Occasionally when I preach or teach regarding Ephesians 5:21-33 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, I get questions about other passages. My commitment as a Christian is to provide Bible answers to Bible questions. This surely includes questions concerning the role of women. In light of the subject material we are going to cover in both the morning and evening sermons, let us examine some commonly misapplied passages that are often used to get around direct commands given by the Holy Spirit.
But Phoebe was a deaconess
Some have suggested that Phoebe, a sister in Cenchreae, served as a deaconess in the New Testament church. This is not the case. Why would someone suggest this? Romans 16:1-2 reads, “I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self.” The key word in that passage is a servant. The Greek word for “servant” here is diakonos. This word simply means one who executes the commands of another – simply put, a servant. So why would anyone think this means she was a deaconess? From the word diakonos, we get the English word “deacon,” which denotes an office of the church. This is similar to the word baptism in English, which is derived from baptizo to immerse. So what is Phoebe?
Phoebe was a servant, but she was not a deacon in the sense that Paul elsewhere uses that term to describe an office in the church. How do we know that? There are a number of reasons, but one that jumps right out is in 1 Timothy 3:12 (“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife”). If we think that Phoebe had a wife, we might want to consider Romans 1:26 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Phoebe cannot be a deacon in the sense of the office because she is unqualified, moreover, there is no way she could become a husband (masculine) of one wife (feminine). Phoebe was certainly qualified to be a servant in a general sense, just like all Christians are. She was even commended in Romans 16.
But Deborah Was a Prophetess and a Judge!
First and foremost, we need to remember that Deborah lived under the old covenant and we live under the new. We can all agree that there are many differences between the old and the new. Under the new covenant, God intends leadership in mixed assemblies to be male (1 Cor 14:34-35). He intends elders and deacons to be male (1 Tim 3:2;12). There is a divine order, and a divine order does not devalue women by any means. God had a reason for dividing roles as he did. Paul gives us the Inspired reason. It had to do with creation and the fall of man.
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety. 1 Tim 2:12-15
To say that the Bible does not give women their due is surely said in ignorance. Do we have a problem with Deborah being a judge in light of New Testament leadership and the Old Testament priesthood? No, we do not. First, let us realize there are no qualifications listed for judges. In light of a lack of qualifications, some “scholars” have listed Abimelech as a judge. With a good study of the book of Judges, you find that Abimelech was a horrible man. Yet, he destroyed a city so does that mean he is a judge. No, it does not, it just simply proves there were no qualifications set forth in the Inspired text.
When we consider Deborah, we realize she is certainly operating within the Lord’s will at that time during that particular dispensation. At the same time, I want to remind you, this does not change clear-cut passages that show male leadership in the home, in worship, and in the church that belongs to Christ. We are not Israelites in the period of the Judges, and Deborah was not violating any New Testament commands, because she was not under them. She is not an example that would support the clamor for female preachers, deacons, elders, etc.
Women are certainly valuable in the church and in general. Our sisters are indispensable. A lack of authority to lead in worship, or the rule of the church does not equate to a lack of value. Not all men are elders in the Lord’s church; this does not mean those men are less valuable to God. Mothers understand authority because they rule over their children. Her children do not make the rules. Does that make a mother's children less valuable? Absolutely not! Authority for certain matters is simply not afforded to the children under a mother’s authority. This is not to say that women are childish, it is to say that God has declared roles for everyone; some are exclusive to men in general and some apply to certain specific men (elders, deacons, etc.). We all are God’s children under His authority, and we know the value we have in God’s eyes. God’s authority limits what we do as His children nonetheless. It may be contrary to modern opinion, but God’s Word is sure.
Grace and Peace,
R.D. Beavers
Comments
Post a Comment