Unlike a lot of other ecclesiastical terms that strike most people as “high church” or ancient, the word “deacon” is exactly quite familiar to many of the lower church traditions of the American scene. It used to be that to be a deacon was to be a well-respected member of one’s little community. But as little communities and well-respected people have gone, so too have such positions of service. The trouble in many of these same contexts is that there is little biblical sense of who is in charge of what, not to mention who all is qualified for the work. 

So what exactly is a deacon? At the risk of oversimplification, a deacon is a servant. That is what the Greek word diakonos means. Of course, that really is too simple for our question, because we are speaking of a distinct office. What then does the Bible say about the specific office that goes by this name?

Many would point to Acts 6:1-7, because even though the word is not mentioned, nevertheless the word diakonos as it comes to be used captures what they were doing. These men appointed by the elders were called to serve the physical needs of the church (and some spiritual as well), to free up the elders’ main ministries of prayer and the preaching of the word.

Their qualifications are found in 1 Timothy 3, starting at verse 8. The deaconate may be divided by assignment of each man to a certain number of members in the church body, or they may be divided by skill set, seeing how the needs of the local church range from physical needs of individuals to the more logistical kinds of material needs of running a church. The crucial point often missed about the Acts 6 “precursor passage” is that it concludes with office having been a success. Once the elders were freed up to their own unique task, it ends with this:

“And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith” (v. 7).

What About Deaconesses? 

It is a debatable matter, though most in the Reformed tradition have understood it to be a male-only office. The ARP takes the position of liberty among the individual churches, whereas they certainly would not do the same with the elder office. I could not speak to analysis of other traditions of how many have permitted deaconesses and how many not. There are a few things to consider on both sides. The first reason that it is such a debatable point is because of the Greek word used in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. In verse 11, the word gynaikas is rendered “wives” by the ESV and KJV, and “women” by the NASB and NIV.

The bottom line is that this is one of those words that can mean either. Context has to decide. But then that just draws out the wider debate of female leadership and the nature of Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:12. In other words, it raises the question of whether a woman in this office is indeed exercising authority over men in the way Paul meant. She would not be on the grounds of teaching, since it is not a teaching office. 

Some think that additional ambiguity in the debate comes from the several uses of “diakonos” in other New Testament texts, sometimes referring to female servants. The trouble with this argument comes in the very point that this word is being used in the generic sense of “servant,” so that it doesn’t really give us any help in deciding whether the Apostle is speaking about the office, or in that general sense. Even Jesus is given that description in Mark 10:43-45. So really the whole debate comes down to the 1 Timothy 3 text. 

One biblical scholar, Richard Barcellos, makes the point that there are actually four options for Paul’s meaning here:

“This verse has at least four options as far as its intended meaning goes: 1. the women are part of the deaconate; 2. “they are ‘deaconesses’ distinguished from but comparable with the διακόνοι [diakonoi; deacons]” (Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 171); 3. “they are female assistants to the διακόνοι [diakonoi; deacons]” (Knight, PE, 171); 4. they are the wives of the διακόνοι [diakonoi; deacons]” (Knight, PE, 171).”1

Now an additional common sense question arises when the context is limited to the 1 Timothy 3 text. Why would deacons’ wives have qualifications, but not elders’ wives? One reason that many have given for this is that the very nature of the deacon's service involves things that women can do with respect to hospitality and ministering to the physical needs of women, or even when there are spiritual needs for which a sister in Christ is still better suited. Of course that reasoning could lend itself to either position. The wife may also accompany her husband who is a deacon in cases where visitation to a single woman would be seen as inappropriate. There are aspects like gossip, as one example, that would be crucial in her specific station that is only generally focused on with texts on women in general (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:13). At any rate, there are simple enough solutions to a church that takes either view to accommodate for the practical weaknesses alleged about its practice. 

_______________

1. Richard Barcellos, “1st TIMOTHY 3:11– ‘women’ or ‘wives’”