Quote:
Originally Posted by dwayne I agree 1Tim 3:8-13 plainly tells us the requirments of the deacons are. " Deacons likewise must be dignified , not double-toungued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonestgain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignefied, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacon gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus." ESV So I don't think Paul contradicts himself in other scriptures. |
The situation is not as plain as it appears. As in all exegesis there are two issues here. What is said and what we think the writer, here Paul intended to mean. At one point in this passage Paul uses an equivocal term and he doesn't define it in context. Writing specifically to Timothy, who knew his teaching and practice, the ommission is unimportant. For us it creates a problem.
The word translated "their wives" can also be tanslated "the women" and Paul does not specify in the surrounding text the alternative he intends. Granted that in the text following this verse Paul speaks specifically of male deacons, but this although indicative, cannot be held to be decisive for us since Paul elsewhere refers to Phoebe as a "deacon" of the Cenchraen church.
We must determine the practice of the early church from the following possibilities:
1) Phoebe was an ordained deacon serving in that church in a non-teaching non-authoritative role, coming to Rome for any number of reasons. Outside the church, she might have been a wealthy widow, a slave of a travelling owner or anything in between.
2)Pheobe was a slave who was a member of the church who was coming to Rome, either sent by her owner or with her owner. In either case for whatever reason she may need help from the Roman Christians.
3) Pheobe was a non-slave Christian coming to Rome and Paul refers to her as a deacon in the same way as he refers to the service of other Christians.
4) Phoebe was a "deaconess" ie. non-authoritative office specifically for women. There is no evidence either way for this possibility. Which leaves the other three possibilities.
I think 3 unlikely. For Paul describing her, uses deacon as noun. Where he is describing service committed by other Christians, deacon is a verb or adverb.
1 and 2 remain possibilities for me and I don't see that we have sufficient evidence to categorically exclude either from consideration. Which means that Scripture leaves the question of women deacons as one of those circumstances "concerning the ... government of the church....which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word..." (WCF 1:6).
I know that I have left out the phrase "common to human actions and societies" from WCF 1:6 and I did so deliberately. I am not saying my stance is confessional, but I believe that the Confession here posits a principle that can be applied with profit to specifically Christian issues. For there are some matters in Scripture, such as the present case, where we cannot categorically reduce the possible alternative understings to one that is assuredly correct. And instead of dividing from one another over which alternative is correct, we should recognize both alternatives as legitimate possibilities, and recognize that our difference is not fundamentally Scriptural but over which possibility "in our best judgement" is likely. (If anyone is interested in my opinion as to what other issues fall within this class, PM me and I'll start another thread.)