I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.
There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)
There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.
I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.
“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:
1. Intelligence
2. Wisdom
3. Love
4. Concern
5. Rational
6. Persuasiveness
While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.
The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.
Pop quiz: What did she do next?
a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.
b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.
c. Woke me up and had me go out there.
Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.
Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:
Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.
The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.
The best illustration in the real world that I could use to help you understand what I am saying is that of a military commander in charge of leading troops into battle. Of course there might be an exception here and there, but do a study and you will find that no matter what the time or culture, men are always leading here. Why? Because men are simply better equipped and more followed. There are certian areas where men and women have a unique stature. I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same. Not only are they better equipped for the issues that will arise, but they are followed more readily.
Let me give you another example: Two years ago, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.
I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.
My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.
Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.
Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).
The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important. It is because of this, I believe, Paul said that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men.
See follow-up posts here and here.
Comments are open again. Be safe. Read the rules.
1,432 replies to "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors"
Well, while I don’t buy that it was referring mainly to overseers, I do see that Timothy was staying in Ephesus to direct some folks to not bring false teachings. Most scholars agree with that as well.
” I also have never heard the interpretation he gives us of Paul’s statement, “This is a faithful saying.” I have never read any translations before that renders that as, “Jesus the Logos is faithful.”
He writes it like thus….. “Faithful is the Word” (Jesus the Logos)”. Jesus IS The Word. John 1:1. It is possible that Paul was using one of those Hebrew poetic comparisons they are famous for. I wouldn’t say that was so far off. But his main point IMO in that section was the comparison between ‘faithful is the Word’ and the first character trait for overseers is faithfulness, which is missed when people try to view the idiom (one woman man) as a physical requirement instead of a character trait. That is one jewel, I recommend you read about starting on page 83. BTW there are other scholars and I think other translations who also see the statement ‘one woman man’ as a character trait. But I think they figured it out by logic and not from knowing about the information that Fleming listed.
I don’t know of one book in the whole of humanity that was perfect. I don’t know of a person, a church, or a denomination that has it all right and perfect. And if they did, likely us imperfect humans wouldn’t recognize it. So the fact that I don’t buy everything he says, does not dissuade me from looking from the good things in the book, of which there are quite a few if one is patient to read. It is for this reason that I don’t turn off my ears to good teachers just because I may disagree on one or more points. I read a lot of comps books as well. IMO the balance is found by hearing both views.
I agree with balance being found by hearing both views. However, when someone interprets something so totally differently then anything in the mainstream, I begin to question his interpretion in all areas. That is why I will find it hard to take him seriously.
Cherylu,
Here are some translations that recognize it’s about faithfulness in relationship. You can find them at any Bible translations website, such as Biblegateway.com
MSG ……If anyone wants to provide leadership in the church, good! But there are preconditions: A leader must be well-thought-of, committed to his wife, cool and collected, accessible, and hospitable.
NLT …… 1 This is a trustworthy saying: “If someone aspires to be an elder,[a] he desires an honorable position.” 2 So an elder must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife.
CEV….. 1It is true that [a] anyone who desires to be a church official [b] wants to be something worthwhile. 2That’s why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage.
NIRV …… 1 Here is a saying you can trust. If anyone wants to be a leader in the church, he wants to do a good work for God and people. 2 A leader must be free from blame. He must be faithful to his wife.
“However, when someone interprets something so totally differently then anything in the mainstream”
Even ‘the mainstreams” change on non-salvic issues. Look at how long we thought that slavery was acceptable in ‘the mainstreams’. It took a war for all of us (most of us) to let go of that belief. Look at how long we did Baptism’s by sprinkling, or infant baptism’s. How many other things have we as good Christian brethren fought over….. and ended up changing because we were wrong.
TL and Cheryl,
I thought you guys might be interested in this question here that I raised on Theologica. Some interesting discussion ensued. While I do not support the egalitarian position, I too believe that sometimes its just a matter of hermeneutics and not necessarily an intrusion of liberalism. Overall, I’m really asking the question of what is the greater good as we seek to honor God and his word.
Hmm, that’s strange the link isn’t working. Try this
http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/the-compegal-issue-how
TL,
All of those still say “faithful (or commited) to his wife” except one which says “faithful in marriage”.
That is still speaking to men–women can not be faithful to their wives can they?!?
And sure, Christians have changed their minds on things. However, when someone comes up with a totally new understanding of the purpose for a whole book in the Bible and therefore of the interpretation of some of it’s verses, is it not going to be very suspect? And is there not a great burden of proof upon that person to show that 2000 years or church history have been wrong and he is seeing it correctly for the first time??
Lisa,
Thanks for the link. I read it yesterday when you first put it up but haven’t gotten back there again today. Will have to check it out again if I have time. I am interested–time becomes the factor!
Let me ask you this Cherylu,
If you do not know the gender of people you are speaking to or about, do you say her or him? OK, let me answer. 🙂 the rules of grammar for I’m pretty sure all languages is to refer to the unknown in masculine terms. That’s all Paul is doing. This is confirmed by the fact that he is addressing anyone in Greek. If anyone (not men) desire the work of overseer….
check the link at Scriptures4all.org.
What he is NOT doing is saying men only by a back door. If he wanted to say men only, he would have clearly said it. If you read further down, he gives the same requirement of faithfulness to the women deacons.
There were some great points brought out in the Theologica discussion. I recommend taking the time to read the whole thread.
“However, when someone comes up with a totally new understanding”
Not sure why you say totally new. He only had a couple new points.
1. Fleming thinks the “some” in chapter one were overseers
2. Fleming sees the idiom of ‘one woman man’ being a character trait and not a physical requirement, that an overseer must be male or married or have children.
He thought the main purpose of the whole book was telling Timothy how to be correcting and restoring the “fallen” elders. That is why he interpreted everything else the way he did. At least the first two sections of it. The rest he said was personal instruction to Timothy himself. He also said that the 3 sins that Paul said he was guilty of were the same basic ones the elders were guilty of. Not sure how he came to that conclusion either. That is why I say he comes up with a totally different interpretation of the whole book.
well, I suspect you may be exaggerating just a tad bit. 🙂
“He thought the main purpose of the whole book was telling Timothy how to be correcting and restoring the” …… ones straying from ‘love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,’.
How’s that. 🙂 I bet if we wrote him and suggested the above might be a better general statement, he might even agree. I’ve chatted with him before. He and his wife are really nice people. He’s a pastor and has such a heart for God’s people. Some pastors are real gentle souls…. he is.
And just a thought…..
“That is why he interpreted everything else the way he did.”
That isn’t accurate. He didn’t build everything from that premise. He strongly believes in sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph and reading the book as a whole, as a proper method of exegesis, among other things. I suspect that idea just kind of unfolded to him. Even though I don’t see that point, it doesn’t stop me from seeing the excellent work he did with the rest of it.
“He also said that the 3 sins that Paul said he was guilty of were the same basic ones the elders were guilty of. Not sure how he came to that conclusion either. “
I think he saw that from where Paul calls himself a chief among sinners. 1 Tim. 1:12-17
Overall, I’m really asking the question of what is the greater good as we seek to honor God and his word.
Given the exegetical twists, I think it is better to fall back on the overall purpose of the gospel, freedom or the law.
TL,
Well, I guess it may be a slight exaggeration as he does state there are 3 keys that unlock I Timothy:
1. The Mission-reason for the letter.
2. The Logos–central place of Christ. (here he is referring to the three statements that are generally translated as “It is a faithful saying”, that he translates differently.)
3.The outline–Paul’s 3 sins (Remember he relates them directly to the sins of the overseers so it is still connected to the overriding purpose he gives.)
I can’t give you page numbers because Kindle editions don’t have page numbers.
But let me quote from what he says about “The Mission”. This is from chapter 2.
“Key #1: The Mission–reason for the letter.
Paul writes this letter to remind Timothy of his mission, or task, and give him written directions for fullfilling it. His mission is to correct wayward overseers in the church at Ephesus. I Timothy is written with this overriding mission in mind. Verse after verse has to do with wayward overseers. It is not a letter of general principles that seem to write down for postereity.
Timothy’s mission, or task, is to correct overseers in the church who have gone astray.
Timothy is tasked to give these wayward overseers two directions, something not to do and something to do:
–They must not teach false doctrine (1:3, overseers were teachers 3:2)
–They must practice love, maintain a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith without hypocrisy (1:5, 19)”
From the “Thinking Again” series by Fleming. Chapter 2. Kindle Edition
He states that the overriding purpose of the book is dealing with overseers and he gets that from Paul’s statement right at the start of the book. Now if he didn’t believe that already, I can see no other reason why he would think that the verses in 2:8 and following were overseers, can you? Or for that matter why he would relate it all to overseers–except the last section that he says is personal encouragement to…
Doe Paul anywhere else in his writings refer to Christ as the logos? I.e., on what basis is pistos ho logos a reference to Christ? What evidence do we have that “The Word (i.e., Christ) is faithful” was an early Christian catch phrase? In fact, does anyone but “John” (so-called) refer to Christ as the logos in his NT writings?
EricW,
Fleming also explains that phrase, “the Word (Christ) is faithful” in verse one of chapter three is used to show that Jesus is faithful and if any of these injurious (his term) elders desire to return to their position of leadership, He is able to bring it about. This whole discussion from 2:8 on is telling these injurious elders what to do to be restored in Fleming’s understanding of things.
Like I said, his whole take on the first two sections, as he calls them of I Timothy, is the emphasis of dealing with and restoring fallen elders. Almost all of it is related to that in some way. How he comes to some of the conclusions that he does, I don’t understand at all. It seems to me that many of them are really a stretch to say the least.
I read some of this book last night, and the more I read the more I am convinced that his interpretation is highly questionable.
cherylu:
I haven’t read them, but I question his interpretation that “pistos ho logos” for Paul means “Christ/the Logos is faithful/trustworthy,” if that is indeed what Fleming says, until evidence can be shown that Paul elsewhere clearly calls Christ “ho logos” or that this was a 1st-century Christian catch phrase for “Christ is faithful.” How does Fleming argue that this is what it means?
EricW,
First of all, he says people were familiar with the idea of Jesus being the logos as in John 1:1.
Then he basically says the phrase is potentially a pun and from there comes up with the meaning he did saying people have to choose between the possible meanings and this is the one he believes to be right. He says that probably Paul and Timothy often used puns when talking with each other and in their sermons so knew to look for this and would understand what the other one meant–he says the idea would of been clear to Timothy.
He actually spends quite a bit of time developing this idea, but as far as I can remember, that basically covers it.
Again, to me, it is one of his “stretches”, specially when he applies it the way he does to his idea of “injurious” elders being restored. It seems to me that there is a whole lot of eisegesis going on through out this whole book.
This is a line from the editorial analysis of the book from the Amazon site where I bought it: “A groundbreaking analysis of the makeup of the letter, and a remarkable explanation of Paul’s logical lessons to Timothy, will help you read First Timothy for “first time.”
I agree it is groundbreaking–it is totally different.
Too much of a stretch for me, too, unless one can show that Paul also uses a lot of other Johannine terminology, esp. with reference to Christ.
“He states that the overriding purpose of the book is dealing with overseers and he gets that from Paul’s statement right at the start of the book.”
I’m still wondering about how he arrived at that too. It is after all an epistle to Timothy, an elder. So there is that. But it’s admonishing Timothy how to deal with others, not other elders. I don’t have the space of mind this a.m. to dig into it though.
I’ve been up since 6am getting water and stuff for the tsunami warning on our islands….. an earthquake in Chili is generating it….. They say it may hit all islands starting with the other side of my island. So everyone was out getting gas and food and sundries.
“First of all, he says people were familiar with the idea of Jesus being the logos as in John 1:1.”
We don’t know how familiar they were with calling Jesus The Logos, however John did it. And frankly it really doesn’t bother me to have Fleming say there is a relationship there. The Word of God, comes from God, because it is truth…. Truth. So, yes, faithful is The Word and faithful is the One who gave it to us. So, what’s the big deal. 🙂 It’s about faithfulness being related what the Word is, to who God is, and what we should be about as well. ??
Per this PDF, p. 71
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/7789/ubc_1998-0143.pdf?sequence=1
“These sayings appear to have no common element in content and are not necessarily
restricted to pre-existing material used by the author; rather, pistos ho logos is simply a device used to give added seriousness to the author’s comments and perhaps cannot even be specifically tied to any one passage preceding or following it.”
Hanson 63 f., 91, Fee 79
So it would seem that the phrase pistos ho logos has no particular significance beyond putting emphasis on a point, probably much the same as Jesus’ use of “amen amen” (verily, verily).
Where do you live TL? That earthquake was terrible. Are you in direct danger from the tsunami where you live if it comes? I am praying that it won’t happen anywhere and for protection for you and all concerned. May God have mercy.
I don’t see how he can justify ho logos being Jesus in light of how this phrase is used by Paul in its 5 occurrences, esp. when it’s coupled with “and worthy of all acceptance.” I find no occurrences of this phrase in the LXX.
1 Timothy 1:15 (KJV) This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. [1]
Titus 3:8 (KJV) This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
1 Timothy 3:1 (KJV) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1 Timothy 4:9 (KJV) This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
2 Timothy 2:11 (KJV) It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
Thanks for pointing out the rest of those verses Eric. I think they make a very strong point.
TL, you said once that the translators of the Bible haven’t been that careful to be technically correct. It seems to me that the paraphrase that Fleming came up with would be one that is not at all likely to be techically correct and is therefore likely to totally miss the point that Paul was making.
Eric,
Fleming, in his book, said this phrase was used different ways in I Timothy. Back to the pun thing again. And that you have to figure out which meaning is appropriate in any of the times it is used there. Obviously he thought he had it all figured out.
But I agree–it is a huge stretch and seeing the way he uses it in other books too just doesn’t make it seem at all likely to me.
And very frankly, if his general understanding of the book as a whole didn’t seem so downright faniciful and imaginative to me, I would be a whole lot more likely to think it was possible that he was unto something here.
“TL, you said once that the translators of the Bible haven’t been that careful to be technically correct. It seems to me that the paraphrase that Fleming came up with would be one that is not at all likely to be techically correct and is therefore likely to totally miss the point that Paul was making.”
I agree that he was a bit loose there. However, I don’t think he missed the point. It’s a faithful saying that anyone who desires the work of overseer desires a good work. Not much to miss there. Hebrews do/did a lot of word poetry and word comparisons. So when the first character trait listed is faithfulness in relationship, a Hebrew reader at that time in history would likely have heard the repeated word as strong emphasis. The word of God is faithful, and if we are going to be people of God, we must be faithful also.
I’m on the other side of the island where the tsuenami hit. It will likely wrap around the island and we’ll get something shortly on our side. I love on a mountainside and am safe. I think it’s already hit another island as well.
TL,
I am glad you are where it is safe. From what I understand, the waves have been small, is that correct? Has much damage been done?
Back to Fleming. He not only paraphrases 3:1 “Faithful is the Word” (Jesus the Logos)! but he goes on to say in that verse that if “any desire to return to oversight” that is a good desire. And in the book he says that it is becuase Jesus the Logos is faithful that he will bring about this return to ministry of those that have been unfaithful.
So not only does he paraphrase this in a way that I find very hard to find believable, his application of it is just as unbelievable to me.
” if “any desire to return to oversight” that is a good desire.”
Interesting. I would agree that is stretching also. Did you read where he explains why he says that?
I’m safe. The waves appeared to have their oomph knocked out on the Hilo side of the island. They were only about 3 ft. And not much arrived on our side.
TL,
Glad you are safe. Haven’t checked the news lately so don’t know what is going on with that elsewhere.
Find myself feeling a bit envious to know where you live! I have been ready for warm weather for quite some time now.
You asked:
” if “any desire to return to oversight” that is a good desire.”
Interesting. I would agree that is stretching also. Did you read where he explains why he says that?”
He never says specifically except it is his conviction that the purpose of the book is to correct and restore elders–which he gets from Paul reminding Timothy that he was left in Ephesus to instruct some to stop teaching false doctrine. 1:1
See why I said he believes that is the overriding purpose of the book and where all the rest of his interpretation seems to come from?
“See why I said he believes that is the overriding purpose of the book and where all the rest of his interpretation seems to come from?”
What else do you see in what he says that comes from that premise?
I agree that it’s an interesting statement and a stretch. But I don’t see that we need to castigate him or the rest of what he says because of that idea. I can still take the rest and apply it to the ‘anyone who desires the work of overseer’ without having to adjust anything. And those who were teaching wrong doctrines still need the correcting even if they are not going to be ‘returning’ to the work of overseer.
IMO it’s a bit like the problems I have with those who read authority into the job of the husband. It’s even more than a stretch IMO. But I can take the rest of the thoughts about Paul telling husbands to love wives as their own bodies (and wives to submit to their husbands), nurturing and caring for them as Christ does the church. So we have agreement there.
🙂
TL,
The way he relates the sins Paul confesses in the first chapter to the sins of the elders. He says they are guilty of the same things he was and they are the things they need correcting for. I find this to be a real stretch too. I just don’t see it even when I read it as he has explained it.
And the way he decides that the people he is addressing in chapter two are also those injurious elders.
I am only in chapter two of the book so far, (still haven’t found the part you were originally referring to), but everything so far has been related to this theme.
Remember the outline of the book I gave above as copied directly from it? I will paste it here again. The remarks in parenthesis are mine.
Outline:
1. The Mission-reason for the letter. (To correct and restore elders–his stated purpose for the book.)
2. The Logos–central place of Christ. (here he is referring to the three statements that are generally translated as “It is a faithful saying”, that he translates differently.)
3.The outline–Paul’s 3 sins (Remember he relates them directly to the sins of the overseers so it is still connected to the overriding purpose he gives.)
His outline states the purpose I have given, the use of the Word Logos and you have seen how he used it in 3:1, and Paul’s three sins which he says parallel the sins of the elders.
Seems pretty clear to me that he relates all of I Timothy to this theme and interprets it accordingly.
simple. Replace his idea of injurious elders with those who were straying in chapter one, as injurious teachers. And everything else fits just fine.
“Paul’s three sins which he says parallel the sins of the elders.”
Paul’s 3 sins do parallel those he was speaking about in chapter one, which we can call the injurious teachers.
Cherylu,
I really don’t care if you wish to toss out the book as of no consequence and consider Fleming as having nothing good to say. That is your choice. But I do think you’re making a mistake to do so. He had a lot of other good insights.
TL,
Sorry, I don’t agree. I just don’t see that verse (1:3) as the overriding reason for the whole book and that everything that is said in the book relates directly to that and must be interpreted in light of that. Including the people in 2:8 and following. And what do you do with his “Logos” statement and his interpretation of that? And what do you do with his 3 sins being related to the sins of the elders/teachers?
It just doesn’t work for me!
“Paul’s 3 sins do parallel those he was speaking about in chapter one, which we can call the injurious teachers.”
Fleming says they parallel everything the injurious elders did and that is why he gives all of the instructions he does–to correct those sins–all the way from 1:18-2:15.
I may have part of that wrong–I thought he said all 3 of his sins paralled the elders, but he may have just said 2 did. Will have to check that out again. I just read 2 did–but I thought it said all did elsewhere. The part he is exluding here is the persecutors that he tells them to pray for.
Interestingly enough, he calls Hymenaes and Alexander part of the group of elders in question here.
Please forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but by your rationale (i.e. that women are not aggressive enough to combat false doctrine), would you say that women are not suited to be academics or scientists? What about doctors or CEOs or politicians? Combating error of any sort (be it academic error, false doctrine, racism, flawed business plans, or a wrong diagnosis) requires confidence, courage, and some aggression.
I understand your desire to want the Biblical text to make sense pragmatically. But interpretations of Scripture of this sort is at least one reason why talented, intelligent women are abandoning reformed churches. Imagine what it would be like to be stereotyped repeatedly & then told that the stereotype helps to explain a puzzling bit of Scripture. When you protest the stereotype, your pastor/friends dismiss your concern, saying “X, you’re not the average woman. You’re an exception. You can’t take it personally.” After awhile, this becomes exceptionally tiring. It’s apparently OK for some people to use a single example to justify a stereotype – a stereotype which is intended to provide justification for SCRIPTURE by the way – but it’s not OK for others to counter the stereotype with personal examples?
It’s just a bad situation for everyone when cultural stereotypes are used to undergird Scripture.
TL,
If you are still reading this thread, I have a question for you regarding the phrase, “one woman man” that we have been discussing in I Timothy 3. It is claimed that phrase has been found on tombstones of both men and women to describe their faitihfulness in marriage.
I saw tonight that in I Timothy 5 where Paul was talking about how to treat widows in the church that one of the qualifications for a widow to get help from the church was that she was a “one man woman”.
I checked that wording in the interlinear NT on the site you recommended to me. There is a different word used for “one” in those two places. But the obvious thing to me was the way the words were placed. “One woman man” was the wording in chapter 3 regarding elders. In chapter 5 regarding widows it says, “one man woman”. So Paul obviously changed the order of the words to fit the case of the woman in chapter 5.
So, why do you think Paul didn’t just use the same order of phrasing in the case of the widow as in the case of the elder if “one woman man” was indeed used in that time frame to mean “faithful in marriage” for either sex? Was he trying to convey something different in chapter 5 then in chapter 3? I see no evidence of that unless the different word for “one” is highly signifcant.
Or do you think this throws doubt on the whole idea that “one woman man” in chapter 3 is truly not gender specific? It certainly does in my mind–why else would he change the order to be so specific in chapter 5 if the wording in chapter 3 refers to either gender?
cherylu:
1 Tim 3:2: mias (one) gunaikos (woman/wife) andra (man/husband) = of-one woman/wife a-man/husband
1 Tim 5:9: henos (one) andros (man/husband) gunê (woman/wife) = of-one man/husband a-wife/woman
I don’t see any unexpected change in word order. 1 Tim 3:2 is referring to a man being faithful to his wife. 1 Tim 5:9 is referring to a woman being faithful to her husband. Thus, you see the words for man/husband and woman/wife switched to the appropriate position depending on whether it’s a description of a man or a woman. (Greek word order is pretty flexible because it’s inflected; even if you mixed the words up, it would mean the same thing because the endings tell you which word goes with which.) It seems to me that in 1 Tim 3 Paul is referring to a male overseer, unless it can be shown that “one woman man” was so idiomized that it could be applied to both women and men if a group is considered to consist of both men and women.
[…] been recent controversy, starting with Don Johnson’s comment here at Gentle Wisdom, also in this comment and following ones in a long thread at Parchment and Pen, concerning what the Australian author […]
In a new post at my blog I have looked more closely at Fleming’s interpretation of the words mias gunaikos andra, “husband of one wife”, in 1 Timothy 3:2. It seems that there is no evidence that these exact Greek words were used of women as well as men. Although I do not understand the biblical use of this expression as forbidding women from being church leaders, I do so on different grounds, explained in my post.
I thought it would be convenient to post the “different grounds” here:
They do not offer detailed rules. And so “husband of one wife” should not be understood as specifying that no overseer or elder may be unmarried, or divorced and remarried, or polygamous, or lacking “a particularly fervent conjugal love”, or female. Rather, the decision on who to appoint should be based on the general principles laid down by the apostle as interpreted in the specific cultural context. In first century Ephesus and Crete women church leaders may have been inappropriate. That doesn’t mean that the same applies in 21st century Europe and North America.
A question for Peter: Is it possible that there is a particular unnamed candidate in view here, such that the masculine terminology would be fitting if the individual in question happened to be male?
Paula, I don’t think there is “a particular unnamed candidate in view here”. The passage is introduced by the very indefinite tis “anyone” in verse 1, which implies that anyone, male or female, can aspire to become an overseer – provided that they behave in the right way. Now I am sure that Paul was thinking of men more than women, as he was thinking of the cultural context of Ephesus, and so the male expression was suitable. But I don’t think this can be read as about any particular individual.
Okay, thanks. 🙂
Agree also that the point of the passage is not maleness but quality of character. If it meant maleness then it also meant that the man must be married and must have children, who must be well-behaved. And if the churches enforced also the need to be above reproach, I’d say there would be far fewer overseers. Instead, it seems many take “above reproach” to mean “touch not God’s anointed”, such that the overseer is not to be questioned by virtue of the so-called “position”. Clearly this is the opposite of Paul’s intent. Someone is named a leader because they are already above reproach, not above reproach because they are named a leader.
Instead, it seems many take “above reproach” to mean “touch not God’s anointed”, such that the overseer is not to be questioned by virtue of the so-called “position”.
Maybe they believe they aren’t supposed to “touch” the “anointed” overseer because they think it reads “above approach” instead of “above reproach.” 🙂
Thanks everybody. I haven’t had a chance to read your article yet Peter, but I will. It seems like you all have pretty much the conclusion I do on the meanings of the genders dealt with in those two phrases.
Peter,
Thank you very much. What you have found does indeed seem to cast very large doubt on the claim made by Fleming.
Peter Kirk writes….”But this by no means proves that church leaders must be male. To quote again Bill Mounce from my post last week,
the lists show us the type of person who can be in leadership.
They do not offer detailed rules. And so “husband of one wife” should not be understood as specifying that no overseer or elder may be unmarried, or divorced and remarried, or polygamous, or lacking “a particularly fervent conjugal love”, or female. Rather, the decision on who to appoint should be based on the general principles laid down by the apostle as interpreted in the specific cultural context. In first century Ephesus and Crete women church leaders may have been inappropriate. That doesn’t mean that the same applies in 21st century Europe and North America.
Cherylu writes:
“Thank you very much. What you have found does indeed seem to cast very large doubt on the claim made by Fleming.”
Though they (Kirk, Fleming, Mounce) come to the same conclusions, they take ever so slightly different approaches, but they DO come to the same conclusions. The overall conclusion is that Paul was not listing a prohibitive against women elders, but was mapping out the type of person who should be chosen for the work of overseeing.
continued…..
continued…..
Lucein Deiss writes something we here are not able at this time to confirm, that the idiom “one woman man” was used interchangeably on both men and women’s tombstones. Or he writes that it was used interchangeably as either ‘one woman man’ and ‘one man woman’. We can’t tell for certain which he was saying. But my bet is that someone is going to confirm this.
Fleming thinks that it was used interchangeably, because of 1 Tim. 3:8-12, where the idiom, ‘one woman man’ was used to address both male deacons and female deacons. And also, Fleming thinks that the fact of this section being immediately flowing from chapt. 1-2 dealing with false teachers (which he views as injurious elders), and the admonition for some women to learn and not teach or seek to dominate men (while learning), confirms that Paul was not restricting but rather correcting both men and women.