Can Women Be Deacons? Humbly, Yes.
This is a question of considerable consequence. If the Bible says ‘no’ to this question and we proceed to appoint women into this office anyway, then we undermine the blueprint for the governance God has prescribed for his church and fail to call men to higher levels of service. If the Bible says ‘yes’ to this question, yet we forfeit women’s opportunity to serve in this way, we actually oppress a daughter of God from flourishing in her giftings and calling.
To start this discussion, if you have a stance on this question, I would ask, 1-10 (1 being not confident at all and 10 being totally and resolutely confident), how would you rate your confidence to your answer? Given that study to this question requires fluency in the Greek languages, given that scholars through the years have respectfully fallen into different categories, I hope there would be some scriptural humility. This means that different convictions on this question shouldn’t break fellowship with other believers nor should it give rise to creating disunity within a local body of God’s people where the majority hold an opposing view than you.
Now, we don’t have many texts to survey as we try to answer this question. The definitive one, however, is given to us in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. And specifically, the verse in question is vere 11. Let’s take a look at two translations that best try to capture a more literal translation of the Greek syntax and sentence flow, the ESV and NASB.
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (ESV)
8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then have them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (NASB)
Why the different translation? Because the word for wife and woman (gynaikas) is the same word in the Greek as is man and husband. The way one translates it depends on context. So, which one is right? Faithful believers have landed on both sides. Here’s why I favor the second.
Arguments from Scripture
1) The word their in verse 11 is not in the Greek.
We are imposing a possessive pronoun in the ESV translation with something Paul could have explicitly written but didn’t. Some might say that since men are mentioned in verse 8-10 and again in verse 12, it would seem unnatural to place qualifications for women in the middle. I’m not convinced. The flow of the text could easily be read as
qualifications for men in general (v. 8-10),
qualifications for women in general (v.11),
additional qualifications for married men (v.12)
If someone were to ask, “Why then doesn’t Paul provide qualifications for married women?” A simple answer, culturally speaking, is their priority would have moved from a single woman employed in public service of the church to the ministry of wifery and child-rearing in the home.
2) The word likewise signals the shift of focus onto a different category of deacons–off of men and onto women.
There are two possibilities:
a. The qualifications given in verse 11 modify the male deacons in verses 8-10.
In other words, do the qualities of the wife qualify the man? Is the caliber of the wife’s character have any sort of bearing whether or not the husband can serve?
b. The qualifications mentioned in verse 11 modify a different class of people–in this case, women.
Grammatically, the Greek favors b. Surveying the passage’s entirety, verses 1-13, there are three classes of people mentioned. First, you have elders in verses 1-7. Then in verse 8, we are introduced to the second class of people, namely, men who serve as deacons.
Deacons likewise must be dignified…
This is speaking of the male deacon class. The NASB captures this nuance since the verb dignified is in the masculine form.
Then, we come across the word likewise again in verse 11:
Women must likewise be dignified.
Again, dignified here is in the feminine form. What’s the point? The word, likewise, is used to emphasize distinctiveness. It introduces a new subject rather than the continuation of the same grammatical subject. Likewise changes the topic away from additional qualifications of male deacons to the qualifications of a new class altogether. The same grammatical construction can be seen in Titus 2:2-6:
2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.
In 1 Timothy 3:8-13, the three classes indicated by likewise would be a) elders, b) deacons, and c) deaconesses. Here in Titus 2:2-6, you also have three classes indicated by likewise, namely a) older men, b) older women, and c) younger men. The Greek syntax, therefore, favors the women translation and not their wives.
3) The qualifications in verse 11 parallel those in verse 8.
Verse 8
Dignified
Not Double Tongued
Not Addicted to Much Wine
Not Greedy for Dishonest Gain
Verse 11
Dignified
Not Malicious Gossips
Temperate
Faithful in All Things
Following this observation, there are several questions to ponder:
a. If wives, why would there be qualifications for the wives of deacons and not for the wives of elders?
You would assume that if the elder of the church held the higher office, it would be of greater importance for the wives of elders to be above reproach in character. However, there are no such qualifications rendering favorability towards gynaikas translated as women.
b. If wives, why do none of the qualifications mention domestic responsibilities, like submission or respect of the husband?
The qualifications for married deacons in verse 12 include household responsibilities This is absent for wives. The translation of women (likely single women devoted to the public service of the church) would easily reconcile this omission.
c. Why are qualifications, regardless of how one translates gynaikas, mentioned at all?
Some argue that since the husband and wife would serve together - an assumption that I question below - and since the nature of diaconal service was more public and outward facing tending to the physical needs of the church, it would be important that both the male deacon and his wife had exceptional spiritual integrity. If you take that position, the wife then, in a very real sense, is the “deacon’s assistant.” She would also need to be qualified.
The implication, then, is this: the presence of qualifications is connected to the diaconal activities, roles, and functions–whether formal (the women translation) or informal (the wives translation). It is more logical to connect the qualifications to women serving in the office of a deacon than to wives as the husband’s assistant. Why? For one reason, the latter can only be explained through a cultural assumption. Secondly, the context of 1 Timothy 3:1-13 is dealing with church officials.
A proponent for the wives translation would argue it is unnatural for Paul to speak of women in verse 11 since the subject is men before and after. However, what would be even more unnatural is to abandon the focus of qualifications for the diaconate office to the qualifications of a wife who would have no official capacity in the church. Translating gynaikas as women provides no such conundrum. It more tightly connects the qualifications to the office itself, which is what the context lends itself towards.
Supplemental Evidence
I have tried to base my arguments from the definitive text on this question. And while the arguments I have listed are not exhaustive, I have tried to be concise and provide the ones I feel are the weightest. There is further evidence I want to provide, though, I will concede that I do not place the same sort of gravity to these considerations.
1) Women are elevated elsewhere in the New Testament.
The New Testament is not scarce with influential women in the early church: Tabitha (Acts 9:36-42), Lydia (Acts 16:6-10), Mary (Romans 16:6), Prsicilla (throughout Acts). These women abounded in hospitality, contended for the Gospel, and assisted tremendously in missionary advancement. Perhaps the most notable in this discussion is Phoebe:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant*of the church at Cenchreae, 2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2, ESV)
The footnote in both the ESV and NASB translations include the word deaconess. That’s because the word servant and deacon/deaconess are the same word. What are we to take from this? We can’t say conclusively that Phoebe held the office of a deacon. At the same time, it is significant to note that Paul does make sure to include the local church in which she serves. When you add this to the evidence above, it is certainly possible she was considered a deaconess. Notwithstanding, she is labeled a helper and patron–ministries deaconess would have been known for. Regardless of what view you hold to on this, women are certainly essential to the early church.
2) It upholds the biblical design for womanhood.
In Genesis, Eve’s design is to be a ‘suitable helper” for Adam (Gen. 2:18). This is a glorious calling since God himself is described as the ezer, or helper. Many examples of this in Scripture could be provided, but consider Psalm 72:12-14 as an example:
“For he will deliver the needy when he cries for help, the afflicted also, and him who has no helper. He will have compassion on the poor and needy”
The Lord as Helper conveys a God who is compassionate, tender, and responds in love to those in need and hurting. While men and women are equal in value, dignity, and worth, they are complementary in nature. The diaconal work, much in line with ministries of mercy, would fit well the “suitable helper” design of the woman.
3) Women as deacons were culturally necessary.
In the ancient world of early Christianity, much of the activities that existed between men and women were segregated. The types of care needed for the church - examples including bathing those physically unable or visiting widows emotionally hurting from loneliness - would have demanded women to serve in the diaconal office.
4) Historically, deaconesses were part of 1st century Christinaity.
In Book X of Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor of Bithynia, we have preserved writings about “problem Christians.” In Epistle 96, dated AD 110, Pliny recounts to Emperor Trajan his investigation and encounter with some of these Christians who reside in his province:
I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished…This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women (duabus ancillis), whom they called deaconesses.
Originally penned in Latin, over a dozen terms could have been used to capture the idea of servant, and yet, the most formal term for female ‘minister’ was used.
Conclusion : Humbly, Yes.
While I don’t think anyone can hold to a 10/10 confidence level to this question, I see the danger of forbidding daughters of God flourishing in their gifts as more of a concern than undermining the governance of God’s church. We uphold that elders are to be men who govern, teach, and shepherd the flock of God. A woman in this role would directly attack the governance God has prescribed for his church (1 Timothy 2:12). But a woman serving in the diaconate office provides no such threat. Furthermore, we have no clear prohibition for women to serve as deacons like we do for elders. In conclusion, 1) the evidence from the exegesis of 1st Timothy 3:8-11, 2) the historical validity that women served as deaconesses, 3) the cultural necessity for women to serve in this role, and 4) the helper design of the woman all lead me to humbly conclude that women can serve in this office.
For a more exhaustive study, I’d recommend the book, Should Women Serve as Deacons?