douglas d. fusselman || Abstract - In spite of the longstanding assumption that a clergyman must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6), there is simply no general consensus on the intended meaning of this apostolic mandate. This exegetical ambiguity is evident in the church's practice: Lutheran clergy rosters are replete with single ministers, married ministers, widowed ministers, divorced ministers, and remarried ministers (not to mention homosexual and female ministers), all professing to stand within the bounds of scriptural directives. The modern church's inconsistent application of this important ministerial requirement should be reason enough to reexamine these portions of the Pastoral Epistles.
"TO BE ELIGIBLE to be called to the office of the public ministry a man must be adjudged to have met God's requirements as listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1."1 Thus the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod recently confirmed the historic significance placed upon these two passages. Discussions of the public ministry such as those found in Church constitutions, practical theology texts, and journal articles are seldom complete without at least an allusion to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.2 These passages, more than any others, are viewed as the portions of Scripture in which "...the Lord has listed the qualifications which a pastor ought to possess."3
One might expect a certain unanimity in the interpretation of such important passages. This, however, is simply not the case. Both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 present definite exegetical difficulties. For example, in 1 Tim. 3:11, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things,"4 at least three different referents have been suggested for the word "women."5 Various distinctions between bishops, elders and deacons are also encountered in Christian literature, polity, and practice.
Perhaps the most problematic phrase recorded in both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is "the husband of one wife".6 The uncertainty which surrounds this passage is highlighted in the following excursus on clergy divorce:
Fidelity to one's spouse in marriage is of particular importance in the life and conduct of the Christian pastor. This is clear from the fact that foremost in the list of requirements (dei--1 Tim. 3:2) for what it means for a pastor to be "above reproach" is that he be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6). The precise meaning of this phrase has been the subject of extended discussion among New Testament exegetes. Several explanations have been given. Walter Lock's commentary in the International Critical Commentary series lists five: 1) The bishop must be a married man; 2) not a polygamist; 3) "a faithful husband," married to one woman and loyal to her, having no mistress or concubine; 4) not divorcing one wife and marrying another; and 5) not marrying a second time after his wife's death.7More recently Sidney Page likewise noted (and thoroughly documented), the considerable diversity of opinion regarding what specifically the phrase was intended to express.8 In spite of general agreement that a pastor must be the husband of one wife, there is simply no clear consensus on the intended meaning of this apostolic mandate.9
This exegetical ambiguity is not without practical consequences. The clergy rosters of the various protestant denominations are replete with single pastors, married pastors, widowed pastors, divorced pastors, and remarried pastors (not to mention homosexual and female pastors), all professing to stand within the bounds of scriptural directives. The biblical requirement that a pastor be "the husband of one wife" has been applied to clergy marital status in so many different ways that it has become virtually meaningless and practically inapplicable. The modern Church's inconsistent treatment of this important ministerial requirement is reason enough to reexamine these portions of the Pastoral Epistles.
Scripture contains many clear instructions concerning the estate of marriage--it is not mandatory, scriptural divorce is allowed, remarriage is permissible in the event of spousal death, polygamy and adultery are rigorously forbidden. Once "the husband of one wife" is harmonized with the rest of this biblical material, its significance is demolished by the many conditions and exceptions. It becomes nothing more than a vehicle for the expression of the general mandates concerning marriage found elsewhere in the New Testament. Consequently, the phrase "the husband of one wife" is not only meaningless under this scheme, it is also unnecessary. The deletion of this portion of the clergy requirements would have no perceptible effect on current religious thought or practice. The clergy would remain bound to the same general rules concerning marriage--rules which apply to all Christians. This harmonizing interpretation simply does not do justice to Paul's careful utilization of this phrase--not just once, but three times.10 To treat the Apostle's statement thus amounts to willing it into oblivion.
"The husband of one wife" can only have literal meaning for clergy marriage if it is understood as a special marital mandate above all other general mandates and exceptions--an extraordinary requirement for an extraordinary office. Paul's statement in 1 Tim. 3:12, "Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well," is easily understood when viewed in isolation from other biblical material treating marriage. The minister (deacon) must be married; he may not be a bachelor or a widower. The minister must have only one wife; he may not be divorced and remarried, or guilty of polygamy. If you continue to strictly interpret the text, the minister must also have children; he may not be childless or, for that matter, have only one child. If it was the Apostle's intent that his words be literally applied to clergy marital status, this must be the intended meaning. Anything less borders on pseudo-literalism and renders Paul's careful instruction superfluous.
It is difficult to reconcile the special marital requirements here imposed upon the clergy with the general mandates concerning Christian marriage recorded elsewhere in Scripture. The two dissimilar sets of rules appear incompatible. This raises serious questions: Is the minister's marriage some how different from the layman's marriage? Why does entrance into the pastoral office render the biblical exceptions which apply to lay marriage and family inapplicable to clergy marriage and family? Can St. Paul forward one set of guidelines for lay marriage and quite another set for clergy marriage without disrupting the very nature of Christian marriage itself? The questions and difficulties raised by the strictly literal interpretation of this text are hardly insignificant or inconsequential.
What a quandary! If you interpret "the husband of one wife" in harmony with all the other scriptural mandates concerning the estate of marriage, Paul's foremost ministerial requirement is rendered meaningless and altogether unnecessary. If you allow "the husband of one wife" to stand apart as a pastoral mandate intended exclusively for pastoral marriage, two distinctive subspecies of Christian marriage emerge (lay and clergy), each with its own rules and exceptions. Unfortunately, neither of these two interpretations is particularly appealing or helpful.
If St. Paul was seeking to convey information of vital importance to the church, information which would ultimately impact every pastor and every parish in Christendom, why, it must be asked, did he choose to employ such unusual, even cryptic language? Why not use simple speech to communicate his will for the churches and their ministers? There is nothing particularly literary or poetic about the topic at hand; it is just a list of requirements, an ordinary job description. Why didn't Paul just say what he meant in common terms: "The bishop must be married," or "The elder must not be a polygamist," or "The deacon must not be unfaithful to his wife," or "The pastor must not be divorced," or "The minister must not be remarried"? Certainly, the necessary vocabulary was at his disposal. Both clarity of thought and economy of language would favor such concise expressions; yet Paul chose to communicate otherwise, selecting instead words which can mean so many different things that they mean almost nothing. It is hard to escape the nagging notion that St. Paul has something else in mind here.
Perhaps the difficulty stems from the commonly held presupposition that this text must be understood literally. Perhaps St. Paul did not intend the phrase "the husband of one wife" as a reference to clergy marital status at all. Perhaps the Apostle intended that this troublesome phrase be interpreted figuratively. Perhaps the elder's "one wife" isn't a flesh and blood woman at all. A careful examination of the context of 1 Timothy 3 reveals a possible referent if this text is to be so understood.
In 1 Tim. 3:14-15, St. Paul explained his purpose for writing: "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." Here Paul established that the referent for "household" is the "church." Perhaps this is the key to understanding the previous verses. In verse 3 the Apostle asserted that the bishop "must manage his own household well...." In verse 12 Paul again employed the term when he stated that deacons must "manage their children and their households well." To treat "household" as a metaphor for the local congregation in this context would not be inappropriate.11
St. Paul also frequently employed the word "children" metaphorically. In writing to the church in Corinth, he stated, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children."12 Paul often referred to Timothy and Titus as his children.13 Only once in the pastoral epistles does the context demand that "children" be understood as uterine offspring.14 It is suggested, therefore, that the term "children" is also employed as a metaphor in the lists of clergy requirements: The bishop "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive in every way."15 The deacons must "manage their children and their households well."16 The elder's "children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate."17 There is nothing in the requirements themselves which would challenge the metaphorical usage of "children."
The family becomes a paradigm for the local church with this interpretation.18 The congregation is patriarchal. Just as a father is to serve as head of his household and his biological children, so also the pastor is to serve as head of his congregation and his spiritual children. The reality of the God the Father/Una Sancta relationship serves not only as the paradigm of father/children relationship,19 but also, on a local and temporal level, for pastor/congregation relationship.20 Ephesians 6:4, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord," finds application, therefore, in the congregation as well as in the home.
Since "children" and "household" can be understood metaphorically in the lists of clergy requirements, it can be logically assumed that the only other familial stipulation is also thus intended.21 Paul's paradigmatic statements concerning "husband" and "wife," written to the Ephesians some years earlier, can be used to interpret the apostolic mandate that the pastor be "the husband of one wife." According to St. Paul, marriage is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church:
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...22If "the husband of one wife" is viewed metaphorically in this context, the point of the phrase is not unlike that presented by the father/children relationship. Just as Christ stands as the husband to the Una Sancta, so the pastor is to stand like the husband to his congregation, the local and temporal manifestation of the Una Sancta.23 The reality of the Christ/Church relationship serves as the paradigm for both the earthly husband/wife relationship and the pastor/congregation relationship. Paul's command, "let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband,"24 also finds application, therefore, in the congregation as well as in the home.
Although Ephesians 5 provides the referent for the text in question, it does not completely explain the phrase: "It is necessary" that a bishop, deacon, or elder be "the husband of one wife." To say only that the relationship between pastor and congregation is like that between husband and wife does not adequately convey the full force of the mandate. To be a pastor, that is to hold the Office of bishop, deacon, or elder, the man must be in a "marriage-like" relationship with one congregation--no relationship, no Office. He may not hold the Office in the church at large any more than a man may be married to women in general. Matrimony does not place a man in a marital relationship with all women--only his wife. Marriage requires one woman. The Office of the Public Ministry requires one congregation.
This restrictive view of the pastorate is hardly innovative. The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) specifically advocated this same, limited understanding of the Ministry in CANON VI: "Neither presbyter, deacon, nor any of the ecclesiastical order shall be ordained at large, nor unless the person ordained is particularly appointed to a church in a city or village..."25 In the post-reformation period Martin Chemnitz similarly described the relationship between the minister and a particular parish in his Loci Theologici: "For teachers, pastors, bishops, [and] presbyters are called to certain churches and do not have authority to teach everywhere or in all churches. Thus in Acts 14:23 elders are ordained for individual churches."26 A pastor simply cannot hold the Office without a congregation and only in that congregation may the Office be exercised. Herein lies the significance of the "one" in the phrase "the husband of one wife." With utmost economy of language, Paul here masterfully applied the full scope of Scriptural teaching concerning married life to the relationship between every parish pastor and his particular congregation.
This interpretation has far reaching ramifications for the modern church. Under this scheme, the Public Ministry is not a career or profession, but a lifelong contractual relationship with a single congregation. Ordination/installation takes on the same indelible quality as marriage: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."27 Christian congregations ought not entice "attached" pastors any more than Christian women ought to seduce married men. For a pastor to suggest that the Holy Spirit lead him to move to another congregation is akin to a married man suggesting that God advised him to forsake the wife of his youth and cling instead to a harlot.28 A Church should not "divorce" a pastor apart from scriptural guidelines and procedures; neither should a pastor simply decide to move to another congregation. Such movement, even by mutual consent, amounts to ecclesiastical adultery.
Do not imagine that such an immobile ministerium is without historical precedent. The Council of Arles (A.D. 314) treated just this issue. CANON II called the clergy to remain fixed in the same place where they were presently serving and CANON XXI prohibited presbyters and deacons from transferring to churches other than the ones in which they were ordained.29 This position was also forwarded by the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325):
CANON XV. [N]either bishop, presbyter, or deacon shall pass from city to city. And if anyone, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.30
CANON XVI. Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church... [E]very constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated.31The Council of Antioch in Encaeniis (A.D. 341) likewise prohibited ministerial transfer:
CANON XXI. A bishop may not be translated from one parish to another, either intruding himself of his own suggestion, or under compulsion by the people, or by constraint of the bishops; but he shall remain in the Church to which he was allotted by God from the beginning, and shall not be translated from it according to the decree formerly passed on the subject.32Similarly, the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) directed several canons against clergy transfer:
CANON V. Concerning bishops or clergymen who go about from city to city, it is decreed that the canons enacted by the Holy Fathers shall still retain their force.33
CANON X. It shall not be lawful for a clergyman to be at the same time enrolled in the churches of two cities, that is, in the church in which he was at first ordained, and in another to which, because it is greater, he has removed from lust of empty honor. And those who do so shall be returned to their own church in which they were originally ordained, and there only shall they minister.34
CANON XX. It shall not be lawful, as we have already decreed, for clergymen officiating in one church to be appointed to the church of another city, but they shall cleave to that in which they were first thought worthy to minister... And if, after this decree, any bishop shall receive a clergyman belonging to another bishop, it has been decreed that both the received and the receiver shall be excommunicated until such time as the clergyman who has removed shall have returned to his own church.35Although virtually unheard-of in twentieth-century Christendom, for nearly five centuries the early church clearly and repeatedly demanded that every minister remain in his first parish for the duration of his ministry.
While greed and selfish ambition were often cited by the councils as the reasons for limiting clergy movement, more than mere practical considerations were involved. Athanasius (A.D. 293-373) suggested the theological rational behind this limitation in a harsh (and obviously rhetorical) diatribe against an Arian bishop who wantonly moved from city to city:
He left the one contrary to the law, and contrary to the law invaded the other; having deserted his own without affection, and holding possession of another's without reason; he lost his love for the first in his lust for another, without even keeping to that which he obtained at the prompting of his lust. For behold, withdrawing himself from the second, again he takes possession of another's, casting an evil eye all around him upon the cities of other men, and thinking that godliness consists in wealth and in the greatness of cities, and making light of the heritage of God to which he had been appointed; not knowing that "where" even "two or three are gathered in the" Lord, "there" is the Lord "in the midst of them;" not considering the words of the Apostle, "I will not boast in another man's labours;" not perceiving the charge which he has been given, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed." For if this expression applies to a wife, how much more does it apply to a Church, and to the same Episcopate; to which whoever is bound ought not to seek another, lest he prove an adulterer according to Holy Scripture.36Clearly Athanasius, the "Father of Orthodoxy," viewed marriage as a paradigm for the relationship between pastor and parish. For a minister to forsake one congregation in favor of another, therefore, was, in the mind of Athanasius, tantamount to committing adultery--"according to Holy Scripture."
It has been correctly observed that there are "few points upon which the discipline of the Church has so completely changed as that which regulated, or rather forbade," the movement of a clergyman from his initial congregation to any other.37 This shift toward a mobile ministerium seems to have occurred in conjunction with the increase of episcopal powers following the fall of the Western Roman Empire (A.D. 476). Subsequent councils continued to denounce clergy transfer, but only if it was done "without the consent of their bishop,"38 or, later, "without the knowledge of the bishop."39
But while everything from unrestricted clergy movement to episcopal possession of multiple bishoprics eventually became not only acceptable but commonplace, the early Church's marital view of the pastoral office persisted into and through the Middle Ages. Martin Luther, writing in A.D. 1539, recounted the official position of the Roman church up to the sixteenth-century. According to Luther, the medieval canonists
...called and regarded bishops and popes as the bridegrooms of the church. In verification of this view they cite the saying of St. Paul, A bishop must be the husband of one wife [I Tim. 3:2], that is to say, he must be the bishop of one church, as Christ is the bridegroom of one church; therefore they should not be bigamists.40It is neither surprising nor important that Luther, embroiled as he was in theological and personal conflict with the papacy, rejected--indeed mocked--the canonists for espousing such a view. The shameless Roman inconsistency of theology and practice made it impossible for Luther to even consider their exegesis, much less take it seriously.41 What is important, however, is that this interpretation of I Timothy 3:2 was well known (although not actually practiced) well into the Reformation era. It would appear that "the husband of one wife" has been regarded as a paradigmatic reference to the exclusive, lifelong relationship between a pastor and his parish for a very, very long time.
This ancient interpretation of "the husband of one wife," has several significant benefits. It provides both minister and congregation with a concrete, timeless, and eminently practical picture of their relationship--marriage. It can also provide solutions for some of the other difficulties in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Paul stated in 1 Tim. 3:11, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things." In the context of the paradigm, the term "women" would have the congregation as its referent here as well.
While it is beyond the scope of this paper to determine whether "woman" also refers to the church in 1 Timothy 2, several elements would seem to indicate that it does. The phrase, "I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands..."42 has been understood liturgically.43 Who ought pray in this fashion--the "men," the "husbands," or the "pastors"? The theme of submission, found in chapter three, is likewise present in chapter two: "Let the woman learn in silence with all submissiveness."44 Finally, Paul's enigmatic statement, "Yet woman will be saved through bearing children,"45 is much more satisfactorily explained if the church is the intended referent.
Not surprisingly, gender remains a significant factor with this interpretation. The paradigms for the Office of the Ministry employed here appear to be gender linked. The Heavenly Father is revealed in masculine terms--earthly fathers are masculine--historically, the congregation's Rev. Father is also masculine. Likewise, the Heavenly Husband is masculine--earthly husbands are masculine--historically, the congregation's Rev. Husband is also masculine. God's biblical revelation of Himself as Father as well as the incarnational revelation of His Son are thus reflected in both the family and the church.
What might be considered a major flaw in this interpretation can actually give insight into the distinction between "bishop," "deacon," and "elder." In 1 Tim. 3:4-5 Paul stated that the bishop "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?" At first glance, this statement would seem to destroy the notion that the referent for "household" is the congregation. How can managing his own congregation be a prerequisite for managing the congregation?
An examination of the original reveals a grammatical peculiarity. The RSV renders "pos ekklasias theou epimelasetai" as "how can he care for God's church?" The difficulty lies in the word "ekklasias." This form can be either genitive singular, as rendered by the RSV, or accusative plural. The construction of this phrase would ordinarily favor the accusative, with a third person singular subject implied in the verb and "ekklasias" serving as the direct object. The future middle indicative verb "epimelasetai" occurs only here in the pauline corpus, only twice in the rest of the New Testament,46 and only twice more in the Septuagint.47 On the basis of this scant evidence it is impossible to determine with any certainty if this verb always requires a genitive object in the biblical Greek. In classical Greek "epimelasetai" is found with both genitive and accusative objects. The verb's general meaning is virtually the same with an object of either case.48 In the final assessment, the case and number of the noun "ekklasias" can be determined only by the context.
If "ekklasias" is accusative plural, then the RSV translation is incorrect. The phrase would be properly rendered "how can he care for God's churches?" This translation not only resolves the difficulty with the paradigmatic interpretation, but it also gives insight into the peculiar nature of the episcopate. The bishop must be "married" to a congregation, just like the deacon/elder. He alone, however, is to supervise other congregations as well, for the statement "if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's churches?" is only made in reference to the bishop. All bishops, therefore, are deacon/elders, but not all deacon/elders are bishops; much like all generals are soldiers, but not all soldiers are generals.49
If the assumption that, "Timothy and Titus are recorded to have fulfilled a function of the episkope in a given area"50 is granted, the scope of the bishop's supervision can also be gleaned from the pastoral epistles. Paul advised Timothy:
Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins; keep your self pure.51Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, was charged with clergy disposition and installation--"ecclesiastical" divorce and marriage.
Titus, Bishop of Crete, was similarly charged:
...appoint elders in every town as I directed you...52
...there are many subordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially of the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families (literally "houses"--congregations) by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach...Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.53
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him...54Bishop Titus was charged with doctrinal supervision by means of clergy ordination/installation, rebuke, and removal.
Timothy and Titus both functioned beyond their ordinary duties as deacon/elders of individual congregations. As bishops they were also empowered (for the sake of doctrinal purity and in accordance with the prescribed due process) to install and remove the other deacon/elders under their supervision. It is, therefore, entirely sensible for Paul to require that a bishop manage his own congregation well, keeping his spiritual children submissive and respectful in every way,55 if he is to be additionally charged with the limited supervision of other deacon/elders and their congregations. The former is only a reasonable prerequisite for the latter.
This pauline portrayal of the episcopate squares with that presented in Philip Melanchthon's Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. As far as intracongregational authority is concerned, all clergy are equally empowered:
The Gospel requires of those who preside over the churches that they preach the Gospel, remit sins, administer the sacraments, and in addition, exercise jurisdiction, that is, excommunicate those who are guilty of notorious crimes and absolve those who repent. ...[I]t is evident that this power belongs by divine right to all who preside over the churches, whether they are called pastors, presbyters, or bishops.56The episcopal reservation of certain ecclesiastical powers, such as confirmation and jurisdiction,57 is here rejected by Melanchthon. All clergy hold all intracongregational authority. While no distinction between bishops and presbyters is allowed in this regard, the Treatise does allow for a distinction in intercongregational authority. Jerome is thus favorably cited:
One man was chosen over the rest to prevent schism, lest several persons, by gathering separate followings around themselves, rend the Church of Christ. For in Alexandria, from the time of Mark the Evangelist to the time of Bishops Heracles and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one of their number, set him in a higher place, and called him bishop. ...For, apart from ordination, what does a bishop do that a presbyter does not do?58By "human authority,"59 that is by the election of the elders, an individual pastor is additionally charged with intercongregational supervision.60 Of course, if "the regular bishops become enemies of the Gospel" and refuse to ordain suitable persons, as was the case with Rome, the churches retain the right to both elect new bishops and ordain their own ministers.61 But this is the exception not the rule. The bishop, as the parish pastor additionally charged with the doctrinal supervision of those who elected him, commonly serves as the Ordinator of any new deacon/elder. Melanchthon agrees here with Saint Paul. The Treatise can therefore be viewed as a sixteenth-century affirmation of Paul's teaching on the episcopal office.
The episcopate surfaces here as more than a mere historical footnote, a fine but altogether unnecessary example of early church structure. It becomes an apostolically ordained element of ecclesiastical polity, complete with job description...if "ekklasias" is accusative plural. If "ekklasias" is genitive singular, however, the RSV translation is correct and the entire paradigmatic interpretation of "the husband of one wife" crumbles into dust--no special reference to the peculiar duties of the bishop; no concrete, timeless paradigm for the Public Ministry; no indelible quality for ordination/installation; no biblical dogma concerning the duration of the divine call to the Office of the Ministry.
Is "ekklasias" genitive singular or accusative plural? Does "The husband of one wife" literally refer to clergy marital status or does it rather serve to make marriage a paradigm for the Office of the Public Ministry? It would be hard to overestimate the theological significance and practical ramifications of these two simple questions. This alone should make them worthy of careful and objective consideration.
1 Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, The Ministry; Offices, Procedures, and Nomenclature (St. Louis: Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, 1981), 26.
2 It is significant that these texts are not treated in Marie Meyer, et al, Different Voices/Shared Vision (Delphi, New York: ALPB Books, 1992). See Ernie Lassman, "1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 and the Ordination of Women," Concordia Theological Quarterly 56, (October 1992): 291-95.
3 Armin W. Schuetze and Irwin J. Habeck, The Shepherd under Christ (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Northwestern Publishing House, 1974), 3.
4 All Scripture taken from Nestle-Aland, The Greek-English (RSV) New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985).
5 Women in general, the wives of deacons, or deaconesses. See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 598-99.
6 1 Timothy 3: 2, 12; Titus 1:6.
7 Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Divorce and Remarriage, An Exegetical Study (St. Louis: Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, 1987), 43.
8 Sidney Page, "Marital Expectations of Church Leaders in the Pastoral Epistles," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 50, (1993): 106.
9 The Augsburg Confessionalso displays a certain ambiguity. The German text of Article XXIII follows Luther's German Bible in rendering Paul's episcopal requirement as "a one woman/wife man" (eines Weibes Mann). The Latin text, more of an interpretive paraphrase than a direct quotation of 1 Tim. 3:2, reads "one who is a husband--a married man" (qui sit maritus). Triglott Concordia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921), 60-62.
10 Although aware of the current critical/scholarly discussion concerning the authorship of the Pastorals, this author chooses to assume that the biblical texts rightly ascribe pauline authorship to pauline documents.
11 This interpretation would also suggest that the phrase "the household of Onesiphorus," employed in 1 Timothy 1:16 (and in 2 Timothy 4:19) is a reference to a particular house church congregation served by Pastor Onesiphorus.
12 1 Corinthians 4:14.
13 1 Timothy 1:2, 18; 2 Timothy 1:2, 2:1; Titus 1:4.
14 1 Timothy 5:4.
15 1 Timothy 3:4.
16 1 Timothy 3:12.
17 Titus 1:6.
18 Paul later utilized simile rather than metaphor to again forward the familial understanding of the congregation (1 Timothy 5:1-2).
19 Romans 8:14-17.
20 See Jonathan F. Grothe, Reclaiming Patterns of Pastoral Ministry: Jesus and Paul (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1988), 21-22.
21 Note that it is not unusual for Paul to intertwine extended metaphors and literal instruction as he does here (see Ephesians 2:19-22, 4:11-16, 6:10-17, etc.). These semantic shifts go virtually unnoticed when the referent is familiar.
22 Ephesians 5:22-25.
23 One must be careful not to confuse the metaphor with reality. Clergy celibacy would be indicated if the paradigm is pushed too far. Perhaps this was Rome's error in this regard.
24 Ephesians 5:33.
25 Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., A Select Library of the Christian Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 271.
26 Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, Vol. II, tr. by J. A. O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989), 703.
27 Matthew 19:6.
28 Even clerical enthusiasm is still enthusiasm. See Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article VIII, Triglott Concordia, 497.
29 Carl A. Volz, Pastoral Life and Practice in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 36-37.
30 Ecumenical Councils, 32.
31 Ecumenical Councils, 35.
32 Ecumenical Councils, 118-9.
33 Ecumenical Councils, 271.
34 Ecumenical Councils, 275.
35 Ecumenical Councils, 282.
36 Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians, in A Select Library of the Christian Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, Athanasius: Selected Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 103-4.
37 Ecumenical Councils, 33.
38 CANON XVII, Council of Quinisext (A.D. 692), Ecumenical Councils, 374.
39 CANON X, Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787), Ecumenical Councils, 562.
40 Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church, in Luther's Works, vol. 41, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 159. Luther's exact reference here is uncertain. Both the American and Weimar editions suggest in footnotes that Luther is paraphrasing Gratian's Decreti Prima Pars, dist. XXVI, C. II: "...ita non absurde visum est bigamum non peccasse, sed normam sacramenti amisisse, non ad vitae meritum, sed ad ordinationis ecclesiasticae signaculum necessariam. Et sicut plures antiquorum patrum uxores significaverunt futuras ex omnibus gentibus ecclesias, uni vero subditas, id est Christo: ita noster antistes, id est episcopus unius uxoris vir significat ex omnibus gentibus unitatem uni viro Christo subditam. (Corp. iur. can., Lugd. 1622, I 86)." WA 50:636. See also MPL 187, 149c.
41 "But how nicely they themselves keep even this crass asininity and folly. A bishop may have three bishoprics, and yet he must be called husband of one wife." On the Councils and the Church, 160.
42 1 Timothy 2:8.
43 Lenski, 554-55.
44 1 Timothy 2:11.
45 1 Timothy 2:15.
46 Luke 10:34-35.
47 Genesis 44:21; Proverbs 27:24.
48 Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Vol I, 9th ed., (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948), 645.
49 This, according to Volz, also squares with early church polity: "While every bishop was a presbyter, not all presbyters were bishops." Volz, 29.
50 Division of Theological Studies, Lutheran Council in the USA, The Historic Episcopate (New York: Lutheran Council in the USA, 1984), 3.
51 1 Timothy 5:19-22.
52 Titus 1:5b.
53 Titus 1:10-13.
54 Titus 3:10.
55 I Timothy 3:4-5.
56 T. G. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 330.60. Hereafter cited as Tappert.
57 Tappert, 332.73.
58 Tappert, 330.62.
59 Tappert, 331.63.
60 In light of this, it is probably Timothy's consecration as bishop (not his ordination) which is described in 1 Timothy 4:14, "...the gift you have, which was given you by the prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands on you."
61 Tappert, 331.66.
18 March 1996
This essay was first presented as an Open/Academic Topic at the Third Annual Theological Symposium at Concordia Seminary (St. Louis) in May 1993.
douglas d. fusselman is a 1982 graduate of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne Indiana.
