Deacon Eligibility

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by mark, Jan 8, 2002.

  1. mark

    mark
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/mark.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can a man, who has never been divorced, who is married to a divorced woman be a Deacon?

    Can a married man, who had an affair and repented ever be a deacon?

    (Administrator combined two threads into one since answers will cover the same area. It was not editted for content.)

    [ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

    [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mark:
    Can a married man, who had an affair and repented ever be a deacon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The answer to both of your question is, "It depends on the church." It depends on what you think "mias gunaikes andres" (the phrase translated "husband of one wife" means.

    It would probably be good to combine these two threads, IMHO.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Like pastors, deacons should be above reproach. In such instances, adultery would certainly disqualify a person from such an office.

    Marriage to a divorced woman would, imho, not be an issue IF the woman had a divorce on biblical grounds. She is free to remarry. But if she were guilty, or there were no biblical grounds, it would be the same as adultery (Jesus said).
     
  4. Ed Habal

    Ed Habal
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have heard some say that deacon's wives should have the same characteristics as deacons (i.e. never been divorced, etc...). What scripture (if any) is this based upon?
     
  5. 24Heels

    24Heels
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Dr. Bob, what do you consider Biblical grounds for divorce?
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    (1) Jesus said divorce is wrong and that one who marries after a divorce commits adultery except for "pornea" (Greek for a wide variety of sexual sins).

    Extrapolate from this that a person who divorces an adulterous spouse (exception clause of Jesus) is free to remarry without prejudice.

    (2) Paul said divorce is wrong except for abandonment, expanding what Jesus said.

    Extrapolate from this that a saved person whose spouse abandons/divorces them ". . is not under bondage in such case" and is free to remarry without prejudice.

    Believe that this is very clear from the NT and extremely limiting. But hey, it's what God said, not Bob! :eek:
     
  7. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob,
    Just to clarify: do you believe the only proper NT ground for divorce under 'abandonement' is spiritual abandonement, where an unbelieving spouse deserts a believer due to spiritual reasons?
     
  8. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    (1) The gifts and call of God are irrevocable.

    (2) "wives" should be translated "women deacons" in the passage dealing with deaconhood (just to add a little more flavor to this discussion) [​IMG]

    Daniel Payne
     
  9. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
    (1) The gifts and call of God are irrevocable.

    (2) "wives" should be translated "women deacons" in the passage dealing with deaconhood (just to add a little more flavor to this discussion) [​IMG]

    Daniel Payne
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    1 does not refer to a "call to ministry" but refers to a calling of a people.

    2 is an interpretational difference, not the theological mandate you argue. Context argues against this interpretation.
     
  10. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not an interpretational difference, but a textual difference, only one reading being correct.

    Daniel
     
  11. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
    (2)"Wives" should be translated "women deacons" in the passage dealing with deaconhood. . . . It is not an interpretational difference, but a textual difference, only one reading being correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is no textual variant. Every extant MSS reads γυναικασ (a form of γυνη ). If you will check your bible you will see this same Greek work translated "wife" or "wives" 84 times in the New Testament. The word is the common word for "wife" and is so translated in 1 Timothy chapter 3 in verses 2, 11, 12, and in chapter 5 and verse 9.

    Daniel, I suggest you go back to school and relearn your Greek, for you could not be more mistaken. And, oh, by the way. This is the second time you have tried to make this false claim. The last time I posted the same correction, but you seem to have ignored or forgotten it. Take it to heart. It will save you a lot of public embarassment. :D
     
  12. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas,

    I never thought I would say this, but you are correct. It is an interpretational difference. Thanks.

    Daniel
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,
    It has to be a difference of interpretation because the Greek basis for "deacon" appears nowhere in 1 Tim 3:11. Only the form of the word used for wife is found. Therefore, there has to be a huge interpretational leap to get to "Deacon" from "wife". Also, if a seperate office is being mentioned, why is Paul not asking for the same family & character requirements that he is asking for from the elders and deacons? If a seperate office is being mentioned, why does Paul mention one office, start talking about another one, then jump back to the previous office? Again, context seems to exclude your interpretation.
     
  14. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom,

    I do not agree that context precludes my interpretation, but you are right that it is not a textual difference, but an interpretational difference. Thomas cleared up the issue for me.

    Daniel
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay then, given the grammatical and textual evidence, explain your justification for women as deacons from 1 Tim 3:11ff.
     
  16. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom,

    It seems inconsistent that Paul would have instructed Timothy on the attributes of deacons' wives in between two portions of scripture that speak of the qualities of deacons. The following is the passage:

    8
    Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain;
    9
    they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
    10
    And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.
    11
    The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.
    12
    Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;
    13
    for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.


    8-10 and 12-13 instruct Timothy on the attributes of deacons. Verse 11, it seems, would be more understandable with the reading "women deacons" since the passage is dealing with the qualities of deaconhood. Also, many of the things mentioned as appropriate for male deacons are reiterated in the passage dealing with women. It seems to be a smoother reading when the text reads "women deacons" or "women."

    Daniel Payne
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually Daniel, it is the other way around. It would be very difficult to lthink that Paul spoke if deacons, then deaconesses, then back to deacons. It seems much more likely that the whole passage is referring to deacons, and the middle part to the wives of deacons who are very much involved in the service ministry. This position is well supported in the commentaries.
     
  18. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,
    Again, you're not really providing any textual evidence for such an interpretation. And your contextual argument is weak. See my prior post.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It seems inconsistent that Paul would have instructed Timothy on the attributes of deacons' wives in between two portions of scripture that speak of the qualities of deacons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Why? Seems more plausable than your assertion.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Also, many of the things mentioned as appropriate for male deacons are reiterated in the passage dealing with women. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Not really. Check the passage again.
     
  19. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    25
    Though fearing this may drive the forum off topic, I still must make this comment. When one takes the liberal position that v. 11 refers to "women deacons", it creates a dilemma for the "women preachers". If Paul took the time to specifically address "women deacons", he obviously DID NOT address "women preachers". If including "women deacons" in verse 11 endorses that office, then excluding "women preachers" from vs. 1-7 must deny that office!!
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
    Though fearing this may drive the forum off topic, I still must make this comment. When one takes the liberal position that v. 11 refers to "women deacons", it creates a dilemma for the "women preachers". If Paul took the time to specifically address "women deacons", he obviously DID NOT address "women preachers". If including "women deacons" in verse 11 endorses that office, then excluding "women preachers" from vs. 1-7 must deny that office!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Good point. I may have to change my position on this [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...