Friday, April 12, 2019

Does the New Testament Support the Idea of Deaconesses? (1 Timothy 3:11)

I've always found Charles Ryrie's discussion of Rom. 16:1-2 in Basic Theology (pp. 419-420) to be helpful. Here are some gleanings from his work.

(1) The GUNAIKAS could be women "leaders" in the EKKLHSIA or simply wives of "deacons" or ministerial servants. Personally, I do not think that Paul had to explicitly qualify GUNAIKAS in order for us to know he had wives in mind and not women servants of the congregation since GUNH is used without qualification elsewhere in the NT to describe a married woman. Examples include Mt. 5:28, 31f; 1 Cor. 5:1; 7:2ff. BDAG has more examples.

(2) The women in 1 Tim. 3:11 are introduced by the word hWSAUTWS indicating that they too might hold positions in the EKKLHSIA. But this could merely be a way of transitioning the discussion in view of how the apostle employs hWSAUTWS in other places (Tit. 2:1-10).

(3) "A Greek word for deaconess does exist, but this is not used in the New Testament." (Ryrie)

(4) Also from Ryrie: "If verse 11 [1 Tim.] introduces a new office (that of deaconess), then why did not Paul finish listing the qualifications for deacons before introducing it? Instead, he continues with the list of qualifications for deacons in verses 12-13. This may indicate that he was referring to the deacon's wives in verse 11, rather than to a separate office in the church."

(5) Finally, Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, mentioning two Christian female MINISTRAE in the year 112 CE. It is not clear, however, whether these women were church assistants or not. No deaconess is mentioned in "any literature" until the third century. At that time, we find a reference in a document entitled Didascalia.

2 comments:

  1. Roman3:09 AM

    Thanks for this post, I’ve wondered about the deaconess issue a bit, mainly because of Phoebe in Romans 16:1–2.

    I think I could make arguments for both sides of this issue

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Roman,

    I mainly tried to focus on 1 Tim. 3:11 here, but Rom. 16 raises similar issues. Maybe I'll address that chapter soon. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete