Women Deacons as Husbands of One Wife
- Thread starter Miller
- Start date
- Status
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
They would probably say it's a requirement for the males specifically who are married, rejecting the idea that they can have multiple wives. They would probably say it's not a command to only have male deacons, because then all deacons would have to be married to one wife as well with that logic. I think that's what would be said. Just my two cents though.
Unless one means to argue that deacons must be married, then first one should recognize that this qualification is a "limiting factor." To put it generically (to dispense with it) a church office-bearer can have but one spouse at most. This is the clearest insistence of the text.
Now, in the second place, Paul does not appear to contemplate women either as elders or deacons. His terms for the officers are masculine, and I know of no evidence from anywhere in the Bible that they are ever applied (unambiguously) to any woman. His term as pertains to the spouse is not applicable to a woman's spouse (no woman has a "wife" in the Bible).
Third, to anticipate a specious objection: the patriarchal societies of Paul's world couldn't anticipate a time and place where one woman had multiple "husbands;" ergo, Paul cannot be expected to address this subject in the identical way when he contemplates a woman deacon. This would be an effort to deflect the force of the observation that where a parallel direction to a supposed "deaconess" might have been expected, it is missing.
The answer to the objection, besides doubling down on the force of the sex-specific terms, is to note how the proposal "reads Paul's mind." It offers an explanation for why he did not say something, as a means of justifying what seems desirable; rather than accepting exactly what he did say as setting limits on what is permissible.
Note an alternative proposal (on the same ground of "silence") would be that Paul must have expected such "deaconesses" to be unmarried; i.e. he doesn't mention her husband because these are all virgins or widows. Why doesn't that proposal seem equally plausible, unless the objection is driven by the will of the interpreter, not the terms of the text?
There are certain "cultural" aspects of the literature that affect biblical content and interpretation, but especially application of the text to another time and place. But also, there are normative demands and strictures that if taken seriously impose on other cultures, times, and places the ideas and expectations of the Bible. The Bible does often call for surrendering one's cherished habits, and the formation of a new/alternate counter-cultural vision.
We are living in a time that self-consciously rejects its history, rejects nature, rejects wisdom. The evolutionary doctrine of progress (whether biological or Marxist or other) is now on a kind of metastasizing tear through the West, a wasting disease that may not stop until it has exhausted every absurd expression of defiance. The world around us seems bent on obliterating sex-distinction, and every other "kind" that it has not chosen; as it aims now at "directing" the formerly "undirected" (godless) mater and energy of the universe.
Paul very clearly sets certain limits of church organization on a creation/nature foundation, further informed by the earliest special revelation descriptions. Not to mention a kind of cumulative effect of the whole Bible witness. He does not seem to me to be culturally hidebound, but tied to history, nature, and wisdom extra nos.
Now, in the second place, Paul does not appear to contemplate women either as elders or deacons. His terms for the officers are masculine, and I know of no evidence from anywhere in the Bible that they are ever applied (unambiguously) to any woman. His term as pertains to the spouse is not applicable to a woman's spouse (no woman has a "wife" in the Bible).
Third, to anticipate a specious objection: the patriarchal societies of Paul's world couldn't anticipate a time and place where one woman had multiple "husbands;" ergo, Paul cannot be expected to address this subject in the identical way when he contemplates a woman deacon. This would be an effort to deflect the force of the observation that where a parallel direction to a supposed "deaconess" might have been expected, it is missing.
The answer to the objection, besides doubling down on the force of the sex-specific terms, is to note how the proposal "reads Paul's mind." It offers an explanation for why he did not say something, as a means of justifying what seems desirable; rather than accepting exactly what he did say as setting limits on what is permissible.
Note an alternative proposal (on the same ground of "silence") would be that Paul must have expected such "deaconesses" to be unmarried; i.e. he doesn't mention her husband because these are all virgins or widows. Why doesn't that proposal seem equally plausible, unless the objection is driven by the will of the interpreter, not the terms of the text?
There are certain "cultural" aspects of the literature that affect biblical content and interpretation, but especially application of the text to another time and place. But also, there are normative demands and strictures that if taken seriously impose on other cultures, times, and places the ideas and expectations of the Bible. The Bible does often call for surrendering one's cherished habits, and the formation of a new/alternate counter-cultural vision.
We are living in a time that self-consciously rejects its history, rejects nature, rejects wisdom. The evolutionary doctrine of progress (whether biological or Marxist or other) is now on a kind of metastasizing tear through the West, a wasting disease that may not stop until it has exhausted every absurd expression of defiance. The world around us seems bent on obliterating sex-distinction, and every other "kind" that it has not chosen; as it aims now at "directing" the formerly "undirected" (godless) mater and energy of the universe.
Paul very clearly sets certain limits of church organization on a creation/nature foundation, further informed by the earliest special revelation descriptions. Not to mention a kind of cumulative effect of the whole Bible witness. He does not seem to me to be culturally hidebound, but tied to history, nature, and wisdom extra nos.
jfschultz
Puritan Board Junior
For my 2 cents, I would suggest that this indicates that a deacon (and elder since there is similar language) are to be married. I think that this points to a very practical reason. How they serve and manage their household would indicate how they would serve and manage the church.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
That is my reading, for the reasons given by Mr. Schultz.
I do understand that this is a minority position. But a fair reading of the text. And if the text doesn't mean what it clearly says, at what point does one stop in conforming it to culture?
As for the original question - Obergefell solved that problem - just join the PCUSA.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Female deacons fulfill this qualification by never being deacons.
Jo_Was
Puritan Board Freshman
This couldn't have been the actual *requirement* as Paul himself was not married, why would he insist on this as a necessary qualification for others? This seemingly plain and simple reading is not plain-and-simple-consistent with the Apostles' own context. It reads more to the intent of the passage being more like "If the deacon is married then he shall be married to one wife." rather than "The deacon must be married." as being the impetus.
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
I would agree with Jo, otherwise single men would be ruled out of the ministry if deacons and elders have to be married. The rule given is to repudiate polygamy and even those who were to have a divorce. Respecting deaconesses, well we may say with Paul, “we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing .” Out of context, but pertinent.
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
Paul was not an elder nor a deacon, ordinarily ordained and installed; he was an Apostle called directly by our Lord. An extraordinary office, by it's nature, ought not to supply the rule for the ordinary. I don't believe that this is a conclusive argument any more than the existence of prophetesses demonstrates the validity of female elders and deacons.
That said, whether you believe 1 Cor 7 to be speaking in respect merely of contemporaneous circumstances or not, Paul's positive regard towards the gift of singleness doesn't make a lot of sense to me if the gift also bars the beneficiary from ministry.
Jo_Was
Puritan Board Freshman
This may be granted. Though, we still have others such as Timothy or Barnabus who seemed rather young men trained for these duties. We don't know a ton of their lives, but what we do see doesn't seem to suppose they are married (especially Timothy who seems to have followed Paul similarly in his efforts and lifestyle).
^^ Agreed.
An important modern hermeneutical principle: if you don't like that a text clearly gives a specific gender (husband) ignore it. If you can't ignore it, state emphatically it must mean something other than the plain reading. When all else fails, point to differences in cultural context.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Could you cite the verse that states that he was never married?
Denny Burk sets it out as I've generally heard:
http://www.dennyburk.com/was-the-apostle-Paul-married/
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
Not married and never married are different things. At the time of writing 1 Corinthians he was certainly not married since that is the literal signification the term he uses of himself. I'm sympathetic to Burk's analysis and have tended in that direction myself but it is, to my knowledge, a minority position and most defenders of Paul's widower status admit that it's somewhat speculative and not a necessary consequence of the relevant passages of Scripture.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
How does that work in with the thread, Ed? If the call is for marriage to be an elder or deacon, wouldn't Paul have had to remarry to be qualified, if he at the time was not the husband of one wife? Thanks.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Rather than re-state it, I'll refer you up-thread to Mr. Schultz
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Yes.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Please excuse my ignorance. Are you saying 1. Paul's previous marriage and management of his household as a Pharisee before being a Christian qualified him for leadership in the church, or 2. Paul remarried when the qualifications for leaders were listed, so he can be qualified by the church observing how his household was managed?
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Do you have any evidence about how he might have run his household? Or are we going to both just speculate and whistle in the wind?
Paul did refer to himself as the chief or foremost of all sinners.
- Status
