I am delighted make available my latest study, “Qualifications for Ministers in 1 Timothy 3:1–7.” It argues that Paul affirmed “Anyone who aspires to be in a position of ministry in the church desires a good work.” This encourages women to aspire to ministry positions in the church. Chrysostom explains that “men of one woman is appropriate to say regarding women” ministers.
Phil
Thank you for explaining this passage and the masculine words used here. I am searching for the best translation of the Bible that translates the true meaning behind every masculine word in the scriptures and to fairly deal with passages like 1 Cor 14: 34-35. Is there one you recommend? Thank you for your books and work on this painful subject. Absolutely needed. As a woman, after reading much of The Bible vs Biblical Womanhood, I feel relieved, yet betrayed (in a sense) by today’s popular translations.
I wish I could recommend a translation that reflects the true meaning behind every masculine word in the Bible. There are two separate grammatical issues. The first is that grammatical gender in Greek is not necessarily connected to biological gender. For example, the Greek word for testicle is feminine. The second is that by Greek convention, the masculine grammatical form is used whenever writing about a group of people. Timothy Friberg, who with his wife Barbara wrote The Analytical Greek New Testament, which gives the grammatical form of each word in the New Testament, including all instances of masculine, feminine, and neuter forms, counted between 7,500 and 8,000 grammatically masculine forms in the New Testament that either must or could include women. This is almost one per verse! Consequently, merely the presence of one or more masculine nouns or adjectives cannot legitimately be used to exclude women from the requirements for overseer in 1 Timothy 3 or elder in Titus 1, or any other passage about a group of people. It is difficult to convey this in English concisely. For example in Greek the same word (adelph) is used for brother and sister, with a masculine ending added to specify a brother and a feminine ending added to specify a sister. But there is not a separate word for siblings. So by Greek convention, when a group of brothers and sisters is referred to, the masculine form is always used. So when the NT refers to “brothers” in Christ, the NIV correctly translates this “brothers and sisters.” When nothing in the context demands that only males are in view, to translate a masculine grammatical form “he,” “him,” or “his” is misleading to English readers, because most readers simply assume that it refers to a male. Fortunately, it has become common in English recently to refer to a single person without specifying gender as “they” or “them,” but since most Bibles were published before this change, they had no concise way to convey this, so most simply translated these instances “he,” even though it mislead most English readers. I am working on creating a new translation of 1 Corinthians that accurately conveys Greek grammatical gender into English.
I read that another explanation for the “man of one woman” could be that Greek men were legally permitted to marry more than one woman, but women were not permitted to marry more than one man, so it was not necessary to specify that. What do you think of this reasoning?
Thanks for your comment, Nikki. Each Greek city was politically independent. Because surviving marriage law records are not the same in Athens, Sparta, and Gortyn, it is reasonable to believe that each Greek city had its own laws concerning marriage. Although our records of Greek marriage laws are limited to Athens, Sparta, and Gortyn, all the evidence regarding Greek marriage laws that have survived show that Greek marriages were intended to be monogamous. Greek and Roman men were not allowed to be married to more than one wife at a time.
In keeping with this ideal, the heroes of Homer never have more than one wife by law, though they may be depicted living with concubines, or having sexual relationships with one or more women. Scholars are uncertain whether these marriage laws were common throughout the rest of Ancient Greece and for those in lower classes or if these records are unique to these regions and social classes. The New Testament, and Paul’s letters in particular reinforce that the ideal of monogamy was widespread geographically and across social classes.
Consequently, the explanation you read that “man of one woman” “could be that Greek men were legally permitted to marry more than one woman, but women were not permitted to marry more than one man” is simply not true.
It is consistent with what we know about Greek marriage laws, however, to interpret “man of one woman” as a requirement for fidelity in marriage, as John Chrysostom explains this phrase in Homily 11 on 1 Timothy 3. John Chrysostom writes in Homily 11 regarding this phrase in 1 Timothy 3:12, “’Deacons must be men of one woman.’ This is appropriate to say regarding women deacons also.” This is my literal translation of the Greek text: “∆ιάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες.” Ταῦτα καὶ περὶ γυναικῶν διακόνων ἁρμόττει εἰρῆσθαι·, 605 B on p. 85 of https://archive.org/details/chrysostom_pauline_homilies_field_vol_6/page/84/mode/2up and in PG 62:545.
Both the CEB (Common English Bible) and the CEV (Contemporary English Version by the American Bible Society) correctly translate both the requirements for overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and the requirements for elders in Titus 2 without any masculine pronouns “he,” “him,” or “his.”
Thanks for your effort Dr. Philip. This is really helpful but does this account for jewish people also? Was it normal for jewish people to have polygamous marriages at that time or not? Thank you.
You are most welcome, Alex. Polygamy was a rare exception in post-exilic Israel. The practice began to be criticized and declined during the intertestamental period. There is some evidence of polygamy among wealthy aristocrats in the New Testament period. The Babatha documents from the second century contain examples of polygamous marriages among the well-to-do. Although polygamy was occasionally practiced, it was rare. Its rarity among Jews was likely due to its cost, its potential for family discord, and a growing social preference for monogamy. There are many stories of strife in polygamous households recorded in the Old Testament. Ben Sira noted the problems it could cause within a family. In parts of the Roman Empire, local Roman laws reinforced monogamy. Consequently, many Jews living outside of Palestine adopted monogamy.
Thank you for your article Dr Philip. Your thought on 1 Timothy 2:13 ?
Thanks, Tomas. After telling Timothy in 1 Tim 2:12 that women must not assume authority to teach, if they do not have that authority, but instead should learn, Paul goes on in 1 Timothy 2:13–15 to justify his restriction:
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve was formed. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being thoroughly deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But anyone will be saved through the birth of Jesus if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self-control.
Since woman was formed out of man, she should respect man as her source, just as 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8 and 12 explain. It was disrespectful for a woman to seize authority to teach a man. Significantly, “then Eve” is the first documented affirmation that Eve was “formed” by God. With these words, Paul affirms the essential equality of men and women. Many people interpret this to imply that women should not be leaders because women are more easily deceived than men. But that is not what Paul is saying at all.
A review of Adam’s behavior in the garden of Eden lets us see this passage in a new light. The text does not mention Adam during the conversation between the serpent and the woman in Genesis 3:1–5. The text does not imply—and certainly does not state—that the serpent’s conversation with the woman occurred at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 3:6 states only that her husband “was with her” at that tree. To be deceived, someone must be convinced to believe something that is not true. If Adam heard (or overheard) the serpent’s deceptive words and believed them, then he, too, was deceived by the serpent. If not, he was not deceived by the serpent. This may explain why Paul says that Adam was not deceived. But still, Adam disobeyed God’s command. Remember what happened:
She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (Gen. 3:6)
She gave him the fruit—he knew which tree it came from—and he ate it. Unless there was some other conversation that the text does not mention, his eating the forbidden fruit does not even rise to the level of “deception”—it is simply disobedience. What Adam did was just dumb for someone God had told, “When you eat from it you will certainly die” (2:17). Then when God confronted Adam, Adam passed the buck, blaming both the woman and, implicitly, God: “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it” (3:12). There is nothing that Adam does here that is honorable in any way. Nothing worthy of imitating or saying, “Sorry, women, we need more leaders like Adam.”
When Paul says that “Adam was not the one deceived,” Paul does not declare Adam innocent and certainly does not suggest that he is morally superior. So what does Paul mean? The serpent did not speak to Adam—Paul highlights the fact that Adam was not the target of Satan’s deception. The passive voice of the verb in “the woman who was thoroughly deceived [exapatētheisa]” implies that the serpent deceived her. It makes it clear that the serpent, Satan, targeted the woman and deceived her into disobeying God’s command.
Can you think of any more powerful example of the danger deceived women pose to the church than Eve’s deception? Consider the immediate context in Ephesus. Women were deceived and were passing on their deception, just as happened in the garden of Eden. Paul’s solution is clear. “Let the women learn” so they can become teachers who are not easily deceived.