Dusman

Here are a few other tidbits of information that I believe would be helpful in light of this radio discussion/debate.

Matt emphasized the masculine pronouns in the English translation of 1 Tim. 3:1 (i.e., NAU 1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any *man* aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work *he* desires to do.)

1. As Cheryl tried to carefully point out, the Greek word translated “any man” in the NASB is tis. Tis *is* a masculine, singular pronoun that is used throughout the NT to denote not only males, but also females and even both genders as a collective group. Cheryl ably demonstrated one example of this in her WIM DVD series with Luke 9:23 where Jesus said, “. . . “If *anyone* [Gk. tis] wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me”. It is obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying that *only* males could be saved or that to be saved *only* males had to “deny themselves” and take up “his cross.

Also, all of these verbs (“wishes”, “deny”, “take up”) are 3rd person singular verbs that can be correctly translated either “he/she/it wishes”, “he/she/it denies” and “he/she/it takes up”. This brings me to point # 2.

2. The “aspires” and “he desires” of 1 Tim. 3:1 are also 3rd person singular verbs (oregetai and epithumai respectively). Now, in NT Greek, non-participial verbs can be translated either “he”, “she”, or “it” depending on the context because those verbs in and of themselves do *not* carry any specific gender. This is Greek 101 folks! Why is this important? Well, lo and behold, this means that these verbs could also be correctly translated [without violating the context of 1 Tim. 3] “If anyone aspires [fem.] to be an overseer, it is a fine work *she* desires to do.”

3. Matt wanted to argue that having female elders/pastors/overseers is impossible because Paul made reference to the “husband of one wife”, etc. and that what follows from verse 2 onward shows that Paul was clearly teaching that only males can be elders. And so, he would necessarily argue that the verbs in 1 Tim. 3:1 should be correctly translated “any man aspires . . . he desires”. However, for strategic purposes, we could play that game too by saying, “Brother Matt, if you are going to argue that the verbs of 1 Tim. 3:1 should be translated in the masculine to say that only males can be pastors and that this is backed up by the masculine character qualities in 1 Tim. 3 (i.e., “husband of one wife”, “manages *his* own household well, keeping *his* children under control with all dignity . .”) then we could just as easily say, “Yeah but the word translated ‘overseer’ in 1 Tim. 3 (episkopes) is a *feminine singular noun* so I guess that means that Paul was also teaching that both males and females can be pastors and now you’ve got a defeater for your position!”

4. It seems to me that there are four “logically possible” interpretations of the phrase “of one wife [the] husband,” or “a one-woman man” in 1 Timothy 3. (1) The overseer (synonym for pastor/elder, etc.) must be married and cannot be childless (from v. 4). From this it follows (for some) that he cannot even marry again if his wife dies, because that would mark him as the husband of two wives and so he would be automatically disqualified. (2) The proscription is really about excluding polygamists. (3) It refers to faithfulness to the spouse you are married to. Even divorce would be forgiven if it happened before one’s conversion since the current marriage would be validated by the new birth (1 Cor 7:14, etc.) or, (4) It merely indicates that the overseer should be married, a common conservative interpretation.

The first (1) is logically impossible because it would exclude Paul (but not Peter) from the Apostleship, since Peter was an Apostle and an Elder (1 Peter 5:1). Paul elsewhere extols singleness as a good thing for those called to do it for the purpose of being more freed up to engage in the gospel ministry (1 Cor. 7:32-35). The principle here is that the Christian is NEVER at liberty to interpret a dubious text for which several possible meanings can be suggested, in a way that is in logical conflict with other perfectly plain texts elsewhere in Scripture. This is one of the main reasons that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 cannot possibly Paul’s own teaching, since it plainly contradicts other statements of Paul’s in the very same letter (1 Cor. 11:5).
It seems to me that (2) is at least possible, but polygamy was unusual in the 1st century Greco-Roman world, and not common among Jews, either, although it was not unknown. Men had concubines, hetairi, temporary morganatic marriages, mistresses, etc., but rarely polygamy, so this is pretty unlikely. (4) is excluded for the same reason as (1). This leaves (3), which I have come to agree with, leaving (2) as a derivative implication, but not the primary intent. As has been mentioned elsewhere on this blog, Lucian Deiss’ research supports this.

Hope *tis* helps. (pun intended!)