A Biblical Argument for Men Only as Deacons

[ahavah7]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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]

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

Could you please prove that from the text please?

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]

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

Could you please prove that from the text please?

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

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

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

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

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

[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]

[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]

All churches everywhere consist of men and women.

Agreed.

This is a constant from one church to the next.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

All churches everywhere consist of men and women.

Agreed.

This is a constant from one church to the next.

Agreed.



Agreed.

This is your opinion without evidence and this is the problem.

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?

This is your opinion without evidence and this is the problem.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 really just drawing an inference but is not really proof.

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?

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.

Why do you find them questionable? Any rationale for that assertion?

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.

"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?

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.

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.

 

[AV1611]

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.

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.

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 termsdiakonos 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]

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?

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]

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

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

 

[Scott1]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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.

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]

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."