Learning to thrive in the new life Jesus offers us – 2 Corinthians 5:16-17

Paul’s Qualifications for Church Leaders (1 Timothy 3)

Paul’s Qualifications for Church Leaders (1 Timothy 3:1-7)

This article is also available in Urdu.

Can only men be church leaders?

Some people think that the qualifications for church leaders recorded in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 were written only about men and apply only to men. They believe the implication in these passages is that only men can be church leaders.[1] All of the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9, however, can be readily applied to both men and women.[2]

Note that the masculine personal pronouns that appear in many English translations of these passages—and the word “man” that appears in many English translations of verses 1 Timothy 3:1 and Titus 1:6a (including the NASB 95 used in the highlighted texts in this post)—are entirely absent in the Greek. (See endnote 6 for more on this.)

Monogamy and Fidelity in Marriage

One phrase which does not seem to apply to women is where it says that a church leader should be, literally, a one-woman man (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6). This is usually translated into English as “the husband of one wife”. The phrase, a one-woman man, is however an idiom, and there are dangers in applying it too literally.[3] Because it is an idiomatic expression, many people have had difficulty explaining and adapting its meaning in the context of contemporary Western church culture, a culture that is vastly different to late first century church culture.[4]

If taken literally, the one-woman man requirement would rule out unmarried, widowed and divorced men, as well as women, from being church leaders. Yet Paul says elsewhere that being single and celibate enables people to serve God better (1 Cor. 7:32-35). Paul himself was single. If taken literally, polygamists would also be excluded from being church leaders. According to Roman law, however, bigamy (and therefore polygamy) was illegal, and it was uncommon in the Empire. Paul is not addressing polygamy here.

The real intent of this phrase is marital faithfulness in the church leader who is already married. Philip B. Payne writes that, “The closest English equivalent to one-woman man is ‘monogamous’, and it applies to both men and women.” Even some notable hierarchical complementarians (Christians who are against women in certain leadership roles), acknowledge that the phrase a one-woman man does not exclude women, and it cannot legitimately be used to argue that women cannot be church leaders. [See endnote 5] This is because the phrase is essentially describing the moral quality of marital fidelity, and not primarily referring to marital status or gender.

The use of a one-woman man in the 1 Timothy passage about diakonoi  (“deacons”) shows that it may be applied generically to both men and women. 1 Timothy 3:8-10 is about men ministers/deacons; 1 Timothy 3:11 is about women ministers/deacons; and 1 Timothy 3:12-13 is about both men and women ministers (diakonoi). Chrysostom wrote that the phrase a one-woman man in 1 Timothy 3:12 “. . . must be understood therefore to relate to deaconesses [women ministers]. For that order is necessary and useful and honourable in the Church”. (Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily XI) (More about deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 here.)

An Orderly and Honourable Household

In 1 Timothy 3:4 (NASB) Paul says that a church leader “must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.” (Again, please note that there are no masculine personal pronouns in the Greek of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 or Titus 1:6-9. See endnote 7.) The ability to lead and manage one’s household well can also be equally applicable to both men and women.[7]

In many cultures, including the Greco-Roman culture, it is a woman who leads and manages the household. Accordingly, Paul advised the younger widows in the Ephesian church to remarry, have children, and “keep house” (1 Tim. 5:14).[8] Interestingly, the word Paul uses for “keeping house” here is oikodespotein, which literally means “to be the master of a household”. Oikodespotein is from oikodespotēs: oikos=house, despot=master (Strong’s number 3616). (More about this word and a related word in Titus 2:5 here.)

The King James Version literally translates 1 Timothy 5:14 as:

I [Paul] desire therefore that the younger widows marry, bear children, rule the household, and give no occasion to the adversary for insulting. (Underline added.)

It is important to note, however, that Paul did not have the day-to-day practical running and management of the household in mind when he wrote 1 Timothy 3:4-5. All the qualifications stated in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 are essentially moral qualifications. Paul wanted church leaders to be people of honour and dignity. In the first-century Mediterranean world, the honour-shame dynamic was a powerful force in society, and a highly esteemed man or woman could have great influence. The conduct of individual members of a household directly affected the level of honour of the entire household. Therefore, a church leader needed to have an honourable household with well behaved children, particularly adult children. Paul wanted church leaders with a level of moral integrity that was above reproach. He did not want church leaders who might bring dishonour, disrepute, and shame on the church.[9]

Gender Bias and Gender Inclusiveness

Undoubtedly most church leaders in early church times were male, and the list of qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1ff assumes that the overseers or supervisors (episkopoi) in Ephesus are male, and married, and have children, and be wealthy enough to have their own households to manage;[10] but nowhere in the New Testament does it state that church leaders need to be men.

The New Living Translation (NLT), which gives the impression of being gender inclusive because it frequently translates adelphoi into “brothers and sisters”,[11] has taken the bold step of inserting the statement “So an elder must be a man” in 1 Timothy 3:2. This statement simply does not appear anywhere in any Greek manuscript or printed text of the New Testament. The translators of the NLT have inserted this statement to put across their biased opinion that a church leader must be a man. They have tried to pass off their opinion as being “the Word of God”. Had Paul wanted to say, “an elder (or overseer/supervisor) must be a man” he would have done so.

The opening sentence of 1 Timothy chapter 3 literally says, “. . . If someone (or anyone) aspires to ‘overseer-ship’, s/he desires a fine task.” There is no gender preference suggested in this sentence whatsoever.[12]


[1] During the second and later centuries, church leaders were commonly called by the adjective presbuteroi (elders or presbyters) and the noun episkopoi. Episkopos is translated as “bishop” in some Bible versions, but “bishop” does not convey a first-century or New Testament use of the word. Malherbe writes that the role of episkopos in the Pastoral Epistles, including 1 Timothy, is to do with function rather than office, “and it is best to avoid the translation of episkopos as “bishop” in favor of “overseer” or supervisor” as commentators increasingly do.”
Abraham Malherbe, “Overseers as Household Managers in the Pastoral Epistles,” Text, Image, and Christians in the Graeco-Roman World, Aliou Cisse Nianh and Carolyn Osiek (eds) (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 72-88, 74.

[2] Even if there were masculine personal pronouns in this passage, this still would not rule out the possibility that women can be overseers. There are a few grammatically masculine articles, adjectives and participles in 1 Timothy 3:1ff and Titus 1:6ff, but since the masculine gender is the default grammatical gender when speaking about groups consisting of men only and groups consisting of men and women, a case cannot be made that these passages exclude women. If we begin to argue that passages that use grammatically masculine participles, etc, exclude women, then women would be excluded from many of the New Testament scriptures which speak about salvation, including John 3:16.

[3] The phrase, a one-woman man, is an idiom found on numerous sepulchral (gravesite) inscriptions celebrating the virtue of a surviving spouse that had not remarried. By noting that he or she was married only once, it suggests the virtue of extraordinary fidelity. See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, Walter Bauer, revised & edited by F.W. Danker (University of Chicago Press, 2000), 292.
Paul used the phrase a one-man woman in this context when writing about widows in 1 Timothy 5:9. These women had been married only once, their husband had died, and they were now single and celibate. The New Revised Standard Version somewhat captures this meaning in their translation of this phrase as “married only once” in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; 5:9 and Titus 1:6.
Tertullian, writing in around 200 AD, demonstrates this meaning of the phrases one-woman man (1 Tim. 3:2) and one-man woman (1 Tim. 5:9) in his arguments against Christian widowers and widows remarrying:

The law of the Church and the precept of the Apostle [Paul] show clearly how prejudicial second marriages are to the faith and how great an obstacle to holiness. For men who have been married twice are not allowed to preside in the Church nor is it permissible that a widow be chosen unless she was the wife of but one man. Tertullian, Ad Uxorem (“To his Wife”) 1.7
Taken from: Tertullian, The Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage, translated & annotated by William P. Le Saint, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 13 (New York: Paulist Press, 1951), 20.

[4] Marital fidelity is only required while both husband and wife are alive. When the husband or wife dies, the other person is free to remarry or remain celibate (Rom. 7:2-4; 1 Cor. 7:39). Celibacy and virginity were becoming highly esteemed virtues in the second century church; and by the fifth century, celibacy was compulsory for Roman Catholic church leaders. This unbiblical decree has caused no end of problems to the Roman Catholic church which still insists upon it. Interestingly, if the requirement a one-woman man was taken literally, it would prohibit Roman Catholic priests and other unmarried men from being church leaders.

[5] Philip B. Payne writes:

Two of the most prominent complementarians acknowledge this phrase does not clearly exclude women. Douglas Moo acknowledges that this phrase need not exclude “unmarried men or females from the office . . . it would be going too far to argue that the phrase clearly excludes women. . . .” Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” TJ 2 NS (1981): 198–222, 211. Thomas Schreiner acknowledges, “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders. . . .” Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.” JBMW (Spring 2010): 33–46, 35.
Taken from Does “One-Woman Man” in 1 Timothy 3:2 Require that all Overseers be Male?

[6] While 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 are completely free from masculine personal pronouns in older Greek manuscripts, the Textus Receptus contains one masculine pronoun in 1 Timothy 3:7. Pronouns need to be added in English translations to make sense of the sentences. In English, the literary convention has been to use masculine pronouns, even if the subject matter applies to women also. However, as pointed out in endnote 2, even if masculine pronouns were used in the Greek of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9, this still wouldn’t exclude women. As in English, the literary convention in New Testament Greek was to use masculine pronouns when speaking about a representative person, or a group of people that included men, but may also include women. (See my article Why Masculine Pronouns can be misleading in English Bibles and in the Church here.)

[7] The reality is that in early church times, and in contemporary society, it was, and is, a woman who primarily runs the household and home.

[8] Paul gave this instruction to the young Ephesian widows because of certain problems within the Ephesian church. One of the more serious problems was the spread of false teaching within the church. It seems that the younger Ephesian widows were engaging in irresponsible conversation and conduct which may have involved listening to, and spreading, false teaching. This even led to some of the young widows wandering from the truth to follow Satan (1 Tim. 5:13-15). (I’ve written more about Paul’s instructions to young wives and young widows towards the end of this article and here.)

[9] In 1 Timothy, Paul displays a concern for the social respectability of church leaders. In other letters, however, Paul is less concerned and he pushes for the acceptance of all Christians as ministers and as participants in church gatherings (1 Cor. 12:4ff). We know that some slaves became episkopoi in the early church (e.g., Onesimus of Ephesus and Callistus of Rome).

[10] 1 Timothy 3:1ff may refer to the current episkopoi (“supervisors”) in Ephesus who seem to have been all men; the passage may not refer to future episkopoi. We need to appreciate this limited scope.

“The author [of 1 Timothy] does not write to introduce a new hierarchy in the community and there is no indication in the text that the qualities listed in vv.3-7 qualify men who have yet to assume the office of bishop. . . . The virtues enumerated describe the qualities of character and conduct of those who are exercising oversight rather than qualify them for an office yet to be filled.” Malherbe, “Overseers as Household Managers”, 75.

While the current episkopoi may well have been all men, nothing in 1 Timothy 3 rules out the possibility of godly women becoming episkopoi. I suspect Priscilla was functioning as a supervisor or elder in Ephesus when she and her husband corrected the doctrine of Apollos. (More about women elders in New Testament churches here.)

[11] Several modern English translations of the New Testament (including the NLT) frequently translate the Greek word adelphoi as “brothers and sisters”. Adelphoi is grammatically masculine, and in older Bible versions the word was translated simply as “brothers”. However, it is obvious from its usage in the New Testament scriptures and in ancient Christian writings that adelphoi can refer to both men and women believers. The NLT translators (and others) have translated most occurrences of the very common word adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” and painstakingly included an explanatory footnote each time. The NLT also translates the literal “sons” (huioi) into “children” when speaking about children of God (i.e. Christian believers). This commendable inclusion of women reflects the true biblical understanding of the words adelphoi and huioi in many verses. However, the views of the NLT translators regarding gender equality and inclusivity clearly stops short of allowing women to be church leaders (supervisors and elders). (More on gender bias in the NLT here.)

[12] “. . . If anyone/someone, (common gender: masc. or fem.) aspires (no gender specified) to ‘overseer-ship’ (feminine noun), he/she/it desires (no gender specified) a noble/fine task (neuter adjective and noun).” A literal English translation of 1 Timothy 3:1b with the grammatical gender of the Greek words shown in brackets.

© 5th of August, 2010, revised 4th of November, 2010; Margaret Mowczko

An abridged version of this article was published by Christians for Biblical Equality (International) in their Arise e-newsletter on the 19th of August, 2010. (Arise archives)

Related Articles

Qualified for Every Good Work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
The Means of Ministry: Gifts, Grace, Faith . . . Gender?
The First Century Church and the Ministry of Women
Were there women elders in New Testament churches?
New Testament Women Church Leaders
Teachable: A Qualification for Overseers and the Lord’s Servants
1 Timothy 2:12 in Context
Paul’s Masculine and Feminine Leadership
Various articles on Paul and Women
Unity and Equality in Ministry: 1 Corinthians 12

Posted August 5th, 2010 . Categories/Tags: Equality and Gender Issues, Equality in Ministry, The "Difficult" Passages, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Unkind, judgemental, bizarre, and off-topic comments will be deleted.

38 comments on “Paul’s Qualifications for Church Leaders (1 Timothy 3)

  1. Thanks for this brief but solidly biblical essay. For a fuller treatment you may consider Phil Payne’s excellent Man and Woman: One in Christ, summarized here. Or see the entire series.

  2. Marg says:

    Thanks Paul.

    As it happens, I’ve just started reading Man and Woman: One in Christ. I’m up to chapter 9 and enjoying it very much.

    I will have a good look at your summaries. 🙂

  3. Excellent, Marg! So glad you’re reading. I’ve had several substantive emails from Phil Payne since my summary reviews.

  4. Mark says:

    Hi Marg,

    I followed your link :). Can you give me a link to Moo’s and Schreiner’s full quotations to see it in context- i noticed you simply took Phillip Paynes quotation which i am dubious to rely on by itself…who knows which parts he left out!

    Also, can you clarify a point. As i read your article you have not proven that women WERE included in the text but rather that they MAY have been. What in the text exegetically can you show to prove that they WERE included.

    In other words the text can either refer to only males, or possibly to both male and female IF there are legitimate reasons to believe so. What are these reasons? What proof can you provide that decisively shows that women WERE included?

    There is a difference from showing that something CAN happen and that it DID happen. Or ,there is a difference in proving woman CAN be included and that they WERE included.

    Simply showing that ‘one woman man’ COULD include women does not prove that it DID. Does not the shift to ‘gyne’ in verse 11 contradict this possibility.


  5. Marg says:

    Hi Mark 🙂

    Schreiner’s paper can be viewed here. [This link is currently broken] Re our discussion on Cheryl’s site: Schreiner asserts that Phoebe was a deacon. I still prefer to call her a minister and a leader, or patroness.

    Moo’s paper can be viewed here. (Judging by your non-egal views, I think you will enjoy these papers.)

    The only reason that I have quoted Schreiner and Moo is because they state that the idiom a one woman man does not exclude women. Let me add that I do not agree with other statements made by Schreiner and Moo.

    As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, several women are named in the New Testament who were house church leaders – Priscilla (with Aquila), Chloe and Nympha. Other women were clearly notable Christian ministers of some sort – Junia (with Andronicus), Euodia and Syntyche, Phoebe, etc – otherwise Paul would not have mentioned them in his letters.

    Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that an elder/overseer/pastor must be male. Yet this is the firm stance of many Christians. No person – male or female – is assigned the term elder, overseer or pastor, other than John and Peter.

    So my question is: Why do you assume that the qualifications for elders do not apply to women? (I appreciate that English translations make Paul’s qualifications sound masculine, due to copious masculine pronouns that are non-existent in the Greek.)

    I cannot “prove” exegetically that 1 Timothy 3:1-7 includes women (as much of this passage is gender neutral with only a few grammatically masculine adjectives and participles.) In the same way I cannot prove exegetically that John 3:16 includes women because of the use of a masculine participle and adjective.

  6. Michael says:

    Paul also makes very clear statements in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 that women are not to teach or exercise authority over a man. So unless a church is made up entirely of women or the woman elder or deacon is only teaching to women or overseeing women’s ministries, I don’t see how to reconcile this.

    • Marg says:

      Hi Michael,

      I’m away at camp and have very limited access to the internet at the moment. I will reply with more thought later; but in the meantime please look at my articles on 1 Timothy 2:12 in Context.

      1 Timothy 2:12-14 may have constituted clear statements to the Ephesian Christians but this verse has been puzzling Christians for centuries. Especially puzzling is the real meaning of the Greek word “authentein”; usually translated into English as “authority”.

  7. Marg says:

    Michael, I’m wondering: Do you think that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is also an impediment to women having a leadership ministry in church? Do you think that women should be (completely) silent in church meetings?

    Many churches nowadays regard 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a having a local interpretation and limited application, with little relevance for today’s church-life; but many of these same churches maintain that 1 Timothy 2:12 has a universal and timeless application.

    It seems to me that there are considerable, illogical notions that need to be overcome if we insist that women can only teach other women and children but not grown men. Please see my article on Women, Teaching and Deception.

  8. Don Johnson says:

    Thanks for this analysis.

    The simplest way to see this for me is that Phoebe was a deacon of the congregation at Cencharae and yet the term “one-woman man” is applied to a deacon. This then means that gender restrictionists tend to deny Phoebe was a deacon. Once you go down that road, the Bible becomes silly-putty in your hand.

  9. Marg says:

    Chrysostom would agree with you. 😉

  10. Heather says:

    Just reading this article for the first time and I love it! Thank you for researching this. This passage of scripture has baffled me and I was just thinking about looking into this more and then I find this article. 🙂 God is so good and is answering my questions.

  11. Marg says:

    God is good, and he LOVES his daughters and wants to use some of them as leaders of his people. 🙂

  12. Heather says:

    I agree!

  13. Joni says:


    I appreciate your articles very much. I was wondering if you have read “10 Lies the Church Tells Women” by J. Lee Grady. Mr. Grady states that there is a symbol in the original Greek text indicating that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was a quote from a letter written to Paul. Paul then responds to the quote in verses 36-40. In his response, Paul chastens those who fail to follow the Lord’s commandments and attempt to make their own rules. He then goes on to say that all things should be done properly and in an orderly manner.

    It appears that the notion of women keeping silent and not being able to speak is a teaching of men from the Talmud and not a commandment from God.

    It seems that Paul was more concerned with orderly worship and the effects worship might have on unbelieving visitors than restricting women’s access to God or participation in worship. 1 Corinthians 14:23 “If, therefore, the whole assembly may come together, to the same place, and all may speak with tongues, and there may come in unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?” Paul also instructs anyone who speaks in tongues to keep silent if there is no interpreter present. See 1 Corinthians 14:27-28. I use Young’s Literal Translation because Robert Young’s agenda was a quest for the Truth.

  14. Marg says:

    Hi Joni, I’m glad my articles are useful to you. 🙂

    I haven’t read Lee Grady’s book, but I have Phil Payne’s book “One in Christ”. He has looked at some of the original ancient manuscripts of the New Testament in person.

    Phil has said that there are some interesting scribal sigla, distigma, at the end of 1 Cor 14:33 in the Codex Vaticanus, possibly indicating that the following two verses where in doubt. The Codex Vaticanus has the same distigma after John 7:52 (and omits John 7:7:53-8:11), and at the end of Luke 14:24 (and omits “Many are called but few are chosen”.) Payne writes that, “[A]lthough Vaticanus does include 14:34-35, its distigma here is the earliest manuscript evidence for a text that omitted these verses.” (p323) (Codex Vaticanus dates from around 325–350 AD.)

    A few other ancient manuscripts have 14:34-35 at the end of chapter 14, indicating that there was some doubt and confusion about these two verses and where they might belong in the text.

    I don’t know of any symbol in ancient manuscripts (or current publications of the Greek NT) that indicates that 14:34-35 is a quote that Paul is responding to. Some speculate that the Greek word ἢ that begins verse 36 is Paul’s way of saying “What?!” But it could just mean “or”.

    I’ve written about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 here: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/interpretations-applications-1-cor-14_34-35/

  15. Angela says:

    Some people reject husband of one wife.

    The Greek word that “one” is translated from here is word #3391, mia, and is also translated as “a” or “the first” in other parts of scripture. Thus the emphasis would be that an elder needs to be a married man, having children, and that he must not have divorced his first wife.

    For example, in the following passages, the word “a” is the same word translated “one” above:

    Matthew 21:19,”And when he saw a fig tree in the way…”
    Matthew 26:69, “Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him…”,
    Revelation 9:13, “And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice…”

    Is this corrected?

    • Marg says:

      Hi Angela,

      heis (masculine), mia, (feminine) and hen (neuter) means “one” regardless of how it is translated into English in some verses.

      The reason it is sometimes translated as “a” is for stylistic reasons only; “one” sounds odd in English in some sentences. But the meaning of “one” remains.

      Literal translations of the relevant phrases in Matthew 21:19; 26:69 and Revelation 9:13 are: “one fig tree”, “one female servant”, “one voice”.

      The qualification “one-woman-man” (or “husband of one wife”) refers to marital faithfulness. To qualify, a person must remain faithful to their first spouse, and not divorce. But the real meaning of the idiom “one-woman-man” is of a person who does not marry someone else after the death of their spouse. Several early church fathers thought it was important for Christian widows and widowers not to marry. See endnote 3.

      Also, mia does not mean “first” here. Mias gynaikos andra does not mean a “first-woman-man.” (Prōtos/prōtē/prōton is the usual Greek word meaning “first”.)

      Who rejects “husband of one wife”? Are these people Greek scholars? Are these people worth listening too?

  16. Donald Johnson says:

    I just read the article in your endnote 5. I think he gets it mostly correct (as meaning marital fidelity (faithful husband) or even literally as one woman man as in country songs), except that the term is gender neutral as it can be applied to either a man or woman, so my translation choice is “faithful spouse” which I first read in a book from Bruce Fleming.

    The question is what did Paul mean by the phrase, not what Tertullian thought Paul meant. I think this is an important distinction as the ECF were anti-sex which I see happening because of ascetic Greek thought being mixed into what Scripture taught.

    • Marg says:

      Yes, many Early Church Fathers had narrow, restrictive views on marital sex and they strongly discouraged widows and widowers from marrying again. I think Tertullian’s views closely match the sentiment expressed in the idiom “one-woman-man.” But I agree with you that marital faithfulness is the best sense we, today, can make of the idiom.

    • ADRIENNE WATT says:

      Is there anywhere in this article where there is proof that the idiom was gender neutral in that period of time? I may be very ignorant but wasn’t Chrystosom patriarchal?

      • Marg says:

        Chrysostom was patriarchal. Practically everyone was patriarchal in the ancient world. No one knew any different. But Chrysostom also recognised that some women such as Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe, even Euodia and Syntyche, were church leaders. We can read his sermons on the net. For example, here is his sermon on Romans 15:25-16:5: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210230.htm

        “One-woman-man” is not exactly gender-neutral. When using the idiom specifically about widow women the words are switched around so that it reads “one-man-woman” (1 Tim. 5:9).

        Feminine adjectives, participles, and phrases are used exclusively for women in Greek. But masculine adjectives, participles, nouns, and phrases can be used for a group of people (or generic person) that might include women.

        John 3:16 uses masculine language for “everyone who is believing” (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων) but practically everyone acknowledges this doesn’t exclude women.

        Adelphoi is grammatically masculine and would not ordinarily be used for a group of only women. But it is used for a group of men (“brothers”) or a group of both men and women (“brothers and sisters”).

        The true sense of “one-woman-man”, when applied to a generic person, does not exclude the possibility of applying to women.

        • ADRIENNE WATT says:

          Where does he say they were church leaders? I read some of it and he talks about them having virtue but I don’t see him saying they were leaders.

          • Marg says:

            Chrysostom called Junia an “apostle”. In homily 31 on Romans he writes about Junia and Andronicus:
            “And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great tribute this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the wisdom of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”

            In Homily 13 on Philippians, he says that Euodia and Syntyche were “chief” of the church in Philippi. And he believes Phoebe had a ministry like that of Euodia and Syntyche.

            In his 30th homily on Romans he writes about Phoebe. He says, that Paul “has added her rank, by mentioning her being deaconess.”
            In his 31st homily on Romans, he writes that Paul addressed Phoebe “by her title, for he does not call her servant of the church in an undefined way . . . but . . . as having the office of deaconess.”
            So Chrysostom states that Phoebe had an official title, even though the word “deaconess” hadn’t been invented yet. In reality she was called “deacon” not “deaconess”.

            In his homily 11 on 1 Timothy, Chrysostom stated that the women in 1 Timothy 3:11 were female deacons (“deaconesses”).

            Chrysostom credits Priscilla, more so that Aquila, in making their home a church through evangelism and through hospitality:
            “For she had been so estimable as even to make their house a Church, both by making all in it believers, and because they opened it to all strangers. For he was not in the habit of calling any houses Churches, save where there was much piety, and much fear of God deeply rooted in them. And on this ground he said to the Corinthians also, Salute Aquila and Priscilla, with the Church that is in their house. Homily 30 on Romans

            I think this all sounds impressive and there’s still more impressive things Chrysostom says about women. His remarks shows that he believed that women were apostles, deacons (or deaconesses), housechurch founders, and, more generally, “chief”. These functions and positions all require exercising leadership.

  17. ADRIENNE WATT says:

    If one women man is not gender neutral because the flip version was used for women then how can one accurately guess that the term can mean everybody and not just men? Do you know what I am getting at?

    • Marg says:

      I do understand what you’re getting at. And it can be tricky.

      Sometimes context and surrounding words clearly tell us that something applies only to men. For example, the ten lepers in Luke 17:12 were probably all men.

      The lepers in Luke 4:27, however, probably included women as well as men even though the word “lepers” (leproi) is grammatically masculine in both verses in Luke.

      While it is a little ambiguous, many people interpret Chrysostom as saying that “one-woman-man” applies to the male and female deacons mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. And Chrysostom knew Greek. It was his everyday language, his mother-tongue.
      See here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230611.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2009–2017   Margaret Mowczko | Powered by WordPress