Are The Qualifications For Elders Or Overseers Negotiable?

By Benjamin L. Merkle

[Benjamin L. Merkle is Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina.]

Qualifications for elders or overseers are mentioned in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.[1] These qualifications are seen by many evangelicals as normative guidelines that must be upheld today as the standard for those seeking leadership positions in the church. But how stringently must these guidelines be followed? Are some of the qualifications merely optional based on one’s particular context? If so, does that open the door to dismiss other qualifications if one finds them outdated or overly restrictive? For example, in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles written more than a hundred years ago, Bernard commented,

It must be remembered that St Paul is not enumerating here the essential characteristics of a bishop; he is dwelling upon certain moral and personal qualities which, in the Church of that day, it was desirable that he should possess. And it has been argued with considerable force that regulations of this sort cannot be regarded as of universal and permanent obligation, for circumstances may so change as to render them unwise or unnecessary.[2]

He argued that the requirement for a bishop to be the husband of one wife “may be modified by circumstances” based on the various ways the church has interpreted this phrase.[3] Regarding the qualification that an overseer be “able to teach,” Bernard stated that this requirement was, “perhaps, not part of the formal duty of the ἐπίσκοπος; it was a desirable qualification in view of the special circumstances of Ephesus and Crete.”[4] Astonishingly, he also wrote that the prohibition against drunkenness is not necessary in the present age because “each age has its own special sins to guard against.”[5]

If one takes Bernard’s approach, the qualifications are somewhat negotiable. In a different age and culture, the qualifications that Paul lists are not universal. They are limited to a particular time and place and can therefore be enforced or ignored. But is this the correct approach? Are some of the qualifications negotiable or must they all be affirmed with equal vigor? Do any qualifications include a cultural element that can be shed? To answer these questions, this article addresses the following issues: (1) Did Paul use preformed tradition? (2) How much of Paul’s lists reflects the historical situation? (3) Should these lists be universally applied? (4) Are any of the qualifications negotiable?

Did Paul Use Preformed Tradition?

The first question to address is whether or not Paul used preformed tradition. This question is important because if Paul merely borrowed a preformed virtue list from the broader Greco-Roman culture, then the lists, some think, may not contain Paul’s careful reflection on the matter. For example, many commentators have noted parallels between Paul’s list and Onasander’s list regarding the qualities of an ideal general:

I believe, then, that we must choose a general, not because of noble birth as priests are chosen, not because of wealth as the superintendents of the gymnasia, but because he is temperate [σώφρονα], self-restrained, vigilant, frugal, hardened to labour, alert, free from avarice [i.e., free from the love of money, ἀφιλάργυρον], neither too young nor too old, indeed a father of children if possible, a ready speaker, and a man with a good reputation.[6]

The similarities include the fact that two of the words in the lists are identical (“temperate” or “prudent,” σώφρονα [1 Tim. 3:2] and “free from the love of money,” ἀφιλάργυρον [v. 3]). Other words or phrases, while not identical, are similar or overlap in meaning: being restrained (ἐγκρατῆ) or temperate (νηφάλιον, v. 2), being a father of children (πατέρα παίδων) or having children (τέκνα ἔχοντα, v. 4), not being too young (μήτε νέον) or not being a new convert (μὴ νεόφυτον, v. 6), and having a good reputation (ἔνδοξον; cf. μαρτυρίαν καλὴν, v. 7). It is argued that both Onasander’s list and Paul’s list in 1 Timothy 3 were based on preformed Hellenistic tradition.

This position is affirmed by Marshall, who comments, “The church was settling down to become an institution within Greco-Roman society, and therefore it was striving to fit in with that society by the adoption of a moral code and lifestyle which were in harmony with those of the surrounding culture.”[7] He notes that the similarities between the lists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 also suggest a common source.[8] These similarities include: (1) a nearly identical introductory formula (δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, 1 Tim. 3:2; δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι, Titus 1:7); (2) the same qualification at the head of both lists (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, 1 Tim. 3:2; μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, Titus 1:6); and (3) generally comparable character traits in both lists.

Perhaps the main argument in favor of recognizing that the author of the Pastoral Epistles used a preformed tradition is the general nature of the qualifications. Easton goes so far as to say that the lists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are “unchanged from the non-Christian form.”[9] While this is an overstatement, there is some truth that the qualifications given to Timothy and Titus are general in nature in the sense that they are basic characteristics that were valued in society and expected of all Christians.[10]

Paul’s list, however, includes several features not found in Onasander’s list, such as being able to teach (διδακτικόν, 1 Tim. 3:2), not addicted to wine (μὴ πάροινον, v. 3), having children in subjection (τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, v. 4), being able to manage one’s household (τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι, v. 5), not being a new convert (v. 6), which is different from not being too young, and the reference to reputation, which is viewed in relation to outsiders or non-Christians. Consequently, some scholars, such as Mappes, deny that a preformed tradition was employed. He states, “The dissimilarities discount the hypothesis . . . that the writer of the Pastorals used a well-known list of virtues and vices to call the church to a conciliatory position with society.”[11] In addition, there are dissimilarities between the lists given for overseers and deacons in 1 Timothy 3 as well as dissimilarities between the lists for overseers/elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.[12]

There is, therefore, debate as to whether Paul used a preformed virtue list. Regardless of whether Paul created a list ex nihilo or borrowed and adapted a somewhat standardized list of virtues, he offered a list that was applicable to the particular situation of his audience. Clearly, if such a list was available and known by Paul, he felt free to change and adapt it based on circumstances related to the churches.

How Much of Paul’s Lists Reflects the Historical Situation?

The next question, then, is to what extent Paul’s lists reflect the uniquely historical contexts in which he wrote. It is now commonly acknowledged that these lists are indeed ad hoc qualifications that are intimately tied to the situations of both Ephesus and Crete. In fact, it could be argued that this approach is the majority view among scholars today. A few decades ago, Fee emphasized this approach in his commentary on the Pastorals and in a journal article.[13] In the article he rightly stressed that the Pastorals were not written as manuals of church government but were situational letters written to combat the false teachers who were destroying the churches.[14] Thus, when Paul wrote qualifications for leaders for the churches at Ephesus and Crete, he included characteristics that were especially relevant to those churches.

This approach was embraced by Mounce, who affirms that the qualifications were designed by Paul specifically to counter character traits displayed by the false teachers. That is, the qualities mentioned by Paul are not merely general or generic qualities that were simply affirmed by society (though that may be the case); they were qualities that the false teachers neglected. Mounce clarifies his position, “Paul was addressing a specific historical problem in which the opponents had gone far beyond Christian standards. . . . [I]n the Ephesian situation it was necessary to emphasize [a] rudimentary level of standards. Paul’s answer was intended not to be all inclusive but to emphasize what was appropriate to Ephesus.”[15] The situation (especially in Ephesus) was one in which false teachers were threatening the life of the church. They were distorting the gospel and (or by) living immoral lives. Therefore, Paul set forth qualifications that would contrast with the false teachers.

This does not mean, however, that Mounce denies that Paul emphasized certain character traits that would be respected in the culture. So, although the general form of the list may reflect traits honored in the culture, the specifics of the list are based on the presence of the false teachers.[16] Mounce explains:

Almost every quality Paul specifies here has its negative counterpart in the Ephesian opponents. They are bringing the church into disrepute, so at the head of the list Paul says that a church leader must be above reproach. They are teaching only for financial gain; Paul says that an overseer must not be greedy or a lover of money. They are promiscuous; Paul says the overseer must be a “one-woman” man. Once a full picture of the opponents is developed, chap. 3 becomes one of the strongest arguments that the PE are directed toward a specific historical problem and should be understood in light of that situation. . . . These are the qualities that were essential for the Ephesian leaders to adopt in contrast to the Ephesian opponents.[17]

 But is Mounce going too far in stating that “almost every quality” is a direct response to the ungodly lifestyle of the false teachers in Ephesus? In 1 Timothy 3:4 Paul included the requirement that an overseer must keep his children under control. Does this imply that the children of the false teachers were not submissive (as Mounce says)?[18] This type of historical reconstruction using mirror reading is sometimes helpful, but it often strays into speculation. Besides Paul’s mention of the necessity for an overseer to have submissive children, nothing in 1 or 2 Timothy suggests that the children of false teachers were disobedient. In defending his position, Mounce cites 2 Timothy 3:2, which states that in the last days some will be “disobedient to [their] parents.” This reference, however, is not speaking of the children of the false teachers but the false teachers themselves. The same is true for his reference to Titus 1:10, which speaks of the false teachers (not the children of the false teachers) being “rebellious.”

Instead, some of the qualifications stand, not as reactions against the false teachers, but as proactive qualities that were needed because of the nature of the task that overseers performed. Thus, Paul declared that an overseer’s children must be submissive because managing a household has many similarities to caring for God’s church. In other words, Paul’s explicit reason for including this qualification does not relate to the contrasting lifestyle of the false teachers and the damage they were doing to the church. Rather, Paul’s reason is that having submissive children and managing them well is crucial to the tasks overseers carry out. Furthermore, several other qualities have no explicit parallel with the supposed behavior of the false teachers such as being “temperate” (νηφάλιον, 1 Tim. 3:2), “prudent” (κόσμιον, v. 2), “not addicted to wine” (μὴ πάροινον, v. 3), not a “striker” (μὴ πλήκτην, v. 3), and “just” (δίκαιον, Titus 1:8). Based on the requirement that an overseer cannot be addicted to wine or not a drunkard, would it be appropriate to assume that the false teachers were drunkards, even though nothing about them being drunkards is mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles? It is also possible that Paul included this requirement because it was a problem in society as a whole and therefore necessary to include. Thus, although it is evident that Paul was countering the immoral lifestyle of the false teachers, this observation should not be pressed beyond what the text can bear. Some of the qualifications are listed because they are essential to the very task of overseeing the church.

Should These Lists Be Universally Applied?

Even if Paul used a preformed list, he adapted it for the particular context in which he wrote, and in any case his lists reflect many qualities that were upheld in the Greco-Roman culture. They are also qualities that the false teachers were neglecting and thus were highlighted to distinguish a true leader in the church from a false teacher. Given that Paul’s lists were ad hoc lists created for a particular context at a particular time, are the qualifications to be universally applied today?

Most evangelicals agree that texts aimed at a specific situation in the past can still apply today, though this is not automatically the case. For example, Mounce, who emphasizes the historical context regarding the qualifications of elders or overseers, believes that the qualifications should be universally applied. He states, “While it is necessary to interpret [1 Tim. 3:1-7] in light of its historical context, this does not mean that what it says, or what the principles lying behind the text say, is necessarily limited to the original context.”[19] Therefore, he concludes, “Paul is enumerating essential qualities of church leadership in 1 Tim 3:1-7. . . . [These qualifications] are all qualities that should characterize any church leader of any culture and any time.”[20]

In his article regarding the ad hoc nature of the Pastoral Epistles, Fee asks a number of questions related to the application of certain commands for today. He queries,

How do these ad hoc documents, inspired of the Spirit to address and correct a singular historical situation, function by that same Spirit as eternal Word for us? . . . How does what we learn from a text that is not intended specifically to teach church order function for us today? . . . Do imperatives directed toward the church in Ephesus in A.D. 62, to correct abuses of wayward elders, function as eternal norms, obligatory in every culture in every age in an absolute way?[21]

In addition, Fee notes the difficulty of discovering the meaning of some texts (for example “the husband of one wife”). Consequently, his response to these questions is that Christians must seek to obey the “spirit” of the text even if they do not follow the “letter.”[22] There is some danger in Fee’s analysis because it opens the door to minimizing texts that one finds difficult to accept. Moo contends that even though a command is grounded in a historical situation, it can still have a universal application:

[S]ound hermeneutical procedure would require that there be very good evidence for any local situation which is held up as a factor limiting the application for a biblical command. Otherwise, one could limit the application of virtually any biblical text simply by suggesting possible local circumstances behind it. . . . The effort expended in detecting local circumstances behind certain NT texts appears often to have as its motivation the assumption that the demonstration of such factors constitutes evidence that the text in question cannot be applied universally. . . . The point, then, is this: the isolation of local circumstances as the occasion for a particular teaching does not, by itself, indicate anything about the normative nature of that teaching. . . . [Therefore,] it is illegitimate to assume that a teaching is not generally applicable simply because local circumstances exist.[23]

This is not to say that every command should be seen as normative for today. But as Moo states, there must be “very good evidence” to limit the application of a text. For example, the casting of lots by the early church to select new leadership (Acts 1:15-26) is not normally viewed as something that the modern church should practice. The “very good evidence” includes: (1) the act of casting lots is described in a historical narrative but is not prescribed; (2) this act is never repeated or commanded; (3) the purpose of the text is not to explain how to appoint new leaders; and (4) there are some unrepeatable elements mentioned in the text. For instance, the disciples were replacing an apostle, a unique office that included specific qualifications that cannot be fulfilled today (see Acts 1:21-22).[24] The case in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, however, is much different. Paul commanded Timothy and Titus to appoint only qualified individuals to church offices. These qualifications are generally viewed as being universally applicable because the circumstances elsewhere are viewed as being the same (i.e., with respect to the need for godly leaders).

Are Any of the Qualifications Negotiable?

But what about the qualifications mentioned in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1? Are any of them negotiable or must all of them be applied to today’s leaders? First, it must be stated that all of the moral qualifications should be viewed as non-negotiable. That is, it is never ideal or acceptable to appoint a leader who is a drunkard, violent, quarrelsome, or a lover of money. In the same way, it is always ideal and preferable to appoint a leader who is above reproach, sober minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, gentle, and who has a good reputation with outsiders. Second, the only duty that is mentioned, the ability to teach, should also be viewed as non-negotiable (although there is some debate as to what qualifies as an aptitude for teaching).[25] Because teaching is one of the primary ways an elder or overseer shepherds the flock, the teaching ministry is essential. But this still leaves three qualifications: (1) being the husband of one wife; (2) being able to manage one’s own household and children well, and (3) not being a new convert.

Paul stated that “an overseer . . . must be . . . the husband of one wife” (δεῖ . . . τὸν ἐπίσκοπον . . . εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα; 1 Tim. 3:2; cf. 1 Tim. 3:12; Titus 1:6). The difficulty with this phrase is that there are many different interpretations. The main interpretations are (1) an overseer must be married;[26] (2) an overseer must not be a polygamist;[27] (3) an overseer must be married only one time his entire life;[28] and (4) an overseer must be faithful to his wife. Although there is considerable debate as to the meaning of “the husband of one wife,” the majority view is that an overseer must be faithful to his wife.[29] If this view is correct, then the focus of the qualification is not so much situation-in-life (i.e., whether someone is married and thus has one, and only one, wife), but is a moral qualification (i.e., there must be only one woman in his life to whom he is physically and emotionally attached). Consequently, Paul’s intent in stating that a man must be the “husband of one wife” is not that a man must be married, but that if he is married, he must be faithful to his wife. When viewed as a moral qualification, the command is non-negotiable in this sense: every married elder or overseer must be a one-woman man.

The second qualification under discussion is that an overseer must be “one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity” (1 Tim. 3:4; τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος; cf. Titus 1:6). Most scholars affirm that this qualification does not refer to an elder’s situation in life (i.e., he must have children) but that it is a moral qualification (i.e., if he has children, he must lead them in such a way that they are respectful and submissive).[30] It is therefore unnecessary to insist that an elder is married or has children because that is not the intention of the qualifications. Instead, these are moral qualifications that must be upheld if they are applicable to a particular candidate.[31]

The third debated qualification is that a potential candidate must not be “a new convert” (v. 6; μὴ νεόφυτον). This requirement is different from the other qualifications because it is not a moral issue. That is, being a new convert does not specifically relate to one’s morality or godliness. Interestingly, this requirement is not mentioned in Titus. Does the omission mean that in Crete a new convert could be appointed as an elder or overseer? It is often assumed that Paul intentionally omitted this qualification because the church in Crete was much younger than the more established church in Ephesus. This conclusion is based on the following considerations:32 (1) Paul left Crete before he had time to appoint elders, as was his normal custom (cf. Acts 14:23), and so he left that task to Titus. (2) Whereas Timothy was given instruction to discipline (existing) elders (1 Tim. 5:19-25), Titus was instructed to appoint (new) elders (Titus 1:5). (3) There is no mention of the office of deacon in Titus (cf. 1 Tim. 3:8-13). The assumption is that elders were appointed first and deacons were needed later, once the church grew and more demands were placed upon the elders (cf. Acts 6:1-6). (4) The teaching in Titus consists primarily of the basic catechesis appropriate for new converts to the faith (see, e.g., Titus 2:11-14; 3:3-8). (5) The influence of false teachers in Crete was not as advanced as in the situation Timothy faced in Ephesus.

All of this evidence seems to fit with the suggestion that the omission was intentional because all the potential leaders in Crete were new converts. For example, Guthrie comments, “It is significant that [the requirement of not being a new convert] is omitted from the directions for the Cretan church, whose more recent establishment no doubt rendered it inappropriate.”[33] Likewise, Towner explains, “The church in Ephesus, a Pauline church with at least a few years under its belt, had the luxury of being more selective in its choice of leaders than was the case in the pioneer situation in Crete. . . . The omission of an age/maturity requirement in the Cretan instructions (cf. 1 Tim 3:6) . . . reflect[s] the church at the missionary stage where ‘mature’ believers were nonexistent.”[34]

There might be, however, other reasons why Paul did not mention to Titus the qualification concerning not being a new convert. For example, it is possible that Paul included the requirement in 1 Timothy 3 because newly converted elders were a problem in Ephesus (cf. 1 Tim. 5:24), whereas Paul did not mention this requirement in Crete because it had no history of elders. Strauch clarifies this position: “It may have been that leadership by new converts was a real problem in the church at Ephesus. Perhaps new converts were deceived about their giftedness and spiritual intelligence and stirred up confusion in the church.”[35] If this is the reason Paul gave the requirement in 1 Timothy, then his motivation for not including it in his letter to Titus is not so much because it was unnecessary, since the church was young, but because newly converted leaders were not causing problems in the church (since the church did not yet have leaders). As such, Paul still would intend for Titus to appoint mature believers, and not neophytes, as leaders.

If, however, Paul intentionally left out the requirement of not being a new convert, then this qualification is somewhat negotiable or, at least, relative to the particular context. Is it permissible to appoint new converts today in a context where only new believers exist? Such a circumstance seems to best explain Paul’s omission. Some fear that if one requirement can be brushed aside based on one’s context, then perhaps this opens the door to do the same with other qualifications. While some caution must be given, it is too simplistic to put all of the qualifications in the same category. Being a new convert is not a moral issue, while most of the other qualifications (except the ability to teach, which is a necessary skill) are clearly moral qualities that demonstrate godliness (or lack thereof). But being a new convert does not specifically relate to morality or godliness. Someone could be above reproach and still be a new convert. This could not be said of the other qualifications. Therefore, allowing for new converts in some circumstances does not necessarily open the door to ignore other qualifications.[36]

Conclusion

To conclude, here are a few observations about the lists in the Pastoral Epistles and how they bring clarity to this study.

(1) The lists are general. They are general in the sense that the qualifications primarily reflect behavior and not tasks. The qualities listed were not only expected of all Christians, but were also often valued in Greco-Roman culture.

(2) The lists are specific. They are specific because (especially in Ephesus) Paul was seeking to counter the lifestyle and behavior of the false teachers. These lists are also specific in the sense that they were written for leaders of the church and therefore include qualifications that were needed in such a position. For example, the ability to teach (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9), the ability to manage, care for, or steward the church (1 Tim. 3:4-5; Titus 1:7), and the need to have a good reputation with unbelievers (1 Tim. 3:7) are specific to ministry in the church.

(3) The lists are not comprehensive. This fact is evident when the lists in 1 Timothy and Titus are compared. There was clearly not a fixed set of qualifications that was used in every church. For example, there is no mention of having a good reputation in Titus. For whatever reason, Paul did not include this qualification. This aspect, however, would be included under the general heading of being above reproach. It could be that in Ephesus the false teachers, who were leaders in the church, had a soiled reputation in the community because of their immoral lifestyle.[37] This does not mean that Paul was unconcerned about this in Crete; it may simply not have become a major problem, especially if the churches did not yet have established leaders.[38]

(4) The lists are universal. Certainly Bernard misses the mark when he states that Paul was not enumerating the “essential” characteristics for an overseer or elder. Have circumstances changed in ways that would make some of the regulations “unwise or unnecessary”? If so, which regulations could the church discard today? Of course, the character traits that Paul lists are not necessarily black-or-white issues but have varying degrees of compliance. For instance, Paul states that a leader must be self-controlled. This does not mean that a potential leader must always be self-controlled in every circumstance but that he is to be characterized as someone who typically displays self-control and can thus be a model for the rest of the congregation. Bernard cites the ability to teach as an example of a qualification that was unique to the situations of Ephesus and Crete. However, the only duty that Paul specifically names is an aptitude for teaching (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9). Based on the need and importance of teaching in other passages,[39] it is clear from the New Testament that an elder or overseer is primarily a teacher. It is also notable that the requirement to be an apt teacher is omitted from the list needed for those serving as deacons. Thus, the elders’ calling to lead the church through their teaching is one of the primary ways their role is distinguished from the deacons.

Consequently, Paul’s lists are non-negotiable in that the intent of the qualifications must be upheld today. Must an overseer be the husband of one wife? Yes, if he has a wife, he must be faithful to her. Must an overseer have submissive children? Yes, if he is married and has children, they must be submissive. Must an overseer not be a new convert? Yes, if there are already established leaders (as there were in Ephesus), he must not be a new convert in order to protect him from pride and falling into the same condemnation that the devil will receive and to protect him from damaging the reputation of the Body of Christ.

Notes

1. There are also qualifications given in 1 Peter 5:1-5, but this study is limited to the Pastoral Epistles.
2. J. H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899; reprint, 1922), 53 (italics original).
3. Ibid., 54.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid. Mounce states, “Bernard’s comment about the supposed inapplicability of the injunction against drunkenness is naïve” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary [Nashville: Nelson, 2000], 185).
6. Quoted from Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, ed. Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 158.
7. I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 94-95. For the view that the author of the Pastoral Epistles was using a preformed tradition see Burton Scott Easton, “New Testament Ethical Lists,” Journal of Biblical Literature51 (1932): 1-12; Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), xiv–xvi; Gerard Mussies, “Catalogues of Sins and Virtues Personified,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, ed. R. van Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 315-35. Ellis lists four elements for identifying a tradition: (1) an introductory or concluding formula; (2) the self-contained character of the passage; (3) the presence of a relatively high number of hapax legomena or a style, idiom, or theological viewpoint distinct from that of the author; and (4) a striking similarity to another (independent) writing (E. Earle Ellis, “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis, ed. Craig Evans and William F. Stinespring [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987], 238). Also see Mark M. Yarbrough, Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy: An Evaluation of the Apostle’s Literary, Rhetorical, and Theological Tactics, Library of New Testament Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 17-57.
8. Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 147-48.
9. Easton, “New Testament Ethical Lists,” 11.
10. So Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles,148; Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 34 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 241. The only exception to the general nature of Paul’s list is that it includes the qualification that overseers must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2; cf. Titus 1:9).
11. David A. Mappes, “Moral Virtues Associated with Eldership,” Bibliotheca Sacra160 (2003): 210. This position is affirmed by others such as Knight, Fee, and Schreiner. Knight concludes that “the lists for the bishop and the deacon share certain distinctive concepts that are appropriate for the particular ministry of that group and do not appear to be a mere echoing of some existing list” (George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 151). While acknowledging some similarities as “striking,” Fee maintains that the similarities “are very likely coincidental” (Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984], 84). Referring specifically to hymns or other confessional statements, Schreiner cautions, “When Paul uses traditional materials, he presumably adapts them for his own purposes and integrates them into the flow of thought of his letters. One should not base an interpretation on an alleged pre-Pauline form” (Thomas R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011], 28).
12. Mappes concludes that “if no consistent literary pattern or source list can be demonstrated, then the meaning of the lists will always be found in their immediate context and most likely tightly woven into the author’s argument” (“Moral Virtues Associated with Eldership,” 204).
13. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus,1-31; idem, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society28 (1985): 141-51. “It must be noted again that 1 Timothy is not intended to establish church order but to respond in a very ad hoc way to the Ephesian situation with its straying elders” (ibid., 147).
14. Fee notes, “The whole of chaps. 2-3 is best understood as instruction vis-à-vis the behavior and attitudes of the F[alse] T[eachers]” (ibid., 143).
15. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 160.
16. Mounce affirms Fee’s position: “The language belongs to the milieu; the presence of the false teachers explains the specifics” (Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 84).
17. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 153, 161 (for a helpful table that lists the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and compares the character traits of elders/overseers and deacons with the lifestyle of the false teachers, see ibid., 156-58). Towner affirms a similar position: “[I]t is not hard to see the failure of the false teachers behind these qualifications for leadership” (Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 260). Likewise, Mappes comments, “Paul used the elder qualifications and lists of vices in the Pastoral Epistles to construct a polemic against the false teachers” (“Moral Virtues Associated with Eldership,” 214). See also Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles,” 146.
18. Mounce writes that the false teachers “were not managing their own households, much less the church” (Pastoral Epistles, 184).
19. Ibid., 185. Elsewhere he states, “It is an official list, one that must be held to, but it is not exhaustive and is to be understood as an ad hoc list” (ibid., 184).
20. Ibid., 185.
21. Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles,” 150. Elsewhere he asks similar questions: “Given the ad hoc nature of 1 and 2 Timothy, with their own specific historical particulars, how do the instructions given by Paul to that historical situation function as an eternal Word in the church for all times and climes? Or . . . in hearing that Word in our day, how many of the original historical particulars are also part of the eternal Word in our lives?” (“Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics, Part III: The Great Watershed—Intentionality & Particularity/Eternality: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as a Test Case,” Crux 26.4 [1990]: 34).
22. Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles,” 150-51.
23. Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity Journal2 (1981): 218, 219 (italics original). Elsewhere Moo states, “It is surely not enough simply to suggest local or cultural factors that may restrict the application of a text, for with such methodology any teaching in Scripture could be dismissed” (“What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority over Men?” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem [Wheaton, Crossway, 1991], 193). Likewise Silva comments, “Generally speaking, a knowledge of the historical situation helps us to refine our understanding of the commands of Scripture, but it does not remove validity for us. One must have very persuasive textual reasons to decide that a particular passage in the letters of the New Testament is so historically conditioned that it has no present applicability” (Moisés Silva, “How to Read a Letter,” in An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, by Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 137). Köstenberger similarly adds, “[T]he occasional nature of a writing by itself is insufficient to establish the non-normativity of a given teaching. To insist fallaciously that occasionality equals cultural relativity renders in the ultimate analysis any divine revelation to humanity impossible, since such revelation by necessity occurs in a cultural, circumstantial context. Thus the question is not whether a given teaching is occasional in nature but whether it is limitedto the occasion by the biblical writer or other textual or contextual factors” (Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued,” Westminster Theological Journal56 [1994]: 273). Schreiner notes the following interpretive error to avoid: “[W]e could dismiss Paul’s teaching altogether, arguing that we cannot apply it today since circumstances have changed dramatically” (Thomas R. Schreiner, “Interpreting the Pauline Epistles,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3.3 [1999]: 17). Finally, McQuilkin warns, “But to set aside any Scripture simply on the basis that it is cultural and therefore valid only for one specific cultural setting is to establish a principle that can be used to set aside any or even all biblical teaching” (J. Robertson McQuilkin, “Problems of Normativeness in Scripture: Cultural versus Permanent,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 238).
24. Examples of commands that are limited due to the historical context in the Pastoral Epistles include Paul’s request to Timothy to bring his cloak and parchments (2 Tim. 4:13) and his appeal to Timothy to take wine for his stomach problems (1 Tim. 5:23). The “very good evidence” in these cases is that they are personal and based on unique circumstances. It is not possible for someone to bring Paul clothes in prison (though the text may include a principle of helping those in need/prison). Similarly, Paul recommended wine because it was the only or best antidote to stomach problems at that time. Concerning 2 Timothy 4:13, Fee rightly states, “In this case the statement is so ad hoc that it had nointent of any kind beyond the personal concern to stay warm next winter” (“Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics,” 34).
25. Lexically this qualification may be taken as “teachable” and would therefore be a moral qualification like the others (see Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 258; K. H. Rengstorf, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:165). This view seems less likely due to the teaching responsibility of elders/overseers mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:17 and Titus 1:9. In addition, the only other usage of the term (διδακτικός) is in 2 Timothy 2:24, where it applies to Timothy, the Lord’s bondservant, who must be “able to teach.” The following verse adds the qualifying phrase “correcting his opponents with gentleness” (v. 25). Therefore, in 2 Timothy 2:24 the term clearly means “able to teach” and not “teachable.” Finally, the translation “able to teach” also fits the historical context better, since faithful teaching was necessary to combat the destructive teaching of the opponents.
26. The strength of this view is that Paul said that an elder must be (δεῖ . . . εἶναι) “the husband of one wife.” Therefore, if a man is not married, he is not the husband of one wife and thus fails to meet this qualification. But this interpretation should be rejected for the following reasons. First, the focus of the phrase is not that a man is married but that he is faithful to his “one” wife. The Greek literally reads, “one-woman man” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), with emphasis placed on the first word, “one” (μιᾶς). Second, Paul clearly taught that singleness has many advantages over being married (1 Cor. 7:32-35). Third, Paul could have written that an overseer must be a man who has a wife (which is different from saying he must be a “one-woman man”). Fourth, this qualification would eliminate Paul, Timothy, and the Lord Jesus Himself from being eligible to serve as overseers. Fifth, to be consistent would require men to have more than one child, since Paul indicated that a potential overseer must manage his “children” (1 Tim. 3:4) well. Sixth, it was simply the norm that men married, and there was no need to highlight the exception.
27. This view maintains that an overseer cannot be married to more than one woman at the same time. Although polygamy is to be avoided, it is probably not what Paul had in mind. In 1 Timothy 5:9 Paul gave qualifications for widows who were eligible to receive financial support from the church, indicating that a widow must be “the wife of one husband” (literally, “a one-man woman”). It is unlikely that Paul meant that a widow must not have been married to more than one man at the same time. For, although polygamy (having more than one wife) was somewhat common in the Greco-Roman and Jewish culture, polyandry (having more than one husband) was strongly rejected by both the Jews and the Romans. Furthermore, “even if polygamy existed among the Jews, evidence is lacking that it was practiced by Christians, and therefore ‘Christian polygamy’ most likely is not in view” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 171). If polygamy was rare among Christians, it does not seem likely that it would be singled out in all three lists (1 Tim. 3:2; 3:12; Titus 1:6) and put at the head of both lists dealing with overseers or elders.
28. This interpretation insists that men who are eligible to become overseers are not permitted to remarry under any circumstance. This view has several strengths. First, it takes the phrase “husband of one wife” seriously and offers a plausible interpretation. Second, this was the view of the early church, which valued celibacy after the divorce or death of a spouse. Third, while allowing remarriage in some cases, Paul favored singleness and celibacy (1 Cor. 7:9, 39). Nevertheless, for several reasons this view is not to be preferred. First, it is doubtful that Paul was holding overseers to a higher standard of morality than he required of all believers. Second, Paul seems to have indicated that sometimes remarriage is a viable option (see 1 Cor. 7:8-9, 39; 1 Tim. 5:14; cf. Rom. 7:1-3). Third, it is wrong to treat divorce and remarriage as the unpardonable sin. If a former murderer is able to be forgiven and later serve as a spiritual leader (like the apostle Paul, who was apparently guilty of murder, Acts 9:1, 26), then it would seem rather arbitrary that a person who remarries cannot serve in such a capacity. Fourth, Paul said that it was better for younger widows to remarry than to become idle or gossips (1 Tim. 5:14). Earlier, Paul indicated that if a widow was to be officially enrolled to receive financial assistance, she must be the “wife of one husband” (v. 9). It seems unlikely that by encouraging younger widows to remarry, Paul was effectively disqualifying them from ever being able to receive assistance from the church if they were widowed again. Rather, a widow who remarried and was widowed again would still be considered a “one-man woman” and would qualify to be enrolled for financial aid from the church. As a result, the phrase “wife of one husband” most likely does not mean that a woman had only one husband her entire lifetime, but that she was faithful to her husband while he was alive. Similarly, the “husband of one wife” should not be taken to mean that an overseer can never remarry, but that he must be faithful to his wife.
29. Those who hold that Paul was speaking of marital fidelity include Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 158-59; Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 156-57; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 250-51; Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 82 (by implication); Andreas Köstenberger, “1 Timothy,” in Ephesians–Philemon, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed., vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 524-25; idem, “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: B&H, 2010), 23; G. F. Hawthorne, “Marriage and Divorce, Adultery and Incest,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 597; Craig S. Keener, “Adultery, Divorce,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 7; Ed Glasscock, “‘The Husband of One Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2, ” Bibliotheca Sacra140 (July–October 1983): 244-58; Sidney Page, “Marital Expectations of Church Leaders in the Pastoral Epistles,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament50 (1993): 105-20.
30. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 157; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 158, 177, 388; Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 80-81. For example, Knight comments, “It is exceedingly doubtful that Paul intended that these words and the words about ‘children’ (plural, vv. 4, 12) be understood as mandating that only a married man with at least two children could be an officer in the church. Probably he wrote in terms of the common situation, i.e., of being married and having children, and then spoke of what should be the case when this most common situation exists in an officer’s life” (Pastoral Epistles, 157). Similarly Mounce notes, “Given the nature of the list . . . this is not a demand that an overseer be married or have more than one child; it is saying that a person who is married and has children must exhibit the proper leadership in his own household before attempting to do the same in God’s household” (Pastoral Epistles, 177).
31. Mounce makes a similar comment: “The ad hoc nature of the list . . . suggests that Paul is thinking that these are the types of qualities an overseer should have. Some of the qualities would by definition apply to all candidates: above reproach, hospitable, skilled teacher, etc. Other qualities would depend on their life situations. If an overseer was married, he would have to be a ‘one-woman’ man. If he had a family, he would have to manage the family well” (Pastoral Epistles, 159).
32. See ibid., lix–lx, 386.
33. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, rev. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 94.
34. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 257, 694. Kelly suggests the Cretan church “had only recently been founded” and was therefore “less advanced” (J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, Black’s New Testament Commentaries [London: Adam & Charles Black, 1963], 78, 229). Marshall maintains, “[The requirement of not being a new convert] presupposes that the church has been in existence for a few years; Titus depicts the churches in Crete at a much earlier stage” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 482). Mounce adds, “The Ephesian church had been established at least ten years earlier and sufficient time had passed for the heresy to form after Paul’s final missionary journey, but in Crete Titus was to appoint (not discipline) elders, which implies that the Cretan church was newly formed” (Pastoral Epistles, 181).
35. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, rev. and exp. (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth, 1995), 201. Towner offers a similar perspective: “If indeed some of them had been young teachers in the church, overcome by pride or arrogance and led astray into ungodly behavior in one way or another, Paul’s concern is to shore up the church’s leadership and protect the church’s testimony in society” (The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 260).
36. Another difficulty is that Paul did not specify what constitutes a “new convert.” Was he referring to six months, one year, or ten years? In some churches, it might be unwise to let a person become an elder who has been a Christian for only five years. In other churches, however, it may be unwise to wait that long. So even if this requirement is universal, its application may depend upon the local context.
37. So Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 235.
38. Paul did emphasize witness to the community in Titus (see 2:5, 8, 10; 3:2).
39. See, e.g., 1 Timothy 5:17; Galatians 6:6; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; Hebrews 13:7.