"Authentein" Again...

I spent this past summer working on my other blog, titled “Center for Theological Studies.” As I’ve suggested often, anyone who wants to see other theological research of mine, go to the link for “Center for Theological Studies” at the top of the page to the right. Click on the link, and it should take you to the main page of the blog itself. Feel free to read there and post if you just wanna see some other work of mine.

Now, back to the task at hand. I’ve been studying Calvinism and Arminianism this past summer, so all my reading (20+ books) involved that subject. Everything I could find with Calvinism and Arminianism in the title or the subject matter, immediately became a part of my book collection this summer.

While reading on the subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility and how both concepts work together, I read something in the book titled “No Place For Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism” by R.K. McGregor Wright that motivated me to return to my blog here at Men and Women in the Church.

Yes, it does involve the Greek infinitival verb “authentein” once more. If you’ve read my 20 posts on 1 Timothy 2, you’ll find that I’ve done quite an extensive subject on this verb. Most notable of the work I’ve done on “authentein” is my work on Rebecca Groothuis’s book, “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy.” In this book, I examine Linda Belleville’s word study of “authentein” and point out that, while her research is good, her conclusions are wrong. She shows that “authentein” in its earliest form often used an article (“ho”) in front of it, turning the infinitival verb into a subject (a noun). However, she then turns around and says that the infinitive (in everyday language) would have meant to domineer. The focus on the infinitive should be its appearance in literature, not necessarily its function in ordinary everyday use.

Just so we all know, an “infinitival verb” is a verb that functions as an infinitive. For instance, the word “authentein” serves as a verb in 1 Timothy 2:12. It also functions, though, as an infinitive. An infinitive in English is a verb that has the word “to” added to it. For example, “walk” is a verb. When you add the word “to” with the word “walk,” you now have “to walk.” The words “to walk” form an infinitive.

R.K. McGregor Wright writes the following on free will and its use in Scripture:

“Second Corinthians 8:3 (RSV) says that the believers of Macedonia ‘gave…of their own free will.’ The Greek word translated as ‘free will’ here is ‘AUTHAIRETOI,’ which simply means ACTING ‘OF THEMSELVES’ or ‘OF THEIR OWN ACCORD’” (R.K. McGregor, “No Place For Sovereignty.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996, page 164).

A light bulb went off in my head right away. If you notice, the word “authairetoi” has a prefix, “auth,” which is very similar to the infinitival verb of 1 Tim.2:12--“AUTHentein.”

This intrigued me greatly. All of a sudden, I wanted to study the other words in the New Testament that begin with this prefix and see if they had any linguistic connection whatsoever with “authentein.” There are two other words (in addition to “authairetoi,” and we will examine each of these words and the context of the verses containing them so as to see the connection between them.

Let’s look at the Greek word “authairetoi.” This word is found in the participle form (“authairetoi”) in 2 Corinthians 8:3—

3 I testify that, on their own, according to their ability and beyond their ability… (2 Corinthians 8:3, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

In the context, Paul is writing to the Corinthians here, discussing how the churches of Macedonia have given from their small means “for the privilege of sharing (D) in the ministry to the saints…” (2 Cor. 8:4, HCSB)

The word for “authairetoi” here means “of themselves or of their own accord,” as R.K. McGregor Wright states in the quote above from his book. The word “authairetoi” is made up of two other Greek words: “autos” (self) and “hairetizo” (to choose). So the word itself, with a literal translation, means “to self-choose,” to choose something on their own. What we see here is that the prefix “auth” has something to do with “origin.” Here in 2 Corinthians 8:3, the Macedonians themselves are the “origin” of their decision to give—no one made them give, or forced them to. It was their decision alone. The Macedonians themselves were the “origin” of their decision.

2 Corinthians 8:17 brings us up and close with this word again, except this time, the word is in a noun form:

“For he [Titus] accepted our urging and, being very diligent, went out to you by HIS OWN CHOICE” (2 Cor. 8:17, HCSB).

We see a word similar to “authairetoi,” but the word here is “authairetos.” Since the word is in a noun form here, the word would be translated as “self-choosing.” Titus’s own “self-choosing” is the reason why he went to the Corinthians.

The next word we find related to “authentein” is the word “authade,” found in Titus 1:7—

7 For an overseer, (U) as God's manager, must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money…” (Titus 1:7)

The word “arrogant” here is “authade” in the Greek. What does it mean to be “arrogant”? Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives us this meaning:

1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner

Notice the words “one’s own” in the definition? The prefix “auth” is responsible for such translations involving the concept of the self. So someone who is “arrogant” is “self-absorbed” and seeks to magnify themselves in the eyes of everyone else. To use biblical language, they “think more highly of themselves than they ought to think,” which is what the apostle Paul speaks against in the Roman church (Rom. 12:3).

So when we see this word in the context of Titus 1, we realize that being “arrogant” is not a good thing to be!! The word “authade,” in addition to meaning “arrogant,” can also mean “self-willed.” Once again, we see the word “self” as part of this definition as well. The “auth” prefix has everything to do with the “self.” This same word occurs in 2 Peter 2:10, referring to the false teachers.

All these words, starting with the “auth” prefix, have something to do with oneself as the starting point, or “origin,” of an action. Clearly then, “authentein” has something to do with the “self” as the “origin” of something. Much to the shock of many, the word cannot mean “dominate” or “exercise authority” (as defined in our day). If the women in 1 Timothy 2 are doing anything wrong in the church at Ephesus (which they are, since Paul prohibits their actions), then they must be saying something IN RELATION TO THEMSELVES, or ABOUT THEMSELVES. If Paul is writing for these women not to “exercise authority,” or “have authority,” as the NIV claims, then these women must have been in positions of leadership—for, until 1 Tim. 2:12, women are never given such a prohibition by the apostle. If women are dominating the church services, that would be a problem, but it wouldn’t fully explain Paul’s reasoning regarding the order of Adam and Eve’s appearance as well as the details of the Fall. However, if women are PROCLAIMING THEMSELVES TO BE THE ORIGIN OF MAN, then here, we see that the women are saying something ABOUT THEMSELVES, and they are saying something in relation to the Genesis account (the origin of mankind), which would match Paul’s response to the events in the church at Ephesus. This, then, would match Paul’s reference to “those desiring to be teachers of the law” in 1 Timothy 1:

3 As I urged you when I went to Macedonia, (F) remain in Ephesus (G) so that you may command certain people (H) not to teach other doctrine 4 or to pay attention to myths (I) and endless genealogies. These promote empty speculations rather than God's plan, (J) which operates by faith. 5 Now the goal of our instruction is love (K) from a pure heart, (L) a good conscience, (M) and a sincere faith. (N) 6 Some have deviated from these and turned aside to fruitless discussion. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, although they don't understand what they are saying or what they are insisting on. 8 Now we know that the law is good, (O) provided one uses it legitimately. 9 We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, (P) for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral (Q) and homosexuals, (R) for kidnappers, liars, (S) perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (T) 11 based on the glorious gospel (U) of the blessed God (V) that was entrusted to me.” (1 Timothy 1:3-11, HCSB)

Notice that the issue at Ephesus concerned “other doctrines” (v.3), “myths,” and “endless genealogies” (v.4), what Paul refers to as “fruitless discussion” (v.6).

Yes, I covered “authentein” again, and I will continue to do so from time to time should I find something that will help aid us in our study of this word. For now, though, you should know that my goal is to help us to logically and systematically approach the study of “authentein,” so that we will come away with an interpretation that best fits the context of the epistle of 1 Timothy (and matches the view of the remainder of the biblical canon itself). If 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates that genealogy is nullified, then I doubt Eve’s appearance AFTER Adam would affect the right of women to exercise leadership in the church at any level.

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part IV

I am back to give the last three references to women deacons that I will mention in our series on Women Deacons in the East (from the book “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History” by Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek). These last three are a great bunch by which to end our archaeological study of tomb inscriptions with regard to women deacons.

First, there is Paula. The tombstone of her brother is from Laodicea Combustia, Phrygia. On the stone is written the following words:

“PAULA, DEACON MOST BLESSED OF CHRIST. SHE BUILT ME AS TOMB of her blessed brother Helladius, outside the homeland, constructed of stones as guardian of the body UNTIL THE TERRIBLE SOUND OF THE TRUMPET WAKES THE DEAD AS GOD HAS PROMISED” (OWEC, 87).

According to Madigan and Osiek, Paula is called a “diakonos” (masculine term for “deacon”) and “one can infer her high level of education and family loyalty, and her sufficient wealth to afford an expensive memorial” (87). In addition, the last words “until the terrible sound of the trumpet wakes the dead as God has promised” come from 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (87)—

“Listen! I am telling you a mystery:
We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMPET. FOR THE TRUMPET WILL SOUND, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed.” (HCSB)

We discover that Paula built a tomb for her brother and the tomb itself tells us she was a “diakonos.” But, aside from that, we find that believers of the early church had firm convictions regarding their eschatology. Paula really believed that the Lord would return and that the Scriptures told her so. And I think we should all look at death in this way: whenever someone who loves us leaves us, we should remember that God has promised to raise them from the dead—and not just them, but all of us who love Him!

This next tomb inscription concerns a woman named “Sophia” and comes from the fourth century. According to Madigan and Osiek,

“the stone was found by workers below the Tomb of the Prophets on THE MOUNT OF OLIVES in Jerusalem on December 8, 1903, in five pieces, with the bottom missing. It is now in the museum of St. Anne’s Church, Jerusalem” (OWEC, 90).

On the tomb are the words as follows:

“Here lies the slave and bride of Christ SOPHIA, DEACON, THE SECOND PHOEBE, who slept in peace the twenty-first of the month of March in the eleventh Indiction…the Lord God…” (90).

According to Madigan and Osiek,

“The most surprising part of the description is her [Sophia] appellation as ‘SECOND PHOEBE,’ a reference to Rom. 16:1-2, where Phoebe, bearer of Paul’s letter to Rome, is recommended to the recipients as ‘diakonos’—THE EARLIEST USE OF THAT TERM, with Phil. 1:1, for an officer of a particular church—and ‘prostatis,’ patron or benefactor (see Phoebe). The comparison to Phoebe is probably not only to her diaconate, which was common to many women of the period, but to her position as patron and benefactor” (OWEC, 91).

We also find that Sophia calls herself the “slave” and “bride of Christ,” which means that she knew her eschatology. According to Madigan and Osiek, “calling oneself the slave or servant of Christ or God was common early Christian language (see Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 4:5; Phil. 1:1; Gal. 1:10), and the use of bridal imagery…was also beginning at this period” (90).

The most important thing about Sophia’s tomb inscription is that she is labeled “the second Phoebe.” Since she is a “diakonos,” and the first Phoebe (Rom. 16) was a “diakonos,” we can infer that she believed she was following in the footsteps of the Phoebe Paul mentions in Scripture.

The fact that Sophia believed herself to be in line with the Phoebe of Romans 16 tells us that the church used this woman as an example for all women to follow and pattern themselves after. I’ve spent quite a bit of time here at the blog trying to rebut complementarians who attempt to remove this woman from having any importance in the early church at all—and make Phoebe out to be nothing but a “good assistant.” Phoebe was a woman of means, someone very active and trustworthy in the early church—and from now on, when complementarians attempt to discredit Phoebe, point to this evidence about a woman named “Sophia” who evidently believed that she was walking in the footsteps of the Phoebe who helped Paul! This is the goal of providing historical evidence at the site: so that you can inform others of the truth regarding women and their work in the early church.

The last reference I will make concerns a woman named “Zaortha”:

“Zaortha DEACONESS” (94).

Someone might be puzzled to see such a short tomb inscription and wonder, “Why is this here? Why would you even post this inscription?” That’s a good question, and I have a good answer: because she served as a deaconess in a Syriac-speaking church.

As Madigan and Osiek tell us,

“The word for deaconess that is transliterated into Greek as ‘samastha’ is Syriac ‘shamashta,’ not the usual Syriac word, which is ‘mshamshanita.’ The root meaning of the term is the same, ‘servant’ or ‘minister.’ Whether this is a regional or some other variation is not known. Nor is anything further known about the deaconess Zaorta. This is not a funerary commemoration but her dedication of a piece of the chancel screen as a pious offering to the church. She was therefore a person of means, PROBABLY A PATRON IN THE COMMUNITY. Together, with the deaconesses to whom Severus wrote, SHE IS EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF THE OFFICE IN THE SYRIAC-SPEAKING CHURCHES” (OWEC, 94).

This seems to be the only evidence of the existence of a female diaconate in Syriac churches. In any case, however small the evidence, the evidence still exists.

This will conclude our study of tomb inscriptions of Women Deacons in the East. We have one bit of business left—and that involves to show evidence of ecclesiastical texts that confirm the female diaconate as an ORDAINED office. Part Five is on its way…

Show Me The Evidence!

“Untold harm has been done in the name of Christianity by people who have absolutized their relative interpretations of life or of Scripture. Presumptuous prophets who claimed to speak God’s word to people, without divine authorization, in the OT administration were subject to the most severe penalties. May God deliver evangelicals today from prophetic ministries not validly drawn from divine revelation. This case for revealed absolutes must not be taken to justify absolutizing merely human ideas, however good…We can be assured of our view of the major doctrines of Christianity and the realities to which they refer WHEN OUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE BASED ON NUMEROUS RELEVANT AND EXTENSIVE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE, supported by interpreters throughout the history of the church, and attested to us personally by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit to the teaching of the Word. Then we can confidently relate to the realities designated and preach the great doctrines of the faith with joy” (Walter Elwell, editor, “Relativism,” in “Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001, page 1005).

I like Walter Elwell’s quote above. Elwell shows us the danger of placing our own views onto Scripture.

I was reading from Elwell’s dictionary because of my theology class. It’s amazing how reading for theology could bring me back to a subject I haven’t studied for some time!!!

Notice that I capitalized a phrase of Elwell’s quote above. The phrase I capitalized is the phrase that concerns the discussion of this post: how can a person tell when their interpretation of a passage is correct?

Here at the blog for the last nine months, I have tried to show that the complementarian view of women in ministry is one that is based on a presuppositional bias, NOT the Word of God. Scripture does not subordinate all women to all men, nor does it tell all women to submit themselves to all men! Instead, Scripture tells WIVES to submit to their HUSBANDS (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1). And when Scripture tells wives to submit, it states that they are to do so “to THEIR husbands,” not to EVERY husband.

But this is where Elwell’s statement comes in: if God forbade women in positions of church leadership, such as the pastorate, eldership, deacon, teacher, preacher, and so forth, then why is it that NO EXPLICIT passages mention this? Have you ever wondered why there is no undisputed passage in Scripture that forbids women from having leadership offices in the church?

Well it is here that someone may object: “Well, Deidre, what about 1 Timothy 2?” In response I would say, “Yes, let’s consider this wonderful passage indeed. Notice that the ONLY letter that gives this prohibition is 1 Timothy 2. And why is that?" Having studied hermeneutics the last three years, I’ve learned that when something is mentioned in several places throughout Scripture, it is a universal statement—binding for all times in all places through all situations. However, when something is mentioned once (and only once), it is not a universal statement, but a LOCAL one—which means that the comment or statement applied only to a specific time period or situation. 1 Timothy 2 would fit under this umbrella. Paul’s prohibition is found nowhere else in the New Testament EXCEPT in the letter of 1 Timothy. In fact, as I’ve written about in a few posts here at the blog on “Junia or Junias?”, Paul even mentions a female apostle, Junia, in Romans 16, not to mention “Syntyche and Euodia” in Philippians 4 as “fellow workers” of his. These two women “contended” for the gospel alongside of Paul, and he credits them as his equals in the Gospel work!!

Let me play the role of “Devil’s advocate” for a moment: IF the Lord could be so explicit about wives submitting to their husbands, why couldn’t He be AS EXPLICIT about women not working in positions of leadership in the church? It seems that whenever the Lord wanted to be clear about something, the language of Scripture is precise and to the point. But when it comes to this so-called “universal” prohibition (as complementarians believe), we don’t find such a bold prohibition, but instead, many pieces of evidence that lead to the other conclusion. Why is this so? How can this be?

I think that you and I know the answers to these questions. We find the opposite because we all know that the opposite is true—that the Lord doesn’t forbid women to exercise their gifts for His glory.

Some people don’t consider the issue of women in ministry to be a “doctrine” of the church; but I think it is—for, think of all the Christians that are indoctrinated against women in ministry from the time they are old enough to know how to behave in church. It is a doctrine when believers are being taught that women are subordinate by nature and were never meant to assume leadership in the churches. It is a doctrine when little girls are being taught that all they can do is sew and knit and keep house and have children and work in the nursery, sing in the choir, and play an instrument at church. It is a doctrine when men are being taught that, by virtue of their GENDER, they are MORE FIT for leadership in the churches than women are. It is a doctrine, whether most conservatives like to think of it as such or not. I think it’s time the church call it what it is (a doctrine) and place it with the other doctrines as teaching that should be subject to examination.

Place the doctrine of “women’s subordination” on the table; follow the Elwell pattern and “Show Me the Evidence,” show me the passages that confirm the traditional view of women in leadership. Show me why Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah were all “out of place” and why 1 Timothy 2 was written. I’ll even allow the complementarian to take time explaining to me his “biological” argument for the domination of men in the home and the church. However, while the complementarian is doing this, I ask one thing of him: show me other passages that have the SAME prohibition as 1 Timothy 2. In other words, if Paul prohibits women to “teach” and “have authority,” as most conservatives believe, then show me the other passages that explicitly mention “teach” and “have authority” as prohibitions for women.

Complementarians can search for such passages—but they will search in vain. 1 Timothy 2 is the ONLY passage that gives such a prohibition. This “once-mentioned” prohibition, then, cannot be given the same weight as “wife submission” in Paul’s letters, for he mentions this three times to three different congregations!
Instead, 1 Timothy 2 is a particular letter written to address a specific situation in the church at Ephesus. But for those who still believe in the power of 1 Tim. 2, explain to me then why 1 Timothy 5 mentions women being “rulers of the home” (“manage the home,” the Greek word “oikodespotein”)…

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part III

Currently, I’ve been providing information regarding tomb inscriptions of female deacons in the West as well as the East. At the present time, we have covered women deacons in the West and are attempting to cover the presence of women deacons in the East. This is where Part III will resume.

Next on our list is a limestone inscription from Phrygia in Asia Minor. The limestone is broken into two pieces:

Left side: “Aurelius Antonius, son of Miros, together with his aunt ELAPHIA DEACONESS of the Encratites…[text is broken off]”

Right side: “I, ELAPHIA, DEACONESS OF THE ENCRATITES, have set up this monument as memorial to the presbyter Peter together with his brother Polychronios” (OWEC, 78).

Regarding the limestone:

“In the right inscription, she [Elaphia] alone makes the commemoration, to a presbyter and his brother, both of whose relationship to her is unknown. Since no relationship is stated, it is possible that SHE WAS ACTING AS A CHURCH OFFICIAL to commemorate two brothers, one a cleric, who had no surviving family to do it for them” (OWEC, 78).

What interests me, aside from Elaphia as a deaconess here, is that she is called a “deaconess of the ENCRATITES.” Madigan and Osiek provide information on this interesting group as well:

“The Encratites were a sect of ascetics known from the second century on in the East. Celibacy was an important part of their practice…” (OWEC, 78)

Another inscription comes from a marble sarcophagus near Nicomedia in Bithynia (Asia Minor):

“In memory of EUGENIA DEACON we, the poor people of Geragathis, restored the sarcophagus that we decorated” (OWEC, 81).

This is an interesting one because of those who describe themselves as “the poor people of Geragathis.” According to Madigan and Osiek, “The group could be of a particular place or belonging in some way to a person. Ute Eisen suggests the leader of a house for the poor where Eugenia had worked” (81).

A Nicopolis (Thrace) inscription dated from 538 CE tells of a woman who was patron of a memorial center:

“Here lies EUGENIA of praiseworthy memory, d…[stone broken off], WHO BUILT THE HOUSE (domo[n], i.e., shrine) OF THE GLORIOUS APOSTLE ANDREW in a holy manner, and ended life on June 12 in the first Indiction, in the reign of our godly and reverend ruler (despo[tou]) Flavius Justinianus, eternal Augustus and Emperor, in the twelfth year of the consulship (hypatia) of the noble Flavius John” (OWEC, 81).

Only the first letter of her title [d] is preserved (Madigan and Osiek, 81) so that we don’t know if she was a deacon or deaconess. We do know, however, that she played a role in the construction of a memorial center—so she must have had quite an influence in her community.

The next inscription concerns a woman named Maria of Archelais. The inscription itself was of grey marble stone, with a cross and ivy decoration in the center; the words themselves were written below the arms of the cross. It is a sixth century inscription:

“Here lies MARIA THE DEACON of pious and blessed memory who, according to the saying of the Apostle, raised children, exercised hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, and distributed her bread to the needy. Remember her, Lord, when she enters into your kingdom” (OWEC, 82-83).

Madigan’s and Osiek’s comments are fitting by themselves for Maria’s tomb inscription:

“The inscription contains biblical allusions to 1 Tim. 5:10 in the middle and Luke 23:42 at the end. The allusion to the work of widows in 1 Tim. 5:10 makes it almost certain that Maria was a widow at the time of her death. The title ‘the Apostle’ is frequently used of Paul by writers of this period. Everyone would know to whom it referred. Her title is ‘diakonos,’ and the total lack of mention of any relatives is unusual. It may mean that she had no surviving relatives, or it may indicate HER LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE TO HER CHURCH COMMUNITY. PERHAPS THE COMMUNITY ERECTED HER MEMORIAL” (83).

They also give us insight into Maria’s work as a deacon:

“the description given here from 1 Timothy lists typical works that would be theirs. Raising children may mean not only their own but the neglected or orphaned children of others. Hospitality involved the washing of feet as a sign of welcome and was not understood only as slaves’ work. Feeding the poor was a necessary work of charity that was expected of all. The mention of these specific activities is a biblical allusion and DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT MARIA EXCELLED ONLY AT THESE FUNCTIONS” (83).

Maria of Moab has something of historical note to show us:

“Here lies MARIA daughter of Valens, DEACON, who lived thirty-eight years and died in the year 538 [643-44 CE]” (OWEC, 83).

While Maria’s title was abbreviated (dk), leaving us in the dark as to whether she was a deacon or deaconess, we do know that her age is of note. According to the writers, “She was already a deacon at the age of THIRTY-EIGHT, DESPITE THE LOWER AGE LIMIT OF FORTY SET AT THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON for ordination of a woman deacon. These frequent discrepancies show that LEGISLATION MAY HAVE BEEN ENACTED, BUT WIDE OBSERVANCE WAS ANOTHER THING” (83).

Maria’s age was two years BELOW the age limit set by the church council, which shows us that rules, although set down in stone, were not implemented as such. And this will be seen also in our future posts regarding women presbyters. Although church councils attempted to undermine women in leadership positions, they couldn’t be at EVERY church to enforce those rules—and that is where churches took advantage of the councils’ lack of access and followed personal convictions. As Madigan and Osiek tell us, councils continued to decree and make their rules, but they couldn’t enforce observance. It seems then, that everyone exercised power in their own spheres.

This will conclude Part III of Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions. Having read over these inscriptions, I think what encourages me most is that these inscriptions teach us so much about the women whose names are engraved on them. We’ve learned that women deacons contributed to financial projects, worked in hospitals, took care of orphaned children, had ordinations, etc. What this shows us, however, is that women deacons were a COMMONLY-ACCEPTED thing in the church for quite some time. And this fact should make us pause and ask, “if the early church accepted women leaders, then why have we forgotten this?” It makes me realize more and more each day that “history is written by the victors.” Church councils wrote what they did; but the women, those who served in leadership positions, only have their tomb inscriptions left to tell their story. And, similar to Abel, though they are dead, their lives “still speak” (Hebrews 11:4).

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part II

There are more tomb inscriptions than those presented in Part I.
This post will start with a mosaic inscription from Patras, Greece—that of Agrippiane:

“The DEACON AGRIPPIANE, most beloved of God, made the mosaic in fulfillment of her vow.” (Ordained Women in the Early Church, 70). [from this moment on, the book titled will be referenced by the acronym “OWEC”]

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek write:

“Agrippiane is a DIAKONOS who exercised her patronage by paying for a mosaic floor after having made some kind of promise to God, the details of which are unknown. The usual pattern, often practiced by believers of the early Church, is to promise to do something specific if a request has been granted by God. Both clergy and laity could make such vows and were bound to fulfill them. The appellation ‘most beloved of God’ (theophilestate) IS KNOWN IN OTHER CONTEXTS AS A DESCRIPTION OF CHURCH OFFICIALS” (OWEC, 70).

With Agrippiane, when she is called a “diakonos,” the title “most beloved of God” adds to our belief that Agrippiane was a deacon of a church in Greece.

The next tomb inscription is a funerary inscription from Apollonia, Pontus (Thrace):

“Alexandra subdeacon” (OWEC, 70).

According to Madigan and Osiek, the office of subdeacon existed for men, but we have no evidence regarding what the office meant for women. “The title HYPODIAKON on the Greek inscription is an abbreviation either for HYPODIAKONOS or HYPODIAKONISSA, so her actual title could have been either term” (OWEC, 70).

For those whose minds are curious as to what a subdeacon did, you’re in good luck. David Bercot, editor of the work “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” gives us the details of what the office would have required for men:

“In the early church, a subdeacon was an assistant to a deacon, and in some churches he performed similar functions to that of a deacon” (“A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” by David W. Bercot, Editor. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, page 635).

So a subdeacon for the deacon was an assistant to the deacon; assistants usually did whatever the deacons needed them to do. This is probably how it worked among the women. They possibly had assistants as well, who did whatever the women deacons needed them to do.

The next inscription concerns a fourth-century inscription found in 1910 in the Peloponnesus, a marble plaque:

“Here lies [________] only child, twenty-three years old, daughter of [________] and ALEXANDRA DEACON, raised and taken in by my father Erenianos in swaddling clothes, in distress and pleas, buried in hope by me. As God wished, I fulfilled this path for her in the fourteenth Indiction, September 13” (OWEC, 71).

We know that Alexandra, mentioned in the inscription, is the mother of the child who died at 23. Alexandra is considered to be a deacon of a church.

The next inscription concerns Anastasia of Palestine. The inscription itself is “a funerary inscription of the Byzantine Period, from the burial caves at the St. George Choziba Monastery, Deir el Qilt in Wadi Kilt, between Jerusalem and Jericho” (OWEC, 71).

“Here lies ANASTASIA DEACON, in the month of February 27, in the 11th Indiction” (OWEC, 71).

Madigan and Osiek tell us that in the place of “deacon” here in the inscription are really just four letters, an abbreviation of the title (DIAK); therefore, we can’t know whether Anastasia was a deacon or a deaconess (OWEC, 71).

The last tomb inscription in this post is from the fifth century, from Delphi (Greece):

“The devoted DEACONESS ATHANASIA, who lived a blameless life decorously, INSTALLED AS DEACONESS by the most holy bishop Pantamianos, set up this memorial. Here lie her mortal remains. If anyone else dares to open this monument where the deaconess has been placed, may he share the lot of Judas the [betrayer] of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (OWEC, 72)

Regarding this tomb inscription, Madigan and Osiek tell us that “this is the only inscription of a female deacon that speaks of her installation as deaconess (Katasthathisa)and gives the name of the installing bishop, probably because of his importance. This verb (kathistemi) is not normally used for ordination and is sometimes contrasted to ordination. It rather connotes official appointment to an office or function…” (OWEC, 73).

Despite Madigan and Osiek’s claim here, I’d have to say that the word “kathistemi” is used in the Greek New Testament for appointment to church office. It is especially used for the first deacons of the early church in Acts 6. When Peter says, “Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we can APPOINT to this duty” (Acts 6:4, HCSB), he is telling the church to pick seven men they can install to the office of deacon. In the early church, installment, appointment, and ordination meant the same thing; so I don’t see where the difference lies. At least in the Greek New Testament, “kathistemi” did mean ordination.

This means, then, that Athanasia, the deaconess, WAS ORDAINED to her position. What adds to this conclusion is the fact that we are told the name of the Bishop who ordained her: “installed as deaconess by THE MOST HOLY BISHOP PANTAMIANOS…” If Athanasia was just given a church office that held no significance of ordination, why would a bishop’s name be used here? As we will see throughout the study of tomb inscriptions, there were women who served as “deacons” and did good charitable things, but the name of a bishop was not given—nor were any of the details of their appointment.

This will conclude Part II of our study of tomb inscriptions. As we see, though, women did serve in leadership in the early church. As we progress through the study, I hope that you feel as I do: that much of this material, although true, remains hidden or undiscussed. Something must be done…

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions

It is now time to add a new section to that of our historical evidence: tomb inscriptions proving the existence of women deacons in the East.
Without further ado, I will now start with Aeria, from an inscription found in 1885 on a stone with a cross in the middle:

“Here rests the ever-remembered servant of Christ, AERIA, who was a DEACON of the holy ones, friend of all. She came to rest in the tenth Indiction in the month of January, being thirty years old, in the year 594. God-bearer [help?]” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 68).

Madigan and Osiek tell us that the label “friend of all” [panton phile] is a common label used in the fifth and sixth centuries.
We are told that Aeria was a “diakonos.”

Next, meet Agaliasis, whose name was inscribed on a tomb as part of a fourth-century family funerary inscription from the Island of Melos in the Aegean Sea:

“In the Lord: the presbyters worthy of every commemoration, Asclepis and Elpizon and Asklepiodotos and AGALIASIS THE DEACON and Eutychia and Klaudiane, virgins, and Eutychia their mother lie here. Since this tomb is full, I adjure you by the angel located before it that no one dare bury anyone else here. Jesus Christ, help the one who writes this and his entire household” (Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 68).

Regarding Agaliasis, Madigan and Osiek write:

“Though the deacon’s name is spelled with only one ‘l’ in the inscription, THE NAME IS A COMMON GREEK WORD, ‘agalliasis’ (see Luke 1:47)” (Ordained Women, page 69).

The next piece of evidence comes from a funerary inscription at Philippi in Macedonia:

“Distinguished resting place of AGATHE DEACON and John treasurer and linen-weaver” (OW, 69).

Madigan and Osiek believe that “this brief inscription probably records the burial of a wife and husband. Her title is DIAKONOS. The terms used to describe her husband are disputed. He may have been treasurer or custodian of the church (hypodektos) as well as a worker or merchant in line (othonetos)…HE SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN ORDAINED. This inscription is a rare indication that not all women deacons were virgins or widows” (69).

This inscription shows us that, in some cases, the woman was ordained—while the husband wasn’t! But that would NEVER happen today, according to most conservative evangelicals.

One more tomb inscription will be discussed in this post: that of Agathokleia. The inscription is only a few words:

“Memorial of Agathokleia, virgin and DEACON” (OW, 69).

This inscription comes from Macedonia in the fifth and sixth centuries. Here’s what Madigan and Osiek had to say about the unusual combination of “virgin” and a church office:

“The DIAKONOS Agathokleia is also called a virgin; she is undoubtedly a CONSECRATED VIRGIN…this inscription…shows that the two titles and thus the two functions, virgin and deacon, were considered DISTINCT, yet COULD BE COMBINED” (OW, 69-70).

I will pick up where I left off in our discovery of tomb inscriptions in my next post.

Women Deacons in the West: Church Documents

We have finished our coverage of women deacons in the west via tomb inscriptions and a letter between a Pope and Bishop. Now, we are gonna begin tracing women deacons in church texts. The first church document I will begin with is called the “Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi,” which is Latin for “the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek provide us with a fitting description of the document:

“The TD is an early Christian church order, depending literarily on some form of Hippolytus’ ‘Apostolic Tradition,’ as well as an apocalypse and other sources. IT PURPORTS TO INCLUDE THE INSTRUCTIONS CHRIST GAVE TO THE TWELVE AFTER THE RESURRECTION, on issues of ecclesiastical order, architecture, daily prayer, and other matters…probably written in Greek in the late fourth or (as Harnack suggested) the fifth century, it survives today in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 150).

The texts of the TD have all been translated from Latin to English, so I will only provide the English translation here at the blog site. The parts of the Testamentum that I will address here will be those rules of the TD that mention women deacons. There are other documents regarding church order. To find those, just do a google search.

Now to begin with, let’s look at Testamentum Domini 1.23:

“On the Sabbath let [the bishop] offer three breads as a symbol of the Trinity; on Sunday, four breads as an image of the Gospel.
When he offers the sacrifice, let the VEIL OF THE SANCTUARY be drawn closed, as a sign of the wandering of the ancient people, and let him offer it WITHIN THE VEIL WITH the presbyters, deacons, canonical widows (viduis canonicis), subdeacons, DEACONESSES (diaconissi), readers, [and] THOSE HAVING SPIRITUAL GIFTS (charismata).
Let the bishop stand first in the middle, and the presbyters immediately behind him on both sides; the widows (viduae) behind the presbyters who are on the left side; the deacons behind the presbyters who are on the right side; and behind these the readers; and behind the readers the subdeacons; and behind the subdeacons, the DEACONESSES (diaconissae).”

Regarding the placement of deaconesses behind the veil, Madigan and Osiek write the following:

“The deaconess, WHO HAS ALMOST NO ROLE BEYOND THAT OF GREETING WOMEN AT THE DOOR OF THE CHURCH, is brought within the veil and, though mentioned last, she experiences an ‘upward’ shift, so to speak, and is explicitly brought into the penumbra of the clergy. All are clearly separated from the laity” (152).

I desire to point out some things in rule 1.23 that we just examined. First, notice that the deaconesses are placed BEHIND THE VEIL with the bishop and presbyters. Then, as Madigan and Osiek tell us, the deaconesses are clearly separated from the laity itself. This tells us that deaconesses were considered to be part of the ordained clergy in those days. The fact that women were ordained clergy in those days attests to how women have shifted “downward” in the centuries since; in many conservative theological circles, women no longer have a place as ordained clergy.

Remember what I’ve been saying at the blog? It’s funny how most theological conservatives believe that women have NEVER been ordained; yet and still, we have not only tomb inscriptions but also church documents that tell us otherwise. It doesn’t take much to see that the Church of Christ has disintegrated from what it was in the early centuries following the ascension of Christ.

But I found something else interesting about rule 1.23: not only does it allow women behind the curtain, but also “those having spiritual gifts.” THOSE HAVING SPIRITUAL GIFTS! Did you notice that?

I point out those with spiritual gifts because today, in most churches, since we believe that everyone has a spiritual gift, we tend to let those with spiritual gifts remain among the congregation and sit out in the pews with the rest of the congregation: we don’t allow them behind the pulpit or anywhere near it. Well, in the early centuries of the church, those who had spiritual gifts, such as those of the five-fold ministry in Ephesians 4 (evangelists, teachers, pastors, prophets, apostles) were allowed to go behind the veil as ordained clergy. Teachers would have been included behind the veil, which means that, they were considered to be part of the clergy. It’s funny that many churches consider them to be part of the church staff, but not necessarily part of the ordained clergy. But I think the early church was onto something when they allowed teachers behind the veil—because teachers are the ones feeding God’s people the Word, helping them to understand what God is saying. In other words, teachers are performing a PASTORAL DUTY when they instruct from one Sunday to the next, whether they are teaching youth, men, women, toddlers, etc.!

The fact that the teachers were ordained clergy also tells us something else: that today’s women, including those of Southern Baptist circles who teach only women and children, would have been considered ORDAINED CLERGY in the days of the early church! Actually, as teachers, in some cases, women would have had a greater role as ordained clergy than that of the deaconess!

The Testamentum Domini 1.23 shows us that women were considered to be ordained clergy. The question is, if women of the third and fourth centuries were considered to be ordained, then why has the rule changed today? Why is it that women today are considered in conservative theological circles to be NON-ORDAINED by nature? To presuppose women should never be ordained then, is to go against the views of the early church.

Since we have covered all the material on women deacons in the West, we will continue our discussion of women deacons by looking at tomb inscriptions of women deacons in the East. Keep reading, and feel free to comment or ask questions.

A Revealing Letter

I am still going through the material that proves the existence of women deacons in the West—so today, I’m back with a letter from Pope Benedict VIII to Benedict, Bishop of Porto. The Pope confirmed a number of privileges and concessions for the Bishop, among them the issue of ordination of women deacons:

“In the same way, we concede and confirm to you and to your successors in perpetuity every episcopal ordination (ordinationem episcopalem), not only of presbyters but also of deacons OR DEACONESSES (diaconissis) or subdeacons.”

Regarding this letter, Madigan and Osiek write:

“IN SPITE OF ALL THE EARLIER EFFORTS OF WESTERN COUNCILS TO ELIMINATE DEACONESSES, it is remarkable to find a pope, early in the ELEVENTH CENTURY not only recognizing the office of deaconess but acknowledging that THE RITE OF INITIATION IS AN ORDINATION” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 148).

In addition, notice that the “deaconesses” are placed in the same group as “deacons” and “presbyters.” Deaconesses were considered to be part of the ordained leadership of the church.

But the attitude of many evangelical conservatives today has strayed from the attitude of their ancestors. John Hammett, author of “Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology,” lays out both sides of the issue regarding whether or not women should be deacons:

“The Interpreter’s Bible treatment of this verse helpfully summarizes the arguments on both sides. In favor of seeing the verse as referring to deaconesses are the following:
1. It appears in a context dealing specifically with church order.
2. The word ‘hosautos,’ [meaning] ‘in the same way,’ is used in verse 8 to introduce the qualifications for deacons; its usage in verse 11 indicates the introduction of a new category parallel to deacons.
3. The virtues required in verse 11 are similar to those required for deacons, arguing for a similar office.
4. If verse 11 refers to deacons’ wives, why is there no reference to the wives of elders?
5. If the writer meant to refer to wives, he would have added the pronoun ‘their,’ but it is missing.

In support of the view that ‘gynaikas’ refers to the wives of deacons are the following points:
1. If the writer meant deaconess, why use ‘gynaikas’?
2. The list of qualifications is much shorter than that for deacons or elders, too short for a new office.
3. There is an office for women, discussed at length in 1 Timothy 5:9-16.
4. Deacons’ wives fits the flow of thought in verses 8-13 (deacons, their wives, their marital and family life).
5. Deacons’ wives would inevitably be involved in their ministries to some extent and, therefore, needed to be women of character, not prone to gossiping or drunkenness.” (“Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology,” by John S. Hammett. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Kregel Publications, 2005, pages 199-200.)

After listing the arguments from both sides, Hammett gives his choice:

“Of the two sets of arguments the arguments in favor of deaconess appear to be the weaker…three of the arguments for seeing ‘gynaikas’ as wives (arguments 1,4, and 5) are quite strong and without convincing rebuttal from the opposing side. Therefore, it seems that 1 Timothy 3:11 is not a biblical basis for the office of deacon, but rather, adds another qualification for the office of deacon. To be qualified for the office of deacon, a man MUST HAVE A WIFE OF CHARACTER, who can be trusted to assist her husband in the diaconal ministry” (200).

I could attack all the arguments that Hammett lists for the other side, but I will invest my time in dealing with the three powerful arguments he thinks are the best against the idea of women deacons.
First, there is argument #1: “If the writer meant ‘deaconess,’ why use ‘gynaikas’? The term ‘deaconess’ did not come into existence until, at the earliest, the third century. Paul’s letter was written to Timothy in the first century AD; this means that the word ‘deaconess’ would not have been used here by Paul, since the term itself didn’t become a part of ordinary language until at least TWO-HUNDRED YEARS later.
Secondly, Paul uses the word ‘gynaikas’ to distinguish from the male deacons he has just mentioned in the text. The first deacons of the church were appointed in Acts 6, due to the need for servants to aid the everyday needs of the people (Gentile widows). The apostles said the following:

"It would not be right for us to give up preaching about God to wait on tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, (C) full of the Spirit (D) and wisdom, whom we can appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the preaching ministry." (Acts 6:2-4, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

The word for “men” here is “andras,” which means that only seven MALES were selected. Paul had to distinguish females (women) from males (men), so the word “women” is used instead of “deaconess.” The fact that Paul mentioned “women” in a section on deacons shows us that Paul was not as against women in church leadership as most conservatives believe.

The next response Hammett valued was that “the deacon’s wife” fits the logic of verses 8-13. However, what is the true context of verses 8-13? Is it family life? Or is a godly family life part of the requirement for those who would serve in the church? The context of 1 Timothy 3 is the church, NOT the home.

Next, notice that the requirements of the “gynaikas” are very similar to that of the male deacon’s.

First, look at verse 8: “Deacons, likewise, should be worthy of respect, not hypocritical…” (1 Tim. 3:8, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

Now, look at the requirements for women:

“Women, too, must be WORTHY OF RESPECT, NOT SLANDERERS…” (1 Tim. 3:11, HCSB).

In the same way the man is to be “worthy of respect,” so is the female deacon.
Next, the male deacon is not to be “hypocritical, not drinking a lot of wine, not greedy for money.” Notice how Paul sums up the character of the woman—“self-controlled” (1 Tim. 3:11). Paul’s mentioning of “self-control” reminds us of Paul’s words regarding the women at the church at Ephesus in 1 Timothy 2:15. The word there in the Greek is “sophrosune, which means “self-control.” The problem at the church among the women is that they don’t know how to control themselves. But the godly woman who serves in the church in 1 Timothy 3 is to demonstrate self-control, not slanderize someone’s name; she should not be a gossiper.

Finally, there are other things to consider regarding the women mentioned here. Why would Paul list characteristics for women IF they were not to serve in the church, but only to be good “aids” for their husbands? Everytime Paul mentions a list in the New Testament, the list was to serve as requirements for a church position. So, if Paul is listing the requirements of women to match the requirements of men, then this must mean that Paul considered women to have a place in church leadership.
Contra Hammett, I am in agreement with those from the Interpreter’s Bible who argue that the word “their” is not used—as an indication of women (generic), not “wives.” The word “gynaikas” in the New Testament has a dual meaning: it can mean either “women” or “wives.” The problem is, in other contexts, we have an indication that Paul is referring to “wives” (usually is marriage). In this case, although home life is discussed, it is discussed for the sole reason that the home life would serve as an indicator of church life. This, then, wouldn’t disqualify the woman—for she worked in the home as well. Surely then, she would qualify for work in the church!

Look at 1 Timothy 3:11. There is a word in the Greek, “hosautos,” which means “Likewise.” The women, like WHO? Who are the women of 1 Tim. 3:11 to be like? I’m glad you asked: they are to be like the men mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:8-10. And what are the requirements for the men mentioned in those three verses? They are to demonstrate a certain character; and then, they are to be examined, tested, APPROVED to walk in the church as deacons. Once approved, they are then to serve. So, if the women are to be LIKE the men (in the same manner), then, the women are to also demonstrate a certain character, and are also TO BE TESTED, EXAMINED, APPROVED as women of character; then, they too, like the men, are to serve as women deacons.
But there is also one more thing that Hammett and most conservatives miss when they study 1 Timothy 3: that is, verse 12:

“Deacons must be husbands of one wife, managing their children and their own households competently.”

Notice that this verse, verse 12, comes AFTER the discussion of women, not BEFORE! If Paul really wanted to make his point about women not being deacons, Paul would’ve wrapped up his discussion of deacons before the women (for, according to the skeptics, women would not have been deacons). But for Paul to write these words AFTER verse 11 shows us that women, like men, were considered to be potential servants of the church.

To make the point I’ve been making regarding 1 Timothy 3, go to 1 Timothy 5:

“Therefore, I want younger women to marry, have children, MANAGE THEIR HOUSEHOLDS, and give the adversary no opportunity to accuse us” (1 Tim. 5:14, HCSB).

Wait! Look at the words in capital letters. But, according to conservatives, only MEN manage their households. Surely, women can’t manage their households, can they?
According to Paul, they can; and they should. This is acceptable in the sight of God. So when Paul states that the deacons should be “managing their children and their own households competently” (1 Tim. 3:12), he is making the point that both male AND FEMALE deacons should manage their homes well. Paul isn’t excluding the female gender from leadership in the church.

Most conservatives, when telling women what they should do in church, go to 1 Tim. 2:11-15, or Titus 2:3-5. However, they fail to go to 1 Tim. 5 where women are to “manage their households.” I think the fact that the church doesn’t mention this passage is because we’re afraid to think of it. We’re afraid to imagine that Paul very well may have opened the door for women, and we shudder to think that we’ve been wrong all this time.

We see that Paul calls Phoebe from the church at Cenchrea a “diakonos" (Rom. 16:1), which is the term used in 1 Tim. 3 in the plural for “deacon” (diakonoi). Paul certainly didn’t have a problem using the term “diakonos” for a woman; and neither should we.

The Council of Orange

Dear readers, we will now start our discussion of canons and comments on church practices. We have seen from a few inscriptions that, although the evidence is scarce, women did serve as deacons and deaconesses.

Now, however, we are going to examine church councils and their attempts to stop the advancements of women in the early church. Our beginning council to start will be the Council of Orange. We are given the following information about the council by Madigan & Osiek:

“The Council of Orange was convoked in November 441…with seventeen bishops from three provinces in attendance, it produced thirty canons on a wide variety of matters. SEVERAL OF THESE deal with the STATUS AND CONDUCT OF WOMEN IN CONSECRATED OFFICE. For example, one decreed that widows should make a profession of chastity and wear the proper dress…finally, Canon 26 deals with deaconess, in particular the question of whether they should be ordained” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 145).

We are now gonna look at Council of Orange Canon 26:

“Female deacons (Diaconae) are BY NO MEANS (omnimodis) TO BE ORDAINED (ordinandae). If there are any WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ORDAINED (si quae iam sunt), let them submit their heads to the benediction (benediction…capita submittant) that is granted to the laity (quae populo impenditur).”

Notice that the council seems to be adamantly against women’s ordination: “female deacons are by no means to be ordained.” This says that women are not to be ordained for any reason whatsoever. Then, the canon presupposes some women have been ordained: “If there are any who have already been ordained…” The fact that the Council of Orange presupposes a thing tells us that women’s ordination did exist even as late as the fifth century. Last but not least, the “ordained” women are to be placed among the masses: “let them submit their heads to the benediction that is granted to the laity.” Here we find that these women were to be demoted, pulled down, from their places of ordained authority.

Madigan and Osiek write regarding Canon 26:

“It seems quite likely that the forbidden practice [ordaining women] had been occurring in the early fifth century in Gaul. That would account both for the canon having been promulgated at all and for its force…the recommendation to receive the blessing given to the laity is thus intended as a ritual act intended to UNDO THEIR [deaconesses] ELEVATION TO THE CLERGY AND TO RESITUATE THEM WITH THE PEOPLE, where they belong” (145, 146).

Although this canon tells us of the ordaining of women in Gaul, it suggests a bigger problem than just that of the council’s disagreement with a certain church practice:

“The forbidding of ordinations in this Western province is of special interest because it is unambiguously clear from several sources that, in the East, female deacons WERE BEING ORDAINED PUBLICLY AT THE SAME TIME BY IMPOSITION OF HANDS AND PRAYER OF THE BISHOP and using prayers similar to those used in other sorts of ordinations. In other words, in the East female deacons were considered wholly part of the clergy in the fifth century—probably the very understanding the fathers at Orange were at pains to avert in the West” (146).

The practice of ordaining women was making its way from the East, and this likely would have terrified the Council to write to the churches to stop this practice. The fact that the Council responded this way tells us that women’s ordination was a real thing in the West (and the East).

Funny, but, isn’t this different from what we’ve ALWAYS heard about women’s ordination? Isn’t it amazing that it’s been called a “liberal” practice, a “work of the feminists,” but, yet, it was also a practice of the early church? Most of you, my readers, have probably never even read of something like this before. It seems that conservative Christians are not very aware of their church history; for, if they were, they wouldn’t make such claims about the practice of ordaining women. The fact that conservative Christians know very little of this information does not mean that it does not exist, or that Madigan’s and Osiek’s information is wrong—rather, it demonstrates an attempt to suppress the information.

I’ll cover the issue of women’s ordination in more detail in the months to come; for now, though, I’d like to recommend a book for all to read: the book is called “The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination” by Gary Macy. I will cover this book in the days to come so stick around.

Women Deacons In the West: Inscriptions

It’s now time for what I promised: that’s right—we’re now going to dive into the study of women deacons in the west. According to Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek,

“The Western epigraphical evidence for female deacons is slim, probably because of the vagaries of inscriptional survival, IN VIEW OF THE EFFORTS OF COUNCILS OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES TO ELIMINATE THEM…that so much effort was given to suppression has to indicate more of a custom than the few inscriptions and literary references reveal” (Madigan & Osiek, “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 143).

We have evidence from church councils that reveal women serving at the altar, a practice that most would consider today as being the role of the Pastor, elders, and deacons. The only way we know such practices existed is because church councils constantly wrote to forbid such practices (although many churches continued and pushed the patience of councils even further).

The first inscription comes from Rukuma in Africa Proconsularis. It is carved into a slab of limestone:

“Accepta the deacon[ess].”

According to Madigan and Osiek:

“This tomb inscription dates from the late sixth or early seventh century. All we know of Accepta is her name and her title. This is the only female deacon attested to in Africa” (page 143).

We only have one female deacon in Africa—but it is enough to alert us that, even in Africa, women deacons were present.

The next inscription comes from Rome and tells of a woman who made a vow:

“By the gift of God and of the Blessed Apostle Paul, Dometius the deacon and controller of the monies of the holy, apostolic and papal chair, together with ANNA THE DEACON[ESS], his sister offered this vow (hoc votum) to the blessed Paul.” (144)

We are told that both Dometius and his sister had a Latin abbreviation, “DIAC.” We know that Dometius was a deacon, but we are not so sure that Anna was a deacon. The reason is because the inscription is dated from the sixth century; and from the fifth century onward, the female title of “deaconess” was also in operation.

The next inscription is a sixth-century inscription from Doclea, Dalmatia:

“AUSONIA THE DEACON[ESS] (diac) for her vow and that of her children (filiorum).”

We are not sure how to translate this title, but it does tell us that the office of deacon for women also existed.

The last inscription comes from Ticini in St. Trinitas (Gaul):

“Here in peace rests the deaconess (diaconissa) Theodora of blessed memory, who lived in the world for about 48 years. She was buried here on July 22, 539.”

Madigan and Osiek give us an interesting note here about Theodora’s tomb inscription:

“Along with the several synodal and conciliar decrees from the fourth through sixth centuries, also translated in this collection, this inscription gives evidence for the existence and activity in Gaul of deaconesses, DESPITE THE ATTEMPTS OF THE COUNCILS TO ERADICATE THEM, LIMIT THEIR ACTIVITIES, OR FORBID THEIR ORDINATION. As this inscription demonstrates, THESE DECREES REMAINED AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE A DEAD LETTER” (144, 145).

I find it fascinating to think about church synods and councils issuing decrees against the ordination of women. Today’s conservative churches conduct themselves as if they have always held the orthodox position. However, the churches of ancient times allowed women to serve in leadership positions—against the personal beliefs of church councils and leadership. I don’t know what you think of all this, but it should seem strange that we have to go to tomb inscriptions and church documents forbidding such practices to be able to find them. What this reveals is that the practices of the ancient churches have been hidden because today’s churches deem women’s ordination to be “a black mark of the past” and choose not to talk about it.

What I want you, my readers, to do is to start showing these types of evidence to people around you who believe that women’s ordination has been unorthodox and heretical. If the churches believed what the councils did, why do ANY grave and tomb inscriptions exist? And, what’s worse, is that those who served on such councils got to see these inscriptions during their own lifetimes. The fact that these memorials were “tangible rebellions” against councils should make us question what we believe orthodoxy to be.

In my next post, I’ll start tackling church canons and church councils.

The Church Fathers on 1 Timothy 5:3-13

I’m here to supply more information from Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek’s book, called “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History.”
1 Timothy 5:3-13—

“Honor widows who are really widows. If any widow has children or grandchildren let them first learn to honor those of their own house and to repay the services of their parents, for this is pleasing before God. But the true widow who has been left alone has hoped in God and remains in prayer and supplication night and day. But the one who continues in self-indulgence, has died while still alive. Commend these things so that they might turn out to be above reproach. But if anyone does not provide for one’s own and especially a member of one’s household, that one has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, has been married only once, is seen to have done good works, has raised children, provided hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, helped those in distress, and pursued every good work. But refuse younger widows, for whenever they may feel the impulse that alienates them from Christ, they want to marry. They incur judgment because they set aside their first faith. But at the same time, they also learn to be idle, running around to houses, not only idle but even gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not say.”

Madigan and Osiek:

“It seems that two different practices about widows are spoken of here. First, widows who truly have no means of family support should be maintained by the Church. Second, there are qualifications for being accepted into this group that imply further services: a successful career as wife and mother and proven ability to provide hospitality. Probably this is an early reference to what later develops in many places as an ‘order of widows,’ which served as the service organization of the early church, especially for works of charity to needy women and hospitality to visitors. Given average life expectancy in antiquity, sixty was an advanced age. The sharp words about widows as wandering gossips reflect the informal female communication network that functions in most traditional cultures, which men typically disdain because they are excluded from it. It will be a repeated stereotype in later literature” (21, 22).

I. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:9

“Above all, the Apostle believed he had designated the age which those to be received into the order of widows (in ordinem viduarum) ought to have attained. Some people, however, not considering his reasons for wanting to indicate this age, have wondered whether it was fitting that deaconesses (diaconissas) be ordained (ordinari) before this age” (Theodore, 22).

Madigan and Osiek:

“One is frustrated by this being translation from the Greek. Nonetheless, from what we know about widows and deaconesses from other texts, we can draw certain conclusions. First of all, Theodore (unlike for Epiphanius of Salamis), widows seem to be part of an ‘order’ and thus PART OF THE CLERGY. The same might be said of deaconesses. Indeed, they are ordained so far as Theodore sees it; this in fact corresponds to what was happening in the Eastern church from the fourth century on” (22).

II. Pelagius, Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:9

“He wanted such deaconesses to be chosen so that they might be examples of living for all.”

Madigan and Osiek:

“Here Pelagius identifies widows and deaconesses and sees their role as an exemplary one in the community” (22).

It is now at this time that I will supply the conclusion to our study of commentary on passages regarding women:

CONCLUSION
“Generally, wherever female deacons are already known and accepted, the biblical texts are read to support the practice that is already done. John Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theodore know and accept women deacons. The possible exception here is Origen, for it has been argued that, other than this passage, there is a total lack of evidence for women deacons in Egypt, and so he could not have been writing about the church of Alexandria. There is much more possibility that he knew the rise of the female diaconate in Caesarea, however or other places in his extensive travels. Be that as it may, he is the strongest to claim ‘apostolic authority’ for the institution. Pelagius knows of it, but only in the East, and seems neutral to it. But he conflates widows with deacons in 1 Timothy. Ambrosiaster, never known as someone favorable to women, prefers to put Romans 16 in a general framework of ministry, and resists the reading of women deacons in 1 Tim. 3:11. But the biblical texts are only the first step” (22, 23).

In my next post, I will start to tackle Women Deacons in the West. For those of us who inhabit Western Civilization, the upcoming work will be of monumental significance.

The Church Fathers on 1 Timothy 3:8-11

In this post, I will tackle the comments of the church fathers regarding 1 Timothy 3:8-11. The information supplied here will consist of the comments of church fathers as well as that of authors Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek.
1 Timothy 3:8-11 reads:

“In the same way, deacons are to be serious, not given to double-talk, not with a tendency to much wine, not eager for dishonest profit, holding to the mystery of faith with a clear conscience. And let them first be approved, then let them perform their diaconal ministry blamelessly. In the same way, women are to be serious, not irresponsible talkers, sober, faithful in all things.”

“It is not clear whether the women of verse 11 are female deacons or wives of the male deacons of the previous verses, since Greek does not have different words for ‘woman’ and ‘wife’ nor for ‘man’ and ‘husband.’ Two factors suggest that female deacons are referred to here. First is the mention of the female deacon Phoebe at an earlier stage of the development of ministerial structures in the Pauline churches (Rom. 16:1-2). Second, the structures of verse 8 about men and verse 11 about women are parallel: the first three words of the Greek text are exactly the same except for gender changes. If female deacons were still referred to by the masculine designation as in Rom. 16:1, there would be no other way to make a gender distinction in verse 11, the generic term ‘diakonoi’ already having been used in verse 8. Some modern commentators opt for wives of male deacons here, but as we see below, quite a few early commentators understood the text as referring to female deacons” (18). – Kevin Madigan & Carolyn Osiek

I. John Chrysostom Homily 11 on 1 Tim. 3:11

“Some say that he is talking about women in general. But that cannot be. Why would he want to insert in the middle of what he is saying something about women? But rather, he is speaking of those women who hold the rank of deacon. ‘Deacons should be husbands of one wife.’ This is also appropriate for women deacons (diakonoi), for it is necessary, good, and right, most especially in the church.” (John Chrysostom)

Madigan and Osiek write:

“The point that John makes is still disputed in the interpretation of the text from Timothy (see discussion on the text itself above). Here the commentator is clear which option he favors. In John’s churches in Antioch and Constantinople, female deacons or deaconesses were well known. His application o f the one-marriage rule to women deacons seems to suggest that in late-fourth century Antioch, they were allowed to marry and so need not have been celibate” (19).

II. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:11

“ ‘In the same way, women’ that is, the deacons (diakonous), ‘are to be serious, not irresponsible talkers, sober, faithful in everything.’ What he directed for the men, HE DID SIMILARLY FOR THE WOMEN. Just as he told the male deacons to be serious, he said the same for the women. As he commanded the men not to be two-faced, so he commanded the women not to talk irresponsibly. And as he commanded the men not drink much wine, so he ordered that the women should be temperate”- Theodoret of Cyrrhus.

Madigan and Osiek:

“Theodoret is another commentator on 1 Timothy who interprets the women as deacons. He understands that the author has the same expectations about the virtuous conduct of both male and female deacons” (19).

III. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:11

“Paul does not wish to say this in this passage because it is right for such [deacons] to have wives; but since it is fitting for women to be established to perform duties similar to those of deacons.”—Theodore of Mopsuestia

Madigan and Osiek:

“For Theodore, as for his Greek contemporaries, there is an order of deaconesses, that is parallel in status and function to the male diaconate. Accordingly, he goes on to comment that such women must be discreet (non accusatrices), capable of keeping confidences so as to prevent arguments and divisions (divortia) in the community. When he comments on 1 Tim. 5:9, we learn more about how he views their status and place in the hierarchy” (20).

IV. Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:11

“But the Cataphrygians seize an occasion for error. Because women are spoken of after deacons, they argue with a vain presumption that female deaconesses (diaconissas) ought to be ordained (debere ordinary), although they know that the apostles chose seven male deacons. Was it that no woman was found to be suitable (idonea), when we read that, among the eleven apostles, there were holy women? But—as is the wont of heretics, who build their thought on the words of the law rather than its sense—they oppose the Apostle by using his own words. Thus, when he orders women to be silent in the church, they on the contrary attempt to vindicate for her the authority of her ministry”—Ambrosiaster, page 20.

Madigan and Osiek:

“Ambrosiaster assigns the origins of the office of deaconess to ‘the Cataphrygians’—the name that he and (as we shall see) Augustine and John of Damascus give to the Montanists. Here he uses the holiness of the women among the apostles to underline their unsuitability for diaconal ministry. DESPITE their holiness, THEIR GENDER EXCLUDED THEM FROM SUCH MINISTRY. Oddly, he uses the apostolic injunction against speaking in church to suggest that women were excluded from a form of ministry that did not require, or even allow, female speech there. In his Commentary on Romans, he resorts to philological grounds to deny the institution of the female diaconate” (20).

V. Pelagius, Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:11

“He [Paul] orders that they be selected similarly to the way in which deacons are chosen. Apparently, he is speaking of those who still today (adhue hodie) in the East are called deaconesses (diaconissas)” (Pelagius, 21).

Madigan and Osiek:

“Pelagius, writing around 410, sees here apostolic foundation for the female diaconate. Again, his comment suggests that he believes the Western diaconate no longer exists at the same time that it suggests its Eastern counterpart does. In his eyes, then, there is a vestigial practice in the East for which the church of Rome had no parallel. There is allusion here to qualifications for induction to the diaconate—pudica means ‘chaste’ or ‘pure’—but no reference to liturgical or pedagogical function, or to ecclesiastical status” (21).

In my next post, I will cover the comments of the church fathers regarding 1 Timothy 5:3-13.

Phoebe, Part III

I’m back to continue the series on “Ordained Women in the Early Church.
The church fathers had interesting thoughts regarding women in ministry in the early church. Phoebe served as a biblical case for women, but the church fathers had differing ideas about Phoebe and her role.

Origen (185-253) commented regarding Phoebe:

“This passage teaches by apostolic authority that WOMEN ALSO ARE APPOINTED (constitui) IN THE MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH (in ministeria ecclesiae), in which office Phoebe was placed at the church that is in Cenchreae…therefore this passage teaches two things equally and is to be interpreted, as we have said, to mean that WOMEN ARE TO BE CONSIDERED MINISTERS (haberi…feminas ministras) in the church, and that such OUGHT TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE MINISTRY (tales debere assumi in ministerium) who have assisted many; they have earned the right through their good deeds to receive apostolic praise” (Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 14).

Madigan and Osiek write,

“It is regrettable that the text survives ONLY in Latin translation, which makes it more difficult to arrive at any definitive interpretation. It may well be true that the exact juridical status of the female ministers, their relationship to male hierarchy, ritual induction, and qualifications (other than a record of charity and assistance) are left unclear here. It is even unclear whether ‘ministra’ should be here translated ‘minister’ or ‘deaconness.’ Likewise ‘ministerium’ could signify ‘diaconate’ rather than ‘ministry.’ The most literal translation is presented here simply on the principle of caution. But it is not impossible pace Martimort, that Origen had the institution of deaconesses and the ministry of the female diaconate in mind” (14).

While we can’t be sure of what “ministry” and “ministers” meant, at the basic level, we can assume that Origen allowed for the possibility of women to serve in the church.

The church father John Chrysostom (c.347-407) had this to say:

“See how much he[Paul] distinguishes her, for he mentions her before all the others and calls her ‘sister.’ It is not a small thing to be called Paul’s sister, and he adds her status by calling her ‘deacon.’…how can she not be blessed, WHO ENJOYS SUCH A WITNESS FROM PAUL, who is able to help him who set the whole world straight? This is the finishing touch on her good deeds, since he goes so far as to say ‘and of me as well’ (e.g., that she is patron, ‘prostatis’). What is this ‘and of me as well’? Of the herald of the world, of the one who suffered so much, of the one who satisfied countless numbers of people. BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, LET US IMITATE THIS HOLY ONE!” (15).

According to Madigan and Osiek,

“Chrysostom acknowledges Phoebe’s rank of deacon, probably equating it with the office of deaconess that existed in his day, and with which he was quite familiar (see his relationship, for instance, with Olympias)” (15).

At the end of Chrysostom’s quote above, he states, “both men and women, let us imitate this holy one!” We can see how much Chrysostom prized Phoebe here in Romans 16:1-3.

The heretical monk Pelagius wrote regarding Romans 16, verses 1 and 2:

“Just as even now in the East, deaconesses (diaconissae) are seen to minister in baptism to those of their own sex, or in the ministry of the word, so we have found women who have taught in private (privatum docuisse feminas invenimus), as did Priscilla, whose husband was named Aquila” (Pelagius, quoted by Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 17).

Madigan and Osiek tell us,

“This text can be interpreted in two ways. First, one might suppose that Pelagius presumes that the female diaconate in the West, once extant, no longer exists. This may well be an indication that it no longer existed in Rome…alternatively, Pelagius might presume that the office had never existed in West. If this is true, the text could be interpreted to mean that Pelagius was not yet aware of the existence of the office in the West” (17, 18).

There were far more women in the diaconate in the East than in the West (but there were far more female presbyters in the West than in the East).

In my next post, I will tackle the comments of the church fathers regarding another passage on women: 1 Timothy 3:8-11.

Phoebe, Part II

I’m back, continuing my research on Phoebe. I promised you that I would provide seven commentators’ remarks, so that is what I’ll do. I’ve provided three of them; I’ll provide three more as well as comments from some of the church fathers regarding this passage.

Bishop N.T Wright has this to say about Phoebe:

“The implication is that Phoebe is a businesswoman who is able to travel independently, and for Paul to trust her with a letter like this speaks volumes for the respect in which she was held; so it is no surprise to discover that SHE IS A DEACON IN THE CHURCH. Attempts to make ‘diaconos’ mean something else fail: to call her a ‘servant of the church,’ with the NIV, does indeed offer a valid translation of the word, but it MERELY PUSHES THE PROBLEM ON A STAGE, since that would either mean that Phoebe was a paid employee of the church (to do what?) or that there was an order of ministry, otherwise unknown, called ‘servants.’ ‘Minister’ (REB) is imprecise, because the word is used for several pastoral offices in today’s church; ‘deaconess’ (RSV, JB, NJB) is inaccurate, because it implies that Phoebe belonged to a specific order, of female church workers quite different from ‘deacons,’ which would not be invented for another three hundred years” (N.T. Wright, The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. X: Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002, pages 761-762).

N.T. Wright confirms Phoebe as an example of women who would have been part of the order of deacons. Notice that the term “deaconess” wasn’t invented until THREE HUNDRED YEARS LATER! Why did the name change take place for women? Because of a movement within the church to suppress women from ordained office. We’ll get to that in several days.

Thomas Schreiner, in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, states the following about Phoebe:

“Scholars debate, however, whether she held an office…is Paul commending Phoebe because she served in a variety of UNOFFICIAL ways in the church at Cenchreae? It is impossible to be sure, BUT FOR SEVERAL REASONS IT IS LIKELY THAT SHE HELD THE OFFICE OF DEACON. First, 1 Tim. 3:11 PROBABLY IDENTIFIES WOMEN AS DEACONS…second, the designation ‘deacon of the church in Cenchreae’ suggests that Phoebe served in this special capacity, for this is the ONLY occasion in which the term ‘diakonos’ is linked with a particular local church. Third, the use of the masculine noun ‘diakonos’ also suggests that the office is intended…women deacons were probably appointed early, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OTHER WOMEN NEEDED ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE OF THEIR OWN SEX IN VISITATION, BAPTISM, AND OTHER MATTERS…” (Thomas R. Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Academic, 1998, page 787).

Notice that Schreiner talks about the necessity of women deacons, not their existence itself. For him (he quoted Pelagius as the source regarding women deacons serving other women), the office itself was created because of the existence of other women. As I told you in the last post with Leon Morris, to argue that women deacons were needed to help women is like saying that men deacons were created in Acts 6 to help other men! That’s insane. The diaconate was not just an office created to help meet the physical day-to-day needs of the congregation, it was an office of honor, of such honor that the apostles told the church to choose seven men from among the congregation who were full of the Holy Spirit and strong in the faith (Acts 6:3). If these men were selected as godly examples in the community, and were prayed for through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6), then why undermine the honor of women deacons by arguing for the NECESSITY of the office? It seems as if by doing this, Schreiner (while appearing to cut down the office of women deacons) is actually EXALTING it, since to argue its necessity would make it seem to be MORE VITAL than the male diaconate!!

One more thing regarding Thomas Schreiner: after the above quote given in the Baker Exegetical Commentary, Schreiner writes this footnote:

“The office of deacon, however, must be distinguished from that of overseer/elder. One should not conclude from Phoebe’s role as a deacon that she FUNCTIONED AS A LEADER OF THE CONGREGATION” (787).

To see whether or not Schreiner is correct let’s go to Philippians 1:

“Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Christ Jesus, to all the SAINTS in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, INCLUDING THE OVERSEERS AND DEACONS” (Philippians 1:1, NASB).

According to this verse then, deacons are part of the church leadership! The same thing is demonstrated in 1 Timothy 3. Since that text lists women as deacons (according to a group of characteristics), then women as well as men are in church leadership. Schreiner’s remark, then, is based on a certain view of women in ministry that this text does not uphold. For those who need a syllogism, I’ll provide one:

I. Overseers and deacons are both in church leadership.
II. Phoebe was a deacon.
III. Therefore, Phoebe was in church leadership.

I will leave Schreiner’s view of women here for the moment. In my next post, I will examine the ancient view of Phoebe according to the church fathers.

Phoebe, Part I (Romans 16:1-2)

Today’s post will tackle another “introductory” issue to the study of ordained women in the early church. This new introductory issue to encounter head-on involves three New Testament texts regarding women: (1) Romans 16:1-2, (2) 1 Timothy 3:8-11, and (3) 1 Timothy 5:3-13.

In today’s post I am gonna talk about Phoebe, a woman recognized by Paul in his letter to the Romans, chapter 16, verses 1 &2. I’ll print the text here:

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well” (Rom. 16:1-2, NASB).

I spent some time in the library yesterday researching on Phoebe. I was curious to find out whether or not Phoebe was considered to be a deacon in the early church. After researching 7 commentaries, I got sufficient information on Phoebe. I’ll share with you what I found here:

“Several translations call her ‘a deaconess’ (as RSV; cf. NEB, ‘who holds office’). It is not easy to defend that translation, for the word ‘deaconess’ is not found until much later. But Paul’s word, besides meaning ‘servant,’ is the word for ‘deacon’ (it is the word used, e.g., in Phil. 1:1), and it may well be that Paul is describing Phoebe as a deacon of the church at Cenchrea. Some commentators hold that THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FEMALE OFFICEBEARERS AS EARLY AS PAUL’S TIME AND THUS ARGUE FOR THE MEANING ‘SERVANT’ here. But the social conditions of the time were such that there must have been the need for feminine church workers to assist in such matters as the baptism of women or anything that meant contact with women’s quarters in homes” (Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998, pages 528-529).

Do you see the phrase I’ve capitalized in the quote above? It shows that there are those who are willing to rule out the idea of women being deacons in the early church. And then, read Leon Morris’s response: he states that there must have been a position of helping women that REQUIRED, in some sense, a woman to help. But Acts 6 goes into detail about seven MEN, seven males, who are to aid the Gentile widows (women) regarding their daily needs. It seems then, that the men were appointed to such a task. Could it be that the women, then, were appointed as deacons to aid the widowers (men) in their daily needs?

I won’t dare answer that question. I will say, however, that I think this idea of separating tasks according to gender is a bit absurd. To say that women are ONLY made deacons to aid other women is like saying that the men of Acts 6 were ONLY appointed deacons in order to aid other men. That’s insane! Shouldn’t believers look at the biblical text regarding men and women in leadership and admire both equally WITHOUT separating according to gender and placing the male deacons ABOVE the female deacons? Morris’s quote above makes out Phoebe’s position to be one of NECESSITY—after all, some woman had to become a deacon to HELP OTHER WOMEN, right? But I think Paul tells us how important of a person Phoebe was: according to Leon Morris (same source, “It seems likely that she was the person entrusted with the task of taking the letter to the Roman church, for a commendation of someone not with the letter normally refers to a future arrival (cf. 1 Cor. 16:10; Col. 4:10)” (528). Phoebe wasn’t just a deacon at her church—Paul also entrusted her with this letter to the Romans. By the way, she was a deacon at the church in Cenchrea, some 8 miles, it is believed, from Rome. Phoebe is not mentioned as having a husband, or being a widow, or anything else. She is simply described as an exceptional woman for God. The fact that she is entrusted with this letter tells us the kind of admiration Paul had for her.

According to Douglas Moo, Phoebe’s title is peculiar in and of itself:

“But the qualification of ‘diakonos’ by ‘of the church’ suggests, rather, that Phoebe held at Cenchreae the ‘office’ of ‘deacon’ as Paul describes it in 1 Tim. 3:8-12 (cf. Phil. 1:1). We put ‘office’ in quotation marks BECAUSE IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT REGULAR OFFICES IN LOCAL CHRISTIAN CHURCHES WERE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED, as people who regularly ministered in a certain way were GRADUALLY RECOGNIZED OFFICIALLY BY THE CONGREGATION AND GIVEN A REGULAR TITLE. Moreover, the NT furnishes little basis on which to pinpoint the ministries carried out by deacons. But based partially on hints within the NT and partially on the later institution of the diaconate, it is likely that deacons were charged with visitation of the sick, poor relief, and perhaps financial oversight” (New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Mi.: William B. Eerdmans, 1996, page 914).

Moo states that those who served in positions were recognized by the church, back in a time when offices were not as clearly defined as many seem to be today. What was the emphasis on? “people who REGULARLY ministered in a certain way.” The offices were not based on gender; the offices were based on ability, giftedness, and calling. If there was a need to be met in the church, someone who was gifted would fulfill that part. Need by-passed the gender hierarchy that has come to dominate our times. Also, because “the NT furnishes little basis on which to pinpoint the ministries carried out by deacons,” deacons served in a variety of capacities, much like they do today. Steven, for example, one of the first deacons (Acts 6), preaches a sermon in Acts 7. In fact, if we never read in Scripture where Steven preached, we would never have believed that he actually DID preach in the early church. Phillip, a noted deacon/evangelist, also contributed. These men were gifted by God in many areas, and when the needs of the church required these other areas of giftedness, the needs were met by such giftedness. I can imagine that if preaching needs were met by deacons, other needs like musicians and teachers and pastors were met by such men as well. Today’s deacons in most churches are there to help administer Holy Communion, baptize, visit the sick, and help the Pastor in whatever need he may have.

When I was 10 years old, I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. I grew up in a church where my grandfather was (and still is) the Pastor’s right-hand man. He is the head deacon, and is well-loved and respected by all (of course, I’m BIASED in saying that!!!) Still, though, he helped baptize me and my twin sister back in October 1994 (along with our Pastor then, who is no longer Pastor of the church). As crazy as it sounds, though, the deacons are there to meet WHATEVER NEEDS come their way! As you can imagine, Phoebe had no small part to play in the early church.
Evidently, she could hold her own, for Paul appointed her to deliver the letter to the Roman believers.

In another commentary, Phoebe’s role as a leader is staunchly defended:

“Phoebe is called a ‘servant’ (diakonos, GK 1356) of this church. The same word can be rendered ‘deaconess’ (RSV, NJB) or ‘minister’ (REB). WOMEN AS WELL AS MEN SERVED IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN THE EARLY CHURCH, and there is no reason to exclude the possibility that some of the ‘diakonois’ of Philippians 1:1 were women (cf. 1 Tim. 3:11). WOMEN CLEARLY HELD POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY IN LOCAL CONGREGATIONS. Stuhlmacher…rightly comments, ‘Women played a role in the work of the early Christian mission churches which was in no way MERELY SUBORDINATE, but RATHER FUNDAMENTAL.’ In the present passage, THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST CONTROVERSY ASSOCIATED WITH PHOEBE’S BEING A DEACON. Her service in that role is taken for granted (v.2)” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Edition: Romans ~ Galatians. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 2005, page 226).

This commentary clearly states that Phoebe was a part of the leadership of the early church. So, without question, women were a part of church leadership in the early days following Jesus’ ascension. The early church had no problem with it, but many conservative evangelicals do so today.

I’ve spent time here at the blog attacking the work of Andreas Kostenberger and his wife, Margaret. However, Dr. Andreas Kostenberger is more open to the idea of women deacons that many professors I’ve met in the last three years. He believes it’s a shame that most Southern Baptist churches don’t include women in the leadership position of deacon, since, according to him, Scripture does. But his position regarding women differs from that of another colleague of his. This colleague has written a book in which he affirms that the characteristics of women in 1 Tim. 3:8-11 refers only to WIVES of deacons, not women as deacons themselves.

In Part II of our study of Phoebe, I will continue to share my research with those of you who want to arm yourselves for the complementarian.

Deacons? Deaconesses? Presbyters?

Tonight I’m back to discuss the titles that women held in the early church. Once again, just to inform the readership: this is part of the “introductory matters” I informed you about earlier today. This post will cover the titles of women, and the following post will get to work on Scriptures used to support women in church leadership.

Madigan and Osiek have this to say about the titles of “deacon” and “deaconess”:

“The earlier title is ‘DIAKONOS’ with feminine article, already used in Rom. 16:1-2 of Phoebe…the later term DIAKONISSA appears in a datable Greek text for the first time in Canon nineteen of Nicaea. It is used in the Latin translation of the Didascalia, but neither the date of the translation nor the term used in the original Greek is known. It also appears in the Apostolic Constitutions, usually thought to date to the late fourth century (AC 3.11.3, a passage independent of the Didascalia)…from then on, both terms are used in both literature and inscriptions, with no perceivable difference of time or place, and in Latin another version, DIACONA, comes into use…apart from the small samples from any particular region there is also the difficulty that a number of inscriptions abbreviate the title of office to ‘DI,’ ‘DIAK,’ or something similar, which could be either DIAKONOS or DIAKONISSA” (Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 8).

The term for Phoebe used in Romans 16:1-2 is “diakonos.” The term in the actual Greek text is “diakonon,” but this is the accusative form of the noun “diakonos.” The accusative case “on” in the Greek shows the reader the direct object of the sentence.

Let’s read Romans 16:1-2 together:

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (diakonon) of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of man, and of myself as well” (Rom. 16:1-2, NASB).

The word “diakonon” there is the direct object of the sentence. The accusative case of the word (“on”) matches the ending of her name (“Phoiben” in the Greek, ending in an “n,” called a “nun” as the Greek alphabet). Paul is commending or introducing Phoebe to the church at Rome. It is as if Paul is standing before them when this epistle is being read, and he is literally HANDING OFF PHOEBE, or bringing her up before the congregation.

Phoebe here is labeled as a “diakonos,” which matches the term used in 1 Timothy 3 to refer to the office of “deacon.” A number of other terms are used throughout early church history, such as “diakonissa,” which was a term often used in the churches of the East to refer to female deacons. Although these terms became interchangeable, I praise God that Phoebe was given the original title. It seems as if the alternative term “diakonissa” was invented to separate women and their diaconate from that of the men.

“In the literature, the same person can be called by different titles by different persons. John Chrysostom calls his aunt Sabiniana a ‘DIAKONOS,’ while Palladius calls her a ‘DIAKONISSA.’ John’s friend Olympias is consistently a ‘DIAKONOS.’ Even in some of the latest canonical texts, both terms are in use in both the West and East (e.g. the Councils of Orange, 441 CE, and of Epaon, 517 CE and the Life of Saint Radegunda, ca. 600 CE; DIACONA; epitaph of Theodora of Ticini, 539 CE; DIACONISSA; Justinian’s regulations use both terms, once switching between them in the same article, ‘Novellae 6.6). We can only conclude on the basis of present evidence that THE TERMS WERE INTERCHANGEABLE. English translations tend to be inexact about this, assuming that ‘deaconess’ is the appropriate for a woman (even sometimes for Phoebe in Rom. 16:1!). In the translations in this book, we have tried to keep the difference straight by rendering ‘deacon’ for DIAKONOS or DIACONA, ‘deaconess’ for DIAKONISSA—and noting the uncertainty for the abbreviation DIAK-“ (8).

As Madigan and Osiek report, they clearly designate the different uses of the titles and do not mingle them together. So as we go through their research, we will see times when “diakonos” is used, and times when “diakonissa” is used (as well as the abbreviations). Only the tomb inscriptions at times will be of benefit for us.

Well, what about presbyters? What I am about to write, I imagine, will shock you as much as it shocked me to read it:

“Heresiologists like Tertullian, Ephiphanius, and Augustine want to give the impression that only in these ‘deviant’ groups (such as the Montanists and Priscillianists movements) are such practices (as presbyters) done. YET THE EXISTING EVIDENCE CANNOT BE CONFINED TO MEMBERS OF THESE MOVEMENTS. Documents like the SYNOD OF DIMES and the LETTER OF GELASIUS are addressed to their own people and BISHOPS...what can be said with certainty is that THE CLAIM THAT WOMEN HAVE NEVER FUNCTIONED AS PRESBYTERS IN THE ‘ORTHODOX’ CHURCH IS SIMPLY UNTRUE” (9).

That’s right: women served as presbyters in ORTHODOX CHURCHES! It seems as if today’s church is so far removed from the churches of the second and third centuries AD; yet and still, the practice of the early church was more non-discriminatory than the Church of Christ is today! If you ask me, I think we need to go back to ancient practice! They should dictate for us what church polity is, not the other way around…
For those who want to read more information on deaconesses, I suggest the following site: http://www.womenpriests.org/deacons/deac_smy.asp

In addition, you can view some of the work in Madigan and Osiek’s book at googlebooks. Here’s the site to go to:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7XRvIiltytUC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Women+presbyters&source=bl&ots=8vUpv2dC7H&sig=mdIlalCbYCNctK5D9nan8lTIM6s&hl=en&ei=o3A4SofZM8Wktwf6zOHaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

It should put you right up to Madigan and Osiek’s chapter on “Women Presbyters.” We will study more on women in the days to come. For now, happy reading!