54 Lin,

Regarding 1 Timothy 3:12, the quote you gave from the person who said this could not be about polygamy is not following what has been an historical interpretation. Polygamy was an acceptable thing in that culture and while the unmarried were allowed to be Apostles and leaders in the church, polygamists were not allowed to be examples to the congregation. Paul himself was unmarried and it would seem out of place for him to encourage others to remain unmarried as he was, so that they could give more of their time to Christian work and then turn around and deny those who followed his advice from being leaders in the church. That would be a contradiction in Paul’s practice with a prohibition on single men’s service.

Now regarding the masculine language of 1 Timothy 3, the “default” language is masculine even when it includes males and females. For example every one of the salvation passages is in the singular masculine. For example:

Mat 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Mat 16:25 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

The “whoever” and the “anyone” is in the singular masculine. Are only males allowed to take up their cross and follow Jesus? Are only males who lose their life for Jesus told they will find their lives? No, this passage along with all of the salvation passages are in the masculine because that is the default way of expressing men and women. We cannot take away women from having leadership places in the congregation because of the masculine language of 1 Timothy 3 any more than we can take away women’s ability to follow Jesus and receive salvation because these passages are also in the masculine grammar.

If Paul wanted us to know that women were forbidden from having any leadership places in the congregation he would have told us this directly. He also would have explained why God went outside this prohibition by using women in leadership positions in the Old Testament. Paul does not have to explain away women leaders in the Old Testament because his language is not one of direct prohibition. It is also never listed as a “sin” for a woman to give of herself to shepherd the flock. Rather Paul says that if “anyone” (not the male term “aner”) desires to be an overseer that person desires a good thing. What did Paul recommend for women who desired to be an overseer? Should they be put into jail? Should they be kicked out of the congregation? Should they be shunned? Paul gives no such punishment for women. There is no penalty given for the “crime” of a woman desiring to use her God-given gifts for the benefit of the entire body of Christ. Why do we punish godly women who desire to use their gifts to benefit their dear brothers in Christ? What biblical precedent do we have to mete out this judgment? There is nothing in scripture that lists these women as practicing sin nor does scripture tell us how to punish them. I respectfully suggest that those who hold to patriarchy have gone above and beyond the clear teaching of scripture by holding back and punishing women when scripture never tells us to do this. There is not even one example in either the OT or the NT that gives an example of a woman punished by God or by the congregation for using her God-given gifts in public.