Original Meaning
PAUL BEGINS THIS section on deacons without any definition or description of their duties. We must conclude that they were well known both to the sender and to the recipient of this letter. The linguistic group of Greek words beginning diakon-was familiar enough so that anyone hearing it would know it referred to someone in a serving capacity. But nowhere in the New Testament is there a description of how they came into being as a recognized group or what their duties were.
The seven men who were appointed to care for the financial needs of a specific group of widows (Acts 6:1–6) may well be the forerunners of deacons. It is possible that as the church grew and needs increased that threatened to distract leaders from the ministry of the Word and prayer (as with the apostles in Acts 6), those who were appointed to meet those needs came to be called deacons. One problem with this scenario is that the qualifications for the men in Acts 6:3 (“full of the Spirit and wisdom”) are not the same as those Paul mentions here. Since, however, there was undoubtedly a need in the developing church for people to function together in specific areas of service, and since there was an available word (“deacon”) to describe such a group, it is not surprising that by the time of the Pastoral Letters this term was already in use. The word was dignified enough for Paul to have used it of himself and his associates as those who were servants (diakonoi) of the gospel (1 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7) and of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6). Nevertheless, there were also separate groups called elders or overseers and deacons, and so the present passage goes on to give instructions for the latter.
Paul’s concern with the demeanor and public reputation of church leaders continues with the deacons as “men worthy of respect.” The word “men” is not in the Greek text; it is assumed from the gender of the noun diakonos. However, it should be noted that at the time of Paul there was no feminine form of that word.1 “Worthy of respect” translates semnos, a word that describes a person of dignity, who both gives and receives appropriate respect. These two aspects of giving and receiving allow the use of the cognate noun semnotes to refer to the respectful attitude required of an overseer’s children in 3:5. The same word appears in 2:4: “…quiet lives in all godliness and holiness [NRSV, dignity].” Since non-Christians, perhaps even “kings” and “those in authority” may take note of how the Christians are living, another possible translation, “integrity,” may fit well in that context. The terminology here portrays a person who can be depended on to act with transparent integrity.
The next description, “sincere,” further supports this. This word applies to someone whose speech does not betray conflicting dispositions toward others (lit., “not double-tongued,” NRSV).
Like the overseer (3:3), the deacon must exercise moderation in drinking and in regard to money. The word aischrokerdes, translated “pursuing dishonest gain” (NIV), includes the idea of shame (aischro-). This accords with the recurring theme in the Pastorals of a reputation that will not bring shame on the gospel.
It may seem strange that there is a reference to doctrine (“the deep truths of the faith,” v. 9) in connection with deacons, but not in the qualifications for overseers. The reason may be that this is taken for granted in elders but might not be thought of as important for deacons. By translating the Greek mysterion as “deep truths” rather than as “mystery,” the NIV avoids a possible misunderstanding that there is some arcane doctrine that only certain people can grasp, but the NLT’s “revealed truths” does this better. God’s mysterion is his sovereign work throughout history, which he reveals stage by stage. For example, the mystery of the kingdom includes the truths that good and evil coexist until God’s time for judgment (Matt. 13:1–52), that during the period when Israel is hardened, God shows mercy to Gentiles (Rom. 11:25–27), and that in the church Jew and Gentile are brought together into one body (Eph. 3:2–6). Christ is the center of God’s mystery (Col. 1:25–27).
Here the expanded phrase “mystery of the faith” (lit. trans.) expresses the broad body of essential truths. This accords with the meaning of the word “faith” characteristic of the Pastoral Letters: the truth that all believers should hold. Deacons must “keep hold” (with tenacious conviction) of these important doctrines “with a clear conscience.” This is yet one more occasion where Paul insists on the personal integrity of those who lead and serve the church. But their own conscience is not sufficient; they “must first be tested” to be sure there is no occasion for blame before beginning their service as deacons.
Verse 11 interrupts the instructions about deacons with some directions concerning women. The word gyne can mean either “woman” or “wife,” so it is impossible to tell whether these were the wives of the deacons or women who were serving as deacons. They are identified separately from the deacons addressed in verses 8–10 by the word translated “in the same way.” On the one hand, since this verse occurs within the instructions for deacons, the behavior of their wives may be intended as part of their qualifications. If the gynai were women deacons, one might have expected them to be addressed separately from the passage. On the other hand, verse 11 could be a summary of verses 8–10 applied now to women deacons and inserted here before the next statement about being the husband of one wife, which would not apply to them.
It may also be that at first the women who served as deacons were the wives of deacons, so it would have been natural for them to be addressed within the section applying to their husbands. It seems strange that there are no similar instructions within the section on overseers. One would think that the character of their wives was at least as important as that of the wives of deacons. But if women were at that time serving as deacons but not as elders, and if those women were at first the wives of the deacons, the picture becomes clear.
Verse 12 about the deacons’ family relationships corresponds to 3:2b, 4–5 about overseers (see comments), reinforcing the importance of marital fidelity and a strong family. The translation “have served” (v. 13) may imply some duration of service already, though this is not a necessary inference from the aorist tense of the participle, which can express action without reference to time. The descriptive words “excellent standing” and “great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus” reveal what a noble task serving is. The “standing” (bathmos) can be moral, “a vantage ground for influence,”2 but this word came later to be used for a position or rank in the church hierarchy. The word “Christ” is used with, and precedes “Jesus,” as it does almost every time in the Pastorals. It is striking that faithful service on the part of deacons strengthens their own “assurance [or boldness] in their faith.”
Bridging Contexts
MODELS OF SERVICE. The first direct mention of a group in the early church whose function was to care for others is in Acts 6:1–6.3 They were to “wait on tables” to provide for the Greek-speaking widows, who had been neglected in the distribution of food. Their service was clearly not merely being “waiters,” even though the immediate need was food, but also attending to the material needs of the widows. The group appointed to do this in Acts 6 is not identified by any title, but their work was certainly similar to what deacons would do.
Humanitarian service was carried out in various ways in the Hellenistic world. There were associations of people with like interests who cared for one another and reached out in times of need. It was natural that Christians, who were organized into identifiable social groups, would need to have some provision for responsibility in meeting human needs. These needs, however, extended beyond the material. If in the secular and Jewish communities there was dignity in serving other members of their group, this was also true in Christianity.
Moreover, the term diakonos had applied at times in Greek literature to those who were messengers. Whether the fact that Stephen, one of the seven men who were appointed in Acts 6, was also a messenger—in his case, an evangelist—has significance in this regard is hard to say, given the absence of the word diakonos in Acts 6. Paul describes himself as a “servant” of the gospel (Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23), of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6), and of the church (Col. 1:25). While both witnessing and caring for others are the concern of all Christians, the specialization that is necessary in the functioning of the human body is required also for the functioning of the church, the body of Christ. Therefore it has been necessary for churches across the ages and the continents to make provision for the type of ministries carried out in the early church by deacons.
Abilities to help people and to provide administrative leadership are sandwiched in between the charismatic gifts of healing and tongues in the list of those whom “God has appointed” in 1 Corinthians 12:28, but they are the only gifts listed in verses 27–28 that are not repeated in verses 29–30 (beginning with “Are all apostles…”). Is this because these were abilities that were given to all, and so did not belong among the limited groups in those latter verses? Another possibility is that they were people whom God appointed, but whose work did not require a charismatic gift, only the will to serve.
Wherever the church exists, the models of leadership and service presented in 1 Timothy 3 are important. Those who assume fiscal responsibility in any form and for any purpose also assume a position of high visibility and accountability. Whether they are managing church funds internally or extending the church’s help to those outside, their personal integrity is crucial. Any trace of greed (v. 8) is fatal among those who handle money, abuse of alcohol raises the question of dependability, and being “double-tongued” will torpedo any claim of honesty. Such leaders should also represent well the doctrinal convictions of the church, and must do so “with a clear conscience” (v. 9).
Difficulties in defining deacons. Given the facts that (1) there is no specific description of the duties of deacons in the New Testament, (2) the “Seven” in Acts 6 are not called “deacons” even though they served the church, and (3) there is a paucity of specific groups called “deacons” in the social background of the New Testament, it is hard to shape the “bridge” between contexts. We do know that the elders ruled, taught, and cared for the flock and that the deacons, by definition, performed services. We also noted that the apostle Paul considered himself and his associates to be servants of the gospel and of the new covenant, but such usage does not clarify the corporate function of those called deacons. Note too that Paul functioned like a deacon when he collected money for the needy in Jerusalem while on his missionary travels (2 Cor. 8:1–15).
Acts 14:23 tells us that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders, but the text does not mention deacons. At Philippi Paul does address both “overseers and deacons,” along with the entire body of Christians (Phil. 1:1). Their omission from Acts 14 and the absence of deacons from the instructions to leaders in Titus 1:5–9 could lead one to infer either (1) that deacons were simply to be appointed as needed and did not exist as a standing committee in every church, or (2) that the elders, not the deacons, were the main leadership group, so that specific mention of the deacons depended on the circumstances. From Philippians and the parallel instructions to both elders and deacons here in 1 Timothy 3, it could be inferred that both groups had some leadership status in common, even if their duties were different.
It is appropriate to question whether church polity was still in flux at this time and, if so, whether there were still open options. The Scriptures seem to teach that the church should always recognize a body of leaders and teachers, whether or not they are called elders, and also should make provision for the care of individual and corporate needs, financial and whatever else may be appropriate. These people need not be called deacons, but they should always be present to serve.
The status and distinctive role of deacons could be helped if we had a greater knowledge of similar groups in the social background. The associations mentioned above were committed to meeting needs, but it is difficult to find an exact parallel to what was going on in the church. There were diakonoi in Hellenistic religions, where their function was to serve the various gods and goddesses. Jewish synagogues had a servant known as a hazzan, who served as caretaker of the building; but more important he was the attendant (Gk. hyperetes, Luke 4:20) who took care of the sacred scrolls of Scripture and taught Scripture in the children’s schools. Whether this figure was a significant element in the concept of the Christian deacons is hard to determine.4
As time went on, the role of deacons became more defined. When Ignatius went to Rome in A.D.107/108, a deacon went with him, 5 and we know that by this time the threefold office of bishops, presbyters, and deacons was taking shape. The deacons came to have an important role in collecting gifts for distribution to needy persons. However, over the centuries their importance tended to be reduced to the first step in holy orders, though Calvin and others attempted to restore a more significant ministry to them.
Naturally the need for a group devoted to service will vary with the kinds of service required by economic and other circumstances, including the availability of help from governmental sources. Care of the church building and other facilities will depend on the size and complexity of the facilities. Certainly some of the deacons’ functions have to be carried out by paid employees, but if volunteer acts of mercy cease, the spirit of the early deacons in a caring community is gone.
Contemporary Significance
SERVANT LEADERSHIP. The term servant leadership came into prominence around the 1980s. In some management quarters it brought a needed corrective. It has proved to be a difficult ideal to bring into the corporate world, but is it really much easier in the church than in secular society? Christians certainly respect the example of Christ and have other fine models in Scripture and church history, but as long as we human beings have an innate desire for approval and even prominence, we will find it difficult to conform to the models.
One tricky thing about servant leadership is that by definition it implies a leadership position to begin with, and the church can accommodate only so many leaders. However, if we think of leadership as any ministry in which one person guides and develops the spirit of another, it can apply to even the most humble relationships. In the church, therefore, a person may be a servant leader either (1) by exercising leadership with a servant attitude, or (2) by serving in such a way as to lead by godly example. Either way, servanthood must characterize Christians, whether or not they serve publicly. “Ministry” should not be a prerogative or opportunity for dominance but a service, as the word diakonos makes clear (cf. 1 Peter 5:2–3).
Varieties of the ministry of deacons. The diaconate today signifies various things, including the first level in the episcopal hierarchy and what is in effect the ruling body in Baptist churches. Since the central element in the ministry of deacons is not leadership but service, the serving aspect is easily minimized in popular understanding. What the church needs, and what the surrounding community needs, is love enacted in the name of Christ.
There is, in fact, an agency serving in various areas of the country that has incorporated that ideal in its name: “Love INC” (INC = In the Name of Christ). I have been able to refer people with various real or perceived needs to this group. They are able to discern, by interview and sometimes by cross-checking the files of other local agencies, who can be helped in a genuine immediate need, who can best be served by financial counseling, job opportunities, and so on, and who wants a handout for selfish reasons. In one church I have served, there is a board of deacons to manage the facilities and handle other needs; there is also a “St. James Society” (from James 1:27), which helps people in various situations of need confidentially; and Love INC is also available. Neither Love INC nor the St. James Society are called “deacons,” but they can do much of the work of deacons externally and internally.6
In many churches today, a “Deacon Board” is needed to deal with building repairs, salaries, fund-raising, and other aspects of church finances. In that they operate in areas of material need, they embody some of the ministries probably carried out by New Testament deacons. It is easy, however, for such a board to lose the “heart” of their calling, even though fixing a leaky roof is of service to God’s people and even though they may forward money to many needy individuals through their benevolent fund.
Goals. To fulfill the goals of the early deacons, three things are necessary. (1) Churches must take initiative to seek men and women who have the moral and spiritual integrity described in 1 Timothy 3. (2) Such people need to have the vision, heart, and will to serve, already demonstrating this before their public appointment in acts of practical kindness. They should be deacons before they are named deacons. (3) The church should make this an intentional ministry on behalf of the whole body. It should be visible to the community at large, so that the community may not only experience but also perceive the loving ministry of the church. It is true that the left hand should not know what the right is doing and that it is wrong to “trumpet” one’s giving (Matt. 6:2–4). At the same time Jesus said, “Let your light shine before [people], that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (5:16).
What, then, is the difference between being a servant and being a deacon? The key may be found in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. Just as there is a group of recognized leaders called elders, while at the same time these passages refer to individuals gifted and serving as leaders, so there is a group of recognized leaders called deacons, while there is also a reference in Romans 12:7 to serving (where the word diakonia is used). One can be an active servant without being a deacon. Just as one does not have to be an elder in order to lead others spiritually, neither does one have to be a deacon in order to serve others helpfully (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28).
Yet there is need in the church to have people selected as deacons and be given a charge to act responsibly on behalf of the whole church. They care for people in practical as well as spiritual ways, handle the financial affairs of the church without greed or deceit, and provide the facilities needed by the church. This goes beyond just an individual, personal ministry. It is a corporate commitment of deacons, appointed and accountable to the church. Although the teaching of Jesus about light and good deeds quoted above is a word to all Christians, deacons have the special privilege of fulfilling this on behalf of the whole congregation.
1. The unavailability of the feminine form of diakonos may provide the solution of the problem concerning Phoebe in Romans 16:1. While the verbal form means serve in general, the noun form in the New Testament usually indicates a position that is more than just servant. We cannot assume that since the form is masculine in 16:1 and since Phoebe was a women, it cannot mean “deacon” there and must be translated “servant.” If the writer wanted to say she was a deacon, there was no other way to do it than to use the masculine form.
2. Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 41
3. Prior to this were the women who served the needs of Jesus and his disciples (Luke 8:1–3).
4. See also 1 Cor. 4:1. The word appears frequently in the New Testament for guards and other Jewish officials.
5. Ignatius, Philadelphians 11.1.
6. There are, of course, other parachurch and world organizations dealing with major needs that no local organization can possibly handle.