Biblical Reasons for Men as Deacons

YIKES!!! You have read an awful into that. There is no basis to suggest that Phoebe was an elected Deacon. She was a servant of the church to be sure and a helper of many (which is what the word prostatis means). There is no reason at all to think that she was in authority over men. You have brought that into the passage.

It is improper to use narrative to interpret didactic. It should be the other way around. You have placed the NT in contradiction to Scripture. We should rather assume that the didactic portions are correct and that the NT followed those portions. With that understanding, we have no need to elevate Phoebe to a place that the NT forbids her to have.

Only if one accepts your transporting of 21st ideas into the text. I reject that.

A woman is to be a minister, a servant, of the church. All believers are to be. That does not necessitate or excuse authority over men.

 

According to Thayer's, the word used means "a woman set above others." It has the same root as "proistemi," which means "set over" or "leader." That's why I noted that at the least, she had leadership authority over others in the church, including Paul, as he himself admits.

The fact that Paul notes that Phebe, Junia, and Priscilla all had leadership roles isn't something that can easily be explained away. Looking at the other passages, we can see fairly easily that these women in leadership positions does not contradict the rest of the Ner Testament. I'll be glad to address any of the Scriptures in which you see some "contradiction." It's not me elevating Phebe - Paul did that.

On the contrary, for the first 1300 years of the Christian faith, there was no argument that Phebe was a minister and that Junia was an apostle. It wasn't until later that people began "transporting" modern ideas into the text.

Paul admits that Phebe had authority over him. That says a lot to me, personally.

 

Scott,

From all that is said of Phoebe in the Bible:

Where do you derive her "authority" over Paul?

You know the rule Scott . . . scripture validates itself, so that when we become confused we can turn to just a few sentences before 1 Tim 3:12 for context:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Tim 2:12)

In light of this, the meaning of "diakonos" here is "servant/minister," and not "deaconness."

If you go to the creation of this "church office" in Acts, you will find further affirmation that it is male exclusive:

"Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them." (Acts 6:3)

Scott, how do you reconcile 1 Tim 2:12 with your statement at the beginning of this post? If we view it your way we have Paul saying "I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man, but Phoebe has authority over me."

 

I beg to differ, nothing in those verse points to her being elected and one POSSIBLE meaning of the word (succourer) is ruler but, more likely it is patroness which implies no authority but support, no subserviance but, someone willing and ABLE to help Paul. Perhaps by her influence due to her being obviously a respected person or perhaps because she has the financial resources to help. It doesn't seem remotely reasonable to say that she ever had ANY sort of rule over Paul.

Yes, it does, because conventional Baptist doctrine is based on obvious scripture rather than slight scriptural possibilities.

 

Nope, I would say that Phebe serves the Lord and anyone who serves God would be a servant, deacon, minister, bondslave, follower, etc. There is a difference between performing certain tasks and being officially recognized, appointed, voted in, named into a position, etc. I can bus the dishes off of a dinner table without being the hired busboy. I can minister to people at my church without being THE Minister. Phebe was a deacon, but not a Deacon. We are all servants but, we are not all in the office of a Deacon. </font>[/QUOTE]We have a saying in our church, "Every Member a Minister" I don't think this is the same as the office of Bishop/Pastor etc. But yes, it's everyone's job to minister to others, or so I believe. I am not offended by Phebe being called a minister, any more than I would be offended by anyone calling me one.

 

Baptist Believer,
I am studying the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as a history on Constantine and his reform of Judaism and the Bible. So, I'm not as closed off to the possibilities as someone you may have encountered previously who might believe in the KJV as being the inerant word of God for English speaking people.

I want the truth, whatever that may be. And if my theology is proven wrong so be it. I offered my background because you asked me, out of politeness to you and in hopes that you would get a better understanding of where I'm coming from.

My beleif is based on study of two beginnings the restored text and the preserved text. This discussion isn't about that, and so I won't expound on it here. But suffice it to say that I don't believe what I believe blindly on this point.

Suggestion regarding outreach: Our church has had great success with outreach with the age group you spoke of by having an annual basketball tournament. It's been pretty successful in addition to all the other outreach we usually offer. Salvations are monumentally huge through this outreach. Just a suggestion. I don't even know where you are or if the people in your area are into basketball.

 

Pastor Larry, I think my theology pretty closely aligns with yours. Good post.

 

Well put, John Wells. You know, I have no problem with my place in God's plan. I don't need to elevate myself above men (or give myself authority over men) to serve God.

Diane

 

Diane,

Someone once said that the man is the head, but the woman is the neck who turns the head! I think that is very true. When a husband and wife's relationship reflect Ephesians 5 properly, the woman is so blessed that she wouldn't have it any other way. Sounds like you have that kind of a marriage Diane!

The problem often is that too many men don't model the Ephesians 5 man very well, AND all to often the woman fulfills "The Fall" curse:

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it was my grandmother. ( I know, she wasn't the only one )

Yes, I very seldom here anyone quote that scripture the way that I understand it. It is so true.

Good post.

 

I would encourage you to check out the Greek for "succorer." The Greek word used literally means "woman set above." Help has nothing to do with the word.

Do some research on the word. It is more than a possibility.

 

Where do you derive her "authority" over Paul? </font>[/QUOTE]The word "help" does not appear in the Greek. The word is most accurately translated "woman set above" or "woman who leads." Don't believe me? Strongs and Thayers both define "prostasis" as:

1) a woman set over others

2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

There is the implication that there is help, but there is a STRONG intimation that she was set over Paul and others. Thayer's notes that the first definition is the most "proper" translation of the word.

Interestingly enough, I Timothy 2:12 (which is a completely different letter than the passage in question, but oh, well), has a very interesting grammar to it. It is the only time that We see Paul shift from a plural to a singular to a plural like this. He gives a command to all women about how they are to live. He then changes to say "I do not permit a (or the) woman to teach." The only explanation that I have heard for those who will be honest and note that Paul does indeed change from the plural to the singulat is that Paul is speaking to a specific woman. Comparing this to other Scriptures, we see that another passage as Paul talking abou women in the assembly leaving their heads cover when they are prophesying. This makes no sense if Paul required women to be silent. Taking the Scriptura as a whole, (as you say we should do), it makes a lot more sense to understand Paul's specific language, and realize that the person that Paul is referring to is a specific woman, possibly a woman who was dominating the asssemby or teaching false doctrine. "I do not allow the woman to teach" - the implication is that Timothy knew exactly which woman he was talking about. Do you have another explanation for why Paul would shift cases like that?

And how is that a problem? In this case, it was, indeed male exclusive. However, we do not see that it was at this time that the position became one that any other church used except the Jerusalem church.

"I do not permit THAT SPECIFIC woman to speak or have authority over men, but Phoebe DOES have authority over me."

 

It appears that you are the one who needs to check the Greek word meaning. Even your own quote disproves you: caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources. That, by any other name, is help. The UBS lexicon (which I think is the shorter BAGD) says, "helper, good friend." Louw-Nida says, "a woman who is active in helping." There is nothing that demands your view. There are clearly other views possible. In light of the NT teaching elsewhere, your view is precluded. There is no reason to think that Phoebe was disobedient to apostolic teaching. There is every reason to think that she was what the words means ... a helper.

 

In light of:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. (1 Timothy 2:11 NIV)

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

I don't care which translation you pick, your "specific woman" argument falls apart if you will simply examine the context, Scott. The comparison to Eve becomes pointless and silly if Paul had just referred to a "specific woman." You'll have to look much harder for something that isn't there!

 

Strong's definition of the female succourer:
4368 prostavti" prostatis; fem. of a der. of 4291b; a patroness, protectress:—

Strong's definition of the male succourer:
4291 proi&gt;vsthmi proisteµmi; from 4253 and 2476; to put before, to set over, to rule
(4253 prov pro; a prim. prep.; before
(2476 i{sthmi histeµmi; from a redupl. of the prim. root sta- sta-; to make to stand, to stand)

NASB = helper
NIV = great help
KJV = succourer
TEV = good friend (LOL)
TLB = helped

I will continue my research. She sounds like one fine woman but, I can't see any indication in scripture that ANYONE was ever "set over" Paul.

 

I will continue my research. She sounds like one fine woman but, I can't see any indication in scripture that ANYONE was ever "set over" Paul. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Interestingly enough, you give the STrong's defintion about the word meaning "ruler" then you show five different translations which disagree. What do you make of that?

 

So we have Thayer's and Strongs which support my definion, and you have the UBS and Louw-Nida. According to Wycliffe Bible Translators, secular Greek documents of that time consistently use this term to describe someone strong, a leader with authority to help a weaker follower. 'Prostatis' described emperors, kings, governors, nobles, patriarchs, captains and authorities. This was the word Paul chose to describe Phoebe, a woman, in Romans 16. But translators hundreds of years later misled the Church by translating 'prostatis' not as leader, but as helper. This suggests someone without authority, or leadership position, but simply someone to make life easier for the male leaders around her. Ten out of twelve English versions mistranslate and use the term, helper, good friend, or succourer. Only two use the word leader or overseer. The British culture of that day just could not accept women as leaders in the church.

Looking at extra-Biblical sources, how can we not give prostasis the full effect?

Merely the evidence of what the word means throughout Greek literature.

But these views are faulty, at best.

Then let us examine such teachings. Anything specific?

Helper isn't what the word means. Strongs, Thayers, Wycliffe, and contemporary sources all translate prostasis as "leader" or "woman set above."

 

Let's go even further than that and look at it even further:

I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

First paragraph - Paul speaks to the plural "men" giving a universal command.

Second section - Paul speaks to the plural "women."

Third section - Paul quickly turns to the singular "woman." This appears nowhere in Paul's writings. Anywhere else that I have seen a change from the plural to the singular in extra-Biblical writings denotes that the author's audience has changed or narrowed. One specific woman matches up with the one specific Eve who was deceived, just as this woman was.

Should all women be silent? Paul in I Corinthians 11 says, "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved." How is it that a woman could prophesy in church and remain silent at the same time? Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, we can either conclude that there is a contradiction here or that one of the passages is misunderstood. Reading the context of I Timothy, we must see that Paul is giving a command to a specific woman, not all women in general.

That is, unless you have a better explanation as to why Paul changes cases all of a sudden.

 

Where exactly did I give Strong's definition of the word used to descrobe Phebe as a "ruler"? I then give five translations just to illustrate that it is hardly merely my opinion that that word does NOT, by definition, mean an official position inside a local church. Where exactly is this position (prostatis) specified? I am not saying that there are not influencial and powerful women who are Godly and can have a profound effect within a local church. I am saying that these verse do not say that she was an official Elder or official Deacon.

 

I am just going to point of something obvious here, Paul was an Apostle, directly chosen by Christ, and one who penned much of the N.T.

Given the fact that he refers to the Apostleship as a position of authority with certain rights, we can conclude that he had certain rights.

No one was over Paul. Scott, do you not see how ludicrous this idea is? The Apostles were over the churches. You are trying to convince us, with great effort mind you, that this person, who was a servant, had authority over Paul? Very convincing.