PAUL AND WOMEN OVERSEERS - by Dr. Eddie Hyatt

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

We have devoted this blog to the follies of certain political and religious persons who we discern are telling us nonsense. For the most part, this consists of leftists on the political spectrum, and certain reformists on the religious spectrum.

Dr. Hyatt is someone we would might otherwise agree with. But nonsense is nonsense, so we shall examine what he believes and make our determination.

Although there are five reasons listed here, only the first is an actual reason. The rest are generalized statements about women and culture that have nothing to do with the passage in 1 Timothy chapter three. 

----------------------

Compelling Evidence That Paul Did Not Exclude Women from Functioning as Bishops

This is a faithful saying: If a man (Gk. tis) desires the position of a bishop (Gk. episcopas), he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife . . . (I Timothy 3:1-2; NKJV).

Among the criteria that Paul’s lists for anyone serving as a bishop is that they must be the husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:1-2). This has been used by many to exclude women from functioning in this role of oversight for it is obvious that only a man could be the husband of one wife.

In teaching “The Pastoral Epistles” in various educational venues for many years, I had come to accept the view of Dr. Gordon Fee who says that just because most of the overseers in Ephesus (Timothy’s location at the time of Paul’s writing) happened to be men, should not be taken to mean that all overseers must be men.

Fee’s commentary was helpful but did not completely satisfy my heart. Then one day while thinking on I Timothy 3:1-7, I had a eureka moment in which I suddenly and clearly saw why Paul’s requirement that an overseer be the husband of one wife, does not exclude women from functioning in leadership roles of oversight.

This eureka moment is listed among the reasons below that women are not excluded from being bishops.

Reason # 1

Throughout this discussion Paul uses Gender Inclusive Language. Nowhere in this passage does Paul use the Greek word for man, aner, but instead uses the gender inclusive personal pronoun tis, which means “someone” or “anyone.” For example, in 3:1 it is not, if a man . . . as the KJV and NKJV have it, but if anyone (NIV) or if someone (NRSV). This is also true of vs. 5 where Paul again uses tis, not aner, to confirm that oversight is not restricted to males. If Paul had wanted to exclude women from this function of oversight, he could have easily done so by using male-specific language. Instead, he uses gender inclusive language throughout the discussion. (...but Dr. Hyatt's quote includes verse 2, yet he overlooks the key word, "husband":

1Ti. 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife... 

"Husband is aner , literally, the verse reads, it behooves therefore the overseer above reproach to be of one wife husband sober self controlled respectable hospitable able to teach.

Remember, Paul began in verse one, If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer... In the very next verse he tells us what an overseer is: ...the husband of but one wife...

Therefore, though there is gender neutral language in the rest of the passage, it must imply a "man" each time, since the context is set by verse 2.)

Reason #2

Women were known to be heads of households, which Paul says is a proving ground for serving as an overseer (3:5).
Verse 5 says, If a man anyone does not know how to manage their own household . . .. As mentioned above, Paul purposely uses a gender inclusive personal pronoun, tis, in this verse. As in vs. 2, it is not if a man, as the KJV and NKJV have it, but if someone (NRSV) or if anyone (NIV).
Managing a household was not the province of the male in Paul’s world, for in his travels he had encountered women who were heads of households. In Philippi, he and his team were received by Lydia and she and her household were baptized (Acts 16:15) and her estate became the base for Paul’s ministry in that city.
In I Corinthians 1:11, Paul mentions those of Chloe’s household who had brought him unfavorable news about the Corinthians. Chloe too is a feminine name and is further proof that women managed households in the ancient world, which qualified them to serve as overseers in the church. (Yes, of course. Women were heads of households. This is not extend the biblical criteria to women any more than the woman not being a drunk or not being a lover of money extends the biblical criteria to women.)

Reason #3

In the pagan, patriarchal society of the Greco-Roman world, men could divorce, remarry, keep mistresses and still be respectable, but women could not, which is the reason for this requirement being included.
This is where I had the eureka moment that highlighted and underlined for me the fact that Paul was not excluding women from oversight when he said the overseer must be the husband of one wife.
Interestingly, because there is not a separate word for “husband” in Greek, this passage literally reads that the overseer must be “a man of one woman.” Again, this particular criterion would not relate to a woman for women did not have the legal right or the cultural freedom to divorce and remarry and carry on illegitimate relationships as did the men.
Women would be considered sluts and whores if they carried on in this way, but for men it was acceptable in that culture. It was necessary, therefore, for this condition, that relates particularly to men, to be included in this list of criteria for tis (anyone) who would serve as an overseer. (This is an odd non-reason. Paul didn't need to address women since they didn't have the same privileges as men? What kind of reasoning is that? Women weren't prostitutes or greedy or divisive, and therefore did not need this distinction? If Paul was actually being revolutionary, he would have specifically mentioned women. But he only mentions aner.) 

Reason #4

This is Not an Office but a “Work,” i.e., a Responsibility.
The word “bishop” or “overseer” in this passage is a translation of the Greek word episcopas, which literally means to “watch over.” It is not unique to the New Testament, but is a secular word that Paul and other New Testament writers borrowed.
Episcopas was used in the ancient Greco-Roman world of teachers who had the responsibility to “watch over” the academic progress of their students, of the superintendent of a building project, of watchmen stationed on a city wall, and of army scouts. Paul used it to designate the responsibility of elders to “watch over” the affairs of the congregation.
Paul does not use the word “office” or “position” in this passage (nor anywhere in the New Testament). Such words were added by the translators who thought they were helping clarify the passage. I am convinced, however, that they actually skew the meaning of the passage.
What Paul is referring to is not an office, but a “work,” i.e., a function, or responsibility. He literally says in 3:1, This is a faithful saying, If anyone aspires to oversight, they desire a good work.
Writing in the 5th century, the famous African church father, Augustine, noted that a mark of the true church is that its leaders are servants. He then went on to explain that the original meaning of episcopas is related to responsibility, not authority. “Therefore,” said Augustine, “He who loves to govern rather than do good is no bishop” (Hyatt, Paul, Women and Church, 46). (Dr. Hyatt does nothing to advance his argument. Why is it important for it to be a work and not an office?)

Reason #5

Women Can Serve and Do Good.
I suggest to you that Paul had no problem with women serving and doing good, which is what New Testament leadership is about. We have been so brainwashed in an official, institutionalized, hierarchical form of Christianity, that we have a hard time grasping the open, free-flowing nature of New Testament Christianity.
But if we can catch the vision of what the Spirit is saying in this regard and move from gender-determined roles to Spirit-guided functions in all areas of church life, who knows what exploits may be wrought for God in the days ahead! (This is sort of a conclusion, not a reason. But yes, Dr. Hyatt is correct, women can serve and do good. But except for one little word, aner in 1 Ti. 3:2, the position of overseer is for men only.)

This article is derived from Dr. Eddie Hyatt's book, Paul, Women and Church, available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com. To schedule Dr. Hyatt to address the issue of woman's eqauliy in Christ, send an email to dreddiehyatt@gmail.com.