A Biblical Look at Deacons by Cooper P. Abrams III *All Rights Reserved

           Many Baptists believe that there are two officers in a church, one being the pastor (elder or bishop) and the other of a deacon. The reason for this article is that I can find no biblical grounds in the New Testament for the establishment of an "office" of a deacon. There is no example or reference to an official diaconate (the office or period of office of a deacon)  in a church that has authority or office over the local congregation. There is certainly a biblical position in the church of "deacons" or better "servants," but it is not a position of authority in a local church.

           The word, "diakonos," which is transliterated in our English Bibles, "deacon", means a simply a "servant." The New Testament gives examples of both "appointed" servants elected by the church to specific tasks and of "unelected" servants who served the Lord in a general sense in a local church. The noun "diakonos" is used thirty times in the New Testament and in only five of those does it refer to a specifically appointed servant:

Philippians 1:1 "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (diakonos - noun)"

1 Timothy 3:8 "Likewise must the deacons (diakonos - noun) be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre"

1 Timothy 3:10 "And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon (diakoneo - a verb), being found blameless."1 Timothy 3:12-13 "Let the deacons (diakonos - noun) be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon (diakoneo - verb ) well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

           The word is generally used simply to denote one who served the Lord or ministered as a servant. For example:

Romans 16:1 "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos - noun) of the church which is at Cenchrea."

           The word translated "deacon" in 1 Timothy 3:13 is the verb "diakoneo" is found only in 1 Timothy 3:10, 13, and the single word "diakoneo" is translated into the phrase, "use the office of a deacon."

           Most commentators base their assumption that the position of a deacon is an official office in a church on three factors:

1. The King James Bible in 1 Timothy 3:10, 13, translates the one Greek word, "diakoneo," into English phrase, "use the office of a deacon."

2. Many commentators and Bible dictionaries conclude that because Paul in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 lists the qualifications of a deacon, he is setting forth the official office of "deacon."

3. Down through history, I believe many commentators have simply accepted the incorrect traditional ideas of those they followed without a thorough examination of the matter themselves.

           The first problem with the present day misunderstanding of this position which is caused by the transliteration (spelled in letters of another alphabet) of the Greek word "diakonos" into the word "deacon." The same word is found 30 times in the New Tesament and in only five verses in our English New Testament is the Greek word transliterated "deacon" ("diakonos" a noun, three times and "diakoneo" a verb, twice).

           The other twenty five times the word is properly translated "servant" or "minister." It is exactly the same Greek word. There is no precedent, rule in grammar or in translation which would support or validate the transliteration of the word, "diakonos," into an English word, "deacon." The English word "servant" is a proper and accurate translation of the Greek word "diaknoos."

           In 1 Timothy 3:10 and 13 the phrase, "use the office of a deacon," is translated from one Greek word "diakoneo", being a verb, which correctly is better translated "ministry" or "service of a servant" denoting the action of the verb. The most common definition and modern understanding of the of the English word "office" is "a position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority." (1.b, "office", Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/office) In other words an "office" is a position of some authority. However, the word office can be used in another sense as "something that one ought to do or must do: an assigned or assumed duty, task, or role, or the proper or customary action of something: FUNCTION: something done for another : SERVICE" (4.a-c, "office", Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/office). The last definition (4.a-c) is the probably definition the King James translators understood the word to mean. The word in the Greek text absolutely does not refer to an official ruling position. It simply means a person elected to serve in a particular ministry.

           Transliterating the verb "diakoneo" into "office of a deacon" does not distinguish which understanding is correct. History shows that probably under the influence of the Church of England and Protestant churches whose roots are found in Roman Catholicism, the word was understood incorrectly as referring to an official office which supported their unbiblical hierarchical system of church government. These churches established "deacons" as official ruling officers in their churches.

           The word "office" and "use" are not in any Greek text. Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words says, the word is a verb, not a noun.⁽¹⁾ It is the word, "diakoneo," and means "to serve." The whole phrase, "let them use of office of a deacon," is one word in the Koine Greek and can accurately be translated "let them serve (or minister) as servants." The Greek word is a verb showing action, whereas the English word "office" is a noun which denotes a position. Clearly, the word "diakoneo" would be better translated "let them serve (or minister) as servants."

           Greek scholar, Kenneth Wuest translates the word, "be serving as deacons."⁽²⁾ Most other translators translate the word, "serve as deacons." This is strong evidence that the New Testament does not support the establishment of an "office" or "board" of deacons. The English phrase "use the office" is a verb and if the Lord had intended to be referencing an official "office" then He would have used a noun. The Biblical example is that of deacons being appointed servants to perform a specified service to the congregation. There is no example in the New Testament of them functioning as ruling or having authority in the church or the pastor.

           In 1 Timothy 3:8-13, none of the qualifications of a deacon involve leadership abilities in the congregation, but rather they address the character traits necessary for an elected servant of an assembly. This is evidence that their job was not of leadership, but of impartial service to the whole congregation where a good character was a necessary prerequisite for their impartial ministry. There is also no hint of a deacon being in any leadership position in a local congregation, but they are seen as being elected servants to the assembly. (See the list at the end of this article which compares the qualifications of the bishop and those of a servant)

           Some might suppose that to take this position is to be opposed to having biblical deacons. This is not the case, because the use of appointed servants in the church is a part of the Lord's stated organization of a local church. However, I am strongly opposed to electing men to unbiblical positions in our churches and calling them "deacons," purporting they hold the biblical position. In my twenty five years of experience in churches, three years serving as a deacon, twenty two years(2006) as a pastor, as well as many examples of other churches of which I have personal knowledge, I have seen clear illustrations of the destructive results of misusing and misapplying the biblical role of a deacon. Any time the word of God is ignored or distorted there will be a negative result.

           The role of a deacon, as Acts 6:1-7, clearly states, was that of waiting on tables and the distribution of food to the widows in the Jerusalem church. The root word "diako" from which "diakonos" is derived means "to run errands."⁽³⁾ Seven spiritual men of good character were elected, not by the apostles, but by the congregation to look after that business. This was done to free the pastors from menial tasks so they could better attend to their responsibilities in studying, preaching and teaching( Acts 4:4). This is the only example we have of these specially appointed men serving in a church. From the example in the New Testament we can conclude the tasks to which a deacon can be biblically appointed are not limited to waiting tables. Applying the interpretive rule of "rule of first occurrence", the sphere of their responsibility should be limited to characteristics of the task in Acts 6:1-7, which was menial administrative service to the congregation.

           Some have supposed these were the forerunners of the later established official position of "deacon" of 1 Timothy 3:8-13. This idea is in error according to the biblical record. In Acts 6:2, the Apostles called the church together and said, "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." The Apostles were asking the church to appoint someone to "serve tables." We understand this because the word "diakoneo" simply means "to serve." An example of its use in the New Testament is found in Luke 10:40, when Martha complained to the Lord Jesus that, "my sister hath left me to "serve"(diakoneo)alone." This is the same word used in 1 Timothy 3:10,13 which was transliterated "use the office of a deacon." The Jerusalem church understood clearly that they were appointing servants to "take care of this business," which was waiting on tables. I do not believe they understood they were establishing an office of leadership in their church or putting these men over their church. If you understand that there is no difference between the word "deacon" and "servant" in the New Testament the confusion vanishes.

           The type of servant, whether appointed or non appointed, is indicated by the context in which the word is used. In Acts 6:1-7, and in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, the context tells you these men were "appointed servants." In other verses, where the word "diakonos" is used, the context explains these references refer to servants in general.

           It is incorrect to make the assumption that Charles C. Ryrie does in his Ryrie Study Bible note on Acts 6:2, which says, "The Greek word for "serve" is the one from which we derive "deacon," but these men were deacons only in the sense of being servants. They were not deacons in the sense of officers in the church"⁽⁴⁾ (emphasis is mine). As a Protestant Ryrie is upholding the position as an official ruling office.

           This is the standard position of the Protestant denominations who got this false idea from the corrupt Roman Catholic system. The context of Acts 6:2 clearly shows no "office" in a church was being established, but men were being appointed to a particular service. There is no support in the New Testament for the assumption that God later, changed the position and established a ruling office of deacons. There is not hint or example of this in the New Testament.

           Ryrie in his note on 1 Timothy 3:8, again makes a difference between the "servants" of Acts 6:1-7 and the "servants" (deacons) of 1 Timothy 3:8-13.⁽⁵⁾ In Acts 6:3, the Apostles stated the qualifications of these first appointed servants in the church as being, "men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom." These qualifications were simply a generalization of the character of these men and Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, made the earlier generalization more specific. These men were to serve in a position in which there had been accusations of impropriety. The task called for men who were in character above reproach. There is no reason to suppose these were "forerunners" of officials called "deacons in the sense of being servants" as Ryrie states. They were not officially called deacons because no such a title is used in the New Testament. This will be covered further later in this paper. In Acts 6:1-7, we have the first mention of these servants being appointed by the church to do some specific work that needed being done. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to suggest that this was a different position or appointment and that the later "deacons" of 1 Timothy 3:8-13, were official "officers" in the local church.

           It is interesting and revealing to read Ryrie's note on Romans 16:1. The verse says, "Phebe, our sister, which is a "servant" of the church which is at Cenchrea." The word "servant" here is the feminine word "diakonon." Ryrie says, "The word here translated "servant" is often translated "deacon", which leads some to believe that Phebe was a deaconess. However, the word is more likely used here in an unofficial sense of helper."⁽⁶⁾ May I suggest that if you understand the word is correctly translated "servant" and not deaconess there is no problem. Phebe was a servant in her church in the same way any woman can be a servant in their church. Her position was of service not leadership. The reason some have a problem with the Phebe being a "deacon" is they assume that it is an official office of leadership in the church. When asked do I believe in, "deaconess's in the church." I reply, "absolutely!" However, I always qualify my reply by explaining that the word denotes a female "servant" and not an officer of the church. I do not believe in women being "deacons" in a church as many modern churches are using the position. The false modern "deacon" is leader or official in a church with "authority" over all the congregation including men. This is clearly unscriptural as women are not to "usurp authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12). But the biblical position of women being servants in the local congregation ministering to women and children is in accord with the God's instructions (Titus 2:3-5). Most congregations would be lost without our lady servants. The supposed "deaconess" problem is no problem at all if you probably interpret God's word and understand the word denotes a servant and not a leader in the church.

           Two of the men appointed in Acts 6, Philip and Stephen achieved prominence as preachers, however, neither is later identified as or given the title of deacon. The most obvious reason is that there was no such official "title" as "deacon" in use in New Testament times, but rather the word "servant" was a job description and described their ministry. There is no reference in the New Testament of anyone being called or given the title of "deacon." For example, if a modern church would elect someone as "grounds keeper" we would not be making an official authoritative office in the church, but rather be giving a job description of the position and responsibility to which that the person was elected. We would certainly not call the church member "Grounds Keeper Jones" or "Servant Jones." I think part of the misunderstanding would go away if we stopped using the word "deacon" and used the correct English word "servant." But on a humorist note, who would want to be called "Servant Jones?" The title "Deacon Jones" carries with it a sense of prestige and honor which is totally contrary to the biblical position and responsibility.

           Someone might point out that phrase "use the office of" is used in 1 Timothy 3:1, in reference to a "office" of a bishop. Here too the Greek word is "diakoneo" and is better translated "to minister" or "to serve." This verse too can be properly translated, "If a man desire the ministry (or service) of a bishop, he desireth a good work." The responsibility and position of leadership is established in the use of the word "bishop" which means an "overseer" and the other verses of Scriptures establish the place of leadership of the pastor (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 5:17, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 5:2).

          It should be noted that when Paul sent Titus to the churches of Crete, to "set them in order" by instructing them in the appointing of pastors, he did not instruct him to also appoint "deacons" (Titus 1:5). If there are two "offices" in a church, pastors and deacon, why did Paul not tell Titus to appoint "deacons" as well. This omission is especially important when it is understood that Paul sent Titus to organize these assemblies into churches and "set them in order." If a church must have deacons in order to be properly organized, why did Paul omit their appointment?

           In none of the New Testament lists of gifts that are related to ministering and leadership in a church are deacons mentioned (1 Cor. 12:18, Eph. 4:11). Surely, it was not an oversight on God's part to not include deacons. I believe the reason they are not listed is that there was no such "office." These appointed servants of the congregation held an important job in the church, but it was not a position or office of leadership. Their job was to help the pastors by performing menial tasks for the congregation and work as peacemakers among the widows of the church, thus freeing the pastor's time "for prayer and ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4) The word ministry used in Acts 6:4, is interestingly "diakonia" or "service." Their appointment was clearly not to advise or having any ruling authority over the pastor or congregations.

           In Acts 6:3, when the Twelve Disciples called the assembly together they ask the congregation to appoint "seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this "business." The word "business" is the Greek word "chrea" with means "necessity or duty." The congregation was not appointing them to an office, but giving them a responsibility or duty to take care of the widows. Over the years I have watched as churches have elected deacons from their assemblies "to serve on the Board of Deacons" and elevated to positions of authority over the congregation. Clealy, churches have left the biblical example and elected men to an "honorary" position of leadership serving on an official board of the church.

           Instead of electing servants that were needed to carry on administrative tasks and be helpers to the pastor and congregation, churches placed these men in a place of authority over the local congregation and often even over the pastor. It is normal today to elect deacons without giving them any real function in the church, and "ordain" them merely to an honorary position in the church. Some see electing men deacons is an act of honor, recognition, and reward in the church. Often, instead of looking for men qualified to perform some specific task that needs to be done, men are chosen because of the social or economic status in the church or because the "earned" the honor.

           It is a common practice in some church to see their position is as being counselors to the pastor or working in the leadership of a church in conjunction with the pastor. Frequently pastors have elevated deacons above the other members of the congregation by holding special counsel with their "Board of Deacons." Often if a pastor wants something done in the congregation he first must go to his "deacon board" and get their counsel or approval on the matter. This unbiblical practice gives the false impression to the congregation that deacons hold a leadership or elevated position of over the church. There is no biblical example of a pastor seeking the counsel of his deacons in the overseeing of a local church.

           In Acts 15, when the church at Antioch needed counsel they went to the Jerusalem church. In Acts 15:4, 22, is states the matter was placed before the whole church, the apostles and the elders.(Acts 15:6) The apostles, elders and the whole church recognized that this was the proper way to seek counsel in a church. If there was a hierarchy recognized in the Jerusalem church why did they not just take the matter to them. The reason is their was no elder or Presbyterian type of rule in the early church. By involving the whole church and its leaders the precedent of congregational rule was confirmed. Christ's strong denunciation of the Nicolaitanes in Rev. 2:6, 15 is further evidence that God "hates" (means to detest) those who would seek to establish a hierarchy to rule over the local congregation. Couple this with the fact that Jesus in Revelation 2-3, addressed each church through its pastor (angel/messenger) sets the matter to rest. Christ was speaking to the whole congregation to commend them or instruct them to turn from the error of their ways and He properly did it through their overseer which he had placed to lead them.

           Often the justification of using deacons as leaders or counselors to the pastor and church comes from a pragmatic philosophy of church organization which ignores biblical the principle and example. This view says if it works, then do it. It is a poor leader who must go to his deacons and get them on his side before he attempts to bring a matter before his congregation. There is nothing wrong with a pastor discussing church matters with men in his church. But it is unbiblical for a pastor to go to his "church board" in order to carry out his duties as the overseer of his church.

           Using men unscripturally in this position tends to elevate them above the rest of the congregation. Often church constitutions incorrectly require the pastor and church to use the deacons in leadership positions. One place this can create a real problem is in giving deacons the position of locating and calling a new pastor. When a pastor leaves, these men are elevated to a special leadership status in the congregation. This sends a wrong message in requiring that deacons must be the ones who look for and present to the congregation a new pastor. To spiritual men this is not a problem, but for many it gives them the first taste of authority in the church. History proves this point is sadly a valid one. Many times when the new pastor comes, the deacons are not always willing to relinquish their new found prestige and position. The congregation is placed under their leadership, then begins to look to them for guidance. This has often been the turning point where deacons eventually began to take control of a church. Often this procedure has ultimately led to deacons ruling over a local church and seeing themselves as having the position of authority over the hiring and firing their pastor. This error in the use of deacons has destroyed many a once sound biblical church.

           It is correct and proper to use men from the congregation to help in holding services when the church is without a pastor? Philip and Steven are examples of men who were appointed servants (deacons) in the church who were also preachers. I have been using men in my congregation to hold Bible studies, prayer meetings and even to preach periodically for during my entire ministry, but I did not use them simply because they held the special status of deacon. Being a deacon is not what qualifies a man to teaching or preaching in the church. The men I chose were used because they were godly and spiritual men of my congregation, and it had nothing to do with them being a deacon. The emphasis in using the men in the church should not be because they are deacons, as any man in the church could be used without regard to whether they are deacons or not. Surely, my congregation and I should seek to appoint and use spiritual men with the ability to carry out a needed service or task, and this should be the only criteria. Deacons could serve the congregation in this function based on their ability and willingness to serve, but not on their position as deacons.

           In the first church I pastored I ran first hand into this situation where the deacons ran the pastor and the church. In one of my first business meetings I made a proposal to the church which they voted on and wholeheartedly accepted. Several days later the "Head Deacon" (Chairman of the Deacon Board) came to my house and brought up the matter I had presented. He informed me that in the future if I wanted to present something to the church I should first consult him and if he thought it worthy he would present it to the deacon board. If the deacon board thought it a worthy idea they would present it to the church and it would past without difficulty. When I informed him this was not the proper function of deacons, pastors, or of biblical church polity, and I would follow the New Testament. He became upset and from that day on started a campaign to remove me as pastor. He did not want to relinquish his unbiblical position and power in that church. I do not believe that God will or can bless a congregation that allows men to usurp their pastor's God given position and take the rule over him and the congregation. Once this unbiblical situation comes into power over a church it becomes a yoke that few churches can cast off. Sadly, a church that sets up an unscriptural "board of deacons" has destroyed many a pastor and church. Further, this unbiblical use of men in churches has also spiritually destroyed many good men who were incorrectly elected to an unscriptural "board of deacons" and told they had authority over the pastor and congregation. This situation is especially hard for a young pastor to deal with and it has caused many to fall by the wayside.

           Over the years I have followed a procedure which I believe best represents the New Testament example of congregational rule. Simply stated, when I need counsel or have matters to discuss with the men, I call all the men of the church together and discuss the matter with them. I always make it very clear that what we are discussing will be brought before the whole church and properly discussed and voted on. In following this procedure, I am not promoting a special and unbiblical class of men in our church. I am showing equal respect for all of our men. Some might point out that in larger churches it might be difficult to follow this procedure. My answer to that is twofold. First, if I follow this practice now while my church is small and solidly ground my people into understanding the biblical role of special elected servants in the church, later they will not allow a group of deacons or anyone else to gain control or to usurp authority over the pastor or the congregation. Second, if the church becomes too large to call all the men together, I believe it would be best to appoint a committee to look into the particular situations to make recommendations to the church. These committees could be elected annually and their terms of service limited to assure that they would not become an unbiblical group. Their responsibilities should also be clearly defined and limited.

           A church would be not be wise to elect men to serve and call them "deacons." I have often told the churches I pastored that they were all "deacons" meaning servants to the church and each other. Our "deacons" (servants) clean he church, do the yard work, cut the grass, do maintenance on the building, work as handling the churches, books, finances, clerical duties and other tasks.

           Some church appoint men to the position as deacon for life. This would be a gross error. The church constitution should clearly set forth their duties and term of service. They should be elected annually and receive prior approval from the pastor who makes sure they meet all the biblical qualifications. The church constitution should have clear instructions for the removal of men who become disqualified to serve.

           Clearly, there is no New Testament example of appointing deacons to the positions of special counselors in the church or to the pastor. It sets a bad precedent for pastor and deacons to meet and decide what will come before the congregation. The is simply a form of the unscriptural "elder" rule of the Presbyterian and some other churches. In one church I pastored, in one I was a member of, and a number of which I have personal knowledge, this was the form of church government. This procedure is merely a dressed up form of Presbyterianism or elder rule which is foreign to a New Testament church. The New Testament teaches in every case congregational rule, which means that all members of the church are equal in all matters concerning the church's business. Evidence of this can be seen in the New Testament example is given in Acts 6:2, which states that the Twelve Disciples carried the matter to the congregation and the congregation appointed them to the task that needed attention. If the New Testament was teaching "elder" rule the Twelve would have appointed these servants, but that is clearly not how God wanted it done.

           A better why to handle such matters is for the church to appoint (elect) a special committee to deal with specific needs in the church. One such committee could be a building committee to handle the planning needed for a new building or renovation. They would work out the details which would then be presented to the whole congregation to be discussed and voted on. Committees such as this could be temporary in service or a regular standing committee of the church.

           I do not want to labor the point, but when a church finds itself without a pastor, often the deacons of a church are given the task of finding a new pastor for the church. I believe it is a better procedure for the outgoing pastor to instruct the church in calling a new pastor and in electing a temporary pulpit committee from the floor in a business meeting. These people will be instructed as to their duties and procedures. It will be clear that they will function as the servants of the whole assembly, and once the new pastor is called and arrives their services are terminated. This violates no scripture and does not elevate deacons to being the ones responsible for hiring and firing pastors. It sets a bad precedent for a "board of deacons" to seek and present pastoral candidates to the church. Spiritual men would properly understand their responsibility, however in many cases using deacons as a "pulpit committee" eventually ends with the "board" seeing themselves as the ones who "hire and fire" the pastor. The carnal nature of man concludes that if you can hire and fire the pastor you have authority over him. Using a temporary pulpit committee elected by the congregation from the assembly precludes deacons assuming authority over the pastor that God does not give them. To read an email from a hurting church where deacons ruled go to my Frequently Asked Questions about Deacons Page.

           Often, smaller churches do not need deacons (elected servants) as the menial tasks are done generally by all the congregation on a volunteer basis. When I as the pastor have things to discuss, as stated above, I call all the men together and we confer on the matter at hand. This procedure has served our congregation well, and we operate in a spirit of unity. A church does not have to have deacons in order to have a biblical church polity. When there is a need for some service to be performed we follow the biblical example and the congregation appoints qualified spiritual people to carry out the service.

           In many churches, after deacons are elected, they have a special ceremony in which the pastor and other deacons "lay hands" on the candidate and "ordain" the deacon. In the New Testament there is no reference to "ordaining" deacons as practiced by many churches today. Note what A.C. Gaebelein says about the matter:

"The seven were then set before the Apostles and when they prayed they laid their hands on them. This is the first time we find the laying on of hands in the Book of Acts. As this "laying on of hands" is so much misunderstood, and has been made an act by which authority, power and blessing is claimed to be conferred, we must say a brief word on it. It is always proper in reading and interpreting the Word of God, to see if not elsewhere in the bible the terms or things to be interpreted are used, so that through them the right meaning can be ascertained. The laying on of hands is first mentioned in the Book of Leviticus. In the opening chapters of that book we read how the offerer was to lay his hand upon the head of the offering. Thus we read of the Peace offering: "He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering" (Lev. iii:2). This meant the identification of the Israelite with the offering itself. And this is the only meaning of the laying on of hands from the side of the Apostles. They identified themselves and the assembly with them in their work for which they had been chosen. It was a very simple and appropriate act to show their fellowship with them. All else which has been made of the laying on of hands is an invention. There is no Scripture for the present day usage in Christendom, that a man in order to preach the Gospel or teach the Word of God must be "ordained." ⁽⁷⁾

           The act of "laying on of hands" was merely a cultural oriental practice in which one would show his identification with or approval of the person on which he placed his hand. It was not used to "set apart to the sacred office in the church" or to "put their honor upon those chosen to the same responsible and dignified position" as Unger's Bible Dictionary states.⁽⁸⁾ The present day use of "ordination" comes from the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches and should not be confused with the what the early church practiced. After our church elects its officers each year we have special prayer and install them in their duties. This is completely in line with the biblical example.

           In closing, I can find no biblical precedent for a church to misuse or misapply the ministry of specially appointed servants (deacons) in the local church as many churches are doing today. I believe we must follow the biblical example literally and add nothing to it or take anything away from it. A godly servant, who serves his fellow believers faithfully, is an asset to any local church and brings honor to the Lord. A pastor and the church must be careful in setting the position within the biblical example and make sure that it is never changed.

           It might be well to suggest that the idea of deacons having a leadership role in the churches came from Roman Catholicism and was carried over into the Protestant churches and copied by some Baptists without thoroughly investigating the matter in the New Testament. For example it is interesting to read in Augustus H. Strong's, Systematic Theology, such statements as, "The number of offices in the church is two: -first the office of bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and secondly, the office of deacon."⁽⁹⁾ In numerous pages following, which address the "officers" of the church and their duties, it is well to note that Strong never gives even one Scriptural reference for his conclusion of deacons being "officers" in the church. I conclude the reason is there is no Scriptural reference available.

           Elmer Towns, in his textbook, Theology for Today , also concludes there is an "office" of a deacon by using Philippians 1:1, in which Paul addresses the Epistle to "To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons." He further says "Because these are the only two that are identified with the title office, most churches conclude these are the only New Testament offices in the church."⁽¹⁰⁾

           First, concluding that in Philippians 1:1, Paul only addresses the bishops and servants (deacons) and this establishes the authority of a deacon is a weak point. If you correctly translate the sentence as "To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and servants" the problem goes away. There is nothing in this verse to suggest that Paul was recognizing any other than the pastors and all the servants in the church at Philippi. You must go elsewhere to establish this if it is true. Towns refers to 1 Timothy 3:1 and 3:11 as using the word "office" of a bishops and deacon respectfully. He fails to note that the word translated into the English noun, "office" and the verb "use" are not in any Greek text. The phrase translated in our English Bibles, "use the office" is one word in the Greek, which is a verb and is literally translated "ministry or service of a servant." Thus, he, as well as many others are basing their conclusions of there being an "office" of a deacon on a faulty and misleading translation of the Greek text.

           Chafer, in his Systematic Theology, refers to the position of a deacon also as being an office, but correctly concludes that they, "seem to have been concerned with the offices of comfort and charity rather than with those of oversight."⁽¹¹⁾ Thus he seems to understand the word "office" as being an assigned task and not a official church office.

           A simple substitution of the word "ministry" for "offices" in his statement would bring it in line with the New Testament Greek text. I believe the case can be made that the reason many Baptists have accepted the idea of an "office" of a deacon is because they accepted what they were taught without a thorough investigation of the matter in the New Testament. In studying this matter I have read the conclusions of dozens of commentators. One thing I find common to those who teach thee "office of a deacon" idea is that they take a eisegetical approach in arriving at their conclusions. First they seem to begin with the assumption there is an "office" and then base their comments on this conjecture.

           Second, they do not give any references to establish their presumption exegetically. (Eisegesis means reading a meaning into Scripture. Exegesis means taking the meaning from the text) Some may not agree with my position and choose to use the "deacon board" or a modified Presbyterian approach in their churches. They should understand that it is God Himself who established church polity and no man or assembly has the right to change it from what God established. This issue is a matter of conviction which came from many years of study of the matter. I do not make this as a matter to break or base fellowship with other men. Many men whom I deeply respect do not hold to the unbiblical position. I would encourage them to take the time and study the matter thoroughly and follow the example of the Bereans. "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). However, I feel that I must, in good conscience before the Lord, follow the dictates of my conscience and the New Testament example. By taking this course I am acknowledging that the Head of the congregation that I pastor is the Lord Jesus Christ who died for it (Eph. 5:25). He is the Chief Shepherd. The local assembly belongs to Him and I am but His overseer and under-shepherd. Neither I, nor anyone else, has any authority to change in any way the church that He founded and built His assembly, and I must faithfully follow the strict example of the New Testament. I must not just blindly accept tradition or what many practice, but "Study to show myself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 3:15) and ". . . let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another" (Gal. 6:4). God will not and cannot bless error in any form, therefore a church with an unbiblical use of servants "deacons" cannot expect God's favor in this area.

*(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God.)

End Notes:

1. Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Merrill F. Unger and William White, 1985, p443.
2. The New Testament, An Expanded Translation, Kenneth S. Wuest, William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1959, p494.
3. The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, George V. Wigram, Baker Book House, 1979, p145.
4. Ryrie Study Bible, Charles C. Ryrie, Moody Press, Chicago, 1978, p1548.
5. Ibid, p1711.
6. Ibid, p1617.
7. The Acts of the Apostles, A.C. Gaebelein, Publication Office "Our Hope", New York City, 1912, p121.
8. The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Merrill F. Unger, Moody Press, Chicago, 1988, p534.
9. Systemic Theology, A. H. Strong, Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1907, p914.
10. Theology for Today, Elmer Towns, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, 1994, p492.
11. Systematic Theology, Vol. IV, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dallas Seminary Press, Dallas, Texas, 1948, p152.

*All Rights Reserved. The author grants copying for individual personal use only. This document must not be: 1. Distributed in multiple copies without my permission. 2. It must not be sold. Permission to republish is readily offered if I am contacted. Thank you.

RETURN TO BIBLE TRUTH HOME PAGE
SEND E-MAIL/COMMENTS/FEEDBACK