In conservative circles, it is becoming increasingly popular to advocate for the role of women in the diaconate of local churches.
Sometimes this is based on Romans 16:1-2, where Paul wrote, “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant [διάκονον, “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.”
Others consider 1 Timothy 3:11 to be clear apostolic precedent for women serving as deacons. Depending on the translation of the Greek word γυναῖκας, the translation could be “women” or “wives.”
This distinction is reflected in the English versions, some which use the translation women:
NIV: “In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.”
NASB: “Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.”
ASV: “Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.”
Other versions translate the word as wives:
ESV: “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.”
NKJV: “Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.”
CSB: “Wives, likewise, should be worthy of respect, not slanderers, self-controlled, faithful in everything.”
Which translation is correct? The clear and most credible option is the translation wives and for the following reasons:
First, the office of deacon had its inception in Acts 6. When there was a problem over food distribution to Greek widows that were being overlooked, it is clear that the apostles specified that men of good reputation be chosen to oversee and remedy the problem (Acts 6:3). This is an important consideration because the issue specifically dealt with distribution of food to women, and yet men were chosen for the task.
Second, there is a contextual reason. In the previous chapter, Paul clearly says that women are not “to have authority over a man” (2:12). Insofar as deacons have a formal office in the church (c.f. Philippians 1:1) with authority to oversee particular needs of the saints, deacons exercise a measure of authority by functioning in a directive manner—a function not fitting for a woman to have.
Third, arguing that verse 11 refers to female deacons would mean that Paul switches in a rather awkward manner from male deacons in verses 8-10 to deaconesses in verse 11, and then switches back to the original group in verse 12. While it’s not impossible that he would do so, it is not probable that he would do so.
Fourth, to translate the word as “wives” makes more sense thematically. Verses 11-12 would then be characterized by a common theme, namely, a deacon’s domestic relationships. First, Paul notes what the character of a potential deacon's wife must be. Then in verse 12, the character of the man as a faithful husband is explained. Finally, the character of the man as a proven manager of his house. It makes a lot more sense thematically to say that Paul is speaking about the man’s domestic relationships in verses 11-12.
Fifth, the word for wife used in verse 2 (γυναικὸς) of the chapter is the same word used in verse 11 (γυναῖκας). In verse 2, it very clearly refers to the overseer as a “one woman man.” In verse 12, the same word from verse 11 is used again (γυναικὸς). In verse 12, it very clearly relates to the wife of a potential deacon. That the deacon must be a “one woman man” (that is, the husband of one wife) means that the translation of verse 11 as “wives” is not at all strained. It actually makes more sense than the other view.
Sixth, just reading verses 11 and 12 together shows the obvious meaning. “Likewise, γυναῖκας must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” If we continue reading after verse 11, it necessitates the obvious conclusion that the women of verse 11 refer to the wives of potential deacons. Why? Because a requisite for a married man to fill the office is that he rule his house well. Since a woman ipso facto is not the ruler in her home, she cannot (and never could) fulfill this requisite.
Seventh, some people have said that Paul must be talking about female deacons here because he did not specify the necessary requisites for an overseer’s wife. Since he does not specify what an elder's wife must be, this leads some to the conclusion that he must be speaking about female deacons. But might there be a reason that a deacon’s wife be a particular type of woman?
I think there is. First, the wife of a deacon will sometimes be privy to sensitive information relating to someone’s financial needs or health. Because of this, she must be a truly godly woman who will not be given to malicious gossip. It would not be out of the question that a deacon's wife would also, upon occasion, assist her husband in his diaconal ministry to carry out tasks that would be more suitable for a woman to carry out than for a man. But an overseer’s wife, contrarily, will never assist her husband in his duties as an elder. Why not? Because she is not going to teach and she is not going to manage God’s household.
Eighth, while Romans 16:1-2 is an important passage to consider in relation to the subject, its significance is truly overstated as a defense. The last statement of verse 2 is the key to understanding what function Phoebe had. She was a “helper” (προστάτις, “supporter”) of many and of Paul. This would indicate the type of function she served as a “servant” of the church. She was, in fact, a wealthy benefactress of the church—and thus was deserving of a “worthy welcome” by the church in Rome. Her good works preceded her arrival in Rome and were to impact the way she was helped/treated by the church. But this does not mean she held an official office in the church.
In short, therefore, only qualified men should serve as deacons.
Abounding Grace Radio