Female Deacons?

[Moliere]

So I'm reading through Romans in my NSRV Bible and come to chapter 16 verse 1 which reads: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae...."

I compared this to the KJV Bible which replaces the word "deacon" with "servant" however I'm inclined to use the NSRV given that it is generally believed to be a better translation.

Then I pull out my Louis Segond Bible (allez les bleus!) which uses the word "diaconesse", which even for non-francophones is easily translated to "female deacon".

IMO, it's interesting that women were allowed to be in Priesthood positions in the early church (Junia being a female apostle mentioned later in chapter 16), yet it is not allowed today.

Are there any other examples in the scriptures of women that were in leadership positions?

[Surfah]

So I'm reading through Romans in my NSRV Bible and come to chapter 16 verse 1 which reads: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae...."

I compared this to the KJV Bible which replaces the word "deacon" with "servant" however I'm inclined to use the NSRV given that it is generally believed to be a better translation.

Then I pull out my Louis Segond Bible (allez les bleus!) which uses the word "diaconesse", which even for non-francophones is easily translated to "female deacon".

IMO, it's interesting that women were allowed to be in Priesthood positions in the early church (Junia being a female apostle mentioned later in chapter 16), yet it is not allowed today.

Are there any other examples in the scriptures of women that were in leadership positions?

My understanding is that doesn't mean a priesthood position but rather that of servant.

[Moliere]

My understanding is that doesn't mean a priesthood position but rather that of servant.

So deacon = servant when it's talking about a woman?

How do you understand Ephesians 4:11? Typically this is a verse we use to show that Christ had an established church with PH offices.

[Surfah]

So deacon = servant when it's talking about a woman?

How do you understand Ephesians 4:11? Typically this is a verse we use to show that Christ had an established church with PH offices.

Not necessarily. I don't think there is anything definitive. That word can mean servant and apply to men as well and not just the priesthood office. But I'll defer to AA or some of the other classics/Greek guys.

[RobinFinderson]

My understanding is that these were well-meaning but ultimately confused proto-feminists, except women were a lot scarier back then so one dared correct them.

[All-American]

συνιστημι δε υμιν φοιβην την αδελφην ημων ουσαν [και] διακονον της εκκλησιας της εν κεγχρεαις

sunisthmi de umin foibhn thn adelfhn hmwn ousan diakonon thV ekklhsiaV thV en kegcreaiV

The word in greek is "diakonon", which means "servant." "Diakonon" looks just like the masculine accusative form, but it seems to be accepted that the word can be feminine or masculine; it has to be correct to say that it is feminine in this case, since it goes with the feminine participle "ousan" and since the word diakonnisa (the feminine form of the word) wasn't around during the New Testament era.

It can mean a title, like that of the priesthood office, or it can just mean "servant" (like a waiter or a butler-- the servants at the wedding in Cana, referred to in John 2:5 were "diakonoi"). It's different from a word they usually translate into English as "servant" (as in Romans 1:1)-- "doulos", which for us is closer to "slave". They use the word "diakonos" in Romans 13:4 (for he is a "diakonos" of God) 15:8 as well (Christ has become a "diakonos" to the circumcision). In neither of those instances does the word "diakonos" appear to refer to a priesthood office. It makes more sense to me to translate them as "servant."

There are a few references to "diakonos" that look more like references to priesthood offices-- like Philippians 1:1, for example.

It's definitely ambiguous. It can mean either a particularly high-ranking, dignified servant or a priesthood office. There's nothing grammatically wrong with either understanding, and there's not enough context to say for certain that one is wrong and the other right. Calling her a "diakonos" of the church suggests that it's an official office, on the one hand; the fact that all other uses of the word "diakonos" in Romans refers to "servants", not holders of a priesthood office, suggest the contrary. It looks like the kind of thing over which much ink has likely been spilt and several PhDs awarded, but without any possible definitive conclusion, given the paucity of the record.

In Ephesians, the word doesn't appear, but a variant appears in Ephesians 4:12-- "ergon diakonias" (work of service).

[SoCalCoug]

So deacon = servant when it's talking about a woman?

How do you understand Ephesians 4:11? Typically this is a verse we use to show that Christ had an established church with PH offices.

My guesstimate is that perhaps our word "deacon" is drawn from the greek word meaning "servant".

[SoCalCoug]

My guesstimate is that perhaps our word "deacon" is drawn from the greek word meaning "servant".

Okay, AA said it way better than I did.

[Moliere]

Are there any other examples in the scriptures of women that were in leadership positions?

I can't believe I forgot to include Anna, who is acknowledged as a prophetess (KJV) or a prophet (NRSV).

Luke 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

I'm sure there are others...

[Surfah]

I can't believe I forgot to include Anna, who is acknowledged as a prophetess (KJV) or a prophet (NRSV).

Luke 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

I'm sure there are others...

There are. However, again, I don't believe that this is speaking to a priesthood office, but rather the gift.

[Solon]

I'll defer to AA or some of the other classics/Greek guys.

That cuts deep.

The word in greek is "diakonon", which means "servant." "Diakonon" looks just like the masculine accusative form, but it seems to be accepted that the word can be feminine or masculine; it has to be correct to say that it is feminine in this case, since it goes with the feminine participle "ousan" and since the word diakonnisa (the feminine form of the word) wasn't around during the New Testament era.

It can mean a title, like that of the priesthood office, or it can just mean "servant" (like a waiter or a butler-- the servants at the wedding in Cana, referred to in John 2:5 were "diakonoi"). It's different from a word they usually translate into English as "servant" (as in Romans 1:1)-- "doulos", which for us is closer to "slave". They use the word "diakonos" in Romans 13:4 (for he is a "diakonos" of God) 15:8 as well (Christ has become a "diakonos" to the circumcision). In neither of those instances does the word "diakonos" appear to refer to a priesthood office. It makes more sense to me to translate them as "servant."

There are a few references to "diakonos" that look more like references to priesthood offices-- like Philippians 1:1, for example.

It's definitely ambiguous. It can mean either a particularly high-ranking, dignified servant or a priesthood office. There's nothing grammatically wrong with either understanding, and there's not enough context to say for certain that one is wrong and the other right. Calling her a "diakonos" of the church suggests that it's an official office, on the one hand; the fact that all other uses of the word "diakonos" in Romans refers to "servants", not holders of a priesthood office, suggest the contrary. It looks like the kind of thing over which much ink has likely been spilt and several PhDs awarded, but without any possible definitive conclusion, given the paucity of the record.

In Ephesians, the word doesn't appear, but a variant appears in Ephesians 4:12-- "ergon diakonias" (work of service).

I don't think it's that ambiguous at all. A deacon/deaconess was a specific office in the early Christian church. To dismiss it as an adjectival "servant' is disingenuous. Obviously, Phoebe was someone of station in the church at Corinth, since she was probably the one whom Paul entrusted to deliver the letter to Rome. Paul introduces her as a "deacon" as a means of commending her to the Roman congregation.

Paul's letter to the Philippians opens up with a salutation to the "bishops and the deacons" at Philippi. (ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις). Clearly, they hold offices that require his special recognition. This isn't just some "servant"

The term "deacon" as a church office isn't that surprising. The word can refer to a servant who waits on tables (it appears in Matt. 22.13). But this is wholly consistent with the role of clergy in the early church as those who prepared the "Lord's Supper." It doesn't take much effort to see why the early Christians felt that this title was appropriate for a church office.

When Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan the Emperor about the Christians around AD 113 (book X, letter 96), he explains how he tortured a couple of Christian women to get more information. Pliny specifically notes the station of the two women (as slaves - "ancillae") and explains that "they are called "ministers" by the Christians. "Minister" is probably the best Latin term for the Greek "deacon," since it carries both service and authoritative connotations.

But deciding that deacon (or the Latin "minister") probably just means "servant" when referring to women isn't just misogynistic, it betrays an unhealthy literalism when looking at NT texts. Should we claim that "bishops" are really "lookouts" when it's convenient? ("bishop" comes from epi+skopos, which means one-who-watches-over)

The real debate is what the role of a deacon/deaconess was in the early Christian church. There was probably a good deal of variation among the early Christian congregations that Paul would have known (not to mention that Paul's teachings were not universally received).

Later sources shed some light on what deacons were expected to do. According to the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (ca. AD 200), deacons were not ordained to priesthood, but to service of the bishop. Henry Chadwick asserts that deacons eventually (by the fourth century) came to care more for a congregation's temporal needs, while bishops & presbyters took care of spiritual ones.

This is where the debate needs to go, not into silly semantic ones that assert present LDS understandings of male priesthood hierarchy and authority.

[All-American]

I don't think it's that ambiguous at all. A deacon/deaconess was a specific office in the early Christian church. To dismiss it as an adjectival "servant' is disingenuous. Obviously, Phoebe was someone of station in the church at Corinth, since she was probably the one whom Paul entrusted to deliver the letter to Rome. Paul introduces her as a "deacon" as a means of commending her to the Roman congregation.

Paul's letter to the Philippians opens up with a salutation to the "bishops and the deacons" at Philippi. (ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις). Clearly, they hold offices that require his special recognition. This isn't just some "servant"

The term "deacon" as a church office isn't that surprising. The word can refer to a servant who waits on tables (it appears in Matt. 22.13). But this is wholly consistent with the role of clergy in the early church as those who prepared the "Lord's Supper." It doesn't take much effort to see why the early Christians felt that this title was appropriate for a church office.

When Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan the Emperor about the Christians around AD 113 (book X, letter 96), he explains how he tortured a couple of Christian women to get more information. Pliny specifically notes the station of the two women (as slaves - "ancillae") and explains that "they are called "ministers" by the Christians. "Minister" is probably the best Latin term for the Greek "deacon," since it carries both service and authoritative connotations.

But deciding that deacon (or the Latin "minister") probably just means "servant" when referring to women isn't just misogynistic, it betrays an unhealthy literalism when looking at NT texts. Should we claim that "bishops" are really "lookouts" when it's convenient? ("bishop" comes from epi+skopos, which means one-who-watches-over)

The real debate is what the role of a deacon/deaconess was in the early Christian church. There was probably a good deal of variation among the early Christian congregations that Paul would have known (not to mention that Paul's teachings were not universally received).

Later sources shed some light on what deacons were expected to do. According to the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (ca. AD 200), deacons were not ordained to priesthood, but to service of the bishop. Henry Chadwick asserts that deacons eventually (by the fourth century) came to care more for a congregation's temporal needs, while bishops & presbyters took care of spiritual ones.

This is where the debate needs to go, not into silly semantic ones that assert present LDS understandings of male priesthood hierarchy and authority.

I am aware that "diakonos" can refer to a specific office (and I specifically noted the example in Philippians 1:1 in my post). I didn't say that the word only means "servant" when it refers to women. Just a few verses earlier, as I noted above, Christ Himself is referred to as a "diakonos", and I don't believe anybody argues that its use in chapter 15 is meant to refer to the office of a deacon. I said that the word as it appears in Romans 16:1 is ambiguous, meaning that grammatically speaking, it could mean either "servant" or it could be a reference to a specific office.

You and I have both noted that the word could refer to either the ecclesiastical office or a servant. We've both given examples of both uses of the word. I've given justifications for either translation. You might have mentioned Origen, who specifically cited Romans 16:1 as evidence that women held ministerial offices in the early Christian Church, in addition to Pliny (though we might bracket the discussion of how much evidentiary weight to give to the fact that a Roman writer says others referred to the group of female Christians as "ministrae"). On the other hand, every other use of the word in Romans pretty clearly refers to a servant, not the office.

It's quite possible that Romans 16:1 is an example of a woman holding a ministerial office in the early Christian church. It's also possible that it doesn't. I haven't said anything more or less than this in my posts in this thread, and I don't care too much for the insinuation that I'm a disingenuous LDS hack.

[TripletDaddy]

That cuts deep.



I don't think it's that ambiguous at all. A deacon/deaconess was a specific office in the early Christian church. To dismiss it as an adjectival "servant' is disingenuous. Obviously, Phoebe was someone of station in the church at Corinth, since she was probably the one whom Paul entrusted to deliver the letter to Rome. Paul introduces her as a "deacon" as a means of commending her to the Roman congregation.

Paul's letter to the Philippians opens up with a salutation to the "bishops and the deacons" at Philippi. (ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις). Clearly, they hold offices that require his special recognition. This isn't just some "servant"

The term "deacon" as a church office isn't that surprising. The word can refer to a servant who waits on tables (it appears in Matt. 22.13). But this is wholly consistent with the role of clergy in the early church as those who prepared the "Lord's Supper." It doesn't take much effort to see why the early Christians felt that this title was appropriate for a church office.

When Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan the Emperor about the Christians around AD 113 (book X, letter 96), he explains how he tortured a couple of Christian women to get more information. Pliny specifically notes the station of the two women (as slaves - "ancillae") and explains that "they are called "ministers" by the Christians. "Minister" is probably the best Latin term for the Greek "deacon," since it carries both service and authoritative connotations.

But deciding that deacon (or the Latin "minister") probably just means "servant" when referring to women isn't just misogynistic, it betrays an unhealthy literalism when looking at NT texts. Should we claim that "bishops" are really "lookouts" when it's convenient? ("bishop" comes from epi+skopos, which means one-who-watches-over)

The real debate is what the role of a deacon/deaconess was in the early Christian church. There was probably a good deal of variation among the early Christian congregations that Paul would have known (not to mention that Paul's teachings were not universally received).

Later sources shed some light on what deacons were expected to do. According to the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (ca. AD 200), deacons were not ordained to priesthood, but to service of the bishop. Henry Chadwick asserts that deacons eventually (by the fourth century) came to care more for a congregation's temporal needs, while bishops & presbyters took care of spiritual ones.

This is where the debate needs to go, not into silly semantic ones that assert present LDS understandings of male priesthood hierarchy and authority.

I am aware that "diakonos" can refer to a specific office (and I specifically noted the example in Philippians 1:1 in my post). I didn't say that the word only means "servant" when it refers to women. Just a few verses earlier, as I noted above, Christ Himself is referred to as a "diakonos", and I don't believe anybody argues that its use in chapter 15 is meant to refer to the office of a deacon. I said that the word as it appears in Romans 16:1 is ambiguous, meaning that grammatically speaking, it could mean either "servant" or it could be a reference to a specific office.

You and I have both noted that the word could refer to either the ecclesiastical office or a servant. We've both given examples of both uses of the word. I've given justifications for either translation. You might have mentioned Origen, who specifically cited Romans 16:1 as evidence that women held ministerial offices in the early Christian Church, in addition to Pliny (though we might bracket the discussion of how much evidentiary weight to give to the fact that a Roman writer says others referred to the group of female Christians as "ministrae"). On the other hand, every other use of the word in Romans pretty clearly refers to a servant, not the office.

It's quite possible that Romans 16:1 is an example of a woman holding a ministerial office in the early Christian church. It's also possible that it doesn't. I haven't said anything more or less than this in my posts in this thread, and I don't care too much for the insinuation that I'm a disingenuous LDS hack.

[Solon]

I am aware that "diakonos" can refer to a specific office (and I specifically noted the example in Philippians 1:1 in my post). I didn't say that the word only means "servant" when it refers to women. Just a few verses earlier, as I noted above, Christ Himself is referred to as a "diakonos", and I don't believe anybody argues that its use in chapter 15 is meant to refer to the office of a deacon. I said that the word as it appears in Romans 16:1 is ambiguous, meaning that grammatically speaking, it could mean either "servant" or it could be a reference to a specific office.

You and I have both noted that the word could refer to either the ecclesiastical office or a servant. We've both given examples of both uses of the word. I've given justifications for either translation. You might have mentioned Origen, who specifically cited Romans 16:1 as evidence that women held ministerial offices in the early Christian Church, in addition to Pliny (though we might bracket the discussion of how much evidentiary weight to give to the fact that a Roman writer says others referred to the group of female Christians as "ministrae"). On the other hand, every other use of the word in Romans pretty clearly refers to a servant, not the office.

It's quite possible that Romans 16:1 is an example of a woman holding a ministerial office in the early Christian church. It's also possible that it doesn't. I haven't said anything more or less than this in my posts in this thread, and I don't care too much for the insinuation that I'm a disingenuous LDS hack.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you're a "disingenuous LDS hack." If I were going to pick on you, it would have been for the unaccented Greek phrase you included in the post.

I think that to give equal weight to the two possibilities (that Phoebe was a leader, and that Phoebe was some kind of servant) is way too generous. Sure, it's "possible" that she was just a servant, but that possibility is quite remote. Your phrase implied to me that both possibilities were equally valid.

My admonition to leave the modern LDS understandings of priesthood hierarchy out of it is perfectly valid: the texts say what they say. Insisting on finding the modern LDS church in the writings of the New Testament (and its time period) is not a reasonable way to understand the nature of the early church. This shouldn't be too upsetting. After all, can't a faithful LDS who is uncomfortable with ideas of female leadership just chalk it up to the Apostasy?

And placing a caveat with Pliny X.96? Give me a break.

Get a thicker skin.

[All-American]

I didn't mean to insinuate that you're a "disingenuous LDS hack." If I were going to pick on you, it would have been for the unaccented Greek phrase you included in the post.

I think that to give equal weight to the two possibilities (that Phoebe was a leader, and that Phoebe was some kind of servant) is way too generous. Sure, it's "possible" that she was just a servant, but that possibility is quite remote. Your phrase implied to me that both possibilities were equally valid.

My admonition to leave the modern LDS understandings of priesthood hierarchy out of it is perfectly valid: the texts say what they say. Insisting on finding the modern LDS church in the writings of the New Testament (and its time period) is not a reasonable way to understand the nature of the early church. This shouldn't be too upsetting. After all, can't a faithful LDS who is uncomfortable with ideas of female leadership just chalk it up to the Apostasy?

And placing a caveat with Pliny X.96? Give me a break.

Get a thicker skin.

I haven't said a word about modern LDS understandings of priesthood hierarchy.