Are We All Called to Evangelize?

What is your basis for making evangelist = missionary? I've read and heard this many times, but no one ever has any Biblical basis for this position.

 

I am sorry if I offend your tradtions, but so be it. It is tradition that you are holding on to and nothing more.

1 Timothy 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

I challenge you to read this verse in the Greek and find the word "office" in the Greek. There is no such word. It is added in by the translators.

It is quite a bit different than Darby's translation:

1 Timothy 3:10 And let these be first proved, then let them minister, being without charge against them. (Darby)

But just because the KJV has the word "office" in it, does that make it an office? The obvious answer is no. If you are bound by church tradition and the KJV, I feel sorry for you. I believe you need to do more Bible study on the subject.
1Tim.3 gives the qualifications of any person who is willing to be a servant of the church. The local church needs to hold all to a high standard. Why should he hold you to higher standard any more than me (as a servant of the church)?
DHK

 

DHK,

You are making some very bad assumptions. One you are assuming that I am basing my understanding on the KJV, which never has entered my mind. Two you are assuming that I do not know and read the original languages, which I have an MDiv w/ biblical languages. Three you are assuming that my understanding of this subject is informed by blind loyalty to a tradition, which is not the case.

You are mistaken nonetheless and I will show you why.

ON A BIBLICAL BASIS TAKE NOTE:

The pattern of church leadership that the New Testament follows finds its seeds in the earliest period. In Acts 6:1-6 we read of the frustration of some members of the early church for not having their needs attended to. Because the church had grown so large, the twelve apostles were not able to handle all the physical needs of the body and proclaim the word. They knew that if they neglected the ministry of the word the church would suffer: "It is not right for us to give up preaching the word of God to serve tables" (v 2). They asked the congregation to choose seven men—men of good reputation and sound character—to perform this task of serving tables. The verb "serve" in v 2 is diakonevw (diakoneo). The cognate noun is diavkono" (diakonos), from which we get "deacon" (cf. 1 Tim 3:8). The fact that these men were then ordained by the laying on of hands supports the idea that they are holding an officially recognized office within the church, albeit one of humble service. Service to Christ is an honor and a privilege that not everyone is qualified to enjoy.

The second passage of note is Phil 1:1. Paul addresses the saints at Philippi "together with the bishops and deacons." Thus, a twofold division of leadership is clearly seen. (Incidentally, bishops were the same thing as elders.) Paul established the church on his second missionary journey. By the time he wrote the letter to the Philippians, the church was already ten years old.

The third significant passage is 1 Tim 3:8-13. The third chapter of 1 Timothy addresses two categories of leaders in the church, bishops (elders) and deacons. We have already noted the connection between this text and Acts 6. Suffice it to say here that deacons were assumed to be part of the leadership of the church at Ephesus.

FROM A EARLY CHURCH HISTORY PERSPECTIVE TAKE NOTE:

Knight concludes: "These three passages show, then, a twofold division of labor in early, middle and later time periods in the NT church, in key cities in three various geographical areas (Palestine, Greece, and Asia Minor), and in both Jewish and Greco-Roman settings."

 

From quotes such as above, is what leads me to believe that you are blinded by tradition, tradition that has been entrenched in history.
There are no deacons in Acts 6, no mention of them whatsoever. Stricty speaking if men waiting on widows that were bickering between each other because of their ethnic diversity, had to be appointed it showed that the church was not very mature at that time. There should have been others to step up to the plate and solve such problems. But the Apostles were doing everything as it is in the case of many churches. They were "serving tables," a menial task. Their qualifications were high though their task was menial. The reason--they were, nevertheless, representatives of the church, in this case the local church at Jerusalem. Nowhere in the Bible are they referred to as deacons. This is just an assumption, and might I add, bad theology.

Of course you are going to assume with aleady a biased point of view, that other references using the word diakonos, or even a variant thereof, is going to relate to deacon or his work. But the word simply means servant. It is another word for servant.

To use another example:

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Your translation:
The son of man came not to have deacons but to be a deacon and to give his life..

So Christ came to hold the office of a deacon? Is that correct? The same word is used. Deacon or diakonos does not mean deacon. That is simply a transliteration of a word, not a translation. The word means servant; the same as the Old English, miister--which we still use today with that meaning.
DHK

 

Thank you DHK! I was beginning to think I was the only person on earth that didn't accept the standard interpretation of Acts 6, placing deacons where there is no mention of them.

BP/T, I appreciate you brother, but I'm siding with DHK on this issue.

However, DHK, how do you line up your statement earlier that there is no "office" of deacon with the fact that Paul lists several qualifications for holding such a position in I Tim 3?

 

Wrong. There is no distinction in the NT in job function and description. 1 Peter 5 makes reference to the office of pastor by using each of the words used to describe his function. In ACT 6 the word deacon which means table servant is ascribed to the office which Paul references in Phil. 1. The fact that deacons are to serve in a Christlike manner should not surprise anyone that is a follower of Christ. I think I laid out a fairly obvious conclusion from Scripture but if you and DHK want to believe otherwise feel free to go off the ranch. It has been my experience that when you are in such a great minority from the rest of the evangelical confessing church, you are probably wrong. But hey maybe DHK got it right and the all of the rest of the conservative Bible believing scholars are poopooing on this one. When you look objectively you see the office of Deacon ordination occurring in ACTS 6. That is not disputable because they laid hands on the candidates. To lay hands on the candidates in the manner in which they did is to ordain them to the office/function of servant. Who cares what you call them they were officially recognized in their role and were given responsibilities accordingly. In addition the fact that Paul clearly addresses the two recognized categories of leaders in Phil. 1 is undeniable. Lastly the fact that Paul determined a need to give qualifications for this position in 1 Tim. 3 is also undeniable. There would be no need to do so if the word just meant indiscriminate unofficial generally speaking just a plain old anybody. For that matter the way in which DHK describes the word it could be synonymous with the word Christian because every Christian is supposed to be a servant. But there is distinction given to the role in an official capacity which we now understand as DEACON. Please you guys are way off.

 

We hold those who want to serve in the church in any "official" capacity, whether secretary, treasurer, song leader, or even piano player, to a higher standard than just that person who is a member but only warms the pew. If you are going to be a representative (or servant) of the church, as Phoebe was, then you are held to a higher standard.

 

You altered your original post, but I will tell you that you are on to something.... as I pointed out above.

 

Yes, I had to significantly edit my post after I went back and starting reading some of the previous posts. Nothing like an idiot getting into the tail-end of a conversation. There is a thread on this very same issue in the general forum, see my post there.

 

If I have assumed wrongly and you know the Greek as you claim you do, then give me an accurate translation of 1Tim.3:10 and demonstrate how the word "office" is used in that verse.
DHK

 

If you used that reasoning then no women could serve in any official capacity within the church because there is no way that you can determine that 1 Tim. 3 is given to anyone other than a male candidate. If you have the ability, as I do, to recognize the distinction in deacon from Deacon, that is the general use of the word verses the reference to the office then it is not a problem. The word for deacon has a broad use but it is given as is every other Greek word in context. Can I can a can of peas? For some who professes to know Greek you do not seem to have much of a versatility in your hermeneutical approach.

 

DHK, I do not claim to know anything, I do know Greek. Greek is a more dynamic language that you obvious are aware. It is not a word order language like English but has word endings that give meaning to the words in a given context. It is possible to have word order for emphasis but the order of the words is mostly not important. The case of the words is what is most important. Often words that are left out in literal translations are assumed to be understood in the actual translation. In this case the literal translation would read KAI or also OUTOU or these but it should be understood to mean these men DE let DOKIMAZESTHOSAV let be approved.. etc you get the point. Anyway the real meaning of the passage begins back in verse 1 not 10. Verse 8 states likewise, therefore the same level of importance is given to the need for qualifications for Deacon as for pastor. Either there is the office of Deacon or there is not an office of Pastor.

 

And why not? One must compare Scripture with Scripture which you are not doing.

Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (deaconness) of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Paul sent Phoebe because her life met certain qualifications. No doubt it was most of those that were set down in 1Tim.3, the possible exception being those mentioned in verse 12 which deal with the family. If that were an absolute requirement then Paul himself probably failed.

I am still awaiting your translation on 1Tim.3:10
DHK

 

A Greek scholar you are not, so I will not pander to your attempt to make yourself out to be one. But I will say this that anyone who understands Greek knows that words have no meaning outside of context. The context of each passage gives meaning to the words. In the case of the occurrences of the female version of the word for deacon those are given in reference to a general usage and not in reference to the office of deacon. You are now getting way off subject which is the role of women in ministry. Just let me say that the Bible does not contradict itself and I do not believe that an egalitarian position honors the integrity of Scripture. But like I said that is another matter.

 

I have some knowledge of Greek myself. The KJV for the most part is a word for word translation, and for the most part stays away from dynamic equivalency. It is not a paraphrase. It is a translation. But here it has done poorly.

Why can Darby do so much better, and his translation be so different than the KJV? The reason is that Darby was not biased or bound by the ecclesiastical politics of that day. He did not have to force the office of deacon into the passage as the Anglican ecclesiatics of that day and age had to do for political expediency.

1 Timothy 3:10 And let these be first proved, then let them minister, being without charge against them.

The fact is, you won't give an honest translation because either you can't, or you are trapped. The word office is not in the Greek. Admit it.

Here also is Young's Literal Translation:
1 Timothy 3:10 and let these also first be proved, then let them minister, being unblameable.

Is he also wrong? He too wasn't bound by ecclesiastical tradition? Why are you?
DHK

 

And I suppose someone will be going "to the Greek" to see if "office" is in the original. I don't think it matters. Even if the KJ translators added it, I think they did it with warrant, because how else would there be qualifications if it were not an office?

 

Your entry posted while I was delayed. I must be a prophet!

 

Okay, I am now getting frustrated with you. But let me one more time make it clear. IT IS UNIMPORTANT WHAT IN THE HECK THE KJV SAYS. NNE IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY PUTS ANY STOCK IN THE RELIABILITY OF THE KJV, OKAY! My understanding of the office of deacon is not dependent on the word office being found or not found within the original language. I gave you a sample of a translation of each of the first several words of 10 just to show you that I unlike you actually know Greek. If you insist on a full translation of 10 here you go, "And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless." There you go. I hope this helps but keep in mind if you read my previous posts at no point did I make my argument based on what the KJV stated. So you are creating a straw man that does not exist. Go back and deal with the substance of what I have stated. That you have not done...

 

The fact is that it isn't an office. The word office is not in the Greek--not in verse 10 and again not in verse 13. Search the Scriptures and see for yourself. Don't take the word of one steeped in ecclesiastical history.
DHK

 

You have created the strawman yourself. You have held up a false meaning of the word deacon. You have put him an office, a word that doesn't exist in the Greek. You have given him a position that he doesn't have. You have defined him in a way that the Bible hasn't. You have created a person that doesn't exist. This is all a result of your tradition, your history, your concept of what a traditional deacon should be, not what the Bible teaches servants (diakonos) are. Again, the word deacon also applies to Christ. How do you reconcile Christ being a deacon in your theology when the same word is used. The word simply means servant!
You fault me for not being a Greek scholar. You are right I am not a Greek scholar, but that doesn't mean I am ignorant of Greek. And by your posts it appears that you don't have to much grasp of it either.

In case your not reading my posts, I have been quoting quite a bit from Darby's translation, because he is not biased like the KJV, and does not use the word "office," as it is not in the original language. That doesn't give much credence to your view.
I don't care much what the "academic community" according to you says. I study the Bible, and come to my own conclusions, and if they differ from the church fathers then so be it. You appeal to the academic community is no better than the Catholic's appeal to the church father's some of whom were heretics, or at least held heretical views on some subjects. My appeal is to the Word of God, my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.

There are two divisions in 1Tim.3
He who desires the office of a bishop desries a good thing. The qualifications of an overseer, a pastor is then listed.
Then after that the qualifications of nothing more than a servant of the church.

How does Paul define himself most of the time?
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Is it so humiliating to you to be called a servant rather than a deacon?
That would appear to be the case either for you or for the men of your church?
To be a servant of Christ and of Christ's church is a privilege and an honor. Why can't a person accept it as such? There is no need to make an office that just leads to pride. Humility is key.
DHK