Truth Magazine

By David A. Padfield

The book of Joshua records the conquest of the land of Canaan. It shows us the triumph of faith at Jericho, and the farreaching consequences of sin as Israel was defeated at Ai.

With full faith in the power of God, Joshua had sent 3,000 soldiers to attack Ai (Josh. 7:1-5). It came as a great shock when this little town not only stayed the attack, but killed 36 Israelites. Joshua, despondent over this defeat, tore his clothing and fell to the ground in prayer. God explained to Joshua there was sin in the camp of Israel. While this sin remained unpunished, God would not be with them.

In Joshua 7:21 we find Achan had sinned by stealing goods at Jericho. After Achan’s confession “Joshua and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the garment, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his sheep, his tent and all that he had and they brought them to the valley of Achor . . . so all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned him with fire after they had stoned them with stones” (Josh. 7:24,25). One commentator observed, “Public executions are public examples.”

Years later, after the conquest of Canaan, we find a sermon in which the sin of Achan is recalled. “Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? And that man did not perish alone in his iniquity” (Josh. 22:20).

We need to remember that Achan “did not perish alone.” Thirty-six of Achan’s comrades, plus his sons and daughters, died because of his sin. The Bible says very little about Achan. I am certain that if you could talk to him today he would tell you he had no idea how many lives his sin would touch. The tragedy is that he did not think about how his crime would affect other people.

None of us lives in a vacuum. Our actions have much bearing on the eternal destiny of others. Paul tells us that “none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself” (Rom. 14:7). Have you ever thought about how your sins affect others?

When parents forsake the assembling of the saints (Heb. 10:25) their children must suffer the consequences, i.e., growing up without a knowledge of the Lord. I have met too many parents who waited till their children were almost grown before they tried to teach them the Bible. Most of the time it’s a case of “too little, too late.”

In a divorce, it is the children who suffer the most. They have to pay for the immorality of their mother or father. A few years ago I did volunteer work at the public schools. I do not believe it is a coincidence that all the children I tutored came from broken homes. They needed extra help at school because no one would help them at home.

I have known several women who were suffering the consequences of their husbands’ alcoholism. A drunken husband means the wife has to leave the home to provide an income for the family. Here again the children suffer. While mom is at work, they are left alone at home. Frequently they are left in the “care” of their father.

Sometimes parents have to pay the price for the sin of their children. “A foolish son is the ruin of his father” (Prov. 19:13). 1 have watched men and women grow old before their time because of the sins of their children. The hopes and dreams of parents are shattered by their sexual promiscuity of their children. The grief inflicted is not because the children hate their parents, I’m afraid it’s because they just don’t care.

Let none of us be deceived into thinking that we have never acted in such a way as to cause harm to others. Our Lord had to die because of our sins. Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

I pray that we can all learn a lesson from Achan without having to learn the hard way.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, p. 693
November 16, 1989

By Dick Blackford

No, of course not. The church had preachers before it had deacons. In Paul’s letters to Timothy the qualifications of elders and deacons are given aside from Timothy’s responsibilities as a preacher. To further pursue the answer to this question, we must identify our terms.

“What on Earth in Heaven’s Name Is a Preacher?” That’s the title of a chapter in Charles Hodge’s booklet, Your Preacher. And it is a good question. We must be concerned about heaven’s view of a preacher, for as the Psalmist said: “Forever, 0 Jehovah, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psa. 119:89). What, then, is the work of a preacher – as a preacher? The letters to Timothy and Titus are a gold mine for learning the attitudes and responsibilities of a gospel preacher. In a nutshell, he is to read, study, preach, and be an example (1 Tim. 4:12,13; 2 Tim. 2:15; 4:2).

What Is a Deacon to Do? The word translated deacon means “servant.” There is an office called deacon and those who fill it have certain qualifications to meet, some of which are physical (1 Tim. 3:8-10,12,13). These men were to: (1) first be proved, (2) then allowed to serve (1 Tim. 3: 10). All Christians are to be servants, but not all Christians are deacons for all have not met the requirements. Paul rendered service, but was not officially a deacon. Deacons are mentioned separately from the saints in Paul’s letter to Philippi (Phil. 1:1). (The fact that there is an office neither exalts nor debases the one occupying it.)

The words translated “serve” and “ministration” in reference to the seven appointed to see after the Grecian widows are forms of the word translated “deacon.” These were men who had proved themselves. The fact that they were appointed (and not servants in the general sense) indicates that these were deacons. The deacon has no speciality. His work is auxiliary in nature. He assists the elders and renders a service wherever needed. In this, his work differs from a preacher’s. The preacher’s duty focuses primarily on the Word (studying, guarding, and teaching it).

Leaving the Word of God to Serve Tables

When the seven were appointed to look after the needs of the widows, Luke says, “And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, it is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men. . . ” (Acts 6:2,3a).

Someone might argue that preachers of today are not apostles and thus this passage does not apply to them. Obviously, the apostles were primarily under consideration for “the twelve” is the antecedent of “we.” But the apostles were preachers and it was because of this facet of their work that it was “not fit. ” The disciples then numbered in the thousands. Becoming directly involved with serving the widows was a daily event and would have entailed much time. It would have amounted to abandoning the word of God. Two verses earlier we are told of the work the apostles were doing. “And every day in the temple and at home, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5:42). They could not have done this had they misplaced their emphasis on the gospel and put it on benevolence. There is a great commission to preach the gospel to the world. But there is no great commission to do benevolence. Such work was secondary.

Is the Deacon’s Work Physical?

Some have made a “rule” that elders are over the spiritual affairs of the church and deacons are over the physical. It must be remembered that deacons are under the oversight of the elders (1 Pet. 5:2). They assist wherever needed. While there are physical and spiritual matters, the Bible does not limit their work to one or the other. There is a sense in which physical and spiritual matters are interwoven and cannot be separated. Concerning deacons, L.R. Wilson commented: “We may say that there is hardly any service which may be needed that they may not perform ” (The Deacons and His Work, James D. Bales, p. 63). Two verses after the appointment of the seven, we find one of them (Stephen) preaching (Acts 6:8f).

Because of the misconception that many have of the deacon’s work, some have tried to make a deacon (their concept) out of a preacher. He may become the regular janitor, grass cutter, errand boy, or “Jack-of-all-trades.” Preachers and deacons have many things in common because they are Christians. But they are not one and the same.

Is the Preacher Too Good to Dirty His Hands?

It is doubtful that the apostles meant this when they appointed the seven to serve tables. They had been getting their hands dirty before they became apostles (fishing, etc.). Paul made tents and gathered firewood (Acts 18:3; 28:3). They helped the poor (Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 16:1-4). However, the apostles’ statement established the fact that there is a matter of priorities. This did not mean they would never do physical things, for they did. But today, many brethren have difficulty understanding the importance and the amount of time involved in preparing sermons, radio-tv programs, newspaper articles, Bible class lessons, bulletins, etc., aside from the preacher’s own personal study which he needs to do. Brethren only see the finished product of a sermon. Preachers do not speak miraculously today.

This writer does not believe that a preacher is too good to get his hands dirty and has always, as a Christian, been willing to take his turn at cutting the grass, cleaning the building, and the like. However, he would oppose being made the permanent janitor. He is a custodian of the Word and not of the premises. There are many duties that could no more be called “preacher’s duties only” than partaking of the Lord’s Supper. When there is carpentry work to be done (unless we have someone with a talent along that line who will use it), we hire a carpenter. When we need plumbing, we hire a plumber. When we need electrical work, we hire an electrician. But when we need printing, do we hire a printer? When we need secretarial work, do we hire a secretary? They are no more peculiar to the preacher’s work than plumbing. It may be that the church cannot afford to hire someone to print and do secretarial work. Somehow, we always manage to afford the plumbers, electricians, and carpenters. Could we be thinking more of our own comfort than of spreading the Word? When we cannot afford a caretaker, we all pitch in. The application becomes obvious. Yet there are many on church rolls (God’s roll is another matter) who do no more than assemble. Every preacher I know would be more than glad to render spiritual service any hour of the night or day. A preacher should be a twenty-four hour Christian. But he should not be regarded as a twenty-four hour employee of the brethren.

Should Preachers Make House Calls?

When the apostles explained their purpose in appointing the seven, Inspiration says, “And the saying pleased the whole multitude. . . ” (Acts 6:5). When similar cases arise today, the whole multitude is often displeased. A preacher may be rebuked for not making regular hospital rounds. He may be reproved for not knowing that a certain person had been sick. (The apostles did not know about the widows until it was reported. If they did not have e.s.p., should preachers today be expected to have it?) Unless it is known that the preacher is “goofing off,” the reproof should be avoided. There may be many who need visiting – newcomers, aged, shut-ins, hospitalized, and prospects. Preachers are usually judged by what they do worst. It is possible to spread oneself too thin. There may be regular spiritual duties which cannot be interrupted, deadlines to meet, etc. Some of the expectations that people have of preachers grow out of the false concept which they have a deacons – along with their false notion that the preacher is a deacon.

Should the preacher do all the visiting? No. Should he do any of it? Yes. First, because he is a Christian. Second, because he is to be an example to Christians (1 Tim. 4:12). He could make his visits count for more than social calls. Why not leave an appropriate tract or bulletin? An idea this writer likes (and which he borrowed from a preacher friend) is to collect empty pill bottles, get some clear capsules and put Scriptures in them, and label it “Prescriptions From the Great Physician.” Distributing these is an effective means of teaching and may open other doors of opportunity. (Prepare two sets of Scriptures – one for saints, one for sinners.) Pertinent announcements can be included (meetings, radio programs, correspondence courses). It will not be necessary for the preacher to feel guilty of i(socializing on company time.”

It is not our purpose to be overly defensive of the preacher. We have tried to avoid two extremes: (1) That the preacher is a socialite or that visitation is his primary duty. Most preachers enjoy visiting. However, if they are busy in teaching (or preparing for it), they may not always be able to arrange to “sit with relatives during surgery,” etc. Martha scolded Jesus as some would the preacher: “If thou hadst been there, my brother had not died” (Jn. 11:21). (2) That he should seclude himself and feel no desire to visit or meet people. If he feels inadequate to meet people, he should either overcome his inadequacy or find another occupation. There is nothing in the apostles’ doctrine that would comfort him in secluding himself.

Conclusion

There is a need to better understand the subjects of preachers and deacons. Hodge says, “The church is the called out, and the preacher is the called on. ” But “there is one security in preaching, we can never be replaced by computers.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 688-689
November 16, 1989

By Michael R. Baggett

Naturally most parents want their children involved in school activities. It brings a glow to the face of any father whose son makes first string on the football team. It causes parents to be proud of their son or daughter when they excel in various sports, in the band, or other school related activities. However, parents, not all school activities are good or wholesome, nor should we be proud our child is involved in such. Sometimes Christians fail to ask: Is this activity my teenager is participating in at school something a Christian ought to be doing? Should you allow your teenage daughter to become a cheerleader for the football team?

Some parents seem to think that since it’s a “teenager” involved it is somehow alright for them to allow them to do things. You know the type . . . “leave them alone, they are just teenagers.” Whether they are teenagers or seniors in college is not the issue. The issue is: Is cheerleading harmless or is it harmful (sinful)?

Do you really condone the manner in which a cheerleader dresses? If your daughter is a cheerleader, more than likely she must dress in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9. This verse teaches that women, young as well as older, “adorn themselves in modest apparel. ” Modest here, has nothing to do with “what’s in,” but with “how” a Christian lady is to dress. “Modest” means “becoming” or in other words, in our language, “decent”! All of the cheerleader uniforms I have ever known of are designed to draw stares and, believe it or not, they do “light the flames” of young men!

Do you want men “lusting” after your young lady, fathers? Yes, I’m aware that some will lust anyway, but should your daughter dress in such fashion as to cause young men to stumble? Jesus says: “Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom offenses come” (Matt. 18:7, NKJV).

Do you approve of “dancing”? Now mothers and fathers, there is no denying that this is what cheerleaders do! The fashion of the “cheer-dances” some do these days, one needs to wonder who the crowds are cheering for – the football team or the girls! The lewd, lascivious movements of these dances make one think of the sinful places where men go and watch the “Las Vegas Show Girls”! Someone had to say this! The dancing your daughter does as a cheerleader makes her guilty of the “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21). These shall not inherit the Kingdom of God!

Wake up parents! Stop teaching your children the ways of the world! Stop approving of activities God disapproves! “But bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, p. 709
December 7, 1989

By Carrol R. Sutton

The question under consideration in this study is one about which scholars are divided. Some do not hesitate to say that deaconesses are authorized in the New Testament. Others say that it is questionable and still others suggest that there is no authority in the New Testament for deaconesses. We cannot answer this question by appealing to scholars since scholars do not constitute New Testament authority. They are divided as to what the New Testament teaches on this subject.

We cannot settle this question by appealing to “historical evidence” because it does not constitute New Testament authority. Neither is it conclusive as to what existed in the first century relative to deaconesses.

The practice of present day churches does not constitute divine authority on this or any other subject. Neither should our preferences, likes or dislikes be considered authoritative.

In an effort to determine what is God’s will relative to deaconesses, our appeal must be to the Word of God. The Scriptures are sufficient to instruct us in righteousness that we might be “furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, ASV). In the Scriptures we have “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The law of liberty is “perfect” and by it we shall be judged in the last day (Jas. 1:25; 2:12). Only God’s revelation as given in the Scriptures can produce “faith” in our hearts (Rom. 10:17).

The primary passage used by those who advocate deaconesses is Romans 16:1. It reads as follows:

I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea (KJV).

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea (Revised Standard Version).

In this passage the word diakonos appears in the Greek text and is translated “servant” in the King James Version and “deaconess” in the Revised Standard Version. It is also translated “servant” in the American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version, New International Version and Diaglott as well as some others. Among those that translate diakonos to mean “deaconess” are the following translations: Williams, Moffatt, Macknight and Living Oracles. It also appears in the margin of the ASV as “deaconess.”

The word diakonos appears in the New Testament about twenty-nine other times. It is translated “minister” twenty times, “servant” six times and “deacon” three times. Of the twenty-two translations I checked, Romans 16:1 is the only passage in which some of the translations rendered diakonos to mean “deaconess.” In some other translations diakonos is translated “minister,” “helper, ” “worker, ” etc. in Romans 16:1. It is obvious from this (and other evidence that could be given) that a word may have different meanings as used in different texts and contexts.

If (and this is a big if) diakonos should be translated “deaconess” in Romans 16:1, it would not necessarily follow that “deaconess” means a female “deacon” in the sense of a “deacon ” as used in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and Philippians 1:1. It could (and probably would) mean nothing more than a female servant or helper. Please keep in mind that the “servants” at the marriage feast in John 2:5,9, the “ministers” (Paul and Apollos) of 1 Corinthians 3:5, the “minister” (Tychicus) of Ephesians 6:21 and Colossians 1:7, the “minister” (Timotheus) of 1 Thessalonians 3:2, the “minister” (civil ruler or rulers) of Romans 13:4, the “ministers” (false apostles) of 2 Corinthians 11:15 and the “minister” (Jesus Christ) of Romans 15:8 are translations of diakonos. Question: Would any scholar or serious student conclude that all these were “deacons” as mentioned in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13? Surely not! Note: It is obvious that diakonos does not ordinarily mean “deacon ” as used in 1 Timothy 3:9-13 and Philippians 1:1. The context (as well as the word) determines its meaning.

The fact that there is “historical evidence” that “deaconesses” in an official sense may have existed by the second or third century is not evidence from the New Testament that such are authorized.

Why I Reject Deaconesses

There are several reasons why I reject the idea that the New Testament authorizes deaconesses in an official sense. Here are some of those reasons:

1. The word diakonos that is translated “deaconess” in Romans 16:1 in the RSV (and some others?) does not usually mean “deaconess” (or “deacon”). Ordinarly it simply means a “servant” or “minister.” In the case of diakonos being translated “deacon” in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-11, the context demands (or at least justifies) that such be done. Note: The context of Romans 16:1 does not demand (nor justify) that diakonos be translated “deaconess.”

2. There are no specific qualifications given for deaconesses. If the New Testament does authorize deaconesses, we do not know which women should be selected and appointed to be deaconesses. Question: What “qualifications” would a woman have to meet in order to be a deaconess? Note: If someone replies by saying that deaconesses replies by saying that deaconesses must meet the “qualifications” of I Timothy 3:11 and/or 1 Timothy 5:9-10, let it be observed that neither of those passages mentions nor necessarily implies deaconesses. To say these passages refer to deaconesses would be presumption. 1 Timothy 3:11 says “their wives” (ASV says “women”), and 1 Timothy 5:9-10 says “a widow. ” Not a word is said in either passage about deaconesses!

3. There is no mention of “deaconesses” as a class or as a group although “the bishops and deacons” are mentioned with the saints at Philippi (Phil. 1:1).

4. The feminine form of the word diakonos does not authorize an official class or order of “deaconesses” any more than the feminine form of the word presbuteros (translated elders) authorizes female elders. We have the feminine form in 1 Timothy 5:2 where it- says the “elder women.” One might also consider the “aged women” of Titus 2:3. Note: Women would violate the principles stated in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, etc. if they endeavored to serve as “elders” (i.e. “bishops”) in view of 1 Peter 5:1-4, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, 20:17,28, Hebrews 13:17, etc.

How Did Women Serve In New Testament Times?

We learn from Philippians 4:3 that certain women “labored” with Paul and others “in the gospel. ” It is not specifically stated what they did in such labors. Mary “bestowed much labor” on some. She worked hard (see Rom. 16:6). We are not told specifically what Mary did in such work. Mary, the mother of John Mark, provided her house “where many were gathered together praying” (Acts 12:12). Lydia provided lodging for Paul and his companions (Acts 16:14-15). Priscilla and her husband Aquila were Paul’s “helpers in Christ Jesus, ” provided their house as a meeting place and took Apollos unto them, “and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Rom. 16:3-5; Acts 18:26). We learn from Acts 9:36-39 that Dorcas “was full of good works and alms-deeds which she did. ” We are also told that she made “coats and garments. Phebe was “a servant of the church at Cenchrea. She was a succourer (helper) of Paul and many others. We do not know exactly what she did in serving and helping many (see Rom. 16:1-2). It was prophesied that some women in the last days would prophesy (Acts 2:16-21). We learn from Acts 21:9 that Philip “had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”

In the first century women were taught to place emphasis on inward, rather than outward, adorning although outwardly they were to adorn themselves “in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety” and “with good works.” Their works were to be such as “becometh women professing godliness” (1 Pet. 3:1-6; 1 Tim. 2:9- 10). They were to engage in such good works as rearing children, lodging strangers, washing the saints’ feet and relieving the afflicted (1 Tim. 5:10). The aged women were to be proper examples and “teachers of good things. ” Along with other things they were to teach young women to be sober-minded, pure, keepers (workers) at home, etc. (Tit. 2:3-5).

As women served in the first century they were to recognize man as the head of woman generally and specifically the husband was to be the head over his wife (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-25). In giving some instructions for women the apostle Paul said: “Let the woman team in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. ” The ASV says “quietness” instead of “silence” and “have doniinion over” instead of “usurp authority over. ” In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in addressing the church at Corinth and all saints everywhere Paul said: “Let your women (the women – ASV) keep silence in the churches. for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women (a woman -ASV) to speak in the church.” Women were to learn and apply these restric tions and limitations as they endeavored to serve God.

How May Women Serve Today?

Today, women may and should worship God in the public assemblies along with men. Such passages as 1 Corinthians 14:23-35; 11:20-34; 16:2; Colossians 3:16; Acts 20:7; etc. indicate that women could be and were in the assemblies. The fact that regulations were given specifically to restrict or regulate women in the public assemblies is proof that they had a right to be in those assemblies.

Not only do women have the right (and responsibility) to worship God in the public assemblies but they may and should serve God outside the assemblies in various ways and activities.

As far as I can determine, women today may serve God in the same ways and activities (in principle) that characterized women in the New Testament times. When women prophesied as in Acts 21:9, if they did so by inspiration, although they may and should teach the inspired word of God, they can not do so now by direct inspiration. Of course, today, as back then, women must apply the restrictions and limitations that Paul gave in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as they endeavor to teach and serve God in other ways.

Some Good Works Women May Do

Here is a list of some things that women may do without violating the restrictions imposed upon her in such passages as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

1. Along with her husband (if married) she may privately expound the way of God more perfectly to preachers who know “only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:26).

2. Teach others one on one and teach classes of women and children in the home or in a room at the church building (Tit. 2:3-5).

3. Visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction (Jas. 1:27).

4. Provide lodging for those who preach the gospel.

5. Bake bread for the Lord’s Supper and assist in caring for the communion set.

6. Write letters to teach and encourage friends, youth and others.

7. Transport the sick and elderly to the grocery store, worship assemblies and various other appointments.

8. Provide a meeting place for the church.

9. Visit and encourage and exhort other Christians.

10. Distribute tracts and other literature that teach the truth.

11. Visit and help hospital patients and shut-ins.

12. Help in bulletin preparation, printing and mailing.

13. Invite people to attend meetings of Christians. They may visit, call or write.

14. Prepare food and arrange for flowers in times of sickness and death.

15. Make contacts for others to visit and teach.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I trust that it may at least be suggestive of some specific ways that women may serve in the Lord’s church. Women certainly have the right to engage in any authorized work so long as they do not violate some scriptural principle in so doing.

I have no objection to women serving as women served in the church in New Testament times. If there is a special work to be done for which women are more suitable than men, then no one should object to women doing it. Of course, all of us should make sure that we do not encourage women to go beyond the limits God has placed upon them. Let us also be sure that we are not guilty of binding restrictions upon women that God has not bound.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 690-692
November 16, 1989