Does Paul allow women deacons? A scholarly review of the biblical evidence

Women today hold every office in the church, even those which for generations have been reserved for men. The biblical basis for this has been the reinterpretation of passages like 1 Timothy 3:1-13 to allow for female pastors and deacons. But is this reinterpretation valid? Does 1 Timothy support it? Further, do other New Testament (NT) passages that address this issue affirm this view?

This article will analyze the issue of women deacons specifically and attempt to demonstrate from the biblical data that this critical office is not to be held by women, but is reserved exclusively for men. In order to do this, the following will be accomplished:

1. Demonstrate the exegetical problems with the claim that 1 Timothy 3:8-13 allows female deacons.

   
   

2. Reveal the exegetical and scriptural problems with the claim that Romans 16:1-2 teaches that women held the office of deacon in the early church.
   

3. Consider the root cause of the move towards female “equality” in the offices of the church.
   

4. Show that the glory of women is not in occupying the offices reserved for men, but in becoming and doing all that God in scripture has called them to be and do. 
   

Download a printable pdf of this article:

Does Paul Allow Women Deacons - Full Article - PDF.pdf

Download PDF • 203KB

Exegetical Problems with 1 Timothy 3 and Women Deacons

In 1 Timothy 3:8-13, Paul addresses the office of deacon in the following manner:

8, Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money,

9, Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10, But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.

11, Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.

12, Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

13, For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The outline of the passage is as follows:

Verse(s)	Description
8-9	Character requirements for deacons
10	Requirement for evaluation before installation into the office
11-12	Requirements for the behavior of the deacon’s family
13	Promise of future reward for faithful service

This outline flows very smoothly from the text and does not in and of itself demand reconsideration. However, some have claimed that verse 11, instead of applying to male deacon’s wives, actually applies to women deacons. Consider five problems with this interpretation.

Firstly, the word "likewise" does not demand an interpretation of “women deacons.” Some, including Donald Guthrie, have argued that the word “likewise” in verse 11 implies a new category of church office, namely, that of women deacons. He writes, “In the same way [NIV; likewise, NKJV] shows a close connection between the women and the deacons, and would support the contention that a new class is introduced analogous to the preceding order of deacons.”[1]  

---

---

But does “likewise” necessitate a third office? The short answer is no. Paul could have been using this word to refer to an additional set of moral qualifications, not an additional set of church offices. In other words, he could be saying, “Just like deacons must manifest certain moral qualities, as pastors do (v. 8), so deacons wives must manifest certain moral qualities.” 

Secondly, it is important to note that the verse does not say “women deacons,” either in the English translation or in the Greek text. The Greek word for deacon is diakonos, meaning “servant or minister.” But the word translated in 1 Timothy 3:11 as “wife” is gune, meaning “a woman of any age, whether a virgin, married, or a widow; a wife or a betrothed woman.”[2]  

Thirdly, if gune in verse 11 should actually be rendered “women deacons,” why doesn’t Paul simply use a Greek construction that says, in effect, “women deacons”? He has already used the term diakonos in this passage (deacon), and gune (woman). Why not group them together and leave no room for doubt? 

Homer Kent argues that the word gune was used here precisely to prevent confusion between male and female deacons: “Since the title diakonos is used as both masculine and feminine (see Rom. 16:1), it could not be employed here without causing confusion with the previous group. Consequently, the general term gune was used and the reader is left to infer ‘women deacons.’”[3]  

The very fact that we are debating this 2000 years later casts serious doubt upon Kent’s assertion. What could have been clearer than simply saying “women deacons,” if that was what Paul intended to communicate? 

Fourthly, the lack of a definite article before gune does not demand an interpretation of “women deacons.” Some object that the lack of a definite article before gune means the apostle is not referring to deacons’ wives.[4] According to this argument, the Greek construction says the equivalent of “Let women” and not “Let his woman,” making the translation “wife” unlikely.

George Knight addresses this frequently raised objection in his commentary on 1 Timothy: “It has been objected…that no indication of relationship is found in the text, not even a definite article before [gune]. It may be responded that in the whole periscope Paul refers to people anarthrously [without the article].”[5] Knight goes on to list several examples of this in 1 Timothy, including the reference to deacons in v. 8 and 12, wife in v. 2 and 12, and children in v. 4 and 12. 

And finally, if gune should actually be rendered “women deacons,” the construction of verses 11-12 falls apart. Here is what the text of these verses would look like if women deacons was the intended meaning:

11, Likewise, [the women deacons] must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.

12, Let [the male] deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

In this construction, verse 11 refers to women deacons and verse 12 to male deacons (through the statement, “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife”). The problem arises when we note that verse 12 addresses the conduct of the male deacon’s children and household but not the children and household of the female deacon. Two issues flow from this omission. 

First, if this verse applies to female deacons, why does Paul not address their marital situation (as he does for male deacons in verse 12)? If it is imperative that a male deacon not be involved a polygamous marriage, why is it not imperative that a female deacon not be involved in the same? Does it make sense that male deacons cannot have multiple wives, but female deacons can be one of many wives of a single husband? Knight notices the same inconsistency:

Another consideration that favors the understanding "wives" in v. 11 is the omission of any reference to their marital status and fidelity (i.e., "the wife of one husband"), as is found with reference to the bishops and deacons (vv. 2, 12) and in the qualifications for enrollment for older widows….[6] 

Furthermore, what about the conduct of the female deacon’s children? The same sentence that addresses the male deacon’s marital arrangement also addresses the character of his children and household (v. 12), yet Paul does not apply these same requirements to female deacons. Why? Is the conduct of the children and disposition of the home only important for men? Can a female deacon’s children be disobedient and her home characterized by ungodliness and chaos? Surely not.

Why does Paul not address these two important areas of a female deacon’s life? Because he is not addressing women deacons at all in this passage. He is addressing men only. In his mind, the office of deacon was reserved for men, and, therefore, there was no reason to comment on the marital or family status of female deacons. Ralph Earle summarizes the incongruity in the text if female deacons are meant:

In spite of this weight of scholarly opinion, we are still inclined to favor the idea that the reference is to "their wives." Paul talks about the qualifications of the deacons in vv. 8-10 and again in vv. 12, 13. It would seem natural to assume that he is talking about their wives in v.11.[7, 8]

Indeed. 

Exegetical and Scriptural Problems with Romans 16 

Romans 16:1-2 is the lynchpin verse for those who claim the early church had female deacons.[9] The text reads as follows:

I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.

The phrase “a servant of the church in Cenchrea” is set forth as proving the existence of female deacons in the NT church and Paul's approval of the practice. Indeed, the word “servant” here is diakonos (translated deacon in 1 Timothy 3). But does the use of the same word mean Phoebe held the office of deacon? There are many reasons to believe this is not the case. 

In the first place, it is important to note that diakonos has no feminine form in Greek [10], so the term deaconess is a grammatical misnomer. Furthermore, many people in the NT are said to be diakonos, but clearly did not hold the office of deacon in a NT church. Consider a few examples: 

• In John 12:26, all believers are said to be ministers (diakonos)
  

• In Romans 13:4, the government is said to be God’s minister (diakonos)
  

• In Romans 15:8, Jesus Christ is said to be the minister (diakonos) of the circumcision
  

• In 1 Corinthians 3:5, Paul and Apollos are referred to as ministers (diakonos)
  

• In 2 Corinthians 11:15, Satan is said to have his own ministers (diakonos)

From these examples, it is clear that referring to someone as diakonos does not mean they held the office of deacon in the church. John MacArthur notes the various applications of diakonos to NT believers, “Everyone is a deacon in the general sense, some are specially gifted by the Holy Spirit for service, but still others hold the office of deacon.”[11]

Consider John Murray’s thoughts on the issue of Phoebe holding the office of deacon:

It is common to give to Phoebe the title of "deaconess" and regard her as having performed an office in the church corresponding to that which belonged to men who exercised the office of deacon (cf. Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13). Though the word for "servant" is the same as is used for deacon in the instances cited, yet the word is also used to denote the person performing any type of ministry.

If Phoebe ministered to the saints, as is evident from verse 2, then she would be a servant of the church, and there is neither need nor warrant to suppose that she occupied or exercised what amounted to an ecclesiastical office comparable to that of the diaconate. The services performed were similarly to those devolving upon deacons. Their ministry is one of mercy to the poor, the sick, and the desolate.

This is an area in which women likewise exercise their functions and graces. But there is no more warrant to posit an office than in the case of the widows who, prior to their becoming the charge of the church, must have borne the features mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:9, 10.[12] 

What this text actually says is that Phoebe was a woman who served the church in Cenchrea and was given a specific task to accomplish by Paul that required the help of the church in Rome. No doubt, given Paul’s praise of her, she was a godly, devout, and profitable servant of Jesus Christ. But that high praise does not make her fit for an office God had set aside for men.

The Light of Acts 6

Many scholars believe (and I count myself among them) that the seed that eventually grew into the office of deacon was sown in Acts 6.[13] At this time, the Greek widows began to complain that the Jewish widows received unfair treatment in the daily division of food. The apostles decided to appoint other disciples to address this issue so that they could continue their spiritual work for the church. Here’s what they said:

Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. Acts 6:3

There are several reasons to believe the group specified here is the same group Paul called deacons in his epistle to Timothy. The moral requirements of both passages fit nicely together (here “of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” and in 1 Timothy “reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money”), there is no requirement in either case to teach the Word (the basis for distinguishing their authority from the elders), and each is mentioned as supporting (not leading) the pastors of the church.

On the issue of gender, we cannot help but notice that the apostles specified men for this role, not women. This is particularly telling since the issue itself had to do with women (i.e., widows). If there was a time to choose women to serve in an official capacity, it would have been this one. But the apostles did not. Later, Paul reflected this same conviction when in 1 Timothy he required deacons to be men.

Greater Issues Raised by Romans 16

An important interpretive principle to use when studying the Bible is to allow clear, didactic teaching to clarify comments made in passing or in narrative portions of Scripture. In other words, when an apostle addresses a subject directly, as Paul did in 1 Timothy 3 regarding deacons, we must allow that teaching to guide our understanding of a comment at the end of an epistle where the subject of deacons is not even being addressed, as is the case in Romans 16.

Let’s consider the implications of doing the reverse in Romans 16 and saying that Paul is giving permission for women to be deacons in that passage. What then do we do with 1 Timothy 3, which, as has been demonstrated, addresses deacons from a male-only perspective? There are only three choices. 

First, we can say that Paul was laying down different requirements for different churches, one for the church in Rome and a different one for the churches Timothy pastored. If that is the case, what happens when we apply that principle elsewhere, say, with the issue of homosexuality and Romans 1? Then one could argue that homosexuality was wrong, but only for the church in Rome. Is that a valid interpretation? 

The second choice is to conclude that Paul was wrong in 1 Timothy 3. But what does it do to the credibility of Scripture if we say that an apostle could be wrong when speaking for the Lord? What does that do to the entire body of Christian doctrine? Does it not bring it all into question? 

The final choice is to say that Paul simply changed his mind. If that is the case, two additional issues arise. First, Romans was written before 1 Timothy.[14] Therefore, Paul changed his mind from allowing women deacons to not allowing them. This doesn’t work out well for the proponents of women deacons. Second, it destroys the credibility of Scripture for the same reasons that Paul being wrong would destroy it—we simply cannot be sure of any of our doctrines because any one of them could have been based on the changing whim of an apostle’s opinion.

What I would suggest to you is that the proponents of women deacons are not really concerned with questions like the ones I have just raised. The strategy of many in the church today is simply to raise enough questions so as to create doubt and confusion on a particular doctrine.

The goal is not to meld Scripture with Scripture in order to identify a coherent, consistent view of biblical truth. The goal is to call into question the traditional views of the relationships between men and women (and virtually everything else) so as to persuade the masses that the simple existence of confusion allows them to disregard the biblical directive altogether and do whatever they want to do anyway.

The “Equality” Movement in the Church

The root cause of this issue is not Scriptural. There is no text in the NT that on its own causes believers to question whether Paul meant to allow female deacons. The root cause of this debate is feminism.

Our society is rewriting and erasing the God-given differences between men and women as fast as they can identify them. Unfortunately, the church is not far behind in accepting the world’s view of the sexes. In a source as conservative and biblical as the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, for instance, veiled feminist teachings can be seen.

In the entry entitled “Female,” G. E. Farley does all he can to dismiss the Bible’s legitimate teachings about the sexes and encourage Christians to rethink Scripture’s claims in this area:

In the NT Paul seems to have accepted the cultural idea of the inferiority of women (1 Cor. 7:11, 14; Eph. 5; 1 Tim. 2:12). However, it is to be noted that these references appear in the practical sections of his letters dealing with specific problems and may be instances of accommodation. His lone reference to females in the theological sections (Gal. 3:28) announces the principle of the equality of the sexes.

The Church has been slow in putting this principle into practice. Currently it is being challenged to do so by the Women’s Liberation Movement. Among the questions which they are raising are these: Does the creation story teach the inferiority of women? Is God male? Are men and women essentially different? Or are these differences culturally determined?[15] 

Note how he uses the loaded term “inferiority” when referring to Paul’s doctrine regarding women. Note also how he downplays the validity of three sections of Scripture with which he does not agree because they are not “theological” enough in his view (1 Cor. 7:11, 14; Eph. 5; 1 Tim 2:12) and validates the one he does because it passes the “theological” bar he has established (Gal. 3:28). I wonder how Scripture could get more “theological” than 1 Timothy 2:13-14, a passage which ties female submission to God’s acts in creation (2:13) and the events leading to the fall of man (2:14)?

It should also be pointed out that Farley’s article ends with the paragraph just quoted. He extends these leading questions and then gives no answer, a common technique of those who subtly attempt to undermine God’s truths.

The Root Causes of Feminism

The growing plague of feminism has two primary causes. First, fewer and fewer men are striving for and carrying on as men of God who love, cherish, provide for, and protect their wives. Men today exploit, mistreat, abuse, and abandon women as if they were pieces of meat. In response to this, women have concluded that they must protect themselves from men, and rise up in the economic system in order to support themselves and their children without the help of men.

This is an indictment of the world and its view of men, women, marriage, and family, a view which teaches men to look at and treat women in the most cruel and merciless way imaginable. It is also, unfortunately, a condemnation of the Christian church and Christian men in particular. In many cases, we are no better than the pagan men who surround us. We mistreat our wives, abandon our children, and exploit women for sexual purposes every day.

But this is not the only cause of the rise of feminism. The other cause is rooted in the curse placed upon women in the garden of Eden. In Genesis 3:16b, God pronounced the sentence upon Eve and all her progeny when he said, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Since that day women have done all in their power to rise up and take the place of men. Matthew Henry does an excellent job of describing the effects of the curse upon the woman, and the companion curse upon the man:

She is here put in a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris—at her own disposal….

This sentence amounts to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance; but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy.[16] [italics original]

The Glory of Women

The distorted view of men and women’s roles that feminism promotes does not benefit women in the end. Every part of creation is at its best and most glorious when operating within its parameters as established by the Creator. Women were designed, not to rule, but to assist man in his responsible subjugation of creation. Her glory is in her place at the side of the man, working with him and under him to honor the Creator and his plan, or, as Henry Morris put it, “to work alongside him in the carrying out of the divine commission to ‘fill the earth’ and to ‘subdue it’.”[17]

Paul described the beautiful relationship between man and woman in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 and 11-12:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Gordon Fee waxes eloquent in his commentary on this passage. Consider his words of praise for the male/female relationship:

Man by himself is not complete; he is alone, without a companion or helper suitable for him. The animals will not do; he needs one who is bone of his bone, one who is like him but different from him, one who is uniquely his own “glory.” In fact, when the man in the OT narrative [Adam] sees the woman he “glories” in her by bursting into song. She is thus man’s glory because she “came from man” and was created “for him.” She is not thereby subordinate to him, but necessary for him. She exists to his honor as the one who having come from man is the one companion suitable to him, so that he might be complete and that together they might form humanity.[18] 

What is best for women, therefore, is not that they are allowed to (or strive themselves to) do all that men can do, but that they become all and do all that God, in his incomprehensible wisdom and goodness, has called them to be and do. Setting aside the office of deacon for men is not a criticism of women, nor is it a rejection of their abilities or value by their Creator. It is simply a barrier to keep them in their best position, the only position from which they can find true joy and happiness.

Conclusion

Many have tried to distort Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy to allow for female deacons, but a careful look at the context of this passage, along with considerations of other passages, like Acts 6 and Romans 16, shows that this office has been reserved for men alone.

The root cause of this movement within the church is the failure of men to live up to God’s standards in relation to women and the influence of the curse upon women, which causes them to resist the God-given authority of men.

Women, however, can gain greater glory than feminism could ever provide by humbling themselves and seeking to be and do all that God in his mercy has designed for them to be and do. May he grant both women and men to grow into the full measure of his glorious and good will for them.

NOTES:

[1] Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 97.

[2] Online Bible Foundation, Online Bible Software, Version 4.14, Copyright 2012. All definitions of Old and New Testament words used in this paper, unless otherwise specified, are taken from this source.

[3] Homer Kent Jr., The Pastoral Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 136.

[4] Same as previous, 136.

[5] George Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, The New International Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 172.

[6] Same as previous, 171. 

[7] Ralph Earle, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 368.

[8] William D. Mounce comments similarly in his commentary, “It would be awkward to discuss deacons in vv 8-10, switch to a different topic in v 11, and then return to deacons in vv 12-13 without a textual clue that the topic has changed.” Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, vol. 4 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 203.

[9] For example, Ben Witherington III refers to Phoebe twice in four paragraphs when discussing the meaning of 1 Timothy 3:11. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, vol. 1 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 241-242. 

[10] Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin, Jr. 1, 2 Timothy and Titus, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 119.

[11] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Timothy (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 125.

[12] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 226.

[13] Guthrie, Kent, and Lea and Griffin, previously quoted herein, all see the deacon flowing from the account in Acts 6.

[14] Everett Harrison gives a date of late AD 56 or early 57 for Romans (“Romans” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 4); Ralph Earle, cited previously from this same commentary series, gives a range of AD 62-66 for the writing of 1 Timothy.

[15] G. E. Farley, “Female” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 529. Might I also add that this was written in 1976. No wonder the feminist movement has come so far since then: the church has been carrying its water for 40 years. I hate to think what this man’s views are today (and those like him).

[16] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991), 25.

[17] Henry Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 101.

[18] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 517.