NASB (New American Standard Bible)
Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 3:9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 3:10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 3:11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 3:13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (I Timothy 3:8-13)
NET Bible
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain, 3:9 holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 3:10 And these also must be tested first and then let them serve as deacons if they are found blameless. 3:11 Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect. 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households. 3:13 For those who have served well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (I Timothy 3:8-13)
Notice the difference in the two translations (the bold-faced words in particular)? The underlying Greek word behind these two different renderings is gunaikas. The word can be translated as “women” or “wives” depending on the context. There is considerable scholarly debate over which choice is the proper translation in this particular context. Most translations translate it as does the NET Bible: wives. Some, however, translate it as “women.” Many translations note that it could be translated either way.
Why does this matter? It is important to the doctrine of ecclesiology. If gunaikas refers to “women” in general this is positive proof that the office of deacon can be held by women as well as men. If “wives” is the correct translation, however, it is not.
New Testament scholar Andreas Kostenberger argues that the proper translation is “women” and thus Paul is referring to women deaconesses. You can read his arguments here.
The NET Bible offers the following footnote that summarizes some of the same arguments presented by Kostenberger et al, but argues for the superiority of translating gunaikas as “wives”:
Or “also deaconesses.” The Greek word here is γυναῖκας (gunaikas) which literally means “women” or “wives.” It is possible that this refers to women who serve as deacons, “deaconesses.” The evidence is as follows: (1) The immediate context refers to deacons; (2) the author mentions nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7); (3) it would seem strange to have requirements placed on deacons’ wives without corresponding requirements placed on elders’ wives; and (4) elsewhere in the NT, there seems to be room for seeing women in this role (cf. Rom 16:1 and the comments there).
The translation “wives” – referring to the wives of the deacons – is probably to be preferred, though, for the following reasons: (1) It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. (2) The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” (3) Most of the qualifications given for deacons elsewhere do not appear here. Either the author has truncated the requirements for women deacons, or he is not actually referring to women deacons; the latter seems to be the more natural understanding. (4) The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men. Nevertheless, a decision in this matter is difficult, and our conclusions must be regarded as tentative.
While this is only an introduction to the debate, I think these two sources present some of the most compelling arguments in behalf of each view. You be the judge as to which is correct.
May 1, 2006 at 8:46 am
If a deacon is to be “the husband of one wife”……Does that mean that a man must have a wife to be a deacon????!!!
If this logic is used, then a man must have a wife in order to be a bishop?
LikeLike
May 1, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Possibly so. Good arguments could be made for saying a pastor or deacon should be married, but I don’t think that’s the point of the text.
You have to remember that this was a culture in which there was virtually no such thing as unmarried men. Marriage was viewed as a civic, if not religious duty. While there were certain individuals who remained single it was not the norm. In that context Paul’s statement should not be viewed as a requirement, but a limitation. It was taken for granted that the deacon would be married, but there was a limitation on his marriage: it must be to one wife. Scholars disagree about what this limitation means. Does it limit polygamy (having more than one wife at a time), remarriage (having more than one wife consecutively), or is it just saying a deacon needs to be a one-woman kind of guy? Regardless of what it does mean, it’s pretty clear that it doesn’t mean a deacon must be married (or an elder for that matter).
How do we know this? The person who penned these verses was himself single. If one had to be married to be qualified for ministry then Paul himself was an illegitimate minister. No one is going to argue that, and thus the whole idea collapses.
LikeLike
May 2, 2006 at 9:19 am
Right.
We can’t really say the passage is requring all deacons and bishops to have a wife.
I also believe we can’t say the passage is limiting the position of deacon and bishop to male’s only.
LikeLike
May 2, 2006 at 10:27 am
I think people get in such an uproar when we talk about “positions in the church” because they are seen as limited in number, and highly desired. I think they are highly desired because they are positions of honor and respect. And, of course, humans have ALWAYS desired the high positions of honor and respect! :0)
In my opinion, God has a different idea. His ways are different. Jesus taught servanthood. If the church had the right attitude about these “positions” it wouldn’t be such an issue. In fact, only the truly spiritual would desire these positions of servanthood and service.
I also think our idea and set-up of the church is way off. We shouldn’t desire to rule over each other. We shouldn’t allow one person to rule over the believers. We all get the same info from the same source->God. Everyone has different spiritual gifts, and they need to be use and valued-> for the edification of the whole body. Not for the edification of that person. Nobody should be edified! We should only see Jesus.
I’m not really sure what the BIBLICAL difference is between all the “positions” in the church->deacon, bishop, AND apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, and elders. {There may be more, just can’t think of them……}
How do we define each “position”->BIBLICALLY?
Who was Phoebe? What “position” did she hold in Cenchrea? And why did Paul tell the Roman church to assist her in anything she has need of? And what did he mean by “she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also”?->
Romans 16:1-2 KJV
“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.”
One commentary says the word “servant” here is really the Greek word “deaconness”.
What about Nympha? What “position” did she hold? Was she the pastor of the church in her own house? Oh, but didn’t she know that she isn’t suppose to do that? {sarcasm}->
Colossians 4:15 KJV
“Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.”
What about Priscilla ?
we know that she taught others, even men (Acts 18:26), and what “position” did she hold in her house church? And how did she “lay down her neck for Paul?” ->
Romans 16:3-5 KJV
“Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house…
Oh, and what about Deborah in the OT. We can’t forget Deborah.
Do you know of a complete list of Biblical church “positions” and their Biblical definitions? And the Biblical reasons of why women are to be excluded from these “positions”? And I don’t think Corinthians will suffice. And what say God? So many people form their opinion, without asking God what he thinks.
So, in conclusion, I believe women can hold ANY “position” in the church that God calls them to. I believe EVERY true Biblical position is to be a position of servanthood, service, and there is no place for pride or arrogance.
God Bless!
LikeLike
May 2, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Linda,
While it is somewhat off the topic, and something I will not argue for here, I do think we can say authoritatively that bishops (pastors) must be male. I think Scripture is rather clear in that regard. Based on what you wrote, and based on the fact that I am not substantiating my position here, I don’t expect for you to agree with me. My silence on the issue might improperly communicate agreement, so I feel the need to at least state my position and register my disagreement without further comment.
In regards to your second post I agree with you that we often want glory rather than to be servants. But the problem is not with calling something a “position.” It is what it is. What we have to watch is our attitude concerning it.
The Bible does not clearly define many of the positions/functions it names. We don’t even find much in the way of example to see what they did. The only evangelist we know of in Scripture (Phillip) seems to have stayed in one city for about 20 years. Prophets seemed to be the traveling ones, and part of their job involved encouragement as well as actual future-telling. Apostles begin new works and are the doctrinal authority in the church. Teachers…well the name says it all. Deacons? The only thing we see deacons doing are serving tables. They seem to have been involved in carrying out the “mundane” work required of administration so the five-fold ministry could focus on the spiritual.
Jason
LikeLike
May 2, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Sorry, I tend to get off topic.
I’m trying to work on this.
This post is titled “Women Deacons: To Be or Not to Be?”
For this, here is a Biblical example of a woman deacon:
Romans 16:1 NLT
Our sister Phoebe, a deacon in the church in Cenchrea, will be coming to see you soon. 2 Receive her in the Lord, as one who is worthy of high honor. Help her in every way you can, for she has helped many in their needs, including me.
LikeLike
May 5, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Linda,
The NET Bible note I quoted in my original post noted Romans 16:1 as a reason to support your view (as well as the Kostenberger article I linked to). The question is whether the term diakonos in Romans 16:1 is being used in a technical sense to refer to an official job/office, or in a general sense to refer to one who performs services for others. Scripture uses the term both ways. See Mt 22:13; Jn 2:5, 9; Rom 13:4; Phil 1:1; I Tim 3:8, 12 for the former, and Mt 20:26; 23:11; Mk 9:35; 10:43; Jn 12:26; Rom 13:8; I Cor 3:5; II Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 23; Gal 2:17; Eph 3:7; 6:21; Col 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; I Tim 4:6 for the latter.
Concerning the instances in which diakonos is used to refer to an official job/office it typically refers to servants of a lord or king, or to secular rulers. It is only used of a church position in Phil 1:1; I Tim 3:8, 12. It is possible that it is being used that way in Eph 6:21; Col 1:7; 4:7 as well, but not likely.
I say all of that to say this: the fact that Phoebe is called a diakonos in itself does not tell us she held the position of deacon in the local church. The context must bear that out. I happen to think the context does bear it out. Phoebe is not called a diakonos of Christ, but a diakonos of the church in Cenchrea. That seems to indicate a special function and recognition in that local church.
Jason
LikeLike
May 6, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Hey Jason,
Like the site. A question for you: Have you read Books and Culture May/June 2006 issue? If not, get it and begin on page 8. There are two interesting articles that will be worth your time (possibly to post onto your blog).
LikeLike
May 8, 2006 at 4:37 pm
No I have not. Is it available online?
Jason
LikeLike
May 9, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Linda,
I thought you mind find this excerpt from Andreas Kostenberger’s article entitled “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles” helpful:
“When comparing the qualifications for deacons with those for overseers, one notes the absence of terms related to teaching or ruling (most notably—“able to teach,” 3:2; see also 3:5b). This suggests that, in keeping with the designation “deacon” (from the Greek diakonos, “servant”) as over against “overseer,” deacons are not part of that group that bears ultimate responsibility for the church.49 At the same time, they, too, occupy a formal church office, for which they must meet certain requirements. While not part of the teaching/ruling body of the church, deacons nonetheless hold important leadership roles. This is most notably indicated by the similarity between the qualifications for overseers and deacons.50 Although Paul does not spell out the precise realm of service for the office of deacon, one may surmise that this includes various kinds of practical help and administration, such as benevolence, finances, and physical maintenance.”
Available at http://biblicalfoundations.org/pdf/Nota%20Bene–%20P_ARTICLES_PASTOR%7E1_NB%20%20Job%20%201.pdf
Jason
LikeLike
January 22, 2007 at 2:40 am
Okay, Jason. I’ve returned to leave a link concerning the Books and Culture May/June 2006 issue. Let me know on what your take is on this. Here’s the link:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/003/2.8html
LikeLike
March 24, 2007 at 8:43 pm
That link didn’t work for me.
LikeLike