the expense not only of personal modesty but failing to pursue good works appropriate for a godly woman. Additionally, as verses 11-15 reveal, some of these women were attempting to obtain positions of leadership in the church something which Paul will explain is not to be allowed.
I
am going to use two terms which may not be familiar to everyone in order to describe the two primary views people carry into these verses. The first is " complementarian
" Basically, Complementarians believe that Paul recognizes that God places some restrictions on women in ministry; while " egalitarian
" (from the French word for "œequality") is the word used to describe those who believe that Paul sees no restriction.
1
I have fallen firmly and unreservedly into the complementarian camp. Initially, Paul addresses the apparel and attitude of the women in the church but the implications for both men and women extend beyond the public gathering of saints into every region of life. If you haven't already please open your Bible to 1 Timothy 2:8-10... please stand as we read.
<!-- Read 1 Timothy 2:8-10 --!>
The passage contains principles which first address what not to wear and
then address the better alternative, time will only allow us to look at the first part this week.
Paul starts with the word " Likewise
" meaning that the ninth verse blends right back into the eighth where the primary issue is that the men pray without sinful distractions. The same requirement is being placed on women. In 1 Corinthians 11:5
ff
Paul gives directions for women who pray in church "“ that they must pray with an appropriate symbol of submission to their husbands. The point then is this: Ladies, you are permitted to pray publicly in church. But just as men are called to pray with a warning to pay attention to their besetting sins of anger and arguing; so also you women are called to pray with a warning now to pay attention to your besetting sins.
2
In other words, pray in a way that does not cause distraction either to men or to other women in the church.
But
that is apparently what was going on in the church of Ephesus. The description of the problem and its cure follows.
In every culture fashion styles come and go, as do the rules that go with fashion. What doesn't change however are the more significant effects that fashion choice has on both men and women. Paul says, " I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments...
"
"œProper clothing" the word clothing lined up with the word proper probably caries a much broader meaning than simply the fabric you cover yourself with. The word first translated as "œclothing" here literally means "œarranging in order". The visual image could be understood to be a woman smoothing or adjusting her clothing so as to appear proper. Given the immediate context of worship behavior for men. The Apostle isn't jumping from behavior to clothing
without a link, he is moving from the proper behavior of men to the proper behavior of women as it is expressed in it's most visible application of the clothing which is worn. It is declaring that the women, like the men, must behave in an orderly - respectable manner in the church.
There is another qualifier here which doesn't get a lot of attention today, that of modesty.
"Modesty" comes from a word which indicates "an innate moral repugnance" to doing something shameful.
3
Initially we're probably more inclined to think of modesty as a set of rules comprising what you don't wear or what you don't show "“ but that's really only half the story. It's possible to be covered head to toe in a burka and still be immodest.
The heart of modesty is not a set of fashion rules "“ the heart of modesty begins with an internal desire to keep both yourself and others pure. Self purity can
hardly be claimed or maintained when your clothings very design is intended to alluringly dangle body parts in front of whomever might point their eyes even accidentally in your direction.
Modesty as a virtue has gone completely out the window. It's a simple fact which doesn't require much proving that today's clothing styles are intentionally built to create sex appeal. However the essence of modesty would say, "œnot only do I want moral purity in my life, I don't want to play a part in leading that guy over there into sinning, even in his mind!"
That certainly doesn't excuse the guys from responsibility. In fact one of the first barriers to discussing modesty is the mental wall that gets in the way. You know what I'm talking about "“ the internal dialog that goes something like, "œOh sure, every time a guy starts lusting it's never his fault it's always the woman!" That's not true. Men need to follow the pattern of Job who "œmade a covenant"
with his eyes "œNot to look lustfully at a woman." (Job 31:1). But it's the undue opportunity to lust that is provided by immodest clothing.
When it comes to modesty there are applications for both men and women, girls and boys. It starts in the heart. What's going on in your hearts when you think about getting dressed for church, a trip to the mall or for a day at work or school? You see as a Christian your first thought should be to honor God in everything you do. The Clothing you pick is the most obvious outward manifestation of your internal values. It should never be a question of "œcan I get away with this?" but rather "œIs God honored by this?".
Guys we have an obligation to avert our eyes. Guard what you're looking for and where you're looking when you look at a woman.. Women are not sex objects they are coequal creations made to glorify God.
Parents and grandparents, train your kids to think modestly. Clothing is
just one symptom of modesty or the lack of it. It's more than fashion rules it is an internal desire keep yourself pure and to not lead others astray.
1
William D. Mounce, vol. 46, Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 103.
2
George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 132.
3
Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002), 4:223.
Last week we talked about Modesty as a principle for personal appearance. In the context of 1 Timothy 2:9 modesty's most visible application is in the clothing that is worn. Far exceeding a set of fashion do-s and don'ts; modesty at it's heart is the desire to be personally pure and holy as well as the desire to not do anything which would hinder the holiness of others. It is from that perspective that modesty changes more than clothing, it changes our lives.
Paul continues in the second half of the verse to describe a secondary characteristic which is, in it's essence, the complement to modesty. Modesty is the desire to do the right thing; but what happens when our sin-nature rears it's ugly head and we haven't got a desire to do the right thing? It is at that moment when modesty is virtually powerless that we need another guideline; that guideline is "self-control".
Where modesty expresses a desire to do nothing shameful, self control goes beyond the desire to do the right thing and expresses the strength to resist the desire to do the wrong thing. In other words, self-control stops you from giving in to your passions and desires so that you can still do the right thing.
Self control is probably one of the most absent virtue in American society. That's not too surprising since we predominantly embrace secular hedonism which is the reverse of self control. You may not recognize the term but you will recognize the meaning: "If it feels good â€" do it!" That's the battle cry of the flesh, the world and the Devil himself.
Fortunately self control is within our grasp. And it comes from somewhere other than just "trying harder." It really comes from "drawing nearer".
Galatians 5:22-23 should be on everyone's memorization list: "...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Against such things there is no law."
Christian virtue is distinct from legalism because the ability to overcome sin and do the right thing is not the result of US trying to be more like God, but of us surrendering more to God's control through the Holy Spirit. James 4:8 summarizes the principle nicely, "Draw near to God and he will draw near to you..."
The application is that if God is controlling your mind, you are going to control your clothing in order to guard not only your own moral purity but that of others as well. And you're going to control your own passions and desires so as not to be immodest even if you want to be.
But what happens if you give in? That's what Paul is about to address in specific terms which are nothing more than a visible manifestation of a lack of modesty and self control in Ephesus.
Clothing is just a symptom of the real problem. But is is the visible problem.
Notice in the second half of the verse, Paul begins to list some negative examples as he tells the women what not to wear. He says, "not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments..."
I guess the first question is, "What is morally wrong with these items?" Braided hair is a generic term for hairstyles in general, and of course gold and pearls refer to Jewelry, costly garments don't need much explanation. The question is, "are these items inherently morally corrupt?
The short answer is no, but I've never been good with short answers.
In the parallel passage at 1 Peter 3:3 Peter adds dresses to the mix. He writes, "Your adornment must not be merelyexternal-- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; " (1 Peter 3:3) Is there something inherently morally wrong with dresses? If so than there's trouble afoot in here this morning!
However, the Bible actually speaks positively about most all of these.1
Hair: God certainly isn't mandating that women go about with bed head all the time. Remember that the start of the verse contains the word "Proper" which means putting things in order. Certainly the hair is part of that.
In the Song of Solomon 4:1, Solomon describes the hair of his wife as if it were a flock of goats coming down the mountain. The imagery might not make your toes tingle; but it is a positive look at hair that looks nice. 1 Corinthians 11 talks very positively about long hair for women. There is nothing inherently immoral in tying a braid.
Gold: Apparently there's nothing immoral about Gold either since, the streets of heaven are paved with gold, Jesus received a gift of gold at his birth, In Genesis 24 Rebekah receives gold to wear as a gift from Abraham's servant.
Pearls: Briefly I'll point out that the gospel is compared to a pearl of great price. The gates of heaven are gargantuan pearls. Therefore, jewelry be it gold or pearls is not immoral.
Expensive Clothing: It's considered a good thing of the Proverbs 31 woman that "...her clothing is fine linen and purple."
So it's not that jewelry, hairdos and silk are inherently evil or immoral. It really comes down to two different problems which are split down gender lines.
Over the years I've read study after study indicating that while men and women both respond to visual and emotional stimuli the division is not equal. If men are 80% visual and 20% emotional; women will respond to the same set of stimuli with a mirrored response; meaning that they'll be 80% emotional and 20% visual.
Both of the words in this text which are translated as "modest" and "discreet" are rooted in sexual concepts which would indicate that one of the issues with the clothing in the Ephesian worship service was the negative effect it was having on the men in the church. In short, it was distracting the guys from worship to something else.
Paul lists a set of clothing which corresponds almost perfectly to first century philosopher Philo's description of a prostitute.2 So Paul is clearly alluding to explicit clothing being worn to the church service.
The modern equivalent isn't that difficult to imagine. Women and girls, you need to be aware of "The Guy Factor" when you get dressed. God has created you, and made you beautiful â€" but your beauty is for your husband.
Sexual attraction is not the only issue. The interesting phrase, "Costly garments" points us towards the other problem...
First Timothy 6:17 gives an indication that there were some very wealthy individuals in the church at Ephesus. Between that verse and this one we discover that they were apparently dumping the budget on clothes, with the obvious intent to show off. That results in the girl problem: Pride and envy.
History tells us that the extremely wealthy among Greek and Roman women were known to wear dresses that cost the equivalent of 19 years worth of the average worker's wages!3
At a certain point, clothing moves from being nice or even really nice into the realm of just being showy. Some of these wealthy Ephesian women were apparently dressing in ways that couldn't help but motivate some of the normal ladies to outright jealousy.
When a woman dresses in ways that flaunt either her wealth or her body the a-moral jewelry and clothing become immoral problems because they turn into temptations to others around her. More than that, they reveal the real problem.
Clothing choices and petty bickering are just symptoms of a lack of godliness. This verse is more than a commentary on modern fashion sense. It's an attack on the heart that gets us into trouble. It provides the guidelines to protect your own purity and the purity of those around you. It's not about mini skirts and prom dresses. It's about your purpose for coming to church.
Men and women listen to this in consideration of verses eight and nine: before you come to church ask yourself if either your attitude or your apparel could stop yourself or others from worshiping. Be modest inside and out. Be self-controlled. Be Holy.
1George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 135.
2of Alexandria Philo and Charles Duke Yonge, The Works of Philo : Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1993), 96.
3The clothing Paul is considering is not slightly expensive but extravagantly expensive as suggested by the use of gold jewelry. A. H. M. Jones says clothing could cost as much as 7000 denarii, which equaled more than nineteen years' wages for an average day laborer (The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economy and Administrative History, ed. P. A. Brunt [Oxford: Blackwell, 1974] 350â€"64).
(Cited by Mounce in: William D. Mounce, vol. 46, Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 115.)
Over the last couple of weeks we've spent time on modesty which is an issue of the heart bent on keeping myself and others Holy. And then we looked at Self-control as the power of the Holy Spirit exhibited in a believer to do the right thing even when you don't' want to. All of this in the context of clothing.
"Women are neither to dress immodestly so as to exploit their feminine charm hindering their brethren from worship, nor are they to overdo their dress provoking their Christian sisters to jealousy."1
So now you know what not to do, but what are you "supposed to do?" Paul has already provided two positives by requesting modesty and self-control. These two will take care of the question, "What not to wear?" It's the third that provides the answer to the question, "Where am I supposed to focus?" or perhaps better stated, "What to wear?"
With that question we're stepping out of the closet and into real life if you will. Keep in mind that the concept of adornment goes beyond putting clothing on but on the broader level indicates getting something in order. So Paul is saying,
"Don't get yourselves ready for church by putting on fancy clothing as if that's the end of it all, get yourselves ready for church by doing good works. THAT, and that only is the proper preparation for a woman who claims to be a Christian."
You see the flow there I think, even though we've spent two weeks on clothing the real issue is whether or not your life actually reflects a life committed to Jesus. Clothing is just a specific symptom of a larger issue. The Christian faith is not about Knowledge it's about believing and in the same way, The Christian walk is not about apparel, it's about action. Real faith is going to effect real life. In other words you're going to have good works if you're faith is authentic.
Look again at what Paul writes there in 1 Timothy 2:8-10 paying special attention to verse 10. The proper way to prepare for worship isn't with fancy duds, but rather with faithful deeds.
Now we know that Good works are not a way to get saved. The Bible says that no one is good enough, in fact everyone is wicked at the core. So when the Bible talks about good works, and it does that a lot, what are good works?
Salvation and good deeds come right after each other in Titus Chapter 3. In the fifth verse we read, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior..."
Just a few verses down he reminds Titus, "...our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet pressing needs, that they may not be unfruitful..." (Titus 3:14 )
I don't know if you ever wonder "what am I supposed to do since I'm a Christian." Here's a good start to that answer: do good works. Notice that the quick and dirty definition of good works is simply meeting "urgent needs." Now ask yourself if you know of any urgent needs. Most of you are probably thinking, "Yeah I've got a couple urgent needs myself."
Good deeds or good works rather, are external rather than internal. So look outside of you and yours and determine where someone has a need that you can fill in the name of Jesus.
Kids need watching, do it. Clothing is needed, provide it. People are lonely, visit them. Lawns need cutting, Volunteer. Someone needs prayer and encouragement, provide it. Someone is struck with emergency bills and they can't meet it, see if you can help them.
Good deeds is a wide open field and I can't even begin to delve into the smallest percentage of the possibilities available. But I don't need to. Open you're eyes to the folks around you at work, at home and in the neighborhood who have a need and ask yourself and God the question, "Is that a need I can fill in the name of Christ?"
If a need comes up, the Christian thing to do is to do something about it. So we come back to our Text in Timothy where Paul is correcting the Ephesian ladies and to them and us he is saying in effect that Good works are what Christians do.
Not just in church, but in life let good works be the guiding principle in your behavior so that it's Christ who gets the glory instead of your body or your wardrobe. Just exactly who are we trying to point the world to? The answer to that question should be that we are infatuated with the idea that the world sees Jesus Christ in us. That is really the point of these two verses (1 Timothy 2:9-10).
Notice please that Paul says these are "proper for women making a claim to godliness." "Making a claim to godliness" is a translation of one participle which is translated everywhere else as promising. The idea is that there are women who are promising or rather proclaiming in a public setting that they are followers of Jesus Christ. It is necessary, Paul says that these women be known for being people of good works.
It's not just about show either. All of the Scriptures it becomes evident that saving faith is a working faith. "Good works are the necessary response by the believer to God's grace and mercy and are one of the purposes for which Christ came. Any theology that sees Christ's work merely as a means to salvation, divorcing it from any notion of obedience and behavior, falls short of the theology of the [Pastoral letters]..."2 not to mention the rest of the New Testament.
Christianity is a lot more than a prayer we pray to accept Jesus. Search through the pages of scripture and you'll find a relative few references to that sacred moment of repentance and yet by an order of magnitude you'll find more frequent references are made to the "effect" that believing has on daily life. Paul isn't asking for something unique here. He's saying, "Ladies, if you're going to claim to be a believer saved and sanctified by the blood of Christ Jesus than prove it. The way you prove it is with good works; because good works are what real Christians do."
I was flipping through the radio dial this week and happened on a station where the guy was reading some poetry, and just as I was reaching for the scan button again the guy signed off his little program with "be well, do good and keep in touch." I wouldn't have thought much about it I suppose if I hadn't been in the mode of thinking already about "doing good works." But it struck me as intriguing that God calls us as Christians to a model of behavior which is standardized on his righteousness and which believers and unbelievers alike recognize as desirable.
What does Jesus say? "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)
There is a purpose for the good works that Jesus Calls us too. Over in first Peter there's a similar exhortation: "having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation" (1Pet 2:12).
In brief one of the reasons for us to be "good works people" is so that your passion for serving will ultimately manifest itself in the salvation of people around you. On the other side, don't fall into the trap of thinking that "all I have to do is be a good person and people will get saved." But at the same time we need to recognize that we do need to do Good works because in some way it opens up the path towards salvation for people even when they are hostile to Christianity. Think about it for just a moment, even if people are hostile to Christianity it's still hard to be hostile about a Christian individual who is doing good.
Eph 2:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them..."
When you read that, pay attention to the fact that God has prepared good works for you to do. Mine are for me, yours are for you. The reason that God has prepared these good works for you is so that you'll do them. Now, I can't see anywhere in scripture that it's going be like, "Oh you missed the boat, I had you set to do a good work in Bangladesh and you're not even on the right continent!" God has planned for you to do good works right where you are, and if you are going to be obedient to God you're going to see urgent needs, and you're going to meet them if you can. Doing good works is our duty as a Christian.
Here in 1 Timothy, Paul is talking to the ladies in particular saying, "are you more focused on God or on your body?" I really wanted to name this little sub-series, "God Loves Beautiful Women." But he has a different view of beauty than we do. God's definition of an attractive woman, it's not minier skirts but mightier faith. In both the eyes of God and godly men, there is something immensely attractive about godliness which outshines the years and doesn't fade like earthly beauty. Clothe yourselves with Christlike behavior let Good deeds be the chief beautifier in your life.
1Jeff Harford
2William
D. Mounce, vol. 46, Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles,
Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 116.
(Emphasis added)
The ground at the foot of the cross is level. One of the most profound results of Christianity is its liberating influence. It is the liberation of scripture that sparked the American Revolution. It is the liberation of the gospel that gave righteousness to the delivery of Africans from slavery. It is the liberation of the gospel that has been responsible for the elevation of every group of people that once were considered a "lower class."
In recent years, we've heard about the lower caste "Dalits" in India embracing Christianity because in it they recognized the level ground of equality at the cross.
From the beginning where we chose in Adam to be slaves of sin the Bible has been the unfolding record of God's path to freedom in Jesus Christ. But through it men with corrupt minds have used it's message of freedom to enslave. Very early on some of the first victims were women. One Rabbinic prayer reportedly1 prays, "I thank you that I am not a woman."2
That pretty much says it all regarding the early Jewish view of women. So what did Jesus do? He talked to the Samaritan woman at the well. He accepted help from several women who followed him in his ministry. He encouraged Mary the sister of Lazarus to sit at his feet and learn. That is the very injunction that we find in 1 Timothy 2:11. Please turn to that book and look at the verse in it's context with me. <Read 1 Timothy 2:8-15>
This verse, the eleventh verse, is a verse of freedom and not of bondage. As a preparatory note you should recognize that in verses 11-12 Paul is acting in the form of a standard Rabbinic practice of "binding and loosing". He releases or "looses" women to learning but "binds" them from teaching. This is the kind of behavior Jesus is talking about in Matt. 16:19; 18:18. Rabbis of the day would often provide restrictions and thus "bind" their disciples from doing something; and they would also provide new freedoms for their disciples and thus "loosing" or rather, releasing them to do something. That is the practice in verses eleven and following.
So what does Paul permit? He permits freedom from the man made bondage of ignorance.
"A Woman must learn..." Γυνὴ ... μανθανέτω
If the men are called in verse 8 to participate in worship with holy hands lifted in prayer, the women are enjoined to quietly and submissively gain the same education as the men. The word "learn" is in the imperative, which is to say that learning is not optional - it's a mandate from God which must be obeyed.
This itself is a large departure from the culture of Paul's day. Prior to the church, Women were not permitted or at least not encouraged to learn the scriptures. But Christ has abolished the old fallacies and opened up God's intent that women also come and grow in communion with God. There is no difference between men and women in terms of access to God. Salvation and concurrently, discipleship are not for men alone but are here offered to women also. Paul broke the rules of society because he recognized that God's principles were greater. It is unfortunate that this passage is often interpreted as if it were restrictive in it's focus when in fact it was freeing to it's first century recipients.
But note please that the freedom is not an aimless one. Paul isn't just freeing women from the cultural curse, but he is binding you to learning.
Ladies you are required to be students of the Word of God. This verse emphasises that a woman must learn. The imperative is on the learning which is a large change from normal first century fair. It's a pity that this verse and those surrounding it are seen today as restrictive when in their infancy these verses were quite liberating. Men were only those permitted to learn in the Synagogues. This passage is another of many that elevated women into the equivalence of brotherhood.
It is especially notable that immediately after releasing (loosing) women - the apostle also binds or restricts. To put it another way, Paul releases women from the irresponsible bondage which men have put them under into the proper boundaries of God's freedom. Boundaries which will be explained in the following verse. It is good for women to be free and equal members in the body because they have free and equal access to Christ (Gal 3:28). But this freedom of Spiritual Equality does not negate the roles that God ordains, nor does it negate God's decrees, which are more binding than those of men.
So you have a sudden release from ungodly cultural shackles into the newly boundaried freedom of learning. Not only, ladies are you told to learn but there is manner in which you are supposed to learn. Paul uses two terms to describe it, first is quietness.
in quietness (ἡσυχίᾳ (esuxia)). Quietness here does not mean mere silence as in making no noise. It is an extension of both "not meddling" and of "being at peace." You might say, it is "lacking an attitude of rebellion." It's a word used in the Greek version of the Old Testament three times. (1 Chr. 4:40; 1 Ma. 9:58; Prov. 7:9; Ezek. 38:11) Each time it refers to a lack of uproar. It speaks of people who are living in peace because they are not at war. In proverbs it speaks of the silence of nighttime when there is no one and no thing disturbing the peace.
Think about "The night before Christmas": "Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse... the children were nestled all snug in their beds While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads; And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap Had just settled down for a long winter's nap..."3
What Clement Clark Moore is describing is this kind of Quietness - that kind of "ahhhh, peace and quiet!". Have you ever awakened early in the morning and you kind of walk outside and watch the sun beginning to rise, the coffee in your hands is warm and the birds are starting to sing, and all over the world, there's this "holy hush" and you just know in your heart of hearts you shouldn't break that peace? Ladies, that is this quietness you are called to.
This is not a command to "shut up". It is a visible model of submissive, graceful, reserved behaviour - which may often reveal itself in silence. This reserved demeanor has already been alluded to in the manner of dress of v9. Just as appropriate clothing is an outgrowth of the right stuff in the heart, a peaceful spirit of quietness is the outward manifestation of what's going on in the heart. This is a lack of rebellion and fighting against God, and against His word as it is taught.
There is a second manner or attitude by which women must learn and that is submissively.
in all Submission (πάση ὑποταγῇ (hupotage)) caries the idea of willful obedience to the orders you receive from someone in authority. The inclusion of "all" indicates that this is a complete submission offered willingly to every extent.
It is necessary in our current cultural morass to reiterate that scriptural submission is not one lesser being pawing before a greater being. Biblical submission is almost exclusively presented as one who is equal willingly subscribing to the authority granted to another equal being. Thus God the Father is Head of Christ the Son. (1 Cor 11:3). The Son and the Father are equal in nature but the Son willingly submits to the Father. Headship Does Not Imply Superiority of Nature & Neither does Submission demand inferiority of Nature.
Even as this verse demands that women learn in the church - it also presents an attitudinal and behavioral role for that learning to take place in: "quietly...with entire submissiveness".4
But what about the applicable concepts?
The verse doesn't leave much to the imagination. There is an attitude (submissively) and an action (quietly/tranquilly) which describes the mandate for women to learn. It is to that mandate I want to call each of you women who claim to love God.
Come and sit at the feet of the master, learn from Him. Make it your purpose to become Scholars of Christ. In all submission and with a quiet spirit, learn from Him.
God has called you, ladies, to be learners in His kingdom. A godly woman can do nothing less.
1A similar prayer is recorded by Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Rev. Ed. of: Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary.; Includes Index. (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995).
3Moore, Clement Clark. The Night Before Christmas
4(NASB)
In the context of just having released women to learn it was only natural that after a time of learning some of these women would become quite competent to teach. When they did, the question would naturally arise? If God wants his daughters to learn, doesn't that mean they should also be teachers? The answer to that question is a resounding yes as long as they teach within the boundaries that God has created for them. Titus 2:3-4 instructs us that The older or more mature women are required to teach the younger women. Here in 1 Timothy, however, Paul gives us another guideline. A woman must never be the authoritative teacher of a man.
What I have just said goes hard against the grain of our culture. But I was not the first to say it. It is a principle stated by Paul which has as it's root the order of creation. Sadly it is one more example of why Satan has decided to attack Genesis. If we lose Genesis we lose the authority upon which Jesus and Paul and almost every other New testament author taught. This doctrine in particular is so unpopular today that it is outright ignored in a growing number of churches and denominations. “Surely,†they reason, “God could not have meant what he said!†It is, however, characteristic of the sin nature to reject what God offers and to demand something different.
If you haven't already done so, return in your Bibles to 1 Timothy 2:12-15 and read that together with me.
Now you remember the context. Paul has just stated that women are required to learn. God wants his daughters in Christ to become – as it were – Bible scholars together with the men. That common growth is the point of Ephesians 4:11-12 God gave different teachers and authorities to the church so that the church as a whole would attain maturity in the knowledge of the faith so that we're not tossed about with the lies of the world like little toy ships on the ocean waves.
If God's daughters are required to learn with the men, is there a time when it becomes appropriate for those women to teach men? Look at what Paul says, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.â€
Let's start with the question of Paul's authority. Notice that Paul says, “I do not permit...â€
Right out of the gate the egalitarian interpreters are shouting that this is Paul's concept of women in the church not God's. Therefore , they argue, we can ignore these verses as irrelevant outside of first century Ephesus because they are only Paul's personal opinion.
Is that true? What is significant about Paul's assertion that "I" do not permit as opposed to him saying, "God does not permit� Ultimately we must realize that if Paul is indeed speaking for God, which – as an author of scripture he is, then whatever Paul writes here is binding as though he did say, "God does not permit..." Yet the fact remains that he says, "I". What effect then does the pronoun have on the interpretation of this verse? None whatsoever.
Remembering that Paul writes as the official Apostle to the Gentiles and that Timothy is part Gentile, while the Ephesian church is most likely almost completely gentile, the directive takes on an authoritative content because of the messenger.
Moreover, Paul does not base his teaching in this passage on personal1 opinion2 but rather upon the created order before the fall and the culpability incurred as part the fall. The parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34 links the prohibition directly to the Law, presumably the very same passage to which he refers here. Paul's “opinion†- if we must use that word - is fashioned by the words of God recorded for us in the first chapters of Genesis. Therefore when Paul says I do not permit, it is not a mere personal opinion which we can reject as being distinct from God's it is rather a doctrine which he practices in response to God's word; and which is therefore binding on all Christians.
Paul wasn't speaking this into a vacuum either. When he says, “I do not permit†it becomes evident that he is not allowing someone to do what they want to do.3 Thus there were apparently women in Ephesus trying to get into teaching positions where they would be teaching men. And it's not just that they would be teaching but WHO they would be teaching that is at issue here. In fact there are two issues: Teaching and Authority.
Teaching means more than leading by example it means authoritatively proclaiming God's word. Teaching men is out. That distinction is important because women were indeed permitted (even commanded) to teach in certain circumstances. There are a few other passages that warrant some discussion.
In Acts 18:26, Priscilla together with her husband Aquila took Apollos aside (Presumably to their home) in order to explain to him the way of God more accurately. This passage is widely argued as a contradiction to the complementarian interpretation of this passage. However there are unique circumstances in the acts passage which negate those arguments. It was a private session - a unique circumstance and we may be fairly certain that in keeping with the rest of scripture any instruction which Priscilla provided in that session would have been under the authority of her husband; moreover there is no certain way to state that she did or did not actively teach Apollos on that occasion. Since husband and wife were both there, it is most likely that proper gender roles were upheld in the Acts text.
In Titus 2:3-4 the older women are commanded to teach the younger women. It is reflected as a good thing that women (his mother and grandmother) taught Timothy when he was a child (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). Thus women are indeed permitted to teach doctrine, but not to teach doctrine to men. The very fact that women are commanded and permitted to teach under appropriate circumstances is a death blow to the tired argument that women are somehow more susceptible to being lead astray than men.
The teaching and authority issues have nothing to do with gullibility but rather proper understanding of gender roles within God's created order.
The Second issue is that of authority
The meaning of the word translated as “authority†here is perhaps one of the most important discussions for this particular verse. What does it mean to "exercise authority" over a man? At face value it's meaning seems obvious and after lots and lots of study it still is: Any position which would place a woman in a position of authority over men in the church is contrary to God's purpose in creation which we will discuss next week. Paul doesn't let any woman teach a man or exercise authority over a man. By faithfulness to God's word, we shouldn't either.
Given the framework of Paul's argument and the rest of scripture, I think we can readily say that no woman should teach in the general assembly from this pulpit, nor in the adult Sunday school classes which meet here or in the fellowship hall because in each of those three situations there are men here who would be sitting under her authority. But if we were to form a women's bible study – the more mature women should be teaching, indeed must be teaching the younger women. In the children and youth Sunday school classes we fall in line with Timothy's example and there is no problem when a woman teaches children.
But in the general assembly where in Paul's day various Christians would rise to deliver a short instruction,4 she is to remain quiet in terms of that instruction.
This is the same word I talked about last week, Quiet means she possesses an attitude of peacefulness.
This is basically a reiteration of the prior statement from a new direction. A woman must learn the scriptures; and she must do so quietly which most certainly means she is not teaching the men in the church.
The application at this point begins to be quite clear. No woman should be permitted to preach authoritatively from the pulpit or in the Sunday school room where men are present and sitting under her tutelage. To do so is a violation of God's created order and design. The mandates elsewhere to teach the other women provides a more than ample outlet for women with the skills and gifts and the calling to teach an opportunity to exercise her God given gifts in a God honoring way.
It’s Time For The Men To Be Men And Take The Role Which God Has Given Them Seriously.
Lead your Family towards Christ, Lead the Church by following Christ.
That is the ministry which we are all called to.
Should a Christian woman seek the presidency, or a congressional seat? Or to make it more common, should a Christian woman seek management positions when she will obviously have authority over men in that role?
In the reverse: What does this indicate for having a female boss, congresswoman or president?
What about women as worship leaders?
What about the argument that women pastors have been called to pastor?
What about the argument that in some denominations the woman pastor is under the authority of her male bishop?
What about the argument “If men won't take charge the women must�
What about women at home ruling over their Marvin Milquetoast husbands?
1For further discussion regarding the meaning of "I" confer WBC volume 46 on the verse. William D. Mounce, vol. 46, Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 121.
2George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 140.)
3MacArthur, John. 1 Timothy. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995. p86
4George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 141.
Please turn in your Bibles this morning to 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and if you would, please stand and read along as I read aloud from God's word. <Read 1 Tim 2:8-15>.
What do you do when you are confronted with a finding in scripture that either goes against what you've always believed or at least contradicts what you would like to believe? There are really only two choices. Understand it, accept it and conform to it or reject it and go on doing whatever you want.
There is no doubt that our current topic in first Timothy for the last few weeks has been a culturally unpopular one. It is interesting to note, as I did last Sunday night, that it most certainly is not the most important doctrine in scripture; but as Christians we don't have the liberty of merely tossing out segments of scripture we have problems with. We must wrestle with the text in order to discern both its meaning at the time it was written and after determining the timeless principles make appropriate application to our lives today.
If having done so, we surrender joyfully to it's instruction as obedient children of our heavenly Father, we will find - in that moment of obedience - peace and joy. But resisting against what we know to be truth will invariably lead to the Lord's loving discipline, for he does discipline those he loves. The path to freedom is the narrow gate of God's word, the path to bondage is the wide road of our self centered opinions and preferences.
If we remember the context of the letter from 1 Timothy 3:15 we discover that this letter written to Timothy in Ephesus as an instruction manual concerning how we should "do church" or Church 101. We don't have a problem with prayer or teaching; and we can acknowledge them right away. But suddenly we come up against this smallish doctrine concerning the role of women in the church and we are tempted draw back because the world's pattern of thought is different.
If we have a hard time with Paul's conclusion it is not because the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 is ambiguous, it isn't. The text is rendered correctly in most modern English versions of the Bible. God wants his daughters to learn; requires mature women to teach the younger women (Titus 2) but prohibits a woman from taking the pulpit and authoritatively teaching or holding authority over men.
I came across one person who disagreed with the conclusion but was honest enough to agree with the meaning of the text. German Scholar Judith Hartenstein confesses that "the text demands a hierarchy between men and women..." She goes on to say however that she has, "...a different, far more critical view of the Bible, I need not accept it as God's word. (It helps that I do not regard 1 Timothy as written by Paul.)"1
If we accept God's word as authoritative then we have to acknowledge there is a difference between men and women, but it is not a difference of inequality but rather a difference of design and intent. This brings us back to the question concerning verse 12. Why does God declare through Paul that a woman shouldn't hold authority over a man, nor teach him with the authoritative proclamation of God's word? That is precisely the question answered in verses 13-15.
As God allows we'll deal with each verse in turn and then hopefully fuse them all back together. For the moment, please look at the thirteenth verse which presents the first explanation for this teaching.
I can fairly well assure you that the first century Christians were probably taken back by Paul's statement as well as any twenty-first century American. But that was due to what he permitted: learning rather than what he did not permit: teaching or having authority over men.
Now that most modern Christians have learned the first lesson: women must learn the scriptures2; we have need to learn again the second lesson: the restriction on teaching and holding authority over men. But it's a hard one to take because like many doctrines it goes against the grain of American culture.
To comprehend why Paul isn't merely a chauvinistic wet blanket we need to know the theological rather than cultural reasons for his saying so. It starts as an issue of Chronology.
Typically the arguments for the egalitarian interpreters will either seek to discredit the pastoral letters as non-Pauline or failing that they'll agree that Paul wrote it, but it's not the word of God3. Else, they will seek to typify Paul's restriction as being a reflection of the culture.
However, as if in answer to the claim that the Apostle is being moved by his own cultural bias, Paul bases his restriction on the Chronological order of creation. Contrary to the opinion of some4, Paul does not write based on some fabricated idea that women are dumber than men, or that they can't handle the position because of it's stress. Any wife or mother can testify to the high stress levels of those jobs. The restriction has nothing to do with capacity but has everything to do with chronology. There are three specific elements regarding the Chronology of Creation which help us to understand this explanation: Design, Purpose and Headship.
God had created Adam as the head of earth's creation. Eve was created to be Adam's helper. (Note: "helper" not "servant". She was created to serve with him not under him.) Early on God decreed that it wasn't good that man was alone and then God said, "I will make him a helper suitable for him..." (Genesis 2:18). Yet immediately God begins parading all the animals in front of Adam as if to demonstrate to Adam that he was missing something. The conclusion isn't missed when the text concludes: "but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him." (Genesis 2:20). That is why God created Eve - to fill in the blank spot.
Ladies you are custom designed by God to bring wholeness to your husband. And every married man in here who dares to be honest would readily admit that life as he knows it would be impossible without you. Men and women are different by design, and that is good.
Understanding how The Chronology of Creation explains the restriction means recognizing the issue of design. "...man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." (1 Corinthians 11:9) God created Eve because Adam was incomplete without her. Moreover men and women were created with a purpose.
Together they were instructed to fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:28)
Going back to the sixth day of creation we see that Adam was formed first, then Eve. It's significant to note that the early text of Genesis could be understood to indicate that every creature on the planet was created in quantity. It appears that multiple birds, fish, reptiles and bugs were created apparently in mass quantities and with a mixture of male and female among them. Apparently they were created simultaneously. Whatever the case, it is certainly pointed out to us that God created Adam first. That is not because Adam was more worthy of being created: he started out as a mud pie for goodness sakes!
Paul explains the purpose of the creation order in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Adam was created in God's image so that he would reflect the glory of God. The woman is created from the man's side - in order to reflect the man's glory which is itself the reflection of the glory of God.
It's the purpose of God's glory being passed on which infuses the second layer of meaning in the Chronology of Creation. It is not just mere chronology in view, but that which chronology implies.
And finally Chronology implies leadership or what the Bible calls "Headship5."
Throughout the Old Testament the status of "firstborn" is continually lifted up as the rightful heir of leadership and authority. In the context of Creation Adam is the firstborn and Eve the second. Thus in Paul's mind the rights of the firstborn which are chronologically imparted are due to Adam not to Eve. As the many instances in which God reversed the pattern (e.g. Jacob and Esau - / Ephraim and Manasseh - ) indicate the right to lead is not a moral issue of good and evil. Thus again, the fact that men are to exercise godly headship and women are to exercise godly submission is completely removed from issues of superiority and inferiority as well as being separated from issues of women somehow being more sinful than men. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In this we see God's perfect design for why men are to lead the church Specifically why Paul wouldn't permit a woman to hold authority over a man and it has nothing to do with superiority. But has everything to do with the reflection of God's character and nature which is seen in his design revealing itself to the world through the church.
When God designed Men and women he designed each of us differently with different purposes. He desires that we live within that purpose. Most importantly he desires that his church reflect the beauty of his design to the watching world.
As we choose to live in accordance with God's design we will live with peace and joy; and by living in obedience to God's word we are released from bondage to the self centered whims of shifting opinion and preferences into the wide open spaces of God's freedom.
1Cref: Köstenberger's response to Judith Hartenstein's review (p3.) of Köstenberger, Andreas J., Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 38). New York: Lang, 2001. Pp. xiii + 378. Hardcover. ISBN 0820452750.
2The Focus is upon the manner of "quietly" and yet to expand on this here would be to start another unnecessary rabit trail.
3As Judith Hartenstein review (p3.) of Köstenberger, Andreas J., Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 38). New York: Lang, 2001. Pp. xiii + 378. Hardcover. ISBN 0820452750.
4The list is too long and disheartening. But many otherwise trustworthy commentators, due perhaps to a lack of scholarship or because of their own bias have resorted to some brand of the argument that "women can't handle hard decisions because they're too emotional" or some other such blather. How I wish I could get them to recant. The same could be said of all men, that they cannot make hard decisions because they're minds and hearts are corrupted from the fall. I must simply reiterate what has been said, women are not stupid - that is neither my argument nor Paul's.
5Compare Knight's comment on primogeniture: George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 143.
Whose fault is it that we are all under sin? The Bible says, in Romans 5 that it is Adam's fault. Oh sure, Eve listened to the snake and was deceived into eating the fruit - but it wasn't until Adam bit the fruit that the eyes of them both were opened. God cursed the Snake because the Snake Sinned (Apparently by agreeing to embody Satan?) God cursed Eve with increased pain in childbirth as well as her relationship with her husband suffering for her own sin; but when God cursed Adam - the head of creation, God cursed the earth itself and then he cursed the work of men, and finally he cursed the life of men with death.
Just exactly who is at fault when it comes down to inherited sin in the human race? Is it Satan - the Snake's fault? No. Is it Eve's fault? Not according to the Bible. Is it Adam's fault? Yes it is. Satan may have sinned first followed shortly thereafter by Eve but it was Adam's sin that caused the condemnation of the race of man. When it comes down to the question of authority in the church; the power to condemn proves that Adam and not Eve has headship.
Please return to 1 Timothy 2:8-15 this morning and prepare again to read verses 8-15. <Read it>
The fourteenth verse runs in parallel to the thirteenth, offering a second reason for Paul's doctrine concerning women teaching men with authority. It is intended to be the second part to an all inclusive argument based on scripture. And I find it intriguing that Paul answers the questions and objections which we can still hear today.
Someone might say, "Well Paul is just saying this because of the Fall. If not for the Fall we wouldn't have this distinction - and since Galatians 3:28 says that in Christ there's no difference between male and female that must mean that Salvation by faith makes it possible for women to hold authority over a man." The answer, however, to that argument is twofold. First I would point out that Galatians 3:28 is a passage concerning salvation by faith no matter what your gender or nationality; it has nothing to do with Church polity or structure. Second I would return to verse thirteen where Paul demonstrates that God has established headship before the fall ever happened. Therefore this is part of God's original plan.
The second objection is the reverse and it goes something like this, "Well Paul is describing God's ideal but we live in a broken world among broken people. If the men won't do the job than the women are going to have to, I mean after all we can't push the ideals of perfection onto a broken environment which is scarred by sin." With that we turn to the fourteenth verse where Paul demonstrates headship not only during the fall but after it as well.
1 Timothy 2:14 "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."
The first doctrine we notice here is that Adam was guilty not by deception but by choice.
it was not Adam who was deceived, Αδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη,
The Bible never once indicates that Adam was deceived when he ate that fruit. And if he wasn't deceived than we have a thornier problem on our hands because the Genesis account does reveal some bothersome details. The first of which is that Adam was apparently with Eve. Apparently all through the temptation he stood there yet remained markedly silent. Why he did this is completely unknown.
It is possible that Adam was not with here in the sense of immediate proximity but was rather with her as her life partner; so that she went and found Adam and gave him the fruit. Either way we do have a clear picture of Eve being deceived and eating the forbidden fruit and then (either immediately or after a search) giving the fruit to Adam who also ate.
The question comes down to "why did Adam Eat when he himself had heard God tell him not to?" Hunger aside the only viable answer to the question as far as I can determine is that he understood clearly that he was violating God's decree and for whatever reason he chose to break that decree and ate the fruit without being deceived. In other words he sinned with his eyes wide open.
I've heard a lot of junk piled on women as if they were the trouble makers of the earth. But don't miss the fact that the sin of Adam is the greater sin.
We may never know why Adam ate that fruit. Maybe it was because he now knew that Eve was going to die and he reasoned that dying with her was not as bad as living without her - kind of a Romeo and Juliet ending.
Whatever the ultimate reason, the guilt of the human race is repeatedly traced to Adam, never to Eve. And please note that it wasn't until Adam ate the forbidden fruit that "The eyes of both of them were opened" and they saw that they were naked and became ashamed because of it. Original sin, or inherited sin if you will - comes from Adam not from Eve. Sin is passed on through the Father. That's why Jesus could be born of the virgin Mary. She was sinful yes, but the sin nature (or lack of it in Jesus' case) comes from dad. Further we note that the Holy Spirit Overshadowed Mary so that the child born of her could be holy even though Jesus shared her genetic material.
Adam sinned on purpose, but Eve was simply deceived.
To be deceived means to believe something that is not true, that's what happend to Eve. The word describing Eve's deception includes a prefix which heightens the meaning from "deceived" to that of "completely deceived". So where Adam did not believe the lie, Eve did. She swallowed the hook, the line, the sinker and the whole fishing pole!
Paul isn't implying that Eve's failure was somehow passed on to all women in the form of mental weakness or gullibility. Paul's point is that Eve, as the forerunner of all women failed by being deceived, Adam did not.
Why that matters is discovered by looking at the results of the events of the fall. In the fall of Adam and Eve there was a death penalty. God's promise was that "Dying you shall die", in other words "you're going to start dying the day you eat this stuff and eventually 100% of death will happen." While the physical death was delayed for several hundred years the spiritual death was immediate. But please notice that it was not immediate upon Eve's eating; they both had to wait until Adam ate from the fruit before the eyes of them both were opened. Why is that?
It's because God gave headship to Adam. Adam's headship lead to the corruption of the entire Human Race resulting in universal guilt. Eve's sin merely made her guilty - but it only made her guilty and no one else.
In the end of the verse it simply says that she "Fell into transgression" But the form of the verb means that she not only became disobedient, she remained there. And yet, I repeat again that the effect of universal sin didn't happen until Adam sinned.
In Romans 5, Paul demonstrates the federal headship of Adam in that his sin is applied to all of the human race. But Eve is mentioned here as a representative of all women.
She was created second and she was deceived and fell into sin. Far from being a statement of gullibility which Eve supposedly passed on to all women this is a statement which again plays on Chronology.
This shows the delineation of authority before the fall in the creation chronology of v13; and now at the fall in the deception of Eve we discover that she had headship only over herself in her sin. If she, as a representative of all women, could not exercise headship over Adam - the representative of all men - at the Fall, why should women then attempt to exercise headship over men today when both creation order as well as the effect of sin demonstrates that God has not given headship to the woman?
When Adam fell (by choice) he took the rest of creation with him. Again it is not an indictment of Eve's supposed gullibility but rather a demonstration of Adam's headship culpability. That is Paul's point.
The fact that Eve could only bring guilt upon herself indicates that God had not given her headship. Therefore a woman should not teach or hold authority over man because it assumes a headship which neither the chronology of creation before sin nor even the results of sin itself can justify.
Gentlemen, headship places the burden of leadership on your shoulders. But your leadership must be a godly leadership. Remember Adam, who's one sin condemned the entire human race to death. And now, remember Jesus: crucified, buried and risen again so that not only the sin of Adam but also our individual sins have been paid for. 2 Timothy 2:8 "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead..."
Each of us, men and women, and children must know Christ as our Lord and savior. When Adam sinned we all became guilty because we all sinned in Adam. But when Jesus came and died and rose again we gain the chance for new life. If we acknowledge him to be our new head, than we gain the life of Christ.
It is a little unfair to leave 1 Timothy 2:15 hanging out on its own for so long especially since it is part of the context and understanding its meaning requires linking it to the prior couple of verses regarding Eve as well as verse 12 itself.
I very rarely approach a passage without having some idea to start with of it's meaning and potential application. Of course many times during my study I discover truths which mandate a change in my starting position sometimes a complete change is needed as the word shapes me.
But I entered this text with a great deal of uncertainty; and it was quite disconcerting. At least I knew what it could not mean. Based upon the rest of scripture I can assure you that it does not
mean "have a baby...get to heaven!" but trying to plug this little verse into it's context and then into life was a challenge. But as with every other section of the Bible, Context is King if you want to know what it means. That principle is one reason why I am starting to work on memorizing larger portions of Scripture.
I use the word “context” a lot but I realize it's possible that it's meaning has been forgotten or missed along the way, so let me give you a quick definition again. It comes in part from a French word meaning “woven together”. Context is basically all the information that is woven like a tapestry together with the text you're looking at. That means we include the surrounding text of the book, and then the larger circle of the authors books, and then the Entire New Testament and Old Testament all the while keeping in mind the historical setting, the intended recipients and so forth.
If you study the context of the rest of scripture, not to mention the pastoral letters and first Timothy in specific you'll soon discover that it is the second half of the verse that helps explain the first. The immediate context identifies who “she is” and directs us toward understanding the meaning of this verse to the Ephesians and also helps to provide an adequate application to ourselves.
Keep in mind that this verse is set in immediate contrast to the prior statement regarding Eve while also looking back to the earlier statement that a woman not teach or hold authority over a man. But, at least in my mind, Paul takes a turn that I wouldn't have anticipated. He says “She will be saved...”.
It's a curious move to me because I want to ask the question, “Who is 'she' And what is she going to be saved from, and finally how is she going to be saved whatever that might mean?
The answer to all three questions is tied together. So let's take a look at the verse phrase by phrase. He starts out with “ She will be saved ”.
Since the immediate context is Eve in the prior verse, “She” must be a reference to Eve. However the last part of the verse moves into the plural with “They”. It's an interesting change which helps us to understand that Eve as an individual is being used as an example which is representative of all women.
Thus in v15 "she” who “will be saved" is both Eve and simultaneously is "any woman". There are two conditions however upon which salvation is somehow contingent.
Of course we still need to determine what kind of salvation is meant in this verse.
There are two ways to define salvation in this passage.
The first option is that salvation is a reference to some kind of temporary salvation in this life from some kind of trouble; I'll just call that temporary or "Temporal Salvation”. The second option is that being saved means being saved from sin; which I'll just call "Eternal Salvation".
There are a number of ways to understand 1 Timothy 2:15 depending on whether the salvation indicated is temporal or eternal. Most of them depend on how you understand the next phrase, “ through the childbearing ”.
The Means Of Their Salvation
Most translations 1 leave out 2
the word “the” and just translate the equivalent of “through childbearing”; and yet the article matters because a proper interpretation of the text turns on it. But I believe Paul intended the meaning of the phrase to be specific which is why he used the word “The” here. He wasn't talking about any childbirth or childbirth in general as if having a baby were somehow salvific. And certainly, Paul is more than aware that many women cannot have children either because they are unmarried or because they or their husbands are medically incapable.. It is sad to say but the ignorant interpretation of this verse which is occasionally caused by the absence of the article in translation has occasionally lead to unnecessary heartache for women who have struggled with infertility.
Yet I contend that The article “the” belongs in that phrase, “ Through the childbearing
”. With the article there it becomes clear that one single act of childbearing is in view. The text itself is already tied by the previous verse to Genesis 3 which provides the first prophecy of the birth of a savior, (Genesis 3:15). The article in this verse points towards the particular birth of Jesus to Mary.
Remember the chapter context involves Gods desire to save people. It's the purpose of prayer and of teaching. And it is only natural that the instance of childbirth mentioned point to the same purpose.
Eve, Paul is saying, will be saved because of the birth of Jesus. But he doesn't leave it with Eve alone he brings the focus to all women being saved through the birth of Jesus and he expands on
The Method of Their Salvation.
They need to abide
in faith and love and holiness with modesty.
The verb "abide" means to stay in it. There is nothing new in that requirement. Saving faith is not a transient faith, it is a lasting faith. Many times we read such things as “only he who endures to the end shall be saved...” (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mk. 13:13).
Continuing in faith to the very end or "The perseverance of the saints" is all over scripture. True believers don't come and go, they come and stay in the faith. There is no such thing as, “saved on Monday, not saved on Tuesday and saved again on Thursday.” If you are a believer you will not be perfect in this life on your own. Your perfection is in Christ, Stay in Him, trust Jesus and not your own self for salvation. The ups may be very up and the downs may even be very down but when all is said and done you will continue in faith or you were never in it in the first place.
Faith is always the necessary ingredient for salvation, while Love , holiness and modesty are natural outflows from a faith that works. (Compare James 2:17, 26 ).
The last word of the text, “modesty,” is also in verse 11 thus
verbally tying the text together around the idea of behavior which is identified by self-control.
But make no mistake this is a passage about salvation. God wants the men to pray because he wants people saved. He wants the women to dress modestly because he wants people saved; even the leadership of the church ties in to the mission of the church: bringing the message of salvation to the lost.
The fact that men are also saved by faith is not contradicted by this passage. The emphasis is currently on women and their role in the church. Moreover with this interpretation the verse provides a repetition to the startling (to the first century church) view that there is no difference between men and women in terms of salvation (Galatians 3:28).
Satisfaction, joy and obedience for both men and women comes from doing what we were created to do. It is, "...the devil's lie that the only role of significance is that of leadership. 3 The failure created by the church as a whole in allowing, and enabling women to be pastors and leaders over men is the failure of men to accept their God-given responsibility to lead with godliness. Therefore in the next chapter, Paul will deal with the male leadership of the church from qualifications to implementation.
But even as Paul brings assurance that God has made a way of salvation available through the Birth of Jesus Christ; he reminds us that personal faith is necessary for salvation.
So let me simply ask you about your faith this morning.
The Bible is abundantly clear; without perfection no-one will see God. But there is a problem because every one of us have broken God's laws and thus proved ourselves imperfect. But God sent his Son to be born to Mary while she was still a virgin. God's Son is Jesus Christ who died on a cross in order to pay the price for your sin. He was buried in a borrowed tomb and rose again to life on the third day.
And now the choice is for each one of you. Will you reject your sin and embrace salvation by believing in Jesus Christ? He is calling you. He died for you. Are you willing to give your life to Him?
I invite you today to come and surrender your life to Jesus from this moment now until forever. I will be right here, waiting to answer your questions, to guide you, and to pray with you. Come, now is the time to give your life to Jesus.
1 ESV, HCSB, NET, NLT, ASV, BBE, CJB, Darby, Douay-Rheims, NIV, GENEVA, KJV, NAB, NJB, NKJV, NRS, RSV, WEBSTER REVISED
2
The fact that the article is not translated in every case is not in the least shocking or problematic because Greek and English are two very distinct languages. Translation is seldom an issue of just exchanging one word for another in a new language. Complex rules of syntax, grammar and countless variables must be considered in translating every word, phrase, thought and so forth. The shear volume of English translations is an indicator of the difficulty of creating the “perfect translation”.
3 MacArthur, John. 1 Timothy. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995. p87.