 |  |
Paul now passes on to deal with the attitude of men in prayer and the delicate subject
of women's actions and attire in the assembly and outside it, for there is nothing in the
passage to restrict it to the gatherings of believers for prayer, worship and proclamation
of the truth. Katastole, translated apparel, can mean demeanour as well as clothing. The
Apostle's injunctions here are addressed to believers whom the pagan world were
watching closely. Those who wished to adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all
things would reflect this in simplicity of dress and modesty of behaviour in direct contrast
to the ostentation that many Asiatic women assumed with their finery, showy jewelry,
etc.
"I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I
also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair, or
gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who
profess to worship God" (2: 8, 9, 10, N.I.V.).
Dress is a reflection of personality and a woman's dress is a mirror of her mind.
Outward ostentation is not in keeping with a devout approach to God. The old English
shamefacedness and sobriety can be rendered `modestly and self-control', or as the
N.I.V. has rendered it above. These words do not indicate mere seriousness of face and
expression, but seriousness of purpose as opposed to frivolity and outward display. Paul
is not denying all adornment for women, but if a woman's greatest asset is a devout and
godly life, then her exterior will harmonize with this in contrast to the gaudy dress which
so many Eastern women assumed. In addition to this there was a danger of newly
emancipated Christian women abusing their new-found freedom by lording it over men
and indulging in empty chatter during the worship of the assembly.
The Apostle enjoins silence on women in public worship reminding them of the
God-given status of men and women. This he had already done to the Corinthian church
(I Cor. 11: 3; 14: 34, 35). If disrepute was not to be brought on the whole community,
as had evidently happened at Corinth, the subject needed to be dealt with firmly and
tactfully. A woman should discuss her problems at home, not in the public assembly.
Nor should she teach a mixed congregation including men, for this contradicted God's
order to which we have just alluded. Let us not forget that Paul is dealing with public
teaching. There was no injunction against women teaching women or children in the
home.
In these days when the equality of the sexes is so much stressed, such injunctions are
not likely to be popular but are to be explained, one finds so often, by the assertion that
Paul was a woman hater. Nothing could be further from the truth for he gladly
acknowledges his indebtedness to women helpers among his fellow-labourers, such as
Priscilla (Rom. 16: 3-5) and Euodias and Synteche (Phil. 4: 2, 3). Paul could hardly
write the words `I lie not', and then a little further promulgate his own ideas and make
them binding on the church. Much is being made today of women's public ministry as
teachers, but the fact remains that this is not in accordance with God's will, whether we
understand the reason for it or not.