Ch. 16 is the closing. I want to encourage you to actually read all the names and read it so as to hear what is said about each one. I probably did not need to tell you that...but I have sped through the names for years, because they did not mean much to me. However, they are included here...under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...so we may gain from them.
In vv.1-2 we are introduced to Phoebe. These verses are sometimes used to say that we should have women serve as deacons (since the word "servant" is the Greek- diakonis: where we derive the transliteration "deacon" in the English). The translators were correct in not calling her a deaconness here. The term Deacon is a reference to an Office, and the Office is restricted to qualified men (1 Tim 3, et al.) Paul articulated the qualification of being male...so it is not consistent to say here that Paul changed that. While we as humans may make errors, God does not. To believe here that Paul is affirming women serving in the Office of Deacon, would be to say that the Scripture errs elsewhere. This cannot be so. Therefore, the translators were correct here. (I needed to get that out of the way...or else we might miss the point.)
In vv.1-16, many names appear. Paul lists each of these people by name for a reason. For the most part, you have never heard of these people...but they gained the attention of Paul (and the Holy Spirit) in such a way that they are included in the Scripture. What is the characteristic they all have in common?
They were all faithful servants/followers of Christ. They are not the only names that Paul knew...they were just unique in that their lives stood out enough to gain mention in the Bible. When I read this, I wonder: "Would my name ever appear? Have I lived an example worth noting and preserving for eternity?"
vv.17-20 is a warning from Paul to be aware of those in their midst who cause dissension. Paul says that they are not followers of Christ. These people will surface because the church at Rome had gained a reputation as being a committed people of God (v.19). Remember, Paul has never been here, so he does not know of these dissension-causing people personally...he only knows that they will come because God is at work in the church. We would do well to remember: Wherever God is at work, satan is not far behind trying to detour, distract, and defeat it. But: v.20, God will triumph.
Paul's traveling party now get mentioned, including Timothy, Tertius (Paul's secretary {v.22}) and others.
Vv. 25-27 contain the closing words of praise (doxology). Praise to the God who saves and uses the preaching and witness of men as an instrument of reconciliation!
Proverbs 23:4-5 is the takeaway today. "Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, cease from your consideration of it. When you set your eyes on it, it is gone. For wealth certainly makes itself wings like an eagle that flies toward the heavens."
In this proverb, we are reminded to keep our priorities on the Lord. One who sets a goal to become satisfied with that which can never satisfy...is always disappointed. The writer is not saying to not be ambitious or hard-working; rather, he is saying to serve God and pursue Him over those things which fade away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
well. . . I struggle with the whole "deacon" thing. First, the root word used in 1 Tim. is the very same root word in Rom 16. And the word "office" does not exist in the Greek. Only the verb tense of the word "Deacon" is present. So actually it says-- those who would "deacon" or those who would "serve" should fit these qualifications. I understand the qualification of being the husband of one wife but was that a cultural issue cause Paul also said that women should be quite in church and learn from their husbands? Why do we not apply that today? I know this is not the point of this study but I can't help but wonder if we have read our on church culture into these texts. I wonder what it meant in the original content. I tend to think these Deacons or servants were just church leaders such as house church leaders who were under the authority of Paul but were seen in the public as being "church leaders". Ok, I know this is not a Baptist way of reading this but. . . I just struggle with this as it does not seem to jive.
Mr Myster :)...
I thought someone would come out of the closet over this one.
First to consider is the fact that in 1 Timothy 3:8, 12)...the word deacon is a noun and not a verb as it relates to the qualification.
True...the word office does not exist in 1 Timothy, but Paul did write to the overseers and deacons in Phil 1...indicating from the two passages that there was some recognition for individuals who were set apart to serve (i.e. an office). In fact, the qualities listed and the examination required indicate that there was something unique about those who would serve/(deacon) in 1 Timothy. If you couple that with the account in Acts 6, with the laying on of hands, you can very reasonably conclude that there was some conferring and recognizing of authority for those the Apostles appointed to oversee the serving "deaconing" ministry.
True, there is a verbal form of serve which comes from the same root. I think this is your reference in 1 Tim 3.10. If you read it in context though:
Deacons (Noun)...must be men(3:8) [possessing certain qualities] then...let them serve/deacon (present tense verb)(3:10). In the original language (as well as for us who read English, this is no stranger than saying that a Pastor should shepherd (same structure in the Greek) or a Preacher must preach (English).
As for a wife learning from her husband...I think this is perfect for today...but, of course, I do not believe they are to remain silent in church-- that seems more cultural than anything. (I have a strong complementarian view of manhood and womanhood.)
I understand your way of reading the text with these servants being house church leaders...but I don't find any support in the text. Beyond being baptist or not... which is not the issue for me... there should be a compelling reason to dismiss what is the simplest interpretation (perspicuity) based on the language. My speculations, based on a relatively modern perspective on equality of women (in role/function) should not warrant changing what is pretty clear in the text.
Thanks for the interraction. You know I love this!
Although this is the way I have always heard it explained, I am still not completely convinced we have not read into the text. The point is-- if you have recognized leaders in the church, they should well represent the name of Christ. Acts 6 could be seen as a one time event. There was a specific need so men were selected specifically to represent the Church for that task. There is no clear connections in the text between Rom. 16, 1 Tim. and Acts 6. Personlly, and this is where I can get in trouble, I do not believe in the "office of Deacon" as we interpret it. Many people serve in the church today in areas in which we lower the expectaions and qualifications than that of the "office of deacon". If we see all "leaders" of the church in the context of Rom. 16 and 1 Tim, the bar would be raised as it relates to ALL those serving the church as Leaders and are in the public eye. From my perspective, I think much of the "structure" of the New Testament church is not clear intentionally. As I have been known to say-- it is about function not form. from my observation, the use or misuses of the "office of deacon" has done more to harm the effectiveness of churches than almost any other single issue. From my perspective, it stems from the incorrect interpretation of the text. But. . . since it is not explicitly clear in the text, I am not dogmatic so I can go along with the correct use of the "office" of deacon. ok, moving on now. . . .
strikes again,
We just disagree...and that is ok. Keep some "accepted" interpretive principles in mind when thinking through the issue. The best way to understand Acts 6 is how those closest to the event in the church understood it. Apparently, from the implementation of the recognition of "deacons" after Acts 6...we can say that those closest to the situation saw it as more PRESCRIPTIVE than DESCRIPTIVE. Do churches have to have deacons? No. But it is certainly a biblical approach to emply them as leaders in serving within the church.
A connection between Romans 16, 1 Tim 3, and Acts 6...Sure there is. It is the word Deacon and the concept of their service. If you don't see a connection...then I think you may be overlooking the obvious.
Has misues of the office of deacon ever created issues int he church? Man yea! I started a church in NY and said I would not get deacons until I had a widow and orphan problem. The issue was not the office for me...but the mean old buzzards I had met in my life who were also deacons. The same could be said for pastors and Christians in general.
As I close and move on with you...let me say two things. First, the standards for serving as a deacon are not higher than for others. Think of the standards as characteristics, not some qualifications for super servants to meet. Those possessing these characteristics have progressed in their "journey" to a point where these characteristics are evident to others.
Second, I know it is not too cool today in a "post modern" world to accept that we may have been doing it right as Christians for years. It may be, as has been suggested, that we are reading our culture back into the text. This is always a danger. But, I would ask...where did our cultural understanding come from? I suggest that it came from nearly 2000 years of common practice in the church. Perhaps, in this case, our church practice came from a biblical principle as opposed to having an idea as a church and reading back into the bible for a proof text.
Thanks for posting.
Post a Comment