There are two main passages dealing with female deacons. Both are debated, but as I hope to show, are actually quite clear. The first passage is Romans 16:1-2, which says, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon [diakonos] of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help (parastete) she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus” (NIV). Here is a list of other translations who translate the verse similarly:
There are five main reasons to take this verse to mean that Phoebe was a deacon:
1. Paul names her office to strengthen her commendation.
2. The phase “of the church in Cenchreae” points to the fact that she held an office there.
3. Paul never uses the noun diakanos to refer to the service of Christians in general. In Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8, and 1 Timothy 3:12, he uses it to refer to the office of deacon.
4. The wording Paul uses points to an office. Literally, it reads, “I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, being (ousan) [or ‘who is’] a deacon of the church in Cenchrae.” As Dunn points out below, “deacon” plus the present active participle of eimi points to a recognized office.
5. In verse two, Paul describes “deacon work.” She was a benefactor to Paul and many others.
It is also important to note that every major commentator on the book of Romans agrees that Phoebe was a deacon. Let’s let them speak for themselves: F.F. Bruce, Douglas Moo, James Dunn, N.T. Wright, Charles Cranfield, and Tom Schreiner.
Early evidence suggests that deacons were primarily charged with visiting the sick, helping the poor and perhaps financial oversight. Phoebe would have no doubt excelled in hospitality since she lived in a port city.
1 Timothy 3.11
First Timothy 3:11 reads, “In the same way, the women (gunaikas) are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” The main question here is, “Should gunaikas be translated wives or women?” I want to make the case for women, but it is vital to point out, as Tim Keller does, that “either way, the text is teaching that women can and should do diaconal work alongside the deacons and in a way recognized by the congregation (after all, they are screened and selected). These may have been female individuals selected to do diaconal work with the deacons or wives appointed to do it together with them. But either way they were doing it.”[1]
There are three primary reasons for seeing this verse as referring to female deacons. First, the most natural reading is “women.” If Paul meant deacon wives, he could have made this very clear (with diakonon or auton). The ESV and NKJV inexcusably add “their” to the Greek text. Unless context makes it clear that Paul is talking about wives, the word gunaikas should be translated “women” (so NIV, NRS, YLT, NAS; e.g. 1 Cor 5:1, Eph 5:22, Col 3:19). By simply using “women” without qualification, he is referring to women in general, not the wives of deacons.
Second, the structure of the verse suggests that Paul is thinking of three categories: male overseers, male deacons, and female deacons. Notice that Paul introduces the women here in the same way he introduced the men in 1 Tim 3.8 with “in the same way” (hosaoutos). Paul lays out the qualifications for male elders in 3:1-7. In 3:8 he says “in the same way” there are similar qualifications for male deacons. In 3:11, he says “in the same way” and says the same qualifications for men who are deacons also apply to women deacons as well. Verses 8-10 are about male and female deacons. Verse 11 lists a couple more for female, while verses 12-13 list additional requirements for male deacons. The verb “are to be” or “must be” (ESV) (dei) in 3:2, 3:8, 3:11 shows there are three categories:
3:1-7 - Male Overseer Is To Be
3:8-10 - In the same way Male Deacons Are to Be
3:11 - In the same way Female Deacons Are to Be
Third, if Paul were referring to the wives of deacons, why did he not include qualifications for the wives of elders? As Mark Driscoll writes, “It would be absurd to believe male deacons are held to a higher standard than male elders, who hold the highest position of authority in the church. Therefore, the verse cannot logically be accepted as an additional requirement for the wives of male deacons.”[2]
Paul does not mention women under elders because elders are to be male only. This is not the case with the office of deacon. The qualifications of 3:12 are very similar to those required of deacons. Deacons organize other servants. They, under the leadership of the elders, give themselves to practical service to the needs of the congregation (Acts 6), not teaching (1 Tim 3:2) and not managing the church (1 Tim 3:5). Elders lead and teach; deacons serve.
It is sort of funny to me how some of those who are so critical of female deacons have youth ministers, ministers of education, nursery assistants, or ministers of music. Where in the Bible do you find such offices? And what about licensing and ordination? As Driscoll notes, “Every church does have women in positions of leadership, even if their roles are restricted to administration, women’s ministries, and children’s ministries. Unless a church calls such women by the biblical title of deacon and hold them accountable to the biblical qualifications for their leadership, they are forced to invent titles like director and such. This is problematic because it has no biblical precedent. Therefore, a church should have only male elders who are the senior leadership in the church but who are free to appoint both male and female deacons as assistant leaders as needed. Indeed, some churches will disagree with us, and our only response would be a loving request that they reconsider the Scriptures on this point.”[3]
0 comments:
Post a Comment