The Boss-man?
It is a trustworthy statement; if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 1 Timothy 3:1 NASB
Overseer – If any man? But what about Carol or Ann or Linda or Jan? What if they desire to be “overseers”? Ah, if only Paul weren’t so gender conscious. Wait a minute! If we look at the Greek text, we find that the verse doesn’t say, “if any man.” It says, “if anyone.” The reason the NASB and other translations introduce gender specificity is a result of the next verse with its statement about “the husband of one wife.” The assumption is that this must be about men since the prohibition only applies to men. But not so fast!
Let’s start with the theme. That theme is service, not authority. Sometimes translated “bishop,” the word episkopos literally means “a watchman, someone who looks after something.” Because this term was used in classical Greek for officials who were sent to outlying provinces, we have assumed that the word is about an office (notice the NASB translation), not a role played by anyone in the Body. But what do we find when we look for the word episkopos in the LXX? We find words associated with visiting (like paqad). Sometimes the subject is God Himself. Sometimes it is men. But there is little to suggest that these “visitors” are rulers or officials simply because they have been sent. Since Paul is speaking in general about the theme of providing service to others, I suspect that his view of an “overseer” has more to do with hands-on help than it has to do with micro-management. And I doubt very much that these people came with titles in front of their names.
How does one become an episkopos? Perhaps by desiring to help. Perhaps by being where the work needs to be done. Perhaps by offering to direct the project or the effort. Perhaps by making sure that everything anyone else needs is provided. One thing is abundantly clear. Being an episkopos has nothing to do with getting the credit.
Now what about Carol? Why can’t a woman be an episkopos? Don’t women desire to be helpful visitors? Aren’t women capable of directing endeavors of the Body? Of course they are. In fact, there are many examples in both the Old and New Testaments of women who were overseers in every sense of the word except the Church-endorsed “title” (which came much later). The entire exclusion of women from the role of director for helping depends on Paul’s subsequent statement, “the husband of one wife.” But that is a completely culturally-dependent condition. It is the prohibition against polygamy, still practiced by the wealthy in the first century. It is not about divorce. It is about the inevitable stress caused by more than one wife at the same time. Why doesn’t Paul make a statement about the monogamy of women? Because there was absolutely no need to. Polyandry was not practiced in the first century Mediterranean world.
The conditions for being an overseer are limited to these: purity, goodness, temperance, modesty, not greedy, not argumentative, gentle, not prideful and not a novice. Gender has nothing to do with it. Living by the Spirit has everything to do with it. Those translations that suggest this is an office limited only to men are more a reflection of the male hierarchy’s desire for power than they are a reflection of the nature of God.
Topical Index: overseer, bishop, episkopos, paqad, 1 Timothy 3:1
CORRECTION: Yesterday’s TW should have ended like this:
The pagans in Corinth were not categorically resistant to the new ekklesia of Jews and Gentiles together. They just weren’t ready to believe it until they could see it actually work.
The translation shows even more prejudice when you read on. Vers 11 translates (KJV) ‘Even so must their wives be grave’. But there is no ‘their’ in Greek, nor does it say ‘wives’, but simply: ‘Women also,…..’. So first Paul adresses men to specify their conditions, and than women, to show how they are supposed be an example. This in my opinion shows that men as well as women were episkopoi and diakonoi. The fact that these words are used male is no problem: when Paul says ‘brothers’, a mixed group is spoken to in the male gender. And the same happens over here and at many other instances.
Maybe you still have ´Who says women cant teach?’ (Charles Trombley, 1985!) somewhere on the shelf. Very instructive!
Authority is given, -that’s a given. But in order to be “over,” we must be “under.” We all (male, female, Jew or Greek) must be under authority. Bob Dylan (again..) was right: ‘you got to serve somebody.’
For a study or review of this we need to go no further that Romans 6,7 and 8.
We seem to be so concerned today with “who’s in charge?” Very well then, for the sake of clarity, let it be firmly established- “G-d is.” We (together, male and female, Jew and Greek, brothers and sisters), serve the LORD Christ. Who may serve? Anyone. Who then is a leader? Anyone. Anyone willing to serve. If we serve someone (anyone) then we are a “leader,” for we lead by serving. In order to be “over” we must be “under.” Christ was (and is) a Servant. He came not to be ministered unto (are we listening?), but to minister, to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. Are we capable, are we able, to also live like this? To give (lavishly, sacrificially,abundantly, continuously) of ourselves, our resources, our time, our treasures, our talents- in service to others?
Do you recognize a “leader” when you see one? What does a leader look like? (This is not a trick question!) Who (people) is our Leader? Who do we serve? Who is our King? What is His name? For we (all) male and female, serve the LORD Jesus (who is the) Christ, the Annointed.
So then, who gets the credit? He does. Who gets the praise? He does. Who gives us our abilities, (all abilities) anyway? He does. Without Him we (all of us) can do nothing.
A servant serves. And we (all) have the mind of Christ. -How may I serve you? (today). We (all) serve Him (our Sovereign Shepherd/King) by serving others. And anyone at any time and in any place may be a leader, and we (all) lead by serving. In order to be “over,” we must be “under.” Do we have a blessed opportunity to serve someone today? Have you experience the joy He gives to His servants? Remember-it was the servants who witnessed the water turned into wine!
Bless you, Skip, for clarifying these issues concerning women!
Thank you
Skip, I’m looking at the Greek in the Interlinear Bible and see the direct translation uses he several times in 1Tim 3. Is this because of the Hebrew use of the male gender when addressing mixed groups? I really need to understand this because I share this information with others. Some resist and doubt.
Is 1 Cor. 14:34ff a restriction on female overseers?
Hi Ian,
1 Cor. 14:34 ends with ‘as also saith the law’. The problem is Torah nowhere ever says women ought to be silent in the ecclesia. Some therefor take this to be a quote from Paul’s adversaries.
Only Oral Torah says women should be quiet and not speak in public in the qehelah.
The problem Paul adresses in this chapter is not quite known. He answers questions the Corinthians sent him. But we don’t know what the questions were!
So to base theology on the answer to an unknown question is at best unwise. Probably there was ‘a’ woman (vs.35 is singular) who upset things in the ecclesia with her questioning what was taught. Paul is telling the ecclesia to do everything in order (vs.40 and the whole chapter). In those days in the synagogue it was not common practice for women to speak, because what oral torah (not written torah) taught. In the Greek speaking world women were looked at with disdain. Some rabbies had the same incination. So now these women came in, listened to Paul saying in Christ there is no male or female (Gal.3:28) and therefor speaking their minds on high tone. That was very disagreeable for the Jews. Maybe Paul is trying to calm down the situation by – for the time being – telling women not to speek in public. But this is speculation. We simply don’t know the specific question, so we have to be satisfied with only the answer, which cannot be, in my opinion, a general rule for all ecclesia’s in all times.
So when did the polygamy practised by for example, David and Solomon in the OT become monogamy in the NT – or did it?
John, I was on Twitter this evening & found this tweet from the Jerusalem Post & thought about this discussion:
New Jewish group wants to restore polygamy…
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=228736&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
I see! Thanks Jan. Most interesting.
I remember reading of the schoolboy who wrote in an essay “Polygamy is being married to more than one person. Monotony is being married to only one.”
🙂
John
John, I had typed something very profound to you in response to your last comment/post & something happened & whisked my text/comment away but the last word I saw (saying) on the monitor/text I was typing was this: ending…
My prayer is that it is ending because nothing would please me more, for Oneness cannot exist in polygamy… ♥
a turtle & a letter appeared at my front door & in my mailbox today – both out of the ordinary & supernatural for sure – the turtle disappeared & the letter appeared both from no where – i hold in my care the written word/text & the turtle is no where to be found – i looked for the turtle but i have photos to remind me…
Hi Skip , very interesting reflection and I totally endorse the view that women are as called by God and should be used by the Church just as men are.
There is one point I want to ask your opinion about and this concern the aspect of marriage/divorce/polygamy in the NT. In Mat 5:32 and Mat. 19:9, Jesus makes a very specific statement about the reason for divorce and the status of remarried women/men. In my church they take this statement very literally but I believe that in the context of Jesus’ statement He was addressing a principle matter (i.e. against practicing polygamy and dismissing wives for no good reason, etc.) rather that giving absolute specific instructions. What do you think? Thanks and blessings, Roger.
Roger Holmes,
Your question concerning divorce and Yeshua words on it Matthew 5:31-32.
Go to:https://skipmoen.com/2010/05/04/matthew-session-19/
Shabbat shalom!
John, when was polygamy ever endorsed by YHWH? (Solomon, -having multiple mates was not so wise after all!) G-d’s plan has ever been- one man and one woman, ’till death do them part..
But Carl – after the incident with Bathsheba, didn’t the Lord tell David that He gave him all his master’s wives, and if this had not been enough, He would have given him more? It’s not that simple IMHO!
John
Hi John, Carl,
The Lord was very specific in His prescriptures to the kings of Israel. Deut.17:14-20 specifies what they should not accumulate: horses (military power), women (who distract him of the true worship) and gold and silver (which makes a person independent of God).
Tell me, what blessing was there for David for his disobedience ? His sons fought and killed each other. There was never any peace in his household, because he stole the wife of Uria and killed the poor man, while he already had more than one wife.
And Salomon? He is always seen as a very wise king. But in reality he was everything but wise later on in his life: he did exactly what the Lord forbade in Deut.17! And look at the results: all these women brought their gods from the countries they came and plunged Israel into idolatry so bad the Lord fist had to split Israel and later on had to exile them to the Assyrian and Babylinian captivity. What blessing is there in this disobedience?
One man, one woman is Gods wisdom for man. That doesn’t mean man can’t sin against that. Nor does it mean God connot bless you anymore when you’ve done wrong in your life! But it always brings pain and grieve when a couple divorces. Gods wisdom cannot be ignored without consequences (that’s something else than punnishment!).
John,
Could you please explain what IMHO means?
Kees: “In my humble opinion”! Sorry for the acronym – I rarely use them, but it seemed appropriate!
Thanks! I’m Dutch – as you’ve probably noticed by (?) the mistakes I make in English – so sometimes I miss things like IMHO and so on. (some months ago I didnt know what LOL ment) No apologies, please! I feel so blessed God made me find this site! We are one in Christ / Messiah. So one day, God is going to restore a pure lip to us all! (I think that will be Hebrew, b.t.w – yes this one I know!)
God bless you all!
Kees – I’m a half-breed; half English, half Scottish! I have lived in the US for 27 years. I was invited to speak at a conference at the Delft University of Technology a couple of years ago. What a beautiful city, and home of Vermeer, the “Master of Light”!
I was so impressed with how perfectly everyone spoke English.
Where in the Netherlands do you live?
As for ‘lol’, I thought it meant ‘little old lady’ 🙂 Just joking, but for ages I puzzled about that.
John
Hi John,
I work in Delft every day! I’m a teacher (religious education) at a highschool in Delft. Many of my former pupils study technology in Delft, so you must have met some. I live in a tiny village some 20 miles from Delft. If ever you come to Holland again, please let me know so we can meet!
John, do you have a scripture reference for “after the incident with Bathsheba, didn’t the Lord tell David that He gave him all his master’s wives, and if this had not been enough, He would have given him more?”
Amen brother Kees- G-d’s plan for Adam and for all ever since has been and continues to be one man and one woman till death do them part. This is the marriage covenant, a parable of the blood covenant (and the two shall become one flesh) that we (the body of Christ) now are part of. We (the present body and future bride) have entered into and are in a blood-covenant union with Yeshua HaMashiach. Marriage is the closest thing on planet earth we may behold and observe to give us a glimmering glance of glory our Father has reserved for them that love Him. I highly recommend this wonderful book for all who have not read it: The Divine Romance by Gene Edwards.
G-d, my friends, is our Hunter/Lover. It is He who has pursued, wooed, and initiated this relationship we, who are His,now enjoy. We are the future bride of Christ, and there is on G-d’s Agenda -the marriage supper of the Lamb and all (whosoever will) have been invited to attend. (Revelation 19) http://endtimepilgrim.org/marriage.htm
Carl: 2 Samuel 12 v.8
Thank you for your comments, but I still think the question remains unanswered. I am not suggesting anything patently heretical – I merely would like to have this clarified. If it was ‘one wife per man’ why did the Lord give David Saul’s wives (and more) to him?
John
I have read the Divine Romance; it is wonderful.
May I add another suggestion? In those days a king often married a daughter of another king to ratify a covenant with that king as kind of an assurance to that king that the covenant would not be broken for some miner reason. In international affairs this was quite common. So maybe many of these marriages were no more than political moves. I don’t pretend to know Gods opinion on that, but maybe He tolerated this as part of the (bad) ways of man. To take the women of your predecessor meant you would honor the agreements made in the past. This is just a suggestion, but might be very close to the truth.
That’s a good point, and quite plausible. Surely though God did not regard Saul’s wives and concubines to be mere ‘possessions’ to be passed on to a new owner. Anyway, I’ve probably taken up too much time and space with my little (still somewaht unanswered) foray into heterodoxy…:-)
Kees – regarding your comment about Delft. My host at the University (in the Mathematics Dept.) is also a believer, so it was another dimension that we could share!
From WIKI on Polygamy:
The Torah, Judaism’s central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife (specifically, her right to food, clothing and conjugal relations).
Deuteronomy 21:15–17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son’s mother and likes another wife more;[16] and Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.[17]
The king’s behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8. Exodus 21:10 also speaks of Jewish concubines. Israeli lexicographer Vadim Cherny argues that the Torah carefully distinguishes concubines and “sub-standard” wives with prefix “to”, lit. “took to wives.”[18]
The New Testament does not specifically address the morality of polygamy. 1 Timothy, however, states that certain Church leaders should have but one wife: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (chapter 3, verse 2; see also verse 12 regarding deacons having only one wife).
The latter implying that some men had more than one wife…thank you Michael for the above information. On one hand it helps, on the other it makes things even murkier! Sooner or later Skip may jump in and slay me in my ignorance! (Just kidding, Skip)
“on the other it makes things even murkier”
Hi John,
I understand.
For me, it has only been in the last few years that I could come to terms with David.
I mean how in the world could David be a hero, having discarded his wife for Bathsheba.
And then having Bathsheba’s husband, and his friend, killed on the battlefield???
(Remember that Matthew connects Jesus to David.)
Or worse yet, how in the world could religious Jews have participated in orgies???
And worshipped fertility gods???
I grew up with a pretty wild crowd of guys and gals, but that stuff is a “bridge too far” 🙂
Carl,
Could you please explain the blood covenant? I don’t know what you mean with that. What is the blood-covenant union with Yeshua? Do you mean the price He paid at Calvary?
Kees- this is the key (I believe) that we all need (any man, any woman, any Jew, any Gentile, Dutch, American, South African)- it is the blood-covenant.
If we could get a thorough explanation and understanding of this one ‘reality’ it would change our lives forever. It would change our marriages, our communities, our nation (any nation) and the world.
Looking for solid ground to stand on? Look for security? for solid ground (a rock) upon which to stand? -then look no further than to the blood-covenant.
First, I will recommend for your library, two books. (Yeah, I know- another book- right?) No. This is critical. This is needful.This is the core concept of “Behold, the Lamb”. “The Blood Covenant” by H.Clay Trumbull and “Friendship:the Master Passion” by the same author.
There is a red thread than runs throughout the course of G-d’s book- the Lamb’s book of life- our Bible. It is the red thread of blood. Red life-giving, life-imparting, life-renewing blood. An innocent animal was slain in the garden (by G-d) to provide a covering (an atonement) for our great,great- no-so-great grandparents, Adam and Eve. G-d gave unto them a coat of skins- blood (for the first time) to give unto the first couple – a covering. Follow the trail of blood throughout the scriptures, even unto the scarlet thread of Rahab the harlot. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.” Coincidence? or Providence? lol!
In the O.T. (old-er covenant) once a year on the Day of Atonement, the hight priest would enter into the holy of holies to ‘pour out’ upon the mercy-seat an offering of blood. This offering, this sacrificial blood offered unto YHWH by the cohen hagodol (the high priest) would atone (or cover) the sins of the people, year by year, every year, and one specific day each year- the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippor.
Do you see the connection? Can you see now, how Christ, our Messiah, our High Priest, also entered into the holy place to offer Himself (the Perfect Lamb) as a sacrifice for our sins- “once forever?”
This website used to be known as “At G-d’s Table.” I like that name. There was a young lad, the grandson of Saul by way of Jonathan whose name was Mephibosheth and G-d’s book tells us- he was lame in both his feet. What did he “bring to the table?” (so to speak) What did this young man have to offer the King in exchange for his ‘loving-kindness’ (a wonderful covenant word!)- Nothing. King David offered Mephibosheth a place at his table (and all the servants of Saul, Ziba and his descendants) because of David’s “friendship” (another covenant word) with Jonathan. David was in blood-covenant friendship with Jonathan. Your weapons are my weapons. Your family is my family.Your name is my name. We are one. -joined together in holy matrimony. One flesh, one blood, one mind- in intimate blood-covenant relationship. No secrets- all is exposed- we belong “one to another.”
Again, what did Mephibosheth have to offer? Nothing. Zero with the edges trimmed off. The benevolence, the grace, the goodness of the King was offered unto Mephibosheth- only because of the blood-covenant David had with Jonathan. And remember- he was lame in both his feet. Was not Mephibosheth amazed as he sat there upon his lame legs? What am I doing here among all these ‘luminaries?’ lol! – (little ol’ lady..)
Thanks, Carl. There’s more to the blood than I realized! I’ll try to get the books. Maybe Amazon UK has them.
Michael, you have identified my underlying concerns most perceptively! Thank you.
Ultimately, indeed, right now, it’s more important for me to seek His face far more than His Mind or His Hand…
John
Makes me think of the movie Gunga Din, or the following poem, by Lord Tennyson ….
“The Charge of the Light Brigade” is an 1854 narrative poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred
Amen!
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
The will of G-d: drudgery, duty- or delight? “I delight to do thy will, O my G-d: yea, thy Torah [is] within my heart.” (Psalm 40.8) Do we as His children delight in obeying our Abba? Is the will of G-d what we would ask for if we had the good sense to ask for it? Would we, -could we, do we, have His permission,the authority, the ability to ask: “Your will be done?”
What is “the will of G-d?” That which is pleasing unto Him. That which is pleasing unto the Father. That which places the smile of approval upon His face. Is it possible for us (His children) to know that smile?
“But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.” -“Shema, O Israel.”
Yeshua answered him, “If someone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (John 14.23)
“If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask what you will, and it shall be done to you.” (John 15.7)
What does it mean, to “abide in Christ?” Or “if any man be in Christ?” What does it mean to be “in Christ?” If we are not “within” does this mean we are without? Without G-d and without hope in this world? There is something we need to remember: “remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without G-d in the world.” (Ephesians 2.12).
Christ is the key. (and He holds the keys!) “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.” His (open, eternal) invitation? “Come unto me..” He is the Way. He is the Truth, and (yes!-amen) He, the Second Adam, is the Life.
It’s interesting to me to see how the English translators have been so gender-biased. It truly is sad, too, because to think that YHWH would keep women under wraps and out of positions of importance is utterly ridiculous. Look at all of the lady prophets, for example!
Kees, I’m curious, how does your Dutch translation (if that is the translation you read) deal with these types of gender issues?
Shalom,
Hamilton
Just as bad!