Ordination of men

This process is seldom mentioned in the New Testament. While the technical sense of the term does not occur in the New Testament, several references do indicate an official commissioning ceremony. Therefore I don't think a real big deal should be made of it, but certainly a humble commissioning ceremony is certainly appropriate. When I was ordained a deacon, all ordained deacons present were invited to come and lay hands on me and pray for me and my wife as I was on my knees with my wife standing by my side. It is an experience I'll never forget!

Acts 14:23 (ESV)
23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Acts 6:6 (ESV)
6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
Acts 13:3 (ESV)
3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

God bless!

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

The process involves the laying on of the hands, prayer, and placing the men into the office (see Acts 6:1-6). Yes, it is very much Biblical and that's why we do it!

 

Acts 14:23 (KJV)
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

 

Acts 14:23 (New American Standard Bible): "And when they had APPOINTED elders for them in every church...".

 

A repeat of my ESV above. Was there a point to be made?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SaggyWoman: but the word ordination is not used...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very clever, this SaggyWoman! For one, who studied theology, she is sure asking a lot of hypothetical questions! Now what are you looking for specifically Saggy? The Biblical use of the word, the process itself, or the concept? As we know, the dictionary defines the word, ordain, as: admit (to the clergy), edict, decree, destine or predestine, order of command, select or appoint (to an office).

In the KJV Bible “to ordain” is the rendering of about 35 different Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words. The word has many shades of meaning, chiefly the following: (1) to set in order, arrange (Ps. 132:17; Isa. 30:33); (2) to bring into being (1 Kings 12:32; Num. 28:6; Ps. 8:2, 3); (3) to decree (Esth. 9:27; Acts 16:4; Rom. 7:10); (4) to set apart for an office or duty (Mark 3:14; John 15:16; Acts 14:23). Ordination in the sense of setting aside officers of the Church for a certain work by the laying on of hands was practiced in apostolic times.

In the New Testament the use of the word breaks down as follows: ginomai – to be (Acts 1:22); horizo – determine, appoint, constitute (Acts 10:42, 17:31); tatto – to place, set, appoint, arrange, order (Acts 13:48, Romans 13:1); cheirotoneo – stretching out of hands, to elect, choose, vote (Acts 14:23, also in 2 Timothy, and Titus); krino – select, choose good (Acts 16:4); promeletao – to meditate (1 Cor. 2:7); diatasso – to appoint, order (1 Cor. 9:14, Gal. 3:19); proetoimazo – to make ready, prepare beforehand (Eph. 2:10); tithemi – to set, put, place, lay (1 Tim. 2:7); katheistemi – to set, set down, place (Heb. 5:1, 8:3); kataskevazo – to prepare fully, put in readiness (Heb. 9:6); and prographo – to write before (Jude 4). After all this, my earlier post still stands.

 

What book are you referring to. With your question it might appear you are not reading the King James Bible.
Or you are fishing for

 

When you read in Timothy and Titus you find the qualifications for Deacons Elders Pastors. These include being the husband of one wife. According to strongs all the refferences to husband in the New Testament except one in Romans 7:2 are defined as a primary word meaning 1) a man (proper as an individual male) fellow, husband, man, sir. Also in Romans 7:2&3 five of the six refernces to husband are this word and the sixth is from it, meaning in subjection under a man ie. married woman.
I accept what Strongs has to say since I can find no contradiction between it and the context of the scriptures here.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Brian G ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
A repeat of my ESV above. Was there a point to be made?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me the word appoint today carries a lesser meaning. We appoint civil servants to do lots of things and aren't real suprised when things go bad. We make appointments with doctors, hairdressers, and dentists all the time and often cancel or break them. In the mind of todays human ordain carries a shade of meaning that is no longer attached to appoint. Which is why I stick with the old KJV the more things change the more accurate it gets.

 

I see the practice of ordination for elders in the NT, but I really can't think of a place which speaks of the ordination of deacons. Correct me if I've overlooked something.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SaggyWoman:
but I don't see how they are limited to "men" and can be non-inclusive of women.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A portion of a paper I wrote:


1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Here Paul addresses a problem within the church of Corinth. The services were not being held in order. New coverts from the Pagan religions were talking while services/preaching was being done. Women were talking and asking questions during the services. They were speaking out of turn and out of order. I believe most agree to this conclusion.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Here we see Paul leading young Timothy in setting up his church. Look at verse 12 "…Suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man."
Having determined the role of Pastor is authority over a church. Paul is now telling Timothy that a woman should not be permitted to teach over a man because by doing so she is holding authority of him, which has been a sin against God all the way back through Genesis. Being a Pastor is shepherding a church and is the highest authority, except for Christ. Teaching is also a authority and teachers should be chosen very carefully. It is my opinion, according to scripture that a woman should not teach a class of men. Not only is the women being disobedient, but the men sitting under her are also.

Women are permitted to teach children, teens and other women though as read in:
Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Verse 13 and 14 of I Timothy tell us WHY this is so "… but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."


In Acts 9 we see Peter going to a disciple of the church. Her name was Tabitha, translater Docas. She had died and Peter came to raise her from the dead. The scripture in question for some is Acts 9:36:
Act 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
Luke says that Tabitha (or Dorcas) was "…a certain disciple". We have two words in the Greek translated "Disciple". The first is mathetes which means a learner, pupil, disciple. The second is mathetria which means a female disciple. It is well know in yesterday and today's culture that Christian women are wanted and welcome and according to Luke Tabitha was one.


Qualifications

Now we will look at the qualifications of Elders and Deacons. This come from the book of first Timothy, as said before written some 9 years after the book of Romans in which Paul commends Pheobe for being a servant of the church.

Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Act 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

This is the first writing concerning Deacons. This was the first election of deacons. Notice that 7 men were picked. These men were to be of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. Please take note that there were many women there with the same qualifications but were not picked. All were men.

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work.

Paul says if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires something good. To desire to serve God is a good thing and the desire to seek God in a official capacity is a wonderful thing as long as it is done with humbleness and for the purpose of servanthood and not uplifting ones' self. We can make s note that in this verse Paul says, "...if a man desire..."

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

He must be blameless. This means not to have fault. No one is totally blameless except for Jesus Christ. This means that he must have a good report. Not a reputation of evil things. An example today would be something like he couldn't have a profession as a bartender and expect to be a bishop.

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

Here is a list of some of the qualifications the candidate shouldn't be. He shouldn't be a drunk, not a fighter or brawler, not greedy of money or wealth. He should have patience and not desire things of others.

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

He should be in charge of his home (see previous discussion concerning head of household) His children should behave and respect their parents. Paul goes on to say that if he can't control or take care of his own house, how can he take care of God's house. Remember Jesus said how can I trust you with a lot, if I can't trust you with a little.

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
He should be seasoned or experienced in the word of God and living the Christian life. Time, experience, peaks and valleys are some of the greatest teachers we will have.

1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
He must have a good general report of himself. If not Satan will use the negatives in his life to bring him down. Remember Satan is the great deceiver and tempter.
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Now we will look at the qualifications of a deacon. "grave" means honorable. Not doubletongued means not say one thing to one person and another thing to another. Another description would be "two faced". He's not to be a drunk or have the greed of money.


1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
Even there wives must be honorable, not slanderous, not a drunk, and faithful.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Verse 11 stands as a argument for some that say women can hold the office of Deacon. The Greek word gune (goo-nay’ ... Strong’s #1135) is here translated as wives, but could possibly be translated less specifically as simply women. Which way is correct? Of the five most popular English translations of the Bible in Protestant churches, three translate here as wives while two translate as women. The King James, New International, and New King James versions translate gune as wives, while the New American Standard and New Revised Standard versions translate it as women.

Now, if the appropriate translation is simply women, then this single verse of Scripture would seem to indicate that women might be ordained as deacons. However, if the more specific translation of wives is demanded, then the question is entirely settled at this juncture; women may not be ordained as deacons.

What clues do we have then to help us ascertain which translation is appropriate? It is not enough to say that a fair conclusion may be drawn simply because a majority of popular translations say wives, but this does point to some uncertainty most particularly in modern times regarding this question. Let us then look at some clues which will guide us to the appropriate translation:

1. The linguistic context demands a translation of wives. In the verse (1.Timothy 3:12), gune is used again and obviously means wife. Therefore, it is likely that wife is the intended translation in verse 11. Additionally, the Greek word andres is used in this passage and is translated appropriately as husband. To my knowledge, during all the studying and talks I have been involved on this issue, no one has ever suggested that andres should be translated simply as man (as would be allowable in common koine Greek usage), for indeed, the passage would make no sense at all, and would even seem (in the latter case) to powerfully diminish the sanctity of the marriage covenant itself! There is, then, no cause or reason at all to attempt to translate gune merely as woman in this passage. Rather, there is every indication that the passage should be rendered exactly as the KJV, NIV, and NKJV render it, and thus, women may not be ordained to the diaconate according to this Biblical standard.

2. Also, it is impossible for a woman to satisfy the conditions imposed upon deacons in verse 12. Those who favor the ordination of women generally argue that in 1.Timothy 3, there are qualifications given for male deacons, and then qualifications given for female deacons (due to the presence of the Greek phrase hosautos in verses eight and eleven). Under this construction, verse 12 must apply to female deacons only or it must apply to all deacons, both male and female; for it cannot be restricted under the hos autos construction, to only male deacons (by those who favor the ordination of women), for the reason that it appears in the second set of qualifications which must include the women (There is no hosautos at the beginning of verse 12 to set off another separate group). To be sure, a woman may not be the husband of one wife, nor is she allowed to rule her house, as the headship of the household is clearly the responsibility of the husband (see Ephesians 5:22-24; 1.Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 3:16). Therefore, under the hosautos grammatical construction, women may not be ordained as deacons.

3. Note that, if both male and female deacons are in view in this passage (i.e., 1.Timothy 3), that the qualifications for male and female deacons are different, and it seems extremely unlikely that these qualifications should differ substantially. Moreover, it is my belief that this new translation of verse 11 fails to consider the overall context of Paul’s remarks beginning back in chapter two where the women are not allowed to teach nor to usurp authority over the men. This conflicts with the charge to deacons to rule their houses well. Indeed, one must have authority over the household in order to rule it well.
In addition, although there are some exceptions, the great reformed theologians in past centuries seem to have had no trouble whatsoever in interpreting this verse in agreement with our contentions here. But for the record, I will select one who wrote prior to the King James translation of gune as wife, and for whom English was not even a first language. John Calvin wrote concerning 1.Timothy 3:11 the following:
He means the wives ... of deacons ..., for they must be aids to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel that of others. (Calvin’s Commentaries)
There are many other linguistic and theological authorities which may be quoted in support of this position. Here is a very abbreviated list:
Matthew Henry cites "wives" as the appropriate translation of "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 (Comm. 6:657).
Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, recognized scholar in Biblical languages, writes that "wives" is the appropriate translation in I.Tim.3:11.
Dr. Jay P. Green, Greek scholar and author of the Interlinear Greek/English New Testament, translates "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 as wives, and not merely women.
The Very Reverend Dr. H.D.M. Spence, with his associates, Joseph S. Exell and P.J. Gloag, editors and authors of the respected Pulpit Commentary Series, wrote that "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 refers to the "wives of both deacons and elders."
Dr. Marvin R. Vincent, Koine Greek scholar and author of Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, categorically translates "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 as "wives." (This is significant in that our opponents on this issue have exhaustively cited A.T. Robertson, who does indeed render the translation of "women" for "gune" in the referenced verse).
Dr. John Gill rendered the appropriate translation of "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 as definitely "wives."
David Guzik rendered "wives" in I.Tim.3:11.
Alexander Strauch, in his recent book on the subject of ordained church leadership (Biblical Eldership, An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership. Lewis and Roth Publications. 1995, p.279) wrote: "Deacons must meet specific qualifications that are similar to those required of the overseers ... Because of the way they serve the congregation, they must be men in whom the saints have confidence and trust. In order to do their work effectively, the deacons must be men of proper moral and spiritual character."
John Nelson Darby wrote, "The apostle next points out to Timothy the qualities necessary for a bishop or a deacon, as well as for the wife of the latter.* [* So it would read in English, but I see no reason why it should not apply to the elders’ (bishops') wives. It runs really thus, “In like manner the] deacons .... In like manner the] wives.” (This reference to the hosautos [i.e., "in like manner" trans.] construction is much more reasonable and appropriate)
The revered 1599 Geneva Study Bible says that "gune" means "the wives of pastors and deacons."
1056AD Church Constitution: "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved ..."
The Peoples New Testament Commentary agrees with the 1599 Geneva Bible and with Rev. Dr. Spence, rendering "the wives of deacons and elders."
Dr. Charles Ryrie rendered "wives" for "gune" here, commenting that "if Paul had a different group in mind in verse 12, he would have finished the qualifications for deacons before beginning the qualifications for deaconesses."
G. Campbell Morgan agreed, writing, "the deacons must be men" with respect to the ordained office.
There is a great deal of evidence here from able Biblical scholars which runs contrary to the present policy of Churches and denominations which allow the ordination of women to the diaconate.


Other views

Some additional potential counter-arguments have been put forth in favor of ordaining women as deacons.

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

Here we see Paul commending Phebe (who is female) for being a servant of the church. Servant here is translated diakonos the same as Deacon and Minister. As stated earlier, it's seems that many of today's churches, especially the smaller ones, like to combine the Elder and Deacon position together. Perhaps it's because of the limited number of people, or lack of people committing to serve the church. To be an Elder of the church, one must be a male. The reason behind this is because of the order of authority. We will study this later in this article. An Elder is responsible for many important roles and decisions within the church that range from areas of upkeep and monies to hiring/paying the bills and/or Pastor. It's a role of high authority.

The role of Deacon is that of servant hood. Actually we ALL should be servants of the church and believe Paul used the word diakonos as a description of Pheobe's work which was servant hood. As mentioned in the book of Acts, the roles were developed as an organized method of serving all the people in the church. Pheobe was a servant of the early church, and apparently did it well, and Paul commended her for her work. In Timothy and Titus Paul starts with introducing himself as "Paul, as servant of God" The word servant in this case translates back to Doulous which means "Slave". We know Paul was a free man, a Roman citizen in fact and not a slave. He uses this term to example himself to others. There is no mention of officers, offices, or ordination in the church in Romans 16:1, and there would be no reason or need to “assume” such a meaning, especially in the light of a preponderance of Scriptural evidence which militates against such a reading as that which is contained in the NRSV.
We now move up from the Book of Romans, written around 58AD to the book of I Timothy written some 9 years later.

Next in question is from Acts Chapter 18. We see Paul meeting up with a man named Aguila and his wife named Priscilla in the city or Cornith. The couple came to Cornith because Jew were now required to leave Rome and they came to Cornith to set up business which was tent making. Because of persecution Paul left Cornith and Aguila and Priscilla went with him. In Ephesus they met a man named Apollos. The Book of Acts say about Apollos, "…an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures." And "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John." (Acts 18:25) Knowing only the baptism of John tells us he has not heard the Gospel yet, so Aguila and Priscilla took him and "...expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly."(Acts 18:26) As any good Christian should we should always witness and be the salt and light of the earth.


Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Many uses these verses as a justification of woman being Pastors (or Authority) within the church. Many use verse 28. These verse are not "qualifying" verse for authority, but showing that everyone, Jew, Greek, bond or free, male or female, all are a family under Jesus Christ. All can be saved.

One has said, “If Deborah could be a Judge of Israel, why can our ladies not be deacons?” If this argument were valid, women should be allowed to hold any office in the church! The Scripture does not preclude a woman from serving as an Old Testament Judge of Israel, but it does preclude her from serving as an ordained deacon (or elder) in the church.

A second counter-argument has been put forward which posits that the Greek verb "authenteo" in 1.Timothy 2:12 must be construed to be limited to a specific kind of authority, namely, judicial/governing authority in the church, and then further, this counter-argument contends that only elders possess this particular kind of authority. Although the scope of authority which Paul had in view may be limited, it is clear that authority resides in deacons from our own Standards. Morever, there is no warrant for this kind of specific restricted definition either from the context or from the literal meaning of the word itself. It simply means “to usurp authority” (Strong’s #831) or “to exercise authority” (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Jay P. Green, Sr., p. 641). Paul is clear. It is therefore my earnest contention that women may not “exercise authority” over the men; thus a woman deacon, who is given authority over men in the church who hold no ordained office, holds that authority and therefore that ordained office in error according to 1.Timothy 2:12.

Another argument goes like this: “We just do not have enough men willing to serve as deacons, and therefore, our women must serve.” However, this is pragmatism, and it is not based upon the Word of God which admonishes us against such pragmatic attitudes. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12). It is granted that the men of the church today need to be more committed to it, but this does not justify the violation of the Word of God with respect to its policies concerning ordination.

Conclusion

God uses his people in a mighty way when needed. Many he will call, few there will be that answer. We see many growing trends throughout the Christian churches of people, especially men, not wanting to fulfill their roles according to God's calling. I believe in freewill and believe that God gives us a choice whether to answer his call. Pulpits are now empty because of men not wanting to step up and serve God. The absence is being filled by "substitutes" by mankind that totally go against God's Holy word. Pulpits are now being filled with homosexuals, drunkards, fornicators, and for the sake of this discussion…women. We cannot undo a "wrong" by trying to correct it with a wrong. No doubt there are many women in the churches that have a love for God, a desire to serve him and he will call them. Women are the backbone of the home and of the church, but each should subdue to God's will and fulfill the role in which he calls them to fill.
Many times Pride gives us a desire for a title like Pastor or Minister instead of servant. God calls the women to do many things among the church and without them the church would crumble. It is my belief that one of those positions that he will never call a women to do is Pastor a church or teach over a man. I believe I have shown this, not by pulling one verse out of context, but from Genesis throughout the New Testament. We each have our roles and calling, and we each should stand up and deliver, but by the word of God.

 

1st timothy 4;14 talks about the pastor being ordained to the presbytery. but the scripture dosen't talk about ordaining the deacons the pastor has to have a call, the deacons were chosen.

 

Since they cast lots to choose those deacon, I think it was God who choose the deacons. Leave it up to chance? And have deacons not doing the will of God because He judt might not have wanted them to be deacons. No, I think God plays a part in it.


No. only men can be ordained a preacher, or a deacon. Women are not called to preach.(everyone knows the verses) That belief represents a misundrstanding of clear scripture. Women are notsecond best becaue of it or less in anyway. God has special callings for women in service to Him too. But each has their own place.

 

Ah, finally I see the intent of this thread. It is one of those women vs. men topics, right? Well, the Bible does not (at any place) ordain or places into office any women, per say - but Paul called several women his fellow laborers in Christ.

For the world of me I can not see why any woman would want to serve as a Pastor of a local New Testmament Church, clearly going against the Biblical directives given to us.