(A Study of the New Testament Deacon)

Once upon a time, in the days of the New Testament Church, there were a group of men identified as "deacons." From Paul’s greeting to the Philippians we know who they were not. They were not Paul or Timothy. They were not Jesus. They were not the overseers or elders. Yet somehow, they were set apart from the other saints. That is the most certain thing that we know. We know about the deacons because Paul talked about them in letters that he wrote to a number of churches. We know what kind of men they were to be, because of Paul’s letter to one young evangelist. But from those letters, we have little clue as to what they did or why they did it.

On the other hand, the main history book that records the birth and development of the early church, the book of Acts, never specifically mentions a body of deacons. It does, however, include a story that causes us to think that we know at least one thing that they did and why.

We’re going to try to put all of that together today. We’re going to try to define a New Testament deacon. We’re going to limit our search to the Scriptures. We could study the history of the centuries of the early church following the New Testament age, but it appears that the early church went well beyond the boundaries of Scripture in a short period of time. I am not going to harshly criticize that for they were trying to get some practical use out of their deacons. They had to step out of the boundaries of Scripture, just as we will have to do in order to put some practical meat on how we can best utilize deacons. The Council of Constantinople elevated the deacons to a secondary level of clergy. Today, Roman Catholicism, the Episcopalians and a few other groups have distinct orders of clergy that they call the deacons.

But, based on our understanding of the New Testament, our church does not recognize clergy and laity distinctions, so how useful is the evolution of the deacon after the close of the first century? More importantly, the churches of our tradition respect early church history and we learn what we can from it, but we bypass it in terms of what authoritatively binds us. We claim that we go back to the book. Sometimes, our rhetoric implies that we think we can restore the practice of the New Testament. We cannot. The Bible does not provide enough detail, but all that we can learn from the Bible, we honor and we keep it in tact. We have a certain degree of freedom to define things like the role of deacons according to the needs of the local church in this age, but we are not free to abandon anything about a deacon on which the Bible is clear.

Now, if I’m going to bypass everything that the early church fathers like Augustine, Tertullian or Ignatius had to say about the New Testament deacon on my way back to the Bible, do not think that I will so much as blink about bypassing your preconceived notions. Fair enough? This morning, we’re going to bypass the church you grew up in. We’re going to bypass our own church and learn everything we can about the biblical picture of the deacon. And, I will tell you up front that all we’re going to discover is that a deacon was a servant who followed the instructions of another. He was a servant in relation to His task. That is my premise, and now, I will attempt to develop it.

I’m going to take you to school. Once we know everything that there is to know about deacons from the Bible, Dave will share with you how deacons known by their task would benefit our ministry here. Mike will encourage with a little challenge and pass out some assignments that we’d like for you to consider.

Some of you have heard me on occasion bemoan the fact that the church through the ages has tended to take certain words and transliterate them into English rather than translate them. Be clear on the difference. To translate a Greek word into English is to determine what it means in English. For example, the Greek word ichthus means fish. Choiros means pig. Kuon means dog.

A transliteration, on the other hand, is when we take a Greek word, and rather than translate it with a word in English that means the same thing, we simply find a way to pronounce the Greek word in English without translating it. Baptizio becomes "baptize". It is translated dip or immerse. Know that would not eliminate every debate about baptism that has ever been waged, but translating that word all the way into English might at least clear up any questions about how baptism was practiced in Bible times? In fact, that’s how Doctors George Campbell, James MacKnight and Phillip Doddridge, the translators of the Living Oracles New Testament, translated every form of baptizo every time it appeared, right down to introducing us to a character named John the "Immerser." Presbuteros becomes "presbyter", from which we get Presbyterian. Who besides Dave knows what a presbyter is? (an elder.) Episcopos becomes Episcopal. Who knows how that is translated into English? (He is an overseer).

Last, but by no means least, diakonos became "deacon". Now, I know that some of you already know how that’s translated. (He is a servant.) But we still refuse to call the deacon a servant, don’t we? Why? For whatever reason, we insist on calling him a deacon. Why? Maybe it sounds statelier. Maybe it sounds more dignified. Maybe it sounds more becoming of an office.

That is precisely where the pursuit of the New Testament deacon breaks down. Diakonos was not a stately word to any Greek speaker who ever heard it. It was not a dignified word. It was not an office. It meant servant. Diakonos was not a position of great authority or honor in the Roman world. Aristocrats spat on servants. I hope you understand that the church appreciates its servants more than that, but still, I want you to grasp that the word diakonos carried no stately connotations in the Bible or anywhere else in the ancient world.

By general uses, I am referring to times the word is translated "servant" because it does not refer to any group of servants identified with any local church body.

The two most important words for a servant used throughout the New Testament were doulos and diakonos. Doulos was a term for the lowest slave in the household. In the eyes of the Romans, he was a living tool, a piece of property. Doulos emphasized the subservient posture of a slave in relation to His master. This was an even less flattering word than deacon, but it was how Paul loved to introduce himself in his letters. Let’s take the first, Romans: "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus called to be an apostle …" Paul was content to see himself as a slave of the Christ, someone who was not his own, but the possession of Jesus.

Diakonos is not used that way. Most of the time when we see the word used in a way that does not refer to the deacons of a church, we can easily identify some responsibility that goes with him. I’m going to look at several passages that use the word diakonos for servant or minister and I’m going to follow that same pattern of transliterating rather that translating the word servant, by inserting some form of deacon instead.

For he is God's deacon (servant) to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's deacon (servant), an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. – Romans 13,4

This is the passage where Paul is talking about Christians living in submission to the king or to the government authorities. The king is God’s servant (or deacon). His task is to keep order in a society by meting out justice and punishment.

In this text, the Corinthians had been dividing themselves over their favorite teachers. In pulling them back together, Paul reminded them that all the teachers in the church were servants of God, completing the tasks He had given them to do – planting and watering.

We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our deaconship (ministry) will not be discredited. Rather, as deacons (servants) of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; - II Corinthians 6:3,4

Paul is talking about himself and his companions in their capacities as apostles, evangelists and church planters.

Are they deacons (servants) of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. – II Corinthians 11:23

Paul was defending His apostleship against critics. He asks if they are servants of Christ as he is, Then he goes into detail about what he has endured in fulfilling the work of an apostle.

If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good deacon (minister) of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. – I Timothy 4:6

This one is particularly interesting. The difference between Timothy being a good servant or a bad servant depends on whether or not he faithfully does his task in teaching sound doctrine and pointing out error.

For I tell you that Christ has become a deacon (servant) of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs - Romans 15:8

Here, Jesus is identified as a servant of the Jews. This is referring to His work of showing Himself to be the Savior of Jewish prophecy.

C. A Parable that Contrasts Doulos and Diakonos

Both doulos (slave) and diakonos (servant) are used in a parable of Jesus from Matthew 22. I am going to insert the word slave and deacon instead. The slaves are the guys in the king’s household. They do what they are told, of course, but they are household slaves, slaves that live in the presence of the master. Good or bad master, they know Him. They know what makes him happy and they know what distresses him. We are all to be such bond slaves to Jesus in regard to our relationship to God. But in regard to your role in the church, as a deacon, you must be known by what you do, not by your title. The deacons in this parable are simply the men who succinctly carry out an assigned task.

1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his slaves (servants) to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

4"Then he sent some more slaves (servants) and said, `Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'

5"But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his slaves (servants), mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8"Then he said to his slaves (servants), `The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the slaves (servants) went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12`Friend,' he asked, `how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.

13"Then the king told the deacons (attendants), `Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." - Matthew 22:1-14

Again, you are both. Because you are a servant in an intimate relationship with Jesus, you are His bond-slave. But, when you are recognized by the body as a deacon in the church, it should be because you have some assigned task for which you are responsible and by which you are known.

By the way, in those various instances in the Gospels when Jesus talks about "servanthood." - how the "greatest must be the servant of all." How He Himself did not come "to be served but to serve and to give His life for many" - all of those forms of "serve" or "servant" are forms of diakonos. The emphasis in all of those instances is that leaders in the Kingdom must be willing to attend to the needs of others. No Christian is a bond-slave of another. Our only Master is Jesus. But servant (diakonos), one who attends to the needs of another, does describe the mutual relationship that all Christians are to share with one another.

There are surprisingly few. Most of the uses of diakonos are simply for a servant, a person with a job. But the following are references to those servants belonging to particular churches:

I Timothy 3:8,10,12 (where the qualifications are spelled out)

Philippians 1:1 (where Paul greets "elders and deacons" in his introductory comments in Philippians

That’s it. However, when the exact same word is translated "servant" instead of "deacon" when Paul greets individuals within a local church, are we safe to assume those individuals were church deacons? Be careful. It only happens once, and the greeting is to a woman. And, she seems to have a somewhat official task that Paul not only recognizes, but that he also endorses.

1I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (diakonon) of the church in Cenchrea. 2I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. – Romans 16:1.2

The footnote in your Bibles identifies her as a "deaconess." Was she a deaconess in the sense that men in the church were deacons? We’ll not settle the debate today, but we’ll look at it in a few moments.

The book of Acts never mentions a body of men or women called deacons or deaconesses. However, it does tell of a time in the life of the young church when a need arose that was so great that it was more than the Apostles could administer. The noun we transliterate deacon never appears, but if we applied the same practice of transliteration to a couple of verbs in the text, it makes for interesting reading:

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to deacon (wait on) tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this deaconing (responsibility) over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word." - Acts 6:1-4

Waiting tables was not an insignificant thing. It was just not the thing that the Apostles, or for that matter, church elders were called to do. This was not a job for just anyone. The Apostles did not ask the community for seven trained chimps or seven warm bodies. They asked for seven men who were "full of the Spirit and wisdom" and the Apostles seem to have given to these seven men complete charge for making "equitable food distribution" happen in a church that numbered 3000 on the first day it existed and had been growing ever since. This was no token task.

"Deaconing tables" in verse 2 can refer to a food table, but it can also refer to the management of money and commodities. This is the more likely meaning as we think about it. The early church in Jerusalem had a community treasury for physical needs funded from the proceeds of various sales of land. This fund existed so that no one’s needs would go unaddressed. These men were probably handling as much money to purchase food as they were handling food itself. This was a very important and responsible task with which these men had been entrusted. I don’t think it’s a hard case at all to make to think of these seven men as the forerunners to the deacons of a local New Testament church.

By the time Paul wrote to Philippi and to Timothy, it is quite clear that some churches (at least two) had a recognized body of servants (or deacons) responsible presumably for whatever needs that local body of elders needed to delegate. There is a reason that specific roles are not spelled out for deacons. Local church elders need the flexibility to assign the tasks that need covered in their local church. The most important and unchanging thing was that they be appropriately qualified. If they were the right kind of men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, the specifics of how they administered their respective tasks could be blessed by God. There is a reason God gave us qualifications for both elders and deacons, but very few items that could fit into a job description.

"Worthy of respect" – This word speaks to gravity, dignity, seriousness of purpose. This man is not silly or flippant about important matters. If the man is not going to take the task, which he is assigned seriously, as a spiritual stewardship, he should not serve as a deacon. The earliest deacons were responsible for the physical care of people and lots of food and funds. It was not a frivolous matter.

"Sincere" – He is literally not double-tongued. He doesn’t say one thing here and another there. One can take what he says at face value.

"Not indulging in much wine" – This is a longer and stronger form of the same qualification applied to elders in 3:3. Why? Perhaps, again, because the deacons were the administrators of so many publicly owned food commodities, such as wine.

"Not pursuing dishonest gain" – It means not seeking small gains in base ways. That almost sounds like pilfering. Again, remember their duties. It would be foolish to select as a deacon a man who could not be trusted with the church’s money or other resources.

"Keep hold of the deep truths of the faith" – At first, I seriously struggled with how thorough I wanted to be this morning. Then, I read this qualification and decided to give you every barrel. Paul wants you grounded in the Word. Your valid administration of any area of deaconship cannot begin with the fact that you’re a good bean counter, a good administrator or a good craftsman in a secular setting. It is not enough just to run a ministry. You are expected to understand that you are a servant of the church of the Living God. A deacon who does not hunger to know more of the Bible will be more of a detriment to the local church than an asset.

"With a clear conscience" – Your life is transparent and marked by repentance.

"First be tested" – Deaconship is not to be an involvement gimmick. When a man has been proven faithful and responsible in a few things, there may come a time for elders to give him charge of many things, such as the administration of some significant ministry in the life of the church.

"One wife" – Not a polygamist. That was a meaningful qualification in ancient Ephesus. Does it mean divorced men need not apply, ever? No such thing is implied in the original language. The failure equated to a distant divorce may have been overcome. A recent divorce may reflect an unresolved flaw in leadership in the home. Those are the kinds of issues that local elders have to look at on a case by case basis, not only according to the man in question, but also according to the sensitivities of the church they shepherd.

"Manage his household and children" – His wife is submissive. His children are not out of control. He pays his bills.

I broke sequence because we need to deal with an ambiguity in verse 11. The word "wives" is the same as the word, woman, and the phrase in question is literally translated, "women in the like manner." Does that mean women who are servants in the church in the same manner as the men he is addressing? This would make them "deaconesses." Or, does it mean that the wives belonging to the deacons should be of such and such character in the same manner as the deacon? The text prints "wives". You probably have a footnote that says, "deaconesses."

The arguments for deaconesses are these. In the first century, the genders were rigidly segregated. It can be argued that there was a need for female servants to administer to certain female needs. Also, no mention is made of the wives of elders or their qualifications. Would not their decorum be at least and probably more critical as the decorum of the deacon’s wives? Besides, the notion that a deacon’s wife not be a drag on his ministry is already evident from the qualification that he manages his household and family.

In her work of helping the poor, much good juicy information would be available to her. She would also need to be "worthy of respect" (the same word as the first qualification of the deacon) and especially "not a malicious talker". She would need to be "temperate" (clear-headed and alert) and "trustworthy" in regard to the unique needs for which she was responsible as well as for whatever resources and commodities of the church were at her disposal.

The biggest argument for this meaning "a wife" is Paul’s prohibition about a woman holding authority over men. Of course, he was talking about teaching authority. The fact is, a deacon had no authority beyond that which was required to administer the task with which he had been entrusted. If we used the term "servant" instead of "deacon" we might see that a little better. I clearly believe there were female servants administering important ministries in the first century church, but as long as we use terms that are confusing, like deacon and deaconess as opposed to "servants with a job" I am sure that we would just compound the confusion all the more.

The job of the deacon is the task that he has been assigned to do by his overseers. I wish I could tell you more, but again, it is the genius of God that does not spell out a job description in the Bible. I don’t think God sees any of you as deacons because you are a body of guys with a shared title. He sees you as deacons when you are His servants who have embraced a task for Him and for His church.

I have heard deacons defined as "elders in training." Maybe they are in the sense that "the greatest have to start out by being servants" But, elders and deacons are distinct roles in the church, and while any an is a deacon, he must be known by his task, not by his title. I had one lady explain to me that deacon’s function in a church board setting was to the elders in the same way that the House of Representatives functions to the Senate in the United States Congress. I told her that was about the dumbest and most fleshly thing I ever heard. If being first, if being preeminent, if being looked up to, if having a voice of authority or if being thought important is what matters to you, deaconship is going to be a real drag.

The elders are here today, and to them I say: Deacons will only be what the church needs them to be as you fellows have a sense of what you need them to do. A deacon without a meaningful stewardship over which he presides is an oxymoron, as I understand the New Testament deaconship. God needed responsible, wise and spirit-filled people to administer to the temporal needs of the church when they began to take the shepherds away from the ministry of the Word of God and prayer. The church turned servanthood into a title, then into an office, then into an order of clergy, then into a mess.

In Bible times, God raised up special servants to respond to needs that existed in His church. Latin speaking men turned them into the diaconate. English speaking men turned them into the deacons.

God raised up special servants. Men turned them into officers. Men may have thrown out the girls. Men turned them into board members. And, of course, men are the ones who feel wounded when someone stands in their presence and says, "It ain’t so, and it was never so." I hope you’ll help the Abbeyville Road Christian Church turn the New Testament deacon back into a simple servant who takes care of a need. That is the greatest need we have right now as a local church body.

No one ever looked up to a servant in the Greek speaking world, and no man is set apart as a deacon that he might be admired. It is only the fact that you are a servant of Jesus that elevates you to any status of nobility. That should not surprise you. Jesus took the one person lower than a diakonos, the doulos, the slave, and He made it such precious thing that Paul, the most successful missionary who ever lived, wore the title, "slave of Jesus" with honor. Jesus took the most vile means ever conceived of executing the scum of humanity, the cross, and He infused it with a glory that no Roman executioner could ever have anticipated. Jesus gives honor to your status as a servant, but that is the only honor involved.

© by R. Karl Crouch, 2183 Veumont Drive, Lancaster, PA 17601