If a Woman Can’t be a Husband, She Can’t be a Pastor, Right?
What sort of person makes a good pastor?
In his letters Paul lists sixteen desirable qualities (see 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9). Pastors or overseers or elders should not be new converts, he says. Nor should they be money-grubbing alcoholics prone to fits of temper. Ideally, they should be good parents because leading a church is like leading a family.
And apparently pastors should also be men – at least that’s the impression we get when we read things like this:
A church leader must be a man… (1 Timothy 3:2, NLT)
Only Paul never said this. Not ever.
Despite how his words may appear in your NLT or KJV, Paul never said, “If any man desires the office of a bishop.” He said, “If any one desires the office of a bishop” (1 Tim. 3:1). Since we are all one in Christ, any one may desire the office of pastor, regardless of gender.
“Any one” means any one
When describing the ideal pastor, Paul’s language is remarkably gender neutral. Which is interesting given the patriarchal world he lived in.
Rabbis were men. Jewish priests were men. But Christian pastors could be men or women.
If there was ever place to insist or suggest that pastors or elders must be men, Paul’s list of qualifications was the place to say so. Yet Paul says nothing. Evidently he did not have a problem with women pastors.
However, Paul did have one male-specific word in his list, and that word is husband. Paul said an elder must be the husband of one wife:
For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed you: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife… (Tit. 1:5-6a)
Can a woman be a pastor? Since pastors must be husbands, women can’t be pastors, or so the argument goes. However, the you-must-be-a-husband test falls short for two reasons.
First, Timothy, who was in charge of the Ephesian church, did not pass this test. Nor did Paul. Or Jesus. None of them were married.
If managing one’s household well is a prerequisite for being a shepherd, on what basis could Paul or Timothy oversee any church? They didn’t have households to manage. Either Paul was a hypocrite who didn’t keep his own rules, or the husband-of-one-wife requirement does not mean what we think it means.
Second, the husband-of-one-wife rule also applied to deacons (1 Tim. 3:12), yet female deacons are named in the Bible (e.g., Rom. 16:1). If females can be deacons, they can be elders, and in the Bible, they were.
Husband of one
Paul was a savvy church planter who knew how to recruit pastors. He understood that a shepherd ought to be gentle, peaceable, and all the other things. But why does he have to be a husband of one wife? Because someone who has two or more wives will be a lousy shepherd.
Do you see? Paul was not ruling out divorced people or unmarried people; he was talking about men like this:
In the world that Paul inhabited, it was not uncommon for a man to have several wives.
In one of the oldest commentaries on this passage, John Chrysostom said Paul was not saying an overseer must have a wife; he was prohibiting his having more than one. “For even the Jews were allowed to contract second marriages, and even to have two wives at one time.”
That was Jewish men; Gentile men weren’t much better.
Among the Romans, marriage was widely regarded as an inconvenience that interfered with a man’s natural passions. A wife who cheated could be killed with impunity by her husband, but a man who cheated was untouchable. Consequently, Gentile men were often unfaithful. Even if they were monogamous in marriage, they were polygamous in practice.
But a man who had multiple wives, or who acted like he had multiple wives, was a faithless man. Such a man could not possibly be trusted to care for the bride of Christ.
“Don’t make him an elder,” said Paul. “Instead, recruit reliable people. Choose those who are faithful, not philandering; steady, not shifty; loyal, not lascivious.”
Paul never says an elder must be male or married; he says he must be the husband of only one wife. It’s the number that counts. “If he’s married, it had better be to one woman only.”
And Paul never says women cannot pastor or shepherd others, for that would contradict everything he believed about the new creation.
Paul understood that the Spirit gives gifts to all of us, not half of us. If he met women who felt called to lead or shepherd he would have encouraged them to fan their gift into flame.
Paul was surrounded by capable women leaders, and he praised them in his letters. If he was opposed to women leading, he had ample opportunity to say so. Yet he never did.
Neither should we.
Extracted and adapted from The Silent Queen: Why the Church Needs Women to Find their Voice.
—
More articles about women in the church:
Are women more easily deceived?
Do you have a Biblical view of women?
Jesus listened to women, why don’t we?
Jesus, pioneer of women’s education
Should women be silent in church?
Submission doesn’t mean what you think it means
What does the Bible say about women pastors?
Women preachers? Where’s that in the Bible?!
—
Escape to Reality exists thanks to the generous support of our readers.
Escape to Reality 
This is excellent!
Thanks, Mike.
Hi Paul,
I was sharing with someone about this. They asked me about when it talks about ruling household well and their children being “proper”, why would Paul tell women to rule their household well when women didn’t rule the household in that patriarchal society? I mentioned the Proverbs 31 woman in reference to the household. Then they tied this question to the passage of women “submitting” to their husbands with the whole husband being the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. I know that passage finishes with husbands are to love their wives as Christ laid down his life for the church, but I wasn’t sure it fit what they were asking in regard to gender roles and leadership. They acknowledged there are and should be women in leadership, but they felt some passages complicate the issue with what was known about Jewish society. It left me confused. Wondering your thoughts?
Trying to merge patriarchal traditions with what Paul preaches is like trying to mix oil and water, so I understand your confusion. Your friend seems to think submitting and headship imply a hierarchical arrangement. This is understandable, since it is the picture many of us have inherited, but rest assured this sort of hierarchy has nothing in common with what Paul spoke about when he spoke about submission and headship. I speak at length about these things in my forthcoming book and I have a couple of articles on submission coming out here on E2R in a week or two.
👍🏼
What about 1 Tim 2:12? Maybe a distinction should be made that a woman should not possibly be a head pastor or only a pastor to women & children? Your thoughts please. 🙂
In the old covenant women were treated as inferior in value and role, but there are no such distinctions in the new covenant. All are equal in Christ and there were women leading churches in the New Testament. For my views on 1 Tim 2:12 and other scriptures about women in leadership, please see the Archives > Scripture Index. Thanks.
Fantastic Answer! Well done!
First I support Women in ministry but you can’t use 1 Tim 3:1 as support for a universal ministry for all because Paul uses τίς in the masculine. If he wanted to use it to mean anyone regardless of gender he would have used the neuter τί!
Hi James. Thanks for your comment. As far as I know, τίς is an indefinite pronoun that is used many times in scripture to imply anyone. It’s a fair translation. If Paul had intended to say man, why didn’t he say man?
Hello James,
I don’t know Greek and I don’t really even know what ‘‘tis’ means, but I did just see an article about it. Here is an excerpt: “ My answer: The subject of 1 Tim 5:9 is the feminine χήρα, which, apparently without exception in Greek literature refers only to women. Furthermore, 5:9 has a feminine participle that makes it unambiguous that the one-man woman specifically describes a woman. There is no corresponding element in the context of 1 Tim 3:2 that makes it unambiguous that “one-woman man” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) specifically describes a man. 1 Tim 3:1 specifically states that “whoever [τις, the same word used of widows in 1 Tim 5:4] desires the office of overseer desires a good work.” Paul clearly intends this to encourage people to desire this good work. Is it likely Paul would identify the subject as “whoever” and encourage them to desire this good work if for women it was forbidden fruit?” Your comment caught my eye with that same Greek word.
DEAR PAUL ELLIS, TELL ME WHAT YOU BELIEVE.DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A WOMAN CAN BE YOUR HEAD? OR THE PASTOR OF ONE MAN?
Headship is a separate issue from pastoring, but yes, a woman can be a pastor or shepherd. Any believer can. Christ is the Great Shepherd and as he is so are we in this world.
Great points brought up with single pastors and deacons! I also found from Marg Mowczko on how Philip B. Payne brought up two complementarians (AKA those who believe women and men have different roles) who studied the text and found out that 1 Timothy 3 does not exclude unmarried men or women from the role.
This is funny, I just read and article by him this week and referenced him above! Incidentally I loved his article and especially his tone of writing! So calm and peaceful.
Please re-read this verses you mention, another verses for reference. Don’t read single word or one verse, just read it as a whole article written by Apostle Paul…
Hi Marlow. Please note that I don’t normally publish comments that are just cut and pasted scriptures. If you have something to say about the article above, I’d love to hear it. And if you’d like to know how I address other scriptures, you can find them in the Archives > Scripture Index.
Well said, thanks for clarifying.
Usually agree with you…but Timothy 3:4 and 5 talks about a man being able to be able to run his own home, otherwise how can he run the church…This is pretty clear the elder/pastor must be a man….thx.
It might interest you to learn there are no gender-specific words in 1 Tim 3:4-5, contrary to what some English Bibles say. It might also interest you to learn that in 1 Tim 5:14 Paul speaks of wives, not husbands, running their homes like despots or presidents. (It’s not obvious in our English Bibles, but it’s there in the original Greek.)
In Father’s view
There is no respect of person’s
No Male, Female, Jew, Greek
Father by Son, reconciled us all to himself as Forgiven
There is not anyone better or worse than another.
Not from Father’s nor Son’s view.
Be not of this world, while in it
Thanks for the reminder of we are all equal
EDIT A man who had multiple wives, or who acted like he had multiple wives, was a faithless man. Such a man could not possibly trusted to care for the bride of Christ. possibly BE trusted
Thanks, Jerry. I fixed it.
Dear Paul, this comment is regarding your recent “you are going to come out more”…
Thanks Terry.
Reality is ; most men are not dying to have a woman leader. Most men probably won’t flock to female speakers not want to under them in a church. Often men sees their wives emotional ups and downs and presume all women are just too unstable to lead. And there are 4 Billion women in the world, so plenty of women for women to pastor over. I think people need father figures and strong men – that’s perhaps why God is referred predominantly by God as a father . And Jesus came as a man not a women. So bravo to female teachers but I don’t see a time when men will flock to them.
Excellent article on this controversial topic. We don’t see many women pastors. I don’t think it has anything to do with God though. Traditions of men keep women into only serving in specific ministries like children and nursery and ladies bible study. Maria Woodworth Etter was a powerful preaching machine! She moved in signs and wonders and put the enemy on the run! Yet her powerful ministry wouldn’t be received by many because of wrong thinking. Had a fellow claim I was a radical feminist sympathizer and emasculated simply because I believe God’s gifts and calling are without gender. Traditions of men. Roles in marriage and roles in ministry are not the same thing. In families, children have roles, husbands have roles, wives have roles, parents have roles. The gifts and callings are individual and are irrevocable. God calls and anoints who He wills, He doesn’t need our approval!
A bit dangerous, brother. A man should be the head of his household, is the chief representation of Christ to the Church, the bride. The same should apply in civilization in general for things to run best.
In a sense I am sad that you are diverging from teaching the Gospel alone. You could discredit yourself by getting into a debatable tangle and end up seeming to be teaching a bunch of law. Like now, I disagree with you on a peripheral doctrinal matter which is not the Gospel of the Finished Work and our righteous standing in Christ.
What about in 1 Tim. 3 The explicit mention “he” desires which is not given to women but Paul is assuming men desire the office of an overseer?
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. – 1 Timothy 3:1
As I explain in the preceding article, none of those gender-specific words are in the Bible. They’ve all been added by translators.
Ah, so you cite Chrysostom when it suits you but when he obliterates you’re first point, that being a husband can’t be a rule because it would apply to Paul or Jesus, he directly mentions this is*not* a rule for being a shepard.
Chrysostom:
A Bishop then, he says, must be blameless, the husband of one wife. This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one.
Interesting.
I’m not sure what your point is. Your tone is combative but you seem to be agreeing with me.
So you’re doubling down that all the other translations are just wrong. Got it.
…and the reference to Husbands doesn’t mean men?
If you’re going to pick and choose what elements of what translations are wrong, I think the the writing is on the wall for where you stand with everything else.
Hi Joel, not sure what your point is. Of course husbands means men. Paul was not talking about women having multiple wives.
The husband in 1 Tim. 3 gives clear warrant for the ‘he’ throughout the chapter. Unless you want to argue that you are corrected over dozens of translations and hundreds of editors and thousands of scholars?
It’s certainly true that many religious scholars have said women can’t lead, can’t preach, and should generally do what they’re told, but Paul was not one of them. After Jesus, no man did more to promote women in leadership. If Paul thought women could not be elders and deacons, he would’ve said so. Instead, he named and praised female apostles and pastors and got female deacons to convey, and by implication preach, his epistles.
I agree with Paul. Just read this a hour ago.. 1 Corinthians 11:11-12
“11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”
Women are not inferior or secondary to men. The reference to husband was to do with polygamy, which women didn’t practice and therefore didn’t apply to them. This did not rule out them being in leadership.
You still haven’t answered why the term ‘husband‘ in 1 Tim. 3 doesn’t give clear warrant for the ‘he’ throughout the chapter.
I didn’t realize this was a test. Tell you what, I’ll answer your question if you answer mine. Why did Paul call Phoebe a deacon if she wasn’t the husband of one wife as per 1 Tim 3:12?
Everyone is focused on the term “husband”, but what about the term for “wife” in 1st Timothy 3:2 and 12?
Is “wife” also a neutral term? Or does it refer specifically to women?
If “wife” refers only to women, doesn’t that then imply “husband” to be male?
I don’t know Greek, so hopefully someone with experience can answer.
Husband is clearly male; wife is clearly female. Polygyny was the issue; not polyandry.
Now being a pastor over women is fine. But if the Apostle forbade teaching men and exercising authority and this is understood elsewhere in Paul’s epistles, why would he need to further qualify gender unless he somehow prognosticated that someone in the future like a Paul Ellis would come along and nit pic over words?
I know it is difficult for some to accept that women taught and led churches in the New Testament or that the great Paul entrusted his most important letter to a woman named Phoebe or that Phoebe read it out in a church full of women leaders. But don’t let the truth get in the way of your prejudices.
Paul encouraged women in ministry. Contrary to what you may have heard, he never forbade them in teaching or exercising authority, not in 1 Tim. 2:12, or anywhere.
It’s interesting that you make an appearance criticizing Paul Ellis’s exegesis, while you don’t give any sign of your identity. Paul Ellis could have simply filtered your comment and not let it be posted, but he stands by his conviction and defends it.
My understanding is that the only reason the Apostle Paul made any comment forbidding a woman to teach men at the time was because the women at the time were mostly uneducated in Scripture. It had nothing to do with them actually being women. As they became educated in the Word, they too were included in leading men. The Apostle’s comment forbidding them teaching was early on in his ministry before there was widespread dissemination of the Gospel.