I was listening to the January 26, 2007 radio program online by Matt Slick of carm.org. Matt answered a caller’s question regarding women leading in the church by appealing to Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2 where it says that a Pastor/Elder/Overseer must be “the husband of one wife”. Matt said it was “case closed” because women cannot be “the husband of one wife”.
I appreciate Matt a lot for his excellent web site that exposes many cults and aberrant movements in Christianity and although I consider him a brother in Christ, I must disagree with him on his quick and pat answer to his callers regarding women in ministry. What Matt didn’t tell his callers and what he should have been challenged on is that “husband of one wife” used in the strict way that he uses it to disqualify women would also disqualify single men as well as married men without children, since the Elder/Pastor/Overseer is to be a “husband” and also required to keep his children under control (1 Timothy 3:4).
Instead of just shutting out women, single men and married men without children, we must work to understand what this passage means. Is 1 Timothy 3 a check list of qualifications (i.e. must be married, must be a father) or is it a set of principles that set a basis for godly standards? Every church that I am aware of uses 1 Timothy 3 to set principles because none of them forbid single men or married men without children from being a Pastor.
But if women are to be included along with single men and married men without children, then why did Paul say “husband of one wife” and he never said “wife of one husband”? The reason why Paul only mentioned “husband of one wife” is because it is a reference to polygamy. Polyandry (a woman married to several men at the same time) was not allowed in that culture and so Paul would not have needed to say that women in leadership must be the “wife of one husband”.
In the Jewish faith as practiced through the Talmudic law, Jewish men were allowed to have multiple wives but the High Priest was forbidden from being a polygamist. The High Priest could be married and divorced but he could not marry more than one wife at a time. The High Priest then, was to be “the husband of one wife”. Paul brings the same regulation to the leadership of the Church. Although polygamists could become part of the congregation, they were not allowed into leadership. In the early church, the believers were unsure of how to deal with polygamists. Some tried to force them to divorce all of their wives except for the original wife in order to be baptized as a Christian, but that left the women destitute and without support. Paul gives the final word by allowing polygamists into the church who come into faith after their multiple marriages had already occurred. The only prohibition was that polygamists were disallowed from serving the congregation as an elder or deacon. In 1 Corinthians 7:24 and 27 Paul talks about the marital state in which one has become a Christian.
1 Corinthians 7:24, 27 “Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released”
If a man is bound in marriage, he is not to dissolve that marriage just because he has become a Christian. So the early church then allowed polygamists into fellowship, but they also followed the lead of Christ in teaching that it was God’s will that only one husband and one wife were to be in the marriage union.
Mark 10:6, 8 “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE… AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
So let’s review why the “husband of one wife” cannot be used to disqualify women from leadership. I think the answer will become evident from asking other relevant questions.
1. Do we stop a single male from being a pastor?
2. Do we force a pastor to resign if his wife dies and he is no longer married?
3. Do we stop a married man from being a pastor if he does not have children? After all the same passage says in 1 Timothy 3:4
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
We know of no church that disallows single men from being a Pastor. We also know of no church that disallows married men with no children from being a Pastor. Why is that? It is because we can understand from the passage that there is a principle being set forth. The principle is that if a person wants to be an Elder/Pastor/Overseer they must have their children under control (that is “if” they have children); they must not be a polygamist (that is “if” they are married and “if” they are a man).
The problems with interpreting 1 Timothy 3 as forbidding women from being an elder is:
1. There is nothing in the passage that says that a woman cannot be an elder in exactly the same way as there is nothing in the passage that says that a man cannot be an elder if he is single.
2. The Greek is written in such a way that allows both men and women to aspire to being a Pastor/Elder/Overseer.
1 Timothy 3:1 says: Trustworthy [is] the word: If anyone aspires to [the] position of overseer [Gr. episkope], he desires a good work. (Analytical-Literal Translation)
The Greek word used is NOT “aner” which would mean “If any male aspires…” Instead of the Greek word for males, the generic Greek word for”anyone” is used which is “tis”. “Tis” means men or women and has the exact same Greek grammatical structure as “anyone” in John 6:51 and every other passage concerning salvation.
John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”
All of the salvation verses are just like 1 Timothy 3:1 and they are singular masculine in the Greek grammar but all of them use the generic Greek wording which includes men and women. If we dispute that the Greek can include men and women because the grammar is singular masculine, then we must also be consistent and disallow women to be saved since all of the salvation passages are written in the same way as 1 Timothy 3:1 with generic words having a singular masculine tense in the Greek.
3. 1 Timothy 3:12 also says that Deacons must be the husbands of one wife and this term clearly did not disqualify women because Phoebe was a Deacon of the church of Cenchrea.
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;
The word that the NASB translates as “servant” is “diakonos”which means Deacon. If Phoebe could be a Deacon of the church at Cenchrea and the term “husband of one wife” did not disqualify her, then why would we think that this same term would disqualify a woman from being an elder/pastor/overseer?
So the next time that someone tells you that 1 Timothy 3 forbids women from being a Pastor, you make sure to ask them if the same passage forbids single men and married men without children from being Pastors. If a person is going to be a literalist without considering the standard that is actually being set forth, then they must also follow through with the same standards for single men and married men without children. To fail to follow through with applying the principle across the board would be hypocritical.
Gidday Cheryl,
I have printed out this stuff for my hubby to read!
He is a loving husband from a strict reformed background… (although now we both go to a church where there are ‘junior’ female pastors). I come from more of a baptist/methodist tradition in which women were not ‘too’ limited in ministry (at least in the last 20-30 years!) I am studying at bible college and feel strongly that the Lord might well have given me a teaching gift and a call to leadership beyond that of ‘women and children’(not that they are in any way unimportant!)
We both love the Lord and are praying that he can lead us to unity on this difficult issue…
Hubby always comes back to 1 tim 3 to say that a woman cannot be ‘an elder’.
Secondly because Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, uses Gen 2-3 in 1 tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 to (according to hubby’s view)confirm a patriarchal view of men/women in ministry it must ‘therefore’ be a transcultural teaching. (Reformed folk are big into the whole ‘creation ordinance’ stuff!)
personally i feel that the argument made by patriarchalists that 1 tim 2 ‘confirms’ patriarchy in the Garden and then that in turn confirms Paul as prescribing patriarhy as somewhat of a circular arguement…
anyway, i’ll see how hubby goes with your well thought out response to elders ‘must’ be men!
thanks for your insights. i look forwards to more of your posts and comments.
growing in Him…
zwagmeister
Hey there zwagmeister,
I am just leaving on a 3 week ministry trip and will be mostly away from computer except for brief checks on email. The Genesis 2 - 3 connection to 1 Timothy 2 is well researched and explained on the hour DVD teaching on the ! Timothy 2 section on “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” I highly recommend that you get a copy of the set to let your husband see the full reasoning. I think it will make sense to him. I have had many comments from complementarian Pastors who were very challenged and impressed by the solid biblical reasoning. Okay, I’m off now and will respond later as I get a chance.
thanks cheryl
safe travelling.
Hello there,
I am back in the saddle although I am doing ministry work at the same time as I am packing up our second load of belongings. Busy times!
I appreciate that your husband is trying hard to follow God’s word. What is needed though is to make sure that it is God’s word, not just human tradition that we follow. 1 Timothy 3 does not say that a woman cannot be an elder. That is an assumption that many have come to because of the phrase “husband of one wife”, but the bible does not say that an elder cannot be a woman or that an elder must be a man or even that an elder must be a “husband”. I have heard men say that a woman cannot be an elder because a woman cannot be a “husband”. However if we take this passage to mean that women are denied the opportunity to serve the church in leadership because they cannot be a “husband”, then we must also deny the opportunity for anyone who is not a “husband”. Yet churches do not deny leadership opportunities to single men. Why? It is because churches understand the principle that carries across the years and across the culture from the New Testament until now.
Today we would take the principle to mean that if one is married, they must be faithful to and maried to only one spouse. No polygamists allowed. The passage does not mean that one must be married or that one must have children or that one must be male. To deny a woman in this passage would also mean that one MUST deny an unmarried man and MUST deny a man without a family. We cannot deny one without following the pattern to its logical conclusion.
If the Holy Spirit had wanted us to know for sure that women were not qualified to be elders or deacons in the body of Christ, then he would have done two things. First of all, he would have told us that women were not to be elders or deacons. That is plain and simple and easily understand as a prohibition. Second of all, he would have inspired the word for males only “aner” instead of the generic word for people in 1 Timothy 3:1. Paul wrote and the Holy Spirit inspired the term that includes women. Men or women may aspire to be an overseer (elder) according to 1 Timothy 3:1.
The other argument that Genesis 2-3 is referenced in 1 Timothy 2 is another place where some have taken a leap beyond what is actually being said. I agree that Paul takes us back to Genesis to prove his point. But what is his point? His point is show that the first creation of Adam was important because the first one created was not deceived. Paul also tells us that the second one created was deceived. Paul takes us back to Genesis to make an important point about deception. Paul says nothing about the leadership of the man and he does not tie leadership into Genesis. Paul ties in the deceived state of the second one created to the reason of the prohibition of a teacher(s) that Timothy was reminded of in chapter one and again in chapter two. Those who are deceived must not teach or influence others with their deception. Timothy is to put a stop to false teaching not true teaching.
In my DVD on 1 Timothy 2, I follow the Holy Spirit’s lead back to Genesis to find out why the first one created was not deceived. What did Adam see that caused him to know that the serpent was lying about God? Adam’s unique experience with God is highlighted when Paul states emphatically that the first one created was not deceived.
Thanks for your succinct response Cheryl.
1 Tim 3 is ridiculously ‘obvious’ to me. Just as you say… that if you take the ‘one-woman man’ bit ‘literally’, you have to take the others bits likewise - which ‘no one’ really does.
Esp when a few verses below it says deacons must be a husband of one wife, then it goes on to describe female deaconesses… (cf Rom 16:1 with Phoebe as an example) so obviously proving that the one-woman elder is not restricting women, but polygamy.
1 Tim 3 seems to be such a ‘no brainer’…yet it’s a major stumbling block for so many regarding females being ‘elders’ or pastors’ leaders etc…
The bias we can all unconconciously bring to Scripture is frightening and something that we all need to constantly ask Holy Spirit to set us free from so we can receive true revelation of God’s Word.
There are no ‘female elders’ specifically cited in the NT. This is something that is often thrown in my face too. (Any comments?)
Yet the more i study both Paul and Christ’s teachings, the more i believe that they were extremely counter cultural - offering woman amazing freedoms and liberation within Christ that were revolutionary in 1st century greco-roman/jewish culture. As we read the NT texts from our 21st century western point of view it’s easy to miss just how radical Jesus and Paul actually were on the behalf of women. Mary welcomed to sit at the foot of Jesus learning like only male students were ‘allowed’ to sit at a Rabbi’s feet…the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the daughter of Abraham who stood straight after Jesus healed her…the woman with bleeding who dared to touch the Holy Jesus…
Some say “hey, there’s no female examples of elders named… so therefore female elders were not allowed… and use 1 Tim 3:2 as the ‘law’ from God that supports this… Yet this is firstly an argument from silence and secondly, we need to consider the ‘direction’ in which Christianity was moving towards the liberation of women - even though it was slam bank in the middle of 1st century patriarchy.
If you haven’t read it before, William Webb’s book “Slaves Women and Homosexuals Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” (IVP, 2001) provides some great food for thought on this. Webb proposes that in the case of slaves and women the NT presents a ‘forward moving’ hermeneutic. Although the 1st century church is still operating within a patriarchal society, there is a clear momentum towards equality for women. He contasts this with the clear stationary stance on homosexuality. That is, the NT does not offer any movement towards an acceptance of homosexuality, but continues to condemn it as does the OT.
Apart from presenting the very logical arguments yo make above for 1 tim 3 regarding ‘one-woman’ man not restricting women from being elders… do you have any other advice for me in terms of encouraging those ’stuck’ on this verse? I guess praying for wisdom and revelation is a good thing too!
I continue on my journey seeking truth and God’s will for me as a woman who feels called to teach and lead. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these important issues on your blog.
In Christ
Kerryn
Cheryl,
I really appreciate your post and your website. I have felt challenged to do a thorough study of these issues, as I am not satisfied with the “traditional” view with which I grew up.
My only question regards the practice of polygamy in the 1st century. Do you have historical resources that show polygamy was practiced throughout the Roman Empire or in Ephesus specifically? What are the documents that show the allowance of polygamy in the Jewish community? I can’t remember where I read it, but I have read that this passage does not deal with polygamy because that was not something with which Paul was dealing. I agree with your conclusions and am not defending an alternative reading of this passage. I just wanted to know more of the background information on the polygamy angle because I have read/heard other claims previously.
Thank you,
David Cecil
David,
The historical source for polygamy that I have is the Talmud. The Talmud is the oral law of the Jews. In the Talmud, polygamy is sanctioned although somewhat regulated depending on the rabbi. One rabbi said that a man may take as many women as he wants for wives as long as he could support them all. Another rabbi limited the number of wives for one man to four. However there was a strict prohibition regarding the High Priest. The High Priest was not allowed to have more than one wife at a time. He was allowed to be divorced and remarried but he was not allowed to be a polygamist. I would give you the references that I have but unfortunately all of my research books are at my new house and I am in my old house getting it fixed up for selling and I don’t have any of my books with me.
Since the Jews allowed polygamy and since many Jews were in the Christian congregation, it would inevitably come up as a question regarding what to do with polygamists. Paul had already given the ruling that one should remain in the way that one was called when he became saved. Someone who was married shouldn’t look to become single in order to serve Christ. Although a polygamist who had become saved was not told to divorce his wives, he was forbidden from becoming a Pastor, Elder or Overseer.
Paul’s statement that the Overseer is to be the husband of one wife follows the moral law that the Jews had for their highest spiritual leader. Polygamy is most certainly being talked about in reference to “the husband of one wife”. If it was anything else, like adultery, then that would have been taken care of by Paul stating that the Overseer must be “blameless”. An adulterer is not “blameless”. A polygamist could be blameless if he came to Christ after he was already a polygamist, but Paul ruled that such a one would not be a good spiritual example. He could be a Christian, but not a leader.
I have a section on 1 Timothy 3 on my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” I recommend that you get a copy of this DVD series because I believe it will help you greatly in your research.
I have read that the term “one-woman man” (in Greek) has been found on tombstones in Ephesus referring to BOTH the husband and wife, in which case it should be translated as “faithful spouse” as the term was understood symmetrically.
See Nyland’s The Source NT, for example.
I wouldn’t think that “faithful spouse” would quite measure up since I am sure that a man who has four wives would consider himself a “faithful spouse”. As long as he is married to all four, and wasn’t having sex outside his marriages, he would have been thought to be “faithful”. The high priest wasn’t allowed to be faithful to four wives. He had to be the husband of one wife. Of course faithfulness in everything including your marriage is key, but not allowing faithful polygamists to serve as an example to the congregation would seem the thought here. “Faithful” and “polygamy” just don’t mix.
I agree that non-polygamy is a part of the specification for an elder. In my understanding, Jesus clarified (correctly interpreted Torah) that marriage was designed for one man and one woman.
The idea of being a faithful spouse means more than just not committing adultery, it means not being flirtatious, etc. Like what the country song means by “one-woman man”.
I do not think I am disagreeing with anything you wrote, just clarifying my understanding.
Hi Don,
Yes, I do agree with you as well. A faithful leader needs to be faithful in his marriage by not being a womanizer (if they are a man) or not being flirtatious (if they are a woman). I tend to think that this would be included in Paul’s saying that they must be “above reproach” but it certainly could be inferred by “husband of one wife” too.
The point is that the term “one-woman man” was a “buzz phrase” that meant someone who was faithful to their one spouse (assuming they had one). This is why it can apply to both men and women when found on a tombstone in Ephesus.
Pagan women were expected to be faithful, but pagan men were not.
The reverse phrase “one-man woman” is also in 1 Tim in discussing widows. We know women could not be polygamous in any Roman controlled area.
Cheryl,
Thank you for the insight, clarity and revelation you bring. Re: your response (#7 above) to David’s questions “Do you have historical resources that show polygamy was practiced throughout the Roman Empire or in Ephesus specifically?” and ” What are the documents that show the allowance of polygamy in the Jewish community?”; you’d stated your research books w/ the references weren’t available to you at that time. I also wondered David’s questions, so I wanted to find out if your situation or their availability has changed enough to find the references in question. Again, thank you and God bless you.
Den
Dennis,
I have access to the books now, it is just a matter of finding them and finding the references. It will take some time because of what is on my plate right now, but I think that this would be very helpful to post here. The historical references are a very important consideration. I can’t tell you exactly when I will get the references up but if you have chosen to be notified about the addition of comments, then you will get an email. It probably would be good to do a specific blog article on the evidence as well. Right now I am in heavy research project which will be part of a DVD teaching on the Trinity so I will squeeze in what I can.
Blessings!
Cheryl
Cheryl Quote
“A polygamist could be blameless if he came to Christ after he was already a polygamist, but Paul ruled that such a one would not be a good spiritual example. He could be a Christian, but not a leader”
Now the man could not be a leader. But what about the women (The Wifes)? No right, because there not the only wife? So the Husband and His Wifes could not be in leadership right? I guess my question is about the wifes (The Women). The women/wifes too were included in this as well, right? If she is not the “only” wife then she couldn’t be a leader.
Michael,
There is no restriction on women regarding if they are not the only wife of their husband. Hanna was blessed by God in giving birth to Samuel and she was the barren wife of a man who had another wife. In those days a woman had no choice. If a man desired to take another wife he did not consult with her or get her permission. He did as he pleased. She could not divorce him because he took another wife. Therefore a wife who had a husband who had multiple wives was not guilty of having being immoral. Paul did not have a restriction on her in this regard. I would think it doubtful that such a woman would be in a place of seeking servanthood in the church by overseeing the flock, yet it certainly could still be possible. The rule would be that if scripture does not forbid someone from serving the body of Christ, then they should be allowed. Paul did not forbid Gentiles from being overseers even though the early church originally only had Jewish leadership. Since Gentiles were not forbidden to serve the congregation, then they should be allowed. The same would go for women who were married to polygamists. It is only the men who were the ones who themselves took on the additional wives who were held responsible and kept from being the spiritual examples to the congregation.
That is my two cents anyway
Dennis #13,
Polygamy was allowed in the Jewish tradition and we know that there were Jews in Corinth because their law was appealed to in 1 Cor. 14:34-35. The oral law of the Jews allowed for polygamy. Jeb 65a says A man may marry as many wives as he pleases. Another on of the rabbis limited the number to four (Jeb 44a) The one agreement that all the Rabbis had was that there was to be no polygamy for the High Priest (Joma 13a). Everyman’s Talmud by Abraham Cohen says “While there can be no doubt that among the masses polygamy was practiced, there is no record of any Rabbi having resorted to it.”
I just read in David Instone-Brewer’s book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, on page 187, that “In New Testament times, those phrases (man of one woman or woman of one man-I Tim. 3:2, and I Tim. 5:9) meant someone who was faithful.” He footnotes with a reference stating that the Greek ‘monandros’ or its Latin equivalent ‘univera’ is common on funeral inscriptions in praise of someone who was faithful to her husband. References Craig Keener, …And Marries Another (Peabody, Mass.; Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 92-93.)