Does the Bible prohibit women from serving as deacons?

Does the Bible prohibit women from being deacons?

No, the Bible does not prohibit women from being deacons in the church. However, many church pastors and leaders prohibit women from serving as deacons and there are a couple of arguments that they use in order to try to justify their position of prohibition in this area.

Number one: they will quote 1st Timothy 3:1-13 which says (NIV), "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer [pastor of a church congregation] he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to mange his own family, how can he take care of God's church?). He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect [the New Living translation translates this as...'in the same way deacons must be people who are respected and have integrity'], sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives [the NIV study Bible footnotes indicate that 'the Greek for this phrase simply means '"the women'" and therefore could reafer to (1) deacons' wives or (2) deaconesses'] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."

The argument that the prohibitionists give here in favor of their position, is that the scriptural text is written in the male gender and refers to a male role model and therefore is in no way referring to women. Then they conclude that since the scripture text does not refer to women that it is automatically prohibiting women from the office of deacon. The problem with this argument is that Paul, the apostle identified a woman named Phoebe as a deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Romans 16:2 reads (NIV), "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea [other translations, including the New Living Translation, translates the word 'servant' as 'deacon']. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me."

Yes, there's a pink elephant in the room...and her name is Phoebe. If it were against God's word or spiritually unseemly for a woman to be a deacon then it seems as if Paul would have rebuked Phoebe instead of uplifting her in her position as deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Mostly all theologians admit the there is no question that the text is saying that Phoebe was a deacon. You would think that that would be the end of the argument and the fact that Phoebe was a deacon supported in her position by a man who wrote two thirds of the New Testament would put to rest any erroneous belief that the Bible teaches that women cannot be deacons. But, unfortunately this is not the case. When presented with the rebuttal that Phoebe was a deacon and that Paul recognized her as such, many of the prohibitionists will quote the following scriptural text in an effort to justify their position (which is the number 2 argument):

"In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word. This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism." (Acts 6:1-6 NIV)

Those opposed to women being assigned to the office of deacon in the church will use the above scriptural text to try to minimize the office of deacon that Phoebe was appointed to. They will say that the seven men spoken of in Acts 6:1-6 were ordained as deacons whereas Phoebe was not. First of all, the text in Acts never identified these seven men as deacons, only as those in charge of the distribution of food. Secondly, the text alludes to the task of food distribution being somewhat of a mundane task, but the text that we read in Timothy describing the office of a deacon didn't seem mundane at all, which furthers the point that these seven men were not identified as deacons because there is a probability that they may not have been deacons, but food distributors, just as the text says.

Thirdly, to be ordained in an office of the church simply means to be established in that office by an overseer of the church. How can we say that Phoebe was not ordained as a deacon when Paul, the apostle, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, specifically pointed her out, established her in the church of Cenchrea as a deacon, and essentially told everyone to respect and honor her as such? How much more ordained can she get? Phoebe was no less ordained to carry out the office of deacon than those seven men were ordained to carry out the duty of food distribution (it is still questionable whether or not they were established as deacons, because the text doesn't say that they were). Fifthly, I believe that if seven women had been chosen to distribute the food instead of seven men, then the text would be taken for no more than what it is...seven people chosen to distribute food and nothing more.

Finally, making the argument that since only men were chosen for the task of the food distribution [which many would then therefore argue that these men were consequently serving as deacons], that this automatically prohibits women from serving as deacons [since there were no women who were chosen to distribute the food] would be like arguing that since all of the men chosen as food distributors ["deacons"] were Jews, then only Jews can serve as deacons. I think most of us would view that type of thinking as preposterous. Yet, when it comes to thinking this way about men...that only they can serve as deacons [since they were selected for food distribution]... well, many don't see this type of thinking as preposterous. Come to think of it...I wonder how many deacons in the church today distribute food as part of their service of being a deacon. Seems like if this particular text in Acts is going to be used to identify men as being the only ones qualified to serve as deacons then it would follow that the service described in the text should automatically be part of the duty of that office. Hummm.......