A blog reader has asked if 1 Tim. 3:2 allows for women to be church elders. The reader is aware that the Greek phrase mias gunaikos andra (“one woman husband”) was found to occur in an epitaph for a woman on a tombstone.
Does anyone know how widely this phrase referred to women as well as men?
What is the evidence, pro and con, that 1 Tim. 3:2 itself refers to both men and women?
What is the reference for this epitaph?
Good question, Wayne. I discussed this phrase, as used in the parallel in Titus 1:6, in this series, and concluded that it cannot be taken to imply that all elders must be male – not that they must be married but not remarried after being widowed. I have often seen the statement that the phrase in question was used of women (according to some, commonly) on gravestones, but I have never seen any clear references to literature confirming this.
Peter Heard asked:
What is the reference for this epitaph?
Appropriate question, Peter. Perhaps it’s just an urban legend. Let’s see if others can give some bibliographical info.
And Marries Another, C. Keever (Massachussetts: Hendrickson, 1991) pp. 91-2. Dr. Instone Brewer states, “In New Testament times those phrases meant “a one-woman man” or a “one-man woman”. (Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities, Pasternoster: Great Britain, 2003, p. 177)
The second qualification: “Faithful spouse” (3:2)
The second qualification in the list deals with the
overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that
this qualification means that whether one is a husband or
a wife it is important to be a “faithful spouse.” It requires
that an overseer, if married, be faithful and be “a one-spouse
kind of person.”
According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French
Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this
Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish
and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman
or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way
characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”
When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase
was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where
Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him
myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.
Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2
surprising because modern versions of the Bible
translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” –
making this qualification appear to be restricted to men
only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is
about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is
not saying that oversight is “for men only.”
Pages 87-88
Think Again about Church Leaders by Bruce C. E. Fleming http://www.ThinkAgainBooks.com
Knowing the usage in Gk culture of mias gunaikos andra certainly adds to the issue, but the question is not whether 1 Tim. 3:2 can refer to women as elders, but does it?
Sorry, Wayne.
What is the context of the verse in relation to the rest of the Bible and in relation to what Paul wanted Timothy to know?
Letitia, the question is actually rather more complex than asking “does it [refer to women as elders]?” The problem is that this verse, and its parallels using the same phrase, are the primary evidence quoted by complementarians etc for restricting church leadership to males. So the relevant question is not “does it?” but “can it?” That is, did Paul intend to use this phrase, without other support, to teach that only males can be elders etc? Paul may personally have envisaged only male elders, but what is normative for Christians today is not what Paul envisaged but what he actually taught in the inspired Scriptures. If he did not use a phrase which unambiguously prohibits women elders then we should not read this passage as such a prohibition.
Peter H, it seems that you should ask your question of your colleague David Instone-Brewer. Actually the passage from David’s book which Keever cites (according to “invisible”) is available online here. But I think “invisible” has misunderstood David’s meaning in this passage. David refers to the mirror expression in 1 Timothy 5:9 as well as to 3:2, and probably means that one of these refers to “a one-woman man” and the other to a “one-man woman”. I hope that Deiss’ comments have not been similarly misinterpreted.
Good point, his office is not that far from mine after all.
Letitia wrote:
Knowing the usage in Gk culture of mias gunaikos andra certainly adds to the issue, but the question is not whether 1 Tim. 3:2 can refer to women as elders, but does it?
So true, Letitia.
Sorry, Wayne.
Please don’t be. I’m in search of the truth and asking questions and being asked questions and considering exegetical options is part of that search.
What is the context of the verse in relation to the rest of the Bible and in relation to what Paul wanted Timothy to know?
Another important question. The answer can go either way. We wouldn’t be discussing these issues on this blog if the biblical statements about them were absolutely clear.
Thanks for your good comments, I mean, questions
Peter K,
Under normal circumstances, I agree that in principle we should not place prohibitions on things not explicitly prohibited by scripture. But I believe the issue of male eldership is another thing entirely.
Let’s assume that 1 Tim. 3:2 can mean “one-husband-woman.” Would the possibility of female eldership constitute an endorsement of it? To answer this, we would have to take the issue in context with scripture on the whole. And what Paul envisaged is entirely relevant.
Letitia said:
“Let’s assume that 1 Tim. 3:2 can mean “one-husband-woman.” Would the possibility of female eldership constitute an endorsement of it? To answer this, we would have to take the issue in context with scripture on the whole.”
Yes. Which is why I recognize the principles outlined by Paul here, and don’t try to make a euphemism into an exclusive requirement, when full scriptual context shows us it’s not a “no women allowed” restriction.
OK guys, sorry to spoil the party, BUT:
a) It is Keener (not Keever) who discusses this.
b) He refers to Latin inscriptions using univira and Greek inscriptions using monandros (p. 92; see note 60, p. 194 to a further secondary source for actual evidence).
c) I asked David Instone-Brewer and he said that he had never found the exact Greek phrase used in inscriptions of any sort (although the Latin evidence is clearly relevant)
d) So the evidence for this actual phrase in Greek may not exist and/or may have been misinterpreted.
Peter Head,
Hi. I really appreciate you looking into this. I have not seen anything more than what you mention here. It does seem a bit vague.
It is just as important to me to find where egalitarians have misrepresented the Greek language as where anyone else has done so.
However, I don’t consider this example to be a strong indicator either way as to whether women can be elders in the church today. As we know, for 2000 years the Roman and Greek churches have acknowledged that Junia was a female apostle without that opening up the apostolate to women. These instructions from the writer to Timothy do tend to group men and women according to the position they would normally have in a certain social setting.
Consider the admonition to care for widows but not widowers. We would find that misplaced today. And would we suggest that women should keep within doors and not go outside if we understood oikouros in a certain fashion?
Having said that, for sure, there can also be matters of gender assignment to vocabulary which can be clarified significantly. For example, finding that Plato was clear in stating that aner is the “citizen,” both male and female, clarifies the use of aner in Acts for both men and women. I have written about it here and would really appreciate any advice you could offer.
Suzanne,
I wasn’t trying to pick sides. About a month ago someone had asked me about this, but I hadn’t chased it up. So that is why I asked the question. Of course we should all be as careful as possible about the evidence used to support bigger constructions. I am sorry if the C”B”MW folk aren’t open to discussion about the evidence.
My advice would be to write up a paper on Luke’s use of ANER in the context of ancient Greek usage and get it published in JETS. Then folk from the C”B”MW would probably feel the need to interact with it.
Peter,
Thanks for the good advice.
One thing that puzzles me about some who use 1 Timothy 3:2 to support the argument that women cannot be elders, is that they will allow women to serve in other capacities in the church and sometimes even call them “deacons” (whether they actually call them deacons or not may be irrelevant if they are serving the church).
1 Timothy 3 goes on to say in verse 12:
“A deacon must be the husband of but one wife”
The preceding verse 11 which some translations have as:
“In the same way, their [b]wives[/b]…” or similar
and others as
“[b]Women[/b] must likewise”
is taken to mean by some that women can be deacons, yet immediately afterwards it says that deacons must have just one wife, in the same way as elders.
Why should this taken by as being gender-restrictive for elders but not for deacons?
Charity said:
Why should this taken by as being gender-restrictive for elders but not for deacons?
It is not so much that it spells out gender restriction as much as it is implied. The early church would never have entertained the idea of women as elders, so there was no need to be explicit about it, I don’t think. Now, I don’t mean to say that I think the early church was chauvinist against women (whether or not is irrelevant).
The office of elder is one of leadership and authority over the entire church. According to the C interpretation of Paul’s teachings on leadership, this office is tied to God’s creation design. I, for one, believe that serving as leader in this capacity is closely linked to the manhood of men, and so, men are the appropriate people to fill this office.
Deacons serve the needs of the church. Needs come in flavors of men, women, widows, families, etc. Women and men should serve together to address these needs.
I don’t look at the elder issue as a restriction on women so much as this is about what God has purposed for the church to function. I don’t think its sexist. I don’t think it’s oppressive. Many will disagree with me, but this is how I see the big picture.
It’s interesting to read your perspective Letitia.
It does not however address the issue of why the two verses with very similar wording are not taken in the same way by some people.
It strikes me that on the basis of this chapter, to be consistent, either
1. only men can be elders and only men can be deacons
or
2. men or women can be elders and men or women can be deacons.
It strikes me that on the basis of this chapter, to be consistent, either
1. only men can be elders and only men can be deacons
or
2. men or women can be elders and men or women can be deacons.
February 1, 2008 9:27 AM
That is how I take it, too. Using ‘likewise’ really makes it unclear about a prohibition.
But I want to understand exactly what it is that elders are meant to do. Overseer implies many things such as teaching, prohesying, etc, which we see women doing in other parts of the NT. Elder seems more of a spiritual function than an administrative/authoritative one.
Wasn’t the word, ‘office’ added later and not in the original?
Any thoughts?
Wayne thanks for opening up this topic on 1 Tim 3:2 and thanks to all who are contributing. It’s something my hubby and I are really grappling over.
Letitia:
“You said “The office of elder is one of leadership and authority over the entire church”.
Can I pls ask you (if it’s not going to take us on too much of a tangent), do you see this ‘office’ as an ‘individual’ being in leadership and ‘authority’ over the whole (local i assume?) church?
You also said:
“I don’t look at the elder issue as a restriction on women so much as this is about what God has purposed for the church to function.”
Can I also pls ask you (if I have understood you correctly) apart from 1 Tim 3:2 what are you basing your argument on regarding women being restricted by Scripture to only function in certain capacities in the Body?
Lin:
i too would like to know about the ‘office’ issue…
I understand the concept of ‘office’ to be something that is always ‘there’ – whether it was filled by a person or not… ie – the ‘office’ of the President of the USA exists even if the Pres and VP were both removed on the same day…
was there really an ‘office’ of apostle/prophet/pastor/teacher/evangelist that was ‘vacant’ until someone filled it in a local church or region? or was it based on God’s call and giftedness? Like Rom 12:4-8 says – if your gift from God is to teach, then do it… to serve, than serve… ie you ‘are’ a teacher ‘if’ you teach… not because you get put into the ‘office’ of teacher…
Can anyone help us further here?
(-:
kerryn
Charity said:
It does not however address the issue of why the two verses with very similar wording are not taken in the same way by some people.
Charity, I’ve heard pastors offer the possibility that 1 Tim. 3:11 may refer to deacons’ wives or to women deacons. The exact usage in Gk is ambiguous.
The overall treatment of would-be elders strongly implies that Paul had only men in mind.
What is clear is that we have Biblical examples of women deacons, whereas we do not have examples of women elders/pastors.
Are these alone good reasons for male-only eldership? For most, simply pulling out passages and putting them on the pro/con scale doesn’t amount to much of an argument (especially for the male-only position). I think if you take the Bible’s posture on the whole about men and their role in the church, male-eldership seems to fit the Christian picture best. Leadership over large numbers of people seems to be the domain of men (both biblically and culturally).
kerryn said:
apart from 1 Tim 3:2 what are you basing your argument on regarding women being restricted by Scripture to only function in certain capacities in the Body?
I answered part of this in the previous post to charity; IMO, 1 Pet. 5:1-5 is about as explicit as the Bible ever gets (which isn’t very explicit). Male eldership is implied as a matter of universal circumstance.
We have to understand that there are no scriptures that argue for male eldership specifically. This isn’t something I think was disputed in the NT church, which is why it isn’t dealt with explicitly.
lin and kerryn-
About the question of the word “office.” I think the term clarifies a particular position within the church body with ecclesiastical authority. Anyone with a prophecy from God can prophecy in church (within limits), but being a prophet is not an office. An elder is literally an overseer, a position of ordination in charge of a large body of believers.
Hello again Letitia,
I appreciate you taking time to respond. (I have three little girls to juggle at the moment, including my gorgeous latest addition who is just 10 wks old! so my brain feels somewhat fried and my time to ponder/blog pretty restricted…plus i live ‘Downunder’ so our time difference can be a challenge to responding promptly too! i say all that to request grace in what at times may be a slow and limited response from me !)
I am also new to this site, so i haven’t read a lot of what you and the other regulars have written yet. I am trying to learn the ropes of how you all dialogue etc… so bear with me!
regarding 1 Peter 5:1-5… i am not sure how that in any way suggests “male eldership as a matter of universal circumstance”? i just read through chapter 4 to get a quick feel for the context again (bit rusty on 1 Peter!) and it seems to me that Peter is keen to see the members of the body use whatever gift they have been given by God faithfully – whether it’s hospitality or speaking the very words of God. No gender specific stuff there intended with the ’tis’ Gk pronouns etc.
Sorry if you have already explained why you think 1 Peter 5:1-5 supports your statement above in an earlier post – could you pls help me understand better with some more details here if you have time?
(off to feed bubs now!)
regards
kerryn
What is clear is that we have Biblical examples of women deacons, whereas we do not have examples of women elders/pastors.
Letitia, I can’t think of an example of a woman in the Bible who is referred to as a deacon. Do you know of any?
So I don’t think this really explains why some people do not treat the two lists of qualifications in the same way.
Hey Charity
Rom 16:1 describes Phoebe as a “diakanon” – (fem sing accusative of “diakanos”)… a servant/deacon/minister for the church in Chenchrea. The NIV and many other translations use the english word ’servant’ in Rom 16:1 however it is the same Gk word as is used in 1 Tim 3:8 and 12 which is there translated as as “deacon”.
I assume this might be what Letitia is referring to?
(-:
Kerryn
Thanks Kerryn. That was probably the one I was looking for and thought maybe there.
I think its telling that the vast majority of Bible translations, translate this as
“a servant of the church” (NIV, ESV,KJV, NKJV, ASV…).
In fact if my rusty memories of Greek are correct, I think in fact diakonon is masculine, though I could be wrong.
Hey, I know I’ve been late in getting back to blogging. I’ve been out of town. I haven’t been ignoring anyone on purpose!
kerryn said:
regarding 1 Peter 5:1-5… i am not sure how that in any way suggests “male eldership as a matter of universal circumstance”?
Well, 1 Pet. 5 in particular isn’t about universal circumstance by itself. I wanted to point out that “universal circumstance” is the posture in which scripture on the whole deals with leadership of the church. Leadership of the elder-kind is always treated with men in mind.
Here’s the text I’m reading (HSCB):
Therefore, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of the Messiah, and also a participant in the glory about to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you: shepherd God’s flock among you, not overseeing out of compulsion but freely, according to God’s will; not for the money but eagerly; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you younger men, be subject to the elders. And all of you clothe yourselves with humility toward one another…”
An elder typically is an older man with experience and wisdom in leading and teaching in the church. Therefore, he is likely to be appointed as an elder of the church. I pointed out 1 Pet. 5:1-5, because v5 gives a slight hint that Peter’s intent of vs1-4 is to address the elder men.
You can deny this, of course, but how likely is it that Peter had women in mind? It is just more contextual to the milieu, attitude, and understanding of the apostles in the NT that only men were elders.
I am not saying, though, that women did not have influence and leadership in unofficial capacities. I firmly believe that the wives of elders and deacons (besides being deacons themselves) fully shaped and administrated church activities and even taught men (Acts 18:26).
I am an authority in my church. Hubby and I are go-to people for apologetics questions and theology questions. I have personally exhorted men for questionable sprititual beliefs. I influence people in our church in this way, although I am not an elder. Our church believes in male eldership, but I’m not under anyone’s thumb by any stretch. I think this is a good balance.
For some women, this may not be good enough, I guess.
So then, does this exclude women from recieving the crown of glory as reward of God?
For the original question, I think it can.
The C. Keever ref. is a typo to a Craig Keener book, but this does not have much, same for Instone-Brewer.
However, here are the things in favor of it allowing women that I know of:
1. The TOB Edition Integrale French Bible has a note by Deiss.
2. The ref. by Bruce Fleming to the note by Deiss.
3. That Phoebe was a deacon and deacons have the same term used for them.
4. That Aaronic priests were only male (as well as Jewish, no blemishes, etc.), yet the limits are spelled out when instituted, so this is where we would expect them in the NT also, but there are no limitations mentioned in those passages that initially discuss leadership gifts.
5. A close study of the NT shows that it uses terms associated with leaders for women.
6. In Greek, the male plural form can include females. So men can include women, like 1950s English.