In a work titled Laws, Plato
discusses the officials (archontōn) needed for a colony or
city-state. The officials selected
should be ‘keepers’ in three areas: city stewards, market stewards, and the priesthood
(Laws 6.759; cf. Aristotle, Politics 6.1322b). As to the priesthood, Plato describes three
groups: the priests and priestesses, a group of interpreters of religious laws,
and treasurers. In the imaginary colony
Plato is describing, he has in mind four classes of citizens defined by
economic status. People in religious
service are to be drawn from the highest class.
We should note that Plato’s famous
student, Aristotle, wrote a work that identifies the various supervisors of
institutions in a city-state in greater detail.
One such group is the priesthood.
Like Aristotle, he insists that they should be drawn from citizens and
not ‘tillers of the soil’ (slaves) or artisans.
Aristotle also says, like Plato, that priests should be older. Specifically, they should be retired citizens
from the military class and the councillor class (Politics 7.1329a).
The priesthood consists of hereditary
priests and priestesses in temples on the one hand and of temple-keepers for
the gods, whose term of service is one year.
We might roughly compare Paul’s distinction between two religious
groups: overseers (1 Timothy 3), otherwise called ‘elders’ (Titus 1), and
deacons (male and female, apparently). For
Plato, whenever a selection (ordination) is needed for priests and priestesses
of either category, they are first selected by lot but then tested with further
criteria. They should be ‘sound and
true-born’, from pure houses, clean from religious offences (like murder), and
come from parents ‘that have lived by the same rule’ of moral uprightness. We might assume that Plato’s concerns here
would be recognized already but also challenging if priests and priestesses
were not always properly tested for service.
Paul’s list of criteria for overseers/elders and deacons/deaconesses are
mostly to do with moral criteria. Not a
house’s reputation, class superiority, hereditary appointment, or
representation of groups (such as with a quota system) but assessment of the
character of those wishing to serve stands above all other considerations for
Paul. While the Jerusalem apostles used
the lot to choose between two nominees to replace Judas among the Twelve (Acts
1), this process, also in Plato, is not used in the churches for
overseers/elders and deacons.
Plato further remarks how keeper-priests
and priestesses should be elected, how long they should serve (1 year), and the
minimum age for service (60 years old). Paul’s
criteria do not include women as priests, and he provides no limitation to the
length of service. In fact, the criteria
suggest that the ‘ordination’ is more of a recognition of functions in which
the overseers and deacons have already proved themselves and the character that
has been tested over time. This is no
job application or selection process right after seminary but a recognition
conferred on someone the church already knows well.
Paul seems in three respects to
have been guided not by his culture but by Leviticus 21. First, ministers serve indefinitely, as
already noted. Priests in the Old
Testament did so because they were in priestly families, but for Paul there is
no such thing for overseers and deacons.
Second, overseers and deacons should be the husband of one wife (1
Timothy 2.2, 12). There was no polygamy
in Paul’s day, so the possible meanings are: (1) the minister should be
faithful to his wife and not a philanderer; (2) the minister should not remarry
after the death of his wife; (3) the minister should not be divorced and
remarried. I suggest the third
possibility is what Paul meant. As to
the first option, widows placed on the order of widows were to have been, among
other things, wives of one husband (5.9).
Men in Greek and Roman society might be sexually active with women not
their wives, but this was not generally acceptable for women. As to the second option, Paul actually
encourages younger widows to remarry (1 Timothy 5) or at least acknowledges
widows may remarry (Romans 7.1-4).
Option three has support from
what is said about priests in the Old Testament. Priests and chief priests were not to marry
divorced women (Leviticus 21.7, 14; Ezekiel 44.22). Ezekiel 44.22 says that ‘they shall not marry
a widow or a divorced woman, but only virgins of the offspring of the house of
Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest.’ Tacitus commends the character of Germanicus,
saying that he was ‘gracious to his friends, temperate in his pleasures, the
husband of one wife (uno matrimonio), with only legitimate children’ (Annals
2.73).[1]
In the 5th century AD,
the Church’s Apostolic Canon states:
He who married a
widow, or a divorced woman, or an harlot, or a servant-maid, or an actress,
cannot be a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the sacerdotal list (Canon
18).
If any layman
put away his wife and marry another, or one who has been divorced by another
man, let him be excommunicated (Canon 48).
The concern here seems to have
been Paul’s concern: divorce and remarriage.
The second connection between
Paul and Leviticus 21 has to do with the minister and his household. There is also an overlap with Plato, though
his concern is that the priest comes from a good household. Paul says that the overseer ‘Must manage his
own household well’ (1 Timothy 3.4).
Leviticus 21.9 says, ‘And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes
herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.’
Paul’s thought is also close to
what Plutarch says about politically responsible persons: ‘A man therefore
ought to have his household well harmonized who is going to harmonize State,
Forum, and friends’ (Plutarch, Conjungalia Praecepta 43). Plutarch’s concern elsewhere is that ‘men who
neglect their households are the very ones to live by injustice’ (Plutarch, Comparison
of Aristides with Marcus Cato 3.4).[2]
Like Plato, however, overseers/elders
were probably older persons. What are
called ‘overseers’ (episkopoi) in 1 Timothy 3 are likely the ‘elders’ (presbyteroi)
of 1 Timothy 5.17, 19, and Titus 1.5. Paul only mentions two groups, not three,
in Philippians: overseers and deacons (1.1).
The overseer or elder belongs to a group in the church (cf. James 5.14;
1 Peter 5.1). This is different from a
single, ordained minister in a church and one who is brought in from outside
the church to serve as a minister. In
Judaism, overseers consisted of priests and elders (we see the two groups
repeatedly in the Gospels and Acts). Priests
and Levites were drawn from hereditary groups, but elders were associated in
the Old Testament with households, clans, and tribes. They were senior members of civic society. Age alone, however, did not qualify one to be
an overseer or elder. In fact, Timothy
and Titus are entrusted with appointing overseers/elders, and Timothy is
himself a young enough person that Paul says, ‘Let no one despise you for your
youth’ (1 Timothy 4.12). Character was
primary for those in oversight. Timothy
is to ‘set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith,
in purity’ (4.12). Generally, however,
elders were persons whose character and function had been demonstrated over
time.
For Plato, the nomination process
should be by election with full representation in both urban and rural areas
and be as unanimous as possible. A
further selection from those nominated involves casting lots, allowing for ‘divine
chance’. Those selected are further
refined with a final confirmation from Delphi, the religious headquarters for
Greece.
We cannot be certain whether the
females mentioned in 1 Timothy 3.11 are female deacons (deaconesses) or are the
wives of deacons (as the ESV translates ‘gynaikas’). As the next verse resumes qualifications for (male)
deacons, the latter seems to be the case, and that further because the gynaikos
in v. 12 clearly refers to a wife: the deacon must be the husband of one
wife (meaning not divorced and remarried, I believe).
Even so, the churches seem to
have had deaconesses, women recognized for their work and service in the
church. Protestant denominations that
have developed concepts of ordination for pastors or priests have not also developed
a healthy ecclesiology in which many ministries are recognized, as in 1
Corinthians 12, Romans 12, and Ephesians 4.
Some of these ministries, such as prophecy, included women. The discussion should not be reduced to
saying that women should not be ordained but should be that ordination covers a
much wider field of ministries than pastoral ministry/priesthood, or even than pastors/priests
and deacons.
I suggest that Paul understands
the need for females to serve (which is what deacons do) the church in various
capacities as well as men. Indeed, so
did Jesus and the first disciples, who were ‘served’ (diakonoun) by
several women following them through the cities and villages as they travelled
(Luke 16.1-3). First Timothy 5 offers criteria for widows to be enrolled
for church support. Qualifications for
enrollment include a history of service.
She must have a ‘reputation for good works’, ‘shown hospitality’, ‘washed
the feet of the saints’, ‘cared for the afflicted’, and ‘devoted herself to
every good work’ (v. 10). Thus, if they
served in their lives in ways that seem to capture the meaning of being a ‘deaconess’,
they may receive church support. Paul
elsewhere refers to a female deacon (Romans 16.1; the ESV translates diakonos
as ‘servant’[3])
and female workers for the church (16.3, 6).[4] Interestingly, Plato admits those serving as
priests or priestesses only if they are sixty years of age, while Paul says
that the widows enrolled on the order of widows to receive church support must be
at least sixty years of age and not able to receive family support first.
Another ordination along the same
lines, Plato says, should be held for three ‘interpreters’, who shall remain
interpreters for life. The interpreters
are selected from each of the twelve tribes for full representation. The tribes vote in triads of four, and they vote
on three persons. Three of the nine
persons are then selected at Delphi as interpreters (Laws 6.759). Plato shows concern for a democratic process for
nomination of the interpreters as well as the priests and priestesses, but this
is balanced first by throwing lots, then with a further selection according to the
criteria he mentions, and finally with a selection by the religious
establishment or magisterium at Delphi. The
religious laws to be interpreted are those established at Delphi. Thus, interpretation is understood in a
judicial sense. For Paul, elders are to
be able to teach.
The third group Plato considers
are treasurers, who must be elected similarly and cover finances for the
temples, sacred glebes, and their produce and rents. They should be from the highest property
classes: 3 from the largest temples, 2 for the smaller, and 1 for the least
extensive (Laws 6.759-760). Paul,
too, seems to understand that overseers will handle finances. He is concerned that overseers should not be
lovers of money.
I find no reason to suspect that
Paul’s criteria for selecting overseers in the churches are based on Plato’s
criteria to select priests and priestesses.
Yet Plato’s criteria likely reflect the cultural practices fairly well,
and some Greek converts in Paul’s churches may have been familiar with Plato’s Laws.
What Paul says, as well as what he does not say, in comparison with Plato
is significant. In conclusion, the
following table offers a summary of Plato and Paul on ordination.
|
Plato |
Paul |
|
1. Priesthood Hereditary priesthoods for priests and priestesses |
No hereditary priesthood |
|
Sound and true-born, from pure houses |
No class distinctions |
|
Concern for democratic voting, divine appointment, and approval by
religious authorities at Delphi |
No representation of groups of any sort in the nomination process,
no divine appointment, and no religious establishment/magisterium |
|
Come from parents living by same (moral) rule |
Managing own household well, with dignity keeping children in
submission |
|
Length of service: Group A, lifetime; Group B, 1 year (for
keeper-priests/priestesses) |
No length of service stated for either overseers/elders or
deacons/deaconesses |
|
Minimum age for service: 60 years |
Not a recent convert (not age dependent), ‘elders’ |
|
2. Interpreters |
Able to teach |
|
3. Treasurers |
Not a lover of money |
We can see, then, that there are
areas of overlap between priests and priestesses in the Greek religious context
and the Church, but there are also differences.
Paul seems to have directly drawn from Leviticus 21 for some of his
criteria for overseers/elders and deacons.
Yet the comparison with Plato helps us to understand how ministerial
roles in the churches might have been perceived by Gentile converts in the
first century. This was before the
Church developed a role for a bishop by the early second century, as we see in
Ignatius, and well before the Roman bishop was given preeminence over other bishops
in the West.
[1]
Tacitus, Complete Works of
Tacitus, trans. Alfred John Church. William Jackson Brodribb. Sara Bryant (New
York: Random House, Inc., 1942).
[2]
He supports this with reference to Hesiod, Works and Days 309). Plutarch, Plutarch's Lives, trans. Bernadotte
Perrin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd.,
1914).
[3]
The word is in its masculine form, which might indicate a ministerial class
rather than service alone.
[4]
Some argue that Jounias (Junia) in Romans 16.7 must be a female name, due to
the ending. If so, she might be the wife
of Andronicus, just as Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned together in v.
3. They are called Paul’s ‘kinsmen and
fellow prisoners’ and are ‘well known to the apostles’ (ESV) or ‘among the
apostles’ (en tois apostolois).
Alternatively, the two may be grouped together not as husband and wife
but as people who were imprisoned for the faith. As to the ending of the name, Jounias, one
should be aware that, in Aristophanes’ play, Clouds, when Socrates and
Strepsiades discuss masculine and feminine names, Socrates chastises
Strepsiades for taking ‘Amynias’ as a woman rather than a man (658). From this, one may assume that the ending
suggests but does not require one to assume the person is female—as a number of
names in English could be either male or female.
[5] See my essay, ‘The Character of Ministers in the Pastoral Epistles,’ Bible and Mission Blog (13 May, 2024); https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-character-of-ministers-in-pastoral.html.
Comments