Sermon Tone Analysis

“Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.”

[1]

Paul did not write the missives included in Scripture in order to generate controversy among the churches of the Twenty-first Century; nevertheless, his letters have managed to challenge the professed people of God repeatedly in this day late in the Age of Grace.

In particular, his statements defining the role of women among the churches [e.g. 1 TIMOTHY 2:9-15] challenge modern cultural perceptions.

In the text today, we encounter yet another controversial passage challenging contemporary cultural norms, just as they challenged ancient cultural norms.

The text for this day has in great measure proved controversial among contemporary Christians because we modern believers are too often guilty of imposing our own cultural views on what God has caused to be written.

Rather than accepting that the Word of God is to inform our modern culture, we imagine that we can impose our own preferences on the instruction God has provided in His Word.

Consequently, we filter what has been written through our cultural lenses, unaware of the distortions we force upon the Word.

It appears that we modern Christians are more concerned with our perception of the Word than with the intent of the Author of the Word; we are more focused on what the Word means to us than we are on what the Word means.

The truth of this charge becomes abundantly evident in most Bible studies whenever a leader asks, “What does this verse mean to you?”

I cannot stress too strongly—it is immaterial what the verse under consideration means to you, to me or to any other individual studying the verse.

What matters is what God intended when the Spirit superintended the writing of the verse; and discerning the intent of Him who gave the Word is the task of the wise student of the Word.

Evangelical Christians are not immune to reactionary thinking.

Too many contemporary church practises arise out of ecclesiastical reactionism.

In light of laissez-faire attitudes prevailing among far too many of the professed saints of God, in far too many instances we undoubtedly react against what because we deem what is written to be excessive or intrusive—we whine that it is too hard to obey the Word!

In other instances, we are blinded by the accumulation of “things” or by the acquisition of wealth; thus, we are no longer capable of viewing matters from God’s perspective.

Often, fundamental Christians react against the casual dismissal of righteousness by those of a progressive bent—there seems almost to be an attitude within evangelicalism that says, “If liberal Christians are for a particular action, we are against it.”

Reactionary thinking can be—and often is—as errant as the excess that prompted it in the first place.

In the effort to recapture what is imagined to be the high ground, the reactionary overshoots the goal and hardens in an extreme position relative to that previously occupied.

Let there be no misunderstanding—I do not believe women should be elders, nor do I believe they should occupy the office of a deacon *as it is currently understood and practised*.

This says more of our theological confusion than it does about the complexity of the Word.

If we view the offices as outlined in the Word, we will avoid much of the debate swirling around church governance.

If we do business as usual, we will continue to meet the same issues that drain the energies of the churches about us.

To the Word and the God who gave it.

*WOMEN, WIVES OR DEACONESSES?* — As mentioned, the text presents a controversy among contemporary Christians.

The original language, when translated literally, simply states, “Women—in like manner…” [2] There is no definite article in the original tongue, leaving the translator to interpret what Paul could have meant.

The English Standard Version, which I use, understands that Paul was giving instructions for the wives of those appointed as deacons.

“Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things” [1 TIMOTHY 3:11].

In this understanding, the translators are joined by a number of other translators, including such noteworthy translations as the venerable King James Version, the New English Bible, [3] the New International Version, [4] God’s Word Translation, [5] the New International Reader’s Vision, [6] the NET Bible [7] and the Holman Christian Standard Version.

[8]

Because Paul does not specifically state what women are under scrutiny, a growing number of churches have concluded that he must have meant to include women as deacons.

Again, some contemporary translations have adopted this same view, including such recent efforts as The Message [9] and The Revised English Bible.

[10] Representative of these translations, one would read, “Women in this office must likewise be…” [11]

Other translators have simply adopted the reading as presented in the autographs, simply referring to “women,” including, in some instances, a footnote indicating that the reference may possibly be understood as referring either to wives or to female deacons, depending upon the translators' preference.

Among the translations adopting this rendering are such efforts as the American Standard Version, Wuest, [12] the New Revised Standard Version, [13] the New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, [14] Today’s New International Version, [15] the New Century Version, [16] the New International Version (2011) [17] and even the Catholic New American Bible.

[18]

The challenge facing the translator as well as confronting the expositor is to determine whether the Apostle was speaking of women as women, speaking of the wives of deacons or whether he had in view female deacons?

We need to think this issue through so that we can be better equipped to honour the Word and Him who gave the Word.

The issue is too important to gloss over; it demands that we treat seriously each possibility rather than giving a cursory glance and passing on.

The matter could easily prove divisive to the people of God if we fail to seek the mind of the Lord, permitting His Spirit to direct our thoughts.

First off, we must consider the possibility that Paul used the term *gunaîkas* in referral to women in general.

Frankly, that possibility doesn’t appear feasible for several reasons, the most significant of which is that Paul has interrupted his presentation on standards for the diaconate.

If Paul suddenly introduced new criteria for the women of the congregation, he did so in an irrational fashion, breaking up his train of thought; such would be out of character for Paul.

If the Apostle was precipitously introducing a new concept concerning the women of the congregation, it would mean that he would have clearly spoken of the criteria for deacons in verses eight through ten, interjected a new thought concerning criteria for women of the assembly before again taking up the matter of standards for deacons.

At best, such an effort would be disjointed; it would assuredly be out of character for Paul, who presented sharply reasoned arguments throughout his writings whatever the topic under discussion.

All women as women are considered in what the Apostle wrote in 2:9 FF., and the Apostle was quite precise in ensuring that readers understood his intent at that point in his missive.

He was quite clear in speaking of the wives of elders in 3:2, just as he will be clear concerning the wives of deacons in 3:12.

While I don’t want to appear cavalier, it seems apparent that we can dismiss the possibility that Paul was here presenting a standard for all women of the congregation.

While all Christian women should avoid slander and work at being dignified, sober-minded and faithful in all things, these are not criteria for membership in the congregation.

The second possibility we will consider is that Paul was speaking of deacons’ wives.

That particular thought does appear somewhat reasonable, occurring as it does in a discussion of standards for appointment as a deacon.

The exegete can easily imagine that husbands do speak with their wives, or at least one would hope that husbands communicate with their wives.

Because this is the case, it is easy to speculate that deacons would likely be privy to matters that could disadvantage those of whom the information is known.

Thus, it seems reasonable to many to suggest that a congregation does not just appoint a deacon—they appoint a deacon team, the wife being likely to learn of private matters concerning other members of the assembly.

Thus, many fine expositors have suggested that Paul was giving extra instructions concerning the suitability of an individual for the diaconate based on his wife’s character.

Those scholars favouring the view that deacons’ wives are in the Apostle’s view note the continuation of criteria for the diaconate continues after this verse.

In this view, it seems natural that Paul is not breaking his line of reasoning, but merely refining the criteria for appointment as a deacon.

Therefore, the contention is that Paul speaks parenthetically when he speaks of “women,” indicating that he has deacons’ wives in mind.

The argument is that men would need their wives to assist them in serving the church, thus strengthening the ministry.

Also, in arguing for the meaning of deacons’ wives, some scholars have noted that Paul limits the role of women earlier, so they imagine that he is now advancing a ministry for them.

Additionally, those favouring the concept that deacons’ wives are in view argue that the absence of any reference to marital status or fidelity indicates wives that are recognised both as married to deacons and known to be faithful to their husbands.

This appears to be rationalisation born of desperation to justify the position.

The requirement that older widows be recognised as a one-man woman argues against such a position, as does the fact that the fidelity of the wives of elders is not considered; this particular argument is quite unlikely.

[19]

The arguments favouring the idea that Paul is presenting criteria for deacons’ wives merit a studied response.

In the first place, a congregation is to seek out deacons, not deacon teams.

When the first servants of a church were selected [see ACTS 6:1-6], the specific instructions to the congregation was, “Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” [ACTS 6:3].

Neither instruction concerning deacon teams nor consideration of the wives of these men was provided.

In fact, we cannot say with certainty that any of these first deacons (for that is the role they filled) were even married.

If wives were necessary for fulfilling the role of a deacon, surely it would be addressed elsewhere in the Word.

Additionally, it seems surprising to me that if qualifications for deacons’ wives is given in this verse that there are no similar conditions attached to the wives of elders.

In fact, other than the requirement that an elder be “the husband of one wife” [1 TIMOTHY 3:2] and that “he must manage his own household well, with all dignity” [1 TIMOTHY 3:4], there is not much said concerning the family of an elder.

Would not an elder speak with his wife about matters of ministry?

Is there not a possibility that he may be privy to information that is potentially embarrassing to members of the assembly?

If an elder is expected to maintain confidence, should not a deacon also be expected to possess sufficient integrity to be discrete, maintaining confidence on private matters?

If an individual is inclined to argue that the inclusion of this verse in the midst of Paul’s presentation of criteria for the diaconate implies that he is speaking of the wives of deacons, it must be allowed that it is just as likely that he is providing criteria for women who serve either as assistants to the diaconate or to women chosen to that position.

Two additional issues argue against accepting that deacons’ wives are in view.

First, the absence of a definite article and the absence of the pronoun “their” argue against this view.

I understand that the word “their” does occur in some translations.

In the Authorised Version and some other more recent translations, the word is italicised to indicate that it does not occur in the original language.

I would argue that the fact that Paul abruptly introduces the word “Women” indicates that he does not have wives in view.

Had he meant to speak of deacons’ wives, he would have used a similar construction to that used in 1 TIMOTHY 3:2, 12 or that employed in EPHESIANS 5:28, when he wrote, “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.

He who loves his wife loves himself.”

The other argument against the wives of deacons being in view is Paul’s use of the word translated “likewise.”

This word is used to introduce a new point.

For instance, the Apostle had spoken of his desire for men to pray in VERSE 8, immediately following with this statement in VERSE 9, “likewise also that women.”

After presenting the qualifications for elders, Paul introduces the qualifications for deacons in this manner, “Deacons likewise …” [1 TIMOTHY 3:8].

Now, he presents a similar concept with this verse, “Their wives likewise…” [1 TIMOTHY 3:11].

Thus, it is apparent that this is a literary device for the Apostle to transition from one point to the next.

Since he is speaking of deacons, and is obviously not finished with his consideration of the qualifications of a deacon, we would need to understand that he is presenting qualification for another group that will function within the diaconate—women.

Considering the arguments for deacons’ wives that have been advanced by contemporary scholars, I must say that the arguments presented favouring the idea that Paul is speaking of the wives of deacons are unpersuasive.

I cannot see the necessity of appeal to such a position in order to resolve the issue.

I can see that arguments for the appointment of women to the diaconate are a very real possibility.

However, it is necessary that we understand the diaconate in the apostolic view.

Therein lies a serious deficit in modern church life.

The third possibility—the one I favour—is that Paul is speaking of female deacons.

Permit me first to present my reasoning for adopting this view before considering the problems arising among contemporary churches when this particular view is adopted.

At the time Paul wrote, there was no word for “deaconess,” no word that could be used to indicate a female filling the role of a servant of the church.

In later days, the term *diakónissa* indicating female deacons entered the vernacular and was adopted for use among the churches.

[20] However, it was not until the fourth century that the term “deaconess” was commonly used, [21] the first official use of the term appearing to have been in the nineteenth canon of the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325).

Therefore, at the time Paul was writing, the best he could do would have been to speak of “women” while writing of the qualifications for the diaconate.

That women served as servants of the churches cannot be denied.

[22] Paul introduces Phoebe as a “deacon.”

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well” [ROMANS 16:1, 2].