|
Post by charliedale on May 24, 2010 15:29:10 GMT -5
In Romans 16, was Phoebe a Deacon?
Was Junia a female Apostle?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Jun 1, 2010 9:37:18 GMT -5
Sorry for the delay in responding, Charlie. I was teaching a workshop last week, so I was really pressed for time.
In answer to your first question, who knows? Of course, if you believe that deacons can only be men, then the answer is no. This belief typically stems from the qualifications of deacons in 1 Timothy 3, which refers to deacons wives and says that deacons should manage their own households well. Proponents of male-only deacons hold that men manage their households, and a woman can't be the husband of one wife.
On the other side, however, are those who say that to press the language of 1 Timothy 3 to restrict the office to men only would be similar to saying that biblical references to brothers in the church or sons of God would apply only to men. Of course, we know that is not the case (we talk about brothers and sisters and sons and daughters of God). Furthermore, women in the first century were the managers of their children and households, so is this referring to male headship of the family specifically or simply to competent parenting skills?
However, even if you believe that women can hold the office of deacon, Romans 16:1 doesn't say whether Phoebe held the office or not. She is referred to as a diakonon (accusative case), which is the Greek word for "servant." Sometimes the word refers to a person who is a servant, and sometimes it refers to someone who holds the office of deacon (like poimen is the Greek word for "shepherd," but is also translated "pastor"). Context is the determining factor, and context does not specify either way here. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether Phoebe was a deacon or not.
As for Junia, we don't even know if this person was male or female. In the Greek, the masculine and feminine forms of this name were spelled the same. The only difference was an accent mark. This could have been a man or a woman. However, the manuscript evidnence is heavily in favor of the masculine form. Regardless, nothing in the text indicates whether this person was an apostle or not.
|
|
|
Post by cartoonist on Jun 1, 2010 11:03:32 GMT -5
Charlie, Mike's answer is right on target. Some battles are not worth fighting and whether to have women deacons is one of them. The principle should be: what does the church need? There are on which God's word is not hard and fast on one side or the other in order to allow the Holy Spirit to lead the church to be flexible. I've had deacon bodies that desperately needed the leavening influence of some godly women.
|
|
|
Post by cartoonist on Jun 1, 2010 11:04:29 GMT -5
Meant to say: "There are issues on which God's word is not hard and fast...."
|
|
|
Post by charliedale on Jun 2, 2010 17:40:11 GMT -5
How is it that I recognize the voice of the "cartoonist" in my head?
|
|