Servants of Christ: A Study on New Testament Deacons

Servants of Christ: A Study on New Testament Deacons
Copyright © 2015 by M. V. Pereira
All rights reserved. Version: 1.8 / 2015-02-12
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from
the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963,
1968, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.
Printed by Trinity Bible Church,
16100 Caputo Drive, Morgan Hill, CA 95037.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
Rediscovering the Diaconate ........................................................................................................... 4
What is a Deacon? ............................................................................................................................. 6
Where did they Originate? ............................................................................................................. 16
How do they relate to Overseers? ................................................................................................. 21
What are their Responsibilities? .................................................................................................... 32
What are the Qualifications for Office? ....................................................................................... 57
Importance of a Local Diaconate ................................................................................................... 64
Implementation Considerations .................................................................................................... 69
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix 1: References of "deacon" in the New Testament ..................................................... 80
Appendix 2: Uses of diakonos in the New Testament ................................................................. 81
Appendix 3: Uses of diakonia in the New Testament.................................................................. 83
Appendix 4: Uses of diakoneō in the New Testament ................................................................. 84
Appendix 5: Example Description of a Local Diaconate ........................................................... 86
BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
ASV
American Standard Version (1901)
ESV
English Standard Version
(Copyright © 2001, 2007, 2011 by Crossway Bibles)
GW
God's Word® translation.
(Copyrighted © 1995 by God's Word to the Nations)
HCSB
Holman Christian Standard Bible
(Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers)
KJV
King James Version [Authorized Version] (1611)
(1769 Blayney Edition of the 1611 King James Version of the English Bible)
MIT
The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament
(Copyright © 2008 by William Graham MacDonald)
NASB
The New American Standard Bible
(Copyright © 1977 and 1995 by The Lockman Foundation)
NET
New English Translation (The NET Bible)
(Copyright © 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
NIV
The New International Version
(Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by International Bible Society)
NJB
New Jerusalem Bible
(Copyright © 1985 by Darton, Longman & Todd Limited and Doubleday)
NKJV
The New King James Version
(Copyright © 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
NLT
New Living Translation
(Copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation)
TNIV
Today's New International Version
(Copyright © 2001 by International Bible Society)
WNT
Weymouth New Testament
(Weymouth New Testament is in the public domain)
WuestNT
The New Testament: An Expanded Translation
(Copyright © 1956, 1984 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
YLT
Young’s Literal Translation
(The English Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible 1862/1887/1898, by J. N. Young [public domain])
i
God is merciful. God is compassionate. God ministers to the needs of His people, in both profound and
practical ways. The local church is called not only to proclaim these great truths but to make much of God
in modeling them. We are to know and live-out the gospel; to preach and model Christ. We are to show the
world the Christ they otherwise cannot see. We are to love one another in a distinctly Christ-like manner;
unexplainable and unsustainable apart from the gospel, regeneration, and the living power of the Holy
Spirit. In these things does the Lord delight, and if we are in Christ His delight increasingly becomes ours.
These things embody the essential virtue in the ministry of deacons.
THE ORIGINAL RELIEF ORGANIZATION
Long before society conceived of institutions for humanitarian aid, God instituted the diaconate—a
relational, personal, compassionate, and Christocentric ministry designated to care for the bodily needs of
the neediest. In the West, public memory is notoriously selective, history is readily re-written, and the
church has relinquished much of her service and influence to the state. In such a time as this, the local
church stands in need of reminding herself and her community that she is the resident laboring body of
Christ, delighting herself in the only true hope of the nations.
Since the days of Cain, the world has lived-out his protest, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9). One
prominent historian notes that in the ancient world, “it is generally admitted, that selfishness was the soul
of heathen morality.”1 The ancient world was a cruel place to live, full of superstition and bigotry and
grossly lacking compassion and mercy. But Jesus revolutionized humanity. The teaching, the example, and
most importantly the work of Christ in the redemption of sinners through His substitionary death on the
cross revolutionized the ancient world. It is by no small cause that our calendar is measured by the
historical arrival of this one Person. Christ definitively forged the meaning of mercy, compassion, and love.
He gave us a God-centered morality. He established the kind of personal, sacrificial care that gladly
embraces a new social outlook, namely, “love one another.”
Let us not forget that the church was the first relief and development organization in the West. Let us
retell how the exercise and message of Christ’s love for sinners overflowed from Christ’s churches into
society. Let us make much of God in reminding the world that the love of Christ founded the first hospitals
(hospitalium), which were then called infirmaries (infirmaria). How accommodations for the poor, the sick,
widows, orphans, and strangers were established by Christ’s churches. How the congregations of
Christians were the original charitable societies, influencing and expanding throughout the Western world
when none existed. Christians established care homes for the poor (ptochium); for orphans
(orphanotrophium); for the sick (valetudinaria); for the aged (γεροντοκομεῖα); for widows (χηροτροφεῖα); and
1
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 370.
1
for strangers (Xenodochium). Again, Schaff reminds us that “such institutions were unknown among the
heathen.”1 Let us recount how Christian missionaries—more than any other group of people—are
responsible for bringing relief, hospitals, orphanages, care homes, and education and development centers
to places all around the world. Any honest study of history will show that these are products of Christ’s
influence on humanity.
Some sources attempt to credit others with the founding of these social institutions, but fail to
acknowledge that the earliest pagan examples, such as by Emperor Julian, were abortive attempts that
sought to force an imitation of the church’s diaconate.2 Undeniable is the revolutionary influence that
Christianity exerted in the world, even over those who were not persuaded of its truth. When adversaries of
the church could not supplant her, they ungracefully endeavored to imitate her. And even to this day, when
certain humanitarian efforts forsake God as their ground and the gospel as their message, they do what
they do because of God—wittingly or not, their endeavors are the result of Christ’s influence on the world.
Let us make much of Christ in and through the diaconate. Let us renew the testimony that hospitals,
orphanages, soup kitchens, convalescent homes, rehabilitation centers, homeless shelters, etc., find their
origin in the diaconal ministry of Christ’s churches. Nowadays we expect the state to furnish these
institutions and provide these services, but the state will never be able to minister to the needs of people in
a God-centered manner. There is still a need for deacons. There remains a powerful witness to Christ in the
local diaconate. This is not a denial of the value and tremendous blessing of public care institutions; it is a
reminder to the church that she still has a role to play in the lives of her suffering, poor, sick, afflicted,
orphaned, widowed, and disadvantaged. The church and her deacons can still testify to the gospel before a
watching world.
CHRISTOCENTRIC MERCY MINISTRY
One of the Puritans wrote, “Grace has to do with man’s merits, but mercy has to do with man’s
misery.” Mercy is that particular ministry ultimately from God that serves to relieve suffering and misery.
But suffering and misery are trademarks of the consequence of sin; they are signposts to the present reality
of the curse. Pain serves a purpose. And though the suffering of many is not in consequence to their own
sin, all pain testifies to the brokenness and tragedy of our fallen world due to sin and separation from God.
The existence of suffering in the world should drive us human beings to seek the mercy of God on behalf of
our rebellion.
When the world fights against the curse, it does so to overcome or escape it and to create a paradise on
a dying earth. But the church has an entirely different reason for mercy ministry. The church does not seek
to eliminate suffering and misery for the sake of creating a utopia or escaping the curse. She labors in mercy
ministry to make much of the only true Minister of mercy. Her labors tell a greater story. She doesn’t seek
to deny or defeat the curse; with joy she holds forth the only cure against the curse: Jesus Christ. The gospel
is the central story of her mercy ministry. Just as Christ healed the blind, deaf, mute, lame, diseased, and
sick as a foretaste of His ultimate work of redeeming and restoring this fallen creation by reconciling all
Ibid, 356.
Ibid. See also: George Waddington, A History of the Church from the Earliest Ages to the Reformation, Second Edition, Revised., vol. 1 (London:
Baldwin and Cradock, 1835), 224–225.
1
2
2
things to Himself through the cross, so diaconal ministry aims at authentic mercy for the sake of promoting
Christ—the ultimately Healer and Restorer of all things—and the joy of all people in Him.
Every ounce of relief is measured to reflect and direct the heart to Christ, the One who died in the place
of sinners to purchase the complete restoration of all things; to finally put away all disease, sickness,
deformity, affliction, pain, suffering, and death. When a deacon wipes away tears from a hurting face, it is
not to make much of the deacon or the church but Christ; it serves to remind their hurting heart that one
day Christ will wipe away every tear from their eyes. When a deacon comforts the mourning, it serves to
remind their suffering soul that, because of Christ crucified, they will one day know mourning no more.
When a deacon weeps with those who weep, it serves to love them, fellowship with them, and most
importantly to remind them that there is coming a day where there will be no more crying, because of
Christ. When a deacon seeks to relieve the pain of another person, it serves to remind them that a day is
coming when there will be no more pain because Christ suffered in their place. Every consequence of sin is
dealt with in Christ and diaconal ministry exists to testify to that great end.
Ministering to bodily needs not only demonstrates practical care for one another, it furnishes a tangible
taste of hope that is in Christ alone. Deacons have a unique opportunity to minister the gospel in this form.
But if deacons are going to fulfill such a ministry, the church must view and support the diaconate toward
this end with clarity and conviction. This is the purpose for which this book was written.
3
Of the two offices ordained and appointed by God, the second—that of deacons—is by far the least
understood and appreciated in the church. The diaconate (or sanction of deacons) has suffered many
distortions, abuses, and neglect throughout much of church history in a surprisingly pervasive manner.
Ephesians 4:16 reminds us that the local body of Christ will fulfill its purpose only “when each part is
working properly.” This calls for a rediscovery of the diaconate and must begin with a return to the written
word of God. A church cannot properly esteem an office it does not properly understand. Christ’s people
cannot rightly honor Him in fulfilling a ministry that they do not comprehend or rightly implement.
Despite the admirable esteem that Scripture confers upon the diaconate, it remains largely an undervalued
ministry in most churches. We are convinced that this is mostly due to a lack of understanding the biblical
data concerning the office. It is our purpose here to rediscover the importance, value, and blessing that God
has intended for and through the diaconate by way of a careful study of God’s written word.
The word of God plainly states that “those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a
high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 3:13). This is no little
commendation but rather a statement calculated to esteem the office, and encourage the one who serves in
that office, with the highest regard. The phrase, “served well as deacons,” actually comes from the verb
associated with the word deacon. While it literally means “to serve” (“as deacons” being supplied in most
translations), in this context it most clearly corresponds to those who have served in the office that has just
been discussed.1 So the importance of the office and faithful service in that office is here underscored. In
relation to the office of overseer discussed in the immediately preceding passage, it has been pointed out
that “both performed vital functions in the church, and it is the deacon who is expressly told that a reward
awaits those who serve well.”2 The distinctive esteem granted to those who serve well in the diaconate
suggests that the church may have been overlooking and underestimating the value and importance of
deacons. If this is the case, then these inspired words confront us today in like manner, calling us to
rediscover the value and importance of the diaconate.
In his excellent book on the subject, Alexander Strauch identifies the problem when he says, “far too
little in-depth consideration is being given to the biblical texts and the biblical parameters set for deacons.”3
1 “Although it is possible to take διακονήσαντες in the general sense of serving and thus include the ἐπίσκοποι of vv. 1–8 under this term, it
is more likely that following the use of διάκονοι in the technical sense in vv. 8 and 12 and the use of the verb in that technical sense in v. 10 the verb
would be used here in that same sense to refer to the deacons” (Knight, 173).
2 William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2000), 196.
3 Alexander Strauch, New Testament Deacon: Minister of Mercy (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 2010), 8.
4
If we are to exercise ministries that are faithful to the Lord’s commission and cause in this world, then we
must give careful attention to the biblical texts that correspond to the various ministries of the church—
including the diaconate.
WHAT IS THE DIACONATE?
The word “diaconate” refers to the office of deacon. It signifies the official body of deacons collectively
devoted to serve in any given local church. The word comes from a Latin transliteration of the original
Greek word for “servant” (diakonos). While the most common usage of the term simply identifies someone
as a “servant” generically, it is also used in an official sense, as a title of office, in at least a couple of
instances.
By the time that the Apostle Paul wrote his epistle to the Philippians, the generic term (diakonos) had
become a title for a designated position or office of ministry in the church. In Philippians 1:1, Paul writes to
“all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons.” The plural form of
the word “deacons” (diakonois) was used as an official title to formally address those belonging to the office
of deacon just as the word “overseers” (episkopois) addressed those belonging to the office of overseer. “All
the saints” is related to “overseers and deacons” by an inclusive preposition (syn), which in this case means
“including” rather than “together with.” So it implies that they are already numbered with the saints in
Philippi but are identified or sanctioned in some official sense. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that
“at the time of this epistle there are thus two co-ordinated offices.”1 One Bible commentator observes that
“it has been suggested that these titles are to be understood in a functional rather than an official sense, that
is, describing an activity rather than an office. Paul can refer to church workers on occasion without
specifying an office (cf. Rom. 12:8; Gal. 6:6; 1 Thes. 5:12). Here, however, he has in view particular members
of the congregation who are specifically described and known by these two titles; otherwise the additions
seem to be meaningless.”2 More than making a special appeal to those in the church who serve, since all are
generally expected to serve in some capacity, Paul is especially including in his address those serving in the
offices of overseer and deacon.
The plural form of “deacon” is again used in 1 Timothy 3, where laying down qualifications for service
in an official sense is the stated purpose of the passage. Again, in this passage as in Philippians 1, the office
of deacon is inferred by its parallel association with the office of overseer. Just as those aspiring to serve in
“the office of overseer” (or episcopate, from episkopē), so also those who would serve in the office of deacon
(or diaconate) must meet certain qualifications (cf. 1 Tim 3:8-12). So while the word “deacon” (diakonos) is
predominantly used in the general sense of one who personally serves or helps others, its usage in 1
Timothy 3 unmistakably denotes a fixed title for a distinct body of officials in the church—the diaconate. In
these instances, the word “deacon” with the richness of its meaning is marshaled into the descriptive cast of
a title, labeling an office in the church. The English word “diaconate” pronouncedly points to that office.
1 “Members of the community who are called deacons in virtue of their regular activity are first found in Phil. 1:1, where Paul sends greetings
to all the saints in Philippi σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. Already in this phrase there emerges a decisive point for our understanding of the office,
namely, that the deacons are linked with the bishops and mentioned after them. At the time of this epistle there are thus two co-ordinated offices”
(H. W. Beyer, TDNT, 2:89).
2 Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 48.
5
One of the great burdens of this study is to aid in correcting misconceived views of what a deacon is.
Sadly, there exists a surprisingly wide variety of views and practices when it comes to the subject of
deacons, even among like-minded evangelical churches. Strauch rightly argues that “among Bible-believing
churches, two extremes continually threaten the New Testament diaconate. The first is to make deacons the
power brokers and rulers of the church. . . . The other extreme demeans deacons to nearly janitor status.” 1
These extremes must be corrected by a return to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture accompanied by
a humble, sensitive, and loving effort to apply its principles in the most objective manner possible.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary illustrates how diversity of definition is often related to
diversity of tradition: “(In Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox Churches) an ordained minister of an order
ranking below that of priest. (In some Protestant Churches) a lay officer assisting a minister. (In the early
Church) an appointed minister of charity.”2 Common English definitions are often interpretive, such as:
“one of the laymen elected by a church with congregational polity to serve in worship, in pastoral care, and
on administrative committees.”3 A closer look at the original meaning of ‘deacon’ and its related terms will
begin our study.
A TABLE WAITER
It is commonly suggested that the sketch of a deacon in the first century is most approximately a table
waiter. How does this relate to the ministry of a NT church? Many point to Acts 6:1-4 on the ground that
the verbal forms of ‘deacon’ are used there and clearly correspond to food related services. While it is true
that diakonos (Greek noun for ‘deacon’) was used in the first century to denote “a servant, and often a tableservant, or waiter,”4 this is frankly the least employed meaning in the NT. In fact, this meaning of diakonos is
used with certainty only twice in the NT, which is only six percent of its total usage.5
One of the difficulties in establishing a functional definition for ‘deacons’ is owing to the variety of uses
of the word diakonos in the NT. In other words, “the precise sense of the term in its formal application in the
church is more difficult to establish, mainly because of the wide range of meaning usually associated with
Strauch, 157.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), s.v. ‘deacon’.
3 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1996), s.v. ‘deacon’.
4 D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 261.
5 The noun diakonos (‘servant’, ‘deacon’) occurs 29 times and is used to denote food related services in only 2 instances (John 2:5, 9), which
yields a mere 6% usage. Likewise, the noun diakonia (‘ministry’, ‘service’) is used in the sense of food related services only twice, yielding below 6%
usage (2 out of 34). The verb form (diakoneō) finds the highest food related usage at 27% (10 out of 37). See Appendix 4, 5, and 6 for more details.
1
2
6
the word group: including humble service, sacrificial service, and specific kinds of service such as ‘table
waiting’.”1 While the noun form of the word diakonos is never used in the NT to denote a Christian engaged
in table waiting, the impression of lowly service is almost always conveyed. The most general sense
conveyed by the use of diakonos in the NT is one of lowly service. In as much as ‘table waiting’ intersects
with that connotation, the impression of table waiting is valid. Otherwise, it would be misrepresentative of
the biblical data to equate deacons with table waiters in the NT usage of the term.
Understanding the image of table waiting servants in the ancient world is helpful in coloring any
relationship it may have to the NT’s use of diakonos, especially as it is used in contexts other than table
waiting. “In the Greek OT diakonos refers only to professional court servants. Waiting at table was
considered below the dignity of the Jewish freeman.”2 Yet even more than the Jewish aversion was the
Greeks’ to waiting on tables. Greek ideology saw ruling as the proper aspiration of men and serving as the
opposite of ruling. Waiting on tables was often associated with menial servitude, bearing the classification
of humiliating, lowly service. So our understanding of the NT’s use of diakonos should go quite beyond the
picture of table waiting and more properly signal the image of lowly service. It is in this very image that the
term found suitable use in the NT to describe the characteristic of Christ and His followers. Not that they
were table waiters, but that they were lowly servants; not seeking to lord anything over others but serving
others in lowliness of mind. Again, in the ancient world the service of waiting on tables was considered a
lowly service that was beneath the dignity of any freeman.3 The degraded and belittled table waiter, then,
became a sort of symbol of Christ and His lowly followers.
A SYMBOL OF HUMBLE SERVICE
Christ taught and illustrated His principle of humble service when He contrasted the ways and
attitudes of the Gentiles to His own. In Luke 22:25 He taught His disciples that according to the Gentiles,
the way of leadership is by lordship: “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them.” He then sounds a
revolutionary concept of leadership, namely humble servanthood: “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” (Luke
22:26). Here He uses a form of the word diakoneō that denotes characteristic action; one who
characteristically serves in a lowly capacity. He then directly leverages the cultural understanding of a table
waiting servant and uses Himself as the example: “For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or
the one who serves [diakoneō]? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one
who serves [diakoneō]” (Lk 22:25–27). It is plain from this example that the table waiter image is leveraged to
convey a principle of lowly service. Surely Christ was not seeking to raise up table waiters, nor was the
point of this lesson to call attention to His own table waiting services. Humility seems to be closer to the
objective than anything else. It must be kept in mind that this was all in answer to the situation when “there
arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest” (Lk 22:24). Christ
answers in terms of great humility.
In another context, Christ teaches against the prideful tendencies of the Jewish leaders. They “do all
their deeds to be noticed by men” (Mt 23:5). “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in
Philip Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 261.
G. M. Burge, “Deacon, Deaconess,” in EDT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Paternoster Press, 2001), 320.
3 K. Hess, "Serve, Deacon, Worship," in NIDNTT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 545.
1
2
7
the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men” (Mt 23:6–7).
Jesus teaches that not only are His disciples to be different in character, they are not to practice the same
honor seeking titles and status that mark the leadership of a corrupted system. Revolutionary change was
present in Christ and His newly established order of service over status paradigm. He plainly instructs His
disciples, “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ” (Mt 23:10). All of this serves to
reinforce and emphasize the importance of humility in the heart and mind of anyone who would follow
Christ, and especially those who lead His followers in the future. Here again, He illustrates His lesson on
leadership and humble servanthood with the word diakonos: “But the greatest among you shall be your
servant [diakonos]” (Mt 23:11). That He uses diakonos as a symbol of humble service is evident in the way He
concludes His point: “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be
exalted” (Mt 23:12). Christ fulfills and exemplifies His own divine maxim, since “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. For this reason also,
God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name” (Php 2:6–8).
This profound humility is the truest service of love ever rendered, and it became the hallmark of Christ
and His followers. It is no coincidence that Christ issued the command of His hallmark—“A new
commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one
another” (John 13:34)—only after He portrayed His sacred love to them in the demonstration of unthinkable
humility (John 13:1–11). Far from merely washing feet, Jesus was portraying the kind of love that
characterized His coming. It was sacrificial love vividly portrayed through a kind of diaconal service.
The ultimate testimony of diaconal service is self-sacrificing love. This is humbleness in ultimate form.
Far from the menial limits of table waiting, the meaning of diaconal service portrayed by Christ is
profoundly gospel oriented. In Matthew 20:28, Christ explicitly states, “just as the Son of Man did not come
to be served [diakoneō], but to serve [diakoneō], and to give His life a ransom for many.” Here Christ
describes His own self-sacrificing, loving humiliation in the giving of Himself for the redemption of the
souls of men as the aim of His earthly mission. What is most striking is that here He describes the
fulfillment of that mission as a ‘service’, using a verb form of diakonos. “Jesus does not stop at the picture of
table service. [This idea of diakonos] is now much more than a comprehensive term for any loving assistance
rendered to the neighbour. It is understood as full and perfect sacrifice, as the offering of life which is the
very essence of service, of being for others, whether in life or in death.”1 Exceeding all cultural bounds and
usages, Christ transformed the meaning of this word into the supreme mark of Christian service. 2 Rather
than a table waiter, a deacon, in NT terms, is most notably a humble servant.
A SERVANT
The English word ‘deacon’ is a transliteration of the Greek word diakonos, which in its most basic
meaning describes a servant. The associated word group commonly describes actions or subjects pertaining
to service (diakoneo – to serve, diakonia – service, diakonos – servant). While the origin of the word has been
1
2
TDNT, 2:86.
“So used, the concept extends beyond the limits of its former sphere of meaning” (NIDNTT, 546).
8
debated, its verbal root derives most probably from diēkō, “to reach from one place to another,”1 which is
related to the verb diōkō, “to move rapidly and decisively toward an objective, hasten, run, press on.”2 Thus,
“the root idea is one who reaches out with diligence and persistence to render a service on behalf of others.
This would imply that the deacon reaches out to render love-prompted service to others energetically and
persistently.”3 This is a significant conclusion and nicely summarizes the conclusion of the study before
us—a deacon is, above all things, a servant.
Plato said, “How can a man be happy when he has to serve someone?”4 As discussed in the previous
section, in Greek thought a servant was not a dignified station. “People were to rule, not serve, and the
highest good was the development of the self, although service to the state was regarded as virtuous.” 5 In
contrast, the idea of self-denying, lowly service encapsulates an important Christian theme. Like the cross,
lowly service is foolishness in the eyes of the worldly wise, but through the transformation that is in Christ,
sacrificial service is realized as honorable and distinctively Christian.
EXEMPLIFIED IN CHRIST
The greatest servant that the world has ever seen is incontestably disclosed in Jesus. His services to
humanity range in wonderful array; from the feeding of the hungry to the salvation of the unworthy. We
have already noted how Christ most perfectly taught and exemplified the deepest meaning and example of
service in His own life and atoning death (Mt 20:20-28; Mk 10:35-45; Lk 22:24-27). He said, “For even the
Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). In
the deepest meaning of service, Christ offered Himself as a substitutionary sacrifice for the supreme welfare
of others. In the most meaningful way, it was not just service that He taught and exemplified, it was a
humble, self-sacrificing service of love for people. Indeed, the very use of the term diakonos in most NT
contexts is best explained as a symbol of humble service exemplified in Christ rather than table waiting (see
above). Paul thus uses the term diakonos to identify the role that Christ took on for the good of others: “For I
say that Christ has become a servant [diakonos] to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm
the promises given to the fathers” (Ro 15:8).
Christ, His teaching and example of service, present the ultimate picture of Christian service—a service
that is particularly assigned to deacons for the care of the church. Just before His betrayal, Jesus “got up
from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water
into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was
girded” (Jn 13:4-5). With this, Jesus teaches an essential lesson that centers on the heart of diaconal service;
namely, humble, self-effacing, and markedly practical care for others. Again, He relates the matter of
diaconal service to His revolutionary principle of leadership: “So when He had washed their feet, and taken
His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, ‘Do you know what I have done to you? You
call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 7th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890), 369.
William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd
ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 254.
3 D. Edmond Hiebert, “Behind the Word ‘Deacon’: A New Testament Study,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 140 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1983), 153.
4 TDNT, 2:82.
5 Mounce, 197.
1
2
9
feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet’” (Jn 13:12–14). The unmistakable point of application for
those who wish to be sent by Christ is then made plain in His words that follow: “For I gave you an
example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his
master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him” (Jn 13:15–16). Christ has made honorable
what was disreputable; He has invested divine dignity into what was otherwise a demeaning station.
There is no doubt that “the NT meaning of diakoneō is derived from the person of Jesus and his gospel
(Matt 20:28). It becomes a term denoting loving action for brother and neighbour, which in turn is derived
from divine love, and also describes the outworking of fellowship.”1 Stott aptly remarks, “It was from this
teaching and example of Jesus that the general calling of all his followers to humble service derived. From it
too came the particular calling of some to serve as ‘deacons’.”2 A deacon is a servant, most wonderfully
modeled by Christ as one who humbly serves for the good of others.
EXEMPLIFIED IN CHRIST’S FOLLOWERS
In seeking to ensure a biblical answer to the question, “What is a deacon?,” it is important to clearly
acknowledge that the term diakonos is used to convey various meanings in the NT; the least of which is the
technical usage that identifies a church officer. The majority of occurrences represent someone in the service
of Christ.
Whenever the term is used as a description of someone in the service of Christ, the meaning is always
one of humble Christ-exalting, people-loving service. If a local church intends to honor the Lord with a
biblically accurate definition of a deacon, they must above all things maintain this most foundational mark:
humble Christ-exalting, people-loving service.
The Apostle Paul declares that he “was made a minister [diakonos], according to the gift of God’s grace
which was given to me according to the working of His power” (Eph 3:7). While this does not contextually
identify the apostle as a ‘deacon’, it most certainly links him to humble Christ-exalting, people-loving
service. In particular, Paul claims to be a ‘servant’ of the gospel. He writes to the Colossians in the capacity
of a ‘servant’ of the gospel, encouraging them in the faith: “if indeed you continue in the faith firmly
established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was
proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister [diakonos]” (Col 1:23).
The basic principle of Paul’s diaconal service in the gospel is underscored when he writes a couple of verses
later, “of this church I was made a minister [diakonos] according to the stewardship from God bestowed on
me for your benefit” (Col 1:25). The key to the diaconal character of his service is highlighted in the words,
“for your benefit.” While he plainly calls himself a diakonos of the church, it is not in the official sense of 1
Timothy 3:8. Rather he is describing his self-denying, sacrificial service in proclaiming the gospel for the
sake of his hearers (Col 1:24). He is fully willing to suffer for the benefit of others—the invaluable benefit
that others may hear the gospel (Col 1:25) and that each person would be presented “complete in Christ”
(Col 1:28). At which point he says, “For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which
mightily works within me” (Col 1:29). Paul is careful to avoid offense at all costs in his service to Christ and
love for people. In seeking the highest welfare of others, he says “in everything commending ourselves as
servants [plural of diakonos] of God, in much endurance, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses, in
1
2
NIDNTT, 547.
John Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, TBST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 90.
10
beatings, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in hunger” (2 Co 6:4–5). Similarly, in 2
Corinthians 11 Paul exemplifies the principle of sacrificial love in the humble service of Christ for the
benefit of others—the truest sense of diaconal service:
Are they servants [plural of diakonos] of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so; in far more labors, in far more
imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews
thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night
and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from
robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the
wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many
sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. Apart from such external
things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches (2 Co 11:23–28).
As a ‘servant’ faithful to his task, and a man who apprehends the inestimable worth of Christ, Paul’s
grand resolution of heart underscores the sacrificial essence of diaconal service for the glory of Christ and
the good of others: “But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my
course and the ministry [diakonia] which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of
the grace of God” (Ac 20:24).
Paul is not alone in bearing the designation ‘servant’ (diakonos) in the sense of humble Christ-exalting,
people-loving service. All who served in the same manner as Paul are described in like manner as “servants
[plural of diakonos]” (2 Co 3:6; 6:4). Apollos is joined with Paul, both being described as “servants [plural of
diakonos]” (1 Co 3:5). Paul commends to the church in Rome, “our sister Phoebe, who is a servant [diakonos]
of the church which is at Cenchrea” (Ro 16:1). She stands as an example of a faithful ‘servant’ to others in
the church for the exaltation of Christ and the good of others. Paul urges the saints in Rome to “receive her
in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need
of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well” (Ro 16:2). Paul’s “beloved
fellow bond-servant,” Epaphras, is called “a faithful servant [diakonos] of Christ on our behalf” (Col 1:7).
Likewise, Tychicus is a “beloved brother and faithful servant [diakonos] and fellow bond-servant in the
Lord” (Col 4:7; cf. Eph 6:21). Timothy also bears the designation, “a good servant [diakonos] of Christ Jesus”
(1 Ti 4:6). Judas and Matthias, his replacement, are said to have participated in “this ministry [diakonia]” as
apostles (Ac 1:17, 25).
On account of those distinguished as diakonos in the broader sense of the term, some have regarded it as
“the common NT designation of a Christian leader.”1 But such a designation can only be understood in the
richness of self-sacrificing service for the sake of others—not on the grounds of authority, rank, or position.
The generic designation of diakonos was owing to the recognition of outstanding service to others on behalf
of Christ. Just as those noted in the NT as diakonos were designated a type of leader for their services, so also
the latter application of the term for formal office designates a leader of service or servant-leader. “There is
certainly nothing officious, self-conscious, or self-promoting in the word deacon. The Lord's followers are to
be humble servants.”2
1
2
Knight, 167-68.
R. Kent Hughes and Bryan Chapell, Preaching the Word – 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: To Guard the Post, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 84.
11
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SERVANT AND SLAVE
In the ancient world, the services of diakonoi (plural of diakonos) “denote the service of slaves,
underlings, and helpers.”1 Ten different Greek words conveying some aspect of the ‘servant’ theme occur in
the Greek New Testament.2
Understanding the difference between diakonos and other ‘servant’ terms is valuable in pursuing a
biblical understanding of deacons. For example, the Greek word doulos is most literally translated ‘slave’
but is occasionally rendered ‘bond-servant’ (Lk 2:29; Ac 2:18; 4:29; 16:17; etc.). The difference between
diakonos and doulos is important in answering the question, “What is a deacon?” “Doulos stresses almost
exclusively the Christian’s complete subjection to the Lord; diakonos is concerned with his service for the
church, his brothers and fellow-men, for the fellowship . . . The diakonos is always one who serves on
Christ’s behalf and continues Christ’s service for the outer and inner man.”3
The distinction between diakonos and doulos is best illustrated in Christ. It is said that He took on “the
form of a slave (doulos)” (Phil 2:7). But this was in relation to God the Father only, not man. In fact, Christ is
never said to be a doulos of men, only their diakonos (Rom 15:8; cf. Mt 20:28; Lk 22:27). Christ perfectly
modeled complete submission to the Father and selfless service to men in great need. Surely God the Father
was not in need, and God the Son was not in complete subjection to the lordship of men. A New Testament
deacon is not a slave, but a servant to people in need.
According to New Testament usage, diakonos distinctively identifies a servant whose service is
relational, personal, and humble. Most other ‘servant’ terms (i.e. tēerapon) “depict a servant in relation to his
work, but diakonos looks at him in the sphere of his service to a person.”4 Modern usage of the English word
‘deacon’ simply fails to appreciate the original connotation and reputation associated with the term. Christ
invested unprecedented character and virtue into the principle of this service and the church is responsible
to reflect and uphold its intended practice.
A MINISTER
Because a deacon is a servant that specifically serves people, a deacon is a minister. Oxford English
Dictionary defines a ‘minister’ as “a servant, attendant” and “one who waits upon, or ministers to the wants
of another.”5 The action of a ‘minister’ is “to furnish, supply, impart something necessary or helpful.” 6 It is
“to give aid or service”7 and therefore to “attend to the needs of”8 people.
In several instances the term diakonos is translated ‘minister’ in most English versions of the Bible. Such
is the case for Paul in Ephesians 3:7, Colossians 1:23, 25, and Tychicus in Ephesians 6:21. Even human
government is declared to be “a minister [diakonos] of God to you for good” (Ro 13:4). In the last instance, it
ISBE, 1:880.
D. Edmond Hiebert, “Behind the Word ‘Deacon’: A New Testament Study,” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 140 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1983), 152.
3 NIDNTT, 548
4 Robert Thomas, Lexical Exegesis of 1 Thessalonians, 11.
5 OED, s.v. minister.
6 OED, s.v. minister –v.
7 Merriam-Webster, s.v. minister –v.
8 Concise Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. minister –v.
1
2
12
is clear that the term is being employed with its secular and even civic connotation rather than theological.1
Hodge suggests that the “governing authorities or rulers are not appointed for their own advantage, but for
the benefit of society,” and in this they are “servants of the people as well as the servants of God, and that
the welfare of society is the only legitimate object which they as rulers are free to pursue.” 2 Even in its
secular Greek context dealing with matters of civics, a diakonos is portrayed as a servant appointed to
‘minister’ (in this case justice) on behalf of God. What is common to all cases is obvious: a minister is one who
ministers on behalf of and for the benefit of another.
MINISTRY SERVICE
If a deacon is a minister then the service of a deacon is ministry. This is further established in the word
diakonia, the Greek noun most closely related to diakonos. It is most frequently translated ‘ministry’ (19
instances), with ‘service’ (7 instances) ranking next in frequency (see Appendix 3 for more detail). Service
characteristic of a deacon, then, is ministry to the church. In its most general sense, ‘ministry’ in the church
is loving service to one another. This is expressed in Revelation 2:19, where Christ says, “I know your
deeds, and your love and faith and service [diakonia] and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are
greater than at first.” We are reminded that “there are varieties of ministries [plural diakonia], and the same
Lord” (1 Co 12:5). In this sense, ‘ministries’ signify the tasks corresponding to the church congregation in
general (cf. Ro 12:4-7). This is the ‘ministry’ in which everyone in the church is responsible to engage.
Leaders are given “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service [diakonia], to the building up of the
body of Christ” (Eph 4:12).
The scope of ‘ministry’ in the NT ranges from meeting the highest need of humanity in the gospel (Ac
20:24; 21:19; Ro 11:13; 2 Co 3:7, 8, 9; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3) to meeting the most mundane essentials (Ac 6:1; 11:29;
12:25; Ro 15:31; 2 Co 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13). So the depiction of diaconal ministry is captured in the essence of
meeting needs, and most substantially meeting the needs of those who have the gospel but are suffering
physical and material lack. While imprisoned, Paul expressed his desire to retain Onesimus, Philemon’s
runaway slave, so that on behalf of Philemon, Onesimus might, in Paul’s words, “minister [diakonia] to me
in my imprisonment for the gospel” (Phm 13). Bruce observes an important dynamic that helps to illustrate
Paul’s usage of diakonos here: “Restricted in his movements as he was, Paul depended in great measure on
the personal service of others. Timothy was with him, indeed, but Timothy was his agent in evangelistic
and pastoral concerns which sometimes involved him in long absences. But if Onesimus were sent back, he
could be available all the time to attend to Paul’s personal needs, and this would be no mean contribution to
the service of the gospel.”3 In like manner, by meeting the needs of the most needy in the church, deacons
offer no mean contribution to the ministry of the gospel.
When famine overwhelmed the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch labored to meet their most
practical physical needs by means of financial aid: “And in the proportion that any of the disciples had
1 Moo notes that “διάκονος was used in secular Greek to denote a civic official (MM); cf. its application to court officials in Esth. 1:10; 2:2; 6:3
and to King Nebuchadrezzar in Jer. 25:9. . . . The idea that secular rulers administer divine justice is not confined to Jewish or Christian circles; see,
e.g., Plutarch, ‘Rulers are ministers of God for the care and safety of mankind, that they may distribute or hold in safe keeping the blessings and
benefits which God gives to man’ (Princip. Inerud. 5.13.22–14.2, quoted in Black)” (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996], 801n).
2 Charles Hodge, Romans (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1986), 407-8.
3 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, in NICNT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984),
215.
13
means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief [diakonia] of the brethren living in
Judea. And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders” (Ac 11:29-30). Here the
ministry of loving care from others is effectively called a ministry of ‘relief’. The diaconal task of delivering
the collection that was assigned to Barnabas and Saul is elsewhere translated ‘mission’: “Barnabas and Saul
returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission [diakonia]” (Ac 12:25). We might say that
diaconal service exemplifies a mission to minister relief to people in need—it is a mercy ministry to those
whose hope is set on Christ.
On at least one other occasion, Paul was leading a financial relief effort again to the church in
Jerusalem. He informs the saints in Rome that his journey to their city would be delayed primarily because,
in his words, “I am going to Jerusalem serving [verb form of diakonia] the saints” (Ro 15:25). Then he
effectively prays that his “service [diakonia] for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints” (Ro 15:31).
Elsewhere Paul tells of the graciousness displayed by the saints in Macedonia in their generous contribution
for the aid of the poor in Jerusalem. He says, “For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their
ability, they gave of their own accord, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the
support [diakonia] of the saints” (2 Co 8:3–4). This, he calls, a “ministry [diakonia] for the saints” (9:1, 12, 13)
because it is “supplying the needs of the saints” (2 Co 9:12). He continues by saying that “because of the
proof given by this ministry [diakonia], they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the
gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all” (2 Co 9:13).
It is evident that diaconal service, while specifically intended to meet the practical needs of the poor, ill,
and disadvantaged in the church, proves to be much more than physical. Diaconal ministry is spiritually
motivated, spiritually empowered, and ultimately aims at spiritual consequences. “The word 'ministry'
(diakonia) had a technical meaning in Judaism for supporting the needs of the poor. For Paul, however, this
ministry is far more than simply delivering aid to poor people. It had major theological consequences and
was something he was prepared to risk his life to carry out.”1 Theological consequences to material support
is signaled by Peter when he writes, “whoever serves [diakoneō] is to do so as one who is serving by the
strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom
belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever” (1 Pe 4:11). There appears to be a conceptual play on the
notion of service in Peter’s use of ‘supplies’, indicating that God will supply spiritual strength for the task of
supplying material care—and all this for the glory of God. “A good deacon, accordingly, is attentive to duty
for Christ’s sake.”2
TAKING CARE OF PEOPLE
A deacon is a minister whose ministry is taking care of people. The verb form of the word is used in the
sense of “to take care of.” After Christ was tempted in the desert by Satan, “angels came and began to
minister [diakoneō (verb form of diakonia)] to Him” (Mt 4:11). At the crucifixion, a number of women
watching from a distance were identified as those who “used to follow Him and minister [diakoneō] to Him”
(Mk 15:41). These women are elsewhere described as “contributing to [Jesus and His disciples’] support
[diakoneō] out of their private means” (Lk 8:3). Morris points out that “this is valuable as giving us one of the
few glimpses we have of the way Jesus’ needs during his ministry were met. We read of the apostolic band
1
2
David Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 368-69.
Kistemaker, 131.
14
as having a common purse from which purchases of food were made and gifts given to the poor (John
13:29), but not of how it was supplied.”1 This offers a significant example of the nature of diaconal service—
a ministry of taking care of people with material needs.
What is a deacon? A deacon is a minister whose service is largely characteristic of meeting the bodily
needs of saints. “Originally all the manifold functions exercised in the church could be called 'services' or
ministries (1 Cor 12:5). Hence, the various office-bearers were 'servants', diakonoi [plural of diakonos], of the
church (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5; Col. 1:25). But in the more specialized sense the concept was narrowed down to the
material care of the church, which was closely linked with the office of the [overseer] (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:1–7, 8–
13; 1 Clem. 42:1 f.; Ignatius, Mag. 2:1; 6:1; Trall. 2:1).”2 Therefore, “the work of the deacon, related to the
local church and to the whole cause of Christ, must be spiritually motivated and be Christ-centered. . . . It is
a demanding and consuming service, but it has Christ’s sure promise of reward: ‘If any one serves Me, the
Father will honor him’ (John 12:26).”3
With this word, diakonos, Jesus conveyed His profound perspective of personal service involving very
real and practical self-sacrifice for the benefit of others (Mt 20:28). In its highest form, it portrays a voluntary
self-humiliation, motivated by a passion for the glory of God, gratitude of grace, and the good of others.
Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 169.
NIDNTT, 548.
3 Hiebert, “Behind the Word ‘Deacon’: A New Testament Study,” 161.
1
2
15
The origin of the NT diaconate is nowhere explicitly identified. The office is without any OT
counterpart and finds no equivalent precedent in the secular world. Rather than assuming an arbitrary
origin, however, it is quite evident that the NT diaconate emerged among disciples of Christ responding to
circumstantial material needs within their numbers, having the rich example of Jesus so deeply impressed
upon their hearts.
NO EQUIVALENT PRECEDENT
The NT deacon does not find its origin in either the secular or religious sectors of ancient society. This
is not to say that there is absolutely no historical precedent, for the term itself predates the NT. It is clear
that there was some concept of a diakonos in the social and even religious mind of the Greeks. In fact, this
term is found in ancient documents that show ‘deacons’ (diakonoi) “presiding at the dedication of a statue to
the Greek god Hermes. Serapis and Isis, Egyptian deities, were served by a college of ‘deacons’ presided
over by a priest.”1 But the ancient Greek concept of a ‘deacon’—whether secular or religious—always
involved service to a superior. Therefore, the religious deacon of the ancient Greeks was a servant who
ceremonially served priests or gods. This ancient pagan practice may have found some remotely related
expression in church history, but is nowhere presented in Scripture. While a Christian deacon is a servant,
he is one who serves the Lord primarily by serving in practical rather than ceremonial service—to the
disadvantaged rather than the esteemed. While the term predates the NT, the fullness of its Christian
meaning clearly does not.
In pre-Christian Greek we never find the words episkopos and diakonos used in the Christian sense, whether
individually or in the distinctive Christian relationship. Early Christianity took over words which were
predominantly secular in their current usage and which had not yet been given any sharply defined sense. It
linked these words with offices which were being fashioned in the community, and thus gave them a new sense
which was so firmly welded with the activity thereby denoted that in all languages they have been adopted as
loan-words to describe Christian office-bearers.2
Some have suggested stronger affinities between the NT deacon and the service attendant of the Jewish
synagogue (hazzan). However, both biblical and extrabiblical evidence suggest otherwise. “The hazzan
opened and closed the synagogue doors, kept it clean, and handed out the books for reading. It was
1
2
Comfort, TBD, 363.
H. W. Beyer, TDNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-), 2:91.
16
probably to such a person that Jesus handed the scroll of Isaiah after finishing his reading (Lk 4:20).” 1 “He
was responsible for the furniture and gave special attention to the scrolls. He announced the start and end
of the Sabbath day by blowing a trumpet. He, in some cases, was even the schoolmaster for the young in the
synagogue school. He carried out the sentence of punishment passed by the elders. History has shown
many futile attempts to correlate the attendant with a NT church official.”2 Saucy points out that “the origin
of the office of deacon is not clearly stated in the New Testament, nor does there appear to be any
antecedent to this office of the church in the Jewish community, as in the case of elders. The synagogue did
have an attendant called the chazzan [or hazzan], but his function was confined to the ministries of
worship.”3 It is interesting to note that hazzan is never translated diakonos in Greek. When mentioned in the
NT, the Greek word hupēretēs (‘attendant’) is used (cf. Lk 4:20 as noted above). The hazzan was primarily
responsible for facilitating synagogue rather than meeting the needs of people and therefore even this
religious officer proves to be far from an equivalent precedent of the NT deacon.
In addition to the hazzan, it is well known that “synagogues appointed men as collectors and
distributors of the community charity.”4 Historical sources indicate the existence of four subordinate offices
of the synagogue and not merely one. Only the hazzan is mentioned in the NT, but beyond this officer, there
were (1) the collector of alms, (2) the messenger, and (3) the herald of Shema; all of whom served under the
‘ruler of the synagogue’ (archisynagōgos).5 While there appears to be an even closer affinity to the collectors
of alms, this too proves inadequate since he is not connected with any of the NT examples or
responsibilities of diaconal service. The profile of the collectors of alms is more equivalent to contemporary
collection ushers than with deacons. The learned Professor Thomas Armitage (1819-1896), efficiently
contrasts the NT deacon with both the OT Levite and the intertestamental hazzan:
The duties of the Levite in the temple, and the office of the Chusan [hazzan] in the synagogue, were of an
entirely different character from those of the deacon. The Levite took care of the temple sacrifices, removed the
blood, offal and ashes of the altar, served as door-keeper at the gates, and aided in the chorus of the psalmody.
The duties of the Chusan were of the same order, so far as care for the synagogue went, and aid in the services
allowed. But the only work of the deacon was to serve at the table in the daily meal and relieve the poor, a labor
which called for another class of qualifications from those of these Jewish officers. . . . In a word, his sacred
duties called for the ‘Holy Spirit and wisdom,’ special graces which neither Levite nor Chusan needed for their
work.6
This is why many, concerning the NT deacon, have rightly stated: “How the office originated cannot be
easily stated. There is no real starting-point in any official of the synagogue.”7 Again, “the title deacon does
not seem to have been derived from any Jewish or pagan source, but to have been a natural application of
Comfort, 363.
David W. Miller, “The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership,” Grace Theological Journal Volume 6 (Winona, IN: Grace Seminary,
1985), 320.
3 Saucy, The Church, 153-4.
4 Johnson, 227.
5 Sonne, “Synagogue,” 4.490; cited by Miller.
6 Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1886), 131.
7 J. P. Lilley, The Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 24.
1
2
17
the more general idea of ministry to the wants of others, so specially characteristic of Christianity.”1 Thus,
“neither here nor in paganism are there any exact models which are simply copied.”2
While the office of overseer was clearly a developed adaptation from the Jewish presbyter in the OT,
the diaconate has no historical precedent. This is true because the world had no historical precedent for
Jesus Christ, and the truest trait of the diaconate was forged by Him.3 So, we may say that “the diaconate,
on the other hand, developed from the strong, personal, historical example of Jesus, the servant who
compassionately met concrete human needs.”4
ACTS SIX AND “THE SEVEN”
Many have taken the appointment of the Seven in Acts 6 as the origin of the diaconate, the founding of
a new and permanent office in the church (cf. Acts 6:1-7).5 Arguments used in favor of this theory include:
(1) the related noun (diakonia) is used in verses 1 and 4, and the verb (diakoneō) is used in verse 2; (2) the
prominence of this passage in the history of the developing church suggests that it is drawing attention to
the creation of a new office; (3) many in church history, as early as Irenaeus, have limited the number of
deacons to seven, being patterned after this passage;6 (4) the qualifications are similar to those of 1 Tim 3:812; and (5) if Acts 6 does not report the beginning of the diaconate, then the church has no inspired record
of its origin.
Others have capably argued against this theory with several cogent observations.7 First, the most
obvious objection is suggested by the absence of the Seven ever being referred to as deacons. When Luke
refers to Philip later in the book, instead of identifying him as “one of the deacons” he identifies him as
“one of the seven” (Ac 21:8). If Philip was installed into an office of the church we would expect him to be
identified as a member of that office (cf. Ac 14:14). Instead, he is distinguished as one of the spirit-filled men
who were selected for the special task of ministering to the needs of the Hellenistic widows before the
scattering of the church in Jerusalem. It is also noteworthy that the Seven are mentioned nowhere else in the
NT.
Second, we must agree with Strauch that “it is a mistake to conclude that because the Seven are not
actually called deacons, there is no connection between the Seven mentioned in Acts and the deacons
mentioned in Paul’s epistles.”8 But this does not mean that the appointment of the Seven constitutes the
origin of a permanent office. While it is reported that Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in
every church” in Galatia (Ac 14:23), it is never reported that they appointed or gave instructions to appoint
Charles Gore and C. H. Turner, The Church and the Ministry (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1919), 361.
Beyer, "diakoneo, diakonia, diakonos" in TDNT, 2:91.
3 “As is often the case, the origin of the office is seen in the dynamic and revolutionary teaching of Christ. The greatest serves. Who would be
first must be last. A mark of true discipleship is the willingness to undergo sacrificial service to others, whether it be footwashing, serving in the
common meal, or some other service” (Mounce, 197).
4 Comfort, TBD, 364.
5 “The view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Irenæus (adv. Hær. I. 26. 3; III. 12. 10; IV. 15. 1), then in Cyprian (Ep. 64. 3), and was
the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman Church in the third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters, they had only seven deacons;
see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43), and has been ever since almost universally accepted” (NPNF2.1, Hist. Eccl. 2.1.1n). See also Alford, 2:63; Kent, 63;
Lange, 41; Strauch, 16.
6 “Eusebius even records how the Roman Church limited its diaconate to seven, preserving the memory of Stephen. By the third century
Rome had forty-six elders but only seven deacons—and this tradition persisted through the fifth century” (EDT, 320).
7 T. M. Lindsay, ISBE 3.2059a; H. W. Beyer, TDNT 2 (1964) 90; C. Brown, NIDNTT 3 (1978) 1067; P. H. Menoud, IDB 1.623; J. Stam, ZPEB 1.49a;
A. F. Walls, IBD 1.371a; Bruce, Acts, 122; Marshall, Acts, 135; Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: IVF 1964) 82–86; Barnett, The Diaconate, 30; etc.
8 Strauch, 45.
1
2
18
deacons. Additionally, some have argued that since Acts records the historical background to the epistles,
surely Acts 6 is intended to identify the origin of the official diaconate mentioned in Philippians 1:1 and 1
Timothy 3:8. But in comparison, the office of church elder is first mentioned incidentally without any
explanation of its official origin (cf. Ac 11:30)—an office that, unlike the diaconate, is repeatedly referenced
as Acts progresses. While it is sensible to see the office of the elder being adapted from the Jewish
synagogue, nevertheless it is introduced without any explanation. The point is that if the office of elder
could be thus introduced without the slightest mention of how the office was founded in the church, it
follows that the office of deacon could likewise be assumed.
Third, a case for this theory can hardly be established on the ground that words related to ‘deacon’ are
used in Acts 6 to describe the service of the Seven, since one of the same words is used to describe the
service of the apostles in the same context. A subtle play on words appears in these verses that seems to
draw a contrasting distinction of responsibility. In verse 1, the widows were being overlooked in the daily
ministry [diakonia] of aid, support, or provision. The apostles respond to this important need by contrasting
two ministries. In verse 2 they say, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve
[diakoneō] tables [trapedza].” They continue in verse 4, saying, “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to
the ministry [diakonia] of the word.” So both ministries are described by the term diakonia, one ministering
material provision and the other ministering spiritual provision. Because both ministries served to meet
needs of people, they can both rightly be described in terms of diakonia. One ministry served the people
primarily through prayerful words and the other practical works. A helpful pattern may be realized here.
The needs that the Twelve and the Seven ministered to meet would continue in the life of the church long
after these appointed ministers would. The responsibility of prayer and the ministry of the word of God
would continue primarily under the stewardship of elders while it seems evident that the ministry of care
for the poor and disadvantaged in the church would continue, as needed, under the ministry of the
diaconate.
Fourth, not only is the mark of a perpetual office missing from Acts 6, but it appears to describe a
temporary relief campaign for a particular situation. Now, it has been contended that “there are enough
similarities between Acts 6 and the completion of the apostolate in Acts 1 to suggest that the selection of the
Seven established a new office in the church.”1 But naming the men and stating qualifications for service
hardly establish a new office in the church. It has also been suggested that the establishment of a new office
is inferred by the laying on of hands by the apostles, even though they did not lay hands on Matthias (Ac
1:26)—a detail that weakens the previous argument. But the establishment of a church office cannot be
insisted on the ground that the apostles laid hands on these men. Polhill explains this point well:
It is best not to read our current practices of ordination back into the text of Acts with regard to this gesture of
hand-laying. In the Old Testament the laying on of hands deals with the transfer of some personal characteristic
or responsibility from one person to another, as from Moses to Joshua (Num 27:16–23). The gesture is used in
several ways in Acts: in healings (9:17), the gift of the Spirit (9:17; 8:18), and in commissioning to a task (6:6;
13:3). Even in the commissionings the emphasis is not so much on appointment to an office as to designation for
a task.2
1
2
Strauch, 51.
John B. Polhill, Acts, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 182.
19
The text says that the Seven were “appointed to” or “put in charge of” (kathistēmi) an identified “task”
or “need, necessity” (chreia). The term translated “task” is singular in number and preceded by an article,
which suggests a specifically known need. Moreover, the very use of this word “suggests the church called
the seven men to help take care of a onetime crisis, not that it necessarily installed them into a permanent
office.”1 The text is most naturally understood to describe the selection and commissioning of seven men for
a specific task. After the scattering of the church (cf. Ac 8:1), the Seven are no longer seen in service to the
widows. Instead, ministry to the widows is seen as being served by others (cf. Ac 9:36-41). While this does
not necessarily mean that the Seven were no longer under the duty of ministering to widows in the church,
it is suggestive. This understanding is further supported by the fact that Philip relocated to Caesarea (Ac
21:8).
In summary, the textual evidence is lacking to support the claim that Acts 6 reports the founding of a
permanent office, while at the same time it clearly presents a significant precedent. In other words, “while
the New Testament does not explicitly connect the office of deacon with Acts 6, it seems most reasonable to
see the seven men at least as prototype deacons.”2 Accordingly, “these men may have filled an embryonic
role which the church grew to see as essential in all their congregations, making way for this second office
within the local church.” Stated still another way, “these seven men commissioned by the apostles may
have served as kind of ‘a protodiaconate,’ which later blossomed into a permanent and established office.
However, the generic nature of the verb diakoneō prevents a dogmatic connection between the seven men
chosen to serve in Acts 6:1–6 and the established diaconate in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8–10.”3
Alford asserts reasonably that “the connexion of the ecclesiastical deacons with the Seven appointed in Acts
6 is very doubtful . . . but that the ecclesiastical order sprung out of similar necessities, and had for its field
of work similar objects, can hardly be doubted.”4 Hort is likely correct when he says that “the Seven at
Jerusalem would of course be well known to St. Paul and to many others outside Palestine, and it would
not be strange if the idea propagated itself. Indeed analogous wants might well lead to analogous
institutions.”5 In line with these analyses, we may conclude that the ministry to which the Seven were
appointed was functionally similar to the ministry of a later church office that would be called the
diaconate. If this understanding is correct, then indeed it affirms “the maxim that in the NT ministry was a
function long before it became an office.”6 These observations will prove helpful in discerning the contours
of the diaconate that come closest to the biblical form.
MacArthur, Master's Plan, 235.
Saucy, 155.
3 David A. Mappes, “The ‘Elder’ in the Old and New Testaments,” in Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 154, 613 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1997), 88.
4 Alford, 1 Ti 3:8.
5 F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London: Macmillan and Company, 1914), 209.
6 Richard N. Longenecker, "The Acts of the Apostles" in EBC, Volume 9: John and Acts, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1981), 331.
1
2
20
Rightly understanding the role and responsibilities of deacons will aid in understanding the role and
responsibilities of the congregation on the one hand and the overseers on the other. The general work of the
‘ministry’ (diakonia) is the responsibility of the congregation (Eph 4:12) while the responsibility and
authority of leadership falls to the overseers (Acts 20:28; 1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 3:5; Heb 13:17). Deacons are
particularly appointed to the ministry of practical needs within the church. The differences between
deacons and overseers are not marginal.
Overseers and deacons do not differ merely in rank. We are not to assume that “the diaconate was a
lower and the bishopric a higher grade in a fixed order of ministry.”1 While the diaconate certainly assists
and complements the shepherding ministry of the overseers they are distinct ministries and not merely a
different rank with differing degrees of responsibility. Deacons are not junior overseers or shepherds in
training. The diaconate constitutes a separate but complementary ministry to that of the episcopate. The
responsibilities of the overseer and deacon are foundationally different even though they both function as
ministries and share in some overlapping aspects of service.
Differences in qualifications suggest differences in function. Many portray the qualifications of deacons
as virtually parallel to that of overseers with minor variation.2 Care should be exercised in light of this
tendency as it may prove counterproductive to understanding the very real differences represented by
these offices. Upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the qualifications for these offices correspond
more closely to their respective responsibilities than one might gather at first glance.
QUALIFICATION DIFFERENCES
Of the nine qualifications of a deacon, five are shared with that of the overseer.3 Those that are shared
evidently demonstrate the primary focus for qualification, namely the character of the man. Indeed, we
should expect the qualifications for both offices to be “similar because they are describing not the functions
of an office but the type of person who may fulfill that office. Both the office of church leader and the office
of church worker require the same type of person: a mature Christian whose behavior is above reproach.” 4
But this does not mean that the qualifications do not in some significant way correspond to the duties of the
respective offices. Mounce agrees by explaining that “even though the lists of qualifications are similar, they
Ramsay, 77.
As though the qualification for the respective offices “cover the same basic ground” (Towner, 262).
3 Only those qualifications that explicitly refer to male deacons in 1 Timothy 3 are counted; three correspond to the ‘women’.
4 Mounce, 195.
1
2
21
are distinct, suggesting distinct functions;” and therefore, “overseers and deacons are distinct in function
but similar in character.”1
Listed below are the five qualifications that are virtually identical between overseers and deacons. It is
evident that these qualifications in particular address the core character qualities necessary to serve in the
church in an official capacity.
Overseers
1. Above reproach (v.2)
2. A one-woman man (v.2)
3. Not given to wine (v.3)
4. Not a lover of money (v.3)
5. Leading his own house well (v.4)
Deacons
Free from reproach (v.10)
A one-woman man (v.12)
Not given to much wine (v.8)
Not eager for dishonest gain (v.8)
Leading well his own house (v.12)
These are sweeping moral qualities that include (1) the overarching reputation of the man, (2) his
fidelity to his wife including sexual purity, (3) his sobriety including clear thinking, (4) his freedom from the
love of money including proper motives to serve, and (5) the orderly mark of spiritual leadership reflected
in his own family.
In addition to these qualities, the overseer is explicitly required to manifest an exemplary character
with the following traits. These are the qualifications that are unique to the office of overseer:

Self-controlled

Apt to teach

Not contentious

Respectable

Not quarrelsome

Not a new convert

Hospitable

Forbearing

Well reputed by those outside
Likewise, deacons are explicitly required to demonstrate irreproachable character with the following
qualities. These are the qualifications that are unique to the office of deacon:

Dignified

Proved—by testing

Holding the mystery of the faith

Not double-tongued
Inferences from these differences offer insights into the distinct sanction of the diaconate.
1) A DEACON MUST BE DIGNIFIED
The first difference is hardly of any significant substance and may more appropriately reflect a nuanced
qualification. Perhaps the most essential difference between the requirement that overseers be “respectable”
(kosmios) and deacons be “dignified” (semnos) is that the former draws respect by the inherent attraction of
character whereas the latter emphasizes a noble reverence that itself is respectable. The overseer should be
one who manifests a seemly and disciplined life. The term kosmios strictly means “well-arranged, orderly,”
being an adjective related to the word representative of the created order of the universe. It serves as the
origin of the English word “cosmetics,” which illustrates the nuance of attraction. This is clearly a quality
fitting for a leader.
1
Ibid., 196.
22
Whereas “respectable” (kosmios) carries no religious connotation, “dignified” (semnos) does. It speaks
keenly of a reverent demeanor and alludes to a seriousness of mind in living out one’s faith. So another
shade to its meaning is integrity, which elicits respect from others through an outward expression of an
inner quality. This conclusion is in full accord with verse 9, which presents another qualification stated only
for deacons, namely that a deacon should be “holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience”
(see below). The inner quality is a life that is marked by the gospel, which is actively being held by a
continuing faith. Together these details help to stress the necessity that a deacon be evidently gripped by
the gospel so that others within the church would be quick to affirm their respect for him.
If there is anything to the difference between these qualifications, it seems reasonable to notice that a
deacon is not responsible to lead the church in order and discipline as the overseer is. That the deacon must
be dignified (semnos), possessing a commendable reverence for God and integrity of faith with a clear
conscience, may infer that his responsibilities are particularly vulnerable to the temptation of taking
advantage of others.
2) A DEACON MUST BE PROVED—BY TESTING
Another difference is that deacons “must also first be tested” (v.10). The difference that may be
observed here seems to be one, again, of trustworthiness of character. It infers a matter of proven character
within the church that is immediately recognizable. While an overseer must also demonstrate a trustworthy
character prior to service, which seems to be implied in 1 Tim 5:22, the burden of the deacons’ service more
particularly demands it. Why would that be? If deacons were in fact principally responsible to care for the
poor, sick, and disadvantaged within the church, then it follows that it is of chief importance that the
deacon be recognized within the church as proven trustworthy in their relationship and care of the most
vulnerable.
The word for ‘proved’ or ‘tested’ involves the idea of examining the genuineness or quality of
something, as in assaying metal. It often describes critical testing through actual use. This testing is an
assessment of character in service, not a formal and punctiliar examination of knowledge or ability. It does
not suggest formal examination within a probation period.
Some have suggested that on the basis of this difference, the path to becoming an overseer necessarily
would rise through the rank of deacon first. There is no textual ground for this assumption but to the
contrary there is ground for rejecting such a view as Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders directly without
even a mention of deacons (cf. Titus 1:5).
3) A DEACON MUST NOT BE DOUBLE-TONGUED
Here again stress is placed on integrity and consistency of character, this time with the immediate
concern relating to the tongue. This qualification suggests the deacons have house to house contact.1 The
word used (dilogous) strictly means “saying the same thing twice” and can be construed as double-tongued,
two-faced, or hypocritical. It has been defined as “insincere”2 and “pertaining to contradictory behavior
based upon pretense or hypocrisy.”3 It may be effectively derived from the qualifications set forth for
Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 356.
BDAG, 250.
3 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd edition (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1996), 766.
1
2
23
overseers, but it is explicitly and emphatically stated in the case of deacons. This difference seems to
accentuate a high sensitivity to what deacons talk about, as though they may be privy to private
information concerning others within the church. Therefore, this is a fitting qualification particularly if
deacons are serving in private situations of need within the church.
4) A DEACON MUST BE HOLDING THE MYSTERY OF THE FAITH IN A CLEAN
CONSCIENCE
This fourth distinction between the qualification of overseers and deacons is one that calls special
attention to the manifest spiritual conviction of the one who is to serve as a deacon. It is futile to entertain
any notion that overseers are not to be men of serious and strong conviction according to their faith in
Christ. Rather, the point in highlighting this difference is to draw attention to the spiritual qualification of a
deacon. Let no one demean the office of deacon as pertaining to merely practical and menial work without
a significant spiritual demand.
The deacon must be actively and continuously “holding” (i.e. holding fast to, keeping, gripping) the
“mystery of the faith,” which is the general truth that embodies the Christian faith. A deacon is to be
ostensibly marked by a living faith in Christ that manifestly represents the gospel and apostolic teaching
revealed in the NT. It stands for Christianity’s distinctive truth of the once concealed now revealed good
news of salvation through the substitutionary death of Christ Jesus—the one and only God-man. A deacon
is one who serves because he treasures Christ. He is one who is known by the church to be holding fast to
the testimony of Christ in all that he does. His character and service are marked by the salvation that he has
in Christ, given by grace and received by faith.
The “clear conscience” is a mark of integrity to the truth professed and an overt absence of hypocrisy in
daily life. A deacon should be evidently gripped by the gospel, living life characteristically in obedience to
God. This demands more than theological knowledge and points to an outer authenticity deriving from an
inner purity.
Again, while these very same principles can be no less expected in overseers, it is a quality that is
stressed particularly for deacons. The most compelling inference is that the office of deacon expressly
demands a very high degree of integrity that engenders trust from others even though they are not leaders
in authority. Trustworthiness is a key ingredient in diaconal service (cf. v.11). The most obvious explanation
intimates responsibilities that deal with the most vulnerable and defenseless people in the church. Where
care to the vulnerable is delegated, trustworthiness as seen in a life gripped by the gospel is imperative.
FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES
Overseers and deacons differ not only in qualifications, their responsibilities and corresponding
services are complementarily distinct. Whereas the differences outlined above are largely presented in
terms of what deacons are called to that overseers are not, the following differences mainly highlight what
overseers are called to that deacons are not.
The tendency to entertain the idea that these differentiations are owing to the lack of biblical
information provided to us on the diaconate should be allayed. It is reasonable to appreciate these
differences on the ground of the abundance of information given on overseers and the noticeable lack of
applying, including, or interchanging the responsibilities of overseers with deacons. While the following
functional differences are gleaned by implications in various texts, they are nonetheless substantial. These
24
differences are real and should be appreciated. Overseers and deacons differ in: (1) leadership, (2)
administration, (3) authority, (4) teaching, and (5) representation.
1) LEADERSHIP
First, it should be carefully noted that overseers serve as the functional leaders of the local church, not
deacons. By “functional leaders” we mean those who have the appointed responsibility and exercise the
corresponding authority to guide, direct, govern, protect, provide and care for, and thereby shepherd the
flock of God. This does not mean that deacons do not lead in some sense. Deacons are most certainly
leaders in the sense of lead-servants—exemplars of the flock in Christian character and service. Deacons are
not properly servant-leaders, a classification which conveys the sense of servants who have charge over
others.
This distinction is not always respected. “In many churches today the deacons are the actual leaders of
the body. However, that is clearly not the biblical pattern. Elders (presbyters, overseers, pastors, bishops—
all different words for the same office) are to be the spiritual leaders of the body (see Acts 20:17; Philippians
1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; 5:17-20; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-4).”1 In his Systematic Theology: Biblical & Historical,
Culver notes, “It is hard to say how the custom arose among Baptists and similar groups of Protestant
believers of making the diaconate a ‘ruling office’—in other words, to make them elders in fact. Innumerable
local church constitutions have a line which says ‘the deacons shall assist the pastor in spiritual oversight of
the church.’”2 In agreement with Culver, this is an ‘unhappy’ arrangement that flies in the face of the
historical evidence and the results of biblical studies, both classic and contemporary.
The distinctions of office are intimated in their respective titles. The title ‘overseer’ directly signals the
responsibility of oversight; a functional leadership position. Saucy rightly points out that “the oversight
responsibility of the elders in the churches included governing authority. They are ‘leaders’ to whom the
believers are to submit (Heb 13:17); they ‘rule’ in the church (l Tim 5:17) and ‘have charge over’ others (1
Thess 5:12; cf. also Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 3:5; 1 Pet 5:2-3).”3 Likewise, the title ‘deacon’ is expressly descriptive of
servanthood. In contrast to the episcopate, Strauch rightly observes that “the diaconate is not a ruling or
governing office. The word overseer itself and the qualifications and duties prescribed of the overseer-elders
demonstrate that overseers protect, teach, and lead the church. The term diakonos indicates an office of
service, not a work of rule.”4
It is significant to note that deacons are never mentioned on their own, they are always associated with
those responsible for shepherding the flock. As leaders, overseers are functionally indispensable to the
ordained order of every local church. While very important and wonderfully essential to a healthy ministry
to the poor, sick, and disadvantaged, the existence and size of a diaconate in any local congregation should
correspond to need. An illustration of this principle is marvelously demonstrated in the prototypical
episode of Acts 6 (see above). This may be the operative principle at work in the instances where
overseers/elders are promptly appointed after the establishment of a local church without any
corresponding appointment of deacons (cf. Acts 14:23). In both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 Paul deals with the
Thomas, 163.
Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical (Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 2005), 954.
3 Saucy, Women and Men in Ministry, 172
4 Strauch, 74.
1
2
25
appointment and qualifications of overseers, but to the infant congregation in Crete Paul completely omits
any mention of deacons (cf. Titus 1:5-9). While explanations for the absence of deacons in these cases may
vary, what is markedly plain is that overseers/elders are invariably necessary because they are responsible
for shepherding the flock—deacons are not.
This functional difference is realized in a proper division of official responsibilities, service priorities,
and labor. “While the overseers/elders focused their ministry upon leadership and teaching, the deacons
seem to center their ministry upon serving the physical needs of the congregation, especially the
disadvantaged (such as widows, cf. Acts 6:1-7).”1 So the relationship of these two distinct ministries is
functionally complementary. “The emphasis upon service enables the one who fills this role to free the
overseers/elders to focus on their prescribed ministries of leadership and teaching.”2
Among the distinct responsibilities of overseers, the following three are inherently included in the
official concept of biblical overseer leadership. The purpose here is to underscore that deacons are not
responsible to serve in these functional capacities.
Overseers Shepherd the Flock
Only the elders-overseers are charged to “shepherd the flock of God” (1 Pe 5:1-2). They are the
responsible leaders of the local congregation. The shepherd metaphor is colorfully suggestive of a distinct
responsibility to lead.
This distinction is discernible from the differences presented in the qualifications for office. For
example, “there are items in the list for the bishop that are not present in this list for deacons, most
noteworthy being the requirements that the bishop be 'able to teach' (v. 2) and 'take care of the church of
God' (v. 5).”3 This responsibility to “take care of the church of God” properly belongs to the leadership of
the shepherds (cf. Acts 20:28).
Overseers Protect and Guard the Flock
Caring for the flock rightly involves protecting and guarding the flock. As leaders, overseers are
charged to “be on guard . . . for all the flock” (Acts 20:28). Protecting them from false teaching (cf. Acts
20:29-30; Titus 1:5, 6, 9) and from moral corruption (cf. 1 Tim 3:15; 2 Tim 2:24-26; 4:2). While deacons may
care for and minister to the flock, the responsibilities of protecting and guarding the flock falls to the
overseers.
Overseers Discipline and Adjudicate
As leaders, overseers are also charged with the responsibility to protect the flock from immoral
infection. This includes confronting sin and admonishing improper behavior. Paul instructs the church in
Thessalonica, “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord
and admonish you” (1 Th 5:12 ESV). The responsibility to admonish (cf. Acts 20:31-32) involves warning,
reproving, rebuking, and even instructing, especially pertaining to an improper course of conduct. In the
shepherd analogy, this responsibility is depicted in the seeking of straying sheep. Although the NT
Kitchen, 138.
ibid.
3 Knight, 167.
1
2
26
emphasizes the overseers’ role in protecting against doctrinal error, the overseers are functionally
responsible for correcting sinful behavior.1
That deacons are not required to be “able to teach” (v. 2) and “take care of the church of God” (v. 5)
infers that they are not responsible to lead. But these are not the only leadership focused qualifications
demanded of overseers that are not mentioned for deacons. “Similarly not mentioned is the need to be
gentle and not contentious in interpersonal relationships (v. 3). Again, this may reflect the fact that the
deacon is not in the role of one who must give oversight and direction, as well as discipline, in sometimes
difficult situations that make such qualifications imperative.”2
2) ADMINISTRATION
As functional leaders, overseers are responsible to serve as the official administrators of the local
church. This means that overseers, not deacons, are accountable for superintending, managing, and
governing the affairs of the church at large. Again, these matters are appreciably encompassed in
‘shepherding’. In practice, this is a common point of departure for many churches. Deacons are frequently
considered the ‘administrators’ of the church, and if this does not include spiritual affairs it typically
comprehends the duties of administration for all non-spiritual affairs.
A common misconception is based upon a distorted interpretation and application of Acts 6. The
division of labor principle described there is misconstrued to inaccurately suggest a separation between
secular and spiritual work. In this line of thought, overseers are said to be responsible for spiritual affairs
while deacons take responsibility over all secular matters. This philosophy is most often traced back to the
apostles’ words found in Acts 6: “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve
tables … we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Ac 6:2, 4). The problem with
this application is that it confuses the difference between serving to meet material needs and managing
secular matters. Significantly, material needs and secular matters are not equivalent, and should not be
confused. To illustrate the extent of this thinking, Oxford English Dictionary defines a ‘deacon’ in the
following terms (notice the distinction that is drawn between spiritual and secular):
In the Presbyterian system, one of an order of officers appointed to attend to the secular affairs of the
congregation, as distinguished from the elders, whose province is the spiritual. 3
While it is true that the priorities of overseers involve a distinct responsibility over the ministry of the
Word of God and prayer, it does not follow that deacons consequently take managerial responsibilities over
all non-spiritual matters. The division is not spiritual versus secular (i.e. earthly or temporal); the division is
spiritual needs versus material needs. There is a difference. Both are ministries to people. Therefore, we
cannot properly comment on managing non-people related matters from these verses. There is more
evidence here for a ministerial taskforce of shepherding delegates than of an office appointment over
secular affairs. It is exceedingly difficult to justly claim that deacons are to serve as administrators over
buildings, facilities, furniture, equipment, landscaping, maintenance of property, financial management,
Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 18.
Knight, 167.
3 OED, s.v. ‘deacon’.
1
2
27
management of government and business affairs, etc., from this single instance of a few men appointed to
serve food to poor hungry widows.
Some have suggested on the bases of 1 Tim 3:8 (“not greedy for dishonest gain”) and 3:12 (“managing
their children and their own households wells”) that deacons “apparently had some ruling duties, perhaps
financial, as well as caregiving.”1 But to the contrary, the biblical evidence points to overseers, not deacons,
as those who managed the financial affairs of the church (Acts 11:20-30; cf. Acts 4:35, 37; 5:2 as the Apostles
served as overseers before the appointment of elders). Alms were brought to and placed under the
responsible authority of the overseers. Those who ‘served’ in the distribution and ministry of practical care
supplied by these contributions were deacons. Thus, while deacons may have handled funds, they were not
appointed to manage them. Charles Gore (1919) observes:
if the administration of alms was in some special sense a function of the diaconate in its original idea, yet it does
not cease to be part of the apostolic office to organize almsgiving (see Gal. 2:10, 2 Cor 8, etc.), nor should it
surprise us to find it specially mentioned in connexion with the presbyterate [eldership] (Acts 11:30; Polycarp ad
Phil. 6, 11; cf. Apostolic Church Order c. 18), though when the presbyterate came to be the name for a distinct
office from the episcopate, the function of the administration of alms came to belong generally to the bishop
[overseer], with the assistance of the deacons (Hippolytus Church Order iii. 3).2
In other words, both before and after the appointment of select servants to help with the daily
distribution, the management of funds remained with those responsible for shepherding. This corroborates
with the instructions given in Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (c. A.D. 325), which states in Section IV of
Book II, “that the deacon must not make any distributions without the consent of the bishop.” It proceeds to
give practical instructions to the rhetorical deacon: “If therefore, O deacon, thou knowest any one to be in
distress, put the bishop in mind of him, and so give to him.”3
Therefore, even in the case of tending to the practical needs of the church, the overseers ‘oversee’ the
ministry and the deacons ‘serve’ under that oversight. Drawing from this, Strauch contends that the
overseers direct the deacons in ministry.4 While such is plain from Scripture, it appears equally plain that
deacons are not merely direct assistants to the overseers. A fairly typical assumption states that
“overseers/elders watch over and lead the local church and teach the Word of God, while deacons work
alongside them so that the elders can exercise their ministry effectively.”5 The ministry of the diaconate is its
own ministry. While a diaconate that faithfully ministers in its own capacity will most certainly assist the
overseers in their ministry, deacons are not merely secretaries or servants of overseers. The two offices of
the church are distinct and designed to complement one another in service to the congregation.
3) AUTHORITY
Shepherding leadership infers some form of authority, being implicit in the title and nature of the
position of ‘overseer’ (i.e. “exercising oversight,” 1 Pet 5:2). Whereas overseers are repeatedly described as
having charge over, being responsible for, and being answerable before God for their leadership of His
people (1 Thess 5:12-13; 2 Tim 2:14; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:1-5), such is not the case for deacons. It is noteworthy
Hayes, 1168.
Charles Gore and C. H. Turner, The Church and the Ministry (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1919), 360.
3 ANF7:412.
4 Strauch, 75.
5 Robinson, 54-55.
1
2
28
that deacons are never mentioned as being over others or responsible to exercise any manner of authority in
the church. The biblical data simply does not endorse the appointment of leadership authority to the
diaconate.
William Mitchell Ramsay, the renowned biblical and archaeological scholar from the turn of the
twentieth century, said that the diaconate “carried with it no authority in the Church. It was in itself only a
burden; but the person selected to bear the burden was thereby honoured, and the eyes of all were on the
Deacon. As being thus regarded by all, a true Deacon was likely to be stimulated to the fullest performance
of the duties of a true Christian.”1 The prototypical episode of Acts 6, the explicit charge to overseers and
lack thereof to deacons, the qualifications for the diaconate, and the testimony of the rest of the NT clearly
indicate that there is no notion of authority associated with the diaconate. The deacon is the server of the
church.2 Authority over others is not seen among deacons until Ignatius, when they began to be appointed
as official assistants to the bishop.
Many of the Reformers labored to recover the biblical parameters of the diaconate during the
Reformation. According to Calvin, “the office of deacon was a separate office altogether, one of service
rather than authority. They were to minister to the poor and sick. More to the point, the distinction between
elder and deacon should not be treated as simply a matter of semantics. Calvin understood that Scripture
gave to one office, and not the other, the responsibility to teach and the authority to govern.”3
4) TEACHING
Being charged to shepherd the flock of God, overseers are appointed to the responsibility of teaching.
While this does not in any way prohibit a deacon from teaching, the point here is to notice that it is not the
responsibility of deacons to teach. This is yet another functional difference between the office of overseer
and the office of deacon.
One of the most frequently stressed points of responsibility for the overseers is in the area of teaching
and preaching. The shepherding overseers are held accountable to positively feed the flock of God the
Word of God (Jn 21:17; 1 Tim 4:6, 13) and to negatively protect the flock of God by refuting error and false
teaching as well as admonishing and warning the flock through preaching (1 Thess 5:12; 2 Tim 4:2). The
overseer must be “able to teach” (1 Tim 3:2) and “able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those
who contradict” (Titus 1:9). They are to follow the example of Timothy and thus “give attention to the
public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Tim 4:13). As with the Apostles in the situation
described in Acts 6, so also with the overseers in the local church today, their leading priorities include the
ministry of prayer and the Word of God. Thus, between overseers and deacons there is a clear “distinction
between the work of preaching and teaching and the work of practical care for the needy.” 4 While the
qualifications of overseers explicitly require an aptitude to teach, no such requirement is listed for deacons.
This difference should not be marginalized; the responsibility for teaching is the overseer’s and not the
deacon’s.
William Mitchell Ramsay, Historical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909–1911), 16-17.
Mounce, 210.
3 Michael Lawrence, “Was Calvin’s view of a plurality of elders similar to a Baptist view of plurality?,” in Southern Baptist Journal of Theology,
Volume 13, 78-79 (Lousville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 78.
4 I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London; New York: T&T Clark
International, 2004), 487.
1
2
29
5) REPRESENTATION
As leaders, overseers function as the official representatives of the local church. The implication from
the NT is that deacons did not function as outward facing officials. This, of course, does not mean that
deacons did not represent the church in any sense. Every member of the church is sensibly a representative
of the church, and for that matter, a representative of Christ! The point here is to underscore the functional
difference that the NT appears to make concerning which officers of the church serve as appointed
spokesmen. By this we mean those individuals who are called to stand as interfacing representatives of the
church to both other churches and the outside world.
Deacons are servants of the church to the church. All qualifications related to the deacon’s reputation
are within the framework of the local congregation. The deacon is not required to have a certain reputation
with the outside world, most likely because his responsibilities do not include representation to the outside
world. Instead, the deacon is to be qualified according to conditions of reputation that make the most sense
if they are qualities measured within the local church. For instance, deacons are required to be “holding to
the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (v.9). This makes sense if the deacon’s reputation was being
assessed internally.
In contrast, the overseer’s reputation has both internal and external requirements. He must be “above
reproach, … respectable” (v.2), “not a new convert” (v.6), “just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the
faithful word” (Titus 1:8); all of which are qualifications that make perfect sense within the framework of
the local church, being assessed by believers. But the overseer is also required to have a reputation among
non-believers, as explicitly stated in the last condition: “he must have a good reputation with those outside
the church” (v.7).
Similarly, only the overseer is required to be ‘hospitable’ (v.2; Titus 1:8). This does not mean that
deacons can be inhospitable; it simply denotes a trait necessarily particular to the office of overseer. As
noted above, this requirement is most likely related to the cultural practice of hosting a guest on behalf of
those you represent. Here again, it is overseers and not deacons who are distinguished as representatives of
the church. This is why Lenski would say, “If we may use the word 'clergy' with reference to the officers of
this early period, the deacons were not considered as belonging to the clergy.”1
COMMENDATION OF THOSE WHO SERVE WELL IN THEIR OFFICE
Our effort to rightly identify the key differences between the office of overseer and the office of deacon
is not intended to diminish appropriate esteem of the diaconate in the slightest; it is intended to recover its
proper place and thereby regain its proper honor in the church.
It has well been said that “deacons are not second-class citizens, compared with first-class elders.”2
Advocating a clear understanding of these differences, serves not to present the diaconate as a lesser office
but rather as a distinct office with distinct responsibilities and corresponding honor. It is when we assume
that deacons are secondary leaders, serving in similar but limited capacities to overseers, that we present
1
2
Lenski, 593.
Hayes, 1169.
30
the diaconate as a second-class office. So, “though they are not to be looked upon as leaders of the church
(as are the elders), they are, after being tested, to be recognized as spiritual men of high standing.”1
The Scripture says, “If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do” (1 Ti
3:1). Service well done in the office of overseer is a kalos work; meaning a work that is good, beautiful,
healthy, sound, useful, and otherwise, “fine.” It should be dually noted, however, that there appears to be
an even greater commendation given to deacons who serve well: “For those who have served well as
deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (1 Ti
3:13). With this commendation come two promises: (1) “a high standing” and (2) “great confidence,” both of
which are “in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.” The high standing refers to the honorable influence and
reputation that the deacon will realize within the church, not excluding the honor that such respect brings
to God. The great confidence is best understood as the outward manifestation of an elevated inward
apprehension of the gospel. Personal faith in God through Christ is strengthened, emboldening the
deacon’s heart in the face of persecution, temptation, and doubt. Outwardly, the mark of a soul gripped by
the gospel will be appreciated by others. This is an outstanding acclamation that serves as a sound
encouragement to esteem the diaconate. “Let no one, permitting himself to be misled by the fact that it is
the deacons’ task to serve and not (like the elders) to rule, begin to think lightly of them and of their office.”2
To serve as a deacon is to serve in a dignified position. Deacons are commended to receive honor, not
for leadership but for service. “Not being in a capacity of leadership or instruction, no direction is given as
there is with the office of elder, concerning the response of the congregation to the deacons. It is clear,
however, that this is a ministry of dignity and honor.”3 Charles Spurgeon once commented on the godly
honor of serving as one of Christ’s deacons:
We are all too much occupied with taking care of ourselves; we shun the difficulties of excessive labour. And
frequently behind the entrenchment of taking care of our constitution, we do not half as much as we ought. A
minister of God is bound to spurn the suggestions of ignoble ease, it is his calling to labour; and if he destroys
his constitution, I, for one, only thank God that he permits us the high privilege of so making ourselves living
sacrifices.
We would do well to remember that the blessings that come with serving the Lord as one of His
deacons does not come by virtue of a title, rather it is reserved for those “who have served well” (1 Tim
3:13). The proper respect and honor concerning the diaconate that 1 Timothy 3:13 describes is fully
appreciable only when the service of deacons is properly aligned to the data of the NT. It is to this subject
that we now turn.
Curtis C. Thomas, Life in the Body of Christ (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2007), 165.
Hendriksen, 135.
3 Saucy, 158.
1
2
31
What are the biblical responsibilities of deacons? The right answer to this question is essential to a
healthy diaconate, and therefore a healthier church. Appropriating the proper service of deacons affords
important benefits to the church at large. First, it serves to maintain the foundational order of the church
laid down by the Apostles (cf. 2 Thess 2:15). Second, it serves to engender a biblical model of both
leadership and congregational service. These components to the life of a church are subject to suffer when
distortions to the diaconate are accepted. Unfortunately, there is widespread variation in the place and
purpose of this office. In many churches, the overseers, congregation, and deacons themselves fall short of
the biblical vision of the diaconate in the life of the church. Therefore, this question comes very near the
heart of the matter and its answer is basic to a church’s recovery of the intended place and purpose of
deacons.
One of the leading factors in this discussion is the express absence of any instructions or duties given to
deacons from Scripture. Scholars have variously voiced this observation. Hiebert plainly says, “No
statement of the duties of deacons is made.”1 Lenski comments, “What the deacons actually did is nowhere
stated in detail.”2 Speaking of the functional presence of the diaconate, Knight says that “it is puzzling that
such an early and widespread phenomenon is otherwise virtually absent from the rest of the NT, at least in
terms of the diakonia.”3 The technical use of the term rendered ‘deacon’ is used only in one of the Pastoral
Epistles and is arguably mentioned in only one other NT book (cf. Phil 1:1; see Appendix 1). In 1 Timothy,
deacons are addressed in terms of theirs qualifications but not duties.
Why the absence? Several plausible reasons offer explanation,4 but what is most important is that we
are not left without direction. Strauch wisely advises that “no matter how limited that information may at
first appear, God, in His perfect wisdom, has given us all the information we need. If we don't adequately
consider the texts of Holy Scripture or limit ourselves to biblical teaching on deacons, we invariably corrupt
God's design and invent a diaconate of our own imagination.”5
Strauch identifies three common categories of distortion from the biblical intent, namely that deacons
are often understood to be either: (a) ruling executives, (b) building and property managers, or (c) church
Hiebert, 68.
Lenski, 592.
3 Knight, 175.
4 See Knight, 175-76.
5 Strauch, 8.
1
2
32
factotums (i.e. servants having many diverse activities or responsibilities; or just general servants without
any specific set of duties).
First, deacons were not ruling executives. If church leadership is ever addressed in the NT, it is directed
to the overseers. Yet, a common practice in churches today appoints deacons “to minister in secular affairs”
in order to relieve the pastors “from secular burdens” so that the pastors may “be left to the spiritual service
of the church.”1 Today, in many churches it is not uncommon for deacons to act more like corporation
executives than ministering servants. But there is no biblical precedent for the responsibility of church
administration or management to rest with the diaconate (see above). Managing the affairs of the church
assumes a position of tremendous leadership responsibility, authority, and decision-making power; none of
which are associated with the diaconate in the NT. The very absence of biblical instruction and direction for
deacons suggests that they do not serve in a capacity of authority and leadership. In practice, however,
deacons are sometimes placed in various positions of authority that God has not authorized.2
Second, deacons were not building or property managers. This view is generally the product of seeing
deacons as overseers of the secular affairs of the church. But this understanding is built on the faulty
premise that a spiritual/secular division of labor is the essential difference between elders and deacons—as
though elders are spiritual overseers and deacons are secular overseers. But this view lacks all substance in
light of the biblical data. That diaconal service is people-oriented service is made plain below.
Third, deacons were not officers of the church who operated in nearly every area of church life (i.e. as
factotums). There are a thousand routine responsibilities involved in maintaining a church and sustaining
its daily operations. Virtually all agree that these responsibilities are not incumbent upon the shepherds of
the church; however, whether or not the deacons are necessarily appointed to these tasks is not so clearly
understood. For instance, it has been said that “the potential areas of deacon service are unlimited.”3 But
Strauch rightly responds to this idea by arguing that “such unlimited spheres of service completely blur the
distinctive purpose and duties of the New Testament diaconate and can only frustrate deacons.”4 He goes
on to say,
There are tremendous advantages to having prescribed, limited responsibilities for deacons. The shepherds'
work is more diverse and general: counseling, teaching, managing, admonishing, and directing. Deacons need
to understand and appreciate that their responsibilities are more limited, so they can be more focused in serving
the Lord's people. We render the deacons a great disservice when we make them the church factotums. 5
The honorable service of a deacon should not be relegated to event workers, building managers,
glorified church janitors, or sanctified grounds-keepers. These are tasks that those outside of the church can
do and do well. Unlike these tasks, true biblical diaconal service is not something that unregenerate people
can do consistently well.
So what are the biblical responsibilities of deacons? In short, we agree with Strauch, and argue that
“from the specialized use of diakonos as an official title for an office within the church, the qualifications
Dagg, 266.
Strauch, 10.
3 Charles W. Deweese, The Emerging Role of Deacons (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), 62.
4 Strauch, 10.
5 Strauch, 79.
1
2
33
listed for deacons, and the deacons' close association with the overseers, we can conclude that New
Testament deacons are the local church's official ministers to its needy and suffering members.”1
The goal of this section, then, is intended to examine this conclusion in the light of a careful study of
Scripture. The conclusions drawn from this question have very real implications for the order of the local
church and can truly impact the lives of people in the church and its witness to the gospel. The importance
of this study is not insignificant and provides an honorable impetus to examine the Scriptures to see if these
things are so.
Christians today must understand the absolute necessity for and vital importance of New Testament deacons to
the local church so that the needy, poor, and suffering of our churches are cared for in a thoroughly Christian
manner. This is a matter dear to the heart of God.2
A DUTY OF ALL CHRISTIANS
First of all, deacons are not responsible to do the work of ministry, they are ministers among ministers.
All members of the church are responsible to minister to one another and meet the needs of the
congregation. Here again is the marvel of the body analogy (cf. Rom 12:4; 1 Cor 12:12ff; Eph 4:12-16; 5:30).
Something is wrong when a body is not actively serving itself. A common misconception among church
members is that the “officials” of the church are the ones responsible to do the work of ministry. After all,
isn’t that why pastors and other staff are hired? And in the case of deacons, isn’t that why they are officers
of the church? That an office of deacons exists in a church does not mean the standard for service is lower
for anyone else in the congregation. This common misconception can be a detriment to the body of Christ
and therefore to the precious advance of His cause on earth.
The service of a deacon is essentially ministry that all believers are to be pursuing. God has gifted the
church “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service [diakonia], to the building up of the body of
Christ” (Eph 4:12). It is the congregation that is to do the work of service, not just deacons. “Though there
are those who are to serve the body of Christ in a special way, every believer is to be a ‘deacon’ or ‘servant’
(diakonos) who participates in building up the body of Christ.”3 All Christians are called to serve one
another in the framework of the church, which is called ministry (diakonia). “The NT presents servanthood
in the sense of ministry or service as a mark of the whole church—that is, as normative for all disciples.”4
This principle finds its origin in the teachings and example of Jesus. He taught that His followers were
not to be like the people and institutions of the world. He said, “If anyone serves [diakoneō] Me, he must
follow Me; and where I am, there My servant [diakonos] will be also; if anyone serves [diakoneō] Me, the
Father will honor him” (Jn 12:26). Thus, “we can call a believer in any form of ministry the servant, or
deacon, of Christ.”5 A “non-serving” disciple of Jesus Christ is inconceivable in the NT. Sacrificial service,
ultimately modeled after Christ Himself, is the mandate for all Christians.
Multiplied are the instructions and exhortations in the NT for us to be about the business of ministry
among our fellow believers in the local assembly. Service is not the responsibility of the deacons and the
Strauch, 71.
Strauch, 11.
3 Getz, 102.
4 TBD, 363
5 MacArthur, The Master's Plan for the Church, 230.
1
2
34
option of members. “Nowhere in Scripture do we have the slightest hint that God's people are to volunteer.
Rather, the Scriptures indicate that the use of our gifts should be considered a joyful responsibility.”1 An
important emphasis here is on the nature of Christian service and that ministry should be emphasized for
every individual believer in the church. Accordingly, “its members cannot merely come in, sit down, walk
out, and say that they are involved in what the church is doing. God has laid tremendous responsibilities at
the feet of all Christians to minister to other believers. The New Testament is full of exhortations about
ministering our spiritual gifts and responding appropriately to others.”2
The duty of service is so universally applicable to everyone in the church that some have suggested
that what is in view in 1 Timothy 3:8-12 is not qualifications for the office of deacon but rather guidelines
for anyone who serves in a diaconal capacity. In light of (1) the precious little given in terms of specific
instructions to deacons and (2) the responsibility of all believers to serve, some have even argued that an
official station of deacons did not exist in apostolic times: “There is no proof that, in the apostolic time, there
existed a special, exclusive class, a collegium of church assistants, who had charge of the various duties of
the diaconate.”3 While the structure of the text and the testimony of history convincingly argue in favor of
an office of deacon at the writing of 1 Timothy, the point is well taken that the service of deacons is first a
duty of all Christians. This may also help to explain why the duties of a deacon were so widely understood
in NT times, such that very little direct instruction had to be given.
A healthy understanding of service, even diaconal service, begins not with deacons but with everyone
in the church. But, this does not mean that deacons are not distinguished. They are officially honored and
recognized servants of the church, tasked with the responsibility that exemplifies Christian service.
This first category of thought is foundational but not specific enough to recommend particular
responsibilities and duties. We must begin here, but we must go deeper if we are to gain a more substantial
understanding of the diaconate.
SERVICE RELATED TO CARING FOR PEOPLE
Basic to the meaning of diaconal service is that it is service related to caring for people. One lexicon
defines the Greek term diakonos as: “one who serves as a deacon, with responsibility to care for the needs of
believers—‘deacon, one who helps the believers.’”4
Deacons are not servants of things, they are servants of people. “The noun diakonos refers to a servant in
relationship to his activity, one who renders a service to another for the benefit of the one being served.”5
This is unlike the doulos, “slave or servant,” who may be tasked with the responsibility of tending to fields,
property, and livestock. The verb form is used to depict the service of angels to Christ (Mt 4:11), of people to
Christ during his earthly mission (Mt 8:15), of disciples to Christ in general (Jn 12:26), of Christ to His
disciples (Lk 22:27), of Christ to those He ransoms (Mt 20:28), of those in the church to the needy among
1 Thomas, 93. Thomas goes on to say, “The term volunteer may give a believer the idea that he has an option whether or not he is willing to
serve in a certain capacity and that if he chooses to serve in that capacity, he is going beyond his actual responsibility (he is ‘volunteering’)—and
therefore has done something meritorious” (93-94).
2 MacArthur, The Master's Plan for the Church, 120-1.
3 Lange, 41.
4 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1996), 540.
5 Hiebert, “Behind the Word ‘Deacon’: A New Testament Study,” 153.
35
them (27:44), of servants to their master (Lk 17:8), of the seven to the hungry widows (Acts 6:2), of disciples
to Paul (Acts 19:22), and of Paul to disciples (Rom 15:25). In the NT, the verb never appears in relation to
anything but personal service. But this should be no surprise since the most basic idea of the original term
depicts one who renders service to another. Service to people, therefore, is a key distinction of the
diaconate.
If deacons are to fulfill the intended role and responsibilities of the NT diaconate, they must begin by
focusing their services on people. “Biblical ‘deaconing’ is not characterized by power and prominence but
by service to others.”1 As Strauch personally expresses, “My heartfelt burden is to help deacons get out of
the board-room or the building-maintenance mentality and into the people-serving mentality.”2 A mentality
of service to people may very well explain how deacons later became involved and associated with the
service of communion and baptism, since in these ordinances deacons minister to people participating.
Diaconal service is service to people and therefore is a service of love. Only when people are being
served can we properly apply the label of compassion and care to that service. Because deacons are
designated servants to people, they are ministers of practical love. This is a fitting exemplification of the
duty of all Christians. It has well been said that “the entire NT emphasizes compassionate care for
individuals’ physical and spiritual needs as well as the giving of oneself to meeting those needs.” 3 This
captures the idea of diaconal service. Practical love in the giving of oneself to meet the needs of others is an
excellent picture of a NT deacon, perfectly personified in Jesus Christ (Matt 20:28; Rom 15:8). Hiebert notes
that among the various Greek words for service, “this one has the nearest approximation to the concept of a
love-prompted service. Thus basically the word 'deacon' denotes one who voluntarily serves others,
prompted by a loving desire to benefit those served.”4
So from the meaning and application of the terms themselves, we are presented with a significant
description of the office. The exclusive testimony of the inspired text presents diaconal service as service to
people. Thus, we are not without guidance and direction in organizing our thoughts concerning the biblical
responsibilities and duties of deacons.
1) SOCIAL WORKERS OF THE CHURCH
Deacons are servants of people, but not just servants generically rendering generic service to everyone
in general. The diaconate is not designed to answer to the beck and call of anyone. Two qualifiers frame the
consistent depiction of diaconal service in the NT. Deacons render service to people but not
indiscriminately; they minister specifically to those with identifiable needs within the church.
a) Ministering to Those in Need
First, deacons have the particular responsibility of taking care of the outward supply of the needy.
Accordingly, deacons have been aptly described as the “social workers” of the early church.5 The
distinguished Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (1916) states that “the special function of deacons, whether
TBD, 363-64.
Strauch, 11.
3 TBD, 363.
4 Hiebert, “Behind the Word ‘Deacon’: A New Testament Study,” 153.
5 Quinn, 280.
1
2
36
men or women, was to distribute the alms of the congregation and to minister to the needs of the poor.”1
Considered the social workers or relieving officers of the church, deacons were properly responsible for
ministering to the bodily welfare of the needy.
Some have argued that it was primarily the deacons who were involved in the welfare system for
widows in the Ephesian church (1 Tim 5:3-16).2 It certainly furnishes a very detailed example of diaconal
service. Firstly, caring for widows in the ancient world was chiefly a matter of outward provision and care.
The type of service that widows were to receive was the type of service that an orderly family was to
provide for their own (1 Tim 5:8). It was an involving care that could be called a ‘burden’ to those who
minister the care (1 Tim 5:16), from bareō which means to be pressed down as if with a weight.3 These were
widows who needed the type of care that quite possibly involved feeding, making and mending clothing,
and even providing shelter, as in the case of Tabitha’s diaconal care for the widows in Joppa (Acts 9:36-43).
Knight has argued rather convincingly that the designation commonly translated “helps” (antilēmpsis)
in 1 Corinthians 12:28 is most likely referring to the service of deacons.4 Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament (1889) describes the term’s use in 1 Corinthians 12:28 as “the ministrations of the deacons,
who have care of the poor and the sick.”5 Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that “the
reference is obviously to the activity of love in the dealings of the community” and relates it to the service
provided in Acts 6.6 Elsewhere it identifies the “helps” of 1 Corinthians 12:28 as describing the content of
the acts of diaconal service, namely, acts of care and assistance on behalf of the community.7 In general, it
identifies the ministry of the diaconate as a ministry of “provision for bodily sustenance.”8
The service of people, and particularly people in need of care, is well modeled in Acts 6, the clearest
historical precedent to the diaconate. In Acts 6, the need was again concerning widows and specifically
widows who “were being overlooked in the daily serving of food” (Acts 6:1). The whole division of labor
initiated in that historical situation was born out of an effort to minister to the bodily welfare of those in the
church who were needing care without sacrificing the ministry to the spiritual welfare of the people.
In each of these examples, charitable service to people in need is the key trait. The Concise Oxford
English Dictionary distinguishes the modern from the “early church” identification of deacons, describing
the deacon of the early church as “an appointed minister of charity.” According to Justin Martyr, in the
practice of the early church one minister would receive and bless the offerings during the regular meeting
of the church, but they were distributed among the people by ministers known as deacons.9 Similarly,
Hendriksen suggests, regarding deacons, that “their special task is to gather the offerings which God’s
people in gratitude make to their Lord, to distribute these gifts in the proper spirit to all who are in need, to
1 Alfred Plummer, "Deacon, Deaconess" in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (2 Vols.), ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1916-1918), 1:285.
2 Johnson, 227.
3 BDAG, s.v. βαρέω.
4 “We have seen from 1 Timothy 3 that the office of ἐπίσκοπος involves two duties: teaching (v. 2) and caring/ruling (vv. 4, 5), which are
paralleled in the teachers and administrators of 1 Cor. 12:28, leaving 'helps,' which would be a designation for deacons.” (Knight, 176). Also, Thayer
identifies the use of antilēmpsis in 1 Cor 12:28 as “the ministrations of the deacons
5 Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1889), 50.
6 Gerhard Delling, TDNT, 1:376.
7 Hermann W. Beyer, TDNT, 2:87.
8 ibid.
9 See Saucy, The Church, 156.
37
prevent poverty wherever it is possible to do this, and by means of their prayers and words of Scripturebased comfort, to encourage the distressed.”1
b) Ministering to Those within the Church
Second, deacons have the particular responsibility of taking care of the outward supply of the needy
within the church. They were not responsible for all of the poor in their community, country, or world (cf.
Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; 6:1). This does not mean that deacons (or any Christian for that matter) are to turn a
blind eye to the legitimate needs of those outside the church. It simply underscores the priority and
responsibility of their service. Kuiper remarks:
Often the state extends aid to the needy, but not in the name of Christ. The Christian church, however, has a
benevolence all its own. This benevolence is in a class entirely by itself and differs qualitatively from the charity
of the world. In the name of Christ and actuated by the love of Christ the church of Christ dispenses mercy to
Christ’s very own. It does this through the office of the deacon. 2
In the prototypical example of Acts 6, it was the widows who were considered “disciples” who
received diaconal assistance. This was an internal affair. The oversight was taking place “on the part of the
Hellenistic Jews” in the church regarding their widows. They are specifically identified as “their widows”—
the widows belonging to the Hellenistic converts in the church and not just widows in general.
In the case of the widows in Ephesus, this point is even more pronounced. Not only are widows in
general not included as recipients of diaconal service, but rather exclusively, only widows who met very
specific criteria within the church were permitted to be enrolled for such service. Not only was she to be a
member of the church in good standing but one with a remarkable reputation: “A widow is to be put on the
list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, having a reputation for
good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed
the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work” (1
Tim 5:9–10). Other would-be candidates for diaconal service were to be refused (1 Tim 5:11), their family
being exhorted to minister to them “so that [the church] may assist those who are widows indeed” (1 Tim
5:16).
A very important principle of priorities is issued here. All who know the love of God and take on the
interests of Christ, are burdened for everyone they see who is in need—both physically and spiritually. But
our ministries and resources are markedly limited. If we neglect to discern where our responsibilities lie,
instead of fulfilling our ministry we will fail in it. If a person is to serve another, he must first tend to his
own health in order to be useful to tend to others. Like a healthy immune system, deacons are responsible
to take care of the bodily welfare of the church’s own. The principle of providing for one’s own household
first comes to mind. And a significant charge it is. The Scripture says, “But if anyone does not provide for
his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”
(1 Tim 5:8). Just as the local church is “the household of God” (1 Tim 3:15), so the local church must provide
for her own first, lest we fail to model the faith.
1
2
Hendriksen, 130.
Rienk B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 156.
38
This is a principle of priority and not one of mutual exclusion. We would do well to remember one of
Paul’s prayers related to this concern, “may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one
another, and for all people, just as we also do for you” (1 Thess 3:12). The “and for all people” indicates the
general principle of Christian love, but the more particular duty is the love that should abound to one
another—this is our first responsibility. Elsewhere the church is urged to “do good to all people, and
especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Gal 6:10). Here the “especially” marks off the
priority. As Christians we are to do good to all people, but our primary responsibility is to minister
“especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” This principle is evident in the practice of the
early church as well. The first church “began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them
with all, as anyone might have need” (Acts 2:45). We know that the proceeds of the church were laid at the
feet of the apostles for their oversight and management and yet when Peter encountered a lame man, being
not a believer in the church, begging for alms, “Peter said, ‘I do not possess silver and gold’” (Acts 3:6).
Peter did not distribute charity to this man in clear need, and yet at the same time was making certain that
“there was not a needy person among them” (Acts 4:34).
It is not so much that the church is to love the world less, rather they are called to love one another
more. It is a concern of priority, a principle of peculiar, special, and distinguishing love. The love and care
displayed among Christians is to shine as a warm and inviting witness to the love of God in a world so
often cold and uncaring to those in need. Jesus prayed to the Father that His followers “may become
perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (John
17:23). After His diaconal portrayal of love, Jesus said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love
one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you
are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34). This was given in the context of His menial
service to them in the form of washing their feet. The close connection infers an illustration of love. Christ’s
profound humility in the most menial of services to His own affords a tangible picture of the love that they
were to have for one another. In this way, the diaconate is chiefly responsible to model Christian love
through the most practical means of menial service to the one anothers of the church, and in the faithful
keeping of this charge deacons witness to the gospel through Christ’s new commandment. Abraham Kuiper
has rightly stated, “The diaconate is accurately described as the office of love, the greatest of Christian
virtues. This is not to say that love does not play an important role in the other offices in the church. It most
certainly does. But Christian love comes to its most tangible expression in the office of the deacon. This
office is pre-eminently that of love. Love is its beginning and its end.”1
An example of Christian love rightly exercised and perceived is reported by Tertullian in his Apology,
written about the end of the second century A.D. In it he says that it was not the arguments that won him
to Christ but the demonstration of true love. “See how they love each other” became the infamous mark of
the Christians, and this was largely owing to their diaconal ministry to one another. He describes how
money that was voluntarily contributed by Christians to church funds “was used to relieve the poor,
orphans, the elderly, the shipwrecked, prisoners and other needy people. ‘It is the exercise of this sort of
1
Kuiper, 155.
39
love,’ he added, ‘which was the chief brand of Christians.’”1 This powerful report of Christian love
exemplifies the duty of all Christians, and yet particularly models the high occupation of the diaconate.
So deacons serve to care for people in need within the church both for a ministry to its own and a
witness to the world.
2) THE PHILIPPIAN EXAMPLE
It is interesting that the only NT epistle, outside of 1 Timothy, that overtly mentions the office of
deacon by name is the letter of Paul to the Philippians. This is significant because Philippians is widely
recognized as a thank-you letter, at least in part, from Paul to the Philippians for their personal service of
ministry to his needs while in prison. Paul writes, “You have done well to share with me in my affliction.
You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no
church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you
sent a gift more than once for my needs” (Php 4:14–16). In thanking them for their contributions, Paul
reports, “I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received
from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God”
(Php 4:18). Epaphroditus was their “messenger and minister to [Paul’s] need” (Php 2:25); a man who “came
close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me”
(Php 2:30). That service to Paul was diaconal service; the deficiency was simply the church’s physical
inability to render their gift to Paul until that time. So the mention of ‘deacons’ in Philippians 1:1 may very
well, though not provable, draw special attention to their part in ministering to Paul’s needs. It is possible
that the deacons in Philippi were involved in collecting and sending the gift of the church by the hands of
Epaphroditus (2:25; 4:18).2 In any case, the service of the Philippian church by the hands of Epaphroditus
was diaconal service; distinctively marked as service related to caring for people in need.
SPECIFICALLY SERVING THE NEEDS OF THE POOR, AFFLICTED,
AND DISADVANTAGED
Deacons are responsible for Christ-like service related to caring for people in need within the church,
and especially to those who are poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged. Diaconal service, then, is not only
service, but service to people; not only service to people, but service to people in need; not only people in
need, but especially the poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged—including the sick, suffering, incapacitated,
bereaved, helpless, and defenseless. For this reason, deacons are often called “mercy ministers”—they are
God’s instruments of practical mercy to suffering saints.
1) MINISTERING MERCY TO THE POOR
Ministering to the poor is the foremost depiction of diaconal service in the NT. Saucy says that the
biblical data “indicates the office of deacon was primarily concerned with material ministries of the church,
specifically distribution of relief to the poor.”3
The verb form of the original word for ‘deacon’ is used in Romans 15:25 to describe mercy ministry by
way of a collection to be given to the poor in Jerusalem. Paul writes, “I am going to Jerusalem serving
John Stott, Christ the Liberator, 24-25.
Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 63.
3 Saucy, The Church, 156.
1
2
40
[diakoneō] the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor
among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom 15:25–26). When the church in Antioch learned that a great famine
was coming, “the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief [diakonia] to the
brothers living in Judea” (Acts 11:29 ESV). Meeting the needs of the poor was the fulfillment of a mission,
literally diakonia—diaconal service (Acts 12:25). During another relief effort for the poor in the church at
Jerusalem, the churches of Macedonia assisted in an exceptionally sacrificial manner. This effort again was
described as diakonia—relief or mercy ministry to the poor. In discussing this with the church at Corinth,
Paul writes to encourage their assistance in the collection of still additional support for poor believers. He
commends them on their readiness to contribute to the diakonia (mercy ministry) to the saints (2 Cor 9:1). In
commending and encouraging them, the Scripture says, “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his
heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7). In like manner, he
also encourages the saints in Rome, “he who gives, with liberality; . . . he who shows mercy, with
cheerfulness” (Rom 12:8). The point is that diaconal ministry is most especially mercy ministry to the poor
and disadvantaged, and in this the Lord delights. In making plain the delight of God in such ministry, Paul
reminds the church, from a citation of Psalm 112:9, regarding the man who fears the Lord. He is blessed of
God and “has given freely to the poor” (Ps 112:9). Paul explains, “For the ministry [diakonia] of this service
is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to
God. Because of the proof given by this ministry [diakonia], they will glorify God for your obedience to your
confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all” (2 Cor 9:12–
13). In each of these references, the type of ministry described by diakonia is service to relieve the poor.
Given the regularity and abundant clarity of use, we conclude that it is most consistent with the NT usage
of diakonia to understand the primary responsibility of deacons as being that of ministering relief to the poor
and disadvantaged within the church.
These depictions of diaconal service in the NT are compelling and more than any other consideration
suggest that the diaconate laid down by the apostles served primarily as a mercy ministry to the poor.
a) Importance of the Diaconate’s Ministry to the Poor
Paul exemplified an earnestness of diaconal ministry. When Barnabas and Paul were given the right
hand of fellowship by the church in Jerusalem, particularly to preach the gospel of Christ to the Gentile
nations, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem asked them to remember the poor—“the very thing,” Paul
said, “I also was eager to do” (Gal 2:10; cf. Acts 24:17).
In the prototypical episode of Acts 6, it was the oversight of mercy ministry to certain poor widows
that was at issue; the matter of food was merely an expression of their poverty and the church’s provision.
The appointment of the Seven, then, was essentially to minister material relief to the poor in the
congregation, specifically the poor widows.1
James, one of the lead overseers in the church at Jerusalem, reminds us: “did not God choose the poor
of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (Jas
2:5). As evidence that Jesus is the Christ, He said that “the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO
1
Quinn, 284.
41
THEM” (Mt 11:5). It is clear from these examples that God loves the poor as well as the rich. The poor will
therefore always be a part of the church of Christ; and the church is obligated to care for them.
Elsewhere Jesus told His disciples, “you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have
Me” (Jn 12:8). The purpose of this statement was to draw attention to the uniqueness of His life and the
matchless importance of His passion that was then imminent. But secondarily, He reaffirms the general rule
that there will always be the poor among the saints. The implicit responsibility is that the church is
obligated to take care of them. Just as Israel was obligated to take care of their poor: “For the poor will
never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your
brother, to your needy and poor in your land’” (Dt 15:11). This principle reflects the heart of God in the
compassionate provision for the poor among the saints throughout all ages until He returns.
Deacons serve in an important ministry of the church; indeed, it is near the heart of God. Matthew
Henry rightly calls our attention to this matter:
Take notice that many of the poor of this world are the chosen of God. Their being God’s chosen does not
prevent their being poor; their being poor does not at all prejudice the evidences of their being chosen. . . . All
these things, laid together, show how highly the poor in this world, if rich in faith, are now honoured, and shall
hereafter be advanced by God; and consequently how very sinful a thing it was for [the church] to despise the
poor.1
Albert Barnes reminds us that “the fact that God has chosen one to be an ‘heir of the kingdom’ is as
good a reason now why he should not be treated with neglect, as it was in the times of the apostles.” 2 The
service of deacons, if it is to be biblical, must be focused on compassionate service to the poor, needy, and
disadvantaged in the church. The testimony of a local church will in measure depend upon this precious
ministry. Jonathan Edwards powerfully commends the great necessity of diaconal ministry to our
consciences when he writes, “I know of scarce any duty which is so much insisted on, so pressed and urged
upon us, both in the Old Testament and New, as this duty of charity to the poor.”3
b) Recovery of the Biblical Diaconate
It was not long before the intended model of the diaconate degenerated into an ecclesiastical office of
rank and administration. Church history records significant changes in the diaconate, especially after the
church was married to the state in the fourth century. With many contributing factors, the NT diaconate
was largely lost in the medieval church.
The Protestant Reformation recognized the distortions and corruptions that had tarnished and all but
destroyed the diaconate from its proper place and purpose. Substantial effort was exerted to recover and
restore the diaconate to its proper place and purpose.4
The historical abuses of the office were readily evident. John Calvin issued an indictment against all
failure to uphold the diaconate as laid down by the apostles: “The deacon, who was steward of the poor,
received what was given that he might distribute it. Now, of these alms no more comes to the poor than if
Matthew Henry, 5:978.
Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: James to Jude, ed. Robert Frew (London: Blackie & Son, 1884-885), 37.
3 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 2:164.
4 ISBE, 1:880.
1
2
42
they were cast into the sea. They, therefore, delude the Church by that lying deaconship. Assuredly in this
they have nothing resembling the apostolical institution or the ancient practice.”1
In his effort to recover the biblical diaconate, Martin Luther wrote the following concerning deacons
and the corruption of the diaconate:
Their principal responsibility was to care for the poor and the widows. That custom has long ceased to exist. In
the papist church the man who reads the Gospel is a subdeacon. The distribution of goods and the care of the
poor have been relegated to the hospices. The truth of the matter is that there ought to be chaplains and
common funds. I am more pleased that doorkeepers have the wherewithal to feed the poor than that we have it.
I mentioned the reason a little earlier—that the eyes of all are upon us. There ought to be deacons for the
church.2
Another great leader of the Reformation, Martin Bucer of Strassbourg (1491-1551), urged reform of the
diaconate. He sought to reestablish the duties of deacons and reinstate their commendable responsibilities.
In his own words:
Care for the properties of the churches and the collection of income therefrom and of other proceeds designated
for the use of the poor of the churches pertain to the office of subdeacons and administrators, so that the
deacons may spend themselves completely: first, in the correct distribution of the assets of the churches already
collected, namely, to give to each only what he truly needs in order to live to the Lord; secondly, to maintain the
discipline of Christ among those who are fed by the churches, so that those who receive food from the churches
for this very purpose will strive to live to the Lord.3
Bucer established an elaborate ministry of relief for the poor. He was particularly insistent on such
ministry without which, he said, “there can be no true communion of the saints.” At the same time, he was
not naïve. He knew that in pride some of the poor would hide their poverty while in greed some of the able
would exaggerate theirs. He communicated these cautions, which, he argued, heightened the need for a
wise, discerning, and spiritually qualified and motivated crew of deacons. He described their duties as
follows:
Each church will have as many of these [deacons] as is necessary to care for the needy, in proportion to its
population and the numbers of the poor.
Their duty and office is contained under these headings: First, they should investigate how many really indigent
persons live in each church for whom it is equitable for the church to provide the necessities of life. For the
churches of Christ must exclude from their communion those who, when they can sustain themselves by their
own power, neglect this and live inordinately, accepting borrowed food (II Thess. 3:6); it certainly is not the
duty of the church to foster such people in their godless idleness. Against these, therefore, the saying should
prevail: “Whoever does not work, let him not eat” (v. 10). … This horrifying pronouncement of the Holy Spirit
should resound in the hearts of all: “If anyone does not look after his own, and especially his own household, he
has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). For those whom the Lord has given to us in
special close relationships fall particularly under the second great commandment, in which the whole law is
contained and fulfilled: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39).4
Institutes, IV, v, 15.
Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 28: 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 15, Lectures on 1 Timothy, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald
and Helmut T. Lehmann (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 1 Ti 3:8.
3 Martin Bucer, De Regno Christi, Poor Relief, Sixth Law, LCC XIX, 309, quoted by Oden, Classic Pastoral Care, 124.
4 Thomas C. Oden, Crisis Ministries, Classic Pastoral Care (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 151–152.
1
2
43
John Calvin called deacons the “stewards of the poor.” In his Institutes, he introduces the office of
deacon with the words: “The care of the poor was committed to deacons . . . For although the term diakonia
has a more extensive meaning, Scripture specially gives the name of deacons to those whom the Church
appoints to dispense alms, and take care of the poor, constituting them as it were stewards of the public
treasury of the poor.”1 Elsewhere he argues that the ancient church maintained deacons “to tend and care
for the sick and administer allowances to the poor.” From this he explains his intention to recover the
diaconate to its original practice: “This custom we follow again now for we have procurators and
hospitallers. … It will be their duty to watch diligently that the public hospital is well maintained, and that
this be so both for the sick and the old people unable to work, widowed women, orphaned children and
other poor creatures.”2
In John Owen’s Greater Catechism (addressed to those older than children), issued in 1645, he describes
deacons as ordinary officers of the church required “to provide for the poor.” Owen argued that deacons
were ordained “to take care of the poor and the outward concerns of the church, without any interest in
rule or right to teach.”3 In his work on church polity, Owen distinguishes the roles and responsibilities of
both overseers (elders) and deacons:
It belongs unto them [overseers] and their office to advise with and give direction unto the deacons of the church as
unto the making provision and distribution of the charity of the church for the relief of the poor. The office of
the deacons is principally executive, as we shall see afterward. Inquisition into the state of the poor, with all
their circumstances, with the warning of all the members of the church unto liberality for their supply, belongs
unto the elders.4
Later, Owen describes the proper place and purpose of the diaconate in ministering to the needs of the
poor within the church:
But whereas there are three things that concur and are required unto the ministration unto the poor of the
church,—1. The love, charity, bounty, and benevolence of the members of the church, in contribution unto that
ministration; 2. The care and oversight of the discharge of it; and, 3. The actual exercise and application of it,—
the last only belongs unto the office of the deacons, and neither of the first is discharged by the institution of it:
for the first is both a duty of the light and law of nature, and in its moral part enforced by many especial
commands of Christ, so as that nothing can absolve men from their obligation thereunto. The office and work of
the deacons is to excite, direct, and help them, in the exercise of that grace and discharge of the duty therein
incumbent on them.5
Jonathan Edwards viewed deacons as appointed officers of the visible church charged with the
particular responsibility of taking care of the outward supply of the saints in the exercise of that great
Christian virtue called charity. He contended that not only qualification and selection but the service of
deacons must be guided by Scripture. He recognized that throughout church history many distortions and
variations in the role and responsibilities of deacons have emerged. In contrast to these and certain abuses
Institutes IV, iii, 9.
John Calvin, “Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances,” in Selections from His Writings (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 235–236.
3 John Owen, vol. 16, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark), 104.
4 Ibid., 140.
5 Ibid., 146.
1
2
44
of ecclesiastical authority and the place of tradition, Edwards insisted that Scripture is the only authority on
the matter of the business of any officer that Christ has appointed in his church.
Following 1 Timothy 3, Edwards observed only two offices within the church: ‘elders’ (being
synonymous with ‘bishops’) and ‘deacons’. He argued that deacons are unique to the NT church, having no
equivalent in the OT economy. Edwards highly esteemed the office and service of deacons, describing it as
a “great business and charge.” He emphasized that it is an office appointed by Christ, ordained under the
direction of the Apostles, and guarded by eminent qualifications in Scripture. He also underscored the need
of relieving elders from serving the church’s temporal needs, and drew attention to the particular necessity
to manifest Christ’s “wonderful love and tenderness to his church” in attending to the care and provision of
charity among her poor and needy.1
In several places, Edwards argues that the main business of the diaconate is the distribution of the
church's charity for the outward supply of those in need. According to Edwards, charity, in the fullest sense
of Christian love in the distribution of the church’s contributions, captures the essential duty of deacons.
Edwards said that Christ is the savior of both soul and body, and deacons are appointed to mimic his mercy
and compassion by tending to the bodily needs of his people, especially the poor and necessitous members.
To this end, he urged that frequent and liberal contributions to the church’s common stock (deacon’s fund)
be maintained.
In the Reformed tradition, the overseers (presbyters) were appointed to the responsibility of
overseeing funds and the deacons were appointed to the responsibility of caring for the poor (cf. Gallic
Confession 29; Belgic Confession 30f.).2 The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. defines deacons as
“distinct officers of the Church,” whose “business is the care of the poor” and “developing the grace of
liberality and of receiving and administering the offerings of the people.”3 Albert Barnes, Presbyterian
theologian and minister, identifies the deacons as “those who had charge of the temporal affairs of the
church, the poor.”4 A. H. Strong, Baptist theologian, catalogued the duties of the diaconate as “helping the
church, by relieving the poor and sick and ministering in an informal way to the church’s spiritual needs.”5
H. A. W. Meyer, German theologian, says that deacons “were originally almoners of the poor.” 6 Jonathan
Edwards, American Puritan and theologian, taught that “the principal business of deacons is, to take care of
the poor, in the faithful and judicious improvement and distribution of the church’s contributions, lodged
in their hands.”7 Joseph Lightfoot, British theologian and Bishop of Durham, in his significant treatment on
the subject said, “the Christian deacon, whose ministrations lay among the widows and orphans, and
whose time was almost wholly spent in works of charity. . . . Thus the work primarily assigned to the
Edwards wrote several miscellanies (including 801, 850, and 1055) and preached a few sermons on the subject of deacons. This quotation is
from a sermon preached June 14, 1739 out of Acts 6:1-3. See Jonathan Edwards, Sermons, Series II, 1739 (WJE Online Vol. 54), Ed. Jonathan Edwards
Center.
2 ISBE, 1:880.
3 Ibid., 1:880-881.
4 Barnes, 147.
5 Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 918.
6 Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, 149.
7 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 1 (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), ccxxvi.
1
45
deacons was the relief of the poor.”1 Fenton J. A. Hort, Irish theologian and critical scholar, commenting on
1 Timothy 3:8 and addressing the diaconate, argued that the responsibilities of deacons were
chiefly, perhaps even exclusively, the help of a material kind which the poorer or more helpless members of the
body received from the community at large. It is difficult to account for the word, used thus absolutely, in any
other way. . . . Ministration to the bodily wants of its needy members would be distinctive, and would
obviously tally with the associations most familiar to Greek ears in connection with the word.2
Strauch captures the pressing need in our day to recover the beauty and power of the biblical
diaconate:
They help the poor, the jobless, the sick, the widowed, the elderly, the homeless, the shut-in, the refugees, and
the disabled. They counsel and guide people. They visit people in their homes. They relieve suffering. . . . Their
work, though often hard and exasperating, is most precious in God's eyes. He is deeply concerned about the
poor and needy. "This is pure and undefiled religion...," declares James, "to visit orphans and widows in their
distress..."(James 1:27). Caring for the needy is essential business in authentic Christianity. Yet, the needy are
often neglected and even despised. This should not be! The local church must care for its needy members, and
the diaconate is the official church body responsible for this task. 3
It is still true that “pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit
orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27). The
church, wherever local samples of her are found, should shine as the light of God in this dark world, to
show forth the goodness of God to the nations (Matt 5:16; Phil 2:15).
2) MINISTERING MERCY TO THE AFFLICTED AND DISADVANTAGED
Mercy ministry, though primarily depicted as a practical ministry of relief to the poor, most certainly
extends to various disadvantaged conditions. In the ancient world, poverty and helplessness often went
hand-in-hand. Reasons for poverty varied widely and could include physical deformities, disease, injury, or
a host of other infirmities and afflictions. In addition to the naturally occurring evils of life under the curse,
many of the saints in the early church experienced persecution and related trials that would not
uncommonly result in bodily need. Therefore, suffering, sickness, and a diverse set of other disadvantages
were also included in the mercy ministry of the diaconate. In the NT, diaconal ministry was understood in
the “specific sense of practical service rendered to those who are suffering and in need.”4 This involved
practical relief and assistance, including the distribution of funds, food and clothing to the needy.5 “God has
given deacons a wonderful ministry of service, mercy, and love to needy people. Indeed, deacons are to
emulate our Lord's example of humble, loving service to needy people.”6
Perhaps one of the greatest depictions characteristic of diaconal service is seen in Christ’s exhortation to
His followers concerning their character, duty, and accountability at His return. It is a powerful illustration
of diaconal responsibility given by Christ Himself. After condemning those who outwardly proved an utter
lack of Christ-likeness in heart, He states,
Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, 147.
F. J. A. Hort cited by Strauch, 73-74.
3 Strauch, 156.
4 Strauch, 72.
5 Stott, 91.
6 Strauch, 11.
1
2
46
Then the King will say to those on His right, “Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was
thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed
Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.” Then the righteous will answer Him,
“Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ‘And when
did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ‘When did we see You sick, or in
prison, and come to You?” The King will answer and say to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did
it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me” (Mt 25:34–40).
Deacons are officially appointed to exemplify this kind of ministry in the church. Such ministry is very
near the heart of God. And service to Christ’s redeemed is ultimately service to Christ. Therefore, the
ministry of deacons is ultimately a ministry to Christ through compassion and care of those in need within
His body—the church. The service of a deacon, therefore, “was and is a glorious task. It is based upon
Christ’s loving concern for his people. So close to his heart is this tender solicitude that he regards what is
done to the least of his brothers as if it had been done to himself (Matt. 25:31–46).”1 The Directory of the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church for the Public Worship of God says: “The office of deacon is based upon the
solicitude and love of Christ for His own people. So tender is our Lord’s interest in their temporal needs
that He considers what is done unto one of the least of His brethren as done unto Him.” Far from
mechanical, diaconal service is heart-felt loving service to those who are in distress.
Although deacons focus their ministry on physical, material, and outward needs, it is not to the
exclusion of the spiritual. In their provision of resources and assistance for meeting the basic needs of
others, it is indeed a spiritual service that is rendered. Because diaconal service is a ministry that is highly
valued by God, it is designed to be rendered with spiritual motivations and rewarded with spiritual
blessings (1 Tim 3:13). It is an honorable service that is to be done by honorable men and women (1 Tim
3:8). Because it very practically models the tender care and love of God for His people, the diaconate
uniquely affords the local church a profound witness of God’s character; a very high calling and privilege.
Deacons are responsible to put on display the compassion, kindness, mercy, provision, and love of God,
before a lost and self-seeking world, in sacrificial service to the poor and disadvantaged—even to the least
of them.
BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS
In addition to the observations discussed above, the biblical responsibilities of deacons may be gleaned
and affirmed by the qualifications laid down in 1 Timothy 3:8–12.
To begin with, we must concede that “as in the case of the overseer, the instructions relating to the
deacons have mainly to do with aspects of character, which makes attempts to define 'diaconal' duties
difficult.”2 Therefore, we would do well to heed the caution sounded by Ben Witherington: “Rhetorically
speaking, what Paul is doing here is providing a character sketch far more than a job description, and its
main function is to explain how a leader should behave, not what the leader’s full job description should
look like.”3 Without argument, this is certainly true; however, it is not the case that the qualifications listed
Hendriksen, 130.
Towner, 261-2.
3 Witherington, 243.
1
2
47
for deacons are completely irrelevant to their duties. We must also observe that “these qualities all contain a
serious note, befitting the character of their task.”1 If there was absolutely no correlation between
qualifications and responsibilities, it would be difficult to explain the differences in qualifications required
of the overseers as compared to the deacons. As discussed above, the differences between the qualifications
for these offices are not insignificant. Therefore, while we agree that most of the requirements are concerned
with the candidate’s character and not personal duty, we also agree that the qualifications are suited
particularly for the duties expected and therefore do afford an indication of them.2
As suggested above, their very title is suggestive of what type of service they were appointed to
minister. The fact that there were very clear and high character qualifications required, of any kind, also
reflects a position of high responsibility and significance. The qualifications suggest substantial contact with
people. The 1915 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia concludes that “the character of their
qualifications makes it clear that they were to be appointed as dispensers of alms, who should come into
close personal relations with the poor.”3 In general, it is evident that the qualifications for deacons
correspond to official responsibilities of public trust.
St Paul, writing thirty years later, and stating the requirements of the diaconate, lays the stress mainly on those
qualifications which would be most important in persons moving about from house to house and entrusted
with the distribution of alms. While he requires that they shall ‘hold the mystery of the faith in a pure
conscience,’ in other words, that they shall be sincere believers, he is not anxious, as in the case of the
presbyters, to secure ‘aptness to teach,’ but demands especially that they shall be free from certain vicious
habits, such as a love of gossiping, and a greed of paltry gain, into which they might easily fall from the nature
of their duties.4
The qualities required of deacons are not disconnected from their responsibilities. A closer review of
the qualifications that are particularly linked to the deacons affords some insight into their responsibilities.
Ministering to the needs of the suffering, poor, and disadvantaged within the church is at least supported,
and may be positively inferred, by the required necessity for: dignity, honesty and sincerity, sobriety,
financial honest and integrity, faithfulness, and the exceptional commendation of a ‘good standing’.
1) DIGNITY
“Deacons likewise must be men of dignity…” (1 Ti 3:8).
“Women must likewise be dignified…” (1 Ti 3:11).
That the deacon must be dignified (semnos), possessing a commendable reverence for God and integrity
of faith with a clear conscience. This may infer that his responsibilities are particularly vulnerable to the
temptation of taking advantage of others. This quality would have been necessary for those serving the
poor and disadvantaged because of the demand for personal discretion in private situations. They would
likely have had to determine whether a person’s need was legitimate, a determination that would rightly
require a mind marked by a healthy reverence for God. “The problems of the poor and hurting are often
complex, and there is a tendency to oversimplify matters. It is difficult to be fair and generous while at the
Guthrie, 100.
Mounce, 195.
3 James Orr, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: 1915 Edition (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1999), s.v. “Deacon”.
4 Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, 148.
1
2
48
same time practical and responsible.”1 Because deacons hold a position of sacred trust, they are required to
be dignified men and women—(semnos) individuals possessing a commendable reverence for God.
2) HONESTY AND SINCERITY
“Deacons likewise must be … not double-tongued…” (1 Ti 3:8).
“Women must likewise be … not malicious gossips…” (1 Ti 3:11).
This particular requirement directly implies the strict necessity of honesty and sincerity in all
communications and dealings with people. Dishonesty and insincerity undermine trust. Such are the “vices
which would be particularly tempting to one moving among the saints administering relief funds.” 2 This
requirement makes perfect sense if deacons served in ministering practical care for the poor and
disadvantaged. For instance, “in going from house to house, and in dealing with those who needed charity,
deacons had to be completely straight. Again and again, they would be tempted to evade issues by a little
timely hypocrisy and smooth speaking. . . . In the work of helping the poor, things might easily be heard
and be repeated, and infinite damage might be done.”3 Thus, this requirement “was no doubt because they
may have been involved in visitation in homes which would expose them more pointedly to these evils.”4
Since the Greek dilogos would suggest a person who repeats what he has heard or seen to others, the version
here opted for retailing gossip, particularly since the dilogoi are in tandem with the diaboloi in the list in Polycarp.
The coinage would be heard as designating a special occupational hazard of the deacons, who were the social
workers of the ancient congregations. There would be no lack of an audience ready to be entertained by a lively
narrative about the latest ‘case’ in which the deacon had intervened. 5
William Ramsay suggests that this requirement was especially necessary because
there can be no doubt that the work of deacons was more closely connected with the indoor and family life of
members of the congregation than the work of presbyters [overseers]. The deacons had more intimate duties in
the administration of charity and help where it was needed. They had to find out the needs of individuals, to go
about among the members of the congregation, and to converse and to sympathize with them. 6
Mounce cites one of the Similitudes from the Shepherd of Hermas, a document likely written in the
second century, which records the abuses of some deacons. The value of this citation is that it reveals both
the necessity of the requirements laid down by the Apostle and infers the duties incumbent to deacons:
The ones with blemishes are deacons who served badly and stole the livelihood of widows and orphans and
profited for themselves from the service which they received to perform. If, then, they persist in the same desire
they are dead and there is no hope of life for them. But if they turn and sincerely complete their service they will
be able to live.7
The scholarly and graceful Baptist professor, Thomas Armitage (1819-1896), captures the importance of
this particular qualification when he writes: ”In that dishonest and licentious age such a delicate trust as
Strauch, 96.
Saucy, The Church, 156.
3 Barclay, 96, 97.
4 Guthrie, 99.
5 Quinn, 280.
6 Ramsay, 79.
7 Similitudes, 9.26.2; cited by Mounce, 209.
1
2
49
that held by the deacon required rare spirituality and spotless character, keen insight of human nature,
large patience and singular tact in dealing with the suffering, as well as a broad and intelligent sympathy.”1
3) SOBRIETY
“Deacons likewise must be … not … addicted to much wine…” (1 Ti 3:8).
“Women must likewise be … temperate…” (1 Ti 3:11).
Sobriety is an essential ingredient for trust. What is particularly interesting here is that the expression
directed toward deacons is longer and stronger than the overseers’ counterpart (v. 3). The emphasis to
deacons is heightened by an adjective (pollō: ‘much’) and the sense of mental occupation conveyed by the
verb, which describes habitual attention. While overseers must be “not alongside (paroinon) wine” (v. 3),
deacons must be “not habitually attending to (prosechō) much wine” (v. 8). “The phraseology at this point
may suggest that diaconal tasks exposed these men to overindulgence as they visited homes raising funds
or distributing food and drink.”2
That the emphasis on sobriety falls to deacons reasonably infers that the office necessitated a high
degree of trust; perhaps even hinting to the vulnerability of those receiving diaconal service. It also suggests
that diaconal responsibilities may have involved contact with alcohol, being well attested as an ancient
purifying agent in a world that struggled to obtain clean, safe drinking water. For this reason, wine was
sometimes employed for medicinal purposes (1 Tim 5:23), a service that deacons may have ministered to
the sick and ailing. In any case, it seems clear that the nature and responsibilities of diaconal service was
such that perhaps it occasioned a heightened potential for temptation to drunkenness.
4) FINANCIAL HONESTY AND INTEGRITY
“Deacons likewise must be … not … fond of sordid gain” (1 Ti 3:8).
This qualification prominently stands to require a high mark of personal integrity, especially in the area
of handling money. The text could be literally rendered, “not eager for shameful gain.” Included in this
qualification is an implicit indictment to all who seek personal financial gain under the banner of ministry.
Seeking personal financial gain through ministry in the name of Jesus Christ is dishonest, dishonorable,
sordid, and deeply shameful. Therefore, “the requirement that they not be greedy may suggest some
responsibility for the church’s purse, perhaps in the disbursement of funds to the poor.”3 In other words,
“the ministry of deacon may involve the handling of resources intended for the disadvantaged, thus giving
opportunity for and leaving a vulnerability to such sin.”4
It is especially noteworthy that while an overseer is likewise required to not be a “lover of money”
(3:3), the requirement for deacons is given in even stronger terms. The quality required of overseers
essentially describes a person as being above the affection, attraction, or lure of wealth, while the deacon
must be not covetous nor given to the temptation of profit regardless of the means. Stronger terms are used
undoubtedly because deacons would be exposed more to temptations along these lines.5 The requirement
for deacons “puts the accent on profiteering,” primarily because the deacons “distribute it to the poor, the
Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1886), 131.
Quinn, 280.
3 Mounce, 195; see also Alfred, Barnes, Robertson.
4 Kitchen, 140.
5 Saucy, The Church, 157; Bernard, 57; Lange, 41.
1
2
50
sick, the distressed. In such work, there is danger that some gifts will cling to the hands of those who are to
transmit them.”1 Again, this qualification is included because “it is very likely that deacons were involved
in the administration of food and funds to widows and other needy members of the community and
therefore were prey to temptations of embezzlement and other forms of dishonesty.”2 Historically, “such
moral probity was also sought in those involved in synagogue charity collection and distribution.”3
In the ninth similitude of The Shepherd of Hermas, a very stern warning is given to deacons on the
example of some “who discharged their duty ill, and who plundered widows and orphans of their
livelihood, and gained possessions for themselves from the ministry [diakonia], which they had received. If,
therefore, they remain under the dominion of the same desire, they are dead, and there is no hope of life for
them; but if they repent, and finish their ministry in a holy manner, they shall be able to live.”4 From this, it
is clear to see the connection between financial honesty and integrity, and the ministry of deacons. These
qualifications are specifically in place to protect those needing diaconal care, namely the defenseless and
most vulnerable (i.e. “widows and orphans”).
Calvin notes that there was an ancient saying directed toward the deacons: “Remember that you are
not handling your own property, but that destined for the necessities of the poor; if you dishonestly conceal
or dilapidate it, you will be guilty of blood.” He went on to comment that for this reason deacons “are
admonished to distribute them to those to whom they are due, with the greatest fear and reverence, as in
the sight of God, without respect of persons.”5
Christ’s church cannot afford to have any Judases in the diaconate. Judas appeared to care for the poor
but it was revealed that he actually cared for money (John 12:6; 13:29). Barring this characteristic
significantly infers access and ministration of resources intended for the poor.
5) FAITHFUL
“…holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Ti 3:9).
“…faithful in all things” (1 Ti 3:11).
Only a life that is marked by the living character of the gospel is suited to serve as a deacon. Being
gripped by the gospel with unfading apprehension is foundational to diaconal service that is properly
motivated and carried out. Foremost to trustworthiness, with an interest in the protection of the weak,
helpless, vulnerable, and disadvantaged, is character—not merely moral, but Christ-centered through the
gospel. As Strauch states the case, “Only Spirit-filled men can be sensitive to God's principles and people.
They alone can exhibit Christ's compassion and love. They will not shame the church or exploit needy,
vulnerable people.”6
Faith brands our response to the gospel, and thereby expresses the means of receiving saving grace.
Rightly conceived, it permeates our life so as to produce a “faithful” character in all things. Through the
gospel we are not only faith-filled we are faithful; not only is faith responsive to grace it is responsible with
grace. Moving from “the mystery of the faith” to the constant apprehension of it “with a clear conscience”
Quinn, 281.
Daniel C. Arichea and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on Paul’s Letters to Timothy and to Titus (New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 73.
3 Johnson, 227.
4 ANF:2:52.
5 Institutes, IV.4.6.
6 Strauch, 95.
1
2
51
paves the path of this conclusion and directs our attention to the significance of backing diaconal service
with gospel faithfulness. By gospel faithfulness, we mean to encompass both (a) faith in Christ through the
gospel and (b) a trustworthiness of character that flows out of one’s adherence to their faith in Christ.
What is striking here, and should not go unnoticed, is that deacons are alone in the emphasis of
faithfulness as a qualification for office. To be sure, overseers must also be marked by gospel faithfulness;
after all they are charged with the responsibility of spiritual leadership in the church by means of the
gospel. So “holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” must unmistakably characterize the
overseer of God’s flock. We might have expected that faith in the gospel and faithfulness in all things would
be more strictly required of overseers than anyone else in the church, but in 1 Timothy 3 the stress is placed
particularly on the office of deacon.
This emphasis is presented in harmony with verse 10, which states, “And let these also first be tested;
then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.” The ‘also’, like ‘likewise’, points us back to the
overseers mentioned in verses 1–7. But again, the explicit accent falls to the deacons in a tone that appears
to be guarding from the tendency to lower standards. The point is that deacon candidates must be tested in
diaconal service before being officially endorsed by the church as deacons. This is not mandating an official
examination or probational period as much as it is calling for the affirmation of demonstrated character.
Faithfulness, or gospel-centered trustworthiness, is the key here. The whole principle of testing reminds us
that a time and circumstance proven consistency of character is essential to diaconal service—in a word,
faithfulness.
That both overseers and deacons are expected to manifest lives captive to Christ is plainly
presupposed. So why is such explicit weight on the point of faithfulness given to deacons? We may draw at
least two significant implications from this. First, gathering that deacons do not serve in a position of
authority or rule, one may be inclined to lower their perceived spiritual expectation of the office. The
emphasis on gospel-centered faithfulness corrects that probable tendency. Deacons must be exemplary
disciples of Christ—dignified, discerning, self-controlled, humble, sober-minded, marked by the gospel and
thereby faithful and trustworthy in all things. Second, there is good reason to see this emphasis as
corresponding to the responsibility of caring for the most vulnerable members of the church. 1 The overt
necessity of gospel-focused trust is the concern here, which at minimum reinforces the notion that deacons
serve in a position where defenseless people can be exploited more easily. This makes sense out of an
otherwise unexpected priority. That the stress of faithfulness falls to the deacons rather than the overseers
must surely bear significance—that significance, we believe, is that deacons bear the particular
responsibility of practically and materially ministering to the poor, sick, afflicted, disadvantaged, and
otherwise defenseless and needy members of the church.
6) GOOD STANDING
“For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing …” (1Ti 3:13).
While not a qualification, the closing remarks directed to deacons2 expressively reinforce all that has
been concluded concerning the responsibilities of deacons up to this point. Deacons who have served well
1
2
Alford, 328; Brown, 29.
See An Exegetical Analysis of Passages Pertaining to Ministry Offices, 60ff.
52
in the diaconate “obtain for themselves a high standing” within the congregation. This blessing
“emphasizes the appreciation that believers bestow on those who dedicate themselves to serving the needy
in the community.”1
That the accent of “high standing” among the members of the church falls to the deacons rather than
the overseers infers some distinctive privilege. The most convincing explanation again reminds us that far
from being merely menial, the responsibilities and services of deacons are admirable, commendable, and
should be esteemed by the church. Such service reflects the practical compassion, mercy, and material
ministry of Christ. As Struach well states:
When our merciful Lord came to this self-centered, self-seeking, prideful world, the virtues of humility and
servanthood received radically new meaning and significance (Matthew 20:20-28; Luke 12:37). . . . As servantofficers, deacons are to have their true identity in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is to be their model and example.
They are to be distinctly Christian servants—loving, sacrificial, willing, compassionate, and merciful. May all
Christian deacons be blessed as they seek to imitate Christ's compassionate, unselfish concern for those in
distress. May they be like Him as they serve in this esteemed office.2
Indeed, serving in pursuit of the imitation of Christ, to meet the bodily needs of the most needy in His
body is worthy of esteemed respect. It is remarkable that verse 13 does not issue so high a commendation
for just any service. Overseers are reminded that they serve in a “fine work” (v. 1), but even they are not
bestowed with such explicit reward for their faithful labors. We might expect a distinguished appraisal for
those charged with the responsibility to “keep watch over … souls, as those who will give an account” (Heb
13:17). But what we find in 1 Timothy 3 is that deacons are more emphatically applauded, and in stronger
terms, for their faithful labors.
All explanatory power would be lost if the same emphasis and reward given in verse 13 applied to any
common service in the church. If deacons represented all-purpose servants sanctioned for generic service,
surely it would be difficult to justly elucidate verse 13. The reason the diaconate is so exceptionally
esteemed is because the service of deacons is universally not. It is as Paul stated to the Corinthians, “on
those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable
parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so
composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it” (1 Cor 12:23–24 ESV). Deacons are
tasked to serve the body in ways “we think less honorable” and therefore, by Christ’s principle, “we bestow
the greater honor.” The proper esteem of the diaconate can only follow this principle of Christ—the Divine
Deacon (cf. Mk 10:45): “the last shall be first, and the first last” (Mk 10:31). Elsewhere Christ illustrated this
same principle, placing the ‘last’ position in class with the Greek word for deacon: “If anyone wants to be
first, he shall be last of all and servant [diakonos] of all” (Mk 9:35). The implication is clear, diaconal service
is viewed as a low service—‘last’ of all, but in Christ’s economy the servant [diakonos] will be rewarded
‘first’.
In summary, it is apparent from a careful examination of the qualifications for the diaconate that
deacons are not merely servants in the church; they are appointed ministers of mercy. They are designed to
minister to the most vulnerable and needy in the church, and for this reason a very high standard of
1
2
Quinn, 288.
Strauch, 158-159.
53
Christian character is demanded. It is also evident that the qualifications set forth for deacons fortify the
nature and type of service just described.
SUPPORT TO THE OVERSEERS
As model servants ministering to the practical needs of the church body, deacons serve most naturally
to complement the ministry of overseers. Caring for poor and disadvantaged members is unquestionably a
responsibility of the church and particularly the overseers. In like manner to the apostles, the shepherds of
the church are to be attentive and active in overseeing the needs of hurting and needful persons among
them (cf. Acts 4:34-37). However, this sacred responsibility can very easily demand more than the overseers
are able to manage on their own without adversely affecting their other responsibilities.
A clear precedent is afforded in the example of the first shepherds of the church, namely that “caring
for poor and sick people was not the apostles' first, God-given priority.”1 The apostles were the original
overseers/shepherds of the church and they laid down a precedent of shepherd leadership to care for the
needy among them. They discerned that it was not desirable, proper, or right that overseers should neglect
the priority of the ministry of the word of God in order to minister to the bodily needs of the poor. Instead
they called for the selection of highly respected and spiritual men and appointed them to the task (Acts 6:23). The highest priority of the shepherd-overseer is to be devoted to prayer and to the ministry of the word
of God (Acts 6:4). A key principle is here laid bare that quite reasonably extends to the relationship between
overseers and deacons. The manner of support is a matter of division of labor. The issue of deacons serving
in support of overseers is not so much one of status or rank as it is one of priority in specifically dedicated
services. Deacons are not at the beck and call of undevoted overseers. As overseers are to be devoted to
prayer and the word of God, so deacons are to be devoted to ministering to the bodily needs of the poor
and disadvantage in the church.
1) RELIEVING OFFICERS
It has been suggested that, in like manner to the situation of Acts 6, deacons were appointed in the
early church “to distribute the alms of the congregation and to minister to the needs of the poor; they were
the church’s relieving officers.”2 It is as “relieving officers” that deacons serve in support of overseers. A
deacon assists the overseers particularly in diaconal service.
Lenski argues that “to say that they performed the same work as the episcopoi [overseers] with the
exception of the teaching is not provable. They were not the overseers, did not act as pastors and spiritual
leaders of the flock. The best we can say is that they assisted the overseers by performing the minor services
and attending to incidental matters such as collecting and distributing alms, looking after the physical
needs of the sick, keeping the place of worship in order, etc.”3 Saucy states that “the early church pictures
the deacons as assisting the bishops [overseers] in various administrative and liturgical functions, especially
in administering the Lord's Supper. So it would appear reasonable to conclude that the general function of
Strauch, 18.
Alfred Plummer, "Deacon, Deaconess" in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (2 Vols.), ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1916-1918), 1:285.
3 Lenski, 592.
1
2
54
the deacons is the performance of various services of a practical nature in the church, relieving the elders of
burdens which might interfere with their ministry of spiritual oversight.”1
2) ASSISTANTS TO—NOT SERVANTS TO—OVERSEERS
So while there is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that the deacon is a servant to the overseer,
there is reason to discern that deacons served as assistants to overseers.2 In each case where diakonos is used
in the formal sense of an office (cf. 1 Tim 3:8-13; Phil 1:1), the word is presented in relation to overseers and
always follows. The order of treatment and greater attention given to the overseer suggests that the role of
the deacon was one of assistance exercised under oversight. 3
In the Greek world, a diakonos served “by commission or order of a superior, and as such both
represented and operated with the authority of the superior.”4 This appears to be the historical approach of
the church as well. In other words, deacons assist overseers by ministering to the bodily needs of the poor
and disadvantaged in a delegated and representative manner on behalf of the overseers of the church. In
this way, the diaconate is an extension of the shepherding ministry of the overseers.
3) UNDER SHEPHERDING OVERSIGHT
As such, the diaconate is not seen as an autonomous body of leadership. The ministry of deacons most
naturally fits under the guidance and accountability of the overseers. As shepherds, responsible for the
oversight of the flock, it is quite expected that they will call for the assistance of deacons when
corresponding needs become known. Before the crisis in Acts 6, it is evident that it was the apostles who
ministered to the needy among them. It is reasonably assumed that in Crete the overseers would also care
for the needy. Before and after the arrival of assistance, the overseers remain accountable for the
shepherding care of the flock, which places the deacons under their oversight.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428) wrote of deacons that “they are to be honorable and sincere in
performing the duties assigned to them by the presbyters [overseers].”5 Speaking of the overseer, Calvin
said that “it belonged to him to prescribe to the deacon who were to be admitted to the public alimony of
the Church, and point out to what persons, and in what portions, the residue was to be distributed, and
because he was entitled to see whether the deacon faithfully performed his office.”6
4) IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORT FROM THE DEACONS
God-centered ministry will always be deeply concerned for the needs of God’s people. God is not only
Savior, He is Shepherd (1 Pet 2:25, 5:4). Shepherding the people of God is essential to ministry, and caring
for needs is part of shepherding. Wherever there is biblical shepherding of people in need, there is diaconal
ministry. Therefore the ministry of deacons can be very instrumental in assisting the shepherds in their
responsibilities of overseeing and tending the flock of God (Acts 20:28).
Shepherding is the issue. Deacons serve as the practical care extension of the shepherding ministry in
the church. Where there are significant needs in the flock, shepherds will have significant need for diaconal
Saucy, The Church, 156-7.
Hiebert, “Behind the Word ‘Deacon’: A New Testament Study,” 155.
3 Towner, 261.
4 ibid.
5 Peter Gorday, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), 175.
6 Calvin, Institutes, IV.4.5.
1
2
55
assistance. Strauch says it well when he writes, “church shepherds today desperately need the deacons to
relieve them from the many practical care needs essential to shepherding a flock so that the shepherds can
attend more fully to teaching, guarding, and leading the whole flock.”1
In this way, the two offices complement one another wonderfully. As Mark Dever concisely states,
“Elders need deacons to serve practically, and deacons need elders to lead spiritually.”2 Strauch
summarizes:
Some scholars think that deacons were primarily personal assistants to the overseers. This view is very
appealing, and there is some truth to it. But if New Testament deacons were assistants to overseers, that would
probably have been made plain by the Greek term hypēretēs, meaning 'assistants,' not by diakonoi. Although the
two words diakonos and hypēretēs are very similar, the latter stresses more the idea of 'helper' or 'assistant' in the
official sense (Acts 13:5; Luke 4:20). Furthermore, deacons are never described in the New Testament as 'their
[overseers] servants' or 'their helpers.' . . . deacons form a complementary office to overseers, and that they are
not merely assistant overseers.3
Unity is another facet to the ministry of deacons. When deacons are rightly commissioned for the right
responsibilities, it promotes unity in the local body of Christ. We would do well to remember that unity in
the church was one of the goals for which diaconal ministry was commissioned in the crisis of Acts 6. When
physical disunity begins to create spiritual disunity, those who are spiritual will respond with physical care
and service in the name of love and for the purpose of edification and unity within the body of Christ. Godgiven order in the church fosters Spirit-empowered unity for God’s glory and man’s joy.
Strauch, 12.
Dever, The Deliberate Church, 132.
3 Strauch, 171 (endnote 5).
1
2
56
The responsibilities of deacons are not insignificant. It follows, then, that the qualifications for office are
not insignificant. The high qualifications for official service as a deacon point to the significance of the
diaconate.
The qualifications set forth for deacons should stand as the goals and character guide of every believer
in the church. Spiritual maturity manifested in a depth of knowledge and application of the gospel of Christ
is the defining mark in which all Christians should be progressing.
It is a faulty view to see deacons as spiritually inferior to overseers. The spiritual qualifications set forth
here are essentially the same as those of overseers. Deacons and overseers differ in function, and perhaps
giftedness, but not in character. It is not that the qualifications for the office of deacon are any less spiritual.
As one commentator puts it, “A deacon, although he deals with the material matters of the church, should
be a spiritual man. We have a problem today when we appoint a man as a deacon on the basis of physical
rather than spiritual qualifications.”1
Like the qualifications of overseers, these place great stress on key moral and spiritual qualities that an
individual must characteristically demonstrate in order to serve as a deacon. First Timothy 3:8–12 identifies
several explicit qualifications for the office of deacon.
Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but
holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as
deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in
all things. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
The summary of all these qualifications are subsumed in the ultimate goal of Christ-likeness. As with
overseers, maturity in Christ is the all-encompassing measure of qualification. Applying the continuity of the
injunction "must be" (cf. 3:2) according to the adverb "likewise" (cf. 3:8, 11), we may say, a deacon must be:
1. WORTHY OF RESPECT
1 Timothy 3:8, 11
1
J. Vernon McGee, The Epistles: 1 and 2 Timothy/Titus/Philemon, Thru the Bible Commentary, vol. 50 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 52.
57
The deacon must be "dignified, reverent, honorable, worthy of respect, serious, of good character." The word
used in 3:8 and 3:11 is an important term that describes someone whose character is seriously minded and
whose conduct warrants respect. Serious does not mean without joy, or without laughter, but rather reflects
initiative of dignified reverence whenever appropriate. In this context, it describes one who takes their faith
seriously and all related responsibilities in the church seriously.
Like the first qualification of an overseer, this too serves as a representative quality covering all
subsequent qualities. In other words, each of the following qualities will be part of what it means that they
are worthy of respect and conversely they will be worthy of respect in each of the following qualities.
2. AN HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY COMMUNICATOR
1 Timothy 3:8, 11
The deacon must be an honest and trustworthy communicator. To serve as a deacon is to serve in an
official position of trust in the congregation. Deacons must not be dilogos: “twice” (dis), “worded” (logos).
This term used in 3:8, with its negative particle, means “not double-tongued, not hypocritical, not insincere, not
deceitful, not duplicitous.” It encompasses both the idea of saying one thing and meaning another as well as
saying one thing to one persona and another to another. Therefore, the emphasis here is on integrity and
consistency in character, though it undoubtedly includes the idea of controlling one's speech.
Thomas Adams (c. 1583-1656) graphically illustrated the seriousness of being double-tongued:
If God has given us one tongue, then why do we act as though we have two? Some are double-tongued because
they are double-hearted. But God has given us one tongue, and one heart, that they might indeed be one, as
they are in number. It is made simple; let it not be double. God has made us decent, but we make ourselves
monsters. … Now where God has given us but one tongue, and one heart, and bidden us to be content with
their singularity, we will have two tongues and two hearts. Thus we are cross to God, nature, and grace. We
have become monstrous, having one eye, one foot, two tongues, and two hearts. The slanderer, the flatterer, the
swearer, and the gossiper, are monstrous; they are misshapen, as if they had two tongues and but one eye; two
heads and but one foot.1
In 3:11, a similar though more potent word is used, diabolos, which conveys the idea that a deacon must
be "not a slanderer, not a malicious gossip." This describes a quality of character that is free from gossip, and
particularly free from speaking harmful words against another. It stresses the absence of slander and
misrepresentation in one's speech.
Combined, these qualifications demand that the person fit for diaconal service is, among other traits, a
person who is clearly marked by honest and trustworthy communication. They can be trusted with
sensitive information. They will only speak on what is necessary to communicate and only to those who
rightly need to know. When they do communicate it is free from ill-intent, is not misleading, and is for the
purpose of building up the body of Christ for the glory of God and the good of people—especially those
involved.
3. SOBER AND LEVEL-HEADED
1 Timothy 3:8, 11
1
”Double-Tongued” by Thomas Adams, in Day by Day with the English Puritans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2004), 225.
58
It is imperative that a deacon be sober and level-headed. In 3:8, a phrase is used in the original that
means that a deacon must be "not given to much wine, not addicted to alcohol, not devoted or attached to alcohol."
The stress here is on the strength of will, ability, and consistency of controlling thoughts and desires to be free
from, in this context, the influence of substances (cf. "wine"). The deacon is to be well known to have no
habitual relationship with intoxicating substances. This is a stronger and more lengthy expression than that
found in 3:3 for overseers (please see comments there for more).
Strauch urges caution here: “We must not be naive or silent about alcoholism among church leaders.
Deacons work with people, often those who are troubled. If a deacon has a drinking problem, he will lead
people astray and bring reproach upon the church. His overindulgence will interfere with spiritual growth
and service, and it could lead to more degrading sins. A man who seeks to demonstrate the love of Christ to
others must control this area of his life. . . . Plainly this is not an absolute prohibition against drinking wine.
It is a prohibition against the abuse of wine (or any other substance) that would damage a man's testimony
and work for God.”1
A complementary quality is given in 3:11 that more specifically requires that the deacon must be "soberminded, temperate." Literally, this refers to "holding no wine" or being "without wine." The overt censure
against drunkenness, especially for those in positions of responsibility and influence over others, points to
the underlying importance of temperance, clear-headedness, respectable judgment, and an overall
moderation of thought, word, and behavior. It is best understood to describe self-control, restrained in
conduct, sober in judgment, and free from all forms of excess.
A close approximation of this character trait is given in the list of qualifications for the prototypical
servant identified in Acts 6, namely that he be “full of … wisdom” (Acts 6:3). Commenting on this text, F. F.
Bruce notes that the one who would serve in this diaconal capacity had to be “qualified to deal wisely with
a situation in which such delicate human susceptibilities had to be considered.”2 The connection between
‘wisdom’ and ‘the Spirit’ may also be important to acknowledge here, since both terms are joined under the
one adjective ‘full’.3 It is possible that each term effectively qualifies and explains the mark of the other, so
that being filled with the Spirit is not discerned as some mystical intangible devoid of any intelligible
outworking of wisdom but the powerful working of God in the affections and discipline of the man as he
acts wisely. And since the Spirit gives wisdom, and the wisdom in view here is not of a carnal nature but
intended for the service of God, these two are manifestly linked.
Combined, these qualifications require a person who is characteristically sober and level-headed. They
are recognized for self-control and sensibleness. They demonstrate a stability of mind that is not given to
escape or emotional extremes.
Alexander Strauch, New Testament Deacon: Minister of Mercy, (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 2010), 98.
Bruce, 121.
3 πλήρεις πνεύματος καὶ σοφίας – the Spirit and wisdom are conjoined by kai, sharing the same adjective, which Lenski says “helps us to
understand just what is meant by being full of the Holy Spirit. All the disciples had the Holy Spirit, all had received one gift or another from him.
The men needed for the task here considered ought to have one notable gift in an especial measure, namely to such a degree as to be recognized by
the members generally. This was 'wisdom,' the ability and the readiness to apply Christian knowledge to the practical affairs of life. We at once see
how necessary this gift of the Spirit would be, and how the congregation readily agreed to look for men only of this marked type. Moreover, where
the Spirit gives wisdom, other gifts will also be present” (Lenski, 244).
1
2
59
4. NOT EAGER FOR DISHONEST GAIN
1 Timothy 3:8
The deacon must be "not eager for dishonest gain, not fond of sordid gain, not greedy in a shameful way, not
covetous, not pursuing material gain or profit shamefully." This emphasizes the importance of motivation, and
especially in the ministry. The person should not be characterized by material interests and financial gain.
The term used here is sufficiently broad to rightly encompass and convey both mixed motives as well
as faulty financial dealings. Surely a flavor of such dishonest gain is seen in the false teachers (6:5-10; Titus
1:11), which are here opposed. Perhaps no better illustration of this point is seen in Judas; the Lord’s very
own treasurer, who spoke as if he cared for the poor when in fact financial gain was his shameful interest
(Jn 12:5-6). In another example, Christ effectively charged the religious overseers of His people with stealing
from the poor in the name of religion so as to “devour widows' houses” (Luke 20:47). This is why He
declared elsewhere that they were “full of robbery” (Luke 11:39), marked as “lovers of money” (Luke
16:14). In contrast, Paul warns Timothy that “those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare,
into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of
money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith
and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue
righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” (1 Tim 6:9–11).
The sin in view is not only concerned with fraudulent means of gaining money, it includes legitimate
means that are fraudulently exploited or pursued with wrong motives. If fraudulent activity will be a
means for gain, then there are plainly mixed motives in the service of ministry. Conversely, if there are
motives for financial gain in the service of ministry it is rightfully a fraudulent pursuit.
Recipients of diaconal care are usually the most vulnerable to abuse, not excluding financial matters.
Moreover, deacons sometimes handle funds from the church in the name of the poor. Special care is needed
to ensure the protection of those being cared for as well as the church at large.
It should be noticed that this qualification is interested in the candidate’s character. The mere absence
of any evidence of greed is not the intention. The idea is that the candidate in view must be well known to
not be eager for financial gain that is, in the end, shameful (cf. 1 Tim 6:5-10; Titus 1:11). The person must be
known well enough to offer positive evidences of material contentment and demonstrate such a character
that would not be easily tempted to seek financial gain under the banner of ministry, which is shameful and
dishonest. Beyond this, no shameful means, whatsoever, of seeking material wealth should proffer a
temptation to the person serving in the physical stead of Christ.
5. FAITHFUL AND TRUSTWORTHY
1 Timothy 3:9, 11
The deacon must be "holding the mystery of the faith in a clean conscience, firm in the faith with a pure
conscience." The "mystery of the faith" describes knowing and believing the Word of God as revealed in the
gospel of Jesus Christ—that is the truth now unveiled through Christ. The aspect of a "clean conscience"
stresses the importance of living outwardly what is believed inwardly. This too describes someone of
integrity, characteristically demonstrating their profession of faith in Christ.
The character quality targeted here is the antithesis of hypocrisy. It specifically involves ‘the faith’ and
‘a clean conscience’. This clause plainly points to the necessity of integrity and the absence of hypocrisy so
60
that the thing believed is also lived. The one who demonstrates a consistent integrity of Christian character
is the one who will be more free from the dangers of hypocrisy and therefore more trustworthy. The one
who most valiantly combats against the entrapments of hypocrisy is the one who is most trustworthy.
This faithfulness and trustworthiness, however, is overtly gospel-centered. It is the glorious Christ that
is here pursued, not mere dependability. It is the kind of character that reflects more of Christ in the
outworking of its intentions. It is not simply someone who gets the job done, it is someone marked by a
tender and sensitive conscience before God. It is one who is ruled by the indwelling Christ. It is one who is
trustworthy because their conscience actively bears witness to Word of Christ that dwells richly within
them. It is one who is noticeably ‘faithful’ because they see all responsibilities as a stewardship and
opportunity to glorify the Savior they love. It is not just that they believe, but what they believe has taken
hold of them. This, the truth and grace of Christ personally applied through the gospel, is what they
characteristically are ‘holding’. This is what must be happening while all other qualities are demonstrated.
A similar thought is expressed in 3:11 where the trait of being "faithful in all things" is put forward. As
suggested above, this qualification describes an all-encompassing demonstration of faith as a consequence
of the gospel personally applied. It conveys the idea of trustworthiness and reliability in domestic duties as
well as in service elsewhere, qualities that are characteristically the outworking of faithfulness to Christ.
Again, a close approximation of this quality may be appreciated in one of the stated qualifications
outlined for the prototypical servants in Acts 6, namely that the man selected to serve the widows be “full
of the Spirit” (Acts 6:3). In the very least, this is the mark of a regenerate life; a recipient of the life of the
Spirit through the gospel of Christ; a member of the New Covenant, which was purchased with Christ’s
blood and the sign and seal of which is given in the Holy Spirit; one who has received the Spirit through
repentant faith in Christ; and more than a mere possessor of salvation, he is one who is markedly under the
influence of the Holy Spirit over and against all other influences (Eph 5:18). This is a faithfulness borne out
of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit through the mystery of the faith. The one truly bearing the
fruit of the Holy Spirit will be one demonstrating faithfulness, which is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). The
thought is very close to that expressed here.
Homer Kent practically applies this qualification by reminding us that “the great truths of the faith are
not to be held as theological abstractions, but are to be properly employed in daily life. To hold the mystery
of the faith in a pure conscience is so to live in the light of Christian truth that the enlightened conscience
will have no cause to condemn. A pure conscience indicates a pure life. Although the primary task of the
deacon is not to teach, his ministrations will require him to bring spiritual comfort to others. Thus his own
spiritual life must be pure.”1
6. PROVED—BY TESTING
1 Timothy 3:10
The deacon must be "proved—by testing, approved after testing, put to the test, examined." This calls for a
careful examination of something in order to determine its level of genuineness. A servant is to be affirmed
to the office of deacon only after being observed as demonstrating the character of a servant.
1
Kent, 134.
61
This is less of a formal qualification and more of mandate for the qualification process. It does not place
additional requirements upon the candidate. Nevertheless, it plainly asserts the necessity of being proven, it
is not optional. ‘Testing’ does not refer to a formal examination but rather an assessment of character. The
tense of the verb suggests a present and ongoing proving of character; it is definitely not a probation period
wherein ‘testing’ ceases once passed.
The character assessment is evidenced privately and publically among the congregation. Moreover, the
person is to be tested, not his ability—it is an assessment of his character. It is quite similar in principle to
the manner in which the Seven were selected from among the congregation (Acts 6:3).
The emphasis falls to character. Character is not based on a single experience, a snapshot of conduct, or
circumstantial set of choices; it is proven over time. In this manner, it is similar to the overseer qualification
that one must not be a new convert. Ultimately, however, it is not merely a matter of time; it is more
importantly a matter of showing forth Christ in life. It is manifestly walking in manner worthy of the
gospel; through words, deeds, choices, interests, investments, and ambitions. It is the holistic proving of
one’s love to Christ in the exercise of His graces. This point should not be minimized; it underscores the
great importance of character and has application to every other qualification.
7. FREE FROM REPROACH
1 Timothy 3:10
The deacon must be "free from reproach, beyond reproach, blameless, unaccused." The term is a technical
one, used in legal contexts to describe one who is free from justifiable accusation. Here it describes a quality
of character that is marked as not having been accused of anything sinful. It implies the absence of any
outstanding charge or accusation against the person.
It relates to the person’s present character. The standard is not perfection, but rather the witness of a
characteristic life. Practically speaking it does not describe someone as sinless but as one who promptly
addresses sin through repentance, reconciliation, restitution, and restoration. When fault occurs, the one
who is above reproach owns his part and prioritizes his energies to correct his wrong and be renewed by
the grace of Christ in his own heart and among his brethren.
The “good reputation” criterion of Acts 6:3 is a close approximation of this qualification. The word
used there literally means “to receive a good report, be well-spoken of, be approved, have a good
reputation.”1 We get the English word, ‘martyr’, from this term, which carries the idea of giving testimony
or bearing witness to something. In the context of Acts 6, it describes someone whose character is well
known to be good, as testified or witnessed to by his life.
As with being proved by testing, this qualification emphasizes the candidate’s character. Over and
again the passage stresses the importance of personal character, supremely aimed at Christ-likeness, as the
brand of a deacon. Growing maturity in Christ is the definitive qualification for diaconal service.
8. A ONE-WOMAN MAN
1 Timothy 3:12 (this quality was addressed specifically to male deacons)
1
Friberg.
62
The deacon must be "a one-woman man, the husband of one wife," which essentially describes a character
quality that demonstrates exclusive and devoted faithfulness to his one wife. Sexual purity in word,
thought, and deed are readily attached to the thrust of this qualification.
For a much more detailed discussion of the various views and exegetical arguments concerning this
qualification, please see the appendix.
9. LEADING WELL HIS OWN HOUSE
1 Timothy 3:12 (this quality was addressed specifically to male deacons)
The deacon must be "leading, managing, ruling—well his children and his own house." This term, as in 3:4,
in the original literally means to “put oneself (responsibly) at the head, to lead, to direct, to rule.”1 The most
literal rendering is ‘leading'. As noted above, it “is a word for ‘leader’, combining the concepts of ‘rule’ and
‘care’.”2 Unlike 3:4, the meaning here is directly applied to his children. The concept here is that his orderly
and tender leading is to be reflected even in his children.
This qualification, not unlike the others, is chiefly concerned with the Christian character of the
candidate. “The demand for these qualifications for both elders (vv. 2, 4-5) and deacons shows the
importance of the home in the New Testament. Probably with the deacons this requirement is not so much
to manifest rulership ability as it is the nature of the deacon’s Christian walk.”3 Deacons are nowhere called
to lead the church, only to serve. But their service is one of delegated responsibility and therefore requires
the kind of personal discipline and character that is proven in caring for one’s own household in an orderly
manner. Lange argues the same by calling attention to the deacons’ responsibility to care for the household
of God: “Care of their own children was doubtless the best preparatory school for care of the poor and
sick.”4
Friberg, proi<sthmi.
Stottt, 98.
3 Saucy, 158.
4 Lange, 42.
1
2
63
Concern for the poor bears the mark of God’s tender heart. It is a fruit of knowing the very One who is
a refuge for the oppressed (Ps 9:9), who cares for the orphan and the widow and shows His love for the
stranger (Dt 10:18), who vindicates the weak and fatherless and upholds the afflicted and destitute (Ps 82:3),
who is a helper to the unfortunate (Ps 10:14), and who commands deliverance for the one who is robbed (Jer
22:3). The LORD is the defender of the poor (Jer 5:28) and despises neglect of the needy. All who know
Him, own within their hearts the same concern (Is 10:2; cf. Is 3:15; Jer 5:28; Eze 22:7; Amos 5:11; Mal 3:5).
The importance of a local diaconate derives from the importance of God’s heart toward the poor, afflicted,
and disadvantaged.
God is worthy of our sacrificial care and service to the most needy, and our practical love for them
should delight our hearts as we minister God’s tangible means of gladdening theirs. We grow closer to the
heart of God the more we see the needy as He sees them and love as He loves. Whoever does not love in
this way does not know God, for God is love (1 Jn 4:8). Diaconal ministry, then, exemplifies the divine
principle of Christian love: “But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his
heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (1 Jn 3:17). The importance of diaconal ministry is
linked to the importance of the demonstration of practical love among Christ’s redeemed. Christ Himself
laid down love as the hallmark of His disciples: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are
my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:34–35). Yet we love more supernaturally when we
love less ostensibly—when our love makes more of Christ than it makes of us. It is important that the love
of Christ be ministered when it is not easy, where it is not glamorous, and in ways that are painfully
mundane—and deacons are the church’s exemplars of this practical love.
A RESPONSIBILITY OF EVERY LOCAL CHURCH
Every local church is responsible to care for its own in demonstration of the love of God in its midst.
The local church is a model of the household of God (1 Tim 3:15). Should it not, then, prioritize and strive to
make provision for those in its own household? We are told that the leaders of earthly households have a
high responsibility to prioritize provision for their own: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives,
and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1
Tim 5:8). Should we imagine that a principle so close to the heart of God does not apply to the household of
God?
64
THE HEART OF GOD TOWARD THE NEEDY IN THE OLD
COVENANT COMMUNITY
The importance of a local diaconate is connected to God’s heart toward the needy. God’s view of
concern for the needy is nowhere more clearly stated than in Proverbs 29:7, “The righteous is concerned for
the rights of the poor, the wicked does not understand such concern.” The Lord is deeply concerned for
“the rights of all the unfortunate” and “the rights of the afflicted and needy” (Pr 31:8–9), and He delights in
those who take on His concern: “How blessed is he who considers the helpless” (Ps 41:1).
In the economy of Israel, God made very detailed and explicit provisions for the needy. As a theocratic
nation, Israel’s attitude toward the needy and afflicted was to model God’s. So important was this matter
that God had it written into the fabric of their justice system (Lev 19:9-16). Neglect of caring for the needy
was to God an injustice (Dt 24:17; 27:19; Eze 22:29). Integrated into Israel’s civil law, then, was a wise
welfare system designed to provide material care and support for those in need without robbing them of
their dignity.
The poor were not neglected, neither were they encouraged to continue in unhealthy patterns of
dependency. Farmers were instructed to leave the reaping of the edges and corners of their fields to those in
need (Lev 19:9; 23:22). Vineyards and fruit trees were not to be stripped bare but some of the crop was to be
left for the needy to harvest. Crops were to be harvested by their owners only once at the peak of
production, affording the needy free access to any secondary picking (Dt 24:20-21). Fruit that fell to the
ground during picking and even harvested sheaves that were forgotten out in the field, were to be left for
the needy (Lev 19:10; Dt 24:19). And when the needy were unable to acquire for themselves these
provisions, as in the case of the disabled, the family was responsible to care and provide for them, even
work on their behalf. In 2 Samuel 9, David models the heart of God toward the needy when he makes
arrangements for Saul’s household servants to till the land and bring in the produce for Mephibosheth,
Jonathan’s disabled son (2 Sam 9:3, 10). In God’s design, the poor were not neglected, but neither was
pauperism supported. Produce was freely available, but it had to be harvested and gathered; and it was not
to be exploited (Dt 23:24-25).
Israel was chosen from among the nations and appointed by God to display and mediate the holy
goodness of God to the nations (Ex 19:5-6). Through Israel, God would eventually bring blessing to all of
the families of the earth (Gen 12:3). They were to obey the theocratic covenant of the LORD their God for
this purpose, which the nations would learn and be drawn to Him as they observed Israel. In this was God
glorified, that Israel honored the LORD their God and delighted in His goodness toward all people that the
nations may eventually see, come, and be glad (Ps 67).
The nations were to notice a conspicuous absence of beggars in Israel. God was to be glorified in His
wise design and most distinguishingly in His compassionate heart toward the needy. The testimony of
God’s people was to be a witness to the goodness of their God—a principle that does not change.
WARNINGS AND ADMONITIONS
When Israel failed to model God’s compassionate heart toward the poor and afflicted, when they
neglected the needy, they were stoutly rebuked. Repeated indictments, warnings, and admonitions resound
from the voices of the prophets.
God promised that He would not revoke punishment against Israel because she had resorted to
exploiting the poor and helpless for sordid gain (Amos 2:6-8). Imposing heavy rent on the poor was
65
included among their injustices (Amos 5:11), as well as turning aside the needy in the gate (5:12). Because of
their neglect and abuse of the needy, the LORD rejected their superficial worship ceremonies calling them
to abide in His heart first, to do justice and love righteousness—which included compassionate care for the
needy (Amos 5:21-24).
The LORD, speaking through Isaiah, indicted Israel for taking advantage of the needy, widows, and
orphans, warning them of certain judgment that would result. They neglected the rights of the poor (5:23),
they neglected caring for and protecting the orphan and widow (1:17), they were neglecting the hunger of
the hungry and the thirst of the thirsty (32:6), and some, rather than helping, were adding affliction to the
afflicted by slandering them (32:7). The LORD cried out against artificial and pretentious fasting and
declared, “Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness … Is it not to divide your
bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him;
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?” (Is 58:6–7).
Through Ezekiel we learn that the LORD charged Israel with the guilt of Sodom’s arrogance, because
although she had abundance and careless ease, “she did not help the poor and needy” (Eze 16:49). The heart
of God toward the needy is reflected in the man who practices the LORD’s justice and righteousness, who
“does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his
bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing” (Eze 18:7).
Concern for the needy reflects God’s character and neglect invites judgment. In his personal defense,
Job testifies that his suffering was not owing to any neglect of the needy. He presents his compassionate
concern for the needy as evidence that his heart was right with God: “If I have kept the poor from their
desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, or have eaten my morsel alone, and the orphan has not
shared it (but from my youth he grew up with me as with a father, and from infancy I guided her), if I have
seen anyone perish for lack of clothing, or that the needy had no covering, if his loins have not thanked me,
and if he has not been warmed with the fleece of my sheep, if I have lifted up my hand against the orphan,
because I saw I had support in the gate, let my shoulder fall from the socket, and my arm be broken off at
the elbow”(Job 31:16–22). God’s compassion flows through those who truly know Him.
The plain testimony throughout the Old Testament is that God despises neglect of the needy. He
compassionately cares for the widow, the orphan, the afflicted, the disabled, the poor, and the foreigner.
Israel was commissioned with the responsibility to show their own, and the nations, God’s heart for the
needy through their shepherding care. Care for the needy was not an optional concern. It was included in
Israel’s civil law to be upheld within their justice system. Eventually, judgment came upon the guilt of
neglect. God takes concern for the needy seriously.
THE HEART OF GOD TOWARD THE NEEDY IN THE NEW
COVENANT COMMUNITY
Under the New Covenant, the church takes on the responsibility of caring for the needy among them,
just as with Israel, to be a witness to the goodness of God. God’s heart toward the needy has not changed.
The seriousness with which God looks upon neglect of the needy has not changed. What has changed,
namely the revelation of Christ in the gospel, should serve only to promote an even greater eagerness to
remember the poor and needy (cf. Gal 2:10; 2 Cor 8-9).
66
Jesus rebukes the spiritual leaders of Israel by exposing their lack of compassion and care for the needy.
He indicts them for not lifting one finger to help the burdened but instead, in the name of God, imposing
even greater burdens upon them (Matt 23:4). He indicts them for devouring widows’ houses in the ‘service’
of God (Luke 20:47). He issues a scathing rebuke against those who do nothing to minister to the hungry,
thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned—exposing their hearts to be devoid of God (Matt 25:41-46).
Christ’s compassion will flow through those who know Him. They will “invite the poor, the crippled, the
lame, the blind” (Lk 14:13); and rejoice with eagerness over their responsibility “to remember the poor” (Gal
2:10).
If the church is to learn from the errors of Israel (1 Cor 10:6), then the church must be diligent to not
neglect the needy among them. What was purposed for Israel, was practiced in the early church—in the
love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit—namely that those around them witnessed that “there was
not a needy person among them” (Acts 4:34). They took drastic measures to ensure that as anyone might
have need among them, they met that need (Acts 2:45; 4:35).
As the church grew, demands exceeded their means to effectively provide care for the needs of all
among them. To meet those needs, a prototypical diaconate was commissioned for the task (Acts 6:1-4). The
priority was to ensure that neglect did not occur; either in the ministry of the word and prayer or in the
ministry of meeting material needs. Before the end of the apostolic age, God had evidently led the apostles
to establish in the church the office of deacon so that the needy would not be neglected.
THE DIACONATE—A DELIBERATE AND ORGANIZED MINISTRY
God has not left the church without a strategy for responding to serious cases of poverty, affliction, and
bodily need. Just as the Lord provided a welfare system for His people within the Old Covenant, so He has
furnished us a wise welfare system for His people within the New Covenant—the diaconate. Care for needy
saints is a serious stewardship that requires organization, leadership, and oversight, all of which underscore
the importance of a local diaconate.
The important task of caring for the poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged within the congregation should
be met with deliberate and organized ministry. Diaconal service should not be haphazardly left up to
individuals in the church. While all should grow in spontaneous care and service to the needy, official
sanction to minister to the material needs of the saints is a stewardship of church leadership. There is a
sense in which all believers are ministers, but not all are appointed as leaders of the household. In a very
important way, every recipient of saving grace should minister to others, and yet God has seen fit to
establish a designated order of servants to minister in an official capacity, with qualifications,
accountability, and rewards. The official order of servants designated for this task in the New Testament
church is the diaconate.
The importance of a local diaconate derives from God’s heart toward the needy. Deacons serve in a
very important capacity, one that is very near the heart of God and His people. Deacons are appointed to
model God’s compassion for the poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged—a tremendous responsibility and
privilege.
God’s people are to manifest authentic concern for the needy. His church is to take this responsibility
seriously. A deliberate and organized diaconal ministry should be thoughtfully and prayerfully
67
implemented wherever there are needy saints. A congregation’s heart for the needy should be reflected in
their implementation of the diaconate.
68
It is one thing to exegete the Scriptures for the mind of God; it is another to implement the truth
revealed in a manner that captures the heart of God. A local diaconate must exist for the right reasons, serve
the right ends, and maintain the right motivations. The most God honoring diaconate will reflect in its
implementation the heart of God for the poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged. Ministry must be built upon the
pillars of His truth, upheld by the word of His power, and directed by the light of His word. In short,
ministry must be led by theology. Implementation must follow teaching. But heat must accompany the
light, and in a manner that most closely corresponds to the light given. In other words, much effort has been
exerted here to carefully grasp the biblical theology of the diaconate, but much effort remains to implement
what has been gleaned in a manner that most closely corresponds to the biblical portrait.
The bulk of this task must be worked out among the overseers of each local church. This is because the
Bible does not contain instructions for how a diaconate should be implemented. We must be clear that the
Bible does not mandate precisely how a diaconate is to be established, structured, or managed. But we must
be equally clear that it does sufficiently furnish all that we need for implementation. Manners and customs
may vary but the purpose of the diaconate does not. The types and intensity of needs may vary, but the
principles of diaconal service vary not. The details of a local church’s implementation will vary, but God’s
heart for the poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged does not. Therefore, careful attention to His sanction of an
office dedicated to their service should not be neglected.
With these thoughts in mind, the following implementation considerations are offered.
IS A DIACONATE NECESSARY
FOR EVERY LOCAL CHURCH?
The simple answer is: no. It is not required on the authority of the New Testament, but does remain a
very important ministry that uniquely models the heart of God for the poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged.
Unlike overseers, there is no biblical instruction or example of appointing deacons in the New Testament
(cf. Acts 14:23).1 While Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in the newly planted churches of Crete, he does
not even mention deacons (Titus 1:5). Nowhere is it stated that the apostles or elders, “appointed deacons
for them in every church.” As modeled in the prototypical episode of Acts 6, it is likely that the existence
and size of a local diaconate was determined by the overseers in proportion to need.
1
As reasoned above, this is taking the Seven in Acts 6 as a functional prototype of the official diaconate.
69
Before a church entertains the idea of eliminating their diaconate, they should more carefully consider
how they might discover needs among them. They may then consider how they might minister mercy to
brethren in other congregations. R. B. Kuiper (1886-1966), former president of Calvin Theological Seminary
who ministered through the Great Depression, argued that “if a particular church has no poor of its own, it
should by all means through its deacons come to the assistance of other churches that may have many. In
such cases churches of the same denomination will naturally receive first consideration, but they need not
be the only ones that are aided. Particularly in these days the Christian churches of America should
contribute generously to the relief of countless suffering saints in many churches and many lands.” 1 While
this certainly constitutes diaconal ministry, it is not necessarily the ministry of a local diaconate. For
instance, there is no indication that Barnabas and Paul were considered deacons, yet they were
commissioned to send relief from Antioch to the needy saints in Judea (Acts 11:29-30). If the sending of
relief funds represents the only mercy ministry a local church is engaged in, that church will not necessarily
need to maintain a local diaconate. On the other hand, if another congregation in a nearby geography could
benefit from service, then the local diaconate may well be utilized for this purpose. Appointment of deacon
qualified servants to serve in regional or even global capacities is another consideration.
DEDICATE DEACONS
TO DIACONAL MINISTRY
The results of this study strongly suggest that in the New Testament deacons had a very specific scope
of service. In an effort to align most closely to the biblical data, we believe that deacons should be dedicated
to diaconal ministry. That is, the role of the diaconate is not for general service, it is for diaconal ministry.
Deacons are not general servants; they are diaconal ministers. The responsibilities, therefore, of deacons
should be clearly prescribed and limited to the service of caring for the practical needs of the poor, afflicted,
and disadvantaged.
To encourage the most biblical role of the diaconate, the office should not be used to accomplish other
tasks within the church. Certainly deacons may serve in other capacities to meet non-diaconal needs, but
they do this as participating members of the local congregation, not as deacons. So the point is to limit the
office, not the person.
While this position is at variance with much of church history and popular practice, we are convinced
that it (a) is the most biblically defensible and (b) encourages the greatest edification of the church in
practice.
1) THE MOST BIBLICALLY DEFENSIBLE
To be sure, there is no mandated implementation of the diaconate in the word of God, nor is a
universally accepted standard found in church history. From a very early time, there is open record of
deacons being appointed to assist in the service of the Lord’s Supper, baptism, and various other liturgical
and ceremonial tasks.2 Some ecclesiastical orders actually placed the overseer and deacon offices in analogy
with the relationship between God and Christ, calling for the congregation to be “subject to presbyters and
Kuiper, 156.
See ANF5:256; James Orr, The History and Literature of the Early Church (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913), 78; Thomas O’Loughlin, The
Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 126.
1
2
70
deacons, as unto God and Christ.”1 Where the office is not endowed with authority and ruling power, it has
sometimes been approached as an official testing ground for it.2 Then, of course, deacons have been
appointed the official responsibility of performing certain external duties connected with the service of the
sanctuary and other general and temporal matters.3 The problem with each of these views is that they lack
biblical support. Nowhere in the New Testament is authority or governing responsibilities conferred on the
diaconate. Nowhere are they associated with the management, maintenance, or care of property. Nowhere
are they appointed the role of factotums.
Nowhere in Scripture are these roles and responsibilities associated with deacons, nor do they fit the
principle of diaconal ministry. If they are not even associated in the New Testament, then they most
certainly should not be mandated. This position follows more closely to a regulative principle than a
normative approach. If the Scripture does not officially prescribe it, then, this view argues, we should not.
For instance, even something as benign as requiring deacons to administer the Lord’s Supper or assist in
baptisms lacks biblical support.4 Not that deacons should avoid helping, but rather that assistance with the
ordinances should not be treated as exclusively a deacon responsibility. The effort here is to argue against
mandating what the Scriptures do not mandate, and yet we do not intend to thereby impose a new
mandate. The New Testament does not direct us for or against the use of the diaconate in these areas. The
caution is that biblical ministries should not be dictated by non-biblical tradition.
We are persuaded, however, that implementations employing the diaconate in services unrelated to
mercy ministry may be a disservice rather than a blessing to the congregation. Again, individuals serving in
the diaconate may happily serve in other areas of the church, but as members, not deacons—just as
overseers may, and should, serve in capacities other than their office prescribes.
Two principles should be considered in assessing what the implementation of a local diaconate should
look like: (a) churches should not mandate what the Scriptures do not, and (b) it is unadvisable to prescribe
roles and responsibilities to the diaconate that are not biblically defensible—even if for reasons unforeseen.
In summary, maintaining a diaconate as a board of ruling executives, a building and property
management committee, or a class of all-purpose servants is not biblically defensible. In contrast, to
dedicate deacons to diaconal ministry is most consistent with the biblical data discussed at length in
previous sections, and therefore the most biblically defensible implementation.
2) ENCOURAGES THE GREATEST EDIFICATION OF THE CHURCH IN PRACTICE
What a church does with the diaconate will have an impact on both the leadership and the
congregation. When deacons serve as relief officers to the poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged, under the
shepherding ministry of the overseers, they serve to promote a healthier shepherding ministry. They help to
meet pressing bodily needs that might otherwise go without immediate and regular attention due to the
lack of availability of overseers. They also help to relieve the overseers of these practical care
responsibilities, which also better enables the overseers to prioritize their responsibilities in the word of
Polycarp, ANF1:34.
B. Seifferth, Church Constitution of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren (London: W. Mallalieu and Co., 1866), 111.
3 A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 918.
4 That Philip, being one of the Seven, baptized says nothing with regard to the office of deacon. Even if Philip were to be considered a deacon
in the official sense of 1 Timothy 3, there is no evidence that he baptized in the capacity of a deacon. And while the Lord’s Supper originally
involved serving tables, the task is nowhere limited to deacons.
1
2
71
God, prayer, general oversight, and administration of the church at large. Moreover, by limiting the
diaconate’s official scope to mercy ministry, the health of congregational service is encouraged. As a result,
if deacons are dedicated to diaconal ministry it is likely that greater edification of the church will be
realized.
The injunctions to service in the New Testament are strikingly level. The many exhortations to serve
‘one another’, in all the varied forms of life in community, are conspicuously addressed to everyone in the
church. Service—which is conceived as a basic trait of a Christian—is the responsibility of all capable
members of the congregation. Servanthood, then, is a Christian station; it is not to be reserved for a certain
class of Christians. But assigning to the diaconate roles and responsibilities that the congregation should
bear has the potential to create a superficial class of ‘serving Christians’. The resulting implication is that
there are within the church ‘non-serving Christians’, which plainly should not be. Now, this whole line of
thought pertains mostly to the common practice of appointing deacons as factotums or all-purpose servants
of the church. Rather than serving to edify the church, it actually has the tendency of discouraging service
from members of the congregation. It also has the potential to create confusion concerning responsibilities
within the church. Members are less likely to spontaneously step up to serve when they perceive that
various service responsibilities are ‘assigned’ to that special class of servants called deacons. It fosters the
assumption that service needs within the church are taken care of, after all that’s why we have deacons
right? Wrong. Deacons should be dedicated to diaconal ministry—not only for the sake of diaconal ministry
but also to encourage the congregation to serve as is appropriate to all Christians.
The Lord has given to the church various positions of responsibility “for the equipping of the saints for
the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph 4:12). The building up, or edification, of
the church, then, is the result of the congregation-wide “work of service.” This is affirmed a few verses
later, when we see that growth in Christ as a church is realized when the supply of “every joint” and “the
proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love”
(Eph 4:16). The “every joint” and “each individual part” are even more pronounced when viewed against
the backdrop of the emphasis on congregational unity (4:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13). The unity that each local church
should aspire to, requires the unique contribution and service of each individual member.
We are explicitly taught that we, the church, “are Christ’s body, and individually members of it” (1 Cor
12:27). We are individually gifted and equipped and even appointed to serve in respective capacities within
the church: “For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body,
though they are many, are one body” (v.12) and “God has placed the members, each one of them, in the
body, just as He desired” (v.18). Everyone is not the same member, and no one person or group of people is
supposed to do the work of the other members (v.14-21). This speaks of the high importance of service by
each capable member of the church. The diaconate has its appointed place in the body analogy, perhaps one
of “those members of the body which we deem less honorable” (v.23), and should not be assumed to serve
in the stead of other members. Instead, the other members of the body should be encouraged to serve in
their appointed places and contribute to the overall health and function of the body. One part or office (cf.
v.28-29) of the body, should not interfere or discourage the “proper working of each individual part” (Eph
4:16; cf. 1 Cor 12:21-30). So again:
For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who
are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Since we have gifts that differ
72
according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the
proportion of his faith; if service [diakonia], in his serving [diakonia]; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who
exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy,
with cheerfulness (Rom 12:4–8).
In an effort to strive for excellence and do all things properly and in an orderly manner (1 Cor 14:40)—
to appropriate the privilege and demand of the diaconate closer to the biblical image and to encourage the
proper working of service to and from the congregation—we believe that it is best to dedicate deacons to
diaconal ministry.
HOW SHOULD
DEACONS BE SELECTED?
While the office of deacon is to be highly esteemed as an important ministry, we do not believe that
deacons are “called to ministry” in the manner that shepherds are.
The closest example of selecting deacons that we have in the New Testament is witnessed in Acts 6.
There the overseers (then apostles) summoned the congregation together and called them to select qualified
servants from among them (Acts 6:2-3). These diaconal servants were put forward by the congregation on
the basis of their character and manifest faith. After choosing the number of servants requested by their
leaders, the congregation brought the men to their leaders (Acts 6:5-6). The overseers (then apostles)
immediately installed the servants and commissioned them for the task of caring for the neglected widows
among them.
We find this pattern most reasonable and safe. Evidently this approach to selecting diaconal servants
found approval in the sight of God in that situation, as He blessed their implementation. We trust that the
same principle, pursued with the same heart, is likewise pleasing to the LORD.
HOW SHOULD
DEACONS BE INSTALLED?
There is no biblical instruction concerning how deacons should be installed. Some ordain, some simply
announce, and still others find it perfectly reasonable to consider as a deacon anyone who serves the
church—in other words, installment is not necessary. Since the New Testament does not mandate how a
deacon is to be installed, the local church is free to establish its own practice in this area.
In the prototypical episode of Acts 6, the Seven were commissioned for diaconal service through the
laying on of hands, which is often read as a form of ordination. But commissioning may be closer to the
point. While there is scholarly debate on this issue, we are persuaded to believe that the laying on of hands
had more to do with commissioning for a task than anointing for an office. For instance, installation to the
office of the elder in Israel did not necessarily involve the laying on of hands (Num 11:16-17, 24-25), and yet
the commissioning of the Levites to a special service did (Num 8:14, 19). So also, for example, the laying on
of hands for Paul and Barnabas was for the commissioning to a special task and not for the installation to a
certain office (Acts 13:3). We prefer, therefore, to install deacons by prayer and the laying on of hands
(cheirontoneō, literally: “stretch out the hand”) as a commissioning for their dedication to special ministry
and not as an ordination.
73
Some insist that 1 Timothy 3:10 teaches that deacons must undergo a formal examination or testing
process before being installed. But the exegetical details suggest that the testing of 3:10 is an assessment of
character, not a formal and punctiliar examination.
It seems reasonable to conclude that since they are to be tested ‘first’—that is before official service—
that there is a difference on either side of the ‘first’. So installation is real. While the deacon candidate is
partially qualified on the basis of demonstrated character in the area of diaconal service, he is not appointed
to the official responsibility of the task until he is installed as a deacon.
HOW MANY DEACONS
SHOULD A LOCAL CHURCH HAVE?
Nowhere in Scripture is a number prescribed. According to church history, at a very early date the
church in Rome fixed the number of deacons to seven. But it seems very doubtful that a fixed number of
deacons was ever intended for all churches. Varying sizes and circumstances would create varying
demands. The most reasonable solution is to have the size of the diaconate correspond to the needs of the
local church. Neither a minimum nor a maximum number for the diaconate can be sustained on the
authority the New Testament.
We do not know how many deacons were appointed in Ephesus (the church that Timothy was serving
at the writing of First Timothy). Nor is there any reference to the number of deacons serving at the church
in Philippi (Phil 1:1). Moreover, the absence of any mention of deacons in Titus seems to suggest that the
size of the diaconate was related to the size and complexity of the church.
The scriptural data always presents the diaconate in the plural, whereas, in the same context, the
overseer is presented in the singular (1 Timothy 3). That the diaconate is mentioned only in the plural may
suggest that it was generally conceived as a group.
While there is no explicit mandate given in Scripture for the number of deacons a given church should
maintain, there is more than sufficient principle to direct the practice.
AVERTING NEGLECT
The minimum number of deacons in a church should be aimed at averting neglect. The size of the
diaconate then is concerned with God’s heart for the needy—the needy must not be neglected.
MEETING MALE AND FEMALE NEEDS
The nature of diaconal service requires wisdom to discern how best to meet certain needs. Some needs
may involve a level of personal assistance that necessitates gender specific sensitivity. In keeping with the
New Testament practice, males should minister to males and females to females (cf. Act 9:36-39; 1 Tim 3:8,
11). For this reason, a diaconate should be comprised of individuals who correspond in gender to the needy
saints among them.
PROTECTION OF THE SERVED
In determining the size of a diaconate, the leaders should carefully consider the nature of the ministry
and not just the number of the needy. For the protection of those being served as well as for the protection
of those who are serving, a church may choose to have deacons serve in pairs. This helps to prevent
vulnerable situations, abuse, dishonesty, and other transgressions.
74
Married couples may be encouraged to serve together in most situations. This has the added value of
modeling complementary unity and service in marriage.
PROTECTION OF THE SERVERS
Not only may couples serve to help protect both the served and the servers, but a sufficient number of
deacons should be considered to allow for relief of service. Where needs are demanding, more deacons will
be required not only to meet those needs but to ensure that the deacons themselves are not being neglected,
overloaded, or discouraged in the process.
HOW LONG
SHOULD A DEACON SERVE?
Deacons are gifts to the church of God and may be especially gifted in mercy ministry. If this is true,
the use of gifts should not be regulated by the dictates of man-made restrictions. As with the size of the
diaconate, the length of service is nowhere mandated in Scripture. So a fixed, minimum, or maximum
amount of time cannot be supported on the authority of the New Testament. Determining how long a
deacon should serve is ultimately an exercise of wisdom and discernment that is sensitive to local needs.
Also, sensitivity to the needy is not mutually exclusive with sensitivity to the deacons—it is not one or the
other, it is both.
The responsibility to oversee and shepherd the diaconate falls to the overseers of the church and
should remain dynamic, affording the leaders opportunity to assess, reassess, and discern what would be
most profitable to the church. This also allows for closer accountability and compliance with the character
qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3. It also allows for the pruning of ministry branches that are no longer
bearing much fruit and the periodic reassessment of needs.
Applying wisdom and discernment in the context of the local circumstances, a deacon may serve for
life on the one hand, and on the other hand may only serve for a specific diaconal project. Most will fall
somewhere between these two extremes. Practical wisdom gleaned from centuries of evangelical church
history generally suggests a minimum term of one year for diaconal service with annual reviews
indefinitely.
One important factor in determining how long a deacon should serve is stability in the ministry. There
is value in regularity and constancy when caring for people. Over time relationships deepen, trust grows,
and personal knowledge and experience increases effectiveness and efficiency of ministry. Both the
congregation and the individual deacons will benefit most from a seasoned diaconate.
Regardless of the duration of service, deacons should be periodically reviewed for fitness of service
according to the qualifications presented in 1 Timothy 3.
WHAT SHOULD THE ORGANIZATION OF THE DIACONATE LOOK
LIKE?
Church history records the tendency toward hierarchy. Some churches appoint archdeacons, which
developed in the medieval period. An archdeacon is basically a head-deacon, a leader in the order of
deacons. Although many today do not use the title ‘archdeacon’, they do appoint head-deacons or establish
some order of protocol, organization, or structure within the diaconate.
75
A biblical study of the diaconate will reveal that deacons do not exercise authority in the church. Nor is
there any biblical basis for creating an authority structure within the diaconate. The diaconate is comprised
of mercy ministers who tend to the most needy in the church under the supervision of the shepherds. While
deacons most certainly exercise wisdom and discernment in their service, substantial decisions, direction,
and guidance is the responsibility of the overseers.
The clearest biblical data suggests that the diaconate serves as a commission of shepherding ministry
delegates. Without any biblical evidence to the contrary, we believe that the diaconate should be
implemented without any internal structure or organization but esteemed as a commission of Christ-like
servants.
WHAT ABOUT A “DEACONS’ FUND”?
A deacons’ fund is basically a church’s common purse to which contributions and from which
withdrawals may be made to assist in meeting diaconal needs. Jesus had the disciples carry a common
purse (i.e. glōssokomon, “moneybag, money box, purse”), from which, among other purchases, diaconal aid
was given to the poor (cf. Jn 13:29). Apparently contributions were made to this moneybag from the private
means of followers (cf. Lk 8:3).
Some have traced the modern implementation of the deacons’ fund to the Bourse française, the
charitable foundation established by John Calvin for social welfare, particularly for poor and destitute
refugees in Geneva.1 The concept of establishing a charitable foundation was clearly the outgrowth of the
Reformation, since almsgiving no longer served as a means of merit. Calvin emphasized compassion for the
needy as a fruit and not a means of salvation.
We believe that oversight of the deacons’ fund should be managed by the overseers of the local church.
The collective wisdom and discernment of the church’s shepherds govern its use. It may serve to help meet
emergency hardships as well as periodic needs. We do not consider it mutually exclusive with special
collections designed to meet particular needs.
Written policies may be established to help guard its wise use. In all distributions, diaconal needs
within the local body take clear priority.
WHAT ABOUT STATE AND PARACHURCH ORGANIZATIONS?
We praise God for the many and various means by which He ministers mercy to people. We do not fail
to notice that the western conception of social welfare and care organizations finds its origin in the
revolutionary influence of Christ. Much could be discussed concerning the philosophy of social care and the
place of secular government, but for our purposes here we will focus on how the diaconate relates to state
and parachurch organizations for the practical care of God’s people.
We acknowledge that all means of mercy administered for the welfare of people, regardless of the
immediate agents, find their source in God—all compassionate care is but an imperfect and shadowy
glimpse of God’s compassionate heart. But not all acknowledge God in their service. Not all desire to
promote Christ and glorify Him in their efforts. Not all seek the ultimate and greatest good of the
individual while they serve the temporal, physical wants of the needy. Not all offer a personal, relational,
1
Jeannine E. Olson, Calvin and Social Welfare: Deacons and the Bourse Française (Selingsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1989).
76
and loving context that preserves the dignity of the needy and seeks to prevent enabling and continuing
patterns of unhealthy dependency.
For centuries, the church has been the primary source of care for the needy. Not until recent years have
government and secular programs begun to take over the welfare responsibilities in society. In a very
thought-provoking article entitled, “Return of the Diaconate,” W. S. Hyland challenges Christians to see
this slow drift. He calls the church to examine its trust in secular programs and institutions and to seriously
consider how God’s instituted means of care for the needy—the diaconate through the local church—
should be “put solidly back on its feet.”1 Our first consideration, then, in addressing the relationship
between the diaconate and state organizations is that the best manner of caring for the needy will always be
in the name of Christ. In as much as the saints of God are entitled to benefits from the state, we should
encourage good stewardship of the provisions and means that God has put in place, provided that final
trust is not placed in such means. The church should be wise in taking these things into consideration, but
should not rely on secular sources to take on their shepherding responsibility. Lastly, it goes without saying
that care in the name of Christ should be our highest interest in this discussion, especially for the saints of
God in Christ’s church. Whenever possible, we should direct and facilitate care on behalf of and for the sake
of Christ rather than leaving the welfare of God’s people to the world.
What then about parachurch organizations? There are a number of commendable Christian organizations
that exist to come alongside the church and assist her in meeting certain needs. Not-for-profit organizations
like Stephen Ministries2and Samaritan Ministries3 are good examples of diaconal parachurch ministries. We
thank God for these organizations. But even here, when service is administered in the name of Christ, there
are a few implications to consider.
1. Diaconal ministry is an extension of shepherding. The local shepherds are appointed by God to oversee
the welfare of God’s people placed among them (Heb 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1-4). This, of course, does not preclude
the utilization of outside means and provisions, but it does identify who is responsible before God to
oversee the care of His people. The diaconate uniquely ministers to God’s people through the shepherding
care of God’s church. Diaconal care from the local church may leverage parachurch resources and services,
but the responsibility of caring for the needy in the church falls to the shepherds. Parachurch services are not
a substitute for the shepherding and diaconal ministry in the local church.
2. Local and personal accountability is important. While there are many blessed parachurch organizations
that demonstrate a quality of character, they remain outside of the reach of local and personal
accountability. One of the values of the diaconate is the dynamic of local and personal accountability. Trust
is predicated on personal knowledge, and comfort is largely the result of personal care. While some
organizations do an outstanding job in ministering to people, nothing can compare to the proper working
of the local body of Christ loving and serving one another. Local and personal accountability is designed to
help decrease the opportunity for neglect and maltreatment.
3. Qualifications for service are not affirmed by the church. The proper esteem of the Word of God calls us to
carefully consider the significance of the qualifications for office put forth for diaconal ministry. The
W. S. Hyland, “Return of the Diaconate,” ed. Jay E. Adams, The Journal of Pastoral Practice, Number 1, 1981 5 (1981): 7.
http://www.stephenministries.org/
3 http://www.samaritanministries.org/
1
2
77
standards and means of evaluation vary from one parachurch organization to another. Most importantly,
those who minister to the needy are not necessarily qualified by the local congregation and leadership as
spiritually qualified. This is not to negatively presume upon the trustworthiness of any Christian
parachurch organizations, it is to call attention to the purpose and importance of God’s ordained
qualifications and means of qualifying service. Deacons in the local diaconate are qualified according to the
high standard set forth in Scripture and are personally and spiritually affirmed by the local congregation
and shepherds.
4. Love and service of one another is the responsibility of the local church. The local church is called to love
and serve its own. To pass the needy among us off to an organization “designed” to care for needs is a
failure in the church to see her own design. It seems that as the church increasingly hands over diaconal
services to others, she loses the interest and discipline to exercise this important ministry of love. As a
result, the overall health of the church suffers. Sacrificial service and care for the needy helps to defeat the
sin of materialism in the church and instead encourages compassion for people. It also helps to put
difficulties and the challenges of life in perspective. It has the potential of edifying the church against the
tendency toward a hypercritical spirit and petty schisms within. The service of love and practical care for
the needy ultimately draws the congregation closer to one another and to the Lord.
5. Serious care for the needy is a witness to Christ in the local church. Diaconal care, as portrayed biblically,
draws attention to the Lord in the church and in the world through the church. The heart of the diaconate is
the practice of God’s heart for the display of God’s glory. When diaconal ministry is left to the world or
organizations outside of the church, a powerful testimony is lost.
For these reasons, we believe that the implementation of a local diaconate is still very important, even
in a culture were social welfare and parachurch organizations offer related alternatives. We are not
advocating the wholesale rejection of help from outside organizations, rather we are encouraging a biblical
apprehension of the serious responsibility appointed to the local church for the care of the saints of God.
Wisdom and discernment must govern the implementation details and case-by-case steps taken to tend to
the needs of God’s needy children.
Lastly, it is important to note that organizations like Stephen Ministries understand these
considerations and seek to assist the local church in developing its own diaconal ministry. Rather than
taking the responsibility away from the church, some organizations seek to help equip the local church for
her responsibilities. In this, we rejoice and praise God.
WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE
OUR IMPLEMENTATION?
As reasoned above, deacons should be dedicated to diaconal ministry. For the glory of God, the health
of the church, and the joy of all in Him, we should strive to be ever closer to the biblical intention of the
diaconate and settle for nothing less. Aligning the diaconate more closely to the biblical image serves to
improve the shepherding ministry, place the responsibility of generic service on the body, and ensure that
the needy are not neglected.
Change may mean pruning, but proper pruning always has the right goal in mind. It is always for the
increase of fruit. Skillful pruning serves to conserve the energy of the body, encouraging healthier growth
78
and increased yield. As churches that desire to glorify God through honoring Him in His word, we must
fight against complacency and mere tradition.
We are not saying here that all other implementations are wrong, sinful, or destructive. We are saying,
however, that practice should be led by principle—our doing should follow our doctrine. If an implementation
hinders or distracts from the center of the theological purpose of the diaconate, then that implementation
should change. Our how should be driven by our why.
We believe that, on the precious little of what the New Testament has to say concerning the diaconate,
it refers to a far more specialized domain of service than is typically realized. We have argued that it is not
enough to simply acknowledge the biblical treatment of the subject only to neglect its chief principle in
implementation. Change is encouraged where the portrait of menial Christ-like mercy ministry—tending to
the needs of the neediest—is not the banner of your local diaconate.
We want to encourage the most biblically explicit role of the diaconate. We want to pursue Godhonoring excellence in biblically directed ministry. We want to stimulate healthy church leadership and
compassionate shepherding. We do not want the needy neglected, nor simply rely on outside sources to
tend to their needs. We do not want to neglect giftedness in the body, but we want to encourage and seek to
stimulate responsible service among all in the church. We want to encourage healthy service in the body,
from all capable members, not just a select group marked out by a title.
We believe that it is important to ensure that the biblical title and qualifications of deacons are applied
in a manner most consistent with the biblical intention. Change is needed because too many people have
the title of deacon and yet do not serve in a diaconal capacity. Members who serve as deacons should be
dedicated to diaconal ministry. The responsibilities of the office should correspond to the clearest meaning
of diaconal ministry. Otherwise we have a biblical office without biblical responsibilities; people who are
serving with a biblical title but without a biblical role.
Sometimes the best ‘helpers’ get awarded the title of ‘deacon’ because of their exemplary service. But
deacons are not merely the congregation’s exemplary servants; they are defined by a biblical office of mercy
ministry. A member should not be awarded the title of deacon for fine service. They may be recognized for
the quality of their faithful assistance, and may be asked to help on a regular basis, but this should not be
confused with the responsibility of caring for the needy.
The question that every implementation must answer is this: does our diaconate glorify Christ by
modeling God’s compassion for the poor, afflicted, and disadvantaged? A congregation’s heart for the
needy should be reflected in their implementation of the diaconate. If this is not the case, change is needed.
79
Appendix 1: References of "deacon" in the New Testament
There are a total of 29 instances throughout the NT of the Greek word (diakonos) from which the
English word “deacon” is derived. In most of the popular formal equivalent English translations (ESV,
HCSB, KJV, NASB, and NKJV) there are only 5 occurrences of the English word “deacon.” The exhaustive
list of these occurrences follows:
Philippians 1:1 - "Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,
including the overseers and deacons"
1 Timothy 3:8 - "Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond
of sordid gain."
1 Timothy 3:10 - "These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach."
1 Timothy 3:12 - "Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own
households."
1 Timothy 3:13 - "For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great
confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus."
The NIV omits the qualifying phrase "as deacons" in 1 Timothy 3:13 and thus translates the verse as:
"Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus." The Greek
does not state "as deacons" but rather uses the verb form (diakoneō) that corresponds to the noun diakonos.
The verb is fairly common, used some 37 in the NT and once in the exact same grammatical form in
Hebrews 6:10, where it is rendered "ministered." The same situation is true for 1 Timothy 3:10, but there the
NIV translates the phrase, "let them serve as deacons."
The RSV translates diakonon (accusative feminine singular) as “deaconess” in Romans 16:1: "I commend
to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea" (also MIT, Wuest New Testament, NJB, and
Etheridge Translation of the NT Peshitta). NRSV translates this same word as “deacon” (gender neutral)
along with a number of modern dynamic equivalent translations (cf. CEB, GW, NIV, NLT, and TNIV).
80
Appendix 2: Uses of diakonos in the New Testament
There are a total of 29 instances of the noun diakonos (21 times in Paul and never in Luke-Acts), from
which the English word 'deacon' is derived. Yet only 3 instances are commonly translated as 'deacon' (see
also “Appendix 3”). The most common English translation of diakonos is 'servant', while the second most
common translation in the singular is 'minister' and 'deacons' in the plural. The Latin translation of diakonos
is minister, which is obviously where English gets ‘minister’. Each occurrence of diakonos in the New
Testament is listed according to its corresponding gender and number:
MASCULINE SINGULAR:
(16 instances; "servant" 9x; "minister" 7x)
Matthew 20:26 – “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your
servant.”
Matthew 23:11 – “But the greatest among you shall be your servant.”
Mark 9:35 – “Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, ‘If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all
and servant of all.’”
Mark 10:43 - “But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your
servant”
John 12:26 - “If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone
serves Me, the Father will honor him.”
Romans 13:4 – “For it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear
the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices
evil.”
Romans 15:8 – “For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to
confirm the promises given to the fathers.”
Galatians 2:17 - “But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ
then a minister of sin? May it never be!”
Ephesians 3:7 – “. . . of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me
according to the working of His power.”
Ephesians 6:21 – “But that you also may know about my circumstances, how I am doing, Tychicus, the beloved
brother and faithful minister in the Lord, will make everything known to you.”
Colossians 1:7 – “Just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow bond-servant, who is a faithful servant
of Christ on our behalf.”
Colossians 1:23 – “if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from
the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of
which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
Colossians 1:25 – “Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me
for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God”
Colossians 4:7 – “As to all my affairs, Tychicus, our beloved brother and faithful servant and fellow bond-servant
in the Lord, will bring you information.”
1 Timothy 4:6 – “In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly
nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.”
81
MASCULINE PLURAL:
(12 instances; "servants" 9x; "deacons" 3x)
Matthew 22:13 - “Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer
darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
John 2:5 - His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
John 2:9 - When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from
(but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom,
1 Corinthians 3:5 - What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the
Lord gave opportunity to each one.
2 Corinthians 3:6 - who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for
the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2 Corinthians 6:4 - but in everything commending ourselves as servants of God, in much endurance, in afflictions,
in hardships, in distresses,
2 Corinthians 11:15 - Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of
righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
2 Corinthians 11:23 - Are they servants of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so; in far more labors, in far more
imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death.
Philippians 1:1 - Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in
Philippi, including the overseers and deacons:
1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of
sordid gain,
1 Timothy 3:12 - Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own
households.
FEMININE SINGULAR
(DUE TO A GRAMMATICALLY FEMININE CONSTRUCT):
(1 instance; "servant" 1x)
Romans 16:1 - I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;
FEMININE PLURAL:
(there are no instances in this form)
82
Appendix 3: Uses of diakonia in the New Testament
There are a total of 34 instances of the noun diakonia, the term most closely related to diakonos (‘deacon’)
that essentially represents what a diakonos does. The word is most frequently translated ‘ministry’ and
broadly denotes service. The Latin translation of this Greek word is ministro, the word from which the
English language derives ‘ministry’.
This 34 instances of this term occur in a total of 32 verses. The NASB translates the Greek word
(diakonia) with 9 different renderings (as compared to 6 for the ESV), as follows: ministry (19), service (7),
serving (2), serve (1), mission (1), preparations (1), relief (1), ministries (1), support (1). The exhaustive list of
these occurrences follows:
Lk 10:40 - But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, “Lord, do You
not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.”
Ac 1:17 - “For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.”
Ac 1:25 - to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
Ac 6:1 - Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the
Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily
serving of food.
Ac 6:4 - “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
Ac 11:29 - And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a
contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
Ac 12:25 - And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, taking along
with them John, who was also called Mark.
Ac 20:24 - “But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the
ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.
Ac 21:19 - After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the
Gentiles through his ministry.
Ro 11:13 - But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my
ministry,
Ro 12:7 - if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching;
Ro 15:31 - that I may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may
prove acceptable to the saints;
1 Co 12:5 - And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.
1 Co 16:15 - … (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have
devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),
2 Co 3:7 - But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory …
2 Co 3:8 - how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
2 Co 3:9 - For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in
glory.
2 Co 4:1 - Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart,
83
2 Co 5:18 - Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the
ministry of reconciliation,
2 Co 6:3 - giving no cause for offense in anything, so that the ministry will not be discredited,
2 Co 8:4 - begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints,
2 Co 9:1 - For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints;
2 Co 9:12 - For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing
through many thanksgivings to God.
2 Co 9:13 - Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession
of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all,
2 Co 11:8 - I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you;
Eph 4:12 - for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
Col 4:17 - Say to Archippus, “Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill
it.”
1 Ti 1:12 - I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me
into service,
2 Ti 4:5 - But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
2 Ti 4:11 - Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.
Heb 1:14 - Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit
salvation?
Re 2:19 - I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are
greater than at first.
Appendix 4: Uses of diakoneō in the New Testament
The action that is by definition related to what deacons do is presented by the verb diakoneō. There are a
total of 37 instances of this verb in the New Testament, found in 32 unique verses. The word is most
commonly translated ‘serve’ with the object of service being the needs of people. The NASB translates the
Greek word (diakoneō) with 16 different renderings (as compared to 14 for the ESV), as follows: serve (5),
serves (5), serving (5), served (3), minister (3), ministering (3), waited (3), ministered (2), wait (1),
contributing to their support (1), take care of (1), cared for (1), administration (1), administered (1), servant
(1), services (1). The exhaustive list of these occurrences follows:
Mt 4:11 - Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.
Mt 8:15 - He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him.
Mt 20:28 - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Mt 25:44 - “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or
naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’
Mt 27:55 - Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while
ministering to Him.
Mk 1:13 - And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and
the angels were ministering to Him.
84
Mk 1:31 - And He came to her and raised her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever left her, and she waited on
them.
Mk 10:45 - “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for
many.”
Mk 15:41 - When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other
women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.
Lk 4:39 - And standing over her, He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she immediately got up and waited on
them.
Lk 8:3 - and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to
their support out of their private means.
Lk 10:40 - But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, “Lord, do You
not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.”
Lk 12:37 - “Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that
he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.
Lk 17:8 - “But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me
while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink’?
Lk 22:26 - “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.
Lk 22:27 - “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.
Jn 12:2 - So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the
table with Him.
Jn 12:26 - “If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves
Me, the Father will honor him.
Ac 6:2 - So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the
word of God in order to serve tables.
Ac 19:22 - And having sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself
stayed in Asia for a while.
Ro 15:25 - but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints.
2 Co 3:3 - being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of
the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
2 Co 8:19 - and not only this, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work,
which is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself, and to show our readiness,
2 Co 8:20 - taking precaution so that no one will discredit us in our administration of this generous gift;
1 Ti 3:10 - These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.
1 Ti 3:13 - For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in
the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
2 Ti 1:18 - the Lord grant to him to find mercy from the Lord on that day—and you know very well what services
he rendered at Ephesus.
Phm 13 - whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for
the gospel;
85
Heb 6:10 - For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in
having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.
1 Pe 1:12 - It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have
been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from
heaven—things into which angels long to look.
1 Pe 4:10 - As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the
manifold grace of God.
1 Pe 4:11 - Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as
one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through
Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Appendix 5: Example Description of a Local Diaconate
The Diaconate at Trinity Bible Church is made up of male and female deacons—members of the congregation
who have been evaluated, nominated, affirmed by the congregation, interviewed, and installed by the overseers
for at least a one-year term of service. It exists as a delegate extension of the shepherding ministry of the church,
being under the commission and oversight of the Elders. Its purpose is to minister mercy to the most poor,
afflicted, and disadvantaged in the congregation through sacrificial service aimed at compassionately meeting
practical, bodily needs, in the faith of the gospel of Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, for the glory
of God and the joy of all in Him.
86