Thread: A Biblical Argument for Men Only as Deacons

*Note: This thread grew out of a broader discussion of women deacons and the PCA. You can find that discussion here

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

[It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

The above argument boils down to this: The same word always means the same thing. We can think of many words not only in our own language but in the Greek as well for which this is not true. I think the burden of proof is as great for those who say it means the same thing as for those who contend that it's meaning is different (Rom 16:1 vs. 1 Tim 3:12).

In most places the word diakonos is translated servant but in 1 Tim 3 it is translated deacon. Why the difference? In 1 Tim 3 we see a list of qualifications and the injunction to "prove" or test these men. All Christians are called to be servants but the men in 1 Tim 3 are a special class or subset, chosen by God to serve His church in a special capacity. This alone is sufficient grounds to conclude two different (though related) meanings of diakonos in Rom 16:1 and 1 Tim 3.

Acts 6 is also very helpful in understanding whether the office is limited to men only. In Acts 6 the apostles tell the church to pick seven men to assist with administering the daily distribution to the widows. Not even one woman was appointed to this task; at task that was directed solely to widowed women. This is strong evidence that men only should be deacons and should control our understanding of other passages related to deacons in the NT.

The same word always means the same thing.

Sure it does, dontcha know?

Like the word commonly tranlated Elder in the NT; prebuteros. The prodigal son had an elder brother - presbuteros - who was envious of him, so perhaps that's a quality we should look for in an Elder. Or again the "elder women" spoken of in 1Tim 5 - presbuteros - so that obviously proves that there should be women in the office of Elder in the Church. If we apply the hermeneutic used by those who claim Phoebe was an ordained officer of the Church because the word used both for servant and deacon was used to describe her, we will also have to accept women elders, right?

Or how about this one? Paul said that he beat his own body into submission, and also that our wives are our own bodies since we two are now one, so isn't it biblical for husbands to beat their wives? Everyone knows better than that. What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

Is it true that these errors of reading the scriptures is coming from mostly young elders and especially from Covenant Seminary?

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Is it true that these errors of reading the scriptures is coming from mostly young elders and especially from Covenant Seminary?

The perception is that it is increasingly young teaching elders who hold to this position, however that is not universally true. I met one teaching elder who had been in the PCA for like 30 years who beleived the women could be deacons. However, he was not in favor of changing the book of church order.

As to seminaries, it is the perception that not only Covenant but also the Westminsters and RTS's teach it as well. I say perception because I don't have any first hand knowledge of these seminaries and those opining may not have a comprehensive knoweldge of what those seminaries teach.

Originally Posted by Brad

What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

This is simply wrong. At the very least this is a debatable issue - nowhere is it "clear" in Scripture that deacons are to be men only, as we have seen from numerous posts on other threads. Having female deacons in a church is not "very obviously contrary to Scripture." And why does there have to be an agenda? Why can't men simply disagree on a point of Scripture that is by no means clear? This smacks of paranoia in the extreme. I think it was R.C. Sproul who said that even John Calvin was right only 80% of the time. Maybe those who believe in the Biblical basis for female deacons are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are intentionally going contrary to the Bible or have an unscrupulous agenda.

By the way, I'm undecided on the issue, but leaning to the men only side. However, there is clearly evidence both ways, and the truth is by no means obvious. The doctrine of the Trinity is obvious, salvation by grace through faith alone is obvious, the 5-points are obvious, etc. The validity of deaconesses does not fall in that category. Perhaps if we all used more humility in our discussion it would be more beneficial to everyone...

The Bible being true can also mean true reporting of what happened. If doctrine is established on the basis of what happened, then we only need look to David to justify adultery and murder.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Brad

What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

This is simply wrong. At the very least this is a debatable issue - nowhere is it "clear" in Scripture that deacons are to be men only, as we have seen from numerous posts on other threads. Having female deacons in a church is not "very obviously contrary to Scripture." And why does there have to be an agenda? Why can't men simply disagree on a point of Scripture that is by no means clear? This smacks of paranoia in the extreme. I think it was R.C. Sproul who said that even John Calvin was right only 80% of the time. Maybe those who believe in the Biblical basis for female deacons are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are intentionally going contrary to the Bible or have an unscrupulous agenda.

By the way, I'm undecided on the issue, but leaning to the men only side. However, there is clearly evidence both ways, and the truth is by no means obvious. The doctrine of the Trinity is obvious, salvation by grace through faith alone is obvious, the 5-points are obvious, etc. The validity of deaconesses does not fall in that category. Perhaps if we all used more humility in our discussion it would be more beneficial to everyone...

I agree with two points: I agree that many who disagree on this issue do not have an agenda and they believe there is sufficient scriptural warrant for their position.

But I disagree also. I think that the spirit of our age does exert a subtle influence on those who adopt this view. I think it works in this way: they rightly sense that some in their congregations (and some outside) are put off by the men only position, so when they see any scriptural grounds for adopting the men and women position they jump at it. For the younger teaching elders who are taught that position in seminary, it is even more natural for them to adopt it.

I also disagree that it is not clear from scripture. The Phoebe example seems to be the best (only?) argument for men and women. I've already tried to show the deficiency of that argument. Additionally, I haven't seen anyone address the Acts 6 precedent and its controlling influence on the discussion.

Originally Posted by jfschultz

The Bible being true can also mean true reporting of what happened. If doctrine is established on the basis of what happened, then we only need look to David to justify adultery and murder.

This is ridiculous argumentation. We have only to look at God's law to know that adultery and murder are wrong or look at the narrative to see how David was disciplined for it.

Much of Presbyterian polity is based on what the apostles did (as opposed to what they commanded) in the book of Acts.

If the apostles had seen nothing wrong with women as deacons, they would have certainly allowed some women to be elected to help serve other widowed women.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

I also disagree that it is not clear from scripture. The Phoebe example seems to be the best (only?) argument for men and women. I've already tried to show the deficiency of that argument. Additionally, I haven't seen anyone address the Acts 6 precedent and its controlling influence on the discussion.

Thank you for your response, and I agree that society does in some ways influence how we view Scripture, which is a danger we certainly must guard against.

As for the Acts 6 verse, the problem with that argument is that the verse does not establish the office of deacon. MacArthur makes a pretty compelling case in his commentary, noting that Stephen and Philip were not called deacons anywhere else in the New Testament, and were both clearly evangelists. He also says that nowhere else in the book of Acts are deacons referred to as church officers, though elders are mentioned several times. He says it would be strange for the rest of the book to make no mention of deacons whatsoever if the office were already established. His contention is that this passage called for temporary church officers to address a particular need, but that it doesn't formally establish the office of deacon within the church.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by ahavah7

I also disagree that it is not clear from scripture. The Phoebe example seems to be the best (only?) argument for men and women. I've already tried to show the deficiency of that argument. Additionally, I haven't seen anyone address the Acts 6 precedent and its controlling influence on the discussion.

Thank you for your response, and I agree that society does in some ways influence how we view Scripture, which is a danger we certainly must guard against.

As for the Acts 6 verse, the problem with that argument is that the verse does not establish the office of deacon. MacArthur makes a pretty compelling case in his commentary, noting that Stephen and Philip were not called deacons anywhere else in the New Testament, and were both clearly evangelists. He also says that nowhere else in the book of Acts are deacons referred to as church officers, though elders are mentioned several times. He says it would be strange for the rest of the book to make no mention of deacons whatsoever if the office were already established. His contention is that this passage called for temporary church officers to address a particular need, but that it doesn't formally establish the office of deacon within the church.

It is true that these men are not called deacons in this verse. However, Acts 6 should be viewed as a prototype of the office of deacon. The office may not have been formalized until later in NT church history, but it does lay the foundation of our understanding of the office of deacon. For instance, I wonder what Macarthur would say is the purpose of the office of deacon? The purpose is so that the apostles (and later church elders) could devote themselves to prayer and the Word. Our understanding of this purpose of the office is most clearly developed in Acts 6.

The parallel qualifications are also noteworthy and demonstrate the relationship between Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3

As for Stephen and Phillip being later called to be evangelists, it is common in our churches today for some deacons to later be called to be elders. So it's not surprising that this happened in the early church.

Thank you for your interaction.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by ahavah7

I also disagree that it is not clear from scripture. The Phoebe example seems to be the best (only?) argument for men and women. I've already tried to show the deficiency of that argument. Additionally, I haven't seen anyone address the Acts 6 precedent and its controlling influence on the discussion.

Thank you for your response, and I agree that society does in some ways influence how we view Scripture, which is a danger we certainly must guard against.

As for the Acts 6 verse, the problem with that argument is that the verse does not establish the office of deacon. MacArthur makes a pretty compelling case in his commentary, noting that Stephen and Philip were not called deacons anywhere else in the New Testament, and were both clearly evangelists. He also says that nowhere else in the book of Acts are deacons referred to as church officers, though elders are mentioned several times. He says it would be strange for the rest of the book to make no mention of deacons whatsoever if the office were already established. His contention is that this passage called for temporary church officers to address a particular need, but that it doesn't formally establish the office of deacon within the church.

It is true that these men are not called deacons in this verse. However, Acts 6 should be viewed as a prototype of the office of deacon. The office may not have been formalized until later in NT church history, but it does lay the foundation of our understanding of the office of deacon. For instance, I wonder what Macarthur would say is the purpose of the office of deacon? The purpose is so that the apostles (and later church elders) could devote themselves to prayer and the Word. Our understanding of this purpose of the office is most clearly developed in Acts 6.

The parallel qualifications are also noteworthy and demonstrate the relationship between Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3

As for Stephen and Phillip being later called to be evangelists, it is common in our churches today for some deacons to later be called to be elders. So it's not surprising that this happened in the early church.

Thank you for your interaction.

Your point about Stephen and Phillip later being called Evangelists is a good one. I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume (especially since both are seen as leaders) that because they are not called Deacons later in Acts that Acts 6 should not be seen as normative. That seems to me to be a silly argument.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Is it true that these errors of reading the scriptures is coming from mostly young elders and especially from Covenant Seminary?

The perception is that it is increasingly young teaching elders who hold to this position, however that is not universally true. I met one teaching elder who had been in the PCA for like 30 years who beleived the women could be deacons. However, he was not in favor of changing the book of church order.

As to seminaries, it is the perception that not only Covenant but also the Westminsters and RTS's teach it as well. I say perception because I don't have any first hand knowledge of these seminaries and those opining may not have a comprehensive knoweldge of what those seminaries teach.

Let's be really clear here: It is not RTS's teaching the women can hold the office of deacon. It is true though however, that many students graduating from RTS Orlando hold to that belief, which would make me think that someone there is teaching it to be a good thing. So make sure we distinguish the RTS's out there please. At least to make me feel good. I am a graduate of RTS Jackson and it is certainly not taught here!!!

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Brad

What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

This is simply wrong. At the very least this is a debatable issue - nowhere is it "clear" in Scripture that deacons are to be men only, as we have seen from numerous posts on other threads. Having female deacons in a church is not "very obviously contrary to Scripture." And why does there have to be an agenda? Why can't men simply disagree on a point of Scripture that is by no means clear? This smacks of paranoia in the extreme. I think it was R.C. Sproul who said that even John Calvin was right only 80% of the time. Maybe those who believe in the Biblical basis for female deacons are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are intentionally going contrary to the Bible or have an unscrupulous agenda.

By the way, I'm undecided on the issue, but leaning to the men only side. However, there is clearly evidence both ways, and the truth is by no means obvious. The doctrine of the Trinity is obvious, salvation by grace through faith alone is obvious, the 5-points are obvious, etc. The validity of deaconesses does not fall in that category. Perhaps if we all used more humility in our discussion it would be more beneficial to everyone...

I'm sorry, friend, but it is quite obvious in scripture that the office of Deacon is limited to male members. I'm not sure what makes that difficult for anyone to see, but it is undeniably so.

If one were to read the pertinent scriptures without the influence of feminism and the fallen culture upon their thinking, or the fact that some 'nice' folks they know don't like the exclusion of women, this would not even be an issue.

I will say upfront that I have never made a serious, prolonged study of this issue. That being said, I approach it in the following way, which seems to be both biblical and simple:

Almost everyone would agree that the more obscure places of Scripture are to be interpreted in light of the clearer places of Scripture.

Due to the semantic range of diakonos, it is safe to say that Romans 16:1 is, at least, up for debate (I should hope even those who advocate female deacons would admit this).

1 Timothy 3 is a purposeful, substantial treatment of the issue, that should be, by all accounts, regarded as the clearer, more substantial, intentional treatment of the issue.

Therefore, we interpret Romans 16 in the light of 1 Timothy 3, and the issue is solved. Granted I made a couple assumptions (i.e., which passage is clearer), but, at least in my mind, to argue any other way would reduce to quibbling.

Where is my reasoning wrong? Why is it not simple?

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons -- Brian Schwertley - The PuritanBoard

Originally Posted by Brad

The same word always means the same thing.

Sure it does, dontcha know?

Like the word commonly tranlated Elder in the NT; prebuteros. The prodigal son had an elder brother - presbuteros - who was envious of him, so perhaps that's a quality we should look for in an Elder. Or again the "elder women" spoken of in 1Tim 5 - presbuteros - so that obviously proves that there should be women in the office of Elder in the Church. If we apply the hermeneutic used by those who claim Phoebe was an ordained officer of the Church because the word used both for servant and deacon was used to describe her, we will also have to accept women elders, right?

Or how about this one? Paul said that he beat his own body into submission, and also that our wives are our own bodies since we two are now one, so isn't it biblical for husbands to beat their wives? Everyone knows better than that. What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

Brad, you've completely convinced me. From this point forward, I'm a resolute wifebeater.

The Bible does have both deacons and deaconesses, but the office of elders is for men-only. I agree with Mark Dever who encourages Baptist churches to not be divisive on the issue, but be wise. If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

The Bible does have both deacons and deaconesses, but the office of elders is for men-only. I agree with Mark Dever who encourages Baptist churches to not be divisive on the issue, but be wise. If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

You have a good spirit in these comments, along the lines of unity in essentials, liberty in nonessentials and charity in all things. We are definately called to pursue the peace and purity of the church.

The reason this issue is of such importance is that particularly those of us in the Reformed and Presbyterian world emphasize and are identified by church government.

In addition, there is such a reflection of this reconciled relationship in the Creation and in the Trinity. To alter that by, in effect, establishing men submitting to the ecclesiastical authority of women is no small matter.

It seems Elders have ruling and teaching authority, Deacons have administrative authority (particularly over mercy ministry and property stewardship) and lots of other godly men and women are involved in mercy (servant) (diaconal) ministry to the honor and glory of God. These others don't exercise ruling or administrative authority but are essential to the life of the Church. Those who serve well and extend mercy (diaconal) ministry are commended many places in Scripture.

Qualifications of Deacons

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. -NKJV


Is not the scriptures clear that deacons are to be, not just any male, but men who have the above bible qualifications?

I do not understand from where are women to be deacons?

Women can serve in the church, of course, like everyone else in the church, since we are called to serve Christ, but not everyone is called to serve as a deacon.

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons -- Brian Schwertley - The PuritanBoard

Andrew:

I printed it out and read it. It was interesting. I disagree with his conclusions (as you'd probably already guessed), but it was an interesting look at the issue. Thanks again.

Sterling,

What are your conclusions about this?

How do you served as a deacon in your church?

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

The Bible does have both deacons and deaconesses, but the office of elders is for men-only. I agree with Mark Dever who encourages Baptist churches to not be divisive on the issue, but be wise. If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

What reasons do you have for agreeing with Mark Dever? Are any Bible verses used when coming to your conclusion?

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

I think we are getting closer to clarifying the issues here. It seems to me some are confusing the office of Deacon (elected, ordained, with administrative authority over mercy ministry and property stewardship) with "diaconal" (e.g. mercy, servant) ministry. A few may in fact be advocating installing women in the office with its accoutrements, but many are mainly concerned that women be allowed to do "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry and that there be no barrier to doing that. That is a very legitimate concern.

Under the oversight of the Deacons, women can do all sorts mercy ministry and be commended as godly servants, prayed for, and highly valued.

Keep in mind also, that men can also do all sorts of mercy ministry under the oversight of the Deacons.

There is an issue here some are not considering, if we highly value the office of Deacon and its ordination and its administrative authority in governing God's church and then advocate having women "deaconesses" who are not elected, ordained and are under the oversight of the Deacons, what do we call the men who do the same?

In the PCA, our Book of Church Order allows the Elders to appoint godly men and women to assist the Deacons.

My own thinking is that it might be wise to allow the Board of Deacons to also appoint godly men and women to assist them in mercy ministry (under their oversight). This might help clarify the administrative authority of the Board of Deacons over mercy ministry in each local church, might even prioritize mercy ministry more by creating this mechanism, and lead to more women in involved in "diaconal" ministry- a goal that I think is biblical.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

In my experience this is how diaconates work in the ARP.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

This reasoning fails to account for the fact that we ordain deacons in accordance with Acts 6. Ordination is an investing with authority. There is no bibilical warrant for commissioning or any other method of appointing men to the office of deacon (or elder). Our assumption is not that the seven in Acts 6 had no help in distributing food to the widows. However, it is clear that they had authority to administer or oversee the distribution. Although this a different and more limited kind of authority than given to elders, nevertheless it is authority. If they had no authority, why do we ordain them?

In your scenario of a mixed diaconate, would women be allowed to be the chair or be the head of the diaconate?

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

In my experience this is how diaconates work in the ARP.

The idea that deacons have no authority and therefore women may be deacons still fails to account for Acts 6. Whether you see the seven in Acts 6 as having authority or not having authority, the fact remains that the apostles required them all to be men.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

In my experience this is how diaconates work in the ARP.

We have identified another key issue here.

Our PCA Book of Church Order 9-2 says:

"...In a church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders,"

I don't think our Book of Church Order contemplates churches ordinarily not having the elected, ordained office of Deacon, constituted as a Board. That would deny men who are called by God and gifted for that office being denied as well as denying the congregation the benefit of their gifts and calling.

What seems to have happened in a few particular churches is that they have, in practice, deemed the office of Deacon, constituted as a Board as merely an option. They skip constituting the office, commission women with the same or similar vows and have them do everything in practical fact that the Board of Deacons is charged with doing, including oversight of mercy ministry.

It also appears that in the few instances where this is being done, although men might also be "commissioned," the vast majority of "commissionees" are women. For example, at the one and only church I observed this being done, the entire list of the "diaconate" were women (there may have been a few men because some names can be either male or female) and the overseer, the contact person was female also. That raises other questions.. big questions about what fully and properly constitutes a church- far beyond the proposition of whether women can be "deaconesses."

However, it seems a fair reading of our Book of Church order effects what you suggest, and what our brother observes as the standard in the ARP as well.

Perhaps this is primarily a semantics debate. I think it's safe to assume we can all agree on the following:

1. Leadership roles within the church should be be filled by men only, who must meet Scriptural qualifications.
2. Women have a vital role in the church in service and mercy ministries.
3. The Greek word "diakonos" refers to servant within the church, and there examples of both males and females in this capacity in the New Testament.

So, I think it's safe to say that a woman can be a "deaconess" within the church so long as it is not in a leadership role. I guess then the issue is where to draw the line on leadership role. Clearly a woman should not be in charge of other men in general or be an elder within the church. From there I think it can be a bit harder to define...any thoughts?

Originally Posted by ahavah7

The idea that deacons have no authority and therefore women may be deacons still fails to account for Acts 6. Whether you see the seven in Acts 6 as having authority or not having authority, the fact remains that the apostles required them all to be men.

It really depends upon what deacons are to do. By making Acts 6 prescriptive are you going to mandate the number of deacons to be seven? Further, can you demonstrate that the men in Acts 6 were installed to the Office of Deacon? Can you show where there is such a thing as an office of Deacon?

Here is John Gill on 1 Timothy 3:11

Some instead of "wives" read "women", and understand them of deaconesses, such as were in the primitive churches; whose business it was to visit the poor and sick sisters of the church, and take care of things belonging to them; but it is better to interpret the words of the wives of the deacons, who must be as their husbands, "grave" in speech, gesture, and dress, of an honest report, a good behaviour, and chaste conversation; which will reflect honour and credit to their husbands:

Incidently, here is John Gill on Romans 16:1

Of this church Phebe was a servant, or, as the word signifies, a minister or deacon; not that she was a teacher of the word, or preacher of the Gospel, for that was not allowed of by the apostle in the church at Corinth, that a woman should teach and therefore would never be admitted at Cenchrea. Rather, as some think, she was a deaconess appointed by the church, to take care of the poor sisters of the church; though as they were usually poor, and ancient women; that were put into that service, and this woman, according to the account of her, being neither poor, nor very ancient; it seems rather, that being a rich and generous woman, she served or ministered to the church by relieving the poor; not out of the church's stock, as deaconesses did, but out of her own substance; and received the ministers of the Gospel, and all strangers, into her house, which was open to all Christians; and so was exceeding serviceable to that church, and to all the saints that came thither: though it is certain that among the ancient Christians there were women servants who were called ministers.

Further, he notes:

"Nor is their [the deacon's] work and business to rule in the church; we read of ruling elders, but never of ruling deacons; if they were, women might not be deaconesses, as Phebe was, for they are not to rule...There is but one sort of deacons of this kind mentioned in scripture; unless it can be thought there were women deacons, or "deaconesses;" and, indeed, Phebe is called diakonov, a "deacon," or "deaconess," of the church of Cenchrea; we render the word "servant," (Rom. 16:1) and some render the "wives" of deacons, "their women," (1 Tim. 3:11) and by them understand "deaconesses;" and if the same with the "widows," as some think, their qualifications, as to age, character, and conduct, are described (1 Tim. 5:9, 10) and it seems certain there were such in the second century, whether virgins or widows; such seem to be the two servant maids Pliny speaks of, whom he examined on the rack, concerning the Christians, and by whom he says they were called "ministrae," ministresses, or deaconesses; and Clemens of Alexandria, in the "second" century, makes mention expressly of women deacons, as spoken of by the apostle in his epistle to Timothy; so Jerom, in the fourth century, speaks of them as in the eastern churches: and, indeed, something of this kind seems not at all unnecessary, but of service and usefulness; as to attend at the baptism of women, and to visit the sisters of the church, when sick, and to assist them."

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Perhaps this is primarily a semantics debate. I think it's safe to assume we can all agree on the following:

1. Leadership roles within the church should be be filled by men only, who must meet Scriptural qualifications.
2. Women have a vital role in the church in service and mercy ministries.
3. The Greek word "diakonos" refers to servant within the church, and there examples of both males and females in this capacity in the New Testament.

So, I think it's safe to say that a woman can be a "deaconess" within the church so long as it is not in a leadership role. I guess then the issue is where to draw the line on leadership role. Clearly a woman should not be in charge of other men in general or be an elder within the church. From there I think it can be a bit harder to define...any thoughts?

Some semantic arguments can be summed up with this statement: A distinction without a difference. However, I don't think this debate can be so summarized. Clearly, it is possible for some words to have mulitple (though related) meanings. I have made the distinction between the general use of diakonos and the specifice use in 1 Tim 3. I beleive this distinction also represents a difference.

I agree with 1 and 2 above and partly agree with 3. Yes, diakonos generally means servant. Of course, all Christians are called to be servants. However in 1 Tim 3 we see qualifications given and a setting aside of certain men as diakonos. Clearly, this is a more specifice use of the word, distinctive from the broader use. Our denomination certainly proclaims that there is a perpetual office of deacon given by Christ. Do you agree that there is an office of deacon given to the church?

I asked in an earlier post whether you believe that a women may serves as Chair or Head of a mixed diaconate. I really am curious what your thoughts are on that since it has some bearing on the practice of churches in our denomination.

Again, thank you for you interaction.

Scott;

I think we are getting closer to clarifying the issues here. It seems to me some are confusing the office of Deacon (elected, ordained, with administrative authority over mercy ministry and property stewardship) with "diaconal" (e.g. mercy, servant) ministry. A few may in fact be advocating installing women in the office with its accoutrements, but many are mainly concerned that women be allowed to do "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry and that there be no barrier to doing that. That is a very legitimate concern.

Under the oversight of the Deacons, women can do all sorts mercy ministry and be commended as godly servants, prayed for, and highly valued.

Keep in mind also, that men can also do all sorts of mercy ministry under the oversight of the Deacons.

There is an issue here some are not considering, if we highly value the office of Deacon and its ordination and its administrative authority in governing God's church and then advocate having women "deaconesses" who are not elected, ordained and are under the oversight of the Deacons, what do we call the men who do the same?

In the PCA, our Book of Church Order allows the Elders to appoint godly men and women to assist the Deacons.

My own thinking is that it might be wise to allow the Board of Deacons to also appoint godly men and women to assist them in mercy ministry (under their oversight). This might help clarify the administrative authority of the Board of Deacons over mercy ministry in each local church, might even prioritize mercy ministry more by creating this mechanism, and lead to more women in involved in "diaconal" ministry- a goal that I think is biblical.

I think the issue is they want to be "Ordained" to this position.

Should they be ordained?

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Perhaps this is primarily a semantics debate.
I think it's safe to assume we can all agree on the following:

Yes, partly it seems. But it also about:

1) The elected, ordained, installed office of Deacon
2) Church government generally
3) The valuation of ordination

1. Leadership roles within the church should be be filled by men only, who must meet Scriptural qualifications.
Yes!
2. Women have a vital role in the church in service and mercy ministries.
Yes! (and non-Deacon men also)!
3. The Greek word "diakonos" refers to servant within the church, and there examples of both males and females in this capacity in the New Testament.
Yes!
So, I think it's safe to say that a woman can be a "deaconess" within the church so long as it is not in a leadership role.

Yes- and one can make a case for the title deaconess. However, We need to acknowledge that the majority report historically is "servant" and that a strong exegetical argument is made for rendering the word as servant or minister when it is not referring to the office of Deacon. I'm not sure the title can be used without confusion or disturbing the peace and purity of the Church (I am really not sure).

I am also not sure that that term was not more specifically directed toward the servant widow office of I Timothy 5 (60 years of age, widowed, good reputation, etc.)

We also need to acknowledge we have a parallel issue regarding what we call "diakonos" men (as we agree that there is a distinct office of Deacon God has given to constitute his Church). That issue is both exegetical and practical.

I guess then the issue is where to draw the line on leadership role.

Not really. Elders have ruling authority, Deacons have administrative authority, others may have task authority but not ruling or administrative type authority because that is given in Scripture.
Clearly a woman should not be in charge of other men in general or be an elder within the church. From there I think it can be a bit harder to define...any thoughts?

Yes, it is hard to define in every practical application but we have general guidelines in Scripture and deduced by good and necessary consequence from the text of Scripture. I do not think insisting on a title (of "deaconess" )ought to be a priority in all this. Insisting on the peace and purity of the church and a full-orbed involvement of women and men in mercy, (servant), (diaconal) ministry should be.

Originally Posted by AV1611

It really depends upon what deacons are to do. By making Acts 6 prescriptive are you going to mandate the number of deacons to be seven?

Seven were chosen because that was the number sufficient for the task and there were at least seven qualified men in that church. The number is a circumstance whereas the prescription for men is a qualification of the office. Seven would be too many in small churches that might not yet have seven qualified men. Seven would be too few in large churches with large diaconal ministry. However, that early church has both men and women as do our churches today. I have no doubt that there were godly women full of the Holy Spirit and beyond reproof in that early church, and yet the apostles required men. The size of the church and the scope of its diaconal ministry varies from one particular church to the next, but they are all constituted of men and women (often times more women). Therefore the number is a circumstance but the prescription for men is a qualification.

Here is my biggest criticism of the point made above. The point above asserts that if every detail of a descriptive account is not considered prescriptive, then none of it can. This leaves us with a situation where the church can use nothing from the descriptive accounts of the book of Acts and may only act on that which is spoken to or commanded of the church.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Further, can you demonstrate that the men in Acts 6 were installed to the Office of Deacon? Can you show where there is such a thing as an office of Deacon?

The apostles laid their hands on them, which I take to mean that they were ordained. Are you insinuating that they were ordained but never installed? Or are you insinuating that no office of deacon had yet been formalized into which they might be installed?

Originally Posted by AV1611

Here is John Gill on 1 Timothy 3:11

Some instead of "wives" read "women", and understand them of deaconesses, such as were in the primitive churches; whose business it was to visit the poor and sick sisters of the church, and take care of things belonging to them; but it is better to interpret the words of the wives of the deacons, who must be as their husbands, "grave" in speech, gesture, and dress, of an honest report, a good behaviour, and chaste conversation; which will reflect honour and credit to their husbands:

Here, John Gill is stating the the Gk. gune should be interpreted as wives and not women. Such an interpretation completely closed the door to the idea of women in the office of Deacon. Those who support the idea of women as deacons interpret gune here as women, thus opening the door for the possibility of women deacons. If you interpret it as wives, then you don't even need Acts 6 to make a case for men only as deacons.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Incidently, here is John Gill on Romans 16:1
[INDENT]Of this church Phebe was a servant, or, as the word signifies, a minister or deacon; not that she was a teacher of the word, or preacher of the Gospel, for that was not allowed of by the apostle in the church at Corinth, that a woman should teach and therefore would never be admitted at Cenchrea. Rather, as some think, she was a deaconess appointed by the church, to take care of the poor sisters of the church; though as they were usually poor, and ancient women; that were put into that service, and this woman, according to the account of her, being neither poor, nor very ancient; it seems rather, that being a rich and generous woman, she served or ministered to the church by relieving the poor; not out of the church's stock, as deaconesses did, but out of her own substance; and received the ministers of the Gospel, and all strangers, into her house, which was open to all Christians; and so was exceeding serviceable to that church, and to all the saints that came thither: though it is certain that among the ancient Christians there were women servants who were called ministers.

I am not entirely sure what John Gill is arguing for in this passage. He begins by saying that Phoebe was a servant, Minster, or deacon. Which is it? He appears to be using deaconess in the sense of the order of widows that some believe is taught in 1 Tim 5:9ff? He says, "...appointed by the church, to take care of the poor sisters of the church..." This is the very duty that those who propose the order of widows believe was that order's purpose.

Next he says, "...not out of the church's stock, as deaconesses did, but out of her own substance..." So now she is not acting like a deaconess but as what? Something more, less, or different?

Finally he says, "...though it is certain that among the ancient Christians there were women servants who were called ministers." The article that VirginiaHuguenot linked to above does a good job of dealing with the use of ministers to translate diakonos and to refer to women servants of the church. In that article the author notes that Jerome often translated diakonos as ministrae in his Latin translation and that ministrae has every bit as broad a meaning in Latin as diakonos does in the Greek. Therefore when Pliny uses ministrae to refer to two Christian women of the church who he tortured, it in no way means that they were any more than courier or some other type of broad servant role.

Originally Posted by AV1611

[Further, he notes:

"Nor is their [the deacon's] work and business to rule in the church; we read of ruling elders, but never of ruling deacons; if they were, women might not be deaconesses, as Phebe was, for they are not to rule...There is but one sort of deacons of this kind mentioned in scripture; unless it can be thought there were women deacons, or "deaconesses;" and, indeed, Phebe is called diakonov, a "deacon," or "deaconess," of the church of Cenchrea; we render the word "servant," (Rom. 16:1) and some render the "wives" of deacons, "their women," (1 Tim. 3:11) and by them understand "deaconesses;" and if the same with the "widows," as some think, their qualifications, as to age, character, and conduct, are described (1 Tim. 5:9, 10) and it seems certain there were such in the second century, whether virgins or widows; such seem to be the two servant maids Pliny speaks of, whom he examined on the rack, concerning the Christians, and by whom he says they were called "ministrae," ministresses, or deaconesses; and Clemens of Alexandria, in the "second" century, makes mention expressly of women deacons, as spoken of by the apostle in his epistle to Timothy; so Jerom, in the fourth century, speaks of them as in the eastern churches: and, indeed, something of this kind seems not at all unnecessary, but of service and usefulness; as to attend at the baptism of women, and to visit the sisters of the church, when sick, and to assist them."

Again John Gill is exceedingly wordy without saying anything definitive. He seems to say that deaconess could refer to wives of deacons or to the order of widows. And yet he seems to conflate Phoebe as a deaconess with the office of Deacon, so I'm not really sure what his position is on women as deacons. Whatever his position on it might be, I think his reasoning is so soft and inauthoritative as to render his writings of little use in this discussion.


I would really rather not get into the game of dueling theologians, but would rather stick to making our own clear, concise arguments for or against. Thanks.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Therefore the number is a circumstance but the prescription for men is a qualification.

Could you please prove that from the text please?

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Or are you insinuating that no office of deacon had yet been formalized into which they might be installed?

What I am asking is can you prove from the biblical data that the seven men were deacons? Let's read the description of what happens:

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

Please show from the above where these men were ordained deacons. The term "deacon" is absent, all we have before us is the description of the election and ordination of seven men who should take care of the poor in that church and so ease the apostles of that burden. I can't see anything about the institution of the Office of Deacon.

As reagrds, Gill; my point was to show that he agreed that women were deacons (e.g. Phoebe) and there were female deacons in the Early Church as attested by Clement of Alexandria as well as Jerome.

Incidently, Calvin's comments are interesting:

He first commends to them Phoebe, to whom he gave this Epistle to be brought to them; and, in the first place, he commends her on account of her office, for she performed a most honorable and a most holy function in the Church; and then he adduces another reason why they ought to receive her and to show her every kindness, for she had always been a helper to all the godly. As then she was an assistant of the Cenchrean Church, he bids that on that account she should be received in the Lord; and by adding as it is meet for saints, he intimates that it would be unbecoming the servants of Christ not to show her honor and kindness. And since it behooves us to embrace in love all the members of Christ, we ought surely to regard and especially to love and honor those who perform a public office in the Church. And besides, as she had always been full of kindness to all, so he bids that help and assistance should now be given to her in all her concerns; for it is what courtesy requires, that he who is naturally disposed to kindness should not be forsaken when in need of aid, and to incline their minds the more, he numbers himself among those whom she had assisted.

But this service, of which he speaks as to what it was, he teaches us in another place, in 1 Timothy 5:9, for as the poor were supported from the public treasury of the Church, so they were taken care of by those in public offices, and for this charge widows were chosen, who being free from domestic concerns, and cumbered by no children, wished to consecrate themselves wholly to God by religious duties, they were therefore received into this office as those who had wholly given up themselves, and became bound to their charge in a manner like him, who having hired out his own labors, ceases to be free and to be his own master. Hence the Apostle accuses them of having violated their faith, who renounced the office which they had once undertaken, and as it behooved them to live in widowhood, he forbade them to be chosen under sixty years of age, (1 Timothy 5:9,11,) because he foresaw that under that age the vow of perpetual celibacy was dangerous, yea, liable to prove ruinous.

In his institutes he writes:

The care of the poor was committed to deacons, of whom two classes are mentioned by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, “He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity;” “he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom_12:8). As it is certain that he is here speaking of public offices of the Church, there must have been two distinct classes. If I mistake not, he in the former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:10). For there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this (and it certainly ought to be admitted), there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves. For although the term diakonia has a more extensive meaning, Scripture specially gives the name of deacons to those whom the Church appoints to dispense alms, and take care of the poor; constituting them as it were stewards of the public treasury of the poor. Their origin, institution, and office, is described by Luke (Acts 6:3). When a murmuring arose among the Greeks, because in the administration of the poor their widows were neglected, the apostles, excusing themselves that they were unable to discharge both offices, to preach the word and serve tables, requested the multitude to elect seven men of good reports to whom the office might be committed. Such deacons as the Apostolic Church had, it becomes us to have after her example.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Therefore the number is a circumstance but the prescription for men is a qualification.

Could you please prove that from the text please?

This is what I wrote immediately preceding what you quoted above:

that early church has both men and women as do our churches today. I have no doubt that there were godly women full of the Holy Spirit and beyond reproof in that early church, and yet the apostles required men. The size of the church and the scope of its diaconal ministry varies from one particular church to the next, but they are all constituted of men and women (often times more women).

Let me reiterate my point more concisely: All churches everywhere consist of men and women. This is a constant from one church to the next. The size of the church and the extent of its diaconal ministry fluctuates from one church to the next and so isn't constant. The circumstance of neither the early church nor any church since would require that men only be deacons. Therefore this is not a 'circumstance' of the church. However, the circumstances of size and extent of diaconal ministry does vary and so is a circumstance of the church.

This is the best I can summarize my reasoning. If you have a question about it, please ask. If you disagree, please give a reason, so we might interact further.

Also I reject the premise that in order for any detail of a narrative to be prescriptive, every detail must be prescriptive - the all or nothing approach. I criticized you previous post as amounting to just this, however you have not responded to that criticism. I am happy to address the criticism you have of my position. I would appreciate it if you do likewise.

Originally Posted by AV1611

[What I am asking is can you prove from the biblical data that the seven men were deacons? Let's read the description of what happens:

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

Please show from the above where these men were ordained deacons. The term "deacon" is absent, all we have before us is the description of the election and ordination of seven men who should take care of the poor in that church and so ease the apostles of that burden. I can't see anything about the institution of the Office of Deacon.

First, verse 2 uses the Gk. verb diakoneo to state what was not right for the apostles to be distracted by. Clearly this word is related to the Gk. noun diakonos used on 1 Tim 3 to refer to the office of deacon. So although the English word deacon is absent, a Gk. word related to deacon is quite present.

Second, In a previous post I have stated that the office of deacon may not yet have been formalized this early in the Church, but that doesn't detract from the foundational aspect of this text for the office of deacon. Clearly the Holy Spirit is laying the foundation for the office of deacon.

Third, the qualifications here and in 1 Tim 3 are very similar. Here they say honest report in 1 Tim 3:10 they say blameless. The qualification to be men also factor prominently in both passages. So there are some obvious parallels.

So in summary, I reject the idea that these men had to be installed in the formalized office of deacon in order for this passage to be viewed as normal for that office. Instead I conted that they Holy Spirit was laying the groundwork for such office in the passage.

[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

"Incidently, Calvin's comments are interesting:

He first commends to them Phoebe, to whom he gave this Epistle to be brought to them; and, in the first place, he commends her on account of her office, for she performed a most honorable and a most holy function in the Church; and then he adduces another reason why they ought to receive her and to show her every kindness, for she had always been a helper to all the godly. As then she was an assistant of the Cenchrean Church, he bids that on that account she should be received in the Lord; and by adding as it is meet for saints, he intimates that it would be unbecoming the servants of Christ not to show her honor and kindness. And since it behooves us to embrace in love all the members of Christ, we ought surely to regard and especially to love and honor those who perform a public office in the Church. And besides, as she had always been full of kindness to all, so he bids that help and assistance should now be given to her in all her concerns; for it is what courtesy requires, that he who is naturally disposed to kindness should not be forsaken when in need of aid, and to incline their minds the more, he numbers himself among those whom she had assisted.

But this service, of which he speaks as to what it was, he teaches us in another place, in 1 Timothy 5:9, for as the poor were supported from the public treasury of the Church, so they were taken care of by those in public offices, and for this charge widows were chosen, who being free from domestic concerns, and cumbered by no children, wished to consecrate themselves wholly to God by religious duties, they were therefore received into this office as those who had wholly given up themselves, and became bound to their charge in a manner like him, who having hired out his own labors, ceases to be free and to be his own master. Hence the Apostle accuses them of having violated their faith, who renounced the office which they had once undertaken, and as it behooved them to live in widowhood, he forbade them to be chosen under sixty years of age, (1 Timothy 5:9,11,) because he foresaw that under that age the vow of perpetual celibacy was dangerous, yea, liable to prove ruinous.

In his institutes he writes:

The care of the poor was committed to deacons, of whom two classes are mentioned by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, “He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity;” “he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom_12:8). As it is certain that he is here speaking of public offices of the Church, there must have been two distinct classes. If I mistake not, he in the former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:10). For there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this (and it certainly ought to be admitted), there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves. For although the term diakonia has a more extensive meaning, Scripture specially gives the name of deacons to those whom the Church appoints to dispense alms, and take care of the poor; constituting them as it were stewards of the public treasury of the poor. Their origin, institution, and office, is described by Luke (Acts 6:3). When a murmuring arose among the Greeks, because in the administration of the poor their widows were neglected, the apostles, excusing themselves that they were unable to discharge both offices, to preach the word and serve tables, requested the multitude to elect seven men of good reports to whom the office might be committed. Such deacons as the Apostolic Church had, it becomes us to have after her example.

[/QUOTE]


Thanks for citing John Calvin, always worthy of consideration.

It seems Mr Calvin has in mind two different kinds of "deacons"- one of the overseeing office, and the other more of the "servant widow" of I Timothy 5. The latter is where I think we get closest to having "deaconesses."

Regarding Calvin on I Timothy 3:11...

"Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things."

His commentary seems to interpret this as qualifications for the wives of both Elders and Deacons.

Originally Posted by AV1611

[Incidently, Calvin's comments are interesting:

He first commends to them Phoebe, to whom he gave this Epistle to be brought to them; and, in the first place, he commends her on account of her office, for she performed a most honorable and a most holy function in the Church; and then he adduces another reason why they ought to receive her and to show her every kindness, for she had always been a helper to all the godly. As then she was an assistant of the Cenchrean Church, he bids that on that account she should be received in the Lord; and by adding as it is meet for saints, he intimates that it would be unbecoming the servants of Christ not to show her honor and kindness. And since it behooves us to embrace in love all the members of Christ, we ought surely to regard and especially to love and honor those who perform a public office in the Church. And besides, as she had always been full of kindness to all, so he bids that help and assistance should now be given to her in all her concerns; for it is what courtesy requires, that he who is naturally disposed to kindness should not be forsaken when in need of aid, and to incline their minds the more, he numbers himself among those whom she had assisted.

But this service, of which he speaks as to what it was, he teaches us in another place, in 1 Timothy 5:9, for as the poor were supported from the public treasury of the Church, so they were taken care of by those in public offices, and for this charge widows were chosen, who being free from domestic concerns, and cumbered by no children, wished to consecrate themselves wholly to God by religious duties, they were therefore received into this office as those who had wholly given up themselves, and became bound to their charge in a manner like him, who having hired out his own labors, ceases to be free and to be his own master. Hence the Apostle accuses them of having violated their faith, who renounced the office which they had once undertaken, and as it behooved them to live in widowhood, he forbade them to be chosen under sixty years of age, (1 Timothy 5:9,11,) because he foresaw that under that age the vow of perpetual celibacy was dangerous, yea, liable to prove ruinous.

In his institutes he writes:

The care of the poor was committed to deacons, of whom two classes are mentioned by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, “He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity;” “he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom_12:8). As it is certain that he is here speaking of public offices of the Church, there must have been two distinct classes. If I mistake not, he in the former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:10). For there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this (and it certainly ought to be admitted), there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves. For although the term diakonia has a more extensive meaning, Scripture specially gives the name of deacons to those whom the Church appoints to dispense alms, and take care of the poor; constituting them as it were stewards of the public treasury of the poor. Their origin, institution, and office, is described by Luke (Acts 6:3). When a murmuring arose among the Greeks, because in the administration of the poor their widows were neglected, the apostles, excusing themselves that they were unable to discharge both offices, to preach the word and serve tables, requested the multitude to elect seven men of good reports to whom the office might be committed. Such deacons as the Apostolic Church had, it becomes us to have after her example.

Calvin here posits two offices of deacon. Do you agree with his bifurcation or the office of deacon?

Additionally, others have viewed the order of widows (1 tim 5:9ff) as a third office of the church which I think is what Calvin is alluding to here.

"If I mistake not, he in the former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:10). For there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this (and it certainly ought to be admitted), there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves."

If I'm understand Mr Calvin correctly here, he sees one function as administrative (it might also involve front line tasks also), the other as task oriented (with no administration oversight). However, he is looking to I Timothy 5 for the qualifications to serve in the latter function.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

All churches everywhere consist of men and women.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

This is a constant from one church to the next.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

The size of the church and the extent of its diaconal ministry fluctuates from one church to the next and so isn't constant.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

The circumstance of neither the early church nor any church since would require that men only be deacons.

This is your opinion without evidence and this is the problem. Just because the Apostles asked for men to be chosen does not therefore mean that women were never to diakoneo. Indeed in Romans 16 we read of Phoebe who is diakonos which as you write below is clearly related to the Gk. noun diakoneo . So according to your own logic Phoebe was a deacon.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the reason men were specified was more cultural than principle.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

First, verse 2 uses the Gk. verb diakoneo to state what was not right for the apostles to be distracted by. Clearly this word is related to the Gk. noun diakonos used on 1 Tim 3 to refer to the office of deacon. So although the English word deacon is absent, a Gk. word related to deacon is quite present.

This is really just drawing an inference but is not really proof. Furthermore you have "In a previous post I have stated that the office of deacon may not yet have been formalized this early in the Church". Now in your opinion

Originally Posted by ahavah7

that doesn't detract from the foundational aspect of this text for the office of deacon

but that is your opinion not evidence. The terms seem, to me, to be pretty fluid and the inferences you draw seem to be pretty questionable.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Third, the qualifications here and in 1 Tim 3 are very similar.

Again, so what. As a layman I am to be of honest report and blameless. These are not "qualifications" but "evidences of suitability". Everyone who desires to be a deacon must be of honest report and blameless not everyone who is of honest report and blameless is to be a deacon.

When the NT witness on the role of the office of deacon is unclear, the terms used are fluid in meaning and clear historical witness that women were deacons we need to be careful from reading into Scripture what really isn't there.

If in your denomination deacons preach then of course women should not be ordained to that role, but that does not mean a deaconess could not do all that the deacons did of Acts 6. So may be Calvin's bifurcation or the office of deacon is the way forward as being more faithful to the biblical data.