Titus 1:5-9 - Qualifications of Elders: Exceptions?

[Grant]

Good day,

Egalitarians may try to argue for an exception to male-only elders upon the following lines:

- well if you would allow an exception that a single man would not be automatically disqualified, and you allow the exception that a childless man would not be automatically disqualified, then why wouldn’t you allow for a women to serve also as an exception? After all Paul says he should be a married man with kids. -

To be clear, I do not hold to this reasoning, but I am trying to develop some anticipatory reasonings for discussions that may come up in small group settings after an upcoming sermon.

It’s clear enough that Paul views this office as for qualified men and not permissible for women. But how can we best defend from the accusation above. I am most familiar with th counter argument “well Paul was single so he would either be hypocritical or disqualifying himself”. Any other defenses you have heard or taught?

 

[Poimen]

Arguments based on the inconsistency of the other side do not establish anything. Neither do they prove anything against the opposite other than that those who hold the argument are (possibly) being inconsistent. Those who oppose men only ordination must first prove that the inconsistency is fatal to the principle.

Regarding the exception, I agree that the practice of the NT shows us that men could be leaders in the church without being married. Being married was not an absolute requirement anymore than not being married (1 Corinthians 9:5) and yet in both instances women are not mentioned as being the subjects (the ones bearing the action) of the text but rather the objects (the ones to whom the action pertains). Paul says "sister, a wife" (AV) in 1 Corinthians 9:5 and wife in 1 Timothy. In other words, the parameters or freedom allowed pertain entirely to men, not women.

One might also ask, in reply, if a woman can be the wife of another woman. Whatever is allowed with respect to one's married status, cannot be allowed in the case of the gender of the married one without destruction of marriage itself. In the former we see the boundaries of the office, in the latter we undermine a creation ordinance.

Regarding the text, the foundation behind the practice is (in my opinion) more clearly laid out in Paul's explanatory note in vs. 5 "For if a man know not how to rule his own house (masculine in the Greek), how shall he take care of the church of God?" This follows from vs. 4 where the same idiom is used in the same fashion and is further supported by the distinctions between men and women as recently highlighted in the close of the previous chapter (2:11fff.), even that pertaining to teaching (cf. 3:2 compared to 2:12). In other words whatever 'exception' is granted in vs. 1 cannot be granted to women without tearing down the whole structure.

 

[MW]

What is being excepted? When Paul says an elder must be the husband of one wife he is describing an observable marker of maturity in the life of a man. To be the husband of one wife in the case of being in the married state is the actual requirement. To rule well his own house in the case of being the head of a house is the actual requirement. To be a husband and to be the head of a house is not made a requirement. Hence there is no exception being made.

If we read the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 in the light of chap. 2 it is clear that Paul grounds male-female distinctions in the creation order. Adam was formed first, then Eve. A man without a wife and children is still a man who was formed first. A woman, however godly, still belongs to the order of being created second, and being created for man. This would require an exception to the qualifications laid down, and hence disqualifies her from being an elder.