A brother in Christ, James Kip Farrar, has stepped up to disagree with my study disproving the mistaken notion that "the office of deacon" is a biblical teaching (though without linking directly to it in his rebuttal article). I thank him for obviously putting forth significant effort to address the matter, with admirable tone and equanimity. Let us endeavor to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace even when we disagree on secondary matters such as this. My review of his article follows.
Brother James bases part of his case in favor of the biblical teaching of the existence of the so-called "office of deacon" on Acts 6, in which he contends that the setting apart of the seven to serve tables "has all of the signs of ordination". Yet "ordination" is another extrabiblical idea imposed on the text of Scripture. I would like to see an argument in favor of his ideas that ordination is a thing and a biblical exegetical case made indicating how one gets ordained, by whom, based on what qualifications, for what reason, and unto what purpose. For example, such an argument would need to show, not assume, that the laying on of hands ("in verse 6 the Apostles pray and lay their hands on the men to commission them for the fulfillment of this task") is part of that ordination. Until then, it is a leaky bucket under another leaky bucket.
Brother James continues (in italics):
There are qualifications for these men that, like the qualifications for overseers and deacons in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, relate more to virtuous character than technical and administrative skills of those offices.
This statement gets us off to a bad start, begging the question that these passages have "deacons" in mind.
These men are then given authority to fulfill this duty by the Apostles.
Where is authority mentioned in the Acts 6 passage? These guys were supposed to get down and do some dirty work. No real authority to do anything like that. By the way, as I mention in my article, they are never described in action of doing said dirty work; rather, we see two of these Acts 6 men (Stephen and Philip ["the Evangelist"]) appear later in Acts, and what they are doing is preaching the Gospel, causing a general ruckus, healing people, and hosting traveling missionaries.
The act of the laying on of hands is one that, in Scripture, is always done in order to set someone apart to a particular ministry.
This is not the case. Consider the following counter-examples:
Acts 8:17-18 - Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands...
1 Timothy 4:14 - Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the older men.
2 Timothy 1:6 - For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
Here we see the Holy Spirit, and a gift (not an office or "particular ministry") given through laying on of hands. Any argument thus based on this contention "always done in order to set someone apart to a particular ministry" fails for that reason. Another argument in support is needed.
It is rather unlikely that so much ceremony would have gone into choosing men if all that they were going to do was wait on tables. If that’s the case, what did they do for the people who swept the floors?
What ceremony in Acts 6, let alone enough that would make us think it was "so much"? Where is it in the text?
As long as we are speculating, why not speculate that "serving tables" included all manner of menial tasks that needed doing?
And Acts 6 doesn't say that sweeping floors was being neglected; it says that certain widows were being neglected. Thus some men were set apart to take care of fulfilling with integrity a certain task whose neglect had led to roots of bitterness starting to creep into the people of God. It's easy to see why the apostles took such a thing seriously. A temporary need, to be temporarily filled by some guys who needed to not be thieves or grifters.
one wonders why, then, decades later, after years of evangelistic ministry, Philip is still known in Acts 21:8 as, ‘one of the seven.’
On its surface, this can appear to be a point worth considering, but can we say that the evidence is ironclad that he was known that way by the people at large? Why not rather suggest that Luke referred to him that way in the narrative retelling so that we don't confuse him with, say, the apostle Philip or someone else, since "Philip" was a popular Greek name?
It is often argued that the term ‘deacon’ is a fabrication of early English translators of the Bible
I'm not sure how often that is argued. Seems to me the existence of the office of deacon is far more often assumed to be the case rather than my own position.
Words have a semantical range (a range of meanings), and the meaning of a word from among its semantical range in a particular usage is determined by the context in which it is used.
Precisely. The context must indicate a need to translate a given word differently than what the word usually means and how it is most commonly used. Part of my argument is that no contextual requirement arises in any of the examples of "diakonos" in the New Testament.
The same is the true of the word 'deacon'.
What Brother James is missing is that there has to be a reason to have invented "deacon" that does not involve creating the word and then imposing it in retrospect on the text. We have not seen an exegetical reason to do so.
In the New Testament, context drives when the word diakonos is translated ‘deacon’ verses when it is translated ‘servant.’
To substantiate this contention, Brother James needs to show where "servant" or "minister" would not be a suitable translation whereas "deacon" would be. I don't think he can do so.
The passages in which the context most clearly speaks of the office of deacon include 1 Timothy 3:8ff. and Philippians 1:1
Both passages I dealt with at length in my article; I see no interaction from Brother James with my ideas expressed therein and so I see no need for further comment.
19 centuries of Church tradition
Appealing to "Church tradition" is highly, highly problematic. There is no reason for confidence that we in modern times, so far removed from the context in which these teachers of "Church tradition" lived, taught, and wrote, have sufficient understanding of their writings. Here are some challenges to hubristic overestimation of what can be gleaned for our use today from their extant writings:
You don't know that what these guys said is what most Christians of their time believed.
You don't know how many Christians of their time would have agreed.
You don't know how what they wrote was received by other churches. Any mere claims to "we believe thus" are not necessarily true. Not without proof, and more proof than their say-so.
You don't know whether they were held in the highest respect by their contemporaries. Maybe you're reading the Charles Stanley of their time - not really all that bad in certain ways, but pretty bad in others, and quite shallow compared to other people, most of the time. Maybe you're reading Joseph Prince, a lesser-known heretic. It could be anyone. Point is, you don't know (and neither do I).
You don't know whether you have all their writings.
You don't even know what percentage their today-extant writings constitute of the total things they wrote over their lifetime.
Thus you don't know if they ever took it all, or part of it, back, in a book or letter that has since not (yet) become widely known to have been recovered.
You don't know whether what they said in public or in private teachings actually comports with the extant writings you have.
You don't know whether the names we usually assign to these writings are correct. In the case of writings where the name is included in the text, you don't know whether it's pseudonymous.
These are just some of the challenges that must arise when critically assessing how much we can learn from these writings. It is of course acceptable to say "this is what we have to work with, and when I cite, say, Chrysostom, it's generally assumed I am referring to his extant writings." Yes, quite so, that's fine, as long as the discussion in which you cite them centers around "What do Chrysostom's extant writings say?" and do not ascribe too much authority or certainty that you have good answers to the above challenges. Because, let's face it - you do not.
The Epistle of Clement of Rome (c.95 A.D.), Chapter 42
Since this Epistle was written in Greek, Brother James still has all his work in front of him to give us a reason to translate "diakonos" in 1st Clement as "deacon".
“judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses.”
Are we to believe that a man who ordered the torture of two Christian women to faithfully represent Christian doctrine at the time?
“And those likewise who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must please all men in all ways. For they are not deacons of meats and drinks but servants of the Church of God."
I am sorry, but I have no idea how any translator thought it was a good idea to force "deacon" into this text. It doesn't make much of any sense in English, whereas "servant" would make quite a lot of sense.
Ignatius mentions Deacons as the office
Where is that assertion substantiated from the text of Ignatius' epistle? I don't see it.
“In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church.”
Isn't it much, much more in the spirit of the New Testament to think not of respecting deacons, men who fill some office, as Jesus Christ, but rather to respect servants as Jesus Christ?
Luke 22:24-27 - And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves."
Guess which word is translated in this passage as "serve"? Diakoneo!
Philippians 2:5-8 - Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
1 Peter 5:5 - all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Where the author (possibly Ignatius, possibly not) proposes that "not even the name of a church" is found where there is no deacon nor bishop nor presbyter nor college of Apostles... what then would he have made of the church in Acts 5 before there were deacons? What of the church(es) Barnabas planted in Antioch in Acts 11:19-25, as he appointed no overseers at that time but rather quit the city to look for Paul? What of the church(es) of Pisidian Antioch when Paul and Barnabas were driven out after only a week of preaching in Acts 13:44-52? What of the converts in Athens in Acts 17:32-18:1, as Paul did not stay to train up any deacons, let alone overseers? What of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? What of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and other Reformers? What of the millions of persecuted Christians in modern times? Would "Ignatius" claim there is "not even the name of a church" in those contexts? Would Brother James claim such?
To cite this as a positive example of one's doctrine of the office of deacon is actually pretty disgusting.
Shepherd of Hermas: Hear now with regard to the stones which are in the building. Those square white stones which fitted exactly into each other, are apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons
Is "teacher" now an office, that it should be mentioned alongside "deacon"?
Why not translate this as "servant"?
Irenaeus is a noteworthy witness. His particular theological pedigree can be traced through Polycarp
That being the case...
So, likewise, he was an old man for old men … Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher... those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information... Some of them [i.e., those who teach this], moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6)
Ireneaus said it. We should believe it, yes?
According to Irenaeus, Stephen (the first of the seven) was chosen to be the first deacon
Someone repeating the same error 18 centuries ago does not make it any more true than someone repeating it 18 seconds ago.
For example the Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in 380’s A.D.
Insofar as Latin is able to make a distinction between "servant" and "deacon", I would make the same challenges toward Jerome or another translator into any other language. This is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum.
is an indispensable part of healthy Churches today
It is probably fitting that Brother James caps off his article that is full of unsupported assertions with an assertion he did not even bother to try to substantiate in the article. Add to that the fact that while he attempted to prove that "deacon" is a word that should be used, we have not seen any exegetical defense of the concept that it is an office (as in "the office of deacon").
It is far from clear to me that the office of deacon is indispensable, or even useful. I would suggest that the negative consequences of accepting the concept of "the office of deacon" include the fact that, like the office of "pastor" or "overseer", it creates different tiers, or castes, of Christians within the Body of Christ. Related to that, it can lull and assuage the consciences of some to see less of a need to work hard and sacrifice for the kingdom of God. The role of the deacon is often seen as one who concentrates on making sure that the church building remains in good shape, which in turn feeds pastor power complexes, which in turn makes people feel like it is justified to be among a congregation of more than approximately 100 people. In many cases, the board of deacons constitutes a governmental body within the congregation (there's your caste system again), and often that governmental body competes for power with the "elders" and/or the head pastor. These are just the facts, and they are what one would expect to see when people entertain unbiblical ideas without examining them faithfully in light of Scripture. Sometimes God lets us taste the consequences of our unwise actions.
Let us move forward in this light to a more biblical church structure, thus casting off all related encumbrances.