Biblical Reasons for Men as Deacons

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Gunther:
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.

Deal with the text, then. Even with the idea of an apostle, there is nothing that says that others can not be over them in specific instances and cases. Even Billy Graham has a pastor who is "over" him.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
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. [/QB]

You admitted that the word also had the connotation of ruler.

If I concede that she may not have been an elected deacon, will you concede that she was a leader of the church over many others, including Paul?

 

[John Wells]

Scott,

The whole teaching being referenced back to the "creation" is significant. Paul says, in effect," the reason these subordinations are so is because that is what God intended according to how He created man and woman.

Why else would Paul have referenced the creation account?

What else will you come up with to prop up your concocted interpretation?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by John Wells:
Scott,

The whole teaching being referenced back to the "creation" is significant. Paul says, in effect," the reason these subordinations are so is because that is what God intended according to how He created man and woman.

Why else would Paul have referenced the creation account?

What else will you come up with to prop up your concocted interpretation?

So what you are saying is that you don't have any other explanation as to why Paul shifts from plural to singular there.

It seems that this woman was deceived, and she was deceiving others in the church.

Also, it is interesting how people say that man being above woman is how things were intended. I think it is quite telling that men ruling over man is part of the curse, not part of the original creation story. It is a result of sinfulness that women are kept down by man. All this, even though Eve was created absolutely equal to Adam. (Don't believe me - check out the Hebrew for "helpmeet.")

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Deal with the text, then. Even with the idea of an apostle, there is nothing that says that others can not be over them in specific instances and cases. Even Billy Graham has a pastor who is "over" him.

I already did. Everyone recognizes that she was a servant. It is you who are adding to that.

Paul often referred to his role as an apostle as reason to do something (restore order, discipline, treat a slave as a brother, etc). Please provide an instance where Paul was told what to do by anyone other than Christ and/or the other apostles.

Not everyone thinks Billy Graham is a great leader. He certainly is not on the side of biblical exegesis. You and I both know that he is more interested in being ecumenical than exact in his theology.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Gunther:
I already did. Everyone recognizes that she was a servant. It is you who are adding to that.

The majority of modern scholars does not recognize this. Prostasis is quite clear on its meaning, both within the Biblical texts and extra-Biblical texts.

Paul often referred to his role as an apostle as reason to do something (restore order, discipline, treat a slave as a brother, etc). Please provide an instance where Paul was told what to do by anyone other than Christ and/or the other apostles.

Argument from silence - logical fallacy. And leadership isn't about "telling others what to do." That's not leadership at all. It is possible that Paul could have learned about Christianity after his salvation from her, just as Apollos learned about Christ through the teachings of Priscilla.

Not everyone thinks Billy Graham is a great leader. He certainly is not on the side of biblical exegesis. You and I both know that he is more interested in being ecumenical than exact in his theology.

So you don't agree that Billy Graham has done and is doing amazing things for the kingdom? Because he wants to build bridges with Catholics? It is no wonder why you believe what you do, then. The "everyone" mentioned in your second paragraph must mean "everyone who agrees with me." Such is life.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
So we have Thayer's and Strongs which support my definion, and you have the UBS and Louw-Nida.

Thayer's agrees with me, as you quoted and I pointed out. Strong's should not even be considered in serious lexical conversations. It is at best a gloss that does not take into accoutn context or intent. Thayer's, UBS, Louw-Nida all agree with me. I don't have time to look at other sources right now.

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.

And I wouldn't argue with that. The question is not was she a leader with some kind of authority. She may well have been. However she was not a Deacon and had no authority over men. She was a helper of others; that is what the word means. Extra-biblical sources are helpful but not determinative. Don't forget that.

]Then let us examine such teachings. Anything specific?

1 Tim 3 and the teaching on deacons. 1 Tim 2 and the teaching on authority.

Helper isn't what the word means.[/QB]

Your own definition gave that meaning, Scott. How can you pretend like it doesn't exist????

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
So what you are saying is that you don't have any other explanation as to why Paul shifts from plural to singular there.

I don't need another explanation Scott! You reject sound exegetical explanations and now are you asking for more? You twist scripture to say what you want it to say rather than trying to understand what is really being conveyed. I'm done wasting my time with you on this one because you have demonstrated repeatedly that you will hold to whatever your position is in spite of, and in the face of convencing evidence that contradicts your position. You don't answer several of our challenges (why the creation event referenced here?) but just fly back with more of your off-the-wall "specific woman" diatribe. The burden is on you to convincingly argue "the specific woman," and thus far you have failed. "Scott believes it" doesn't prove your claim!

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
You admitted that the word also had the connotation of ruler.

I admitted that the word used to describe a MALE succourer has as ONE of its denotations that of ruler, but that even the male was probably a patron, or protector of alien Christians who come into the community for various reasons.

If I concede that she may not have been an elected deacon, will you concede that she was a leader of the church over many others, including Paul?

No.

Paul appealed to the church to accept what she was doing because she was a Godly woman and doing good things, not because she had some sort of local church authority.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Thayer's agrees with me, as you quoted and I pointed out. Strong's should not even be considered in serious lexical conversations. It is at best a gloss that does not take into accoutn context or intent. Thayer's, UBS, Louw-Nida all agree with me. I don't have time to look at other sources right now.

This is confusing, because the Thayer's right here says: "prop. a women set above others."

And I wouldn't argue with that. The question is not was she a leader with some kind of authority. She may well have been. However she was not a Deacon and had no authority over men. She was a helper of others; that is what the word means. Extra-biblical sources are helpful but not determinative. Don't forget that.

Paul said that she was a "prostasis" of himself. We only have one reference of prostasis in the Bible. Only one, used here. It comes from a word that is used 8 times in the Bible - proistemi, which is translated "rule" 5 times, "maintain" twice, and once as "set over. Everywhere the feminine "prostasis" appears, it means a ruler of some sort. So we have certain evidence on one side, and other evidence on the other. It makes much more sense to understand that Phebe was some type of leader who had some type of leadership role over Paul than it does that she was merely a helper. The facts lead us to a much stronger definition.

1 Tim 3 and the teaching on deacons. 1 Tim 2 and the teaching on authority.

I've addressed these earlier in the thread. You may check them there.

Your own definition gave that meaning, Scott. How can you pretend like it doesn't exist????

Let me rephrase then - she wasn't merely a helper. She was a leader. A plain reading of prostasis as understood in Greek can only lead to that conclusion. To deny the conclusion is to deny the meaning of the word as it appears throughout Greek literature.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
I admitted that the word used to describe a MALE succourer has as ONE of its denotations that of ruler, but that even the male was probably a patron, or protector of alien Christians who come into the community for various reasons.

How do you get that from proistemi, especially noting the way the word is translated in the KJV (5 times "rule", twice "maintain" and once "be over.")

Paul appealed to the church to accept what she was doing because she was a Godly woman and doing good things, not because she had some sort of local church authority.

Then why use the word that he did?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by John Wells:
I don't need another explanation Scott!

You have rejected the only explanation that is given. So there is a void there. Do you believe that Paul just changed the case just because? Maybe he wasn't paying attention. Maybe he wasn't listening closely enough to the Spirit. There has to be some reason that he changes from a plural to a singular. So what is it?

You reject sound exegetical explanations and now are you asking for more?

I'm showing you why the explanation is not sound. It isn't sound because it doesn't fit the model. Paul changes from talking about ALL women to A (or THE) woman. This doesn't happen in proper Greek, (or English for that matter).

You twist scripture to say what you want it to say rather than trying to understand what is really being conveyed.

That's just it - I'm trying to understand specifically what Paul meant. There's something that is strange in how he says what he says, and I want to figure out what it means. The best (and only, so far) explanation is that he was talking to a group of women then changes topic and talks about a specific woman. This must be the case, since I am ruling out that he (or the Spirit inspiring him) made the mistake. Again, what is the alternative? Why did Paul do this?

I'm done wasting my time with you on this one because you have demonstrated repeatedly that you will hold to whatever your position is in spite of, and in the face of convencing evidence that contradicts your position.

You haven't provided any evidence, nor have you presented an alternative explanation. Probably because you cannot.

You don't answer several of our challenges (why the creation event referenced here?) but just fly back with more of your off-the-wall "specific woman" diatribe.

Shall I quote my answer here? "It seems that this woman was deceived, and she was deceiving others in the church." Eve did the same thing, so it makes lot of sense. The creation account isn't saying that all women are deceived. I don't think you believe that. Do you?

The burden is on you to convincingly argue "the specific woman," and thus far you have failed. "Scott believes it" doesn't prove your claim!

I have presented the evidence. Here is a summary of the argument

1. Fact: Paul makes a strange shift from talking to a group of women to talking to A (or THE) woman.
2. Fact: This is quite unlike Paul, as we do not see this else where when he is addressing a group of people. He either uses the singular OR the plural case.
3. Claim: Since I am unwilling to believe that he is making a mistake here, as I believe the letter to be inspired from God, the only explanation that I can come up with is that Paul changes to speak of a specific woman who was deceiving others. Paul says the she is to remain silent.
4. Evidence: Since we know from elsewhere that Paul did allow women to prophesy in the church, this explanation fits the mold. Otherwise, we have a contradiction: Paul in one case says all women should be silent, and then he says that women are allowed to speak in worship.
5. Evidence: The creation account merely bolsters the evidence. Just as Eve was deceived, so this woman was deceived and is now deceiving others, and havoc is occurring as it did in the Garder of Eden.

So the claim fits the facts. Do you have another claim that fits the first two facts? How does your claim answer Paul's instruction for women to prophesy in church with their heads covered if he says here they are not allowed to speak.

Instead of saying, "nuh-uh," could you provide some of your own thoughts on this passage?

 

[John Wells]

Scott,

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But [/b]women[/b] will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (1 Tim 2:11-15 NASB)

It's kinda hard for a woman to be "the husband of one wife"! 1 Tim 3:2,12

1 Corinthians 14
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

I think this last passage puts this debate to rest!

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

I don't. ...The text you offered says that woman have to have children and if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint to be saved. Which contradicts the other scriptures about salvation found in the Bible.

I do however agree that if the office of Deacon has the qualification of being the husband of one wife the way the Bible says it does, then it wouldn't be possible for a woman to fulfill the office. But, I'm repeating myself.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
I do however agree that if the office of Deacon has the qualification of being the husband of one wife the way the Bible says it does, then it wouldn't be possible for a woman to fulfill the office. But, I'm repeating myself.

BTW, 1 Tim 3:2 deals with qualifications of a pastor and 1 Tim 3:12 with deacons. Both are to be exclusively male!

 

[dianetavegia]

...The text you offered says that woman have to have children and if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint to be saved. Which contradicts the other scriptures about salvation found in the Bible.

Laurenda, scripture NEVER contradicts itself. The scripture given does not say a woman has to have children to be saved but that the curse (concerning childbearing) put on a woman after the fall is lessened and that a woman is to be faithful and charitable and raise their children in a godly home.

Then, because after sin, God gave the woman this punishment, because the man was deceived by her. Adam was deceived, but through his wife’s means, and therefore she is worthily for this reason subject to her husband, and ought to be. He adds a comfort by the way, that their subjection does not hinder women from being saved as well as men, if they behave themselves in those duties of marriage in a holy and modest manner, with faith and charity.

MY thoughts..... I wonder if before the fall, women were only fertile a couple times a year but after sin... the woman because fertile monthly.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

What do you think?

Diane

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Diane, What do I think?, I think it's confusing that's what I think.

For instance in I Tim. 2:15 it says:

"1Tim.2:15 Notwithstanding SHE SHALL BE SAVED in CHILDBEARING, IF they CONTINUE in FAITH and CHARITY and HOLINESS with SOBRIETY."

The Bible says "She Shall Be Saved" and then goes on to detail the criteria in which "She Shall Be Saved". So....it implies that woman fall under a different criteria for salvation than men do. Are you implying that this verse isn't speaking about salvation from eternal seperation from God, but salvation from something else?

For instance in Romans chapter 10 it says:

Rom.10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I have always believed that salvation was by faith, not works. And yet, I Timothy's verse 2:15 says that a woman's salvation is based on the works of childbearing and faith, not faith alone. So doesn't this seem to contradict? Shouldn't it be completely clear?

I'm not trying to start trouble...but if it says to get A you have to do B...well, then I'm more apt to believe that it means what it says than any theory on "lessoning of a curse".

The only way your arguement could be plausable is if A isn't the same A that I'm thinking it is. Is that where my theology falters?

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Then, because after sin, God gave the woman this punishment, because the man was deceived by her. Adam was deceived, but through his wife’s means, and therefore she is worthily for this reason subject to her husband, and ought to be. He adds a comfort by the way, that their subjection does not hinder women from being saved as well as men, if they behave themselves in those duties of marriage in a holy and modest manner, with faith and charity.

MY thoughts..... I wonder if before the fall, women were only fertile a couple times a year but after sin... the woman because fertile monthly.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

What do you think?

Diane </font>[/QUOTE]I always thought that the curse was the pain in childbearing and not being fertile for childbearing. I never heard the idea of being fertile only twice a year before. That's a first for me.

I also always thought that the part in the last verse about "desire for your husband and he will have rule over you" was our woman's desire to be in charge, to take the lead, but having to be submissive to the authority of our husbands.

That's my two cents anyway. Interesting how we can have such varying viewpoints isn't it?

 

[dianetavegia]

I wish we could open separate windows so I could see your post as I reply. I hope I can make sense. I many times don't! LOL

You said:

well, then I'm more apt to believe that it means what it says than any theory on "lessoning of a curse".

But Laurenda, it says

SHE SHALL BE SAVED in CHILDBEARING, not She shall be saved if she has children. Jewish custom believed if a woman transgressed 3 times she would die in childbirth. Her transgressions could be not cleansing herself well enough after her cycle, etc. Dying in childbirth was considered a sign of a sinful life or not following Jewish law.

CHILDBEARING .... Woman was chosen to birth into the world Jesus who is the author and finisher of her salvation! So, a woman (and man) is "SAVED" (by their acceptance and belief) through the birth of Jesus! Womankind is saved (remember, she was the first sinner) through another woman giving birth!

Salvation is through no other name or no other way than thru Jesus! Having children does not save anyone! It's the birth of that ONE child that gave us even a chance for salvation. The 'curse'/ punishment shall be lessened through the birth of the child.

1 Timothy 2:8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Matthew Henry said:

According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion. Also, women must not think themselves excused from learning what is necessary to salvation, though they must not usurp authority. As woman was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression. But there is a word of comfort; that those who continue in sobriety, shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing, by the Messiah, who was born of a woman.

I hope I was able to sort of explain how I see this. I'm no theologian!

Diane

 

[donnA]

I think if anyone believes salvation comes by anyother way then Jesus, they have a misunderstadning problem. If you think it appears that salvation is by anything otherthing then Jesus, or added to Jesus, then it is not a problem with scripture but a problem with interpetation, and the interpeter. It certainly does not flow with the rest of scripture to say salvation for women comes from anything other then Jesus, or in addition to Jesus. Pleae reread and do a lot pf praying if this concerns you and you honsetly beleive it says women are saved by bearing children. Keep in mind that saved has more then one meaning, it is not just the spiritual salvation that comes from Jesus, but has other meanings.
dictionary.com

save1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sv)
v. saved, sav·ing, saves
v. tr.

To rescue from harm, danger, or loss.
To set free from the consequences of sin; redeem.
To keep in a safe condition; safeguard.
To prevent the waste or loss of; conserve.
To set aside for future use; store.
To treat with care by avoiding fatigue, wear, or damage; spare: save one's eyesight.
To make unnecessary; obviate: Your taking the trunk to the attic has saved me an extra trip.

Sports. To prevent (a goal by an opponent).
To preserve a victory in (a game).
Baseball. To preserve (another pitcher's win) by protecting one's team's lead during a stint of relief pitching.
Computer Science. To copy (a file) from a computer's main memory to a disk or other storage medium.

v. intr.
To avoid waste or expense; economize.
To accumulate money: saving for a vacation.
To preserve a person or thing from harm or loss.

n.
Sports. An act that prevents an opponent from scoring.
Baseball. A preservation by a relief pitcher of another pitcher's win.

Idiom

sava·ble or savea·ble adj.
saver n.
Synonyms: save, 1rescue, reclaim, redeem, deliver
These verbs mean freeing a person or thing from danger, evil, confinement, or servitude. Save is the most general: The smallpox vaccine has saved many lives. A police officer saved the tourist from being cheated. Rescue usually implies saving from immediate harm or danger by direct action: rescue a rare manuscript from a fire. Reclaim can mean to bring a person back, as from error to virtue or to right or proper conduct: “To reclaim me from this course of life was the sole cause of his journey to London” (Henry Fielding). To redeem is to free someone from captivity or the consequences of sin or error; the term can imply the expenditure of money or effort: The price for redeeming the hostages was extortionate. Deliver applies to liberating people from something such as misery, peril, error, or evil: “consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them” (George Washington).

saved

Save \Save\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Saved; p. pr. & vb. n. Saving.] [OE. saven, sauven, salven, OF. salver, sauver, F. sauver, L. salvare, fr. salvus saved, safe. See Safe, a.] 1. To make safe; to procure the safety of; to preserve from injury, destruction, or evil of any kind; to rescue from impending danger; as, to save a house from the flames.

God save all this fair company. --Chaucer.

He cried, saying, Lord, save me. --Matt. xiv. 30.

Thou hast . . . quitted all to save A world from utter loss. --Milton.

2. (Theol.) Specifically, to deliver from sin and its penalty; to rescue from a state of condemnation and spiritual death, and bring into a state of spiritual life.

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. --1 Tim. i. 15.

3. To keep from being spent or lost; to secure from waste or expenditure; to lay up; to reserve.

Now save a nation, and now save a groat. --Pope.

4. To rescue from something undesirable or hurtful; to prevent from doing something; to spare.

I'll save you That labor, sir. All's now done. --Shak.

5. To hinder from doing, suffering, or happening; to obviate the necessity of; to prevent; to spare.

Will you not speak to save a lady's blush? --Dryden.

6. To hold possession or use of; to escape loss of.

Just saving the tide, and putting in a stock of merit. --Swift.

To save appearances, to preserve a decent outside; to avoid exposure of a discreditable state of things.

Syn: To preserve; rescue; deliver; protect; spare; reserve; prevent.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


saved

adj 1: rescued; especially from the power and consequences of sin; "a saved soul" [ant: lost] 2: guarded from injury or destruction [syn: protected]