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.
November 20, 2006 at 7:16 pm
definitely the best translation is that women can be deacons. what is my reasoning? women might read my comment. no really, there are several prominent women in the bible, especially that woman judge in the old testament who totally kicked some tail. second, i propose that God intentionally directed this to be written where it could be interpreted either way. why? because there are too many male chauvinists whose ego would explode if women were allowed to be over them. so he knew it would take a generation like ours that is more progressive to interpret it differently and be able to handle it. for example, why do so many of our preachers always preach about the woman’s role in a marriage but i had to read it for myself to find out what a man’s role is besides just being the head of the house. my point is that some preachers can’t handle the deaconess interpretation. so God threw them a bone.
LikeLike
November 21, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Could you please define “Deacon”? Is it just an ordained minister? A pastor? In the Apostolic Assembly a deacon is a man (never a woman) who has been “set aside” for the ministry. They are set aside for 2 years, and then evaluated. If the powers that be approve him after two years, then he is ordained as a minister.
Is the debate whether woman should be ordained, or whether woman should be able to minister at all? Frame the issue for me so I can jump in swinging! 🙂 HAHAHA!
LikeLike
November 21, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Anonymous,
Interesting take, but no matter how many prominent women may or may not be in the Bible, it doesn’t decide whether there are or are not to be women deaconesses.
And I find it interesting that you would think God made the verse ambiguous so that people could decide the issue for themselves, fitting the Bible to their ideas rather than allowing the Bible to shape their ideas. It seems that God is in the habbit of communicating truth. The lack of clarity is surely the result of our temporal, cultural, and geographical distance from the original text.
Jason
LikeLike
November 21, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Seni,
No, I can’t. The Bible is not clear on the function of a deacon. Those in Acts 6 are not called deacons, but many theologians believe they functioned as deacons. If that is so, then deacons are involved with serving others in the church. Others, based on I Tim 3 believe deacons are bishops-in-training.
The Apostolic Assembly takes the latter interpretation. The whole 2 year set-aside thing is their own idea, though.
No, the debate is not whether women should be able to minister. Sorry Seni!
LikeLike
January 5, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“Deacons likewise must be dignified… Likewise [women? wives?] must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect. Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households.”(I Timothy 3:8-13)
“Bishops must be dignified. Likewise, deacons must be dignified. Likewise, women must be dignified.” Couldn’t be clearer: women cannot be deacons any more than deacons can be bishops. Whether it’s referring to wives or other women is irrelevant
LikeLike