Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[Tom Wetmore]

Might as well. It will accomplish just as much...

[Guest]

Oh yeah?!?!

YEAH!!!!

[Woody]

This is a sad commentary on Doug's sermon if this is all we can say about it. :(

[Stan]

What is more important? That the mission gets done or who does it?

Others may not appreciate them, but I am pleased they have raised a church of 7,000.

How is your Church growing?

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: But again I point out that our own church founders published an article in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald that proclaimed that Phoebe (an undisputed woman) was the first Pope of Rome.

Proof that the R&H was not always right. They also prclaimed that the Trinity doctrine was false. How many of today's history and Bible scholars would agree that Phoebe was the first Pope of Rome? I suspect none.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: I will happily downgrade that to a mere Bishop...

Take it down, further, Tom. There's no valid evidence that she was a bishop.

If you believe there is, post it here.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: And I would add that there is indeed evidence of other female bishops in the early centuries of the Church... But I am sure that all this will be much disputed, so who really cares?

I would like to see the evidence.

But for the sake of the discussion, let's say there were female bishops. In fact, let's say there was a female pope, perhaps many female popes.

What does that show, other than the fact that they had female bishops and popes. Is that an argument for what's right?

They also began keeping Sunday and having priests and it was during that period when the bishop of Rome developed into the little-horn power of Bible propehcy. Therefore the fact that the church at that time had women as priests, bishops, or popes, should count for nothing for Seventh-day Adventists.

Remember that we don't base our practices or doctrines on tradition but on Scripture.

[olger]

The WO issue is dead in Atlanta, and Tom appeasrs to be administering emergency life support.

[Tom Wetmore]

We have posted the evidence several times already and you simply don't accept it.

This is not one of our doctrines. It is a practice and much of our practices are based on tradition and culture.

And one of the weak points of your non sequitur argument of Sunday worship/little horn as invalidation of women is that it doesn't reflect history. The women bishops and deacons (deacons were the ministers then) were during the earliest period of the Church BEFORE Sunday worship was adopted and the apostasy that turned it into the little horn power. By the time that happened, the church in fact had solidified its male only clergy position. If anything the coinciding of that apostasy and elimination of any female clergy should give us pause. As I have said, the male headship idea for clergy is a Roman Catholic concept.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: We have posted the evidence several times already and you simply don't accept it.

Can you point me to the post or the thread? I haven't seen any "evidence" that is valid for the point you are making, just as I have not seen it for the points you make below. You are making claims but so far have not given any solid, valid evidence.

You did the same thing earlier when you said that Phoebe was Paul's "overseer." Your source, John Brunt, doesn't agree with you. Brunt says that Phoebe was a deacon. See page 14 of Ministry, Sept. 1988.

Can you name any compentant SDA Bible scholar who teaches that Phoebe was Paul's overseer or supervisor? I agree with Brunt on this point, and am wondering why you disagree with the man who wrote the article you pointed out to me as a good example of a defense of WO. Don't you think he's correct? I also happen to believe he's wrong on some important points in that article, but he's right about Phoebe being a deacon (or deaconness, as I believe her to've been).

By the way, I'd like to "talk" with you some time about this Ministry article. I believe I can show you some major problems with his arguments. I'd also like to see why you believe Brunt is right in his arguments.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: This is not one of our doctrines. It is a practice and much of our practices are based on tradition and culture.

OK, but it should be in harmony with the NT, right?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: And one of the weak points of your non sequitur argument of Sunday worship/little horn as invalidation of women is that it doesn't reflect history.

I study church history as a hobby, and took classes in it at Loma Linda University. I had a wonderful professor, Paul Landa. (He was one of the most gifted public speakers I have ever heard, and when he taught history, it was as if he had memorized entire books. I was so sorry to hear that he died of cancer.)

Can you name the history book(s) where you are getting this information? Maybe quote a statement that teaches what you are saying?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The women bishops and deacons (deacons were the ministers then)

Even a superficial study of the NT shows that deacons were not church pastors or teachers. The work of ruling or managing the church and teaching, etc., was up to the bishops and elders, not the deacons. Look, for instance, at Paul's intructions to the elders in Acts 20: 17ff. He never gives these kinds of instructions to deacons or deaconesses. Why? Because their work and function was of a different nature.

Please show the evidence from Scripture that deasons were "the ministers."

The word for deacon, diakonos, means "minister," "servant," but it is never "the minister." There were all kinds of ministers, or servants, but it is simply untrue that deacons were "the ministers" of the churches. I don't believe you can read a single history of the Christian church, or even a good Study Bible, without seeing this. Check out any good, standard Systematic Theology, and look carefully at the chapters dealing with church structure or church government. It's pretty elementary. Wayne Grudem has a good 'un. So does Augustus Strong and Louis Berkhof.

A qualification to be an elder or bishop was that they had to be good teachers, but this is never a qualification of the deacons or deaconesses. See 1 Tim. 3

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The women bishops and deacons ... were during the earliest period of the Church BEFORE Sunday worship was adopted and the apostasy that turned it into the little horn power.

What valid, solid historical or biblical evidence do you have to support this?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: By the time that happened, the church in fact had solidified its male only clergy position. If anything the coinciding of that apostasy and elimination of any female clergy should give us pause. As I have said, the male headship idea for clergy is a Roman Catholic concept.

Are you certain of this? Please give the name of the church historian who teaches this and the source where you are getting this information. I have many books on the history of the Christian church and I haven't yet seen that evidence. Please share it. I love church history.

I'm surprised you didn't cite at least a couple of examples out of all the ones you know.

[Tom Wetmore]

As I said, whatever is presented that is supportive of WO you do not accept as valid. You only accept the evidence and sources that support your point of view.

I don't consider your sources as valid or accept your point of view because I disagree with them. So how does that help advance the discussion?

We can do this dueling quotes and sources thing until the cows come home. But nobody seems to be willing to change their mind or be open to another perspective.

[Gregory Matthews]

John 317 said:

Quote:

Even a superficial study of the NT shows that deacons were not church pastors or teachers. The work of ruling or managing the church and teaching, etc., was up to the bishops and elders, not the deacons. Look, for instance, at Paul's intructions to the elders in Acts 20: 17ff. He never gives these kinds of instructions to deacons or deaconesses. Why? Because their work and function was of a different nature.

Just a point of interest: You comment above is not accurate as applied to the Roman Catholic Church today.

NOTE: I acknowledge that you did not comment on the RC Church today.

By the way, as you probably well know, in the RC Church, women do not concencrate the elements of the Mass, but they do administer (deliver) them. That has theological meaning.

[Tom Wetmore]

The most common translation of diakonos was "minister".

Yes, its simplest literal meaning was servant or minister. But outside of the church context, what kind of servant or minister was a Diakonos? Ordinary household servant? An ordinary helper for or employed by common folk?

It's original secular Greek usage and meaning was "servant of the king". In Roman culture it was used to refer to the "ministers" of high ranking officials, those who carried out the orders of governance for the empire. Ordinary citizens ranked below them. If the servant of the king conveyed a message to a citizen of the kingdom, his word was deemed to carry the authority of the king. He answered only to the king. A minister of a high official spoke for that official and his words were regarded as from that official. He answered to that official or anyone higher in rank than that official.

That term fit the order of the NT church. The apostles, including Paul, adopted that term. It had deep significance as they regarded the role as that of serving the King - King Jesus.

Tradition has downgraded the role of the deacon to that of an ordinary household servant of the church. Only a few Christian denominations regard deacons as clergy today. Lost in translation and time is the true meaning of the original word.

[Tom Wetmore]

Likewise, the other terms that have come to be known almost exclusively as religious terms were secular Greek terms adopted from secular societal roles and functions that fit the pragmatic needs of the early church. The religious meanings and significance we ascribe to them today are more a result of church tradition accumulated in the centuries long after those words were first used by the early church.

I think a meaningful parallel is to consider the traditional forms or rituals of worship, the vestments or clothing of clergy, and the elaborate churches and cathedrals - all dedicated soley to religious purpose and use. Consider those things of religious life in comparison to what they were as described in the NT. For example, I think it fair to say that the unique garb we see worn by Bishops, Cardinals, priests and many other clergy has no parallel in everyday life or clothing worn by ordinary folk. And I do not think it was anything like what was worn by the the apostles, bishops elders, pastors, deacons of the NT Church. They wore ordinary practical garments and used ordinary practical words that were familiar and comfortable within the society and culture of their time. They met in ordinary places. The form of their worship was simply and informal almost casual in comparison to our notions of a Church service.

This is after the manner of the One they followed. His incarnation was to be one with us living in our world, walking and talking as an ordinary man without distinction. His every illustration of the kingdom of God drew upon ordinary everyday activities and objects spoken in common language to help us understand.

[Tom Wetmore]

Incarnational ministry is a oneness concept...

[John317]

As I said, whatever is presented that is supportive of WO you do not accept as valid. You only accept the evidence and sources that support your point of view.

Give me a couple of examples.

I just talk about evidence and reasoning, whereas I've notice many of your posts consist of the kind of remark you made above. Again, you are making a mere claim, but you don't even tell what kind of evidence you think I should be accepting and supporting. I could say the same thing to you or other people, I suppose, but I never have and never will.

What I do is show my evidence and talk with people, and if they don't draw the same conclusion that I do, I don't make accusations about their thinking or their motives, and I don't allow those difference to change my attitude about them as people. I remain friends with them and don't permit the topic to affect how I treat them or think of them. That's how it is with me in regard to politics, religion, or any other topic. For me discussions are just a good way to have fun and to learn and to get to know how other people think. The latter is of greatest interest to me.

What is the evidence you've presented that women were bishops and the ministers of churches in the first and second century, or that deacons were "the ministers" at that time? I've seen your claim for this but no evidence, except for what you say about Phoebe being Paul's "overseer."

I'll seriously consider any evidence you present and with an open mind, Tom. But you can't expect people simply to accept your opinion without any references or documentation. I'm sure that's your approach to what I write, and that's the way it should be. We look at the evidence presented and then discuss it in a reasonable way and come to a conclusion. I don't see that as being unusual. It's what both of us did all through college, I'm sure.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: I don't consider your sources as valid or accept your point of view because I disagree with them. So how does that help advance the discussion?

People don't have to agree in order to have a good, meaningful, worth-while discussion. Often the contrary is true. I would love to have a discussion with Nietzsche, with whom I have few agreements. But I am very interested in his thinking and in his writings.

By the way, he gave almost no references or "sources." He was his own reference.

What advances a discussion is not agreement but devotion to the seeking after truth no matter where it may lead, and the determination to pursue it with someone who views it differently than you do. When that occurs, both are stimulated to do do their best work and their best thinking.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: Even a superficial study of the NT shows that deacons were not church pastors or teachers. The work of ruling or managing the church and teaching, etc., was up to the bishops and elders, not the deacons. Look, for instance, at Paul's intructions to the elders in Acts 20: 17ff. He never gives these kinds of instructions to deacons or deaconesses. Why? Because their work and function was of a different nature.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: Just a point of interest: You comment above is not accurate as applied to the Roman Catholic Church today.

NOTE: I acknowledge that you did not comment on the RC Church today.

All you say is true here, but when you say my comment is "not accurate as applied to the Roman Catholic Church today," it seems to me you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not following the Bible pattern as far as deacons are concerned. But since my comment was about the Bible and not about the RCC, I don't see how it can be said that my comment is not accurate.

Can you explain how that is different from saying a comment about the biblical Sabbath is not accurate when applied to the RCC?

Furthermore, beyond an interest in the way the church's practices have changed over the centuries, how is it helpful in understanding the Bible's teaching about deacons?

Everyone should realize that the RCC doesn't look to the Bible as the primary source of its faith or practices. The RCC, unlike SDAs, is not the least bit bothered when anyone points out that their doctrines and practices contradict Scripture. For them the traditions of the Church are of equal authority.

I'm glad we look to the Bible as our authority for this as well as all other questions of doctrine, faith, practice. That's the main reason I chose to become a Seventh-day Adventist.

My wife and her family were all Catholic when we got married, and I use to take her to church and sit with her through the services and watch her light candles, etc. I am actually very attracted to many things about the Catholic Church-- particularly its appreciation of the arts and its great philosophical past-- and I often study Catholic beliefs. Probably the only reason I don't become Roman Catholic is that I believe what the Bible and Ellen White teach about the papal system. If I didn't believe doctrinal beliefs are important, I would become Catholic in a heart-beat. But I believe in the Three Angels' Messages and in the Investigative Judgment, and there's no way to harmonize those doctrines with the fundamentally false doctrinal system of the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: By the way, as you probably well know, in the RC Church, women do not concencrate the elements of the Mass, but they do administer (deliver) them. That has theological meaning.

The main thing that stands out about the Catholic Church with regard to women is that women are not allowed to judge or determine Church doctrine or practice. I agree that this has significant theological meaning.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

We can do this dueling quotes and sources thing until the cows come home. But nobody seems to be willing to change their mind or be open to another perspective.

I've changed my mind many, many times, and I am totally open to other perspectives. That is why I've gone from being a member of the socialist movement to being a Seventh-day Adventist Christian who accepts what Ellen White says about the unions, etc. I could name dozens of ways in which I've changed my mind over the years, including ways that I've changed my mind in consequence of being a participating member of this Forum.

The measure of whether someone is open to other perspectives shouldn't be based on if he accepts your particular viewpoint. That is an invalid way of determining someone's openness. If that were the case, it would require me to change every time I talk to someone about their beliefs. Everyone could level the same accusation at those who don't accept their viewpoint, and far too many do level it.

Look at the following evidence and reasoning and show why they are wrong.

Was Phoebe a “Deaconess”?

On the basis of Romans 16:1-2, some have contended that Phoebe was a church official (deacon);

the church was to “assist her,” implying her authority over the church;

she had been a “helper” (prostatis) of many, implying “authority, discipline, over-seeing.”

All of this is alleged to show that Phoebe was a preacher-leader in the early church.

However, the word diakonos simply means a “servant” (Matthew 23:11; John 2:5, etc.), and any official attachment to the term must be demanded by the context, as in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8.

Would "minister" as you understand it work in Matt. 23: 11?

Would it work in John 2: 5? "His mother said to the ministers..." ?

The fact that the saints were encouraged to “assist” Phoebe did not imply her authority over them. The Greek word paristerni meant to “come to the aid of, help, stand by” (Arndt and Gingrich, 633). When Paul said, “[T]he Lord stood by pareste me” (2 Timothy 4:17), he certainly was not asserting that he exercised authority over Christ!

The word prostatis (helper) does not necessitate oversight. If so, then Phoebe exercised authority over Paul, for she had been his helper as well as others! I realize that this is exactly the point you make-- that Phoebe was indeed Paul's overseer. The main problem with this view, however, is that it is not supported by the weight of NT evidence. This lack of support is the reason that only one translation out of 67 translates Romans 16: 2 as "overseer," and it just so happens that the translation is the only one of the 67 that was translated by a woman, a former president of the Baptist church. (I love her translation, but there are both linguistic and contextual reasons for rejecting this translation.)

Though it is found only here in the New Testament, the term, which can connote simply rendering assistance, is used in a third-century B.C. letter from a son to his father (the verbal form): “[T]here will be nothing of more importance for me than to look after you for the remainder of life, in a manner worthy of you, and worthy of me” (Moulton and Milligan 1963, 551).

Euodia and Syntyche

In Philippians 4:2-3, Paul comments that Euodia and Syntyche “labored” with him in the gospel; he calls them, along with others, his “fellow-workers.” Again, the assumption is made that this necessitates an authoritarian position comparable to the apostle’s. However, Christians are said to be “God’s fellow-workers” (1 Corinthians 3:9); obviously, this does not suggest that we are authorized to act as deity! Countless Christian ladies have assisted gospel preachers in numerous ways without ever having become public preachers themselves.

Junia an Apostle?

It is said that Junia (KJV), a woman, was an apostle and thus certainly occupied a place of authority in the primitive church (Romans 16:7).

In the first place, in the Greek text the name is Junian (in the accusative case—the gender of the name not being evident); it could either be Junia (feminine), or more likely, Junias (masculine). Origen, a writer of the third century A.D., considered it a reference to a man (Lightfoot 1957, 96). (Not that I take Origen as a great authority for anything!)

But secondly, it is not even certain that Junias is here identified as an “apostle.” The phrase, “of note among the apostles” (ASV), is rendered by Zahn as “famed, mentioned with honor in the circle of the apostles,” (418) giving the sense of being well—known by the apostles, rather than actually being an apostle.

In the third place, the word “apostle” is used occasionally in the Bible in a nontechnical sense to denote a messenger. Jesus says that “one sent” (apostolos) is not greater than the sender (John 13:16). The word need not imply one who has dominion over another, nor even a preacher.

[Tom Wetmore]

Regarding diakonos, did you read posts #356363 and #356819?

Regarding Phoebe, did you read the article to which I previously provided a link several times?

Here it is again - http://home.netcom.com/~cplampin/Lessons-on-Christian-Women/deacons/phoebe.htm

I find the analysis in that article persuasive.

I accept the transliterative that Phoebe was a "deaconess". But as used by Paul that word bears little resemblance to what we today know as a "deaconess". That would be a technically correct translation, although technically consistent transliteration would require it to be translated as "deacon" everywhere else it is used in reference to a man. That it is often translated as "minister" should be a clue that "servant" does not really capture the full and accurate meaning of diakonos, as Paul would have understood it, any more than the present day meaning of "deacon" or "deaconess" does. There is more to it than that.

And using the simplest of Greek lexicons, it is very clear that "helper" is a very poor translation, even on a most simplistic literal level, of prostatis. One can take a simplistic literal meaning of diakonos as "servant" and have at least a superficially correct understanding of the meaning of the original Greek word as it is within the range of possible meanings. But "helper" only remotely touches the essential meaning of prostatis and but for the traditional translation of its single usage in the NT, that is not even within the acceptable range of reasonably possible meanings of the word. If that is the extent of what you think Paul had in mind, you have to totally ignore the definition of the word and its common and well understood meaning and usage outside of the NT. And you have to ignore the clear meaning of the verb form of the word that is used in the NT, even by Paul.

There is absolutely no contextual reason to think that Paul meant Phoebe was merely a "helper". He would have had to have invented a new a different meaning for the word prostatis. The reason for the fractured translation is that it is the only way to remain consistent with the notion that Phoebe was simply a "servant" and to avoid any implication of higher standing of the woman as possibly being a minister of the church. But if you instead take the correct full meaning of the word prostatis and look back at all that precedes it about Phoebe, it actually makes more sense contextually that she was indeed someone fairly important and significant as is the clear meaning implicit in prostatis. And that is not inconsistent with the full range of meaning for diakonos.

As for Paul's ambiguous phrase kai emou autou , that can reasonably be understood either as "of me myself" or "by me myself". Either way it can make sense contextually. If one takes the narrowest possible meaning of prostatis as "benefactor" one can understand that she supported many by her means including Paul himself. Or if you take a larger possible view of the more likely meaning of prostatis as "one set over others" (in Paul's words "many others"), one does not have to understand him to be suggesting his own deference to her superior position (even though that could have been in the range of possible meanings) but rather that she was put in that position over others by Paul himself. I am more persuaded that it is more likely the latter given the immediate contextual evidence and the equally consistent idea that Paul himself sent her to Rome to deliver his letter to the believers there. Paul appointed Phoebe. And in Paul's usage, to appoint someone to a task, duty or role was to ordain them to do it.

As for Junia, a much debated matter by many more qualified than you or me. I will not belabor it further. I believe you are wrong since current scholarship tends more toward considering that person to have been a woman.

[phkrause]

People don't have to agree in order to have a good, meaningful, worth-while discussion. Often the contrary is true. I would love to have a discussion with Nietzsche, with whom I have few agreements. But I am very interested in his thinking and in his writings.

By the way, he gave almost no references or "sources." He was his own reference.

What advances a discussion is not agreement but devotion to the seeking after truth no matter where it may lead, and the determination to pursue it with someone who views it differently than you do. When that occurs, both are stimulated to do do their best work and their best thinking.

You make very good point's John. We don't need to agree with people to have good discussion's.

pk

[John317]

Pray that all may do this.

[phkrause]

Pray that all may do this.

Will do John.

Problem that I see is there are those that seem to think just because we don't agree that one of us has to be right and the other one wrong!! This is very much delusional thinking to me.

pk

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Regarding Phoebe, did you read the article to which I previously provided a link several times?

Here it is again - http://home.netcom.com/~cplampin/Lessons-on-Christian-Women/deacons/phoebe.htm

I find the analysis in that article persuasive.

I'll be glad to go through this article again, discussing it in detail with you. But yes, I did read it before and I made a reply about it at least once before.

But let us for now just look closely at a few lines in that article, which you said you found "persuasive":

Quote:

1 Tim. 3:8 - Deacons (Diakonous) likewise must be men of dignity.

Marshall does not have men here. (The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, trans. Alfred Marshall, Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, Third Printing, January 1972, 825.) This is an addition by the biblical translators to make sure that you think that the verse is only directed to men.

Do you see anything wrong with what was said in those lines in the article?

Notice the writer of the article states that the word "men" is added because the translators want to make sure you THINK the verse is only "directed to men." This is saying the translators are dishonest or at best they are mistaken.

But is this true?

First of all, the verse is not being directed to men but is being directed to Timothy, and secondarily the verse is for all readers, both males and females.

Second, the verse is ABOUT, or concerning, men. How do we know?

Every single word in that sentence is masculine, and therefore the word "men" is correct. This occurs often in the New Testament. Greeks did not have to say the word "males" [Gk aneer, andros] in order for people to know which gender they were speaking of. All they had to do is use a masculine noun or masculine pronoun, and everyone knew what was being said.

Verse 11 shows further evidence that v. 8 is about men, because it says, "Similarly, women [or wives] must..." It wouldn't say this if v. 8 was understood to have been referring to women. Verse 8 also begins with the word "likewise" or "similarly," because it is saying that the deacons are to be similar to the overseers (v. 2) in their dignity and behavior.

If verse 2 were including the deacons, v. 8 would not be needed. Similarly, if v. 8 were speaking of the wives or the women, v. 11 would not be needed. They are each referring to different, distinct groups of people.

Compare 1 Tim. 3: 11 with Titus 2: 3 where it says the same thing in regard to "older women." Notice the word "women" is added by the translators because the noun is feminine. Otherwise, it would merely read, "Likewise older...," which wouldn't make sense to readers of English.

Also compare Acts 2: 23 where the word "man" is added because otherwise you would merely have the accusative masculine demonstrative pronoun, "This..." Clearly that wouldn't work.

Can you see how it clears things up by adding "man," so that it then reads correctly, "This man..."?

Tom, if you failed to add the word "man" during a test in translation of this verse in college, it would be considered an error by your Greek teacher.

Finally, see also 1 Tim. 5: 1, 2, where it says "Do not rebuke an older [man].... Treat younger [men] as brothers, older [women] as mothers..." The words in [] are all "added," and rightly so. Do you agree?

Many more examples could be given.

Therefore, as the word "women" is added in Titus 2: 3 in order to give the correct sense of the original Greek, so the English word "men" is added in 1 Tim. 3: 8 in order to prevent misunderstanding, since it is implied in the original language. It simply makes the meaning as clear to readers of English as it is to readers of Greek, something that every good translator tries to do.

Let me know if this makes sense to you. :-)

[John317]

The most common translation of diakonos was "minister".

Yes, its simplest literal meaning was servant or minister. But outside of the church context, what kind of servant or minister was a Diakonos? Ordinary household servant? An ordinary helper for or employed by common folk?

It's original secular Greek usage and meaning was "servant of the king". In Roman culture it was used to refer to the "ministers" of high ranking officials, those who carried out the orders of governance for the empire.

You're evidently not taking into account the full range of meaning of this word, both in the Bible and outside of it. See many examples below.

If we translate it consistently as "minister," many verses don't make sense. If we were going to translate it consistently by any single word, the best one would be "servant." That is what the Concordant Literal Translation does.

The Gospels show the meaning of the word outside the writings of Paul. See, for instance, Matt. 20: 26; 23: 11; Mark 10: 43. In literature outside the Bible, it refers to "waiters at tables" (Josephus, Antiquities 6, 52). See Greek-English Lexicon by BAG. In Matt. 22: 13, it referred to the servants or attendents of a king. It refers generally to a "helper." See Col. 4: 7.

What does it signify when Jesus said in Matt. 23: 11, "The greatest among you will be your diakonos"? All the translations give "servant," it obviously means someone who is like a menial servant, not a high ranking official.

It is obvious that Paul didn't use it only to refer to the pastors or the minister of a church.

Study the following relevent paragaphs on the question of the meaning of diakonos:

I. Ministry in a General Sense

.... we should remind ourselves that ministry is a very broad word,

stemming from the Greek words diakonia, diakonos, and diakoneo¯, and these words

often convey the idea of “service” and “ministry” in the broadest sense. For example,

Martha was distracted because of her “service” or “ministry” (diakonia), and the

“service” being described is preparation of a meal (Luke 10:40). In Luke 22:27, one “one

who serves” is contrasted to “one who reclines” (nasb) during the meal. The “ministry” in

view is simply serving tables. Luke 8:1-3 tells of a number of women who were

ministering (diakoneo¯) to Jesus and the apostles. The specific ministry they engaged in

was not preaching the gospel but providing financial resources so that Jesus could carry

on His ministry. First Peter 4:10 says that all spiritual gifts are to be used to “minister”

(diakoneo¯) to one another in the church. And Paul says, “There are different kinds of service (diakonia), but the same Lord” (1 Corinthians 12:5). So in this broad sense,

anything any Christian does to help the work of the church is a ministry.212

Other examples of the use of the words ministry and service in this general sense

could be cited, but the point to be made is this: Not all ministries that are valuable are

public or official ministries. Providing food and support for others is crucial, and this

ministry should not be scorned, even if one does not get public recognition for it. Many

unnamed men and women of God have quietly and humbly worked behind the scenes in

this way, and they have found great joy and blessing in doing so. I am not suggesting that

this is the only ministry role for women. Nevertheless, it is a crucial one that should not

be overlooked. Those who denigrate such a role are downplaying the function of many

men and women who have labored with love.

Women, then, have engaged in significant ministries, even if those ministries were

unofficial. One thinks of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25. Abigail was not a prophetess and had

no other official ministry that we know of. Nevertheless, her humble and gentle advice to

David persuaded him not to kill Nabal. How many unrecorded events there must be of

women persuading men, humbly and gently, to pursue a more righteous course! What a

good model this story is for traditionalists who think being a leader means they must

always know the truth and that their opinion is always right. David was certainly the

leader in this account, but his humility is evident in that he listened to Abigail and was

persuaded. For women, Abigail is a model of gentle and humble persuasion. There was

no stridency or imperiousness about her manner. She was winsome, yet bold.

The “unofficial” ministries of women, therefore, are of great importance, and some

men, by desiring leadership for its status and power as the Gentiles do (Mark 10:42ff.),

have contributed to the idea that these ministries are insignificant. Such a secular concept

of ministry has done great damage in Christ’s church.

Source: http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw/valuable_ministries_of_women.pdf

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Tradition has downgraded the role of the deacon to that of an ordinary household servant of the church.

I think you need to study the standard Greek-English Lexicons and do a word study of its use in the NT.

Just for starters, how about Luke 8: 1-3 and 1 Cor. 12: 5?

Please describe for us what it means in those verses.

Can you examine how it is used in Pol 5: 2 or Inschr. v. Magn. 109? (Let me know if you need me to translate those references for you).

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

There is absolutely no contextual reason to think that Paul meant Phoebe was merely a "helper". He would have had to have invented a new a different meaning for the word prostatis.

Which translation sounds more like Paul and is most consistent with the context:

1) Help Phoebe because she's been a helper to many, including me.

Or:

2) Help Phoebe because she has been made my overseer or supervisor.

As you look further into this, Tom, I beleive you're going to see why only 1 translation in 67 of the NT in English reads "overseer," and why 99.9 translators of the passage chose to translate it "deacon," "servant," or "helper."

Also you will understand why not a single Greek-English Lexicon suggests that it should read "overseer." These things ought to tell you that "overseer" as a translation here has a serious problem. If I were you, I would not attempt to try to convince the SDA church that women should be ordained because Phoebe was Paul's overseer. You'll be butting your head against a brick wall.