Truth Magazine

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

By Robert F. Turner

Carmelo Casella edits a paper in Tasmania, Australia called Discipling, in which he advocates what I believe to be an erroneous doctrine concerning the personal ministry of Christ, and our use of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Copies of many pages of this material have been sent to me for review. Ordinarily I would write what I had to say and just send, it to the inquirer, but because this position is also found in the United States, and Casella’s paper is sent to some in this country, I feel we should all give these matters our attention. The following only answers material at hand, but we should be further concerned with the basic principle of N.T. usage which is involved.

Some years ago in a written discussion on remarriage, my opponent took the position that Jesus’ “except for fornication” in Matthew 19:9 was but an explanation to the Jews of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and applied only to those under the Law of Moses. He contended that death was the only scriptural cause for remarriage, and that no exception is made to people under the New Covenant. Now, this preacher says whether or not a person who has been divorced because of adultery could ever remarry, “is not a question of any significance in the doctrine of Christ.” You guessed it! He says Matthew 19:9 applied only to those under the Law of Moses. In both cases the divorce problem triggered the arguments, and in both cases we are asked to dismiss a teaching of Christ because it is not specifically repeated in “Acts through Revelation.”

In this later case the writer says, “It was impossible for Jesus to give us his doctrine while he himself was subject to the doctrine of Moses.” It was not impossible for Isaiah (under Moses’ law) to teach things that would be a part of the New Covenant – such as the acceptance of gentiles (49:6). This premise cripples the preparatory work of Jesus, teaching the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23). It shows a poor understanding of that period when things were being readied for Christianity. Luke wrote, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (16:16). Jesus set forth principles of a spiritual kingdom which built upon, but would supercede, Judaism. He could say he was Lord also of the sabbath (Mk. 2:28). He taught with authority and not as the scribes (Mk. 1:22). We do not have to deny that the New Covenant was made effective by the death of Jesus to accept teachings he set forth during his life time, and which were later written for our benefit.

We are told the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth, and they would set forth “the doctrine of Christ”; and we fully believe that. But the conclusion is drawn, those who want to know Christ’s doctrine “will find it all from the second chapter of Acts on to the end of the New Testament . . . . the sum total of God’s will for people who want to be in the kingdom of heaven.” This seems to ignore the fact that the Apostles and N.T. prophets, by the Holy Spirit, gave us more. The synoptic gospels were written long after Pentecost and John even later; and they were written “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed” (Lk. 1:1-4); “of all that Jesus began both to do and teach” (Acts 1:1-2); “that ye might believe . . . and have life through his name” (Jn. 20:31). Jesus told the Apostles, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you can not bear them now.” But when the Holy Spirit would come, He would “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jn. 14:26); as well as reveal additional things (Jn. 16:12-13). The gospels contain the “doctrine of Christ.”

Any exegete worthy of the name knows that circumstances (who speaks, where, why, etc.) must be considered, and that some teachings of Jesus were peculiar to Judaism (Matt. 8:4); but the same consideration of circumstances must be observed in studying “Acts through Revelation” (Acts 21:23-26). The Jewish government was originally a Theocracy, and priests were civil as well as religious leaders. These circumstances continued to some extent through the early days of the church, and until Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans. Social customs of the day also affect our application of Scriptures: the kiss of greeting, foot washing, etc.; but such are found in the teaching after Pentecost as well as before. Somehow I get the impression that Jesus’ personal ministry teaching on marriage and divorce is the main problem, and some would change the rules of exegesis rather than accept it. Let us hope this is not so.

We are told that,2 Peter 3:2 divides Scriptures into two categories: (1) the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and (2) the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. (Unwarranted emphasis is placed on “spoken.”) What Jesus said in his personal ministry, unless repeated in “Acts through Revelation,” is supposed to be as a prophet to the Jews, and have no application to all nations. While Jesus was Prophet of prophets (Acts 3:22f), he has spoken “in these last days” (Christian dispensation) as distinguished from prophets of old (Heb. 1:1-2). His teaching before death is not apart from the apostle’s later teaching, but apart of that teaching, as shown by their setting it forth (writing Matt., Mk., Lk., Jn.), and stating the purpose of those writings for people of all nations (Matt. 28:20; Mk. 1:1; Lk. 1:14; Jn. 20:31).

After the above, and more, the subject of our review admits the prophecies, examples and history of the “beforetime” revelations are needed. He cites the “Royal Laws”‘ (Love God, and man, Mk. 12:28-31) and says “Since most of what Jesus taught . . . Israel was really an expansion of these two great commandments, then most of what Jesus taught is applicable in the kingdom . . . because the two great commandments apply universally.” This is nice and soothing after pages of major surgery on the personal ministry of Jesus. But we have not forgotten that from all that teaching which does apply to us, the editor has deleted Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:4-9, etc.). It would be interesting to see a list of what else is left out, other than the obvious national and social matters which affect interpretation before and after Acts 2.

And what is more “universal” than the marriage law which was “from the beginning”? Jesus acknowledged – that Moses had “allowed” (“suffered”) divorce (see Acts 14:16; 17:30), but declared, “from the beginning it was not so.” The nature of the union which God ordered makes no place for adultery – it violates the sanctity God intended. This is not to say adultery erases marriage – that there must be a divorce. But its sanctity has been violated, and the resultant “exception” is inherent in the universal law of marriage that was “from the beginning.” When men seek to erase Matthew 19:9, et al., from the New Covenant they tamper with a universal law of God. And when this tampering takes the form of new rules that limit the Lord’s teaching to “Acts through Revelation” the first error is compounded.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, pp. 645-646
November 2, 1989