DEACONS.

“Not unto manhood’s heart alone

The holy influence steals;

Warm with a rapture not its own,

The heart of WOMAN feels.

As she who by Samaria’s well

The Saviour’s errand sought –

As those who with the fervent Paul

And meek Aquila wrought.”

                                     – Whittier.

     IT is generally assumed that the seven, whose appointment as assistants of the Apostles is described in Acts 6:1-6, were deacons. Probably they were. We will not question it. But the fact deserves notice that they are never called deacons. It should also be borne in mind that the only record we have of their acts is of their performing the work of a preacher of the Gospel. “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” – Acts 6:8.

     “And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.”

     “It is said that Phillip, the evangelist, was one of the seven.” – Acts 21:8. So that while “the seven “were to look after the charitable distributions of the church it nowhere appears that their work was confined to this. They were assistants of the Apostles, and as such they preached.

     Nothing can be clearer than that the New Testament deacons were preachers.

     “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers,” (in the original deacons,) “by whom ye believed.” – 1 Cor. 3:5.

     “Who also hath made us able ministers (deacons), of the New Testament.” – 2 Cor. 3:6.

     “Whereof I was made a minister (deacon).” –Eph. 3:7.

     “To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” – Phil. 1:1.Here the Apostle mentions but two classes or orders of ministers, one of which is the deacons.

     “Whereof I, Paul, am made a minister (deacon). –Col. 1:23.

     “Timotheus, our brother and minister (deacon) of God.” – 1 Thess. 3:2.

     In short, there is not single passage in which the word deacon is used to designate an officer of the church, where there is any indication that this deacon was not a preacher. But in the passages quoted above, and in other passages, there can be no doubt but that the person styled a deacon was a preacher. Then the conclusion must be that the New Testament deacons were preachers. They were all preachers.

     Mosheim, in writing of the church in the first century, says: “Both presbyters and deacons preached and administered the sacrament of baptism, and the former the Lord’s Supper.”²²

     There are some passages in which the word is taken in its primary signification of servant, such as Mat. 23:11, John 2:5, 9, but in these passages the meaning is clear. They afford no more reason for asserting that the deacons of the church were servants, or any particular deacon was a servant, in the sense in which the word servant is commonly understood, than the use of the word ecclesia in Acts 19:39, proves that the same word in Rev. 2:1, shows that the “church of Ephesus” was not a church at all, but a riotous assembly.

     When any words are given an ecclesiastical meaning in the New Testament they must always be understood as having that meaning when used in treating of church officers, and the connection warrants it. The word διακονος, deacon, where used in the New Testament as referring to an officer of the church, when translated at all, in both our common and revised versions is uniformly translated minister, except in one solitary instance. That is where it refers to a woman. I commend unto you Phebe, our sister, which is a servant (in the original διακονος, deacon) of the church which is at Cenchrea. – Rom. 16:1.

     Here you see the power of prejudice in even learned and pious men. Paul, when called a deacon, our translators call a minister; but: Phebe, when called a deacon they make a servant. That there might be no dispute about her sex Paul calls her, our sister.

     That there might be no doubt about her ecclesiastical position he calls her deacon or minister of the church at Cenchrea. Nothing can be more clear; nothing can be more definite.

     The churches of that day had no servants, in the ordinary sense of the word servant. The churches were poor. Their meetings were held in private houses. They had no church edifices.

     Here, then, we have a record in the New Testament of one woman who was a minister.

     The apostle states the qualifications which the women deacons must possess.

     “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.” – 1 Tim. 3:11. We had read this passage hundreds of times without suspecting its meaning. Lately, in reading it in the original, its meaning struck us as if by revelation. The word translated wives should be women. Their before wives is not found in the original. So that what the apostle here writes, is not about the wives of deacons, but about women deacons.

     Chrysostom says of this, the eleventh, verse: “Some have thought that this was said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses.

     “This must be understood, therefore, to relate to deaconesses. For that order is necessary and useful and honorable in the church. Observe how he requires the same virtue from the Deacons as from the Bishops, for though they were not of equal rank, they must equally be blameless; equally pure.”

     Dr. Adam Clarke, in his comment on this verse, says:

     “I believe the apostle does not mean here the wives either of the bishops or deacons in particular, but the Christian women in general. The original is simply λυναικας ωσαυτως σεμνας– gunaikas osautossemnas. Let the women likewise be grave. Whatever is spoken here becomes women in general; but if the apostle had those termed deaconesses in his eye, which is quite possible, the words are peculiarly suitable to them. That there was such an order in the apostolic and primitive church, and that they were appointed to their office by the imposition of hands, has already been noticed on Rom. 16:1. Possibly, therefore, the apostle may have had this order of deaconesses in view, to whom it was as necessary to give counsels and cautions as to the deacons themselves; and to prescribe their qualifications, lest improper persons should insinuate themselves into that office.”

     Considering the time when Dr. Clarke wrote, this was saying a great deal.

     Dean Alford, one of the most learned of modern commentators, is still more explicit. In his Greek Testament, on this passage he says: “(The) women in like manner. Who are these? Are they (1) women who were to serve as deacons, – deaconesses? – or (2)wives of the deacons? – or (3) wives of the deacons and overseers? – or (4) women in general? I conceive we may dismiss (4) at once, for Chrysostom’s reason.

     ‘For why should he wish to insert anything about women foreign to the subject of which he was speaking?’

     (3) Upheld by Calv. Est. Calev. and Mack, may for the same reason, seeing that he returns to διακονοι, diakonoi; again in verse 12, be characterized as extremelyimprobable. (2) has found many supporters among modern commentators; Ludi, Beza. Beng., (who strangely adds, ‘pendet ab habentes, ver. 9,) Rosenm.Heinr, Comyb., al., and E.V. But it has against it (a) the omission of all expressed reference to the deacons, such as might be given by αυτων, auton their, or by τάς tas, they; (b) the expression of σαυτωςj, (osautos, likewise,) by which the διακονοι (deacons) themselves were introduced, and seems to mark a new ecclesiastical class; (c) the introduction of the injunction respecting the deacons, εστωσαν μιας λυναικος ανδρες (husbands of one wife) as a new particular, which would hardly be if their wives had been mentioned before; (d) the circumstances connected with the mention of Phebe as διακονος (deacon) of the church at Cenchrea on Rom. 16:1, that unless these are deaconesses, there would be among these injunctions no mention of an important class of persons employed as officers of the church.

     We come thus to consider (1) that these γυναικες are deaconesses, ministrae, ministers, as Pliny calls them in his letter to Trajan. In this view the ancients are, as far as I know, unanimous. Of the moderns, it is held by Grot. Marb. Micb. DeW.,Wiesinger, Ellicott. It is alleged against it – (a) that thus the return to the διακονοι, (deacons), ver.12, would be harsh, or as Conyb. “on that view, the verse is most unnaturally interpolated in the midst of the discussion concerning the deacons.”

     But the ready answer to this is found in Chry’s. view of ver 12, that under διακονοι, and their household duties he comprehends in fact both sexes under one; ταϋτα καί πετί γυναικωυ διακόνων άρμόττει ε΄ιρησφαι – (“it is fitting that these things should be said about women deacons;”) (b) that the existence of deaconesses as an order in the ministry is not after all so clear. To this it might be answered, that even were they nowhere else mentioned, the present passage stands on its own grounds; and if it seemed from the context that such persons were indicated here, we should reason from this to the fact of their existence, not from the absence of other mention to their no indication here.

     “I decide, therefore, (1) that these women are ‘deaconesses; (must be), grave, not slanderers,” corresponds to Μν διλογους (not double tongued) in the males, being the vice to which the female sex is addicted; διαβολος (“diabolos”) in this sense (reff)is peculiar in N.T. to these epistles; “sober” corresponding to Μη οι νω πολλω προσερχοντας –(not given to much wine) “faithful in all things corresponds to Μη αισχροκεδεις (not greedy of gain;) trusting in the distribution of the alms committed to them, and in all other ministrations.

     12. General directions respecting those in the diaconate (of both sexes, the female being included in the male, see Chrys. cited above with regard to their domestic condition and duties, as above (verses 4, 5),respecting the episcopate.”

     We have given this learned note in full that none might think they are reading only a garbled extract. The careful English reader will have no difficulty in understanding it with the translations we have given.

     Notice 1. That though he gives the strongest authorities to be found against his opinion, yet he himself is not in doubt as to the true meaning of the verse in question – 1 Tim. 3:11.

     2. “I decide.” What does he decide? That the apostle refers in this verse, not to women in general, nor to the wives of deacons, but to “women deacons, deaconesses.” This is the conclusion of Dean Alford of the church of England, one of the most learned and honored of English prelates. With this view the most learned of modern commentators agree.

     Olshausen’s Commentary, edited by Prof. Kendrick, says on 1 Tim. 3:11: “It will scarcely admit of a doubt that γυναικες (gunaikes) here is to be understood as deaconesses. The apostle having specified the moral qualifications of a deacon, is led by the homogeneousness of the office to connect with those such as are proper to deaconesses.”

     The American Commentary, edited by Alvah Hovey, D. D. LL. D., has the following on this verse: “Women in like manner – that is women filling the deacon’s office, deaconesses.” After giving contrary opinions, he says: “Decisive reasons, however, seem here to require its reference to the deaconesses, who may, indeed, often have been the wives of deacons, but who are here mentioned as the female members of the diaconate.”

     Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, in their commentary this verse, say:

     “THEIR WIVES,” rather “the women,” i.e., “the deaconesses.” For there is no reason that special rules should be laid down as to the wives of the deacons, and not also as to the wives of the Bishops or overseers. Moreover, if the wives of the deacons were meant, there seems no reason for the omission of “their” (not in the Greek.) Also the Greek for “evens,” (the same as for “likewise,” v. 8, and “in like manner,” ch. 2:9,) denotes a transition to another class of persons.

     “Further, there were doubtless deaconesses, at Ephesus, such as Pheoebe was at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1,“servant,” Greek, “deaconess”), yet no mention is made of them in this epistle if not here; whereas, supposing them to be meant here, ch. 3, embraces in due proportion all the persons in the service of the church. Naturally, after specifying the qualifications of the deacons, Paul passes to those of the kindred office, the deaconess. “Grave” occurs in the case of both.

     “Not slanderers” here, answers to “not double tongued” in the deacons; so “not false accusers.”(Titus 2:3.)

     “Sober” here answers to “not given to much wine” in the case of the deacons, (v. 8). Thus it appears he requires the same qualifications in female deacons as in deacons, only with such modifications as the difference of sex suggested. Pliny, in his celebrated letters Trajan, calls them “female ministers.” FAITHFUL IN ALL THINGS – of life as well as faith. Trustworthy in respect to the alms committed to them, and their other functions, answering to “not greedy of filthy lucre,” v. 8, in the case of the deacons.”

     Thus we see, 1. That the officers of the New Testament church called deacons were preachers of the Gospel. They did other things, but these were incidental to the preaching. They were a regularly constituted and acknowledged order of the ministry. Paul addresses one of his epistles, “to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” The deacons were not laymen, but one order of the ministry.

     2. That in the New Testament church some of the deacons were women.

     3. That provision was made for women to be deacons in the church of Christ for all time to come, for the qualifications that they must possess are given, as well as the qualifications of the men who are deacons, and these qualifications are essentially the same.

     Then the New Testament gives to the Church ample authority to ordain women for the work of the ministry.