# A Biblical Argument for Men Only as Deacons



## ahavah7

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



HaigLaw said:


> [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.


----------



## Mushroom

> 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.


----------



## SolaGratia

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


----------



## ahavah7

SolaGratia said:


> 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.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Brad said:


> 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...


----------



## 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.


----------



## ahavah7

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## ahavah7

jfschultz said:


> 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.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

ahavah7 said:


> 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.


----------



## ahavah7

ColdSilverMoon said:


> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

ahavah7 said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Romans922

ahavah7 said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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!!!


----------



## Mushroom

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Ravens

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?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

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


----------



## py3ak

Brad said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## 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.


----------



## Scott1

servantofmosthigh said:


> 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.


----------



## SolaGratia

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.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> 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.


----------



## SolaGratia

Sterling,

What are your conclusions about this?

How do you served as a deacon in your church?


----------



## ahavah7

servantofmosthigh said:


> 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?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

servantofmosthigh said:


> 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?


----------



## Scott1

ColdSilverMoon said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

ColdSilverMoon said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## ahavah7

ColdSilverMoon said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## ahavah7

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience this is how diaconates work in the ARP.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Scott1

ColdSilverMoon said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience this is how diaconates work in the ARP.
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## 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?


----------



## AV1611

ahavah7 said:


> 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."​


----------



## ahavah7

ColdSilverMoon said:


> 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 believe 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.


----------



## BJClark

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?


----------



## Scott1

ColdSilverMoon said:


> 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.


----------



## ahavah7

AV1611 said:


> 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.



AV1611 said:


> 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?



AV1611 said:


> 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.



AV1611 said:


> 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.​




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.



AV1611 said:


> [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.​


----------



## AV1611

ahavah7 said:


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



Could you please prove that from the text please?



ahavah7 said:


> 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.​


----------



## ahavah7

AV1611 said:


> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore the number is a circumstance but the prescription for men is a qualification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please prove that from the text please?
Click to expand...


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.



AV1611 said:


> [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.


----------



## Scott1

[/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.


----------



## ahavah7

AV1611 said:


> [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.


----------



## Scott1

"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.


----------



## AV1611

ahavah7 said:


> All churches everywhere consist of men and women.



Agreed.



ahavah7 said:


> This is a constant from one church to the next.



Agreed. 



ahavah7 said:


> 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.



ahavah7 said:


> 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. 



ahavah7 said:


> 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 



ahavah7 said:


> 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.



ahavah7 said:


> 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.


----------



## ahavah7

AV1611 said:


> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All churches everywhere consist of men and women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a constant from one church to the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your *opinion without evidence *and this is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My quotes above are my rationale to explain the evidence. They were written in response to your contention that the number seven must be prescriptive if the selection of men is prescriptive and your subsequent request that I prove it. I don't know that a rationale to explain why one detail of the narrative is prescriptive and the other descriptive can have further evidence from the same text. If such further evidence existed, then the rationale would not be necessary. I do know that the all-or-nothing premise that underlies your assertion is untenable. Have you developed a rationale for that premise? Or have you abandoned it all together?
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This is your opinion *without evidence and this is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are my opinions automatically deficient? Don't get me wrong; I am not a great man that my opinions should be automatically received. Nevertheless, I think it would further the conversation if you would give reasons to why you find them deficient.
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are returning to the underlying premise that _diakonos _and _diakoneo _have only one meaning in the Bible – servant/ to serve. That argument was dealt with in the first few posts. If you believe that _diakonos _and _diakoneo _ have only one meaning, then make a case for it (I have not seen such a case made, only the assertion made). Incidentally, no one is arguing that women may not serve in the church, only that they may not hold the office of deacon.
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the reason men were specified was more cultural than principle.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the same rationale that liberals use to explain away the NT teaching that homosexuality is wrong or that men only should be elders or many other true teachings they find objectionable. I reject it out of hand.
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is really just drawing an *inference* but is not really proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WCF 1:6 "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." Yes, my confession allows good and necessary consequences (inferences) of Scripture. Do the 39 Articles allow this?
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that doesn't detract from the foundational aspect of this text for the office of deacon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you find them questionable? Any rationale for that assertion?
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Third, the qualifications here and in 1 Tim 3 are very similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "qualifications" vs. "evidences of suitability" is a distinction without a difference. And what bearing does this have on the question of whether women can be ordained to the office of deacon? If 'the husband of one wife' is an "evidence of suitability", then how can a women be seen as suitable to the office?
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, who believes the role of deacons is unclear. I suppose if you throw out Acts 6, then it does make it less clear since our understanding of the role of the office of deacon, comes chiefly from that passage.
> 
> Second, I see you cede that the terms involved, _diakonos _and _diakoneo _, have more than one premise. However, in this same post, when referencing Phoebe, you assume the word can have only one meaning. Terribly inconsistent!
> 
> Third, to have any force, the charge that I am reading into Scripture what is really not there needs to be argued and not merely stated.
Click to expand...


----------



## AV1611

ahavah7 said:


> This is the same rationale that liberals use to explain away the NT teaching that homosexuality is wrong or that men only should be elders or many other true teachings they find objectionable. I reject it out of hand.



This is rather an important point and I believe we ought to recognise that to have a "knee-jerk theology" is rather worrying. Look at St. Paul's explanation for why women cannot be presbyters and bishops, the argument is creational. Look at why St. Paul decrys the sin of Corinth, it is moral. 

It is important that St. Paul does not argue that only men are to be deacons at all, further if you are correct that Acts 6 specifies the role of a deacon then there is nothing there that would prevent a woman from carrying out that function. 

I support women deacons, however I oppose women being deacons in the Church of England. Why? Because in the CofE to be a deacon is to do what a presbyter does minus presiding over the sacraments. 



ahavah7 said:


> If 'the husband of one wife' is an "evidence of suitability", then how can a women be seen as suitable to the office?



The verse allows for unmarried men to be suitable does it not? Why? Because it is saying that for someone to hold an office within the church they must be moral, one proof of that is not having more than one wife. 



ahavah7 said:


> Second, I see you cede that the terms involved, _diakonos _and _diakoneo _, have more than one premise.



My point regarding the words used is simply to point out the flaw in your arguing:



> 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.



If you conceed that the terms_diakonos _and _diakoneo _ have more than one meaning then your argument that because a similar word is used in both therefore they are refering to the same thing is as valid as the argument that because similar words are used regarding Phoebe then Phoebe was a deacon.


----------



## AV1611

*For what it's worth:* I would agree, on the whole, with this.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

ahavah7 said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


I can answer you best if you specify which part(s) you are questioning because I had said alot in this short paragraph. Are you questioning where deacons and deaconesses are in the Bible? Are you questioning where in the Bible does is specify elders to be men-only? Are you questioning where in the Bible does it command me to agree with Mark Dever? Are you asking where in the Bible does it encourage Baptists to not be divisive on issues like this? I'm not sure how to respond or where to begin responding to your question because it's too generalized. So if you could be a little more specific, I can then respond better.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I thought this was interesting from John Piper:



> 2.2. In the middle of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, Paul says, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things." This could be the wives of the deacons, but could also be the women deacons. The latter is suggested by the fact that the elders' wives are not mentioned in 3:1–7.



from here


----------



## Scott1

panta dokimazete said:


> I thought this was interesting form John Piper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.2. In the middle of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, Paul says, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things." This could be the wives of the deacons, but could also be the women deacons. The latter is suggested by the fact that the elders' wives are not mentioned in 3:1–7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from here
Click to expand...


It's interesting to note that Mr. Calvin's commentary suggests this verse applies to the wives of both Deacons and Elders.


----------



## Scott1

BJClark said:


> 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.
> 
> For a few ordination is the main issue. The large majority are not advocating ordination at this time. For most, the issues are election, whether Deacon is an authoritative office, whether women can perform the same function as the office, and whether they or the congregation can take the similar vows as the office. Also, whether "commissioning" can be used to install officers and whether a church can ordinarily be constituted without Deacons.
> 
> Should they be ordained?
Click to expand...


No.

I would acknowledge that there is a case for "deaconesses," but it is at best unclear. In addition, the best case is closest to the "servant widow" model of I Timothy 5 which requires a minimum, age 60, widow, good reputation, etc. My understanding of that is that it is an "office", could be paid by the church, could have vows, is under the administrative authority of the Deacons, and is not ordained.


----------



## ahavah7

AV1611 said:


> *For what it's worth:* I would agree, on the whole, with this.



I enjoyed the OPC report titled "Women in Church Office" to which you linked. In their section on deacons they write, "Therefore we offer the following considerations in support of the position that Scripture does not authorize the ordination of women deacons." BTW, the OPC views the office of Deacon as a non-teaching office.

They note an 'analogical' relationship between Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3:8-13. They also see Paul's male headship rationale applying to both the office of elder and deacon.

So does your favorable opinion of the OPC report, represent a reversal of your previous position within this thread?


----------



## AV1611

ahavah7 said:


> So does your favorable opinion of the OPC report, represent a reversal of your previous position within this thread?



I was refering to the minority report


----------



## ahavah7

servantofmosthigh said:


> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can answer you best if you specify which part(s) you are questioning because I had said alot in this short paragraph. Are you questioning where deacons and deaconesses are in the Bible? Are you questioning where in the Bible does is specify elders to be men-only? Are you questioning where in the Bible does it command me to agree with Mark Dever? Are you asking where in the Bible does it encourage Baptists to not be divisive on issues like this? I'm not sure how to respond or where to begin responding to your question because it's too generalized. So if you could be a little more specific, I can then respond better.
Click to expand...


My hope in starting this thread was to start a conversation about the biblical merits for men only as deacons, or if you hold that women can also be deacons, then your biblical arguments for that position.

It appears that Mark Dever's position could be summed up like this: Women shouldn't be leaders in the church. This glosses over some key considerations. Here are some questions that would help me to understand your position better:

1) Do you believe that Christ has established offices in His church?
2) If so, how many offices and what names would you give those offices?
3) Should men only or men and women populate these offices?
4) What is your Scriptural justification for your answers to the above question?


----------



## ahavah7

panta dokimazete said:


> I thought this was interesting from John Piper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.2. In the middle of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, Paul says, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things." This could be the wives of the deacons, but could also be the women deacons. The latter is suggested by the fact that the elders' wives are not mentioned in 3:1–7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from here
Click to expand...


There are three reasons I think this is incorrect:

First, the elders' wives are not mentioned because they are not as "directly and extensively involved" in their husbands ministry as the wives of deacons. I don't mean that elders' wives are not a help to them. But how often does an elder ask his wife what the meaning of a passage is? How often does an elder ask his wife's input to case of discipline before they are made public? How often do deacon's wives help them to minister to the congregation?

Second, if deacon's were both men and women, then why would Paul address "women deacons" seperately?

Third, if he were to address "women deacons", why would he do it in the middle of his address to the male deacons?

AV1611 linked to an OPC report that gives some additional reasons that argue against Piper's position.


----------



## AV1611

The minority report makes some interesting points regarding Acts 6:

*A. Acts 6:1-6*

*1.* *What "office" is being established here?*

Some might question the use of the term "office" here at all. It does seem, however, that the appointment (v. 3) of seven to fulfill a specific task (to be "over this business," v.3), which seven then have the apostles' hands laid upon them (v.6), sufficiently justifies our using this term, even if we conclude that the office was ad hoc, with no succession.

That conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority of those writing on the passage at the present time. (See the summary statement on p. 147 of the survey which appeared in the Biblical Theological Bulletin, 111:2, June 1973, and James Monroe Barnett, The Diaconate (Seaburg, 1981): "Their office was unique and was not continued in the Church" [p. 30].)

Although the verb diakonein appears in v. 2 and the noun diakonia in v. 1 (as well as in v. 4, where it refers to the diakonia of the Word), the seven are not called "deacons" here; and indeed the word "deacon" is found nowhere in the book of Acts. (It is interesting to note that the verb episkeptomai appears in v.3, the root of the term for "overseer" or "bishop," which fact proves nothing except that the appearance of certain roots in a passage should not be used to make the passage speak of offices which are not being spoken of.)

Many also use as an argument against seeing the office in view here as that of Deacon the fact that the later descriptions of the ministries of Stephen (6:8-7:60) and Philip (8:5-40; 21:8), two of the seven, indicate that their ministries went well beyond the ministry of the diaconate as later conceived. We read in 6:8 that "Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people." In vv. 9ff. we read of Stephen's wisdom and empowering by the Spirit as he disputed with certain Jews as a Christian apologist. Chapter seven records the climactic message before the Sanhedrin by this Spirit-filled exegete of the Old Testament and powerful polemicist. Philip likewise was a preacher of the gospel, proclaiming Christ to the Samaritans and performing wonderful signs among them. The Spirit commanded him (8:29) to preach Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch beginning from Isaiah 53 (v.35). He administered the sacrament of baptism (v.38). He preached the gospel to all the cities of Azotus until he came to Caesarea (v. 40). His residence there is called "the house of Philip the evangelist" in 21:8.

If the statement in vv. 3-4 would cause us to think in terms of a sharp distinction between word-charismata and deed-charismata (see Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost, p. 52), we must note that the accounts regarding these two of the seven which follow immediately upon this passage describing the establishment of their office focus upon their most full and eloquent employment of word-charismata! "... they appear to function much like the apostles, particularly in the proclamation of the word and in working miracles" (Barnett, p. 31).

Attractive, therefore, is the suggestion (of Rackham and others, including, perhaps, Chrysostom) that the office of the Seven was unique in the same sense as the Apostolate was unique, that their task was essentially that of "assistants to the apostles" (the Seven may be viewed as related to the Twelve as the Seventy in Numbers 27:l6ff. are related to Moses -- the use of episkeptomai in the LXX being seen as an indicator that the Numbers passage is the model for the Acts passage) and therefore that their gifts and calling were as broadly ranging as those of the Apostles, and that their office later gave way to that of the Presbyters, whose ministry was just as broadly ranging, at least until Deacons were appointed to take over the specifically "deed" ministries.

Pointers to this conclusion are said to be the use of "the Seven" as a title (21:8), parallel to "the Twelve" (6:2), the full record of their names (6:5), again parallel to the listing of the Twelve, the fact that after Stephen and Philip we meet with no "successors" other than the Presbyters (11:30; 14:23; 15:2; etc. -- again, "Deacons" do not appear in the book of Acts), and in particular the fact that the collection from Antioch for the brethren in Judea was sent "to the Elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul" (11:30), not to the Deacons.

This understanding might well seem to be very attractive (and might seem to differ little from the view that the Acts 6 passage is the first reference to the appointment of Elders in the Christian church -- see W. K. L. Clarke, Episcopacy: Ancient and Modern, ed. by C. Jenkins and K. Mackenzie, 1930, 10ff., and A. M. Farrer, The Apostolic Ministry, ed. by K. E. Kirk, 1946, 138ff. -- since the only difference between the office of the Seven and that of the later Elders would seem to be in the titles used) were it not for the fact that, as a matter of fact, the Acts 6 passage does not describe the appointment of the Seven in terms of their assisting the Apostles in their ministry generally but rather in the matter of "serving tables" quite specifically and in explicit distinction from the tasks of prayer and the ministry of the Word.

Yes, it is true that what is immediately afterwards recorded regarding the ministry of Stephen and the ministry of Philip has to do with their word ministry; but nevertheless we cannot deny that the only task committed to the Seven as "the Seven" is what may be described as a deed ministry. Report 32 presented to the 1981 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church emphasizes that "other duties performed by the seven have later come to institutionalized expression in the offices we now know as minister of the Word and evangelist (and ... home missionary, foreign missionary, and even professor of theology!)"; but when it speaks of "the breadth of duties assigned the seven" and of the care for the widows as "among the tasks assigned the seven" (emphasis added), it reads such breadth of functions "assigned the seven" into the text. The only task that we know was assigned to the Seven is recorded in v. 3. H. Meyer would seem to be correct in noting that there is no suggestion that their word-ministry was carried out specifically in fulfilment of their appointment as the Seven, but what we are to see is that the specific task of the Seven was by no means to exclude other Christian work in the measure of existing gifts." The congregation might well have decided to select for the specific task of overseeing the distribution of the daily food provisions men who were already serving as, in some sense, "assistants to the apostles," but nevertheless the task for which they are set apart with prayer and the laying on of hands in Acts 6 is that of "serving tables."

With Meyer, therefore, we are inclined to see in Acts 6 the record of the first official appointment of those who would oversee the distribution of that which was given to help meet the physical needs of the church's poor, which record quite properly guided the church "analogically" in the later development of the diaconate (see Committee report, p. 331).

*2. How does this passage bear on the question of the propriety of women deacons?*

The conclusion we have reached concerning the particular office in view in Acts 6:1-6 (that it was an office assigned the "deed-ministry" of caring for the needy widows in the congregation, and that therefore, although it may have had itself a certain ad hoc character, its establishment was a guiding precedent for the church as it later developed the permanent office of Deacon) requires that we consider whether the inauguration of this "prototype diaconate" points to factors which are relevant to our understanding of whether or not women may serve as Deacons. Three factors speaking against the appointment of women to the diaconate have sometimes been suggested:

*a.* Do we not have in v. 3, it is sometimes noted, the explicit instruction of the Apostles to "select from among you, brothers, seven men ...," which instruction was carried out in the choosing of seven males?

Yes, this is certainly the case. And the word used in v. 3 (andras, from aner) is not the word which is used generically to indicate "person," "human being" (anthropos), but is the word which often accents gender, man in contrast to suggest that another number (than twelve) was chosen in order to show that the number Twelve (Apostles) was not normative!). But we do not believe that we need to know for certain the reason why that number was commanded in that situation in order to know that it is not binding for every council of deacons. In like manner, we need not establish definitively the reason for the selection of males only in the appointment of the original Seven in order to believe that this is not a normative regulation for every council of deacons.

The situation would be different, of course, were a definite restriction of the diaconal office to men only to be stated, based upon Biblical principle (as is the case with regard to teaching and ruling elders, I Timothy 2:12); but this is not stated in Acts 6, and we should be extremely careful not to read more into the intended instruction for us than is actually there.

*b.* In v. 6 we read that the Seven were brought before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. Some would argue that the very fact that Deacons also are to be ordained settles (negatively) the question as to whether women may serve as deacons. Ordination, it is argued, involves the commission of authority, and a position of authority must not be given to a woman (I Timothy 2:12). The Committee, for example, seeks to establish on both Biblical and historical grounds that "authoritative leadership is implied in ordination and special office" (p. 1022). It appeals to Gordon Clark's statement that in every instance of Biblical ordination, ordination confers authority to act in a particular capacity, and then quotes his conclusion: "Ordination is induction into an authoritative order," and since "Scripture explicitly forbids women to teach or exercise authority, it is a violation of divine law to ordain a woman" (p. 326).

But there is a non sequitur here. One may well say on the basis of the Biblical evidence that ordination appoints one to a ministerial office and function with authority to perform it. The undersigned has no quarrel with such a definition. But it is a leap of logic to say that that office and that function in the case of the deacon involves the kind of teaching and ruling authority which the apostle rules out for women. That is what must be established, and we must not beg that question.

It should be noted, for example, that just two pages later (on p. 328) the Committee says: "Our conclusion ... is that I Corinthians 11:5, 13 imply that in some form public prayer and prophecy by women was an accepted practice in the churches known to Paul. In this way the Committee itself reminds us that we must be very specific as to precisely what kind of teaching and exercise of authority is forbidden to women by Paul's instruction in I Timothy 2:12.

Report 32 to the 1981 C.R.C. Synod notes that "authority can be defined as the designation, authorization, empowerment, or 'enablement' of an individual to do a certain task" and suggests that "with the early church and segments of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches" we should understand that "headship functions did not inherently apply to the particular ministry of deacons."

Again, our Committee emphasizes Gillespie's insistence that ordination "standeth in the mission of the deputation of a man to an ecclesiastical function with power and authority to perform the same" (p. 325); and the undersigned has no quarrel with that definition (as long as the reference to "a man" is not intended to rule out women). But note again that the nature of the authority to be exercised in the particular office depends on the particular office.

Similarly, in Samuel Miller's definition of ordination as "that solemn rite, or act, by which a candidate for any office in the Church of Christ, is authoritatively designated to that office, by those who are clothed with power for the purpose.... They are fully invested with the office, and with all the powers and privileges which it includes" (p. 326). The Committee has added the emphasis, and it is precisely what needs to be emphasized! The authority to be exercised by any church officer is that (kind of) authority which that particular office includes. And, as we shall need to spell out further, the authority of the deacon is not to be equated with the authority of the elder.

John Owen is another who makes the distinction between the elders' authority and the deacons' authority clear, although his point seems to have been missed by the Committee, which quotes him with approval (p. 336) as though supporting its position: "This office of deacons is an office of service, which gives not any authority or power in the rule of the church; but being an office, it gives authority with respect unto the special work"

Remember Van Bruggen's suggestion that our understanding of the diaconate is "derailed" when we begin on the basis of some formal definition of the authority of special office in the church and read the specific texts which speak of deacons in the NT. church in the light of that monolithic definition of office and authority -- and his suggestion that our appreciation of the particular role and function of the deacon will be brought back "on track" if we begin by noting that the N.T. speaks of women as well as men deacons and go on to ask what this teaches us about the nature of that office.

With regard to ordination, Van Bruggen questions whether its Scriptural necessity in the case of deacons has actually been established. He suggests that instead "an official commissioning and testing" might be employed. His questioning, of course, is based on the fact that traditionally the case for the ordination of deacons has rested primarily on the fact that the Seven in Acts 6 were ordained; and he does not believe the Seven can simply be identified as the first deacons. It seems to the undersigned, however, that in view of what has been seen regarding the analogical relationship between the Seven and the later deacons, and the fact that ordination in the N.T. church was not narrowly restricted to ordination to the office of elder (see Acts 13:3), there is no reason not to ordain deacons, as long as ordination is not misunderstood as in itself investing the recipient with spiritual rule in the church.

*c.* The Committee emphasizes on p. 331 that "we should not overlook or minimize the authority vested in the Seven (and hence, eventually, in the diaconate)" and draws our attention to the verb episkeptomai in v. 3, "put in charge of" (see our earlier comment above, Al. p. 367).

It seems to the undersigned, however, that the Committee's emphasis here is quite contrary to the thrust of the passage's important teaching regarding the role of the Seven, and by analogy later the role of the deacons. As noted above, the Seven are appointed as "assistants to the apostles." Now, there is a certain authority implied in that; but it is clearly delegated authority, authority in a particular area, authority exercised under the authority of the apostles -- even as the deacons, who were appointed later as "assistants to the elders" when the spiritual headship role in the church came to be exercised by the elders rather than by apostles, exercised delegated authority, authority exercised under the authority of the elders whom they helped.

Considering Acts 6:1-6 an instructive indication of how the position of "helper," "servant" developed in the early church, Van Bruggen offers the following scenario: "The council of the elders (the overseers) was established by the apostles or their assistants." "With the increase in ecclesiastical work for which the overseers knew themselves responsible, they provided for the help of male and female (I Timothy 3:11; Romans 16:1) helpers (deacons) who were allocated particular ecclesiastical tasks.... Their services can be very diverse. Of deciding importance is that they receive an ecclesiastical assignment for a particular service and that they have to perform their work with the same worthiness with which the overseers lead the congregation." As Van Bruggen notes earlier in his study,

Though the New Testament offers little information regarding deacons, it yet so happens to appear that there were also female helpers in the ancient church. Here is a striking difference with the elders or overseers. The overseers have as their task to shepherd the congregation by word and teaching, and the woman is not allowed to fulfill that task. The woman is never permitted to teach or have authority over the man.... The reasons given for this are not timebound because they have to do with God's creation order and with the history of the fall into sin. That the woman's not being permitted to do the work of the overseers has nothing to do with a lesser value of the woman or with a timebound subordination with reference to her is evident when we see the women all at once come to full view alongside the deacons.​


----------



## Scott1

AV1611 




> The minority report makes some interesting points regarding Acts 6:
> 
> A. Acts 6:1-6
> 
> 1. What "office" is being established here?
> 
> Some might question the use of the term "office" here at all. It does seem, however, that the appointment (v. 3) of seven to fulfill a specific task (to be "over this business," v.3), which seven then have the apostles' hands laid upon them (v.6), sufficiently justifies our using this term, even if we conclude that the office was ad hoc, with no succession.
> 
> That conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority of those writing on the passage at the present time. (See the summary statement on p. 147 of the survey which appeared in the Biblical Theological Bulletin, 111:2, June 1973, and James Monroe Barnett, The Diaconate (Seaburg, 1981): "Their office was unique and was not continued in the Church" [p. 30].)



I realize you are quoting a minority report here. 

I do not think it is anything like a majority opinion that the office of Deacon was not continued. The vast majority of Christian denominations have had the office of Deacon over the centuries. Philippians 1:1 refers to the office again:

_"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the sints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:"_

Right below the surface of the issue of qualifications for the office are very important questions of:

1)valuation of the office of Deacon
2)valuation of ordination
3)church government generally

It has been well established Presbyterian polity since the Reformation that the office is perpetual.

The "surface issue" of can women serve as deaconesses has right below the surface in many arguments, something of a devaluation of the office of Deacon, (e.g. after all, it's not really an "office" or part of the government of Christ's Church, it is merely a term for servants or serving). It's also being said "ordination" is not really needed to set these officers apart, they can be "commissioned," a diluted form of installation. The implications of this are fundamental to Presbyterian and Reformed church governance of Christ's church.

That's why getting this right biblically is so important.


----------



## AV1611

Scott1 said:


> I do not think it is anything like a majority opinion that the office of Deacon was not continued. The vast majority of Christian denominations have had the office of Deacon over the centuries.



I think you have misread the argument. The point being made is that many scholars are of the opinion that the office described in Acts 6 was not the office of deacon but was, like that of the Evangelist, a temporary office. Hence, "Their office [of the seven men] was unique and was not continued in the Church".


----------



## ahavah7

The minority report says, 
"With Meyer, therefore, we are inclined to see in Acts 6 the record of the first official appointment ... to help meet the physical needs of the church's poor, which record quite properly *guided the church "analogically" in the later development of the diaconate *(see Committee report, p. 331)."​
They agree with the majority report here! Both reports contend that Acts 6 is analogical or foundational to the office of deacon. Can we now agree that Acts 6 has something to teach us about the office of deacon?

The Minority Report also says, 
"But we do not believe that we need to know for certain the reason why that number was commanded in that situation in order to know that it is not binding for every council of deacons. In like manner, we need not establish definitively the reason for the selection of males only in the appointment of the original Seven in order to believe that this is not a normative regulation for every council of deacons."​
We can imagine a number of reasons that the apostles might require seven men. However, can we think of any reasons that they would require men only? BTW, I agree with the majority report that the same headship issues that apply to elders in 1 Tim 3 naturally applies to deacons in that passage as well. Therefore, I think it dangerous to use the it-was-cultural rationale here even though there may be a few places in the NT where it is warranted.

Finally, the minority report states, 
"It seems to the undersigned, however, that the Committee's emphasis here is quite contrary to the thrust of the passage's important teaching regarding the role of the Seven, and by analogy later the role of the deacons. As noted above, the Seven are appointed as "assistants to the apostles." Now, there is a certain authority implied in that; but it is clearly delegated authority, authority in a particular area, authority exercised under the authority of the apostles -- even as the deacons, who were appointed later as "assistants to the elders" when the spiritual headship role in the church came to be exercised by the elders rather than by apostles, exercised *delegated authority*, authority exercised under the authority of the elders whom they helped."​
All authority in the church is delegated authority. Christ delegates some of his authority to the elders in the church who then further delegated a more limited portion of that authority to deacons. The majority report agrees that the deacons are invested with some authority.


----------



## Scott1

AV1611 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think it is anything like a majority opinion that the office of Deacon was not continued. The vast majority of Christian denominations have had the office of Deacon over the centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have misread the argument. The point being made is that many scholars are of the opinion that the office described in Acts 6 was not the office of deacon but was, like that of the Evangelist, a temporary office. Hence, "Their office [of the seven men] was unique and was not continued in the Church".
Click to expand...




> That *conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority *of those writing on the passage at the present time. (See the summary statement on p. 147 of the survey which appeared in the Biblical Theological Bulletin, 111:2, June 1973, and James Monroe Barnett, The Diaconate (Seaburg, 1981): "Their office was unique and was not continued in the Church" [p. 30].)



I do not agree that by any objective standard the "conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority..." This is simply wrong. There may be "many scholars" who believe this but the historical evidence is far, far to the contrary.


----------



## AV1611

Scott1 said:


> I do not agree that by any objective standard the "conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority..." This is simply wrong. There may be "many scholars" who believe this but the historical evidence is far, far to the contrary.



He notes that the "conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority of those writing on the passage *at the present time*." He does note that Chrysostom held to the view that the office of the seven was temporary. If you want to argue history then we can, the early Church had female deacons as we see recorded in both St. Clemens of Alexandria and St. Jerome. This is also pointed out by both John Gill and John Calvin.


----------



## Scott1

AV1611 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not agree that by any objective standard the "conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority..." This is simply wrong. There may be "many scholars" who believe this but the historical evidence is far, far to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He notes that the "conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority of those writing on the passage *at the present time*." He does note that Chrysostom held to the view that the office of the seven was temporary. If you want to argue history then we can, the early Church had female deacons as we see recorded in both St. Clemens of Alexandria and St. Jerome. This is also pointed out by both John Gill and John Calvin.
Click to expand...


You're shifting the argument here away from this notion that the broad majority of Christians believe that the office of Deacon was temporary- citing one person (Chrysostom) in antiquity who believed that does not change my point at all. Acts 6 is not now, nor ever has been viewed as creating a temporary office... not within Chrisendom generally.

History is replete with Deacons constituting govenment in Christ's Church. Virtually all Presbyterian and Reformed denominations view it as a *perpetual* office, it is so referenced in their constitutions.

In order to make a case for "deaconesses" your argument devalues the office of Deacon itself to say, in effect, it wasn't really intended to be an high office in Christ's Church, after all it was probably only temporary so, consequently, it doesn't matter so much what the qualifications are.

Devaluing the office of Deacon, its ordination, election, installation, administrative authority, qualifications and vital role in the government of Christ's Church is not necessary to make a case for "deaconesses."


_"For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."_ I Timothy 3:13


----------



## AV1611

Scott1 said:


> You're shifting the argument here away from this notion that the broad majority of Christians believe that the office of Deacon was temporary- citing one person (Chrysostom) in antiquity who believed that does not change my point at all. Acts 6 is not now, nor ever has been viewed as creating a temporary office... not within Chrisendom generally.



What I am pointing out is that a large number of *modern* scholars hold to the view that Acts 6 is _not_ speaking about the *office of deacon*. What they hold is that the office described in Acts 6 was not the office of deacon but rather a temporary office that was set up owing to the historical situation at that time. 

The modern scholars are saying that the office in Acts 6 is _not_ a deacon, the office in Acts 6 is _not_ a deacon, the office in Acts 6 is _not_ a deacon. 

The office of deacon does exist, the question is whether it began in Acts 6? The "modern" scholars say 'no'. The question is not whether deacons exist but whther those in Acts 6 were deacons! The "modern" scholars say 'no'.

I really cannot see why it is that hard to grasp.


----------



## Scott1

> What I am pointing out is that a large number of modern scholars hold to the view that Acts 6 is not speaking about the office of deacon. What they hold is that the office described in Acts 6 was not the office of deacon but rather a temporary office that was set up owing to the historical situation at that time



Thank you for clarifying that.

I have made clear I do not agree with these particular "modern" scholars, nor that this ever has been the majority report in Chrisendom on Acts 6.

And while this view may have the effect of undermining the Scriptural basis for the office of Deacon, and the perpetual nature of the office, it does not advance the case for "deaconesses."


----------



## Stephen

VirginiaHuguenot said:


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




This book by Brian Schwertley is an excellent study on this issue. I highly recommend it.


----------



## Stephen

servantofmosthigh said:


> 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.




The problem with what you have stated is that the Scriptures affirm both the office of elder and deacon as perpetual offices in the church. This is the position of Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Elders are to rule and teach and deacons are to serve. Deacons are not called to rule or teach and elders are not called to serve. The two offices are distinct in its function. The deaconate is *not* a stepping stone to the office of elder as some erroneously teach.


----------



## Stephen

SolaGratia said:


> 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.



Many good men see the qualifications for women in I Timothy 3:11-15 as noting some kind of diaconal work or service. Whatever your position is on deaconesses those verses cannot be ignored.


----------



## Stephen

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




He makes very strong convincing arguments. He certainly comes from a different angle than what I have seen thus far in the PCA debate on this issue.


----------



## Stephen

SolaGratia said:


> Sterling,
> 
> What are your conclusions about this?
> 
> How do you served as a deacon in your church?





I hope Sterling is not in one of those congregations that refuses to ordain men to the office of deacon, which is quite prevelant in some presbyteries.


----------



## AV1611

Scott1 said:


> And while this view may have the effect of undermining the Scriptural basis for the office of Deacon, and the perpetual nature of the office, it does not advance the case for "deaconesses."



This view is not "undermining the Scriptural basis for the office of Deacon", all we are saying is prove that the seven in Acts 6 were the first deacons. It is possible but in no way probable and certainly not conclusive. I affirm that there is such an office of a deacon, what I question is that the seven in Acs 6 were deacons. The historic church is divided as to what office the seven in Acts 6 held. Some argue that these were the first deacons, some argue that they were the first bishops and some argue that they were ordained to a role that has not continued.

As for it does not advance the case for "deaconesses"; what the argument does do is challenge the soundness of the argument "In Acts 6 seven men were ordained as deacons therefore only men can be deacons" on a number of grounds. _1stly_, we cannot be sure that the seven men in Acts 6 were ordained deacons and _2ndly_, we should not read into the text what is not there, so men were chosen, it does not follow that women should not be deacons. 

What the argument does do is say, "So you want to prove that only men can be deacons, well you need to find another proof-text"


----------



## Stephen

AV1611 said:


> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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."​
Click to expand...


Good point, brother.


----------



## Stephen

Scott1 said:


> [/INDENT]



"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.[/QUOTE]

 This is the point that Brian Schwertley makes in his book referred to earlier in this thread. It was Calvin's position and others in the history of the church that there was an office of women who ministered to widows and the poor. They were called to assist in works of mercy. I believe this is the basis for the women in I Timothy 3 & 5. They may not have been ordained (they were not in Geneva) but appointed to serve women.


----------



## AV1611

*Chrysostom on Acts 6:* "But what sort of rank these bore, and what sort of office they received, this is what we need to learn. Was it that of Deacons? And yet this is not the case in the Churches. But is it to the Presbyters that the management belongs? And yet at present there was no Bishop, but the Apostles only. Whence I think it clearly and manifestily follows, that neither Deacons nor Presbyters is their designation: but it was for this particular purpose that they were ordained. And this business was not simply handed over to them without further ceremony, but the Apostles prayed over them, that power might be given to them." _Homily 14 on the Acts of the Apostles_

*Chrysostom on 1 Timothy 3:11:* "Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses." _Homily 11 on First Timothy_


----------



## toddpedlar

ahavah7 said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this was interesting from John Piper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.2. In the middle of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, Paul says, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things." This could be the wives of the deacons, but could also be the women deacons. The latter is suggested by the fact that the elders' wives are not mentioned in 3:1–7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are three reasons I think this is incorrect:
> 
> First, the elders' wives are not mentioned because they are not as "directly and extensively involved" in their husbands ministry as the wives of deacons. I don't mean that elders' wives are not a help to them. But how often does an elder ask his wife what the meaning of a passage is? How often does an elder ask his wife's input to case of discipline before they are made public? How often do deacon's wives help them to minister to the congregation?
> 
> Second, if deacon's were both men and women, then why would Paul address "women deacons" seperately?
> 
> Third, if he were to address "women deacons", why would he do it in the middle of his address to the male deacons?
> 
> AV1611 linked to an OPC report that gives some additional reasons that argue against Piper's position.
Click to expand...


Fourth, if he meant "women deacons", why would he not use the word he supposedly used in naming Phoebe as a holder of the diaconal office?


----------



## AV1611

toddpedlar said:


> Fourth, if he meant "women deacons", why would he not use the word he supposedly used in naming Phoebe as a holder of the diaconal office?



I don't follow your argument here.


----------



## Scott1

AV1611 
Puritanboard Senior


> we should not read into the text what is not there, so men were chosen, it does not follow that women should not be deacons.





In applying the regulative principle, it would follow that if men were chosen for this then, men would be chosen for this now. The regulative principle would say if women were not chosen for this then, women would not be chose for this now.

A key biblical intepretive principle to guide conduct of Christ's Church is:
if it is not clear from Scripture, we do not do it. We may acknowledge that it is not clear, assume good motives of one another, acknowledge brothers and sisters can differ on intepretation, all within the bounds of orthodoxy, but we do not do it out of the overarching respect for the clarity of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. [Principle of perspicuity]


Acts 6:5

"_And the saying pleased the whole mutitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Proch-o-rus, and Nic-canor, and Ti-mon, and Par-me-nas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch_:" 


That's  v. 0
We have an example here, 7-0. 


It indicates this was met with much approval- choosing seven men with qualifications of having an honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.

While not determinative in itself, it indicates a pattern and suggests qualifications for office.

The Church historically understood this and looked to Acts 6 as a beginning for the office of Deacon in the Church.


----------



## AV1611

Scott1 said:


> In applying the regulative principle, it would follow that if men were chosen for this then, men would be chosen for this now. The regulative principle would say if women were not chosen for this then, women would not be chose for this now.



It would say nothing of the sort. Why? Firstly, you have not demonstrated that the office of Acts 6 was not simply a temporary one established purely for the historical situation in Jerusalem. Secondly, the regulative principle only applies to worship. Furthermore, if you are correct it would also say that if *seven* men were chosen for this then, *seven* men would be chosen for this now. You want to make the number a circumstance? Well, if that is the case, I would argue the gender was also a circumstance.



Scott1 said:


> While not determinative in itself, it indicates a pattern and suggests qualifications for office.



It does nothing of the sort. If we look objectively at what took place we cannot conclude that Acts 6 establishes the office of deacon, indeed the great diversity of view in the historic church mitigate against drawing such a definite conclusion and the making of dogmatic statements. 

This means that we can find really one core area to go to regarding the qualifications of deacons, 1 Timothy 3. Yet once we do so we find that 1 Timothy 3:11 refers to women deacons. Hence St. Chrysostom writes in _Homily 11 on First Timothy_, "He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses." Theophylact, Grotius and Bloomfield all concur with this reading.

What is interesting is that Clarke, whilst arguing that it simply refers to women in general writes,

"if the apostle had those termed deaconesses in his eye, which is quite possible, the words are peculiarly suitable to them. That there was such an order in the apostolic and primitive Church, and that they were appointed to their office by the imposition of hands, has already been noticed on Romans 16:1. Possibly, therefore, the apostle may have had this order of deaconesses in view, to whom it was as necessary to give counsels and cautions as to the deacons themselves; and to prescribe their qualifications, lest improper persons should insinuate themselves into that office."​
On Romans 16:1 he writes, 

"There were deaconesses in the primitive Church, whose business it was to attend the female converts at baptism; to instruct the catechumens, or persons who were candidates for baptism; to visit the sick, and those who were in prison, and, in short, perform those religious offices for the female part of the Church which could not with propriety be performed by men. They were chosen in general out of the most experienced of the Church, and were ordinarily widows, who had borne children. Some ancient constitutions required them to be forty, others fifty, and others sixty years of age. It is evident that they were ordained to their office by the imposition of the hands of the bishop; and the form of prayer used on the occasion is extant in the apostolical constitutions. In the tenth or eleventh century the order became extinct in the Latin Church, but continued in the Greek Church till the end of the twelfth century."​


Scott1 said:


> The Church historically understood this and looked to Acts 6 as a beginning for the office of Deacon in the Church.



This is factually incorrect, one example is St. Chrysostom who writes the following on Acts 6 in _Homily 14 on the Acts of the Apostles_. 

"But what sort of rank these bore, and what sort of office they received, this is what we need to learn. Was it that of Deacons? And yet this is not the case in the Churches. But is it to the Presbyters that the management belongs? And yet at present there was no Bishop, but the Apostles only. Whence I think it clearly and manifestily follows, that neither Deacons nor Presbyters is their designation: but it was for this particular purpose that they were ordained. And this business was not simply handed over to them without further ceremony, but the Apostles prayed over them, that power might be given to them."​


----------



## Mindaboo

panta dokimazete said:


> I thought this was interesting from John Piper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.2. In the middle of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, Paul says, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things." This could be the wives of the deacons, but could also be the women deacons. The latter is suggested by the fact that the elders' wives are not mentioned in 3:1–7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from here
Click to expand...


I would have to disagree with this point. I just looked up the passage that you have quoted here and if you look at verse 12 it says that deacons should be the husband of one wife. I have never seen anywhere in scripture where it says that women are to be the wife of one husband as a qualification for office. If women are called to live in submission to their husbands then how can we possibly be placed in a position of authority over a whole congregation?Women play a huge part in the church and in the mercy ministries and there are times when it would be more appropriate for women to handle situations. But even this should be done under the authority of the deacons. We don't need a title to do this. Women already struggle with wanting authority over man, so why would you men want to encourage us in this?

Women are given a job to do within the church. Titus tells the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands and children, be workers at home, and to be kind and submissive to their own husbands. There are qualifications for this laid out in Titus. I would then think that my responsibility is to be a worker at home and when I am an older woman, I am responsible to teach the younger women. If women would focus on this it would be a great encouragement to us young moms who need all of the help we can get.


----------



## Scott1

AV1611 
Puritanboard Senior 


> Firstly, you have not demonstrated that the office of Acts 6 was not simply a temporary one established purely for the historical situation in Jerusalem.



Scripture here describes chosen men being placed in oversight authority of mercy ministry. It is commonly understood, as a precursor to the office, by analogy. Acts 6 describes this situation in a normative manner, and indicates the Church's approval in choosing men to oversee this. 

This is much more than simply a temporary situation "established purely for the historical situation in Jerusalem."



> Secondly, the regulative principle only applies to worship.



Where did you get that idea? 

The Westminster Confession summarizes the regularive principle as:

what must be "either expressly set forth in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." 

The regulative principle is a principle by which we interpret Christian faith and practice based upon Scripture. Although it does apply to worship, and is often discussed in the context of worship, the principle applies to much more than that. 

*The Westminster Standards use this principle particularly in the area of Church government* and worship.
(see WCF I:VI; XX:II; XXI:I; LC Q. 3)



> Furthermore, if you are correct it would also say that if seven men were chosen for this then, seven men would be chosen for this now.



No, seven was situational. In fact, how could it be seven in a congregation that had fewer than seven men?




> If we look objectively at what took place we cannot conclude that Acts 6 establishes the office of deacon, indeed the great diversity of view in the historic church mitigate against drawing such a definite conclusion and the making of dogmatic statements.



Thank you for clarifying you do not believe Acts 6 is related in any way to the office of Deacon. I believe that it established a normative case of men overseeing role of mercy ministry, a forerunner of the office of Deacon. This is consistent with other Scripture (e.g. I Timothy 3). This has been the historical consensus.

You stated earlier that it was the "consensus" of theological opinion that Acts 6 is not in any way about the office of Deacon. I am glad that now you have backed away from that assertion and are now saying there is only a... 



> "great diversity of view in the historic church mitigate against drawing such a definate conclusion."


It is important to recognize that the Church universal has, in the main, looked to Acts 6 as foundational (by analogy) for the office of Deacon, in the sense of establishing the oversight of mercy ministry by church officers.

We may not agree with that historical intepretation by the Church universal, but can not deny the fact of it.

I find it curious that in order to make your case for ordaining women deacons, you find it necessary to discount the early practice of the Church in Jerusalem even when Scripture indicates its approval and describes it in a normative way. Asserting that Acts 6 is not in any way related to the office of Deacon, does not advance your case that Scripture commands (regulative principle) ordination of women deacons.


----------

