After looking at the EDC’s claim that there is a “consistent pattern of male eldership” in scripture we will look at the next claim and the evidence provided. Here is the next claim in full:
“O. The Scriptures teach more directly, by precept, that elders must be men, and so confirm that the consistent biblical pattern of male only eldership is no mere description, but a positive example to emulate; for, in both 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9, the apostle Paul rules that elders must be men, and does so in two ways: (a) he requires that an elder / overseer “must be … the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6); the apostle here employs the regular and ordinary words for “man” and “woman,” such that the phrase can also be translated “a man of one woman” (ESV mg.); this apostolic requirement is neither gender inclusive nor interchangeable with its opposite, since Paul applies the same requirement to the “deacons” in 1 Timothy 3:8–10 and 12, whom he distinguishes from certain “women” (1 Tim 3:11), thus indicating that the phrase “man of one woman” applies specifically to men; the same specificity is evident from the fact that later in the same letter Paul applies the female equivalent of the phrase to certain “widows,” who must have been “the wife of one husband” or “woman of one man” (1 Tim 5:9); (b) he also indicates that an elder / overseer is qualified for the office by his faithful leadership of his household (1 Tim 3:4–5; Tit 1:6); since Paul elsewhere specifically charges husbands and fathers with this responsibility (Eph 5:21–33; 6:4; Col 3:18–19, 21), he confirms that elders / overseers must be men;”
The EDC claim that scripture gives a rule that elders be male only. In Part One we discovered that the EDC’s evidence for the “consistent pattern of male eldership” was lacking as it relied on masculine references to be references to only men. Hebrew and Greek grammar does not work this way. I cannot prove that all the references include female elders. The EDC cannot prove that they exclude female elders. The descriptions should be consistent with the precepts. We will look at them now.
The EDC say that Paul rules that elders must be men as, “he requires that an elder / overseer “must be … the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6).” We will examine this claim ourselves, but I note that this phrase has been considered by well-respected complementarian scholars as not sufficient to demand male only elders. Both Douglas J. Moo (“The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder”) as well as Thomas R. Schreiner (“Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters”) are of this view.
In Part One it was helpful to understand the way the original language works as it is again. Greek convention is to refer to a group as masculine if they are all male or mixed. If they are all female, then you would refer to them with a feminine structure. This is what is happening here. Philip Payne says, “The closest English equivalent word is “monogamous,” which can refer to either men or women” (“The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood”).
Paul uses the “one woman man” phrase again in verse 12 and the EDC suggest that this adds weight to their claim. Although Paul references women in verse 11, the EDC believes that Paul distinguishes between them and the male deacons of verses 8-10 and 12. There is nothing in the text to distinguish the women as not being a part of Paul’s thinking in verses 8-10 and 12. Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 began with the term ‘anyone’ (tis) indicating that his masculine terms incorporated men and women. It is used by Jesus in John 3:16 when he says, “whoever (tis) believes in me shall never perish…”. We understand John 3:16 to be inclusive of women. In the same way, all of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is gender inclusive. When Paul begins speaking about deacons in verse 8, he does not use the ‘tis’ word but chooses another way to help us know that his instructions about deacons are female inclusive. He does this with verse 11. He starts verse 11 with, “In the same way, women…” Paul wants us to know that everything he has just said about deacons applies to women. Which women? It is not presented in a way that would suggest women in general (they are to follow the instructions for deacons) and they are not wives of deacons (there is no reference to ‘their wives’ or even ‘the wives’.). Verse 11 does not distinguish women from the male deacons of 8-10 and 12. It includes them.
The EDC claim that because Paul uses the phrase in a feminine form in 1 Timothy 5:9 that this supports the specificity of the male form. In 1 Tim 5:9 Paul is talking to widows who are an exclusively female group, and so Paul follows Greek convention by writing, “the woman of one man”. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul is not addressing men and women. Gordon Hugenberger writes, “In the absence of other constraints, norms that utilize male-oriented terminology ought to be construed in general as including both sexes in their purview” (“Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis?).
In Exodus 20:17 we have the command, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife…” If we were consistent with the EDC’s application of 1 Timothy 3:2 we would conclude that only men are barred from coveting their neighbour’s spouse.
We now come to the second piece of evidence of a precept for male only elders:
“He [Paul] also indicates that an elder / overseer is qualified for the office by his faithful leadership of his household (1 Tim 3:4–5; Tit 1:6); since Paul elsewhere specifically charges husbands and fathers with this responsibility (Eph 5:21–33; 6:4; Col 3:18–19, 21), he confirms that elders / overseers must be men;”
We will start by looking at what Paul is asking of elders in the two passages mentioned.
1 Timothy 3:4-5 states that elders should ‘manage’ their household well. The word translated ‘manage’ is “proístēmi” and can refer to “a pre-set (well-established) character which provides the needed model to direct others, i.e. to positively impact them by example.” (Strong’s Lexicon).
Titus 1:6 says of the elder’s household that their “children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.”
Both these verses are linked to leadership of the household. The first with the direction of the household and the second with good parenting. The EDC claim Paul dictates these roles are male only with the following examples:
Ephesians 5:21-33 encourages a wife to submit to her husband who is the ‘head’ of the wife. The household and children are not mentioned and Paul does not say that the father has sole responsibility for them. This passage provides no evidence to support the EDC claim.
Ephesians 6:4 encourages fathers not to exasperate their children but instead to bring them up in the training of the Lord. This verse does not state that only Fathers have the responsibility for parenting and that mothers have no part to play. The verses prior to this provide evidence contrary to the EDC claim saying, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”…”.
Colossians 3:18-19, 21 Paul encourages wives to submit to husbands and then for husbands to love their wives. There is no mention of household leadership or parenting, and nothing that suggests this is a male only role. It concludes saying, “fathers do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged”. This does not exclude mothers from household direction or parenting. Verse 20 provides evidence contrary to the EDC claim saying, “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.”
The evidence to the EDC’s claims falls short. Further, Proverbs 31:10-31 describes a wife of noble character who manages the household. I am not suggesting her husband was not involved. I am simply highlighting that this is not a male only role. Further to this in 1 Tim 5:14 Paul says he wants the younger widows to marry, have children and “manage their homes”. The word for “manage their homes” is “oikodespoteó” which means “to manage a household” or to be “the master of a house.” (Strong’s Lexicon). Interestingly, it is never used to describe the role of husbands or fathers.
In the next section from the EDC we will look at the connection between ruling and teaching and whether 1 Timothy 2:12 is a precept demanding male only eldership. Please note, I am not arguing to convince others to agree with my position. I am working to help us understand the complexities and the need for us to be gracious by allowing each other different positions on this secondary matter.
Thank you David.
I appreciate your detailed analysis of the EDC paper, which helps us all to avoid a “flat” reading of Scripture.
Hi David, here is my third comment. I comment here on your longish paragraph commenting 1 Timothy 3:1-12 starting with the words “Paul uses the ‘one woman man'”.
You seem to suggest that the masculine form of elders (overseers) (v1) and deacons (v8) was meant to be gender inclusive. And then you choose to interpret v11 “women / wives” as being Paul choosing “another way to help us know that his instructions about deacons are female inclusive…” I cannot see how you can possibly come to this conclusion. If he simply assumed his masculine nouns to be in themselves gender inclusive then why would he want to address another group at all? In fact, by using the word “likewise” he seems to be distinguishing this group from the former group of deacons in v8.
More generally, your argumentation is a bit like this: “there is no way to prove the Bible meant only men by use of masculine terms. Yet when the feminine form is used he definitely means females.” This basically removes any allowance for biblical authors to have only meant men based on grammar. Yet – the difficulty is – how would a biblical author actually mean only men except by using grammar and the masculine form?
I think this is a confusing topic for us who come from a language background that is not inherently masculine like Hebrew and Greek. If I jump to the third paragraph of your comment you suggest that my view allows for no way of speaking of only men. To highlight one way it can be clarified for the reader is seen in what you are questioning in your second paragraph. Paul can talk generally, and in case there is confusion about who he is speaking to he can say, “in the same way…wives/children/slaves/masters, etc”. This clarifies that others are included in, in case there were cultural/other reasons for assuming they were not.
Perhaps more pertinent to your question though, how does a writer make sure a masculine reference is understood as purely masculine. As I said in the post, there are ways of doing this. With the OT elder references that the EDC gave in recital N there were ones that I believe are intended to show a male only group. Such as Numbers 11:16 & 24-26 where “70 men of the Elders of the people” are referred to. This to me suggests that the 70 chosen were men, but not that the whole group of elders were men. Indeed, as the author structured it this way it suggests that it was necessary to highlight they were 70 men, because not all elders are always men!
It seems there are various ways the author can make it clear if it is important. My task in responding to the EDC claims was to see if it was clearly male only in each example they gave. It was not.
It seems to me that if it is important the language can clarify it, such as in Matthew 14:21, “The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.” If any author ever wanted to clarify that elders can never be female, they could have. They just never did.
I hope this is helpful.