That same main point about included vs. excluded can apply on many other topics as well. We read too much into things, partly because of tradition, and partly because we presume English upon Greek. A good example on this topic is when in Eph. Paul told husbands to love and wives to respect. He wasn’t saying wives do not need to love and husbands do not need to respect.

This is also the issue with the common claim that leaders must be men solely because Jesus only chose males in the inner group of twelve. Yet, inconsistently, nobody ever claims that there must always be twelve, or that they must all be Jews, or that they must speak Aramaic.

Would male supremacists actually presume that since, in the Great Commission, Jesus said to preach, teach, and baptize, that He must only have meant that Commission for men? Why not? Are women sinning if they “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every nation” as so many missionaries have done?

I often recall the illustration of children in a playground, and a couple of kids are misbehaving. If the teacher reprimands the misbehaving ones, does that mean all the other kids are free to misbehave? Then why, in 1 Tim. 2, do people presume that men are allowed to authenteo? Were only the women, and all of them, misbehaving in Ephesus? So many presumptions!

As an egal, I agree with the conclusions but get there a different way.

1. I read 1 Tim 3:1 as referring to Jesus the Word as being faithful, per Bruce Fleming; it is not referring to a faithful saying at this point in the text. It did earlier, as a wordplay, in 1 Tim 1:15, where it is BOTH a saying and a ref. to Jesus. 1 Tim 4:9 is also not a saying, again just referring to Jesus. The thing about wordplays is that either one sees the play on words or one does not. The Bible is full of wordplays, as these help memory.

2. As they can be churches who exclude all you put in the box, I prefer to use the meaning of the Greek term “mias gunaikos andres” as an idiom meaning “faithful spouse” per Lucien Deiss, as quoted by Bruce Fleming.

3. On the 12, I do believe and teach that they needed to be EXACTLY 12, as they map to the 12 tribes of Israel. I see this as why Judas was replaced but James was not. So there are the 12 apostles of Jesus and the many apostles of the church after that, including the ones mentioned in the NT. The 12 also needed to be Jews, but the church apostles do not need to be and in fact should not all be.

Don,
In your #1, the “word” is indeed referring to a saying and not Jesus. The reasons are clear from the text itself. While Jesus is called the “Word”, in Timothy 3:1 there is no sense that Jesus is being referred to.

(Darby) The word is faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work.

What has the faithfulness of Jesus got to do with anyone aspiring to exercise oversight? It would be a disjunction to attach the two statements. However there is no disjunction at all to have a faithful saying attached to the saying that anyone can desire to be an overseer. Any play on words must match the context and the context does not match in this case.

2 IF there are churches who exclude all I put in the box then at least they are being consistent. The fact is that the modern church of today is not consistent and this is what I was addressing.

3 Your point doesn’t make sense to me. If there had to be twelve, then when James died he should also have been replaced. I think it would be better to say that the twelve were sovereignly picked to be the foundation of the church and the only reason that Judas was replaced was because he was the only one who was predicted would be replaced as he was the unfaithful one who betrayed Jesus.

2 “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Just because someone is consistent does not mean they are correct. In this case, the church that restricts all 3 is even more hobbled to advance the Kingdom. Not a good result. Hence my pref. for the idiomatic translation, as this frees everyone to serve.

3 Just as there were 12 patriarchs in 12 tribes, there were 12 apostles of Jesus. When Judas disqualified himself, he was replaced, as there needed to be 12 for the mapping to succeed. As the 12 patriarchs died without being replaced, so did the 12 apostles of Jesus then die without being replaced.

On #1, the phrase is used to show the turning point. In 1 Tim 1, it is Jesus saving Paul and Paul makes a wordplay where the term has BOTH meanings. In 1 Tim 3, it is Jesus able to restore the deceived woman/women who aspire to teach, but no saying. In 1 Tim 4, it is Jesus in Timothy’s life who will support him in doing what he needs to do, but no saying. This is how I read it. I agree that one may not see the wordplay and if they do not see it, they do not get it.

I see it differently. My recommendation is that you check out Bruce Fleming’s book. The wordplay does not come across in English, but does in Greek; but I can only point it out, you can decline to see it.

What has happened is that there is a TRADITION of translating these verses as “trustworthy is the saying” rather than “faithful the Word”. In the first base, both are possible meanings and if you do not see that, you miss the wordplay.

Don,
I have read Bruce Fleming’s book. The inspired word usage and the inspired grammar do not support the theory that Paul is speaking about Jesus here. I heartily agree with Paula that the meaning is “this is something you can count on”. That is a great paraphrase.

“Are women sinning if they “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every nation” as so many missionaries have done?”

A very hard comp is Elisabeth Elliott. This has always confused me as she stayed in the jungle and taught men. Yes, illiterate men, but men all the same. She also kept her first husband’s name when she remarried.

It is strange to me how so many folks do not see the contradictions in the comp camp.

I wonder how many “heads” she’ll have in heaven? :-p

While I did not get to read all of this give and take between Paul and Doug, I surely enjoyed what I read. Most people are careless readers (and I include myself among them at time for there is not one that does not slip now and then), and they are even more careless about trying to learn what really takes place in Church History. I was struck by the fact that the man who investigated Sandy Creek Church in 1771 just before Stearns died, Morgan Edwards pastor of FBC Philadelphia was on of the most educated of the Baptist ministers in the colonies (if not the most educated. He had attended Bristol College in England and was recommended to the FBC of Phila. by Dr. John Gill, the first Baptist theologian of note). Three yrs after he visited Sandy Creek and had written his history of NC Baptists, Edwards wrote a work which indicates that he had changed his mind on Women in ministry. When I delivered my address on the subject, “The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses,” I had forgotten that I had taken notes on his second work. Even so I was able to work out a possible scenario for Stearns’ justification of women in ministry. It is found in Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, III, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, which argues against women in ministry except she be specially called, gifted, and endowed. Years later I came across another Puritan who made essentially the same argument. The Puritans were the leading intellectuals of their day, and they were no slouches in the use of logic. What every one seems to forget about Stearns and Sandy Creek is that they were the offspring of the Puritans and Pilgrims, Calvinist to the core and more liberal than a hound’s tooth. And quite a joy to study. What is more they had the Power of God’s blessing on their efforts. We call thir origins, The First Great Awakening, and their effect, The Second Great Awakening, and they helped launch the Great Century of Missions with the help of another Puritan Baptist, Luther Rice, who said, “Predestination is in the Bible and you had better preach it.” NEITHER THE MODERATES NOR THE CONSERVATIVES SEEM TO CARE TWO HOOTS ABOUT WHAT I HAD WORKED OUT IN MY ADDRESS. BUT THE CHICKENS WILL COME HOME TO ROOST ONE OF THESE DAYS.

Dr. Willingham,

I LOVED your prediction. May the chickens certainly come home to roost one of these days!

“The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses”

It would be great to read this. Is it posted anywhere?

Dear Cheryl: I have sat all evening reading through every one of the interviews and found them for the most part very informative, based on careful exposition, and, for the most part, satisfying. I am still looking, however, for your comment on the husband of one wife. Did I miss it somewhere. My wife wanted to see that in particular, so I looked diligently, but I could have overlooked it as I read in a hurry. There is also one area which I wish to have you address to me – which you might do in an email for he sake of discussion without distraction, and that is on Roms.5:12. I would want to know your sources, approach, type of hermeneutics, etc. One of he questions during my ordination put to me by Dr. Ernest R. Campbell who was a genius wit a Ph.D. from Bob Jones was :”What do you believe about the fall of man?” I answered: “Which answer d you ant. There are six.” (I was thinking of A. H. Strong’s Systematic Theology among others whch I had outlined along with 4other books of systematic theology. Dr. C’s reply was: “Jim, don’t be a smart-alec.” He knew Iwas trying to evade the issue of the fall of man and the two Adam questions. So I eventually came to the conclusion about man’s fallen nature from Adam and his subsequent spiritual inability from such little words as “can” and “may”, one referring of crse to ability and the other to permission. If man is unable to respond, then it requires God’s choice and irresistible grace to bring him out of his spiritual disability, deadness, darkness, depravity, and dabolic nature (child of satan). I am very interested to see how your careful expositions have influence you in this most important area. Also I should point out that there are some who want these positions to be misrepresented, and what better way to get them misrepresented than by some one who has a strong ego and does believe them but has misunderstandings…which ruin perceptions and performances. Driscoll means well I think, butmostof the believers today in sovereign grace have had few and mostly poor representatives of the position as models and mentors. As a result thy don’t quite no how to go abou presenting their case. The result can be somewhat sad. Good mentors are wanting in this work…of how to model the theology that God saw fit to bless as the truth for a Great Awakening… Even two of them. And the hymn of the ages catches the essence of it, even AMAZIN GRACE…WHICH YOU KNOW. That is a hymn t Sovereign Grace bya wretched reprobate who had been converted by such grace and then became a preacher of it and a worker for the abolition of slavery, John Newton.

Lin,
Dr. Willingham sent me this email and I think he meant to post it online for you to see:

“The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses” is not online anywhere. It is however an address that was recorded on VCR by the Baptist State Convention of NC in 1985, when I was chairman of the historical committee of the State Convention. You might try contacting the Communications Dept. of the State Convention to see, if they have any policy for securing copies of the 2 VCRs on which the Jersey Church Celebration was recorded. In addition to my address, there is a play which I wrote for the church, “The Mirror of Our Past,” and other addresses by leadng individuals in the State Convention at that time.

16 Dr. Willingham,

I am still looking, however, for your comment on the husband of one wife. Did I miss it somewhere.

Regarding “husband of one wife” and “keeping his children under control”, these are conditions that are principle based. They are “IF” statements. So it would be interpreted as IF one is married, that one is to be faithful to their one-flesh spouse (so that the person is not to be a polygamist) and IF the person has children, that one is to keep his children under control.

The principle that underlies the qualifications for an overseer is faithfulness in sexual matters so that the church is overseen by those who will live by a high standard. The principle is also faithfulness and ability in managing those under our care. IF one has children, we would look to how their children are cared for and managed.

If we can see that the clauses are principle based, then we can understand that the principle does not keep out unmarried men nor does it keep out married men without children and lastly it does not keep out women. All of these groups are able to be faithful managers of their territory of influence. The principle however does rule out polygamists since the ideal of one man and one woman is broken with polygamy and the principle also rules out those who are unfaithful in the area of sexual purity no matter what the marital status is. The fact that this passage is looked on as a principle whenever single men are concerned and whenever married men who do not have children are concerned proves that we must also keep it at the level of principle when women are concerned. If the women are faithful spouses IF they are married and if they are faithful managers in their sphere of influence, and they are faithful in the other issues mentioned, then they also are qualify to be what they are allowed to desire in 1 Timothy 3:1.

Hi everybody!

I was wondering why women are only mentioned in verse 11, in the context of deacons and not mentioned in the verses before, where the context is about overseer?

We know that without doubt there was women deacons in the Scripture Rom 16:1, and that goes well in hand with 1 Tim 3:11. But the Scripture lacks a direct mention of a women overseer and that goes hand in hand with the non mention of women in the context of overseer in 1 Tim 3:1-7.

Have anyone thought about this?

In His amazing grace,
Martin

My 2¢–

A guardian/overseer was to protect the less spiritually mature from false teachings. But we really don’t know the function of servants (diakonos, a term Paul used for himself and his co-workers, including women). Note a parallel in the letter to Titus where Paul uses the term “elders”; it is another instance where both males and females are specified. Yet even there, there is also an over-arching set of qualities for both groups.

From the little we have to go on we can only speculate as to why male and female servants/elders are addressed separately. It may be in the nature of the service, and in social constraints.

Another consideration is the principle that these are not lists of exclusions but character traits required of these people. Perhaps in mentioning both male and female Paul is making it clear that women are not to be less qualified, or given any kind of lesser rank due to less demanding qualities.

And of course, in all of this, not even males are ever given rule over anyone. That anyone should seek to prevent women from a low position of servitude speaks volumes about the real agenda of male supremacism, and of their failure to grasp the nature of the Body.

Martin,
In 1 Timothy 3:1 “anyone” can aspire to the work of an overseer. Anyone means anyone.

Why is there no mention of a Gentile overseer? Why is there no mention of a slave having the work of an overseer? Does the fact that the scriptures have no mention of these kinds of overseers mean that they are not part of the “anyone” from verse 1?

The fact is that unless God specifically forbids a person or a group from having a certain place in the body of Christ, then we should understand that God gifts and all are allowed to excel at their gift even Gentiles, slaves and women!

An overseer is to protect the body of Christ from error and will identify and expose the wolves. Apologetics is a ministry that does this kind of work and apologists can be looked on as a global overseer protecting the entire church, not just one small local body. There are not very many women apologists. I am not sure why. Perhaps because women are not often encouraged to protect the flock this way. I am an apologist and I have met very few women doing this kind of work but the work we do is certainly blessed by God just as the work of the defense of the faith by men is also blessed.

FWIIW, I see Titus as a gentile overseer, as I see him as a (church) apostle in 2 Cor 8:23 and I understand a (church) apostle as one of the possible 5-fold leadership ministries of an elder/overseer.

My point is that anyone is allowed to aspire to the work of overseer. We see nothing in scripture that tells us who has the “title” of overseer and scripture is silent on naming any particular “pastor”. We recognize these leaders by the work we see them do as they exercise their gifts. Leadership is recognized in the congregation by the work that the person already is doing. Once who aspires to the work of overseer will already be doing the work even before the congregation recognizes him/her.

Cheryl,

I agree with your post 23.

I see Titus being a gentile leader as another step in the gospel to all the world, one we might take for granted today, but radical in its time. And if God did not restrict church leadership to only Jews, why think he restricted it to only men?

Frank,

I like Bailey and Fee a lot. I do not see overseer as an office, rather a ministry. All believers are to have a ministry, some are called to a leadership ministry. The main diff in 1 Tim 3 between overseers and deacons is the ability to teach, all the rest of the lists are character qualities. So I see it as all believers have a ministry, some of these are recognized as church deacons/ministers, and some of these in turn are recognized as church elders.

Cheryl, you said in post 21:
“Why is there no mention of a Gentile overseer? Why is there no mention of a slave having the work of an overseer? Does the fact that the scriptures have no mention of these kinds of overseers mean that they are not part of the “anyone” from verse 1?”

No, at thats not the point I’m trying to make, slaves or gentiles in particular is not mentioned in verses 8-13, but women is. I’m just wondering why Paul didn’t mention women in particular in verses 1-7.

Paula, you mentioned Titus 2 in post 20, as an example of women elders ‘presbytis’. Men elders are also mentioned ‘presbyt?s’ and elders in general ‘presbyteros’ are mentioned in Titus 1:5. I’m no Greek scholar, but if there is women elders, how would one refer to them in Greek? Would it not be by the word ‘presbytis’? Also the context seems to indicate that Titus should point out able Elders and what character traits he should be looking for, both in 1:1-9 and what he should avoid 1:10-16, and then what he should teach these elders 2:1-5.

How do complementarians argue that ‘presbyteros’ does not include ‘presbytis’?

In His amazing grace,
Martin

Martin,

As a general rule, if one male is or can be in a group, the male form of a word is used. So if the female form is used, then no males are in the group. Only if both males and females are specified can we know whether females are excluded.

So it is context that determines who is being addressed, and in the context of Titus, we see Paul using terms both ways: generically and specifically. But there are additional indicators in Titus that Paul refers to female elders and not merely elderly women.

1– There is a phrase in ch. 2 that means “in keeping with their appointment” regarding female elders. What appointment? In this very short letter we only know of the one mentioned in ch. 1, the elders Titus was to appoint. Since age cannot be appointed, this must refer to spiritual elders. We should also note that the word translated “young” can also mean “new”, that is, new believers.

2– If Paul is saying that female elders can only teach women, then he must also be saying that male elders can only teach men. Yet who would believe that? The male supremacists would have a dilemma on their hands since they presume men can teach anyone but women can only teach women and children– ironically, the most easily deceived according to them. So if it cannot be denied that men can teach women, then it also cannot be denied that women can teach men. If Titus is cited as proof that women can only teach women then the corresponding restriction on men only teaching men must go with it.

So there is no consistent and uncontradictory way for male supremacists to argue that the male form must exclude females.

Paula, you make excellent points. I had not thought of the fact that if Titus is used to say women can only teach women, then correspondingly, men can only teach men. The comps I know would say that this verse has to subordinate itself to the passage elsewhere which says a woman is not permitted to teach a man or be in authority over him. Of course, we know there is more to that verse than they allow, but that is how they would justify the Titus dilemma.

You know, of course, that I disagree. I just point it out because it is a line of response they take. I wonder, was the Titus passage written before or after the other passage? Even so, they would still find a way to say the earlier passage is subordinate to the later passage. Where’s a hammer? I feel a real urge to try to nail some jello to a wall somewhere….!

Glad to help, TS. 🙂

And if they did say this passage has to be subordinated to another in a separate letter, I’d ask them what happened to “plain reading” and then accuse them of theological “gymnastics” since that’s what they say to us when we bring other scriptures to bear.

They can only keep their preeminence by making mincemeat of scripture, taking this part but not that part, plain reading here but “exposition” there. Yet they never deal with the real question: why would any real Christian even want to have first place?

Yes, Paula. Plain reading. Only when it suits the agenda. To the last question, “why would anyone want to be a permanent head over someone else,” the reply I have heard is, “If God commands it, who am I to question?” Circular thinking is rampant in compism ‘logic’ to give it even a weak semblance of staying afloat.

Back to nailing jello….

Ah yes… “I accept with great humility this heavy burden God has placed upon me, but WOE to any fool who tries to lift it!”

It’s their reaction to losing it that tells all.

And ya know, if you nail long enough, the jello will eventually run out.

Isn’t that the truth-‘woe to anyone who tries to lift it!’ Shows that there must be more to it than it just being a ‘command from God.’

So you mean the light at the end of the comp/egal debate tunnel isn’t a train carrying more…..jello? 🙂

Paula you wrote in post 27 ‘There is a phrase in ch. 2 that means “in keeping with their appointment”’, where do you see that phrase and do you have more information about it, references etc.?

In Him,
Martin

Martin,

The Greek word for appoint or ordain is kathistemi. It is used in ch. 1 vs. 5. In ch. 2 vs. 3 is the phrase katastemati hieroprepeis which means to be have in a manner in keeping with a sacred appointment. It is typically translated as something like “to be reverent in the way they live” (TNIV).

This is per footnote 1 for Titus 2 on Nyland’s Source NT. The Amplified Bible reads, “Bid the older women similarly to be reverent and devout in their deportment as becomes those engaged in sacred service”.

Is there any lexicon that defines ‘older women’ in Tit 2:2 as ‘women elders’?

In God’s amazing grace,
Martin

Sorry Tit 2:3.

Do anyone know of any other lexicons coroborating on this one.
Also are there any major commentaries who would support that?

In God’s amazing grace,
Martin

Some one mentioned the idea of presbtis for women ministers. Actually the feminine form for Presbuteros is used for women in I Tim.5:2 where KJV renders it aged women. Why not eldresses (it is plural) as the term elder is used in I Tim.5:1. O yes, Paul in Phils.4 mentions Euodias and Syntyche as fellow laborers in the ministry.