Paula

Hi Lin, I’ll see what I can do.

What the French prefer is completely irrelevant to what the apostles wrote in Greek. Two completely different cultures and languages. And tis can be either masc. or fem.

Single men do not preside (prostenai) over any household; that’s like saying they preside over themselves, so I agree it must refer to a married man at the very least. And this word is from the same root used for Phoebe in Rom. 16, meaning not “helper” but one who “stands before”, a protector, representative, advocate. This simply cannot refer to any individual presiding over themselves. But it certainly does speak against polygamy; what else can “a one-woman man” mean? Verse 12 is on the topic of deacons, not guardians (episkopes), so his trying to drag the plural grammar of vs. 12 over to this singular grammar is very poor exegesis.

Of course this is not to say there should only be one guardian per assembly; we have clear scriptures to the contrary. However, we also cannot ignore the use of the singular here. Just as in the passage in 1 Tim. 2 about “a woman” and “a man”, we have Paul using “anyone” and “a [one-woman] man”, yet elsewhere (ref. deacons) using the plural. So there is no reason that this cannot be another instance of Paul specifically addressing a particular man. Yes, he said “anyone”, but he also said “a man”. I propose that Paul is answering a question about a particular man’s aspiration to the position of Guardian. Paul does not know the man but gives guidelines for Timothy to go by.

This view takes care of both the grammar and the alleged basis for male-only Guardians. Paul can say “a one-woman man” to an individual without jumping to the conclusion that he would only ever address a man for that position.

Now to vs. 12.

The topic is plural and refers to diakonoi, meaning ministers or servants. Paul gave a rule about a particular man needing to be “a one-woman man”, and he extends this rule to all servants. Regarding polygamy, as before, it surely does rule against it. And what would be the point of Paul having to tell the women to only have one husband? Did they have a choice? No, so there was no need for Paul to say that. But for men, it was almost presumed, and he needed to expressly state that this would not be acceptable in the church.

If anyone wants to talk about who is to “rule the home”, it’s women: 1 Tim. 5 expressly states, “I intend then that younger ones marry, bear children, rule the house [Gk. oikodespotein or “house despot”)…”. Since women are given this responsibility and authority, such an injunction to Guardians or Servants cannot be taken as a male-only indicator.

If we truly “seek God’s best” we will not try to mix scripture passages on a whim or ignore grammar. And truth be known, it is culture that has always favored patriarchialism, so that if anyone is bowing to culture it is male supremacists. Paul was being very counter-cultural in many respects, not the least of which was his prominent mention of women and their honored service and gifting. Lists of spiritual gifts do not come in “pink” and “blue”, and there is nothing in scripture to limit the only to things that can remotely be considered “offices” to males.

Dr. Bushnell, who was a medical doctor and missionary to China, was appalled to read the Chinese translation of the Bible due to its blatant changing of scripture to bow to the male-centric culture. When confronted about this, the translators said “We had to be sensitive to the culture.”