IF
THERE IS ONE AREA IN WHICH THE CHURCH HAS DEPARTED FROM
BIBLICAL AUTHORITY AND sufficiency, it is in the area of
church government. Today we have created an entire
hierarchy of church government. We seem to think that we
must organize and structure everything we do so that
nothing gets left out.
As pure as that
motive is, however, Scripture is not ambiguous here. In
very clear words it declares that there are only
two recognized offices that
cover everything. This is nowhere more clearly stated
than in Philippians 1:1: “Paul and Timotheus, the
servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ
Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and
deacons.” As the trusted commentator Albert Barnes
writes on this verse:
The apostle here mentions
but two orders of ministers in the church at Philippi;
and this account is of great importance in its bearing
on the question about the way in which Christian
churches were at first organized, and about the officers
which existed in them.[i]
Having briefly
examined the “pastor,” along with the related terms
“bishop” and “elder,” we turn to the office of
deacon (and another supposed
one called “deaconess”).
The Office
of Deacon
During the writing
of this article, I had the joy of teaching a deacon
training course in our church, which outlined the
reality, requirements,
responsibilities, and rewards of the
office of deacon. To summarize, as I shared with our
men, this office is absolutely crucial to the church. So
important is it that the standards for it are no less
than those for the elder (pastor and bishop). The only
difference between the two is
function, the latter being
required to be a good teacher.
Diakonos
(deacon) and the related terms diakoneo
(“to serve”), and diakonia
(“service”) appear approximately 100 times in the New
Testament. Only in I Timothy 3:11 and Philippians 1:1
are they transliterated “deacon” or “deacons.” The rest
of the time they are translated by various English
words. In other words, only in those two passages is the
deacon elevated to official status. The rest of the time
the terms are used in a general, nonspecific sense.
So how did the
translators know to transliterate the word as the name
of an office? The context makes this clear.
First, Paul has already dealt with the known
office of bishop (elder, pastor) and then another is
mentioned immediately after that.
Second, a list of
qualifications follows the first office, and then
another list appears after that. The list must be
referring to an office.
Diakonos
itself is found twenty-nine times in the New Testament.
Let us note three things about this
term.
First, its
primary meaning was “one who serves at table,” but
probably included other menial tasks. That definition
gradually broadened until it came to include any kind of
service in the church. The word group’s versatility can
be seen in its divergent usage in the New Testament.
Diakonos diakoneo, and diakonia are
variously translated “administration,” “cared for,”
“minister,” “servant,” “serve,” “service,”
“preparations,” “relief,” “support,” and “deacon,” among
others. The root idea of serving food comes across in
John 2:5, where diakonos is used of the waiters
at a wedding. Diakoneo is
used in the same sense in Luke 4:39, where Peter’s
mother-in-law served a meal. Luke 10:40, 17:8, and John
12:2 also use this word group to refer to serving food.
Diakonos is
used to refer to soldiers and policemen who enforce
justice (Rom. 13:4). In John 12:26, Jesus equated
following Him with serving Him; anything
done in obedience to Him is spiritual service. In the
general sense of the term, all Christians are deacons,
for all are to be actively serving Christ and His
church. That is Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 12:5,
where he writes that “there are varieties of ministries”
(diakonion). Every
Christian is to be involved in some form of spiritual
service. Leaders, through both teaching and practice,
are to equip believers to perform that service (Eph.
4:12).
Second,
however, diakonos diakoneo, and
diakoniaµ are also used in
a more specific sense. The list of spiritual gifts in
Romans 12:6–8 includes a gift for service. Those with
that gift are specially equipped for service, though
they may not hold the office of deacon. Stephanas and
his family were so gifted. Paul wrote of them, “they
have addicted [devoted] themselves to the ministry
(diakonia) of the saints” (1 Cor.
16:15). These are people that God has especially gifted
and seem to just materialize from nowhere when a need
for service arises.
Third, this
word group refers to the officially recognized
responsibility of the office of deacon. Yes,
first everyone is a deacon in the general sense, and
second the Holy Spirit specially gifts for service, but
there are still others who are appointed to the office
of deacon. They are the models of spiritual service for
everyone else to follow. What is their function? They
work alongside the elders, implementing their preaching,
teaching, and oversight in the practical life of the
church.
This brings us to a key
text, Acts 6:1-6:
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.
In spite of what seems to
be an obvious reference to deacons here, there are some
who, for some inexplicable reason, make it an issue and
argue against it. In fact, the basic meaning of “serving
tables” is right in the passage, which sets the perfect
precedent of what the deacon does—he takes care of
temporal matters. Going against older expositors (such as Calvin
and many others), however, one contemporary expositor,
who I greatly respect and admire, writes:
Many hold that the seven
men chosen to oversee the distribution of food in Acts 6
were the first official deacons. The text, however,
nowhere calls them deacons.
But I must
respectfully disagree. While the English noun
“deacon” is not used for the seven men appointed to
serve, the Greek verb diakoneo is used twice in
verse 1 and the infinitive diakonia is used once in verse 2, which as we’ve seen
come from the same root. So why doesn’t Luke use the
noun here? Undoubtedly because the church is still in
its infancy and the office has not yet been defined. The
same expositor takes his argument farther and
comments:
The book of Acts
nowhere uses the term diakonos
(deacon), which seems
strange if an order of deacons was initiated in Acts 6.
Elders are mentioned several times in Acts (cf. 11:30;
14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4; 20:17), making the
omission of any reference to deacons even more
significant.
But what is
bothersome here is that this is an argument from
silence, which is always weak and often even dangerous.
Just because the office is not named doesn’t mean
that it didn’t exist. The Epistles build on the
Book of Acts, and the office of deacon that is
named in the Epistles seems clearly
rooted in that early
situation of Acts 6. This is the consistent position of
almost all commentators and expositors and is simply the
natural conclusion. We’ll come back to this in a
moment.
First, let us
understand the historical situation. By this time, the
Church had already filled Jerusalem and was on the
threshold of world evangelism, as stated in 1:8: “But ye
shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come
upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto
the uttermost part of the earth.” There was now simply
too much for the Apostles to handle alone.
Specifically, there were
two kinds of Jews in the early Church: Native-born
Palestinian (Hebrews) and Grecian-born (Hellenistic).
There was, therefore, a natural strain between them. Not
only were their languages different, but also the
Hebrews looked down on the Hellenists because they
assumed the Hellenists had been polluted by heathen
culture. Culturally, however, it was actually the
Hellenists who were more concerned about widows. They
said (and rightly so), “It’s wrong to neglect widows.”
Since the Apostles did not deny this observation, it was
obviously a legitimate problem that needed to be
addressed.
Verse 2, however, tells us
that the Apostles could not take care of this work. In
essence, they were saying: “We certainly recognize the
problem, but we can’t handle it. It’s too big and would
demand too much of our time. If we spend all our time on
temporal matters, we will have to neglect the ministry
of the Word of God and prayer, and that we simply cannot
do for any reason.”
Therefore, seven men
were appointed to do this work. But who appointed them?
This passage has been used, among other things, to
“prove” congregational government—people voting on
issues and officers. But the language doesn’t support
that idea. While it’s true that they “set before the
apostles” these seven men, it was the
Apostles who appointed them.
In other words, if these men had not been qualified,
they would not have been appointed. Congregational rule
often elects people who are not qualified and is also
quite often not much more than a popularity contest.
Second, we
would, therefore, submit four indications that this
is the first instance of
deacons.
1. As noted earlier, the
Greek term is present— once in verse 1—“Widows were
neglected in the daily ministration [verb
diakoneo]”—and once in verse 2— “Not reason that
we should leave the word of God, and serve [infinitive
diakonia] tables.” Again, some insist, “This is
not referring to an office because the words are
verbs.” No, but it is referring to the
function of the office, which
is most certainly named in the Epistles.
2. Early Church History
confirms this. We find that the early Church assigned
not only the distribution of food to deacons, but also
many other administrative affairs. In fact, the Church
at Rome for many years limited the number to
seven.
3. Strict qualifications
are given even here in Acts 6, not just I Timothy 3 and
there are obvious similarities. While the office is in
its primitive state, strict requirements were still laid
down. The tie between the men here and those referred to
in I Timothy seems so obvious that, frankly, I find
arguments against it not only pointless, but just
downright silly.
4. Viewing this as
the beginning of deacons sets a precedent for
both the existence and duties of this office. As to their existence, while the
office of pastor (bishop and elder) has a clear
precedent in Acts, without Acts 6, we have the office of
deacon mentioned in the Epistles but have no precedent
in Acts. As to their duties, the expositor I mentioned
earlier makes this statement about deacons in I Timothy
3 that appears to us to be
contradictory:
No specifics are given in
Scripture as to the duties of deacons. They were to
carry out whatever tasks were assigned to them by the
elders or needed by the congregation.
But a question comes
to mind: “If there aren’t any specifics as to their
duties, then how do we know that they were to carry out
whatever tasks that the elders assigned them or that
were needed by the congregation?” Acts 6, however,
clearly speaks of their duties involving temporal
matters. Without Acts 6, therefore, there is no
precedent for either the duties of the deacon or
even the existence of
deacons. Acts 6 is needed to show
both.
What About
the Deaconess?
Before leaving this
subject, it is essential that we deal with the issue of
what is commonly called in our day “the deaconess.” The
basic reason for the controversy is that the word
wives (I Tim. 3:11) is the
Greek gunaikas
(plural of gune), which can also be translated “women.” There
are some, therefore, who believe that the reference to
these women in verse 11 supports the idea of “the female
deacon,” that is, a specific office called “deaconess.”
Frankly, I was
shocked to read this view even by one very respected
contemporary expositor. By doing so, however, he takes
the same position as every liberal does. I believe this
to be an important issue, so I want to take a few
moments to share ten reasons why I can’t even imagine that this
refers to an office. The first four reasons directly
answer the major arguments that are offered that this is
another distinct group.
First, it is
argued, the use of likewise argues strongly for a
third and distinct group here in addition to elders and
deacons. But frankly this argument is just plain
ridiculous. Likewise does not necessarily do any
such thing. Paul could have phrased this, “Deacons must
have the following qualifications, and their wives
likewise.” Besides, if these women are deaconesses, why
do they need additional qualifications? Paul has already
given the qualifications for being a deacon. Should not
every person in an office have the same qualifications?
As one commentator illustrates, “One does not state the
qualifications of a US Senator and then add something
additional for red-haired senators, western senators, or
women senators.”[ii]
Second, it is
argued, there is no possessive pronoun or definite
article connecting these women
with deacons. In other words, if Paul were
talking about wives, he would have said “their wives.”
But it’s really not unusual for the Greek to omit an
article or a demonstrative pronoun. There is, in fact, a
possible reason that Paul omitted the pronoun “their.”
Had Paul inserted “their,” a reader would have
immediately assumed that he was referring only to the
deacon’s wives. But instead, before going on with other
qualifications for deacons in verse 12 (qualifications
that women cannot meet, I might add), he inserts a note
regarding the wives of both
bishops and deacons. As noted earlier, Calvin and many
others maintain that this as the natural
meaning.
Third, it is
further argued, Paul used the word “women” because there
was no Greek word for “deaconess,” and therefore the
word “women” was the only way to differentiate the male
office from the female. But that statement is more
accurately only half true. While it is true that
there is no word for deaconess in the New
Testament, there is a word in extrabiblical
Greek—diokonissa—although, to
be honest, it is uncertain as to whether this word
existed during New Testament times or after. If it did,
Paul would surely have used it if he meant
“deaconess.”
Fourth, one
other argument is that Phebe in Romans16:1-2 is an
example of a deaconess:
I commend unto you Phebe
our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at
Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh
saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business
she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of
many, and of myself also.
The word servant is
diakonos, and some view this as an instance of a
deaconess. But this is weak to say the least. The
context speaks of service in general and there is no
implication whatsoever that this is an office. Phebe was
a wealthy and generous woman who simply ministered to
the needs around her. And, oh, how we need to understand
that this is what service is all about! People today
make such an issue of organizing this ministry and that
outreach, when that isn’t the New Testament standard. As
we each see needs, we do what we can to meet them. It is
as simple as that.
In addition to answering
those four arguments, I would further submit six other
points.
Fifth, if
this is supposed to be an office, why is it never
mentioned again? Why is it not clearly defined instead
of ambiguously referred to in this one single verse? If
it’s so important, why not make it unquestionably
clear?
Sixth, if
deaconess is supposed to be a separate office, why
didn’t Paul finish listing the qualifications for deacon
and then go to deaconess? Why does he deal with deacons
in verses 10 and 12 but insert a new office, which he
doesn’t name, in verse 11? This would be confusing to
readers, and some today seem to want to be
confused.
Seventh, in
the final analysis, why is the office of deaconess even
necessary? Any temporal or physical needs are to be met
by the deacons. Their wives, as God designed it in the
Garden of Eden, are their helpmeets and will aid them as
needed. When we keep in mind this original design, this
is the most natural and biblical way to view this
passage. As John Gill wrote some 200 years
ago:
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.
Eighth,
Scripture does not allow women in place of leadership or
authority.
The whole concept of
deaconess in our day, for the most part, is a way of
putting women in such places.
I know this is a
very unpopular position in our day of Egalitarianism,
but Scripture is clear. Now I want to weigh my next
words carefully so as not to be misunderstood—and I
certainly do not want to offend—but try as I might, I do
not understand how a principle that is so clear, so
unambiguous, so beyond any doubt, can be so ignored.
Paul could not have been clearer when he wrote these
three separate clauses to Timothy: “But I suffer not a
woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but
to be in silence” (I Tim. 2:2). In the meeting and
ministry of the Church, a woman is neither to
teach nor have a position of leadership. Men are
to lead, and women are to follow. In short, women are to
be learners, not leaders. While many in
the Church today don’t like this teaching, that is
what the text says. Even Acts 6 clearly
indicates that only men filled the office of deacon.
Despite these facts of the text, however, fewer
principles are violated more today than this one. While
it is argued that women can lead and teach women
in public meetings, not one Bible text says
that. Such interpreters are
clearly reading their own views into the
text.
Does all this mean
that women are inferior to men? NO, NO, a thousand times
NO. God simply commands this as being in line with His
design for the weaker vessel. The issue is not
superiority, rather authority, which in
turn results in responsibility and
accountability. That is why God said through
James, “Be not many [teachers], knowing that we shall
receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1). Countless
Christians today, both men and women, have no idea how
foolish they are being to take on the responsibility of
teaching, which they are not called to,
qualified for, or trained in. It is a sad
commentary on the Church that a principle so crystal
clear, an issue so beyond doubt that it can still be
totally ignored or readjusted for the express purpose of
conforming to modern thought.
We would humbly
submit, therefore, that to read “deaconess” into I
Timothy 3:11, which appears in the context of
exclusively male leadership of the
Church, is to pry open the context with a crowbar and
hammer the idea into place.
Ninth, I just
cannot get past the simplicity of a deacon having to be
the “husband of one wife,” but a deaconess doesn’t have
to be the “wife of one husband.” If deaconess is an
office, then Paul first says that the office of deacon
demands that the officer is devoted to his wife, but
then says that that there can be female deacons. Huh? It
simply does not make sense.
Tenth, and
finally, as theologian Charles Ryrie points
out:
No deaconesses are
mentioned in any literature until the third-century
writing called the Didascalia. Here deaconesses
appear as a well-recognized and established order of
helpers who were either to be virgins or once-married
widows.”[iii]
That statement truly
sheds a lot of light. The 3rd Century Didascalia
(“Teaching of the Apostles”) was a revision of the
2nd Century writings called the Didache
(“Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”). These had much
biblical Truth in them dealing with morals, ethics,
church practice, and the hope of Jesus’ return, but they
were not Scripture and added things that were not in
Scripture. This clearly demonstrates, therefore, that at
the very least, unbiblical qualifications were
added to a so-called office of deaconess—“virgins or
once-married widows” are not listed by Paul but added by
men. Is it not very possible, therefore, that even the
office had been created by
men? Indeed, the absence of the office in literature
until the 3rd Century Didascalia
strongly implies that it was a totally man-made
position.
I would like to close on a
positive note. Whichever position we take on the “tough
texts” of this study, what is important is our service
to God. No matter who we are, we are to serve and
glorify God according to His prescribed methods.
Soli deo
gloria (to God alone be the
glory).
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
