Does the Bible prohibit women from being deacons?
No, the Bible does not prohibit women from being deacons in the church. However, many church pastors and leaders prohibit women from serving as deacons and there are a couple of arguments that they use in order to try to justify their position of prohibition in this area.
Number one: they will quote 1st Timothy 3:1-13 which says (NIV), "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer [pastor of a church congregation] he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to mange his own family, how can he take care of God's church?). He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect [the New Living translation translates this as...'in the same way deacons must be people who are respected and have integrity'], sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives [the NIV study Bible footnotes indicate that 'the Greek for this phrase simply means '"the women'" and therefore could reafer to (1) deacons' wives or (2) deaconesses'] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."
The argument that the prohibitionists give here in favor of their position, is that the scriptural text is written in the male gender and refers to a male role model and therefore is in no way referring to women. Then they conclude that since the scripture text does not refer to women that it is automatically prohibiting women from the office of deacon. The problem with this argument is that Paul, the apostle identified a woman named Phoebe as a deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Romans 16:1-2 reads (NIV), "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea [other translations, including the New Living Translation, translates the word 'servant' as 'deacon']. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me."
Yes, there's a pink elephant in the room...and her name is Phoebe. If it were against God's word or spiritually unseemly for a woman to be a deacon then it seems as if Paul would have rebuked Phoebe instead of uplifting her in her position as deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Mostly all theologians admit the there is no question that the text is saying that Phoebe was a deacon. You would think that that would be the end of the argument and the fact that Phoebe was a deacon supported in her position by a man who wrote two thirds of the New Testament would put to rest any erroneous belief that the Bible teaches that women cannot be deacons. But, unfortunately this is not the case. When presented with the rebuttal that Phoebe was a deacon and that Paul recognized her as such, many of the prohibitionists will quote the following scriptural text in an effort to justify their position (which is the number 2 argument):
"In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word. This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism." (Acts 6:1-6 NIV)
Those opposed to women being assigned to the office of deacon in the church will use the above scriptural text to try to minimize the office of deacon that Phoebe was appointed to. They will say that the seven men spoken of in Acts 6:1-6 were ordained as deacons whereas Phoebe was not. First of all, the text in Acts never identified these seven men as deacons, only as those in charge of the distribution of food. Secondly, the text alludes to the task of food distribution being somewhat of a mundane task, but the text that we read in Timothy describing the office of a deacon didn't seem mundane at all, which furthers the point that these seven men were not identified as deacons because there is a probability that they may not have been deacons, but food distributors, just as the text says.
Thirdly, to be ordained in an office of the church simply means to be established in that office by an overseer of the church. How can we say that Phoebe was not ordained as a deacon when Paul, the apostle, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, specifically pointed her out, established her in the church of Cenchrea as a deacon, and essentially told everyone to respect and honor her as such? How much more ordained can she get? Phoebe was no less ordained to carry out the office of deacon than those seven men were ordained to carry out the duty of food distribution (it is still questionable whether or not they were established as deacons, because the text doesn't say that they were). Fifthly, I believe that if seven women had been chosen to distribute the food instead of seven men, then the text would be taken for no more than what it is...seven people chosen to distribute food and nothing more.
Finally, making the argument that since only men were chosen for the task of the food distribution [which many would then therefore argue that these men were consequently serving as deacons], that this automatically prohibits women from serving as deacons [since there were no women who were chosen to distribute the food] would be like arguing that since all of the men chosen as food distributors ["deacons"] were Jews, then only Jews can serve as deacons. I think most of us would view that type of thinking as preposterous. Yet, when it comes to thinking this way about men...that only they can serve as deacons [since they were selected for food distribution]... well, many don't see this type of thinking as preposterous. Come to think of it...I wonder how many deacons in the church today distribute food as part of their service of being a deacon. Seems like if this particular text in Acts is going to be used to identify men as being the only ones qualified to serve as deacons then it would follow that the service described in the text should automatically be part of the duty of that office. Hmmm.......
I'd like to know what you think. Please feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.
No, the Bible does not prohibit women from being deacons in the church. However, many church pastors and leaders prohibit women from serving as deacons and there are a couple of arguments that they use in order to try to justify their position of prohibition in this area.
Number one: they will quote 1st Timothy 3:1-13 which says (NIV), "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer [pastor of a church congregation] he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to mange his own family, how can he take care of God's church?). He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect [the New Living translation translates this as...'in the same way deacons must be people who are respected and have integrity'], sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives [the NIV study Bible footnotes indicate that 'the Greek for this phrase simply means '"the women'" and therefore could reafer to (1) deacons' wives or (2) deaconesses'] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."
The argument that the prohibitionists give here in favor of their position, is that the scriptural text is written in the male gender and refers to a male role model and therefore is in no way referring to women. Then they conclude that since the scripture text does not refer to women that it is automatically prohibiting women from the office of deacon. The problem with this argument is that Paul, the apostle identified a woman named Phoebe as a deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Romans 16:1-2 reads (NIV), "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea [other translations, including the New Living Translation, translates the word 'servant' as 'deacon']. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me."
Yes, there's a pink elephant in the room...and her name is Phoebe. If it were against God's word or spiritually unseemly for a woman to be a deacon then it seems as if Paul would have rebuked Phoebe instead of uplifting her in her position as deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Mostly all theologians admit the there is no question that the text is saying that Phoebe was a deacon. You would think that that would be the end of the argument and the fact that Phoebe was a deacon supported in her position by a man who wrote two thirds of the New Testament would put to rest any erroneous belief that the Bible teaches that women cannot be deacons. But, unfortunately this is not the case. When presented with the rebuttal that Phoebe was a deacon and that Paul recognized her as such, many of the prohibitionists will quote the following scriptural text in an effort to justify their position (which is the number 2 argument):
"In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word. This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism." (Acts 6:1-6 NIV)
Those opposed to women being assigned to the office of deacon in the church will use the above scriptural text to try to minimize the office of deacon that Phoebe was appointed to. They will say that the seven men spoken of in Acts 6:1-6 were ordained as deacons whereas Phoebe was not. First of all, the text in Acts never identified these seven men as deacons, only as those in charge of the distribution of food. Secondly, the text alludes to the task of food distribution being somewhat of a mundane task, but the text that we read in Timothy describing the office of a deacon didn't seem mundane at all, which furthers the point that these seven men were not identified as deacons because there is a probability that they may not have been deacons, but food distributors, just as the text says.
Thirdly, to be ordained in an office of the church simply means to be established in that office by an overseer of the church. How can we say that Phoebe was not ordained as a deacon when Paul, the apostle, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, specifically pointed her out, established her in the church of Cenchrea as a deacon, and essentially told everyone to respect and honor her as such? How much more ordained can she get? Phoebe was no less ordained to carry out the office of deacon than those seven men were ordained to carry out the duty of food distribution (it is still questionable whether or not they were established as deacons, because the text doesn't say that they were). Fifthly, I believe that if seven women had been chosen to distribute the food instead of seven men, then the text would be taken for no more than what it is...seven people chosen to distribute food and nothing more.
Finally, making the argument that since only men were chosen for the task of the food distribution [which many would then therefore argue that these men were consequently serving as deacons], that this automatically prohibits women from serving as deacons [since there were no women who were chosen to distribute the food] would be like arguing that since all of the men chosen as food distributors ["deacons"] were Jews, then only Jews can serve as deacons. I think most of us would view that type of thinking as preposterous. Yet, when it comes to thinking this way about men...that only they can serve as deacons [since they were selected for food distribution]... well, many don't see this type of thinking as preposterous. Come to think of it...I wonder how many deacons in the church today distribute food as part of their service of being a deacon. Seems like if this particular text in Acts is going to be used to identify men as being the only ones qualified to serve as deacons then it would follow that the service described in the text should automatically be part of the duty of that office. Hmmm.......
I'd like to know what you think. Please feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.
4 comments:
The proper reference is Romans 16:1, I am sure this was a typo.
Referring to the word servant. It is debated whether διάκονος (diakonos) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church.
In the NT some who are called διάκονος are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon.
In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance.
In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation
(the Net Bible) above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative.
Quoted from the Net Bible - note to Romans 16:1
Please see Bible.org
Elreta - great work. Keep writing on the equality of gender for God is not a respector of persons.
This is a huge problem in the church today and oddly enough many think it is a "liberal feminist" idea. Actually, in my opinion, I believe it is a "conservative position" to hold to the concept that God is not a respector of persons - neither male or female. (Even the unbeliving feminist without grace knows she is equal in her soul.)
The issue is clearly the priesthood of the believer and not female arrogance on the part of women or a lack of being submissive to authority. It is the other way round. I am speaking of a mature Christian woman.
Placed along side other remarks by the Apostle Paul concerning regeneration ... the arguements simply falls apart.
What does it mean to be regenerated?
Listen to what Paul says concerning believers. This passage is NOT being addressed to males only ... I have interjected "(male & female believer)" to make the point.
-----------------------------------------
Col 2:6 "Therefore as you (male & female believers) have received Christ Jesus the Lord, {so} walk in Him, having been firmly rooted {and now} being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you (male & female believers) were instructed, {and} overflowing with gratitude.
See to it that no one takes you (male or female believers) captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you (male & female believers) have been made COMPLETE, and He is the head over ALL rule and authority; and in Him you (male and female believer) were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; (you male and female believers) having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you (you men and women) were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
When you (male and females) were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you - (male and female) - alive together with Him, having forgiven us (males and females) all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us (male and female), which was hostile to us (both male and female); and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, (male and females) having triumphed over them through Him.
Therefore no one (male or female) is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a {mere} shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."
"Let NO ONE (male or female) keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on {visions} he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshy mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the ENTIRE body (male and female), being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is FROM GOD.”
(This SPEAKS OF EQUALITY - a "hand" is not greater than a "foot" nor does it have more authority. Growth comes from God ... not from males or females.)
“If you (male or female) have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you (male or female) were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees*, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all {refer} {to} things destined to perish with use)--in accordance to the commandments and teachings of men?"
(*do not speak...same connotation.)
"These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self abasement and severe treatment of the body, {but are} of no value against fleshly indulgence.
(Chapter 3) Therefore, if you (men and women) have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, NOT on the things that are on earth. For you -(men & women) have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. "
------------------------------------------
Now I could go on and on regarding the priesthood of the believer . . . throughout the New Testament.
What does the word say about the Doctrine of Nicolaitanism spoken of regarding the church of Pergea.* (info provided below)
Do men have a leadership role? Absolutely. Not a domineering role. Women, clearly, are called also for the "gifts" were poured out upon all mankind as God wills it. (Check the Greek.)
Who, oh man, are YOU to dictate to God Almighty regarding his precious elect?
Surly the Apostle Paul was writing letters to encourage, give insight, and correct some specific problems that involved certain women and men who were either immature Christians, or “tares” sown in the body. Men and especially pastors and theologians have twisted what he said ... for it does not harmonize Colossians 2-3 at all.
(The doctrine of the Nicolaitans was mentioned in the Apocalypse of John to the churches of Pergamos and Ephesus of the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2. It is a symbolic name of a party that represents the hierarchy of a ruling class over the rest of the people, developing a pecking order of fleshly leadership. Jesus hates this and warns the people to repent or else "I will come upon you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth." The same warning illustration is applied to those that abused grace, which led to licentiousness from the example of Balaam, seducing Christians to fornication and tampering with idolatry. The individual overcomer is allowed to eat of the hidden manna and given a white stone with a new name written in it.)
This I know: "As a woman, chosen of God, I am complete in Christ, lacking nothing." I boast in the Lord my redeemer, the Holy Spirit my teacher. Thank you Father for showing me so clearly who I am in Christ. Thank you for maturing me and teaching me how to walk according the spirit and not according to the flesh. Thank you also for your wonderful men who share the work you have called us all to, who love, accept and respect my calling also.
In God's Kingdom there are Bishops...overseers, elders, and deacon's and the priesthood who are the people. These are positions of servanthood and humility..not a ring on the ladder of success. In the western world we think of offices in churches like management position in business. These position's in God's kingdom are not like that. There is a seriousness that comes a long with serving in these position and are not to be taken lightly. Those who want to be an true overseer...who most likely would be few if taken seriously because of the what it takes to lay their lives down and completely serve unselfishly. Elders are those who are older and wiser in the community they are truly an example to the sheep and their hearts are set on serving God and the people. Deacons are those who again serve unselfishly in practical ways always looking to help those in need. Then the priesthood of believers who are learning and growing more holy learn servitude and how to love while following the example of those who serve them first. My bible says that women do have a place and that is to teach other women to love their children and husbands. They are to make their homes heavenly and work to love and care for their families and those around them. I do not believe they are to seek to be an overseer but may or may not be an elder(older wiser person)(depending if bishop is an elder) or they can be a deacon. But then again these positions are not positions of lording over but of humility and fear of the Lord. I think to many today make light of being called to the ministry. It seems glamorous and important to hold these positions. Everyone is doing it now and we have lost the true meaning of what the positions are really is about. We lost what the ekklesia (church)...not a build made by man, but a spiritual house being built by God.
I noticed in your article that you quoted from the NIV.
www.jesus-is-lord.com is a good website that goes into great detail about the modern bibles verses the KJV. And btw its hosted by a woman also.
Post a Comment