Truth Magazine

By Lowell Sallee

For a man to serve in the office (work) of a deacon he must meet the qualifications given by the Holy Spirit. These qualifications are listed in Acts 6:1-6 and I Timothy 3:8-13. First, let’s take a closer look at the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

1 Timothy 3:8-13

For one to serve in the office of a deacon, he must first of all be a man. The Scripture says, “Likewise must the deacons. . . ” (1 Tim. 3:8) and “likewise” indicates that the subjects that Paul is addressing are men, which he introduced in 1 Timothy 3:1, “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office. . . . ” The New American Standard Version (NASB) says, “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity” (1 Tim. 3:8). We see further that deacons are men when the Holy Spirit says, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:12). A women then cannot serve in the office of a deacon.

Deacons must be grave (1 Tim. 3:8, KJV) or “men of dignity” (NASB). The Greek word is semnous which means “august, venerable, reverend; to be venerated for character, honorable. ” A deacon must then be an honorable man; one that is serious, dignified.

Deacons are not to be double-tongued (1 Tim. 3:8). In the Greek, the phrase is ma dilogous (ma – “not, by no means, never at any time”; dilogous – “double-tongued, double in speech, saying one thing with one person, another with another (with intent to deceive).” Thus a deacon is not to be a tale-bearer, but rather a straight-forward man and by no means a gossip.

A man that is qualified to serve in the office of a deacon is not given to (or addicted to, NASB) much wine” (1 Tim. 3:8). In the Greek the phrase is, ma oino pollo prosechontas (ma – “not, by no means; never at any time”; oino – “wine”; polio – “abundant, plenteous, much”; prosechontas – “to be given or addicted to”). The literal meaning of the phrase is “not to be addicted to much wine.” A man cannot be a deacon if he is a wine, beer, and/or whiskey drinker, whether it be social or privately in one’s own home.

A deacon is not greedy of filthy lucre (fond of sordid gain, NASB) (1 Tim. 3:8). The Greek says ma aischrokerdas (ma -“No, by no means; never at any time”; aischrokerdas – “eager for base gain; sordid”). The idea is, a deacon is not to be a man who loves money to the point of being dishonest and greedy.

A deacon is one that is holding the mystery of the faith in a pure (clear, NASB) conscience” (1 Tim. 3:9). He is one that is standing firm in the faith of Jesus Christ and his conscience is one of conviction and application of the faith. The deacon is a man that is completely trustworthy and pure toward every scriptural doctrine and practice.

The Holy Spirit says that before a man may serve in the office of a deacon he must first be (tested, NASB) proved (1 Tim. 3:10). The Greek is de dokimazo proton (de C 6 also, moreover, also”; dokimazo – “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize”; proton – “first, at the first, in order of time”). We should be very careful who is appointed to serve as a deacon. The church should know the man well enough to have “tested” and “proved” him to be qualified. Do you know him well enough to know if he is or is not qualified? Is he a worker? Is he willing to work? We must understand that not just any man will do.

A deacon must be blameless or beyond reproach (1 Tim. 3: 10). The Greek word anepilampton means “one against whom no evil charge can be sustained; one who is above an established charge of evil.” Please understand that if there is a charge, it must be “established.” Paul said, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Cor. 13:1).

Deacons are to be the husbands of one wife (1 Tim. 3:12). If a man’s wife dies and he remarries, he still is the husband of one wife (Rom. 7:1-3). If a man has scripturally put away his wife for the cause of adultery, and then remarries, he’s still the husband of one wife (Matt. 19:9). Understanding, however, that deacons’ wives have qualifications too (1 Tim. 3:11).

Deacons are married men that are ruling (good managers) their children and their own houses well (1 Tim. 3:12). The Greek is proistamenon which means “to set over, to be over, to rule, to superintend; to preside over.” The Holy Spirit did not say that the deacon’s children had to be Christians. This implies that deacons are generally going to be younger men whose families are still young. However, the deacon must have his family under control.

Acts 6:3

Now, let’s turn our attention to the qualifications that are found in Acts 6:3. The Scripture says, “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among, you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint &er this business.”

Deacons must be men of honest report or good reputation (NASB). Deacons are men that both in the community and the Lord’s kingdom have lived such a life as to have a “good reputation.” Some men do not have good reputations because of bad business dealings or immoral conduct. A deacon must be above all these types of charges.

A deacon is one that is full of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that a deacon must have miraculous abilities. It does mean that he “be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). All Christians are to be filled with the Spirit, that is, guided by the Spirit of God. Deacons must possess, as all Christians should, the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22).

A deacon must possess wisdom. Wisdom is a necessary quality for any office or work. Deacons must be men of practical knowledge and ability that can and will get the job done.

Conclusion

These qualifications were given by the Holy Spirit for a purpose, God’s purpose of attending to the physical needs of the local church. The men that serve in the office of a deacon must be qualified men. “For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 3:13).

The Lord built the church and gave it a work to do. To accomplish that work, God ordained the offices of elder, deacon, and evangelist. Each of these offices is to be filled by a scripturally qualified man who desires to serve the Lord. To serve as a deacon in the Lord’s church is one of high honor and one that each member of the body of Christ should respect. Let us all respect and honor God’s Word and his work.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 680-681
November 16, 1989

By Phil Roberts

Everybody is a manager of some sort. Mothers manage the home, the boss manages his employees, and everyone manages his time. But on a professional baseball team that ordinary word “manager” becomes the official title of the head man. Tommy Lasorda is not just a manager in a general sense; he is the Manager of the Dodgers. In every language there are many words that are used in a quite general sense most of the time, but which are, in some context, used as technical terms for very specific positions or offices.

In the Bible several words for the leaders of God’s people were of such a nature. “Elder” (presbuteros) was obviously the common word for older people. But it was also the technical term for people appointed to the office of “Elder.” Likewise, diakonos was just an ordinary Greek word for “servant,” and it is usually translated that way in the Bible. But it was also the technical term for those appointed to the office of “Servant.” Modern translations, however, usually use the transliterated term “Deacon” when the term is being used in its technical sense to refer to the office.

In its general sense the term diakonos could be applied to just about anyone to whom we might apply the English term “servant” today, from household slaves to government officials. Because of the connotation of service on behalf of others, the word was especially suitable for use by NT Christians to describe their work, not only as servants of God, but also as servants of each other. Jesus described his own work as one of service to others (Matt. 20:28), and he admonished his disciples that, if any of them would be first, they must become a servant of all (Lk. 22:26). Thus, in the general sense, every Christian is (indeed must be) a servant, and almost every act in which one engages as a Christian can be described as a service, either to God or to man.

But in two places in the NT diakonos is clearly used in the technical sense of “Servant” (or “Deacon” if we prefer). Those two places are Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8,12. The context clearly indicates the technical use in both cases. In 1 Timothy 3:8-13 the technical use is indicated by the list of qualifications which must be met by those who would aspire to the position, which is in turn tied to the similar list of qualifications for those who would aspire to the office of Elders (or Bishop). In Philippians 1:1 the technical use is likewise marked by the link with the Bishops as the leaders of the church at Philippi.

[This word diakonos belongs to a group of three related words. The other two are diakonia and diakoneo. These three words correspond almost exactly with our word group, “servant” (diakonos), “service” (diakonia), and “serve” (diakoneo). But it was especially the first of these three (diakonos) that was used as a technical term for the church office of “Servant” or “Deacon.” Some lexicons do treat the use of the verb diakoneo in 1 Timothy 3:10 as a technical reference to discharging duties of the office of a Deacon, and some suggest that the noun diakonia (service) in Romans 12:7 refers specifically to the service of Deacons, though I am personally doubtful that Paul is referring specifically to Deacons there. With these possible exceptions, however, these two related words always mean nothing more or less than ” service ” or ” serve. “]

Observing the above distinction between the technical and the general use of diakonos has important implications in at least four areas.

First, some having noted that diakonos (servant) can be applied to many different people in the NT church, have concluded that there was no such thing as an office of Deacon – only a general service participated in by all. This argument is usually made to support the larger idea that were no offices at all in local churches in the NT, nor even any official organization to such local churches. But this approach is no more legitimate than collecting a lot of general uses of the word “manage” and trying to prove from them that there is no official position of “Manager” on a baseball team.

Others have suggested that the term Deacon was more of an honorary title for those who had distinguished themselves in their service to God and their brethren. But this interpretation ignores the clear implications of the requirements listed in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 (not greedy of dishonest gain; having already proved themselves; ruling their own house and children well; etc.), as well as the express statement that they are being appointed specifically to “serve” (v. 10). Moreover, the idea that we have here only a sort of honorary title of distinction is contrary to the very spirit of the N.T. Where does God give titles merely for the purpose of honoring distinguished service?

But I fear that we who recognize the official nature of the office of Deacon may, at times, allow the office of deacons to function as little more than an honorary position. Sometimes if a fellow has been a faithful member for many years he will almost automatically be appointed a Deacon for no apparent reason other than a desire to acknowledge his long-term faithful membership. On other occasions I have heard brethren discuss the possibility of appointing a younger man as a Deacon to make him feel a part of the work, or to get him more involved. We should remember that the position is one of active service, and those who do not want to give themselves in that service should not be appointed for some other reasons.

A second implication can be drawn from taking note of the fact that in both cases where diakonos is clearly used in the technical sense of “Deacon” it is also linked with the office of Elder (or Bishop). And in both cases the Deacons are mentioned after the Elders, implying the subordination of the office of Deacon to that of the Elder. This subordination, though never expressly stated in the NT, is likewise clearly of the Deacons consists, indicated (1) by the terms used for the offices (Elders . . . essentially in that are both “elders” and (“overseers”); (2) by the which the Elders delegate to differing qualifications (the list for Elders is more extensive and includes such matters as “not a novice”); on behalf of their brethren and (3) the fact that we often find reference to the Elders of a church without any reference to Deacons (e.g. Acts 11:30; 15:2; 20:17), but never do we find any reference to Deacons apart from Elders; and (4) a priority attached to getting Elders appointed in each church (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). Apparently the office of Elder could exist and function without the subordinate office of Deacon, but not vice versa.

I believe the above facts help us better understand the authority or extent of oversight which pertains to the office of Deacon. More properly, they help us understand the limitations of the authority and oversight of the office. Unlike the position of Elder, the position of Deacon is not identified as one of ruling or oversight in the NT. It is essentially a subordinate position of service. The authority and oversight of the Deacons consists, I believe, essentially in that which the Elders delegate to them in their work of service on behalf of their brethren and the gospel.

A third implication pertains to the use of the seven in Acts 6 as a case example of the appointment and work more of deacons. The use of the seven as examples of Deacons is usually based on the fact that the words diakonia (service) and diakoneo (serve) are used to describe their work in caring for the widows. But there is no indication that these words are being used in a technical sense here. In deed, in the very same passage diakonia is also used to describe the work of the apostles: the seven will attend to the daily service of the widows (v. 1) so that the apostles can continue in the service of the word (v. 4). But there are other indicators that we should be cautious in appealing to the case of these seven to define the office and work of Deacons. Note that the need that prompted their appointment was the neglect of the Grecian (i.e., Greek speaking) widows in the Jerusalem church. It can hardly be an accident that the names of all seven men are Greek. Contrast the case with that of the apostles, where only two of the twelve names are Greek. Clearly the seven were chosen from a particular segment of the church (the Greek speaking segment) to attend to the particular problem in that segment of the church (the neglect of the Greek speaking widows).

I would suggest that the Jerusalem church, at that infant stage, had neither elders nor deacons as yet, but was still being overseen directly by the apostles. And the case of the seven is primarily an example of a church selecting a group of particularly qualified men to attend to a particular problem.

If this assessment of the role of the seven is correct, then we should be careful about appealing to Acts 6:2 for a precise or limiting definition of the work of Deacons. I do not believe we should use this passage to limit the work of Deacons to “benevolence” or even to the “material” matters of the work of the church, though it would probably be fair to say that the work being attended to there by the seven is a good example of at least one type of work that might later be attended to by Deacons.

A fourth implication of the above distinction between the general and the technical use of diakonos pertains to the case of Phoebe in Romans 16:1. Though some have appealed to this as a third instance of the technical use of diakonos, I believe it is, like almost all other cases, only the general use. Paul describes here as a servant of the church in Cenchrea just as he describes himself elsewhere as a servant of the church in general (Col. 1:25). This matter will, however, be dealt with in more depth elsewhere in this issue.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 678-679
November 16, 1989

By Dick Blackford

In the introduction to his book on The Deacon and His Work, James D. Bales said: “Some may think that the eldership is so important that there is no need to be concerned about the deaconship. Thus some congregations exercise care in selecting elders, but give little thought to the selection of deacons. However, this office also is important, or God would not have instituted it. One should be as careful to follow God’s will in selecting deacons as they are in selecting elders. In other words, churches should select qualified deacons as well as qualified elders. Thus the church needs to study the deaconship. “

It should be remembered that the wisdom of God is higher than the wisdom of men (Isa. 55:8,9). Our Lord had a real purpose in his provision for deacons in the local church. It has been observed by some that “elders do the work of the deacons, deacons do the work of the members, and the members do nothing but gripe and complain about how the elders and deacons are doing it.” Let us be careful lest we thwart the plan of God. The deaconship should not be overshadowed in our thinking.

Realizing the need for a study on deacons, the editor asked me to put together this special issue. There are many good writers and Bible students among us. The men selected to help in this study are men who are respected by those who know them best for their sincerity, dedication, and ability to provide us with some meaningful material. This study is sent forth with a prayer that the reader will give it serious consideration and will be helped in understanding the purpose and plan of God for deacons in the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, p. 677
November 16, 1989

By Dennis Abernathy

“Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another” (Rom. 14:19). The Psalmist said: “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it” (Psa. 34:14). To seek and pursue peace is to make every effort to do the things which lead to or bring about peace. Peace is wonderful and refreshing as a breath of fresh air on a spring day. We ought to make every effort to attain unto it.

Is it possible to seek peace, yea, to even pursue it, and yet not attain peace with a brother or sister in Christ, or within a

local congregation for that matter? Yes indeed. When one approaches a brother or sister in Christ, seeking to bring about peace, and those approached undermine your influence, try to destroy your reputation, hold you at arms length or otherwise isolate themselves from you, there is no way to make peace.

Many things can cause peace to be disrupted. The only way to have peace is to stop the things which disrupt peace. Peace among brethren is disrupted by worldliness, gossip, whispering campaigns, self-wined attitudes, pride, selfishness, envy, jealousy, intolerance, binding one’s opinion, hatefulness and discourtesy, etc. I might add, that false teaching will also disrupt peace.

The Christian is to work for peace. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). It behooves each of us to do all we can to pursue peace, without sacrificing truth and duty to God. “If it is possible” implies that with some it is “impossible” to be at peace. Peace with brethren is a two-way street. Two cannot be at peace if one has no desire for it. We ought to be willing to sacrifice our own personal rights, liberties, and preferences rather than stir up trouble in the church. I should never seek to bind my personal opinion and push it on others to the disturbance of the church. Neither should I be determined to have my own way about things that are of no importance. There are things that brethren may or may not do and we should leave brethren free to pursue whichever course they desire. We must contend for the faith, and, that earnestly (Jude 3), but we must never contend to the point of binding, for traditions, opinions and customs. Granted, when we contend for the faith it may disrupt peace, but when we contend for our opinions it will disrupt peace and we will be to blame, i.e., we are not pursuing peace, but strife.

If you are at odds with your brethren or with a brother or sister, why not go to them and talk about it (read Matt. 18:15; 5:23-24)? In other words, pursue peace! It is true, that on occasion our brother or sister may not listen or desire reconciliation. What then? There is little else, other than prayer that you can do. But perhaps they will listen to another. Try all within your power to restore peace and continue to serve God.

In conclusion, read 1 Peter 3:11; Hebrews 12:14, and 1 Thessalonians 5:13. “Finally, brethren, goodbye. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, p. 646
November 2, 1989