Household: Excursus on 1 Timothy (Part 4)

We have looked at the controversial 1 Timothy 2:8-15 passage, but we need to make a couple of more observations about this letter as it concerns fictive family. What I have to say here is frequently not well received by my Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican/Episcopalian friends, nor by some of my more theologically conservative friends. So here goes.

I believe that one of the most notable things about the New Testament is its silence on an important issue: Church structure. The Old Testament gives detailed instructions about the roles of the priests and Levites. There is detailed instruction about the construction of the Temple, the sacrifices to be offered, and how various ceremonies were to be conducted. But there is no such instruction manual anywhere in the New Testament. Membership, offices, or structures are not discussed. As a friend once said, “God’s instruction on church structure is so plainly spelled out in the Bible and that we have everyone from Roman Catholics to Baptists following the biblical manual.”

But we do have passages like the following one in 1 Timothy 3:

1 Timothy 3:1-13

1 The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop (overseer) must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way -- 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.

8 Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; 9 they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. 11 Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; 13 for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (NRSV)

There is a similar passage in Titus:

Titus 1:5-9

5 I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: 6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. 7 For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; 8 but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. 9 He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

These passages are not job descriptions. They are character descriptions. When we see the terms “bishop” (or overseer), “elder,” and “deacon” used, we are strongly tempted to do something we must resist. We tend to read 1,900 years of church history back into the content of these terms.

These fledgling Jesus communities needed mature people to give some leadership. The Jewish synagogue had elders as leaders, and likely the term was borrowed from that context. Elders (presbuteros) are, first and foremost, exactly what the term suggests: people advanced in age. Age in ancient culture was connected with wisdom and experience.

Overseer or bishop (episkipos) simply meant “superintendent” and, to my knowledge, had no particular religious connotation until it later morphed into a position within the church hierarchy. Deacon (diakonos) was someone who ran errands or did menial duties.

Other passages like Ephesians 4:11 talk of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers not as offices but as gifts given for functional assistance. Bishop/overseer is used seemingly interchangeably with elders in places, and apparently, some elders were devoted to teaching while others were not.

1 Timothy 5:17

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; …

So is a pastor-teacher different from an elder? Is a teaching elder different from a bishop/overseer? Where does a prophet fit in? It is true that 1 Timothy  3:1 speaks of the “office of bishop/overseer,” but there is no evidence of an office in our modern sense. If these bishops were part of a hierarchy in a chain of command, carrying out orders from superiors, then why are none of Paul’s letters addressed to such leaders, giving them directives?

The determining criterion for someone carrying out a function with regard to the community appears to have been character and gifting. No one exercising mature character and gifting is explicitly excluded from any particular function.

Some point to the limitation of “husband of one wife,” as it is interpreted in some versions, as evidence that this work was limited to men, but this isn’t a prescriptive instruction. Neither Paul nor Timothy was married. It is a proscriptive instruction prohibiting those who were remarried or polygamous. There is no prescription of men for these positions nor prohibition of women (or slaves, or gentiles, or other social categories.) It does appear that it was assumed in such passages that the overseers are men, but there is no theological justification for why it must be men or not women. Character and gifting are the only determining factors.

The reason for this lengthy four-post excursus on 1 Timothy is to show that the fictive family metaphor of all believers as siblings of each other and of Christ, with God as the paterfamilias, isn’t contrary to the teaching we find in the letters to Timothy and Titus. While there appears to be a presumption of male oversight (or at least predominantly male leadership) in keeping with cultural convention, there is no divinely ordered hierarchy or assignment of functions based on sex, ethnicity, or other human distinctions other than character and gifting. Indeed, we find women like Junia, Priscilla, Phoebe, and Nympha leading and teaching.

Series Index

Comments

[kerryn]

Greetings again Michael.
Another thoughtful post. thank you.

I particularly appreciate and agree with your comment that the passages in 1 Tim 3 and Tit 1 are
"not job descriptions. They are character [and gifting] descriptions."

You make the comment that
"Timothy 3:1 speaks of “office of bishop/overseer” but there is no evidence of an office in our modern sense of the term."

I agaree.
It seems to me that an “office” exists whether it’s filled or not? Do you agree? Ie – there is the ‘office’ of the President of the USA – whether someone is filling it or not, the ‘office’ continues to exist. But I wonder is that the sense we get of how the NT teaches us about leadership/servanthood in the body of Christ?

I reckon I need to do some more personal homework for myself on the term 'episkophe'.
However, on a quick look it seems this particular noun (I realise there are other variations that I’ll need to study up on such as ‘episkopos’) is only used 4 times in the NT (including 1Tim 3;1).

Twice it seems to be connected with 'overseeing in the sense of visitation' (in these cases used of God himself - 1 Pet 2:12; Lk 19:39) – not any official ‘office’.

The closest the NT seems to come to using the word in terms of an ‘office’ is Acts 1:20, where ‘episkophe’ is used in the context of ‘filling a place’ – ie the apostles decide that Judas should have a replacement. Peter quotes out of Ps 109:8 saying that the “place of leadership” (NIV) or “office” (NASB) of Judas should be replaced by another. There are many questions surrounding this whole action. Did God even tell the apostles to do this? Or was this a ‘man-made’ action. Interestingly, Matthias is never heard of again. Certainly we can understand the ’12 apostles’ picked by Jesus as being symbolic of the 12 tribes of Israel and representing the ‘New Israel’ – so in this case, there was an ‘office’ of apostle (cf. Rev 21:12-14). Yet we know that there are others, eg Paul who were clearly called apostles (sent ones/missionaries) who were not part of this official ‘12’.

I propose that the consistent overriding message of the NT is about the Body operating in their Spirit ‘gifting’ (regardless of gender, race, social status)… … eg those ‘who’ teach are teachers….by the very definition of the fact they teach they ‘are’ a gifted teacher (Rom 12:3-8). The NT doesn’t propose that in each local gathering of the ‘church’ there are one or two specific positions vacant for a teacher or overseer, so get your resumes ready and apply for the job… rather, we are taught to use whatever gifts we have been given in grace by the Spirit, provided we have the godly character to support them…with an attitude of serving, not lording it over anyone.

Am I off track here or totally oversimplifying things?

Kerryn

[Michael W. Kruse]

Well, if you are off track then we are off track together. :) I think you and I are in a similar place.

[samlcarr]

I think that makes three of us.
One point that worries me about the fictive family of the Body of Christ is the possibility of insulation and isolation. Looking at how it started in Jerusalem, the body becomes self sufficient and could easily detach itself from involvement in the surrounding culture. When Jesus led his intrepid group in and around Palestine, we get a different feeling altogether of self-sufficiency with total missional involvement.

We are a long way away of being in a similar danger, or at least for these reasons but, any thoughts?

[Michael W. Kruse]

"One point that worries me about the fictive family of the Body of Christ is the possibility of insulation and isolation."

Sam, going back to the first couple of posts in this series, I think the nature of family has changed and we read back our notion of "family as a safe refuge from the world, giving us emotional support," view back into the biblical message. I'm very much in agreement.

I also think the clergy/laity divide is deeply distructive to missional engagement. I'll be coming to more of that in closing posts.