The
formal address of Phil 1: 1 (“to all the saints in Christ Jesus who
are in Philippi, with [the] overseers and ministers”) leaves no
doubt that the deacons (or ministers) are an official class.
However, the Greek word for deacon (diakonoV)
does not, in itself, imply this, having a much wider application and
includes ordinary servants in a secular setting—as in John 2: 5 etc.
DiakonoV therefore
needs to be interpreted in the light of its context. Despite this,
some have tried to make out that the “helps” in 1 Cor. 12: 28 were
deacons, and that the service referred to in Rom. 12: 7 and the
ministry in 1 Pet. 4: 11 was their specific work. This is
speculative nonsense and also ignores the distinction between gift
and office—possession of the former from God, by
definition, being the only qualification required for its exercise,
while the latter necessitated certain observable qualities being
acknowledged by the brethren before the service could
be officially undertaken. Hence in regard to deacons, “let these
first be proved, then let them minister, being without charge
[against them]” (1 Tim. 3: 10).
A great deal has
also been made of the seven men chosen by the brethren in Acts 6 to
“serve tables” (v2) and set over the “daily ministration” (v1) by
the apostles. However, these are never called
diakonoV, and their
qualifications differ from those in 1 Tim. 3 for they were to be:
“well reported of, full of [the] [Holy] Spirit and wisdom” (v3). It
is quite indefensible to argue that these men were deacons in the
sense of 1 Tim. 3, and then, in seeking to appoint deacons in the
present day, to ignore the necessity for them to be men full of the
Holy Spirit etc!
Of
the seven, Philip was also an evangelist (see Acts 8: 5-40; 21: 8)
and Stephen “wrought wonders and great signs” (Acts 6: 8) and spoke
publicly in such a way that his opposers “were not able to resist
the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke” (v10). Some
commentators have tried to make out that these abilities were
connected to the office to which they were appointed in Acts 6 but
it is hardly surprising that men “full of [the] [Holy] Spirit” (v3)
also had spiritual gifts that manifested themselves in an
outstanding way. This was independent of their service of tables.
The character of
the qualifications for deacons in 1 Tim. 3. perhaps suggests that
administrative or domestic-type service is in view. However, the
nature of the work is never actually stated—an omission disregarded
by many in their anxiety to ‘have them’ even though they cannot
therefore be sure ‘what they are for’! The absence of any reference
to deacons in the epistle to Titus where the elders were to be
established (or set in order—kaqisthmi)
by Timothy, suggests that assemblies could appoint deacons by
themselves (compare Acts 6: 3, where the brethren ‘chose’, and the
apostles ‘established’). There are other differences: unlike
overseers (whose work was essentially spiritual care), deacons were
not required to be “discreet”, “hospitable” or “apt to teach” (1
Tim. 3: 2). The overall list of qualifications is also much shorter
than that of the elders, in keeping with a work which, while
valuable, is temporal rather than spiritual. Thus there was no
requirement for the deacons to be “irreproachable … sober … decorous
… not a striker, but mild … not addicted to contention … not a
novice … necessary that he should have also a good testimony from
those without” (1 Tim. 3: 2, 3, 6, 7) “not headstrong … not
passionate … a lover of goodness … just … pious … temperate” (Titus
1: 7, 8).
The first thing
required of a deacon was that they were to be “grave” (1 Tim. 3:
8)—the same Greek word (semnoV)
that is translated “noble” in Phil. 4: 8. It refers to what is
dignified and venerable, and that has seriousness of purpose.
Indeed,
semnoV is derived
from
sebomai, the verb
to revere or to worship in the sense of awe or devotion.
Thus it can be seen that what might be seen as the relatively ‘low’
service of the deacon was still to flow from his essential
spirituality. Even menial work must be undertaken by the
spiritual—it is God’s house in which the service is
carried out.
The second
requirement was that the
diakonoV was not to
be “double-tongued” (v8). The Greek word for double-tongued is
dilogoV and
literally means saying the same thing twice (diV—twice,
and
logoV—word
or speech). Here it has the connotation of giving one slant
on a matter to one person and another slant to a second—‘two-faced’.
It is not difficult to see that even temporal matters can be
controversial, and that there is an accompanying danger of
pretending to be ‘on side’.
The third necessity
in a deacon was “not given to much wine” (v8). This does not mean
teetotalism, but it does demand freedom from excess. The same
requirement was seen in the elders (see 1 Tim. 3: 3) which implies
the sobriety is a requirement for both general and spiritual
service. To say, ‘it does not matter’ because the work is ‘only
administrative or domestic’, is to ignore the clear teaching of the
Holy Spirit on the issue.
The fourth
qualification in a
diakonoV was “not
seeking gain by base means” (v8)—which also occurs in relation to
the elders (see Titus 1: 7). The nature of both these roles might
involve situations that could be used for personal advantage.
Seeking gain by base means is
aiscrokerdeV—literally,
indecent gain—which means a person happy to sacrifice his
moral character in order to profit himself.
The fifth condition
of deaconhood is “holding the mystery of the faith in a pure
conscience” (1 Tim. 3: 9). Now the elders were to be characterised
by “clinging to the faithful word according to the doctrine taught”
(Titus 1 v9)—apostolic orthodoxy as befitted those entrusted with
the spiritual oversight of others. For the deacons, however, the
requirement was subtly different. The addition of a “pure
conscience” indicates that what is in view is that spiritual
soundness where there is no inconsistency between the faith
professed and what is practised.
The last two
qualifications are also shared with the elders (see 1 Tim. 3: 2, 4):
“husbands of one wife” and “conducting [their] children and their
own houses well” (v12). Pious conduct in the home sphere is a
fundamental necessity for any service in God’s own
house. In view of the way this instruction is ignored in some
circles, let it be said that a bachelor cannot be a deacon, and nor
can a childless husband. Furthermore, seeing as a deacon must “be
first proved” (v10) the newly married man with very young children
is also ruled out.
The addition of a
much shorter (and different) list of qualifications for “[the]
women” (v11), suggests that these were not deaconesses but the wives
of the deacons (wife and woman being the same word in
Greek—gunh).
Hence, even the conduct of the wives is viewed as impacting on the
fitness of the husband. Phoebe (a woman) is, of course, referred to
as a
diakonoV in Rom.
16: 1 for she served the assembly in Cenchrea, and was “a helper of
many” (v2). This may not have made her a deaconess in the strictly
official sense (it is clear from 1 Tim. 3:
12—“husbands of one wife”—that only male occupants of the office are
in view)—but it is equally clear that she was
occupying a serving role in relation to the assembly that was
recognised as such by others. Of course, in our day it would be the
height of pretention to officially appoint deacons
(tantamount to claiming that we were the assembly in a place) but
there is no hindrance to any who are suitably qualified doing what
needs to be done with the sanction of their brethren.
