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!
A διακονος. Duhbased upon his use for Greek term called her by in local Church?
Phoebe was a deacon. Even though I'm an historic ifb'er and have only male deacons, I can't change Romans 16.
It is the definite masculine word referring to the OFFICE.
Phoebe (a woman in the church at Cenchrea, neighbor to Corinth) is called by the MASCULINE TITLE "deacon" (not simply as a feminine form of the word, which would be a female servant)
A διακονος. Duh
I know what you mean. I used to be a hardcore fundie against female deacons. But this verse along w/ 2 Tim 3 makes it easy to allow such a practice. Especially considering that Phoebe was a "minister" of a specific local church. If she was not a deaconess, then that opens up a whole 'nother world of problems. Was she an elder if she was a "minister"? Clearly, "servant" misses the point since she was a "minister of the church". It is put in the language of an office or ministry. I think we need to be open to the possibility that a deaconess is not only Biblical (at least can be argued legitimately from the Bible) but practical as well.
It raises a serious question. How is the following passage fulfilled if there are women deacons at least in the official capacity as in a Baptist church?
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
You addressed 2 different issues:
1) The "official capacity as in a Baptist church" is typically incorrect. If a deacon is simply one who serves in order to free up the elders to lead, study, and pray, then women are better suited in many cases to do this (especially the ones who don't work).
2) You are neglecting that Paul previously mentioned "likewise women" as if he is referring to the women that would have the office of deacon. I know it is easy to see this as a deacon's wife, and I'm sure you've heard the argument that it makes little sense to mention a deacon's wife but not an overseers; but the fact of the matter is, one can just as easily (if not easier) argue that the women mentioned in 1 Tim 3 are those holding to an office since it is not qualified w/ a marital relationship.
I'm kind of disappointed in the way some modern translations have handled 3:11. Many like the ESV and ISV add "their wives" when the text just reads "wives/women". I think they are taking great interpretive liberties in doing so.
. . .prostatis, "a woman set over others. . .
That term is from verse 2; she was a "leader of many" (Young's Literal Translation).
Word is related to the verb used in I Tim. 5:17
elders that rule well
I'm not sure what I communicated, but I really did not consider your motivation for the thread. I actually thought it was a good one. I was just responding to the 2 sentences in your response and addressed them as 2 things. Sorry for making the confusion.freeatlast said:Two things. One I think you tried to interpret my motive for the question and you are incorrect. I am not against women deacons as long as they meet the qualifications.
Thank you. I would enjoy discussing w/ you where you think we might disagree.Second I applaud you to say the Baptist church has it wrong with the men deacons. Praise the Lord. I have shouted that for years and even here on this board although it goes over like a led weight. Although I might not agree with you where they are wrong.
I don't have as big a problem for the "husband of one wife" translation as I do w/ "Likewise their wives" since the pronoun "theirs" is not in the text. But "husbands of one wife" is a possible functional meaning. The difference is if we think Paul intended that meaning in interpretation. I am moving more and more to the faithful spouse position (a one woman man).Next I agree the translation is incorrect and causes improper understandings. In fact the call for the man to be the husband of one wife is wrong. That is not how it should read. It should read a "one woman man." There is a big difference if translated correctly as a man can be married to one woman and still not be a one woman man. It is about character not marriage. He may have eyes for many women and he is disqualified.
I have considered the headship, and this might be a case where we disagree over the role of a deacon. But if their ministry is one of service and not leadership, then I don't see the headship issue coming into play. Not only that, but I believe that the best deacon team would be a husband and wife duo. So that might alleviate some of the tension as well.Next I do agree that some women can be a deacon. Phoebe was a deacon, however there is still a problem because of the headship of the household thing, but I think it can be solved. I am including something from Wuest that I think clears this up and I can certainly support.
A διακονος. Duh
I know what you mean. I used to be a hardcore fundie against female deacons. But this verse along w/ 2 Tim 3 makes it easy to allow such a practice. Especially considering that Phoebe was a "minister" of a specific local church. If she was not a deaconess, then that opens up a whole 'nother world of problems. Was she an elder if she was a "minister"? Clearly, "servant" misses the point since she was a "minister of the church". It is put in the language of an office or ministry. I think we need to be open to the possibility that a deaconess is not only Biblical (at least can be argued legitimately from the Bible) but practical as well.
No to the firstjust curious in this area of "female leadership"...
Do you hold that a woman can be a spiritual leader in a church IF covered under/by "headship" of male authorities over her function in church?
As the early church seemed to have "prophetess" as an official office/position back then!
that she can teach even other couples, as long as 'covered" by umbrella of a male spiritual authoring, or is it JUST leading other females/children period?
No to the first
I do not believe prophet or prophetess was an official position of the church... not in the way an elder/overseer and deacon was anyhow. So that would be a moot point for me.
No to the last statement. I think Paul's advice for older women to teach younger women in Titus is pretty telling. And his restrictions in 1 Tim is indisputable. I actually take headship very seriously as does my wife. I think the concept you are referring is just a back-door way around the Scriptural truth. People who use this argument are stretching to allow women to rule. I have no doubt that Paul never intended headship to be done in that way. It makes it a useless idea.
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
It means that the candidates, which would have been an overwhelmingly male lot in the 1st century, must not be married to more than one wife. We can interpret this to indicate that church leaders should, if married, be faithful to their one spouse.
It's not, by default, saying "a deacon must be a man." That's simply not good interpretation.
Thank you for sharing that information.
No to the first
I do not believe prophet or prophetess was an official position of the church... not in the way an elder/overseer and deacon was anyhow. So that would be a moot point for me.
No to the last statement. I think Paul's advice for older women to teach younger women in Titus is pretty telling. And his restrictions in 1 Tim is indisputable. I actually take headship very seriously as does my wife. I think the concept you are referring is just a back-door way around the Scriptural truth. People who use this argument are stretching to allow women to rule. I have no doubt that Paul never intended headship to be done in that way. It makes it a useless idea.