Women Deacons

I beg to differ. I used to manage restaurants. I managed them quite well. However, I still fell under the authority of the District Manager and the Area Supervisor.

My wife manages our house quite well. However, she does submit to my authority. </font>[/QUOTE]Your restaurant analogy has flaws. The Bible says that husbands are to be the head of the home in the way Christ is the head of the Church. There is no "district manager" over the husband. God is the only one over the husband as far as authority goes in the home. If you allow your wife to manage your household, you go against...
1Ti 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife , managing their children and their own households competently

Notice it does not permit the managing of the home to be given over to the wife.

 

Why are there special rules laid down for the elders and deacons? There is, and we are not to question why. You can ask God when you get to Heaven.

I showed that regardless of whether "their" is omitted or not, the greek word does not mean "women", but wives. The inclusion of their is irrelevant, then.

Which class would that be? The text only deals with husbands and wives and the proper roles for both.

I agree...and we have many women who serve in our church who are not "in sin". Again, the word diakonos has THREE meanings, with the context dictating which meaning is to be used. It is clear, then, that under the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy that the "deaconesses" were not in positions of authority within the church.

It would not. It would only cause confusion as he himself said that a "deacon" is to be the HUSBAND of one wife.

Again, context rules.

There was nothing to rebuke. The women who served were never elected to the authoratative office of deacon.

 

I guess the Holy Spirit just didn't guide them well enough to state it the way he meant, so the translators had to change it to "wives" to represent what is really meant, then, since the Greek does not state such.

 

????

The Holy Spirit is not the cause of error, but man's interpretation. I see nowhere the translators had to change the meaning to wives...it's right there.

 

Well, it's not in the Greek, so where is it? Saying that it is is interpretation, and not translation. I would much rather read it the way that it is written that by some man's interpretation of what "it really means even though that's not what it says".

The Greek does not say "their wives", and it cannot be construed as such without adding interpretation. That interpretation creates contradictions both here and in other passages. If the Bible has contradictions it is flawed. If it is flawed, what good is it?

 

It is quite clear in the Greek Text. I posted it earlier when writing about 1 Tim 3:11.

c. In the Greek text there is not a definite article before women or at least a genitive pronoun following the word "woman". This would lead one to translate that word "women" and not "wives".

 

gb, my post was not aimed at you. I'm giving an opportunity for webdog (or anyone else) to give a reason why the Holy Spirit was incapable of stating it "properly", or what reason that man needs to add to what is actually said.

 

I fail to understand your reasoning here...
Manage
MAN'AGE, v.t.

1. To conduct; to carry on; to direct the concerns of ; as, to manage a farm; to manage the affairs of a family .

To "manage" means to be in charge of with the final say. A wife cannot hold the position of "manager" of the house...while falling under the authority of her husband.</font>[/QUOTE]I don’t think your definition of “manage” lines up with the description of the Woman Who Fears the LORD found in Proverbs 31. Clearly, one can see by this lady’s actions that she is managing the day to day activities of her home. She oversees the family servants and her children, she engages in business dealings, she even purchases land. However, she does all these things while acting under her husband’s authority, she willing submits to him, she does not try to usurp his authority in the home or the community. Such a woman who happens to serve the church as a deaconess, but remains under her husband’s authority and does not try to usurp his authority in the home, the church, or the community would be in full agreement with the 1 Tim. 3 passage. By willing submitting to her husband’s authority she contributes to the biblical and healthy management of the home (again in full agreement with 1 Tim. 3).

 

Many Greek scholars, far more knowledgeable in NT Greek than you or I, maintain that the original root meaning of the word is servant and that all the other meanings that you point out from Strong’s have been added to its use during the church age. Remember, Strong’s is not a Greek grammar book, it is simply a concordance of all the uses of words in the Bible. Basically, all it is telling you is how the words have been used by the translators of the English KJV.

 

Yes, but this is true because we (as a society) have vested such authority into the various elected positions you point out. However, if a local church were to define the office of deacon (or deaconess), in its constitution and by-laws, has being strictly a position of service with no authority within the church, there would be no problem.

 

My Father (who is with the Lord) was a Southern Baptist deacon from the time I can earliest remember. He took this office very seriously. He called my Mother a 'deaconess" because she served as a Deacon's wife. My Father assisted the Pastor in many areas, all the way down to
mopping the floor after a pot luck. My Father did the duties of a deacon according to the scripture.

I am IFB because, in my opinion, it
is most like the New Testament church nowadays.
Women can teach, but women are not to preach or be in authority over men. Read your Bible after prayer, and the Holy Spirit will guide you on these matters.

Debbie C

 

Yes, but this is true because we (as a society) have vested such authority into the various elected positions you point out. However, if a local church were to define the office of deacon (or deaconess), in its constitution and by-laws, has being strictly a position of service with no authority within the church, there would be no problem. </font>[/QUOTE]Not entirely. Acts 6 deals with seven MEN being elected to the office of deacon. This had nothing to do with society as we know it today.

 

I know the phrase "likewise" has been used here as a link from a man deacon, to the possibility of women being deaconesses. Why were there no qualification similar to the mens, then? Why did it not state something to the order "likewise, deaconesses should be the wives of one husband..."?

 

Yes, but this is true because we (as a society) have vested such authority into the various elected positions you point out. However, if a local church were to define the office of deacon (or deaconess), in its constitution and by-laws, has being strictly a position of service with no authority within the church, there would be no problem. </font>[/QUOTE]Not entirely. Acts 6 deals with seven MEN being elected to the office of deacon. This had nothing to do with society as we know it today. </font>[/QUOTE]I was specifically replying to your post which referenced modern day elected officials (e.g. congressmen, senators, local government officials). Now you are jumping back to a biblical passage and referencing Acts 6. The first problem with that line of reasoning is that the servants of Acts 6 have nothing to do (or in common) with modern day elected officials. Secondly, look closely at the text of Acts 6 and you will see that it does not expressly state or even imply that those servants held any type of authority within the church. They were simply table waiters (or servants).