Roman Catholicism: The Veneration of Mary

Last week, I mentioned that the Roman Catholic Church insists that popes have only spoken infallibly twice in history: defining the dogmas of The Immaculate Conception of Mary and The Assumption of Mary. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is the idea that Mary herself was uniquely preserved from original sin at her birth and that she remained sinless her entire life (and don’t confuse Mary’s immaculate conception with the virgin birth of Jesus). This idea was made dogma in 1854. The Assumption of Mary, made dogma in 1950, is the idea that at the end of her life, Mary ascended bodily into heaven and was exalted as “Queen over all things.” Again, these are dogmas and therefore must be affirmed by all Roman Catholics – no debate allowed.

With this in mind, I would like to take a broad-lens view of what to me is one of the most disturbing aspects of Roman Catholicism: the extreme veneration of Mary. In fact, this veneration is so extreme that I cannot help but see it as idolatry. Now, the Roman Church itself claims that they do not worship Mary; they only venerate her with special devotion. But in reality, this is at best a distinction without a difference. Look at Roman Catholic art depicting Mary. Think of all the prayers and praise to Mary that you hear. How many people do you see wearing charms picturing Mary, placing decals of Mary on their vehicles, or featuring statues of Mary in house or yard? HaAt what point does “veneration” slip into worship?

Consider also the official teachings regarding Mary. According to The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  1. Mary is uniquely sinless in birth and life (491–493)
  2. “in [Mary], the Church is already the “all holy”” (829)
  3. She is the Mother of the Church (963)
  4. Mary joined herself to Jesus’s sacrifice (964)
  5. Mary was bodily taken up into heaven and exalted to be “Queen over all things” (966)
  6. “the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix [i.e., mediator]” (969)

The list could continue. But, reading through the sample of attributes above, does anyone else come to mind? Perhaps… Jesus Christ? This is the worst aspect of the Roman Church’s “extreme veneration” of Mary: they take the attributes of Jesus and apply them to Mary. Both are sinless, both are head of the Church and make it holy, both ascended bodily into heaven and were enthroned “over all things,” both are mediators to whom we should pray, etc. Over and over, attributes and praise that can only be given to Jesus are given to Mary. Roman Catholic objections aside, if all this does not amount to idolatry, what would?

I challenge you: go to the New Testament and read the passages that speak of Mary. Do they approach anything close to the Roman Church’s veneration of Mary? Not by a long shot. In fact, in the New Testament, we read of Mary’s presence in Acts 1, and then she immediately fades out of the narrative. No “extreme veneration,” no bodily assumption. Mary is blessed and unique among women, and an example for all of us. She is also equally in need of the grace and mercy that come only through her Lord and ours, Jesus Christ. May we never give to another what belongs only to Jesus.

Roman Catholicism: Papal Infallibility

The Roman Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope is often misunderstood by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. For that reason, it’s especially important for us to have a correct understanding of what the Roman Church actually teaches about papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility was not made an official dogma of the Roman Church until 1870, at the First Vatican Council (a.k.a., Vatican I). Before 1870, many Roman Catholics did believe that the pope possessed some level of infallibility; however – and importantly – many Roman Catholics did not believe in papal infallibility. Before papal infallibility was defined dogmatically, debate and disagreement on the topic was allowed within the Roman Church. After 1870, however, to be a Roman Catholic one must necessarily affirm papal infallibility. The decision to affirm papal infallibility was met with intense debate within the Roman Church, and there were many Roman Catholics who disagreed so strongly with the dogma adopted in 1870 that they split from the Roman Catholic Church and formed what is called the Old Catholic Church.

The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on papal infallibility is found in The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. The most important statement is the following:

“we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema” (translation from Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 2, 270–271)

Things to note from this statement: First, it is dogma and to disagree with it is to be anathema (i.e., cursed / excommunicated). Second, when a pope speaks infallibly, he does so from his own authority, does not need approval from a council, and cannot be second-guessed or corrected. But third, the pope’s infallibility is not universal. The pope saying “Pepsi is better than Dr. Pepper” is not an infallible statement, nor are any off-the-cuff remarks. The pope is infallible only when 1) he is deliberately speaking from his authoritative position and 2) he is defining a doctrine related to faith or morals that is applicable to the whole Church.

The claim of the Roman Church, even with the limitations in mind, is quite bold (some would even say, audacious), but here’s where things get especially interesting: the Roman Church today actually downplays the dogma of papal infallibility. The plain reading of the text from Vatican I is that the pope is only and always infallible when the necessary conditions are met. But many of the authoritative statements of popes throughout history put the Roman Church in a very difficult, if not impossible position – one reason the Old Catholics broke away from Rome. The Roman Church knows this too, which is why they insist that popes have spoken infallibly only twice in history: the defining of the dogmas of The Immaculate Conception of Mary and The Assumption of Mary.

Roman Catholicism: Apostolic Succession and History

I would like to turn our attention for a little while to Roman Catholicism: first up, the claim of authority based on apostolic succession. A central claim of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is that the bishop of Rome (i.e., the pope) is the earthly, authoritative head of Christianity due to an unbroken line of Roman bishops going back to the apostle Peter. While this claim suffers from severe theological problems, what I would like to focus on here are the historical problems.

Here’s the truth: there is no record of a singular “bishop of Rome” until the mid-2nd century. In fact, the earliest mention of a monarchical (single-ruling) bishop of Rome is by Irenaeus around 180 AD. While the RCC officially argues otherwise, Roman Catholic academics will admit this is the truth of the matter. For example, the Jesuit Priest and theologian Francis A. Sullivan writes, “Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least part of the second century” (From Apostles to Bishops, viii).

What about our historical documents? The earliest Christian documents – the New Testament – know of no bishop of Rome. There is no reference to a bishop of Rome anywhere in the New Testament, not even in Paul’s letter to the Romans. There is also no mention of apostolic succession of any sort. Consider that for a moment: if apostolic succession and the bishop of Rome are critical to the very existence of the Church, why is there absolutely no mention of them in the Church’s founding documents? Why does Paul make no mention of a bishop of Rome or send him any greetings in his letter?

Not only does the New Testament know of no such thing as a bishop of Rome, but neither do our earliest post-New Testament writings. These writings are commonly collected together and referred to as “The Apostolic Fathers.” Reading through them, you will find a striking omission: no mention of a bishop of Rome. This is especially remarkable given the nature of the documents. For example:

  • 1 & 2 Clement are written from Rome to Corinth around 100 AD. There is no mention of a Roman or Corinthian bishop, and all references to congregational leaders are plural.
  • The Letters of Ignatius (written around 110 AD) include many references to monarchical bishops. Ignatius is a huge fan of the idea of congregations being led by one bishop and goes out of his way to send personal greetings to the bishop of the towns he writes to. In six of his seven letters, he specifically greets and writes about the bishop of the congregation. The one exception? His letter to Rome. That is the only letter in which he does not greet or reference a bishop. The fact that Ignatius, the super-fan of bishops, makes no mention of a Roman bishop is especially damaging to Rome’s claim.
  • The Shepherd of Hermas was written in Rome in the early 2nd century and refers to elders (plural) of the congregation, not to a monarchical bishop.

If the RCC is correct in its claim of an unbroken line of bishops going back to Peter, why do our early documents not evidence a bishop of Rome? The actual historical data points to a plurality of elders leading the church in Rome into the 2nd century, a point admitted even by Roman Catholic historians. Laying aside theological issues, merely from a historical standpoint Rome’s claim of apostolic succession – and the authority derived from it – lacks foundation.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: Some Quotations for Consideration

As a postscript to the series on the Holy Spirit, I would like to include here a few quotes from teachers within churches of Christ that I found interesting, either because of what was said or who said it. These quotes are from men who are as infallible as myself (which is to say, not at all) and should always be judged against what the Bible says:

Alexander Campbell, The Christian System (1835), 18.8

“Christians are, therefore, clearly and unequivocally temples of the Holy Spirit; and they are quickened, animated, encouraged, and sanctified by the power and influence of the Spirit of God, working in them through the truth.”

Moses E. Lard, “Spiritual Influence as it relates to Christian,” in vol. 1 of Lard’s Quarterly (1864): 235

[Regarding 1 Cor 6:19], “First, we have the body, the human body, the body however not of men out of Christ, but of men in him, the body of Christians, and this body we have as a temple. Second, we have the Holy Spirit represented as being in this body, as dwelling in this temple. This much is absolutely certain. From these premises, therefore, it clearly appears that the New Testament, and that too in a part of it relating to Christians, actually and positively asserts that the Holy Spirit dwells in them.” (italics in original)

J.W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans (1916): 359

[Regarding Romans 8:9–10], “If ye have not the Holy Spirit who proceeds from Christ, ye are not regenerate, ye are not his. And though Christ dwells in you (representatively by means of his Spirit), your body is doomed to a natural death (and hence is to be accounted as already dead) because of (Adam’s) sin; yet your spirit lives because it is justified and accounted righteous (by reason of Christ).”

Robertson L. Whiteside, Reflections (1956): 216

“In what sense does the Holy Spirit dwell in us? There does not seem to be any sense in which he can dwell in us and yet not dwell in us. My Spirit dwells in my body so long as I am alive, and yet I could not tell how it does so… Hence, the way to be filled with the Spirit is to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly. And yet we know the word of Christ is not the Holy Spirit. What then? The word of Christ is food for the Christian, but the Spirit will not dwell in one whose soul is starved for the lack of spiritual food. Is that unreasonable? The food I eat is not my spirit, yet if I eat no food my spirit will leave my starved body. But does the Holy Spirit dwell in us independent of the word of Christ? Does your own spirit dwell in your body independent of what you eat?”

James D. Bales, The Holy Spirit and the Christian (1966): 3

“Our doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit and the Christian should be found in the Scriptures and not in the traditions of men or in a reaction to the extreme positions that some people may have taken. Because some people take certain unscriptural positions concerning the Spirit and the Christian, this does not justify us in denying the reality of the Spirit in our own lives. There are others who have reacted against these individuals until they have gone, or are tending to go, to the extreme against which the first reactionists reacted. We should not be reactionists but actionists who base our action upon the teaching of the Scriptures.”

I hope this series on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has been helpful!

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: The “Same Use of Language” Objection

In the previous article, I mentioned that one of the primary objections to a literal, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that the Bible also says things like “Christ is in you” and “you are in Christ” and we don’t take those phrases literally. I think this “same use of language” objection is the best argument against a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit; nevertheless, I am not convinced by it for the following reasons:

First, this objection is a simple category mistake. It is possible for the same word or phrase to be used in a variety of different ways. After all, just because a dog runs and my nose runs does not mean they both run in the same way. Also, Jesus is described as a lamb, and disciples are described as sheep, but that does not mean we are metaphorical ovines in the same manner. Likewise, figurative use of “dwelling” language regarding Christ does not mean “dwelling” language regarding the Holy Spirit must be figurative as well.

Second, and with the above in mind, note the difference in language used. The dwelling language regarding Jesus is figurative, as the Bible itself indicates. I readily admit that the man Jesus does not dwell in me or I in Him, humanly speaking.  Jesus is spoken of as our head, as our new Adam; we unite with Jesus when we are baptized, we are in covenant union with Him. These are terms pointing to relationally being “in” Christ in a metaphorical way. But, what about the Holy Spirit? Regarding the Holy Spirit, the Bible does not speak in covenantal or headship terms; rather, the Holy Spirit is said to dwell within us to do something within us (Rom 8:13–14; Eph 3:16; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2; see also Ezek 36:27) and to seal us for salvation (Eph 1:13–14, 4:30; 2 Cor 5:5; Rom 8:9–15). The most striking difference in language is that the Bible uses temple imagery of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (1 Cor 6:19), but never of Christ. Temple imagery implies God’s actual, personal presence, not metaphorical influence. In the New Testament, the nature of that personal presence is the Spirit dwelling in the believer, making our bodies temples of God.

Third, the objection fails to take the Trinity into full account. Christ is said to be in us by virtue of the Spirit being in us (Rom 8:9–11). It would be strange for the Bible to say that Christ is in us by virtue of His Spirit in us, who does not actually dwell within us. With the Trinity in mind, we can say that even though the persons of the Father and Son do not dwell within us, they do dwell within us to the extent that they are one with the Spirit who is within us.

Finally, the objection fails to actually account for verses such as Rom 8:9–11 and 1 Cor 6:19–20. Rather than address the actual verses, the objection sidesteps those texts and tries to draw a logical conclusion that is then used to cast confusion on such verses. I suggest that such attempts are analogous to those who say Acts 2:38 cannot mean that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins because elsewhere the Bible says if you believe you will be saved. In both cases, the actual text of Scripture is not addressed, it is simply sidestepped and other verses / logic are cast up as a smokescreen. It amounts to obfuscation, not observation.

Again, the “same use of language” objection is the best argument against the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit I have come across; nevertheless, I believe it falls under scrutiny. Scripture is clear: the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer in a literal and personal manner.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: 1 Corinthians 6:19–20

In the last article we considered Romans 8:9–11, now I would like to consider 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 and what it teaches about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. While verses 19–20 are our focus, I will include some of the preceding verses for context:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:15–20)

First, we must head off an objection: isn’t Paul referring to the “body” of the corporate Church and not to the bodies of individual Christians? It is true that earlier in the letter (1 Corinthians 3:16–17) Paul speaks of the entire Church as being the temple of the Spirit; however, the context of the verses above demands that Paul be speaking of the bodies of individual believers, not to “the body” of the Church as a whole. Paul is speaking of the individual bodies that make up the “body” of the Church. That this is the case is made certain by Paul’s instruction to flee from sexual immorality – a sin unique to the bodies of individuals and impossible for an abstraction such as a “corporate body” to commit. So, throughout these verses Paul is certainly referring to the bodies of individual believers.

Now, let’s consider verses 19–20; what does Paul say? Paul says that the body of the believer “is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you.” Paul is clearly offering the reader an analogy: just as God literally dwelt in the temple through His Spirit, so now He literally dwells in the believer through His Spirit. If Paul does not mean to indicate a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, why does he use such language? The natural reading of “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God” is that 1) the Spirit is from God, 2) He is within the Christian, and 3) He is within the Christian literally and personally so that the Christian’s body can even be referred to as a temple. If Paul does not want the reader to think that the Spirit actually dwells within the Christian, he is choosing all of the wrong words.

Like we discussed with Romans 8:9–11, Paul could have written something else. Paul could have written that “your body is a temple of [the truth] within you” or something like that, but the fact is he did not. In fact, like in Romans, Paul makes no qualifying statements and allows the plain reading of the text, with all of its implications, to remain clearly before the reader. According to Paul, the Holy Spirit is “from God,” is “within you,” and therefore “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.” Again, I am constrained by Scripture. I read that the Spirit dwells within the Christian in an analogous way as He previously dwelt in the temple, and I must accept that testimony.

“But!” some will say, “the Bible also says that Christ is in us and that we are in Christ and we don’t take those statements literally. The Holy Spirit is in us in the same figurative way that Christ is in us and we in Christ.” This, in my opinion, is the best biblical objection to a literal, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Lord willing, we will consider it next week.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: Romans 8:9–11

In the last article I made some general points regarding the question, “Is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit literal or figurative?” As I mentioned, I am convinced the Bible teaches a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit within Christians. While there are many passages that point to a literal indwelling, there are two to which I would like to give special attention: Romans 8:9–11 and 1 Corinthians 6:19–20. In this article we will focus on the former.

Romans 8:9–11 reads, “9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”

In these verses Paul repeatedly says that the Holy Spirit “dwells in” the Christian. I think it is fair to say that the natural reading of the text points to a literal indwelling; that is, the Holy Spirit “in fact” dwells in the Christian. Paul makes his point both positively, “the Spirit of God dwells in you,” and negatively, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” How many ways does Paul have to say that “the Spirit dwells in you” before we take him at his word? Also note that Paul makes no qualifications such as the Spirit dwells in us “through Scripture” or anything along those lines (in these or other verses). So, the repeated insistence that the Spirit dwells in the Christian combined with the lack of any qualification or clarification is a strong indicator that Paul wished to be understood as saying that the Spirit of God “in fact” (not figuratively) dwells within the Christian.

But consider especially verse 11. How does this passage make sense if Paul does not actually mean that the Spirit dwells in the Christian? If Paul actually meant that it is something like our belief in the truth or our holy living that “dwells in us” and will be the means through which God will give life to our mortal bodies, why does he not say so? Further, can we legitimately change Paul’s wording from “through his Spirit who dwells in you” to “the truth you believe” or “your holy living” or something of the sort? Would such a change even make sense in this context? I do not see how it could. And besides, whether or not it makes sense, it is not what Paul said.

In looking for a counterargument to my position, I checked The Mission and Medium of the Holy Spirit by Foy E. Wallace (who opposed the idea of a literal indwelling of the Spirit). Even though he has a section on Romans 8, comment on verse 11 is conspicuously absent. I cannot help but wonder if he failed to address verse 11 because it is so resistant to any reading that denies the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Wallace quotes from R. L. Whiteside approvingly, so I checked Whiteside’s Romans commentary, assuming he would also argue against a literal indwelling. Instead, what I found was this: “But the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. He dwells in the Christian; that is plainly affirmed. And I dare not deny what Paul here affirms” (Commentary on Romans, R.L. Whiteside, 173). I could not have said it better myself. Let us affirm everything the Bible affirms and reject everything the Bible rejects. After all, the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and who knows better than the Spirit whether or not He indwells the Christian.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: Preliminary Observations

The debate over the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – whether it is a literal indwelling or figurative – has been going on since almost the beginning of the Restoration Movement. Personally, I am convinced that the Bible teaches a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit within Christians and I would like to discuss why in this and subsequent articles. But, before looking at any texts, I would like to make a few preliminary observations.

First, there is nothing that would make a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit impossible. The Bible places no such restriction on the Spirit and for us to insist on the impossibility of a literal indwelling is to stand on nothing more than our own authority. If we are convinced that the Bible teaches a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then we should believe and teach a literal indwelling. Likewise, if it is shown to be the clear teaching of Scripture that the Holy Spirit does not literally, but only figuratively dwell within the believer, then that should be our belief and teaching.

Second, whether or not we understand how it is possible for the Holy Spirit to indwell us is beside the point – we simply want to know if God tells us that the Spirit indwells us. There are many things I do not fully understand, but I still believe they are true because the Bible teaches them. We should not at all be surprised when we do not fully understand God – after all, He is God and we are but men. As Moses declared in Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

Third, we cannot be reactionary and allow fear of errors (whether of Calvinists or Charismatics) to determine our beliefs. Yes, there is error taught in regard to the Holy Spirit just as there is error taught about practically every doctrine of the Church. There is always a temptation to overreact to one error and find ourselves in the opposite error, but that is a temptation we must studiously avoid. Our task is not to define ourselves against others, but to define ourselves by exactly what the Bible teaches.

Fourth, it is a good rule of thumb to remember that the more obvious and “on the surface” an understanding of the text is, the more likely it is to be the correct understanding. Likewise, if an understanding of the text is subtle or requires fine-grained arguments and re-writing of the text, it is likely to be wrong. Take Acts 2:38 for example. We insist that “for the forgiveness of sins” means exactly that and rightly call out attempts to make the text say something else. I suggest we take the same approach to texts such as Romans 8:9–11 and 1 Corinthians 6:19–20.

Finally, the slogan “Let us say Bible things in Bible ways” contains wisdom. The Bible says that “the Spirit of God dwells in you” and that “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you.” I am happy to use the phrases precisely as given in the Bible without any qualifications.

Nevertheless, the question of whether such phrases are to be taken in their plain sense or modified with qualifications cannot be avoided. In subsequent articles, Lord willing, I would like to explain why I am convinced that a plain, unqualified understanding of such phrases as “the Spirit of God dwells in you” is the correct understanding of the text.

Deaconesses: Acts 6 and Romans 16

Last week we considered 1 Timothy 3:11 and the debate around women deacons (deaconesses). As I explained, I am convinced that Paul is referring in that verse to the wives of elders and deacons, not to deaconesses. In this article I’d like to consider two more points in the debate over whether the New Testament sanctions an office of deaconess: the selection of deacons in Acts 6 and Phoebe in Romans 16. The first is strongly in favor of limiting deacons to men; the second is often used to argue for an office of deaconess.

In Acts 6, we encounter the beginning of the office of deacon in the Church (even though the men chosen are not referred to explicitly as deacons, it makes sense to identify them as such). In that chapter, we read of a problem with the distribution of food among the widows of the church. The issue is brought to the apostles who respond, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:2–4). As it relates to our discussion, note that the apostles instruct the Church to pick out seven men to be appointed. This is even more interesting when the nature of the work is considered: the distribution of food among widows. So, at the beginning of the office of deacon we find instructions for men to be appointed, even though the work could very appropriately be done by women. Were women at all involved in this food distribution ministry? I suspect that they were. Nevertheless, it was the seven men who were appointed by the apostles to oversee the work.

On the other side of the argument is Phoebe in Romans 16:1–2 which reads, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.” The reason this passage is brought up in the debate is that the word “servant” is our word “deacon.” Keep in mind, deacon is a transliteration of the Greek word diakonos (meaning “servant,” or “helper”) and, like “elder,” can be either a personal description or the title of an office, depending on context. Also, remember that we are all called to be servants of the Church, even if we are not all “deacons” in an official sense. So, the question before us is this: is Paul simply describing Phoebe as one who serves, or is he referring to Phoebe as one holding the office of deaconess?

Credit where credit is due, Romans 16:1 is perhaps the strongest verse for the office of deaconess; however, I am not convinced that is the correct conclusion to draw from it. First, I believe that Paul is describing Phoebe as a servant in a general sense before going on to describe the nature of her service as being “a patron of many and of myself.” By being a patron – perhaps by providing financial assistance, hosting the Church in her home, etc. – Phoebe is rightly called a servant of the Church, even if not a deaconess in an official sense. Second, when placed on the scales of reason, I do not think Romans 16:1 outweighs the combination of Acts 6, 1 Timothy 3:1–13, and the Bible’s repeated pattern of male leadership in home and Church (next week’s topic, Lord willing). Taken in isolation, Romans 16:1 may be convincing for an office of deaconess; however, we must always keep the entirety of Scripture in mind when drawing conclusions. Phoebe is an important reminder, however, that we are all to be servants of the Church, and that God smiles upon faithful service, regardless of any official title.

Women, Wives, and Deacons: A Study of 1 Timothy 3:11

There is debate over whether the Bible permits female deacons, and one of the verses under the most scrutiny is 1 Timothy 3:11, “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things” (ESV). You may be thinking that “Their wives” seems pretty clear! But here’s the catch: “their” is not explicit in the Greek and the Greek word for “wife” is the same word as “woman,” depending only on the context. So, strictly speaking, the beginning of 1 Timothy 3:11 reads, “Wives / Women likewise …” If you read a few Bible translations and pay attention to their footnotes, you’ll see the translation issue. What I would like to do here is give some reasons for why I am convinced that Paul is referring to the wives of elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11, and not to women deacons.

Regarding the lack of “their” in Greek, I believe that Paul deliberately leaves it general so that “wives” applies to the wives of both elders and deacons, not just to deacons’ wives. As to the question of translating it “wives” or “women,” and whether female deacons are in view, I am convinced that “wives” is the proper translation and that Paul is not referring to women deacons for the following reasons:

First, by using the word “likewise” to introduce deacons (3:8) and then again to introduce “wives / women” (3:11) Paul gives the impression that two different groups are in view. The second “likewise” introducing the “wives / women” creates a group different from the deacons he has already “likewise” introduced.

Second, Paul specifies deacons in verse 8, “wives / women” in verse 11, and then deacons again in verse 12. If Paul wanted to speak of female deacons and male deacons, it seems he would have introduced the category of deacon in verse 8, and then subdivided that category by speaking of “women” in verse 11 and of “men” in verse 12. As it is, Paul speaks of deacons, then “wives / women,” and then again of deacons (not “men”), giving the impression that “wives / women” are separate from the category of deacon.

Third, Paul specifies that elders are to have “dignity” (3:4) and deacons are to be “dignified” (3:8); however, he then says that “women / wives” are to be “dignified.” If “women” is simply a sub-category of “deacons,” why would Paul repeat the same qualification?

Fourth, Paul specifies that both elders and deacons are to be “the husband of one wife” (3:2, 12). Why then, is there no parallel statement that women deacons must be “the wife of one husband”? (See also 1 Timothy 5:9, where Paul requires widows to be “the wife of one husband”).

Finally, the same word for “wife / woman” is used three times in this passage: verses 2, 11, and 12. Verses 2 and 12 refer, without debate, to the wives of the elders and deacons. For Paul to use the same word in 3:11 without any clarification would indicate that he still has the same group in mind: the wives of elders and deacons.

Over the next few weeks, Lord willing, I would like to delve into this topic further. For now, I hope this has been a helpful study of 1 Timothy 3:11.