STUDY ON 1 Timothy 3 v 1-13.

Its relevance to discussions on Ordination of Women.

INTRODUCTION

Many papers have been written both for and against Ordination of Women, but none, to my knowledge, on the relevance of this text. When the subject was raised with a proponent of Women’s Ordination, this text was simply brushed aside as irrelevant.

Hermeneutics, the principles governing how Scripture is understood, are being undermined to an extent previously unacceptable in the LCA. This is joined with a reinterpreting Scripture, to make it fit the current trends in sociology.

Consequently, verses are taken out of context, simply rejected as speaking only to the period when first written, or simply restated to give a modern image. The end result is a theology which departs from that once handed down to the saints, to the confusion of God’s people, and the ultimate hindrance of the honour and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This present paper is a rewrite of one originally presented to the Western Zone Pastors’ Conference in Victoria. That paper naturally referred to the original Greek. The intention is to retain these references, but including the appropriate meanings in English, so that hopefully this paper can be used with profit also by lay people.

The following hermeneutical principles are adhered to:

· Scripture interprets Scripture;

· The unclear is clarified by the clear;

· Texts are to be read in their context where that is applicable;

· The ultimate author of this letter is the Holy Spirit;

· While it was written within a particular culture, the authority and meaning is not determined by that culture, but by the Holy Spirit, who thus establishes apostolic authority;

· The authority of what is written here through Paul therefore stands for all time.

THE TEXT.

An assumption, perhaps more unspoken than articulated, is that because the Office of the Ministry has been limited to men only, that therefore all men are equally entitled to be part of the Office of the Ministry. The basis for this is read into Gal. 3 v 28: both men and women are now, in the Gospel, supposed to be able to take part.

Paul outlines who of men is eligible to hold this sacred office. It is not a question of whether women can be good teachers, abstain from excesses of alcohol, avoid greed etc. This restriction is not dependent on the culture of the time. If that were so, then Paul is guilty of double dealing. We can then also declare: The Holy Spirit is unclear with regard to inspiration and is misleading the church. On the one hand, Paul refuses women their right in the interests of the Gospel (v.13), but on the other hand he tells them they have full rights in the interests of the Gospel (Gal. 3v28). That creates serious problems with regard to our Lord Jesus Christ, whose command is to teach all to observe everything He has commanded (Matt. 28 v 20), and reflects on the authority which He claims is His by divine right. (Matt. 28 v 16).

THE CONTEXT.

In chapter 2, Paul outlines his instructions with regard to worship.

· Prayer is called for; for whom; and for what reason. (v.1-2)

· This is good (morally excellent) and pleasing to God who wants all to be saved. (v.3-4)

· This salvation is through the one mediator, Jesus Christ, the ransom according to God’s testimony. (v.5-6)

· Paul is herald and apostle appointed, so he speaks the truth, not lies, and is a teacher of true faith to the Gentiles. (v.7)

· He then outlines what he wants for men everywhere: prayer.(v.8)

· He outlines what he wants for women: modesty, decency, propriety, adorned not with lavish jewelry, clothing, but good deeds, appropriate for women who claim to worship God. (v.9-10)

· Then he states the fact that women have been excluded from the office of the Ministry and uses as proof the reference to the fall into sin. (v.11-15). They serve in faith love, and holiness with all propriety.

There is clearly a connection from the Office of the Ministry restricted to men and the duties of the office bearer as outlined in chapter 3. There is a further aspect that Paul also outlines the duties of one who is a deacon. These duties to an extent overlap but they are also differ in others. These instructions were written by Paul in advance of his hoped-for coming to Timothy. So whether Paul did make it or did not, they still stand.

VERSE 1. The Office of the Ministry.

After he has laid down the principle that women do not have a right to be ordained, by God’s own decision, Paul goes right on to a general statement on the requirements for one who would hold the Office of the Ministry.

The text also begins with no restrictions whatever on anyone. As an inspired apostle he lays down an authority on which we can forever rest our case. He states what is a trustworthy and reliable statement regarding entry into this office. He is very brief, so that to make a good translation we have in English to add something like a verb. All that Paul said was: πιστος hο λογος. Literally that means: reliable the statement. We would say: The statement is reliable. Reliability is used of a person who faithfully discharges a business, command or duty. It is used of God who keeps his promise. It is used also of things which can be relied on. The saying (λογος) means: a word for expressing some concept or idea. It can be a saying or a statement made by people of God. It is also used specifically to describe the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God. Then it is used (John 1v1) of Jesus as the eternal Son of God who reveals God to us as “the Word made flesh who lived among us”.

Seeing Paul used no verb in that brief statement, we have to add one: The saying is reliable. We cannot say: the saying used to be reliable, like something in the past no longer applicable. Paul is laying down something new. Nor can we say: The saying will be reliable. It is not some future arrangement but something which applies right then. (v.14-15). The one verb we can use is the present: is.

Then Paul goes on to speak of some condition which may apply. (ει = a condition of reality; some actually do). If anybody…(τις). The word is quite general and does not define a person by age, sex, or other factor. The context may or may not determine these factors. However, here it does, as we shall see in a moment.

What this person does is stated with two verbs. The first verb (ορεγεται: present passive of ορεγω) gives the picture of stretching one’s self out in order to touch or grasp something and to reach after it because you want to possess it. While there is a small element of desire here in this word, there is a much greater desire in the second verb: (επιθυμει: present tense of επιθυμεω): to desire. This is used in the Bible for both bad desires (lust) and good desires. It can be used of good and bad desires sexually, as well as conflicting desires in the Christian as well. The context here quite evidently favours a good and excellent desire. Paul is commending such a desire.

The NIV translates: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. What is desired is (επισκοπης.. Combined from σκοπεω and the prefix επι). The word can speak of God who inspects, investigates and visits His people either for judgment or for rescue. The prefix speaks of doing so from a position above the seat of action so the whole picture comes into play. So the noun comes to mean: oversight, i.e. overseer, office, charge. Evidently Paul assumes that Timothy knows precisely what office is being spoken about because Paul gives no further definition like saying: This is what I mean.

Such a good aspiration and desire is described as καλου εργου, a noble task. The word noble speaks of what by its very nature is good, excellent, and therefore well adapted to its purpose. The task is an act, deed, or thing done. It is the office of overseer which is spoken of. It is an excellent action to desire this office.

There is no restriction at this point on who may or may not have access to this office. The restrictions come in the following verses as outlined in stringent conditions. This reinforces what Paul has already said in chapter 2.

A Divine imperative.

Verse 2.

A conclusion is drawn from this desire with ουν = therefore. In keeping with that excellent office there is a necessity: δει. NIV: Now the overseer must be….. Because both the aspiration and the desire are an excellent action, the excellence of the office is to be safeguarded. The excellence of this office in the life and practice of the office is to be upheld.

From the office, Paul now turns to the person who holds the office: τον επισκοπον: the overseer, bishop, pastor. The word is masculine.The word described one who was a curator, guardian, superintendent of some delegated position of responsibility. It was taken into the Christian Church to describe the superintendent, head, overseer of a church. It is therefore quite evidently a position with authority and responsibility.

The divine imperative stated: must be – shows clearly that this was not in anyway determined by the social customs of the time, or could be altered or amended in any way in the future. Nor is there any indication that Galatians 3 v 28 (actually written earlier than 1 Timothy) was in any way to be seen as a contradiction of this letter or a further elucidation of it.

A Major Consideration

The overseer must ανεπιλημπτον ειναι. (The verbal adjective and infinitive follow on δει ουν). The adjective describes both the office and the one holding the office, but emphasis is on the encumbent here. It can mean: to seize with the hands or to arrest for a misdemeanour. It also speaks of grabbing a person in order to carry out a rescue. The adjective also has something equivalent in English to a word with the prefix “un-“ like un-likely, un-Australian. So it gives an opposite effect. This negative meaning then refers to what cannot be open to censure. This is the broad necessity. Then, as now, the overseer could bring credit or dishonour upon the office, and ultimately upon the name of God, and the Kingdom of God, by his actions. This has not changed. The devil seeks to discredit the pastor still today for the sake of harming the kingdom of God. We see for example, the discredit brought upon the church in general through paedophilia wherever it may be practiced. Paul repeats this same thought also to Titus (1 v 6 ff). Also with regard to deacons. (1 Tim. 3 v 12)

Already in this adjective (“to be above reproach”) many men are ruled out of consideration for being an overseer. There is no question that today, culture is driving decisions regarding the ordination of women. It has never been proper to make culture a determining principle of interpreting Scripture. This would make human beings the final authority and not the Holy Spirit.

Actions which bring discredit on the office.

The following actions are to be taken together under the one umbrella of: above reproach. They are all a unit therefore, so that it is improper to take “the husband of one wife” as being driven by the culture of the day. The entire section would then falls into that category, by that principle of interpretation.

1. A question of marriage and the home.

Again there is no verb, so we need to go back to the “must be”…. He must be ανδρα. = husband. The word can mean both man and husband. The context makes it obvious that it is used here in the sense of husband. He must be the husband μιας γυναικος = of one wife. The word can mean both woman and wife. Again the context makes it obvious that it is wife.

Major emphasis in this requirement is not on monogamy as opposed to polygamy. Roman society, as well as the Greek, did not generally practice polygamy. Instead the culture of the day leaned towards sexual immorality, including homosexuality whether male or female. We need but look at the catalogue in Romans 1 to see this.

The emphasis is on upholding what God long ago laid down for marriage. The overseer, together with his wife and family, is to be a shining light of what God intended marriage to be. At no time is the marital faithfulness of husband or wife for each other to come under question. This meant that the credibility of the overseer and his wife was not be under question in such a way that the message proclaimed could be called into question. There was to be a clear distinction between the overseer and his wife and the morality of the world they lived in.

There has been some discussion on whether being husband of one wife meant: married only once or only one wife at a time? Remarriage after death of the first or subsequent wives? The same credibility is to apply in any one of those situations. The text has not become unclear because of these possibilities. So that is not the issue.

However, one thing is clear: A woman cannot be the husband of one wife. Even the so-called alternative definitions of family today, does not make that a possibility, let alone making it desirable. What Paul says here is not based on social customs of the day or its culture, but on the God-determined and ordained marriage of one man and one woman as it applied in this context to the overseer and his wife. Paul is not here speaking about what is the role of the husband and wife in marriage. That is taken up in Eph. 5. And elsewhere.

If the marriage and married life of the overseer in anyway comes under a cloud, the office is at once dishonoured. The highest standards both prior to appointment and during the appointment are required. Only this does justice to the office. The close connection between the overseer and his wife is also indicated. Both are inseparably connected to the office: he as overseer; she as wife of the overseer. (See v. 11). She cannot say: I have my own life to live.

Offence which can be caused is seen clearly in the recent media coverage on sexual abuse against children. Whether this was justified or not, it still caused considerable feeling and in a back-handed sort of way, shows just what Paul is saying.

The suggestion that Gal. 3 v 28 means that there is no longer male and female comes to a sudden halt when confronted by this phrase: husband of one wife. Paul did not contradict himself. Nor did the Holy Spirit.

2. A question of sobriety.

This too is dependent on the “must be”… The overseer is to be νηφαλιον = sober, temperative, abstaining either entirely, or at least from immoderate use. It does not refer just to excesses in wine or alcoholic drinks. It is rather the thought of being calm and collected, dispassionate, circumspect. Of course, excessive drinking can have a bearing on that. This aspect is taken up a little later on. So the overseer is not to be a person with swinging moods, or extremes in attitude. One thing which could upset that is excess in wine, but there are other things which can upset a person, so that he goes off half-cocked on issues, or easily gets upset over things.

3. A question of self-control.

The word used here is σωφρονα. The word is again part of the “must be”. It means: of sound mind, sane, in one’s right senses. Basically, this is not a call to examine whether one is mentally disabled in some way, though this could of course be the case. Rather, the word refers to being in control of one’s desires and impulses. In fact, it speaks in terms of avoiding the knee-jerk reaction. While this perhaps is difficult to attain at all times, the overseer is still to be one who does not exhibit excesses of reaction or emotion in dealing with all kinds of situations but remains calm at all times. Such a person is much better able to deal with matters which arise. This is not a case for an aloof professional detachment from situations. It is rather the compassionate characteristic which enables the overseer to sit back from a situation to evaluate it carefully before taking some action. In fact, it is clearly a case for avoiding actions based on emotion and emotionalism in general.

4. A question of the well-ordered life.

The next word dependent on the “must be” is κοσμιος. This word means: well-arranged, appropriate, modest. It has connections with another word: κοσμος. That’s the word from which we get our English word: cosmic, cosmopolitan. It means: an apt and harmonious arrangement, order. It is appropriate to note the striking relationship between the two words. A big trap in any professional life, which is carried out without evident supervision, is to concentrate on what one likes to do, rather than on what needs to be done. A big question for most pastors, is the lack of time to fulfill the ministry adequately. No doubt, there is a case to be made for delegation, properly speaking, of certain responsibility. However it is doubtful whether one can take from this word, the refusal by some pastors to mow their own lawns because it is not their task. Also one cannot justify from this verse the position of some pastors, that they wish to follow the timetable of a 9 to 5 job. Yet, it is quite clear, that orderliness requires that a clear work schedule be drawn up and adhered to, in order that essential work is not shelved or overlooked, in favour of the more pleasing. Lack of good order is a thief of time.

5 A question of hospitality.

In the world in which Paul lived, the need for hospitality was very real. In the total absence of the social security we know, and aid agencies of all kinds, Christians under persecution were in desperate need for care. This was not a new command given by Paul to a specific group of people. God had long ago commanded the Jews to take care especially of widows and orphans, and even strangers.

A further noun dependent on: “must be” describes both the aspirants for the office of overseer as well as incumbents of it. It is φιλοξενον. This word is a combination of two words which means: friendship for strangers. We find the first word in our ‘philanthropist’. The verb ξενιζω means: to receive as a guest, to entertain hospitably. In general terms, this was taken to mean a friend, someone you know. However, with the emphasis of the stranger and the friendship, it means to take into one’s home the persecuted Christian in particular. Yet, Jesus had emphasized also the hospitality that did not simply repay those who helped us because His disciples might expect something in return. If they did, then there was really no benefit whatever because they had been repaid. From the life of Luther, it is evident that he and Katie practised such hospitality, as the so-called Table Talk reveals.

6 A question of teaching aptitude.

Another qualification based on the: “must be”. This one, like the previous qualifications, is not an optional extra, or a hidden talent to be discovered and developed. The overseer is to be this at the time of appointment. The word used is διδακτικον: apt and skilful in teaching. This requires not just the theoretical ability to teach, but also the necessary subject matter to be taught. This ability to teach recognizes also the need to be fully acquainted with the needs of those to be taught, not just with age in mind, but at any age. It is not just the academic ability here, which can converse in jargonistic terms, but in language which people can understand where they are. Of course, such teaching requires a lifting of people as they grow in their knowledge and understanding. This particular qualification quite evidently excludes many men from the office of the ministry, but certainly not from the kingdom of God.

Verse 3.

7. A question of drunkenness.

The previous ‘questions of sobriety’ is a much broader term than this one, which is very specific. Μη παροινον. This begins a series of negative statements. The noun is a compound of two words: a preposition and a noun. The preposition speaks of something alongside something else. The noun is the standard term for wine. So the picture is created of one who sits or spends too much time alongside the wine, with the added thought of being there too long. From that comes the meaning: drunkenness. When people become too involved with wine, they can also become involved with brawling and violence which too often accompanies excessive drinking. This text does not provide a case for total abstinence, but clearly there is a case for moderation and avoiding the offence caused by over-indulgence of wine. A person desiring the office of overseer is not to be one given to excessive drinking. Naturally, the corollary is that he is not to become such only after receiving the office.

8. A question of violence.

This is a second negative requirement. Μη πληκτην. The adjective is still dependent on the “must be”. The adjective means: a bruiser, a pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome person. The verb that it comes from is πλησσω and it means to strike, hit, punch. While there is not necessarily a connection between this negative and the previous one, the relations between excess drinking of wine and fighting is no accident. It is, of course, possible for a person to be contentious and quarrelsome without being an excessive drinker. We know of people who fire up rapidly, even coming to blows. The world we live in, has always taken it as a virtue to be assertive, and to stick up for one’s rights, even to the point of violence. The overseer is by his very nature to be a living example of the opposite.

9. A question of gentleness.

Paul now states the opposite of the two above, or at least the second one: αλλα : but. However, it seems preferable to have it refer to both the negative attitudes. What the overseer is to be is επιεικη: based on what is reasonable. It means to be equitable, fair, mild, gentle. The preposition in the adjective speaks of what the foundation is, the base on which something is built. The overseer is to be a person whose actions are based on that which is fair and reasonable. To be overfull on wine or to show a pugnacious attitude, rules out being gentle, fair and reasonable.

10. A question of quarrelsomeness.

Paul not returns to two more negative statements. The adjective is αμαχον. The α- at the beginning of this states the opposite of μαχη = combat, fight, battle. The adjective then means: one who cannot be withstood, to be invincible. It is used only twice in the New Testament. The picture is created of one who has to win at all costs. That is not the proper attitude of the overseer. The physically violent person and the verbally quarrelsome one are doing the same thing: trying to remain on top. Jesus spoke of the same thing when He instructed His disciples to turn the other cheek. Much harm has been done in the history of the Church by leaders who had to win at all costs, without due concern for the needs of their people.

11. A question of greed.

A further negative is used, again with the prefix α-. Αφιλαργυρον. This is a composite of two words: φιλος and αργυρος. The first noun is the same one we had earlier in the word: friend to strangers, hospitable. This characteristic is of one who is a friend, a lover of silver, greedy, avaricious. No case can be made out here for depriving the overseer (pastor) of a valid salary on the assumption that a living in keeping with the standards of member’s wages, would threaten the pastor’s eternal life. However, it is equally true, that there have been pastors who continually complained about the low standard of living that they have to endure. The overseer, who sees material gain as the important part of life, is going to give the wrong signals to those for whom he is responsible. History has shown only too well, the dangers of power struggles, accompanied by wealth, which has corrupted leaders of the Church.

Verse 4

12. A question of authority in the home.

The characteristics which must mark the overseer mentioned up to this point are what stand in the public eye. Paul now shifts to what is in the home, but which could also be very public and have a serious effect on the office of the ministry.

The term used here is του οικου. The term οικος can refer both to the building where a family lives, and then also to the inmates of the building, all the persons forming one family, or a household. The adjective ιδιου decides whose house it is. The context makes it quite plain that it is the overseer. The adjective means: what is one’s own as opposed to that which belongs to another. In this context, it is his own family as opposed to other families.

In the debate on women’s ordination, it has been seriously suggested that being the husband of one wife was determined by the cultural context. If that rule of interpretation is applied again here, it really makes no sense at all. In fact, it countermands other commands where the father is placed in the position of responsbility for the spiritual training and upbringing of his children.

What the overseer is required to do (he must) is stated with an adverb: καλως. In v.1, the desire for the office is described with the adjective: excellent. Now the overseer is directed as to the manner in which something must be done with the overseer’s family by the overseer himself. There is to be no room for blame in the way in which the overseer manages his family and keeps them in control. The obligation in this context rests very evidently with the overseer himself, even if his wife plays a significant role in this task.

What the overseer is to do is προισαμενον. The word is from a verb which means to be over, to superintend, preside over, rule. Clearly there is a position of authority stated here, which is to be observed first of all by the overseer himself. The ones to be thus presided over are called τεκνα = children, offspring, without reference to whether they are male or female.

This ruling over the household, in particular his children, has a goal: εχοντα εν hυποταγη. The verb εχοντα is a present tense, and so stresses what is the continuous nature of this action. In other words it is not just for then, but for all times. What the overseer has to do is to rule his children in the condition of hυποταγη = obedience, subjection. This noun comes from a verb which has been much in discussion in women’s ordination. It is the same word that we find Paul using in 1 Tim. 2 v 11 regarding women. The verb is hυποτασσω which means: to arrange in order, to subordinate, to subject, put in subjection. The emphasis is upon a certain order which is to be observed, not to elevate male over female, but in order to follow the command of God Himself. If this order does not apply to women, then by the same rule of interpretation, it can no longer apply to children either. It is very clear that children are not to be left to their own devices, working out for themselves what is to be the standard for their own lives. There is no hint or suggestion of the rights of the children to please themselves. They, like their father, the overseer, are under orders.

The children are certainly to be trained up in the way they are to go. That is the responsibility of the overseer, as father. This training is to be accompanied by something: μετα. This preposition speaks of accompaniment, union, association. What is associated with the proper training is πασης σεμνοτητος.. It comes with all, or total respect. The noun σεμνοτης means: that characteristic of a person or a thing which entitles a person to reverence or respect; dignity, gravity, majesty, sanctity. The overseer, as father, has this respect, having been given it by God. That is what requires him, as one in charge of his children, to train them in such a way that his entitled respect is given willingly, as to God Himself.

Verse 5.

The reason for this is now given. Obviously, with two whole verses devoted to this subject, it is of considerable importance in the church for the overseer to carry out this responsibility as well. Here again, the person to be appointed as overseer is one whose family is under control.

The verse begins with a condition: ει = if. It is a reality that Paul is talking about. What occurs when this is not carried out, is the reality expressed. If he doesn’t do this then…….. While what Paul says appears to be general: τις = anyone, it is quite evidently the same person, the overseer who is being referred to, because Paul repeats του ιδιου οικου = his own household.

Paul talks about someone ουκ οιδεν = not know. Paul is not just talking about knowing some general principles of child training, but the actual putting into practice of that knowledge. What he does not know and practice is προστηναι = to superintend, preside over, rule. This is the same word, though in a different form, to the one already mentioned in v.4. The household of the overseer is to be an orderly house.

So if he cannot do that, then Paul asks the question: πως = how. Yes, how can he επιμελησεται. The verb is επιμελεομαι = to take care of a person or thing. This verb has a preposition at the beginning of it: επι. That preposition speaks of a foundation upon which the action is built. The verb is also future. So when appointing an overseer, one consideration is how he manages his household, particularly in the training of his children. What is to be cared for does not now belong to the overseer. It is εκκλησιας θεου = the church of God, which is entrusted to the care of the overseer. It is indeed significant that this connection is made between the family of the overseer and the church of God. There is a clear similarity then between the two and how they are cared for. Actually, the same principles apply for the care of both: maintaining the order which God has established for both.

Verse 6.

13. A question of inexperience and pride.

Remember, we are still bound by the “must be”, even though Paul now begins with a negative: μη = must not be etc. What the overseer must not be is νεοφυτον. This noun is made up of two nouns: νεος = recently born, young youthful, and φυω = to beget, bring forth, produce. Put together as a composite = newly planted. In a spiritual sense = a recent convert. We still sometimes use the word: neophyte, to describe a person who has newly come to belong to something. This does not mean that the overseer can never be a younger person. It is rather being an overseer who has only recently come to be a Christian. The reason for this will now be given.

The reason is stated in the most emphatic way possible with hινα μη: in order that not etc. There is a secondary action stated first: τυφωθεις. This action determines the main verb’s meaning and thrust. The participle just mentioned is also a passive, i.e. it speaks of the agent involved in the action. It is also a past action. The verb means: to make proud, puffed up with pride, to be insolent. Then it comes to mean: to blind with pride or conceit, to render foolish or stupid. In a sense, the smoke or steam of the hot air of pride gets in the eyes and makes it difficult to see clearly. We get the picture of the toad that puffs itself up with air to give the impression of being larger than life.

This person cannot therefore see what is in store and so εμπεση. The verb is very strong: in order that he may not fall into etc. There is a strong suggestion that it is a pit, a trap, dug for animals to fall into because they do not see the danger. What such a novice falls into is εις κριμα: into judgment. That word judgment, is the sentence passed by a judge. We are not told who the judge is, but it is clear from the context that it is God himself. The sentence passed on such a novice, is the same that was passed on του διαβολου : the devil.

We should not suppose that every novice who might enter into the ministry automatically falls into the trap of pride. However, history does contain sufficient evidence of this happening. On the other hand we need to avoid the other false deduction that no mature person ever falls into the trap of pride.

Verse 7.

15 A question of a good reputation.

A second time there is the use of δει : He must be και = also. It has been quite a while since Paul used that same word, (verse 2.) and so it is good to return to it. What is necessary is that the overseer εχειν = to have. It is a continuous action, permanent in fact. What he is to have is μαρτυρια καλην: a good reputation. The term μαρτυρια is the same word from which we get our English word: martyr. The word is used in different ways but with the same basic meaning of testimony or evidence. In a legal sense it is evidence presented before a judge to prove or disprove a case. It is used also in an historical sense of the evidence produced by an historian to support his findings or prove them. Ethically it is evidence relating to a person’s character. It is used also of the revealed evidence supporting the doctrines of the Christian faith. Here it is used of evidence relating to the unimpeachable character and reputation of the overseer as this is seen by απο των εξωθεν: by those outside i.e. unbelievers. All the previous characteristics refer primarily to establishing a suitable candidate within the church. This last one is linked specifically to what is seen by those outside the congregation. This meaning is determined more by the context than the meaning of the word itself. Of course, Paul is not saying that persons outside the church have a say in who is to be overseer, or that a person can be chosen because he is popular with those outside. However, quite evidently, if a person has a poor reputation because of some genuine reason, then he is not to be chosen. What unbelievers see in the Christian overseer, which even they disagree with, then evidently this will react even more strongly against the Christian faith. Take for example what is happening with paedophiles in the church.

Once again the reason behind this is stated negatively: hινα μη = in order that absolutely not etc. What is absolutely to be avoided is εμπεση. Paul uses the same emphatic way of speaking that he did in v.6. and also the same word. There is a trap here which the overseer could easily fall into. It is εις ονειδισμον = a reproach. Now this word is used in two ways in the New Testament. It is used of the reproach which is unfairly heaped on Christians for being disciples of Jesus Christ. Here Paul uses the word of any disgrace or reproach heaped justly on a person for improper conduct.

The second thing the overseer is to avoid by means of a good reputation is falling into παγιδα του διαβολου. Παγις is: snare, trap, noose, used for catching birds. Then it is used in an ethical sense of whatever brings peril and danger, the loss or even destruction of faith. The one who is the source of these traps being set is the diabolical one, the devil. The devil knows very well the havoc that can be brought on the church, and the world which looks on, when the pastor falls into public sin.

SOME FINAL COMMENTS.

This study has gone long enough. The subject matter is not yet completed however, but this will be dealt with under the topic of the deacon: (διακονος) in a separate study. The two offices: overseer and diaconate, are closely related, though two distinct offices. But more of that in the next study.

Serious assertions are being made that the exclusion of women from the Office of the Ministry took place on cultural grounds rather than on Scriptural and therefore theological grounds. So the statement has been made that Paul directed that the overseer was to be the husband of one wife, refered to this Jewish context.

At the same time, much endeavour has been entered into to show that the woman being in submission cannot mean what it does. When Paul uses the same word to describe the attitude of children, then in this context, it must have the same meaning. We cannot apply one rule of interpretation in one verse and then in the same context apply a different rule to the same word in another verse.

In addition to being somewhat dogmatic and theological nonsense, it raises serious questions about the interpretation of Scripture. Clearly, Paul in v. 2 (and repeated again in v.7) states: The overseer (bishop if you like) must be etc. He then proceeds to outline 15 requirements in this job description which must be filled before a person may be selected to be overseer, and then requires that person to continue his office according to the same requirements. He is placed in a position of responsibility over against God’s Church. (v.5).

The one described here is then clearly a man: husband of one wife. If a hermeneutical rule is introduced which says: this is culturally driven, then that same rule has to apply to whole passage, because this is a unit. So for example, it is culturally very acceptable today, to celebrate just about anything by excessive use of alcohol. Mind you, it was already in Paul’s time too. So because it is now socially acceptable, then maybe we could change that too. After all, “change” is supposed to have occurred in recent times, and now we have “discovered” the “freedom of the Gospel”. Therefore women are now to be included as valid candidates for this office, which is one of the final bastions of male dominance!.

Before we get too carried away with this “false” interpretation, let us remember just one important detail which has been overlooked. The impression has been created that because it is a “men-only” office, that therefore all men irrespective of who or what they are, are by that very fact automatically candidates for the Office of the Ministry. The study shows that about 99% of all men are automatically excluded.

I believe that there is a very significant comment made by Paul later in this same chapter. He is not sure whether or not he will make to Ephesus, where Timothy was pastor. He has therefore listed these requirements for the training of future pastors, just in case he does not make it. The purpose of the training and these requirements has to do with “how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth”. (v.15).

Of course, there is interpretation in the Church. However, when such interpretation seeks to play one part of Scripture against another, with the express purpose of introducing what has been forbidden in the Scriptures, then we have a serious life-threatening situation. It attacks the very nature and authority of Scripture, and the authority of Him who is the Lord of the Church, claiming total authority has been given to Him.

In this way, the trust and confidence which the people of God have had in the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God is undermined. In other words, this “culturally driven” push for the ordination of women, is, by its very nature, Eden revisited and the subtle but powerful doubts raised by the devil are once more a threat to the existence of the Church and the people of God: “Did God really say….”

Geoff Noller

Ararat

20 August 2002