All Rights Reserved *
Many
Christian denominations including many Baptists, believe that there are two
officers in a church, one being the pastor (elder or bishop) and the other a
deacon. This paper will show there are no biblical grounds in the New
Testament for the establishment of an "office" of a deacon. There is no
example or reference to an official diaconate (the office or period of
office of a deacon) in the New Testament church that has authority or office
over the local congregation. There is certainly a biblical position in the
church of "deacons" or better, "servants," but it is not a position of
authority in a local church.
The word, "diakonos," which is transliterated in our English Bibles,
"deacon," is simply the Greek word "servant." The New Testament gives
examples of both "appointed" servants elected by the church to specific
tasks and of "unelected" servants who served the Lord in a general sense in
a local church. The noun "diakonos" is used thirty times in the New
Testament and in only five of those does it refer to a specifically
appointed servant:
Philippians 1:1 "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (diakonos - noun)"
1 Timothy 3:8 "Likewise must the deacons (diakonos - noun) be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre"
1 Timothy 3:10 "And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon (diakoneo - a verb), being found blameless."
1 Timothy 3:12-13 "Let the deacons (diakonos - noun) be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon (diakoneo - verb) well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."
The word is generally used simply to denote one who served the Lord or ministered as a servant. For example:
Romans 16:1 "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos - noun) of the church which is at Cenchrea."
The word translated "deacon" in 1 Timothy 3:13 is the verb diakoneo and is
found only in 1 Timothy 3:10, 13. The single word "diakoneo" is translated
into the phrase, "use the office of a deacon." However, Phebe, not being a
man and not the "husband of one wife" could not hold the position of a
deacon as the word is popularly used. The word means servant and the context
tells you if it is an elected position or simply one who served in the
church. Phebe was simply a faithful member who served the Lord in her
church. Her "ministry" was as a servant.
Most commentators base their assumption that the position of a deacon is an
official office in a church on three factors:
1. The King James Bible and most English Bibles in 1 Timothy 3:10, 13, translate the one Greek word, "diakoneo," into English phrase, "use the office of a deacon."
2. Many commentators and Bible dictionaries make the assumption that because Paul in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 lists the qualifications of a deacon, he is setting forth the official office of "deacon."
3. Down through history, most commentators have simply accepted the incorrect traditional ideas of those they followed without a thorough examination of the matter themselves.4. The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches all had a hierarchal system of church government in which "deacons" was an official ruling office. To have translated the word "diakonos" as "servant" would have degraded the position in these churches and made it less of an honored position. Further, the title "Deacon" envisioned a place of honor, whereas the title "servant" would not.
The first problem with the present day misunderstanding of this position is
caused by the transliteration (spelled in letters of another alphabet) of
the Greek word "diakonos" into the word "deacon." The same word is found 30
times in the New Testament and in only five verses in our English New
Testament is the Greek word transliterated "deacon" ("diakonos" a noun,
three times and "diakoneo" a verb, twice).
The other twenty-five times the word is properly translated "servant" or
"minister." It is exactly the same Greek word. There is no precedent, rule
in grammar or translation, that would support or validate the
transliteration of the word, "diakonos," into the English word, "deacon."
The English word "servant" is a proper and accurate translation of the Greek
word "diakonos."
In In 1 Timothy 3:10 and 13 the phrase, "use the office of a deacon," is
translated from one Greek word "diakoneo", being a verb, which is properly
translated "ministry" or "service of a servant," denoting the action of the
verb. The Greek word is defined by Arndt and Gingrich as meaning "to wait on
someone."1 Thayer defines the word as meaning "to be a servant, attendant,
domestic; to serve, wait upon." He further states "like the Latin, minstrare,
to wait at table and offer food and drink to guests."2 This word is a verb
denoting an action of serving and is not a noun that would denote a title of
an office, officer, or official.
Greek scholar, Kenneth Wuest translates the word,
"be serving as deacons." 3
Most other translators translate the word, "serve as deacons."3 This is
strong evidence that the New Testament does not support the establishment of
an "office" or "board" of deacons. The English phrase "use the office" is a
verb and if the Lord had intended to be referencing an official "office"
then He would have used a noun. The biblical example is that of deacons
being appointed servants to perform a specified service to the congregation.
There is no example in the New Testament of an appointed servant functioning
as ruling person or having authority in the church over the pastor or
church.
The most common modern definition and understanding of the English word
"office" is: "a position of responsibility or some degree of executive
authority." (1.b, "office") In other words, an "office" is a position of
some authority. However, the word office can be used in another sense as
"something that one ought to do or must do: an assigned or assumed duty,
task, role, or the proper or customary action of something: FUNCTION:
something done for another: SERVICE" (4.a-c, "office").
In other words, an "office" is a position of some authority. However, the
word office can be used in another sense as "something that one ought to do
or must do: an assigned or assumed duty, task, role, or the proper or
customary action of something: FUNCTION: something done for another:
SERVICE" (4.a-c, "office").4 The last definition (4.a-c) is probably the
definition the King James translators understood the word to mean. The word
in the Greek text absolutely does not refer to an official ruling position.
It simply means a person elected to serve in a particular ministry.
Transliterating the verb
diakoneo into "office of a deacon" does not
distinguish which meaning is correct. History shows that, probably under the
influence of the Church of England and Protestant churches, whose roots are
found in Roman Catholicism, the word was understood incorrectly as referring
to an official office, which supported their unbiblical hierarchical system
of church government. These churches established "deacons" as official
ruling officers in their churches.
The word "office" and "use" are not in any Greek text. Vines Expository
Dictionary of New Testament Words says, the word is a verb, not a noun.5 It
is the word, "diakoneo," and means "to serve." As stated earlier, the
phrase, "let them use of office of a deacon," is only one word in the Koine
Greek and can accurately be translated "let them serve (or minister) as
servants." The Greek word is a verb showing action, whereas the English word
"office" is a noun which denotes a position. Clearly, the word "diakoneo"
would be better translated "let them serve (or minister) as servants."
It is the word, "diakoneo," and means "to serve." As stated earlier, the
phrase, "let them use of office of a deacon," is only one word in the Koine
Greek and can accurately be translated "let them serve (or minister) as
servants." The Greek word is a verb showing action, whereas the English word
"office" is a noun which denotes a position. Clearly, the word "diakoneo"
would be better translated "let them serve (or minister) as servants." (See
the list at the end of this article which compares the qualifications of the
bishop and those of an elected servant)
Some might suppose that to take this position is to be opposed to having
biblical deacons. This is not the case. The use of appointed servants in the
church is a part of the Lord's stated organization of a local church.
However, it is not scriptural to elect men to unbiblical positions in our
churches. It is not God's will to appoint men as officers in a local church,
call them "deacons," and purport that they hold a biblical position. In over
thirty-one years of experience in churches, three years serving as a deacon,
twenty-eight years as a pastor, as well as many examples of other churches
of which I have personal knowledge, I have seen clear illustrations of the
destructive results of misusing and misapplying the biblical role of a
deacon. Any time the word of God is ignored or distorted there will be a
negative result.
The role of a deacon, as Acts 6:1-7, clearly states, was that of waiting on
tables and the distribution of food to the widows in the Jerusalem church.
The root word "diako" from which "diakonos" is derived means "to run
errands.6 Seven spiritual men of good character were elected, not by the
apostles, but by the congregation to look after that business. This was done
to free the pastors from menial tasks so they could better attend to their
responsibilities in regards to studying, preaching and teaching. (Acts 6:4)
This is the only example we have of these specially appointed men serving in
a church. From the example in the New Testament we can conclude the tasks to
which a deacon can be biblically appointed are not limited to waiting
tables, applying the interpretive "rule of first occurrence." The sphere of
their responsibility should be limited to characteristics of the task in
Acts 6:1-7, which was menial administrative service to the congregation.
Some have supposed these were the forerunners of the later established
official position of the office of a "deacon" of 1 Timothy 3:8-13. This idea
is not consistent with the biblical record. In Acts 6:2, the Apostles called
the church together and said, "It is not reason that we should leave the
word of God, and serve tables." The Apostles were asking the church to
appoint someone to "serve tables." We understand this because the word
"diakoneo"
simply means "to serve or to wait on tables." An example of its use in the
New Testament is found in Luke 10:40, when Martha complained to the Lord
Jesus that, "my sister hath left me to "serve"(diakoneo) alone."
This is the
same word used in 1 Timothy 3:10, 13 which was transliterated "use the
office of a deacon." The Jerusalem church understood clearly that they were
appointing servants to "take care of this business," which was waiting on
tables. Certainly they understood they were not establishing an office of
leadership in their church or putting these men in an official position over
their church.
The type of servant, whether appointed or non-appointed), is indicated by
the context in which the word is used. In Acts 6:1-7, and in 1 Timothy
3:8-13, the context tells you these men were "appointed servants." In other
verses, where the word "diakonos," a noun, is used, the context explains
that these references refer to servants in general.
It is incorrect to make the assumption that Charles C. Ryrie does in his
Ryrie Study Bible note on Acts 6:2, which says, "The Greek word for "serve"
is the one from which we derive "deacon," but these men were deacons only in
the sense of being servants. However, these men were not servants in the
sense of officers in the church.7 As a Protestant; Ryrie is upholding the
position as an official ruling office.
This is the standard position of the Protestant denominations that got this
false idea from the corrupt Roman Catholic system. The context of Acts 6:2
clearly shows no "office" in a church was being established, but men were
being appointed to a particular service. There is no support in the New
Testament for the assumption that God later changed the position and
established a ruling office of deacons. There is no hint or example of this
in the New Testament. Ephesians 4:11 is the last statement in the New
Testament concerning those who ministered in an official or full-time
capacity. "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Ephesians 4:11) Note, deacons
(servants) are not included. Deacon are not included because these are the
official positions in a assembly that God "gave."
Ryrie, in his note on 1 Timothy 3:8, again sites the difference between the
"servants" of Acts 6:1-7 and the "servants" (deacons) of 1 Timothy 3:8-13.8
In Acts 6:3, the Apostles stated the qualifications of these first appointed
servants in the church as being, "men of honest report, full of the Holy
Ghost and wisdom." These qualifications were simply a generalization of the
character of these men and Paul in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, made the earlier
generalization more specific. These men were to serve in a position in which
there had been accusations of impropriety. There were both Hebrew and Greek
widows in the church at Antioch whom the church was supporting. The Greek
widows were complaining that the Hebrew widows were getting preferential
treatment. It was the Apostles, all Hebrews, who were serving them food and
they were the ones the complaints were being directed toward. Therefore, the
task of administering to these widows called for men who were above reproach
in character. There is no reason to suppose these were "forerunners" of
officials called "deacons" as Ryrie states. They were not even called
deacons because no such a title is used in the New Testament. This will be
covered further later in this paper. In Acts 6:1-7, we have the first
mention of these servants being appointed by the church to do some specific
work that needed done. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to
suggest that this was a different position or appointment and that the later
"deacons" of 1 Timothy 3:8-13, were official "officers" in the local church.
It is interesting and revealing to read Ryrie's note on Romans 16:1. The
verse says, "Phebe, our sister, which is a "servant" of the church which is
at Cenchrea." The word "servant" here is the feminine word "diakonon." Ryrie
says, "The word here translated "servant" is often translated "deacon",
which leads some to believe that Phebe was a deaconess. However, the word is
more likely used here in an unofficial sense of helper."9 However, if you
understand that the word is correctly translated "servant" and not deaconess
there is no problem. Phebe was a servant in her church in the same way any
woman can be a servant in their church. Her position was of service not
leadership.
Some have a problem with the Phebe being a "deacon" because they assume that
it is an official office of leadership in the church. When asked do I
believe in, "deaconesses in the church? I reply, "Absolutely!" However, I
always qualify my reply by explaining that the word denotes a female
"servant" and not an officer of the church. I do not believe in women being
"deacons" in a church as many modern churches are using the position. The
false modern "deacon" is a leader or an official in a church with
"authority" over all the congregation, including men. This is clearly
unscriptural as women are not to "usurp authority over the man" (1 Timothy
2:12). But the biblical position of women being servants in the local
congregation ministering to women and children is in accord with God's
instructions (Titus 2:3-5). Most congregations would be lost without their
women servants. The supposed "deaconess" problem is no problem at all if you
properly interpret God's word and understand the word denotes a servant and
not a leader in the church.
Two of the men appointed in Acts 6, Philip and Stephen, achieved prominence
as preachers. However, neither is later identified as or given the title of
deacon. The most obvious reason is that there was no such official "title"
as "deacon" in use in New Testament times. The word "servant" was a job
description that described their ministry. There is no reference in the New
Testament of anyone being called or given the title of "deacon." For
example, if a modern church would elect someone as "grounds keeper" we would
not be making an official authoritative office in the church, but rather be
giving a job description of the position and responsibility to which that
the person was elected. We would certainly not call the church member
"Grounds Keeper Jones" or "Servant Jones." The misunderstanding would go
away if we stopped using the word "deacon" and used the correct English word
"servant." But on a humorous note, who would want to be called "Servant
Jones?" The title "Deacon Jones" carries with it a false sense of prestige
and honor which is totally contrary to the biblical position and
responsibility.
Someone might point out the phrase "use the office of" is used in 1 Timothy
3:1, in reference to a "office" of a bishop. Here, too, the Greek word is "diakoneo"
and is better translated "to minister" or "to serve." This verse, too, can
be properly translated, "If a man desire the ministry (or service) of a
bishop, he desireth a good work." The responsibility and position of
leadership is established in the use of the word "bishop" which means an
"overseer" and the (delete) other verses of Scriptures establish the place
of leadership of the pastor (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 5:17, Hebrews 13:17, 1
Peter 5:2).
It should be noted that when Paul sent Titus to the churches of Crete, to
"set them in order" by instructing them in the appointing of pastors, he did
not instruct him to also appoint "deacons" (Titus 1:5). If there are two
"offices" in a church, pastors and deacon, why did Paul not tell Titus to
appoint "deacons" as well? This omission is especially important when it is
understood that Paul sent Titus to organize these assemblies and "set them
in order." If a church must have deacons in order to be properly organized,
why did Paul omit their appointment?
In none of the New Testament lists of gifts that are related to ministering
and leadership in a church are deacons mentioned (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11).
Surely, it was not an oversight on God's part to omit deacons. I believe the
reason they were not listed is that there was no such "office." These
appointed servants of the congregation held an important job in the church,
but it was not a position or office of leadership. Their job was to help the
pastors by performing menial tasks for the congregation and work as
peacemakers among the widows of the church, thus freeing the pastor's time
to ". . . give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the
word." (Acts 6:4) The word ministry used in Acts 6:4, is interestingly "diakonia"
or "service." Their appointment was clearly not to advise or have any ruling
authority over the pastor or congregation.
In Acts 6:3, when the Twelve Disciples called the assembly together they
asked the congregation to appoint "seven men of honest report, full of the
Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this "business." The word
"business" is the Greek word "chrea" which means "necessity or duty." The
congregation was not appointing them to an office, but giving them a
responsibility or duty to take care of the widows. Over the years I have
watched as churches have elected deacons from their assemblies "to serve on
the Board of Deacons" and be elevated to positions of authority over the
congregation. Clearly, churches have left the biblical example and elected
men to an "honorary" position of leadership, serving on an official ruling
board of a church.
Instead of electing servants that were needed to carry on administrative
tasks and be helpers to the pastor and congregation, churches put these men
in a place of authority over the local congregation and often even over the
pastor. It is normal today to elect deacons without giving them any real
function in the church, and "ordain" them merely to an honorary position in
the church. Some see electing men deacons as an act of honor, recognition
and reward in the church. Often, instead of looking for men qualified to
perform some specific task that needs to be done, men are chosen because of
the social or economic status in the church or because the "earned" the
honor.
It is a common practice in some churches to see their position as being
counselors to the pastor or working in the leadership of a church in
conjunction with the pastor. Frequently pastors have elevated deacons above
the other members of the congregation by holding special counsel with their
"Board of Deacons." Often, if a pastor wants something done in the
congregation he first must go to his "deacon board" and get their counsel or
approval on the matter. This unbiblical practice gives the false impression
to the congregation that deacons hold a leadership or elevated position over
the church. There is no biblical example of a pastor seeking the counsel of
his deacons in the overseeing of a local church.
In Acts 15, when the church at Antioch needed counsel they went to the
Jerusalem church. In Acts 15:4, 22, it states the matter was placed before
the whole church, the apostles and the elders.(Acts 15:6) The apostles,
elders and the whole church recognized that this was the proper way to seek
counsel in a church. If there was a hierarchy recognized in the Jerusalem
church why did they not just take the matter to them? The reason is there
was no elder or Presbyterian type of rule in the early church. By involving
the whole church and its leaders, the precedent of congregational rule was
confirmed. Christ's strong denunciation of the Nicolaitanes in Rev. 2:6, 15
is further evidence that God "hates" (means to detest) those who would seek
to establish a hierarchy to rule over the local congregation. Couple this
with the fact that Jesus in Revelation 2-3, addressed each church through
its pastor (angel/messenger) and it sets the matter to rest. Christ was
speaking to the whole congregation to commend them or instruct them to turn
from the error of their ways. He properly did it through their overseer
which he had placed to lead them. Please note God inspired John to write
this almost sixty years after He instituted the institution of the local
church. This shows this was the practice at the end of the 1st century in
the churches and deacons did not have an official position.
Often the justification of using deacons as leaders or counselors to the
pastor and church comes from a pragmatic philosophy of church organization
which ignores biblical principle and example. This view says if it works,
then do it. It is a poor leader who must go to his deacons and get them on
his side before he attempts to bring a matter before his congregation. There
is nothing wrong with a pastor discussing church matters with men in his
church, but it is unbiblical for a pastor to go to his "church board" in
order to carry out his duties as the overseer of his church. This is simply
a form of the unscriptural "elder rule" of the Presbyterians and a few other
churches. This procedure is merely a dressed-up form of Presbyterianism or
elder rule, which is foreign to a New Testament churches. The New Testament
teaches in every case congregational rule, which means that all members of
the church are equal in all matters concerning the church's business.
Evidence of this can be seen in the New Testament example given in Acts 6:2,
which states that the Twelve Disciples carried the matter to the
congregation and the congregation appointed them to the task that needed
attention. If the New Testament was teaching "elder" rule, the Apostles
would have appointed these servants, but that is clearly not how God wanted
it done.
Using men unscripturally in this position tends to elevate them above the
rest of the congregation. Often church constitutions incorrectly require the
pastor and church to use the deacons in leadership positions. One place this
can create a real problem is in giving deacons the position of locating and
calling a new pastor. When a pastor leaves, these men are elevated to a
special leadership status in the congregation. This sends a wrong message
requiring that deacons must be the ones who look for and present to the
congregation a new pastor.
To spiritual men this is not a problem, but for many it gives them the first
taste of authority in the church. History proves this point and sadly it is
a valid one. Many times when the new pastor comes, the deacons are not
always willing to relinquish their new-found prestige and position. The
congregation, placed under deacon leadership, often begins to look to them
for guidance. Some church members find it easier to get a deacon to agree
with them and take their side in some disagreement involving the pastor.
This has often been the turning point when deacons eventually began to take
control of a church. Many times this procedure has ultimately led to deacons
ruling over a local church and seeing themselves as having the position of
authority over the hiring and firing of their pastor.
Is it correct and proper to use men from the congregation to help in holding
services when the church is without a pastor? Philip and Steven are examples
of men who were appointed servants (deacons) in the church who were also
preachers. I have been using men in my congregation to hold Bible studies,
prayer meetings and even to preach periodically during my entire ministry,
but I did not use them simply because they held the special status of
deacon. Being a deacon is not what qualifies a man to teach or preach in the
church. The men I chose were used because they were godly and spiritual men
and it had nothing to do with them being a deacon. The emphasis in using the
men in the church should not be that they are deacons, as any man in the
church could be used without regard to whether they are deacons or not.
Surely, my congregation and I should seek to appoint and use spiritual men
with the ability to carry out a needed service or task, and this should be
the only criteria. Deacons could serve the congregation in this function
based on their ability and willingness to serve, but not on their position
as deacons.
In the first church I pastured, I ran head-on into the situation where the
deacons ran the pastor and the church. In one of my first business meetings
I made a proposal to the church which they voted on and wholeheartedly
accepted. Several days later the "head deacon" (Chairman of the Deacon
Board) came to my house and brought up the matter I had presented. He
informed me that in the future if I wanted to present something to the
church I should first consult him and if he thought it worthy he would
present it to the deacon board. If the deacon board thought it a worthy idea
they would present it to the church and it would past without difficulty.
When I informed him this was not the proper function of deacons, pastors, or
of biblical church polity, and I would follow the New Testament, he became
upset and from that day on started a campaign to remove me as pastor. He did
not want to relinquish his unbiblical position and power in that church. I
do not believe that God will or can bless a congregation that allows men to
usurp their pastor's God-given position and take the rule over him and the
congregation. Once this unbiblical situation comes into power over a church
it becomes a yoke that few churches can cast off. Further, this unbiblical
use of men in churches has also spiritually destroyed many good men who were
incorrectly elected to an unscriptural "board of deacons" and told they had
authority over the pastor and congregation. This situation is especially
hard for a young pastor to deal with and it has caused many to fall by the
wayside.
Over the years I have followed a procedure which I believe best represents
the New Testament example of congregational rule. Simply stated, when I need
counsel or have matters to discuss with the men, I call all the men of the
church together and discuss the matter with them. Proverbs 15:22 says,
"Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of
counsellers they are established." I always make it very clear that what we
are discussing will be brought before the whole church and properly
discussed and voted on. In following this procedure, I am not promoting a
special and unbiblical class of men in our church. I am showing equal
respect for all of our men. Some might point out that in larger churches it
might be difficult to follow this procedure. My answer to that is twofold.
First, if I follow this practice now while my church is small and solidly
ground my people into understanding the biblical role of specially elected
servants in the church, later they will not allow a group of deacons or
anyone else to gain control or to usurp authority over the pastor or the
congregation. Secondly, if the church becomes too large to call all the men
together, I believe it would be advisable to appoint a committee to look
into the particular situations to make recommendations with the pastor to
the church. These committees could be elected annually and their terms of
service limited to assure that they would not become an unbiblical group.
Their responsibilities should also be clearly defined and limited.
I have always made it a priority to teach what the Bible says concerning
what God intended "deacons" to be to the church. Our "deacons" (servants)
clean the church, do the yard work, cut the grass, do maintenance on the
building, and work at handling the church's books, finances, clerical duties
and other tasks. Those whom God has giving the talent of teaching can
certainly be used in this position.
One problem is that some churches appoint men to the position as a deacon
for life. The church constitution should clearly set forth their duties and
term of service. They should be elected annually and receive prior approval
from the pastor who makes sure they meet all the biblical qualifications.
The church constitution should have clear instructions for the election and
for the removal of men who become disqualified to serve.
I do not want to belabor the point, but when a church finds itself without a
pastor, often the deacons of a church are given the task of finding a new
pastor for the church. I believe it is a better procedure for the outgoing
pastor to instruct the church in calling a new pastor and by electing a
temporary pulpit committee from the floor in a business meeting. These
people would be instructed as to their duties and procedures. It will
(should) be clear that they would function as the servants of the whole
assembly, and once the new pastor is called and arrives, their services are
terminated. This violates no scripture and does not elevate deacons to be
responsible for hiring and firing pastors. It sets a bad precedent for a
"board of deacons" to seek and present pastoral candidates to the church.
Spiritual men would properly understand their responsibility, however, in
many cases using deacons as a "pulpit committee" eventually ends with the
"board" seeing themselves as the ones who "hire and fire" the pastor. The
carnal nature of man concludes that if you can hire and fire the pastor you
have authority over him. Using a temporary pulpit committee, elected by the
congregation from the assembly, precludes deacons assuming authority over
the pastor that God does not give them.
Often, smaller churches do not need deacons (elected servants) as the menial
tasks are done generally by all the congregation on a volunteer basis. When
things need to be discussed, as stated above, I call all the men together
and we confer on the matter at hand. This procedure has served our
congregation well, and we operate in a spirit of unity. A church does not
have to have deacons in order to have a biblical church polity. When there
is a need for some service a pastor can mention it in a service and get
volunteers.
In many churches, after deacons are elected, they have a special ceremony in
which the pastor and other deacons "lay hands" on the candidate and "ordain"
the deacon. In the New Testament there is no reference to "ordaining"
deacons as practiced by many churches today. Note what A.C. Gaebelein says
about the matter:
"The seven were then set before the Apostles and when they prayed they laid their hands on them. This is the first time we find the laying on of hands in the Book of Acts. As this "laying on of hands" is so much misunderstood, and has been made an act by which authority, power and blessing is claimed to be conferred, we must say a brief word on it. It is always proper in reading and interpreting the Word of God, to see if not elsewhere in the Bible the terms or things to be interpreted are used, so that through them the right meaning can be ascertained. The laying on of hands is first mentioned in the Book of Leviticus. In the opening chapters of that book we read how the offerer was to lay his hand upon the head of the offering. Thus we read of the Peace offering: "He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering" (Lev. iii: 2). This meant the identification of the Israelite with the offering itself. And this is the only meaning of the laying on of hands from the side of the Apostles. They identified themselves and the assembly with them in their work for which they had been chosen. It was a very simple and appropriate act to show their fellowship with them. All else which has been made of the laying on of hands is an invention. There is no Scripture for the present day usage in Christendom, that a man, in order to preach the Gospel or teach the Word of God must be "ordained."10
The act of "laying on of hands" was merely a cultural oriental practice in
which one would show his identification with or approval of the person on
which he placed his hand. It was not used to "set apart to the sacred office
in the church" or to "put their honor upon those chosen to the same
responsible and dignified position" as Unger's Bible Dictionary states.11
The present day use of "ordination" comes from the Roman Catholic and
Protestant churches and should not be confused with the what the early
church practiced. After a church elects its officers each year it is proper
to have special prayer and install them in their duties. This is completely
in line with the biblical example.
In closing, I can find no biblical precedent for a church to misuse or
misapply the ministry of specially appointed servants (deacons) in the local
church as many churches are doing today. I believe we must follow the
biblical example literally and add nothing to it or take anything away from
it. A godly servant, who serves his fellow believers faithfully, is an asset
to any local church and brings honor to the Lord. The pastor and the church
must be careful in setting the position within the biblical example and make
sure that it is never changed.
It is interesting to read in Strong's Systematic Theology, such statements
as, "The number of offices in the church is two: -first the office of
bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and secondly, the office of deacon."12 In
numerous pages following, which address the "officers" of the church and
their duties, it is well to note that Strong never gives even one Scriptural
reference for his conclusion of deacons being "officers" in the church. The
reason is apparently that there is no Scriptural reference available.
Elmer Towns, in his textbook, Theology for Today, also concludes there is an
"office" of a deacon by using Philippians 1:1, in which Paul addresses the
Epistle to "To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with
the bishops and deacons." He further says "Because these are the only two
that are identified with the title office, most churches conclude these are
the only New Testament offices in the church."13
First, to conclude that in Philippians 1:1, Paul only addresses the bishops
and servants (deacons) and that this establishes the authority of a deacon
is a weak point. If you correctly translate the sentence as "To all the
saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and servants"
the problem goes away. There is nothing in this verse to suggest that Paul
was recognizing any other than the pastors and all the servants or members
in the church at Philippi. Towns refers to 1 Timothy 3:1 and 3:11 as using
the word "office" of a bishops and deacon respectively. He fails to note
that the word translated into the English noun, "office" and the verb "use"
is not in any Greek text. As stated earlier, the phrase translated in our
English Bibles, "use the office" is one word in the Greek, which is a verb
and is, literally translated "ministry or service of a servant." Thus, he,
as well as many others are basing their conclusions that there is an
"office" of a deacon on a faulty and misleading translation of the Greek
text.
Chafer, in his Systematic Theology, refers to the position of a deacon also
as being an office, but correctly concludes that they "seem to have been
concerned with the offices of comfort and charity rather than with those of
oversight."14 Thus he seems to understand the word "office" as being an
assigned task and not a official church office.
A simple substitution of the word "ministry" for "offices" in his statement
would bring it in line with the New Testament Greek text. In studying this
matter I have read the conclusions of dozens of commentators. One thing I
find common to those who teach the "office of a deacon" idea is that they
take a eisegetical approach in arriving at their conclusions. They seem to
begin with the assumption there is an "office" and then base their comments
on this conjecture.
Further, they do not give any references to establish their presumption
exegetically. (Eisegesis means reading a meaning into Scripture. Exegesis
means taking the meaning from the text). Some may not agree with this
position and choose to use the "deacon board" or a modified elder rule
approach in their churches. They should understand that it is God Himself
who established church polity and not man. This issue is a matter of
conviction which came from many years of study of the matter.
I do not make this a matter to break or base fellowship with other men. Many
men and churches, which I deeply respect, do not hold to the biblical
position. I would encourage them to take the time and study the matter
thoroughly and follow the example of the Bereans. "These were more noble
than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things
were so (insert period)" (Acts 17:11). However, I feel that I must, in good
conscience before the Lord, follow the dictates of my conscience and the New
Testament example. By taking this course I am acknowledging that the Head of
the congregation that I pastor is the Lord Jesus Christ who died for it
(Eph. 5:25). He is the Chief Shepherd. The local assembly belongs to Him and
I am but His overseer and under-shepherd. Neither I, nor anyone else, have
any authority to change in any way the church that He founded and built. It
is His assembly, and I must faithfully follow the strict example of the New
Testament. I must not just blindly accept tradition or what many practice,
but rather "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) and
". . . let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in
himself alone, and not in another" (Gal. 6:4). God will not and cannot bless
error in any form; therefore, a church with an unbiblical use of servants
"deacons" cannot expect God's favor or blessings in this area.
A
Comparison of the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons
1 Timothy 3:1-13
| Bishops (Pastors) | Servants (Deacons) | ||||
| 1. | First, have the desire | 1. | Not mentioned | ||
|
(Is called of God, thus has
the desire) |
(Is appointed by the assembly - no call!) | ||||
| 2. | Blameless | 2. | Blameless | ||
| 3. | Husband of one wife. | 3. | Husband of one wife. | ||
| 4. | Vigilant | 4. | Not mentioned | ||
| 5. | Sober | 5. | Not mentioned | ||
| 6. | Of good behavior | 6. | Not mentioned | ||
| 7. | Given to hospitality | 7. | Not mentioned | ||
| 8. | Apt to teach | 8. | Not mentioned | ||
| 9. | Not given to wine | 9. | Not given to much wine | ||
| 10. | No striker | 10. | Not mentioned | ||
| 11. | Not greedy of money | 11. | Not greedy of money | ||
| 12. | Patience | 12. | Not mentioned | ||
| 13. | Not a brawler | 13. | Not mentioned | ||
| 14. | Not covetous | 14. | Not mentioned | ||
| 15. | Rules his house well* | 15. | Rules house/children in subjection* | ||
| 16. | Not a novice | 16. | Must be proved | ||
| 17. | Have good report in community | 17. | Not mentioned | ||
| 18. | Grave | 18. | Not mentioned | ||
| 19. | Not double tongued | 19. | Not mentioned | ||
| 20. | Holding faith, and a good conscience(1 Tim. 1:19) | 20. | Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience | ||
*(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of
the church of God.)
Note that in a comparison of the qualifications of bishops and deacons that
the deacons qualifications have to do with service and not leadership.
End Notes:
1. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich,
A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament (Chicago:University of Chicago, 1957) p183.
2. Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Hendrickson:Mass, 2003) p137.
3. Kenneth S. Wuest The New Testament, An Expanded Translation William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1959, p494.
4. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/office.
5. Merrill F. Unger and William White, Vines Complete Expository Dictionary
of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, p443.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/office.
6. Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament, An Expanded Translation, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1959, p494.
7. Charles C. Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, Chicago, 1978, p1548
8. Ibid p1711.
9. Ibid, p1617.
10. A.C. Gaebelein, The Acts of the Apostles, , Publication Office "Our
Hope", New York City, 1912, p121.
11. Merrill F. Unger, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press:Chicago,
1988, p534.
12. A. H. Strong, Strong's Systemic Theology, Fleming H. Revell Company, Old
Tappan, New Jersey, 1907, p914.
13. Elmer Towns, Theology for Today, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary,
1994, p492.
14. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. IV, Dallas:Dallas
Seminary Press,1948, p152.
*All Rights
Reserved.
(April 1998; Revised 2-27-2006; 5-14-2009; June
29, 2011; March 2012.)
Copy of
this article in PDF format click here.
(by Dr. Jack Hyles, 1926-2001)
THE CHURCH AS THE BRIDE OF CHRIST
(by
Dr. Jack Hyles,
1926-2001)
THE SUBSTITUTES FOR THE CHURCH
(by Dr. Jack Hyles, 1926-2001)
CHRIST AND HIS COWORKERS
(by
Dr. Curtis Hutson,
1934-1995)
The Authority Of The New Testament Church Is The Word Of God
A Biblical Look at Deacons
What's So Important About Attending Church?
A Brief Survey of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches
The Autonomy of a Baptist Church
The Translation of the Greek Word "Ekklesia" as "church" in the English Bible and its Ramifications.
The Best Church for You (20 Questions to Ask before Joining Any Church)
How does a person get to Heaven?
Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!
No comments:
Post a Comment