1 Tim 3:11: Women Deacons, Christian Women or Deacons’ Wives

[NoelFitz]

8 Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; 9 they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. 11 Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; 13 for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus (NRSV, 1 Tim 3:8-13).

The verse about women seems to be artificially dropped in between two verses about deacons. Also the qualifications of *women *and deacons are very similar, both having as the principal point the need to be serious. This is emphasized by the word likewise.

Does the word “women” refer to women deacons, all Christian women or wives of male deacons?

Commentaries seem to ignore the second option. Could it have been that the author of 1 Tim (Paul) having said that deacons should be serious wanted to make the point that all Christian women should be serious, as they play a vital role in the Church in educating children, which lay men do not do?

I have looked at about 30 translations of 1 Tim 3:11 and about half give wives (see appendix). However women deacons (as Phoebe) might be considered, as is done in some commentaries, if not in translations.

The footnote in the New American Bible gives:

[11] Women: this seems to refer to women deacons but may possibly mean wives of deacons. The former is preferred because the word is used absolutely; if deacons’ wives were meant, a possessive “their” would be expected. Moreover, they are also introduced by the word “similarly,” as in 1 Tim 3:8; this parallel suggests that they too exercised ecclesiastical functions.

I see in ccc-nl.org/mn/On_the_Issue_of_Women_Deacons.pdf:

After addressing these issues, Paul begins to address the qualifications of the Deacons’ Wives. This is the crux of the issue as it relates to understanding what God has instructed. The Greek word here is gune, which can be translated either as “woman” or “wife” (1 Tim 3:11). The context is what determines the usage… Again, it is understood that there are great scholars on both sides, but the majority of scholars believe the evidence is most consistent as setting forth the qualification for the “wives” of the deacons.

Towner in his excellent book, The Letters to Timothy and Titus *(Eerdmans, 2006, p 265) *, notes:

Rather abruptly the focus shifts momentarily from male deacons to “the women [who are deacons].”

Please give me your opinion on this verse. At this stage I would prefer not to say where I stand, as this might bias the discussion.

Thanks.

**Appendix **

NIV 1 Timothy 3:11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

ESV 1 Timothy 3:11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.

CJB 1 Timothy 3:11 Similarly, the wives must be of good character, not gossips, but temperate, faithful in everything.

CSB 1 Timothy 3:11 Wives, too, must be worthy of respect, not slanderers, self-controlled, faithful in everything.

GNV 1 Timothy 3:11 Likewise their wiues must be honest, not euill speakers, but sober, and faithfull in all things.

GWN 1 Timothy 3:11 Their wives must also be of good character. They must not be gossips, but they must control their tempers and be trustworthy in every way.

KJG 1 Timothy 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

KJV 1 Timothy 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

MIT 1 Timothy 3:11 By the same standard, their wives must be of good character, not accusers, free from addictions so as to think clearly, being faithful in everything.

MRD 1 Timothy 3:11 So also should the wives be chaste and of vigilant minds; and they should be faithful in all things; and they should not be slanderers.

NET 1 Timothy 3:11 Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.

NIB 1 Timothy 3:11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

NIRV 1 Timothy 3:11 In the same way, their wives must be worthy of respect. They must not say things that harm others. In anything they do, they must not go too far. They must be worthy of trust in everything.

NKJ 1 Timothy 3:11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
(1Ti 3:11 NKJ)

NLT 1 Timothy 3:11 In the same way, their wives must be respected and must not slander others. They must exercise self-control and be faithful in everything they do.

PNT 1 Timothy 3:11 Euen so must their wyues be graue, not euyll speakers, sober, faythfull in all thynges.

RWB 1 Timothy 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober minded, faithful in all things.

TNT 1 Timothy 3:11 Even so must their wynes be honest not evyll speakers: but sober and faythfull in all thinges.

WEB 1 Timothy 3:11 Even so {must their} wives {be} grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

 

[Hope3]

The DRV: “11 The women in like manner chaste, not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things.”

This seems to me to be a reference to deacons’ wives. It would not make sense otherwise to be placed in that “context” with all of the other qualifications for male deacons. It would not do for a deacon to have a “loose cannon” for a wife!

However, Haydock’s Commentary:

Ver. 11. Women, &c. By the Greek again, sober, grave, &c. By these women are commonly understood such as had made a vow of not marrying, and who assisted at the baptism of women; (Witham) i.e. deaconesses, who were women charged with the assistance, and sometimes with the instruction, of persons of their own sex. (Bible de Vence) — Not given to detraction,[5] or calumnies, as in the Greek. A necessary admonition. (Witham)

This DRV reference sheds more “light” on the subject of “women” in church “ministry”:

DRV Romans 16:1-3 “AND I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae: 2 That you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints; and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also. 3 Salute Prisca and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus,”

I “think” that the proper translation is the DRV which calls these women “assisters” in the “ministry” rather than “deaconesses.” The Greek word “diakonos” can be translated either as “deacon” or as “servant.” Servant seems more appropriate when I Timothy 3:11 is compared with Romans 16:1-3 since only men can take Holy Orders.

The **Navarre Commentary **states that in the 4th century, a reference is made in the Constitutiones apostolicae, 2, 26; 3, 15 that some women helped in the instruction of catechumens prior to baptism, looked after the sick and performed other types of service.

I agree with the author of On the Issue of Women Deacons.

 

[NoelFitz]

Hope3

Thank you for your perceptive reply.

Haydock, although it is venerable and respected in the US, gives a view that has no justification.

However “assister” is a good translation, not “a sister”. I think the translations of EPISKOPOS, PRESBUTEROS and DIAKONOS should be overseer, elder and assistant, as bishop, priest and deacon have modern overtones, even if not intended.

The Navarre Bible is excellent and should be treated with respect, as should the tradition of the Church. However I do not think there is a ruling on this verse and we, as Catholics, are free to hold any opinion. I think the NAB view is within Catholic teaching. But I can see why so many in CA would be upset with this translation.

My own view would be that GUNH refers to a Christian woman, but this view has not been proposed before (as far as I know) , and without support I would not advocate it.

There really is no evidence that woman (GUNH) refers to a deacon’s wife. Thus I prefer the translation of GUNH as woman, without clarifying whether this is a deacon/deaconess/minister/assistant/assister, a deacon’s wife or a Christian woman. There is not sufficient evidence to say what Paul really had in mind.

I would like other views.

γυνή , αικός f woman, wife (Greek-English Dictionary of the NT)

1135 γυνή [gune /goo•nay/] n f. Probably from the base of 1096; TDNT 1:776; TDNTA 134; GK 1222; 221 occurrences; AV translates as “women” 129 times, and “wife” 92 times. 1 a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow. 2 a wife. 2A of a betrothed woman (Strong Enhanced)

1222 γυνή (gynē), αικός (aikos), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ DBLHebr 851; Str 1135; TDNT 1.776—1. LN 9.34 woman, adult female (Ac 22:4; Jn 8:3, 4, 9, 10 v.r.); 2. LN 10.54 wife (Mt 5:31; Mt 19:29 v.r.); 3. LN 34.70 γυναικὸς ἅπτομαι (gynaikos haptomai), marry, formally, touch a woman (1Co 7:1+) (Dict of Bibl Languages with Semantic Domains)

 

[NoelFitz]

There have not been many replies to this theme. At times I think I would prefer to be attacked and have people vociferously disagreeing with me than to be ignored. But not often, as respectful replies or no replies are preferable.

I have been thinking about this discussion and the excellent reply I got all day.

On balance I think GUNH refers to a deacon’s wife. I admit that the preferable translation is to use woman for GUNH, as this leaves the question open. But I am becoming more convinced Paul had deacons’ wives in mind when he wrote this verse.

I do admit that the person who principally participated in the Eucharist was the head of the House Church, usually the male householder, but not always so. For instance in Philippi Lydia was the head of her household.

 

[bengland]

I went to look this up today as I had time, and checked various commentaries. The results were mainly inconclusive except for the notion that some women appeared to serve in some recognized role as deaconess. Generally the commentaries suggested that the term for deacon was used in two contexts. One as a general servant, and the other in some ministerial role, and the suggestion for the women did suggest some sort of ministerial role, although not liturgical. Everything I read seemed to agree with the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article here >> newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

More interesting to me, and why I didn’t respond earlier was that the notes from some sources used identical language.

 

[NoelFitz]

Bengland

Thank you so much for spending time in researching my problem.

I agree with you .

As New Advent, recommended by you, has:

We cannot be sure that any formal recognition of deaconesses as an institution of consecrated women aiding the clergy is to be found in the New Testament.

Very often people interpret scripture according to their agendas. There is a movement to have women formally as ministers. This verse, 1 Tim 3:11, does not really support this view.

We all agree that women have served in a general and generous way in the Church throughout history, mostly with little thanks.

In fact I am against the office of permanent deacons, as I believe it will discourage ordinary lay men and women helping out in parishes.

 

[Hope3]

In fact I am against the office of permanent deacons, as I believe it will discourage ordinary lay men and women helping out in parishes.

I think that deacons will be especially needed during the religious “persecution” coming upon us in order to help us receive the sacraments so I will have to disagree with you.

There is a never-ending list of things that need “doing” in a parish and these things can be done by lay men and women if they have a heart for service to God instead of wanting prestige for themselves. [Mark 12:38-39, Luke 14:7-10] Jesus set up His Church as a hierarchy and I think that perhaps the “office of deacon” will become more important as time goes on.

 

[NoelFitz]

Hope3

Thank you for your reply.

As I said before I like to get feedback and one knows that being controversial encourages discussion, even if at times one may overstate one’s position to bring home a point of view…

We do not have permanent deacons in Ireland, but there is talk about having them.

Previously in CA I discussed deacons in the NT and the Apostolic Fathers. You might like to look at these. In Acts 6:1-6 the role of deacons is outlined, although the word deacon is not used.

6 Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. 2 And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.a 3 Therefore, friends,b select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task, 4 while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.” 5 What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 They had these men stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ac 6:1-6.

It seems to me that all the duties of deacons could be done by any lay person. Here in Ireland we have extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, men and women, married and single, who distribute communion in Churches and to the sick outside the Churches. Lay folk act as readers, prepare people for the sacraments, participate in evangelization through membership of the Legion of Mary, other groups and privately. It is suggested that they might lead the rite of burying the dead. They are the ministers at marriages and can baptize. I cannot think of much an ordinary lay person cannot do that a deacon can. These lay folk, whether officially as parish assistants or not, will play more and more vital roles in the Church, unless they are discouraged by the presence of permanent deacons, who have marriage and gender restrictions.

I see in deacons.net/Articles/The_Role_of_the_Permanent_Deacon.htm.

Ministry

Permanent deacons can be found ministering to sick, among widows and orphans, serving immigrants and exiles, serving abused children, the aged, single parents, the handicapped, the divorced, alcohol and drug addicts, the homeless, prisoners, refugees, the poor, the street people, victims of racial and ethnic discrimination, etc.

As well as these duties, there are liturgical activities which include proclaiming the Gospel, preaching, voicing the needs of the people in the general intercessions, assisting in the presentation of the gifts and distribution of communion.

The deacon also solemnly baptises, brings Viaticum to the dying, is an official witness of the Church at marriages, officiates at funerals and burial services, gives Benediction with the monstrance or ciborium, and guides and administers the community when no priest is resident.

In the USA, this last mentioned function has been one which has been receiving increased attention as the permanent diaconate has matured; that is, to promote and sustain the apostolic activities of the lay faithful.

With the exception of celebrating Mass, absolving sins and anointing the sick, all of which are reserved to priests, deacons are given authority by the bishop, with consent of the pastors with whom they minister, for a full range of liturgical functions which sometimes may appear indistinguishable from those of the priests.

However, the primary task of the deacon is to be a promoter and motivator of the laity to become increasingly involved in the mission of the Church.

The only roles a lay person cannot do is blessing with the monstrance. However lay people could lead prayers during exposition.

Thus there seems to me to be no need for a deaconite, which could be divisive.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

NoelFitz:

In fact I am against the office of permanent deacons, as I believe it will discourage ordinary lay men and women helping out in parishes.

I am against the idea myself, but for entirely different reasons! I believe “permanent” deacons should definitely be considered for the priesthood, if they are found worthy, and have not remarried, or divorced etc. IOW, they should be accepted as in the discipline of the Eastern Church. Furthermore, I believe the other minor orders should be revived. Lector, Acolyte, Porter, Canter and Exorcist. I strongly believe priests should actually serve in minor orders among the faithful before being ordained, rather than today’s artificial zipping through the minor orders in one year. That means I believe a Deacon would be “elected” from among the faithful in minor orders based on service, and ultimately might be called to the priesthood, not dropped off of their seminary conveyor belt onto some distant unsuspecting (yet needy) parish.

And isn’t the priesthood more truly a “calling” in this scenario? Not just an internal “sense” of a calling (which must be discerned by the Bishop himself -however he manages that) but an actual calling by the faithful (clergy and lay) to serve in a greater capacity based on trust and service.

This was the method of the early church for centuries, and I see no significant obstacle to its reinstatement, and in fact, I see it helping us now in our time of need more than the current system is doing.

 

[NoelFitz]

** AmbroseSJ,**

Thank you so much for a brilliant and thought-provoking post. It really reflects what your motto claims:.

“Catholicism does not oppress us with an irrational bigotry, prescribing to us the very minutest details of thought, so that a man can never have an opinion of his own.”
J. H. Newman

I gather from your post that you, like me, are in favor of married priests in the Latin rite. They already exist, but not in large numbers. I do not think people zip through minor orders, as they no longer exist.

I see you advocate going back to the procedures adopted in the early Church. This is a dangerous argument, as it may develop into academic discussions of ministry in the early Church, which would be controversial.

However I think your ideas are imaginative and deserve careful and prayerful consideration.

[Appendix

I note from Wikipedia (not the soundest of sources, but often the most readable):

The minor orders are the lowest ranks in the Christian clergy. The most recognized minor orders are porter, lector, exorcist, cantor and acolyte. In the Latin rite Catholic Church, the minor orders were in most cases replaced by “instituted” ministries of lector and acolyte, though extraordinary form of the Roman Rite communities continue to retain all four minor orders.

The minor orders were until 1972 a part of the clergy of the Latin rite Catholic Church.
Neither the minor orders nor the subdiaconate were a part of the sacrament of Holy Orders, but were instead viewed as preparatory offices. Although several medieval theologians regarded minor orders as sacramental, this view was abandoned, for the fundamental reason that neither minor orders nor the subdiaconate are of direct Divine institution.]

*PS I like your quote from Cardinal Newman, as I have been a members of the Newman Society of Ireland since its inception. *