Another approach sometimes taken in the effort to find a Biblical argument for women to exercise leadership positions over men in the church is the “deaconess” allegation. The evidence offered is scant and insubstantial: an appeal is made to three passages of Scripture: Romans 16:1, 1 Timothy 3:11, and 1 Timothy 5:9-10. Each of these deserves an examination.
In Romans 16:1 Paul commends a woman named Phoebe and refers to her as “a servant of the church in Cenchrea.” The word translated “servant” by the King James and the New King James is the Greek word diakonos, which transliterates into “deacon,” as baptisma does into “baptism.” A transliteration means that the Greek word has been given an English pronunciation instead of being translated.
So how is diakonos translated in the New Testament? The word appears thirty times. The King James’ translators used “servant” seven times, “minister” twenty times, and “deacon” three times. Twenty-seven times, then, diakonos is translated as “minister” or “servant,” but three times the word is transliterated as “deacon.” The translators chose not to translate the word when it referred to a church office. Following are those three occasions.
Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1).
Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money (1 Tim. 3:8).
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well (1 Tim. 3:12).
The translators needed another choice in these passages than “servant” or “minister” due to the fact that Paul is referring to a particular office (work) in the church. They went with the transliterated “deacon.”
Someone might point out that the American Standard, the New American Standard, and the New International all have footnotes on Romans 16:1 that say “or deaconess.” Linguistically, it is appropriate to point out that possibility. But the decision must be based upon whether or not Paul is clearly referring to a church office (as clearly as in the other three verses). Since various commentators hold opposing views on this subject, the usage in Romans 16:1 is obviously not clearly referring to an office.
Paul’s remarks in Romans 16:2 might be cited as evidence for this view, but there is nothing in the verse that could not be said of a number of brothers or sisters, who hold no office. Epaphroditus is likewise commended, termed “a messenger” and one “who ministered” to Paul’s needs; furthermore, Paul encourages the Philippians to “receive him in the Lord with all gladness, and hold such men in esteem; because for the work of Christ he came close to death” (Phil. 2:25-30). Yet there is no indication that this great servant held a church office, nor has anyone suggested it.
The Pulpit Commentary thinks the verse implies that Phoebe held an office, but such a conclusion is merely guesswork and hardly constitutes ironclad evidence. M. R. Vincent, in his Word Studies in the New Testament cites a work called The Apostolical Constitutions, which distinguished deaconesses from widows and virgins, prescribed their duties, and presented a form for their ordination (2:752). This work also uses a feminine form to refer to these sisters, diakonissa, which would transliterate to “deaconess.”
There is a problem with using this “evidence.” First, that word is not used in the New Testament (perhaps because it had not yet been invented), and by Vincent’s own admission The Apostolical Constitutions was a “collection of ecclesiastical prescripts in eight books, containing doctrinal, liturgical, and moral instructions, and dating from the third, or possibly from the close of the second, century” (2:1196). Whoops! Even taking the earliest possible date, the work is 100 years too late for it to be considered authoritative. We know that departures in church organization constituted the very earliest of errors. Any innovation later than the New Testament cannot authorize a practice.
In this text Paul encourages the church to honor (support financially) widows “who are really widows.” The qualifications for enrollment were: 1) she had no family to care for her (4); she was spiritually-minded (5); 3) she must be sixty years old (9); she has been the wife of one man (9); she is well reported of for her good works, which included bringing up children, lodging strangers, washing the saints’ feet, relieving the afflicted, and diligently following every good work (10).
Nothing is mentioned in this text about her holding any office in the church; she is not even called “a servant of the church,” as was Phoebe. The qualifications listed are not intended to qualify someone for holding an office; their purpose is to qualify women for receiving support from the church. If this passage were describing “deaconesses,” it would be a great curiosity that these women must be over sixty and single while their male counterparts must be married and have children (1 Tim. 3:12)!
In the context Paul does list a number of qualification for elders and deacons. Some would argue that verse 11 is a third office–that of deaconess. Paul first discusses the bishops (elders) in verses 1-7. In the next three verses is found a shorter list of qualifications for deacons. Then follows this verse:
Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things (1 Tim. 3:11).
The passage then concludes with two more verses concerning deacons.
Are “the wives” or “the women” (depending on the translation) therefore deaconesses? There are several reasons why such is not the case.
1. Paul did not use the word diakonos when referring to the women; he could have made it clear that this was a third office if, in fact, it were.
2. Once again, the best that anyone can do is say that this verse implies deaconesses, which again does not constitute proof, especially when there is another, more natural explanation of the verse’s meaning.
3. How odd that there are eighteen qualifications for elder, nine for a deacon, and only four for a deaconess! If men and women are equal with respect to their roles in the church as a diakonos, they should have equal qualifications.
4. There are no family criteria, as there are for the men. The women do not need to be married or have children (if, in fact, this verse applies to a deaconess).
The likelihood is that Paul is referring to the wives of both elders and deacons. Both were to be married and have their children in subjection. It is only logical that Paul would mention some qualities that should characterize their wives. Since their husbands are involved in the spiritual work of the church, their wives should likewise be spiritually-minded women.
There is no case for deaconesses, not even a good circumstantial one. Phoebe was a servant, but no one has proven that she was more than that. I Timothy 5 certainly does not mention such an office, and the idea must be forced into 1 Timothy 3, since it is not naturally found there.
But suppose that, even though a compelling case is lacking, such an office did exist. On the basis of all the other passages, would we have any right to conclude that the women, even if they were deaconesses, had any authority over the men? The author of Barnes Notes makes some interesting and pertinent comments about deaconesses in Romans 16:1:
It is clear from the New Testament that there was an order of women in the church known as deaconesses. Reference is made to a class of females whose duty it was to teach other females, and to take the general superintendence of that part of the church, in various places in the New Testament; and their existence is expressly affirmed in early ecclesiastical history. They appear to have been commonly and aged and experienced widows, sustaining a fair reputation, and fitted to guide and instruct those who were young and inexperienced; comp. 1 Tim. v. 9-11; Tit. ii.4. The Apostolical Constitutions, book iii. say, “Ordain a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministries toward the women” (10:2:326).
Barnes combines all three passages heretofore examined and, along with the reference to the aforementioned, third-century work, concludes that there were deaconesses in the church. But this paragraph does not help the feminist cause at all because he claims that this so-called office was for “ministries toward women.” In other words, even if our analysis of the three passages were totally off-base, and there actually was an office of deaconess, and Phoebe was really a deaconess, none of these things would in any way prove that women exercised authority over men in the church. At best, it would prove that they served other women, and there has never been any quarrel against that concept!
It would be quite presumptuous for any congregation to appoint women as deaconesses without clear Biblical authority to do so, and that authority is lacking in the New Testament. What attitude prompts a congregation to alienate some of its own members and risk fellowship with sister congregations by appointing women to an office, which is not plainly set forth in the Scriptures?
Some may argue that certain women would do an outstanding job if they were appointed. So would some men, who are likewise excluded. What about those men who are single or who have never had children? Are they less spiritual or efficient? Paul revealed the qualifications for elder and deacon and in giving them excluded himself! Whereas Peter could write that he was “a fellow elder,” Paul could not. So Paul could not be an elder or a deacon, but who, besides Jesus, ever made a greater impact for the cause of Christ?
Being denied a role in leadership should not discourage anyone, male or female, from being a servant. None of us needs a title to accomplish good things for God. Teenagers have been known to study with and baptize others into Christ. Many singles (male and female) have rendered invaluable service to the kingdom. The example and encouragement of children has been known to bring adults to obedience. Anyone can serve and therefore be great in the eyes of God (Matt. 23:11). Perhaps the fault lies in viewing such offices as positions of honor rather than a work to be performed.
Various women were an important part of the ministry of Jesus (Luke 8:1-3), and others were a vital part of the New Testament church. No one needs to feel sad or useless in the kingdom of God based on various roles or qualifications for those roles, because there is plenty of service to perform: everyone can have a share in the work.
An excellent reference work on this controversy is Feminism and the Bible by Dr. Jack Cottrell, Professor of Theology at Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary (affiliated with the Christian Church). His book provides a history of feminist influence on the role of women, from Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Betty Friedan and beyond. Besides tracing feminist thought through these recent times, he also covers “goddess” theology, which has seen a surge in popularity of late. The book was published by College Press in Joplin, Missouri, contains 358 pages, and was published in 1992.
A book not recommended, except for purposes of refutation, is by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, published in 1997 by Baker. Her defense of equal roles for men and women consists of much verbiage and little substance. One can read for pages in search of an argument and come away disappointed.
She dismisses 1 Timothy 2:9-15 with little more than a wave of the hand by citing F. F. Bruce on the passage: “It is merely a statement of practice at a particular time” (201). Ordinarily Bruce is an excellent scholar, but 1) we do not have the full context of his statement, and 2) even usually excellent scholars can be wrong. Where is an argument? This statement implies that Paul was referring to mere custom, but such a cursory statement does not deal with the fact that Paul’s references to Genesis transcend culture.
Groothuis finds fault with citing Biblical prooftexts (which is perhaps the reason she fails to do so) and then says: “It does not seem to occur to these people that there is room for debate on this issue within the bounds of biblical authority and orthodoxy” (145). There is plenty of room for debate; discussion is healthy. But there is no room to flatly oppose what the Bible teaches.
This quotation is bizarre: “It runs contrary to the context and intent of Ephesians 5:21-33 to see the analogy between the husband and wife and Christ in terms of authority” (153). Really? “For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church…” (Eph. 5:23). It certainly sounds like authority is part of the analogy. No doubt, this is what she means by prooftexting.
Most efforts which attempt to prove that women share equal roles with men, despite what the New Testament teaches, are equally lame. The reason is that they run contrary to the truth. It is difficult to make an effective argument against what is plainly taught in the Word of God; it is impossible to make a logical one. How unfortunate that some must continually be angry because of a role that God denied them–when they could be using all that energy in a positive way by being what Phoebe really was: a servant of the church.