Return to Answer

improved formating

Source Link

edited Jun 21, 2021 at 15:25

11.6k
5
36
110

Note, for example, Epaphras, a man associated with the church in Colossians. In Col 1:7 he is called a DIAKONOS, yet no translation (that I know of) regards him as a deacon; in 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a DIAKONOS—and Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus. But he obviously was not a deacon. So, why then should we call Phoebe a ‘deacon’? The term is thus rather flexible and it seems gratuitous to call Phoebe a deacon in Rom 16:7.

Second, 1 Tim 3:11: This text does not even mention the word DIAKONOS.1 Rather, it used the word ‘women’ (or ‘wives’). It is wedged in the middle of a discussion of the qualifications for deacons (vv. 8-13). The argument that it refers to women deacons is precisely this: it is in the context of deacons. Further, a second argument is that if wives were intended, why does Paul mention nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7)?

In response are five arguments: (1) If women deacons are in view in v. 11

(1) If women deacons are in view in v.

11, it seems rather strange that they should be discussed right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons, rather than by themselves; (2) Paul indeed seems to go out of his way to indicate that

(2) Paul indeed seems to go out of his way to indicate

that women are NOT deacons in the very next verse, for he says “Deacons must be husbands of one wife”; (3) as to why he didn’t mention

(3) as to why he didn’t

mention wives in the section on elders, there are one of two possibilities that come to mind: (a) since Paul was addressing some real problems in Ephesus, it may well be that the deacons’ wives had been a major concern; (b) concomitantly, since deacons’ duties involved taking care of physical needs, they would have been in control of the mercy funds in the church—and, if so, it would be imperative for their wives to be ‘dignified, not scandalmongers, but sober, and trustworthy in everything’ (REB). One can readily see the psychological realities of such instructions to deacons’ wives: they must be tight-lipped when it came to discussing the very personal needs of the body. (4) Again, if v. 11 is addressed to women deacons, why

(4) Again, if v. 11 is addressed to women deacons,

why are most of the qualifications not listed—that is, the only qualifications that pertain to the women would be the four items listed in this verse. But would they be allowed to be addicted to strong drink? Wouldn’t they have to prove themselves blameless before serving as deacons? Wouldn’t they have to hold fast to the mystery of the faith in a good conscience? The very fact that all these requirements seem so universal and yet are given specifically only to the men seems to argue against women deacons being in view in v. 11. (5) Finally, the original manuscripts of the New Testament were not divided

(5) Finally, the original manuscripts of the New Testament were not

divided by chapters and verses. And sometimes our divisions get in the way of seeing the overall context. There seems to be an unnatural break between chapters 2 and 3—or, at least, one that is too abrupt. I take it that 2:8 through 3:16 are all addressing conduct in the church. The issues revolve around men and women throughout these two chapters. And the very fact that Paul says in 2:12 that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men seems to govern what he says in chapter 3 as well. Thus, if deacons are in a role of exercising authority, then I would argue that Paul implicitly restricts such a role to men. [...]

Note, for example, Epaphras, a man associated with the church in Colossians. In Col 1:7 he is called a DIAKONOS, yet no translation (that I know of) regards him as a deacon; in 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a DIAKONOS—and Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus. But he obviously was not a deacon. So, why then should we call Phoebe a ‘deacon’? The term is thus rather flexible and it seems gratuitous to call Phoebe a deacon in Rom 16:7.

Second, 1 Tim 3:11: This text does not even mention the word DIAKONOS.1 Rather, it used the word ‘women’ (or ‘wives’). It is wedged in the middle of a discussion of the qualifications for deacons (vv. 8-13). The argument that it refers to women deacons is precisely this: it is in the context of deacons. Further, a second argument is that if wives were intended, why does Paul mention nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7)?

In response are five arguments: (1) If women deacons are in view in v. 11, it seems rather strange that they should be discussed right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons, rather than by themselves; (2) Paul indeed seems to go out of his way to indicate that women are NOT deacons in the very next verse, for he says “Deacons must be husbands of one wife”; (3) as to why he didn’t mention wives in the section on elders, there are one of two possibilities that come to mind: (a) since Paul was addressing some real problems in Ephesus, it may well be that the deacons’ wives had been a major concern; (b) concomitantly, since deacons’ duties involved taking care of physical needs, they would have been in control of the mercy funds in the church—and, if so, it would be imperative for their wives to be ‘dignified, not scandalmongers, but sober, and trustworthy in everything’ (REB). One can readily see the psychological realities of such instructions to deacons’ wives: they must be tight-lipped when it came to discussing the very personal needs of the body. (4) Again, if v. 11 is addressed to women deacons, why are most of the qualifications not listed—that is, the only qualifications that pertain to the women would be the four items listed in this verse. But would they be allowed to be addicted to strong drink? Wouldn’t they have to prove themselves blameless before serving as deacons? Wouldn’t they have to hold fast to the mystery of the faith in a good conscience? The very fact that all these requirements seem so universal and yet are given specifically only to the men seems to argue against women deacons being in view in v. 11. (5) Finally, the original manuscripts of the New Testament were not divided by chapters and verses. And sometimes our divisions get in the way of seeing the overall context. There seems to be an unnatural break between chapters 2 and 3—or, at least, one that is too abrupt. I take it that 2:8 through 3:16 are all addressing conduct in the church. The issues revolve around men and women throughout these two chapters. And the very fact that Paul says in 2:12 that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men seems to govern what he says in chapter 3 as well. Thus, if deacons are in a role of exercising authority, then I would argue that Paul implicitly restricts such a role to men. [...]

Note, for example, Epaphras, a man associated with the church in Colossians. In Col 1:7 he is called a DIAKONOS, yet no translation (that I know of) regards him as a deacon; in 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a DIAKONOS—and Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus. But he obviously was not a deacon. So, why then should we call Phoebe a ‘deacon’? The term is thus rather flexible and it seems gratuitous to call Phoebe a deacon in Rom 16:7.

Second, 1 Tim 3:11: This text does not even mention the word DIAKONOS.1 Rather, it used the word ‘women’ (or ‘wives’). It is wedged in the middle of a discussion of the qualifications for deacons (vv. 8-13). The argument that it refers to women deacons is precisely this: it is in the context of deacons. Further, a second argument is that if wives were intended, why does Paul mention nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7)?

In response are five arguments:

(1) If women deacons are in view in v.

11, it seems rather strange that they should be discussed right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons, rather than by themselves;

(2) Paul indeed seems to go out of his way to indicate

that women are NOT deacons in the very next verse, for he says “Deacons must be husbands of one wife”;

(3) as to why he didn’t

mention wives in the section on elders, there are one of two possibilities that come to mind: (a) since Paul was addressing some real problems in Ephesus, it may well be that the deacons’ wives had been a major concern; (b) concomitantly, since deacons’ duties involved taking care of physical needs, they would have been in control of the mercy funds in the church—and, if so, it would be imperative for their wives to be ‘dignified, not scandalmongers, but sober, and trustworthy in everything’ (REB). One can readily see the psychological realities of such instructions to deacons’ wives: they must be tight-lipped when it came to discussing the very personal needs of the body.

(4) Again, if v. 11 is addressed to women deacons,

why are most of the qualifications not listed—that is, the only qualifications that pertain to the women would be the four items listed in this verse. But would they be allowed to be addicted to strong drink? Wouldn’t they have to prove themselves blameless before serving as deacons? Wouldn’t they have to hold fast to the mystery of the faith in a good conscience? The very fact that all these requirements seem so universal and yet are given specifically only to the men seems to argue against women deacons being in view in v. 11.

(5) Finally, the original manuscripts of the New Testament were not

divided by chapters and verses. And sometimes our divisions get in the way of seeing the overall context. There seems to be an unnatural break between chapters 2 and 3—or, at least, one that is too abrupt. I take it that 2:8 through 3:16 are all addressing conduct in the church. The issues revolve around men and women throughout these two chapters. And the very fact that Paul says in 2:12 that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men seems to govern what he says in chapter 3 as well. Thus, if deacons are in a role of exercising authority, then I would argue that Paul implicitly restricts such a role to men. [...]

Source Link

created Jun 20, 2021 at 16:55

Michael16

The translations using deacon or minister for Pheobe in Romans 16:1 are clearly biased, as they didn't use deacon in John 2:9. It is not exclusive to NLT. I don't think this bias about deacon office in the Church maybe necessarily derived by the misinterpretation that she was being a patron from the Church funds itself. Such a view is ridiculous, as if that was the case, Paul wouldn't have praised her for her personal patronage. How can anyone be called a patron if they merely use the Church funds?

Paul's instructions excludes women to have any role of authority over men, so it leaves no room for the feminists to justify their position, but even if we consider the office of a deacon for a woman, then it would imply that it has no authority over men. So, we shouldn't have objections to the translations or the groups who call some females as deacons, ministers and apostles, as this doesn't contradict with the overall gender roles in the Church. However, the more reputable versions us servant for Phoebe.

Bible org site writes on this topic of female deacons:

Note, for example, Epaphras, a man associated with the church in Colossians. In Col 1:7 he is called a DIAKONOS, yet no translation (that I know of) regards him as a deacon; in 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a DIAKONOS—and Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus. But he obviously was not a deacon. So, why then should we call Phoebe a ‘deacon’? The term is thus rather flexible and it seems gratuitous to call Phoebe a deacon in Rom 16:7.

Second, 1 Tim 3:11: This text does not even mention the word DIAKONOS.1 Rather, it used the word ‘women’ (or ‘wives’). It is wedged in the middle of a discussion of the qualifications for deacons (vv. 8-13). The argument that it refers to women deacons is precisely this: it is in the context of deacons. Further, a second argument is that if wives were intended, why does Paul mention nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7)?

In response are five arguments: (1) If women deacons are in view in v. 11, it seems rather strange that they should be discussed right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons, rather than by themselves; (2) Paul indeed seems to go out of his way to indicate that women are NOT deacons in the very next verse, for he says “Deacons must be husbands of one wife”; (3) as to why he didn’t mention wives in the section on elders, there are one of two possibilities that come to mind: (a) since Paul was addressing some real problems in Ephesus, it may well be that the deacons’ wives had been a major concern; (b) concomitantly, since deacons’ duties involved taking care of physical needs, they would have been in control of the mercy funds in the church—and, if so, it would be imperative for their wives to be ‘dignified, not scandalmongers, but sober, and trustworthy in everything’ (REB). One can readily see the psychological realities of such instructions to deacons’ wives: they must be tight-lipped when it came to discussing the very personal needs of the body. (4) Again, if v. 11 is addressed to women deacons, why are most of the qualifications not listed—that is, the only qualifications that pertain to the women would be the four items listed in this verse. But would they be allowed to be addicted to strong drink? Wouldn’t they have to prove themselves blameless before serving as deacons? Wouldn’t they have to hold fast to the mystery of the faith in a good conscience? The very fact that all these requirements seem so universal and yet are given specifically only to the men seems to argue against women deacons being in view in v. 11. (5) Finally, the original manuscripts of the New Testament were not divided by chapters and verses. And sometimes our divisions get in the way of seeing the overall context. There seems to be an unnatural break between chapters 2 and 3—or, at least, one that is too abrupt. I take it that 2:8 through 3:16 are all addressing conduct in the church. The issues revolve around men and women throughout these two chapters. And the very fact that Paul says in 2:12 that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men seems to govern what he says in chapter 3 as well. Thus, if deacons are in a role of exercising authority, then I would argue that Paul implicitly restricts such a role to men. [...]