In Alexander Strauch’s excellent book “The New Testament Deacon” he takes the position that the women mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11 are simply the wives of those who serve the church as deacons. Others have concluded that these were just female “deacon assistants.” A third view asserts that there were actually women who were recognized as model servants in the church (i.e., “deaconesses”). This is admittedly a difficult passage, and each of the views has problems or questions from the text that work against it.

I was forced to think through this sticky issue during an expository series through the book, as well as during a topical study of office of deacon last year. I would like to share the fruit of my study for your edification. First let’s read the passage in question.

1 Timothy 3:11 - Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

There is only one word in the Greek of the New Testament that means both woman and wife. We have separate words in English, but they only had one to choose from. It is the context that determines whether these are wives or women in general being mentioned. Strauch concludes that the word translated “women” should be “wives” in this context. We need to answer the difficult question of whether in this letter to Timothy Paul was approving of women deacons (deaconesses), or whether he was referring to something else.

Let me just say, there are really only three conclusions you might be able to draw and that this is an admittedly difficult study–one I would not burn at the stake for. Let’s list the three views again:

Let’s look at these views in order.

VIEW 1 - These are women appointed to assist the deacons.

Those who advocate this view say this is the reason why Paul does not use any other title–they didn’t have a different title to use. They were just women selected to help, and assist, deacons in their work. However, this position has some problems to consider.

Problem 1 - Paul very easily could have cleared up the issue by referring to them as assistants, helpers, or servants. If this is what they were, why not just say so. There were some words at his disposal that would not have confused the women with the office of deacon.

Problem 2 - If they are just assistants, how are they identified and referred to, and why do they have “qualifications”? These are very likely NOT just “any group of women” or there would not be qualifications and they would not be listed in this context with the only two offices in the church.

Problem 3 - Paul uses the term “likewise” as he refers to them, drawing a parallel between “office of elder,” “office of deacon,” and the women he is referring to. Notice Paul begins with the office of elder 3:2. He then says, “deacons likewise,” in 3:8. And then in 3:11 he says again, “women likewise,” implying a parallel of some kind to the three groups. This grammatical parallel must be dealt with in any explanation of one’s position.

VIEW 2 - These are the wives of the deacons.

This is Strauch’s view and is a more reasonable position than view 1 in my opinion. However, when we are faced with making the decision of whether the Greek word (gunaikas) means “woman” or “wife” there is usually something in the context that indicates the woman isn’t just ANY woman, but is connected to the man in question. Often this is some kind of personal pronoun–she would be referred to as “his wife” or “his woman.” The presence of the possessive pronoun is what indicates the married relationship for the woman in question.

This view also has some problems to consider.

Problem 1 - Paul doesn’t use the personal possessive pronoun to indicate that the woman in question is indeed a wife. This would not be required in the every day language of the New Testament, but would seem to be a serious omission in this context if Paul was definitely intending to express that there was a relationship.

Problem 2 - It seems squarely out of place to require that a deacon’s wife MUST have certain character qualifications, whereas the wives of overseers are ommitted completely. Because it is not specifically stated exactly what all the responsibilities of a deacon are, it would be very broad, flexible, and unclear exactly what the role of a deacon’s wife would need to be, or why she would need the particular “qualifications” mentioned. These qualifications are very particular, and they seem to imply something more specific than someone’s wife.

Problem 3 - The use of the term “likewise,” and the resulting grammatical parallel, implies more than just helper, or the deacon’s wife. Strauch’s suggested resolution of this problem (p. 122) actually highlights the clarity of the parallel. He offers no substantial answer to the obvious question of why the women are listed in a parallel structure with the offices of the church.

That leaves us to consider the third view, along with its attendent problems.

VIEW 3 - The women were formally recognized deaconesses.

The reasons above lead me to conclude that the correct understanding of this text, and the reason Paul inserted this verse here, is because there were in the church at Ephesus a group of women, that were formally recognized as servants in the church. This view also has some issues from the text that need to be addressed.

Problem 1 - Why doesn’t Paul refer to them as “deaconesses” if there was such an office?

Answer - Because there is not a feminine form of the word for deacon. Strauch suggests that Paul could have used the masculine form of the word with a feminine article. This is possible, but it would be without New Testament precedent. Even when Paul refers to a woman as a servant (deacon) he uses the same masculine form (admittedly with a feminine relative pronoun).

Romans 16:1 - I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.

The church did start using a feminine form of the word, but it was more than 250 years later before it starts popping up in the writings and letters of the early church. I believe one of the reasons Paul did NOT use the word is that he was being careful to not confuse the duties and authority structures of the church. He wanted to establish qualifications for these women who were formally recognized servants, without implying that their office and responsibilities in the care and governing of the church were on an equal level with the elders or male deacons already mentioned.

If a woman was appointed to an office of deaconess, implying she was organizing and heading up some area of service in the church (which is undefined here), it was a position and ministry that did not enable or require her to “exercise authority” over a man.

1 Timothy 2:12 - But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Paul (more importantly, God Himself) does not contradict himself. The mention of “deaconnesses” in the church is simply a formal recognition of a person’s role, function and gifts to serve in a particular way. This recognition and her function/service in the church would still need to be carried out in a way consistent with Paul’s other guidelines.

Problem 2 - Why does Paul stick the qualifications for women in the middle of the qualifications for men?

This is a good question. He definitely interupts his discussion of the male deacons and their qualifications. It does seem like he just “stuck it in there.” However, this isn’t the only time he’s done such a thing, even in this letter. In 1 Timothy 5:23, in a context about how to deal with sinning elders, Paul throws in some personal advice (check it out). This note about women is far more connected to the topic at hand than the one he brings up in that context.

Problem 3 - Those who think it means “deacon’s wives” don’t see it as an interruption, but a description of the man’s home, and an introduction to the thought of verse 12, where a man must be known as devoted to his one wife, and managing their households well.

Answer - Again, that makes logical sense, but in my opinion does not outweigh the inability to explain the grammatical parallel or Paul’s failure to use the personal pronoun to clearly identify this women as someone’s wife.

In the end, the points made about the grammatical parallel and the difficulty explaining the problems associated with the other views has led me to conclude that there was (and legitimately could be today) a formally recognized group of women who served in the church. There is room in the Scripture for a recognized position of deaconess. Just like deacons, they would be appointed when they were needed, and they would serve in whatever way was necessary to help the elders focus on the task of shepherding (teaching and praying).

Not every church would be required to have them. They are appointed only as needed and only when there are qualified women to serve. As well, the presence of a formally recognized group of women serving the church in this way (similar to the male deacons) implies that the office of deacon was not a position that people were appointed to in order to govern the church–they were servants, not overseers.

So when might a group of women servants be formally recognized and appointed in the church as deacons? When they are qualified!

1. You must be women who are dignified
2. You cannot be a malicious gossip
3. You must be sober-minded
4. You must be faithful in all things

There is the fruit of my study. I would love to interact a bit if you have questions.