Uh there is no word for woman deacon because deacon is without any specific gender. Paul actually creates a word in the 1 Timothy 3:11 to address women. There has been and continues to be much discussion concerning how that verse should be translated some say wife (which is loosing favor among scholars) and others say woman or even woman deacon. Though I am not a huge John MacArthur fan, he does a good job discussing this passage in his commentary and comes to the conclusion that Paul here was addressing men deacons and women deacons, two different "offices" or "roles" in the church.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Women Preachers
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
freeatlast
New Member
You are not exactly correct. There is no feminine gender in the Greek for server which is where the English term Deacon came from. Deacon is just one way to translate the Greek word. As to Paul creating a word in 1 Timothy 3:11 that too is incorrect. The particular word you are referring to is gynē pronounced gü-nā'. It means
1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
2) a wife
a) of a betrothed woman
and is used 221 times in one or more of those meanings through out the NT. And no, scholars are not turning from using it for wife even though it is not the main word for wife. Yes some do, but these are mostly the most liberal. The context sets its meaning not the so called scholars.
There are 9 Greek words translated into 14 English words if using the KJV. Of the 9 Greek words every one of them is found in other places through out scripture in various renderings. Some are used several hundred times and others 2 or three times, but none of them are made up.
As for John Macarthur I find him a fine bible teacher and scholar. In the church which he Pastors they do have a designation as deacon for women. However they have no polity authority. They simply serve the women of the church. Also to point out the men deacons do not have authority over men in that church. That is left to the elders. But to sum up Paul did not make up a special word to point to women as being deacons they can serve and in the case of grace community church some are given the designation of deacon.
However in most Baptist churches this would be wrong since the Baptist usually use their deacons contrary to scripture giving them authority and women are not to be over men.
Last edited by a moderator:
So is everyone else's...or so they would claim.
Even if it's based on Scripture, it doesn't always mean it's the right interpretation of Scripture.
thegospelgeek
New Member
I agree with jaigner here. Obviously God was inspiring Paul to write to a people who had ways much different than ours. God had no idea that these writting would survive for centuries and we would use them to direct us in spiritual matters. How silly of us. We should know that Paul's writtings are not for us. We should let our culture dictate to us right from wrong. After all, it is much more relevant than some old writings from a dead guy.
freeatlast
New Member
Interpretation of scripture? If you are on a date and she says no just believe her don't interpret it like some do the bible. Otherwise you might end up in prison. Translate that to God's word! :thumbs:
God means what He says and says what He means. :smilewinkgrin:
freeatlast
New Member
No doubt we would not need a bible if we had a God who could not know its ending
Last edited by a moderator:
Armchair Scholar
New Member
Good point. Maybe the entire Bible is no longer relevant for us today and we should just throw it out...Wait, that's what the Liberals say.
How do you misinterpret "appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife" or "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife"??
thegospelgeek
New Member
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Oh gosh. I was going to go after you for this then I read the rest of it. Whew!! I thought you were going crazy!! That's what I get for being sick and reading debate posts. LOL
I'm having a discussion on another board where someone said that they are Christian, they believe in Jesus as their Savior but they take the Bible with a "grain of salt" because it was changed so much by men. I asked how do they know if Jesus really existed since the Bible can't be trusted and their response was "because God told me." OY!!
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
"This text, whatever may be its other value, is mainly of importance, because it indicates three tests of a genuine, God-sent leader. In the first place he speaks the word of God, in the second place his faith is fixed on a personal Saviour; and, in the third place, his life conforms to the Word of God and to the faith in Christ, and ends in a glorious immortality. Wherever we find those three indications meeting in any man or woman, we may recognize the heaven-sent leader, and it is at our peril if we do not follow such leadership."
---A.T. Pierson preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, 1892.
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
"This text, whatever may be its other value, is mainly of importance, because it indicates three tests of a genuine, God-sent leader. In the first place he speaks the word of God, in the second place his faith is fixed on a personal Saviour; and, in the third place, his life conforms to the Word of God and to the faith in Christ, and ends in a glorious immortality. Wherever we find those three indications meeting in any man or woman, we may recognize the heaven-sent leader, and it is at our peril if we do not follow such leadership."
---A.T. Pierson preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, 1892.
thegospelgeek
New Member
Setting aside the "Husband of one wife" which is clear enough for anyone who wants to view with a scriptural eye.
1. Scripture clearly states that a man is the head of the houshold. He is responsible for everything that takes place in the home.
2. 1 Tim 3 clearly states that a decon must rule his household well to demonstrate the ability and responsibility.
If a woman is not the head of the house, she has not demonstrated the ability to "rule the household well". How then can she meet the qualifications set forth in scripture?
1. Scripture clearly states that a man is the head of the houshold. He is responsible for everything that takes place in the home.
2. 1 Tim 3 clearly states that a decon must rule his household well to demonstrate the ability and responsibility.
If a woman is not the head of the house, she has not demonstrated the ability to "rule the household well". How then can she meet the qualifications set forth in scripture?
But that's just cultural!! It has nothing to do with reality, apparently. Yes, it's clear but if you add up the letters, you will find it's not true. Or something like that.
No oops there friend. The Romans passages bear little interpretive value for the Ephesians passages I cited.
Actually there are about four or five ways to properly interpret the passage which don't assume the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy you've fallen into here.
For instance, Paul uses the same same term for Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:6 yet we know that Timothy wasn't a deacon but a pastor.
The term for servant doesn't necessarily have an office associated with by default in the NT outside of the lists for elders and leaders. One needs be careful how they apply an overly generous read of the term here because there is little lexical evidence to support your conclusion.
I'd be far more interested in handling Junia in Romans 16:7. Was she an apostle? Was she a she? Bigger issues there than in this passage. I think you're leaning on arguments that are lacking.
I'll look forward to your reply here later on.
Also, I continue to post my challenge that a plain text read of the New Testament provides the clear case for male headship in local church leadership roles.
Anyone is welcome to show me how you can avoid the multiple passages dealing with male headship in the New Testament with no passages teaching the egalitarian position. Scripture is the authority use it and show me wrong.
That is a complete misrepresentation of my point. The Bible is as relevant and meaningful as ever. Nothing is being dictated by culture. It's because the Bible did give instructions to a specific people at a specific time. There are a bunch of things that Christians (or Jews) were instructed and allowed to do that we no longer follow.
I read the Bible, listen to what it says, and do my best to apply it to my life. We're still going to have disagreements because we're finite and because of the challenge of interpretation.
It is speaking to men. Of course it's not going to direct women specifically - there was no female leadership in the first century.
- Status