Quote:
Originally Posted by barbino
My husband (a seminary student) says that per the Bible deacons should be men (Judges 6; 1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Timothy 3:1-7) but that there are deaconesses as the tradition varies from denomination to denomination. I try not to ask him for clarification too often but he does know where to find it.  |
That's one reading of the passages you cite -- that deacons should be men -- but not the only reading of them. (The Timothy ones at least; I don't know what Judges has to do with it, given that (a) the office of
diakonos is a New Testament concept, not a Hebrew one, and (b) there were female judges.) I know many seminary students, graduates and professors who would say it is not an accurate reading.
One could continue reading in 1 Timothy 3 to verse 11, which speaks of "the women" and seems to be talking about what kind of women should be deacons. (The other meaning would be that Paul is referring to deacon's wives, but that doesn't really fit contextually.) Then there's the case of Romans 16:1, where Paul specifically refers to Phoebe as a deacon. True, the word
diakonos, from which we get the English "deacon" literally means "servant" or "one who waits on others," so Paul could simply be calling her a servant of the church. But what, then, do we make of the fact that Paul used the masculine
diakonos rather than the feminine
diakona? It would seem that if he simply meant "servant" he would have used the later. His use of the masculine in reference to a women could suggest that he did indeed mean it as a title or designation, not simply as a description. Literally, he says "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, she is deacon (
ousan diakonon) of the assembly (church/
ekklesia) at Cenchrea."
I think one has to be careful about reading more into 1 Timothy than Paul intended. If indeed it is setting forth absolute requirements, then it would seem that deacons must not only be men, but must be married ("the husband of one wife") and fathers ("manage his children and his household well.") I think Paul's point was not that only men can be deacons (otherwise, why verse 11 about "the women"?), but rather one should be able to manage one's own affairs before one tries to manage the church's affairs, and that bigamists or polygamists need not apply.
It seems odd to say the least that a female diaconate would have existed under the early Church Fathers (which it did) if Paul had so clearly forbidden it. How these female deacons' roles compared to (or differed from) their male counterparts can certainly be debated, but it's pretty clear that Paul assumed women would be deacons.
Threaded Mode
