freeborn | ελεύθερος on Nostr: It is a debated point, true. But a plain reading of the qualifications Paul gives to ...
It is a debated point, true.
But a plain reading of the qualifications Paul gives to both Timothy and Titus, for both elders and deacons, include qualifications for _their wives also_. It takes some mental gymnastics (in my opinion) to ignore the necessary presuppositions underlying those texts (can a woman have a "wife"? On what ground can we overwrite 'his' with the de-gendered 'a person's' and 'wife' with the de-gendered 'spouse'? I don't think we can without succumbing to the charge of blatant eisegesis).
Beyond that, if further argument is even needed--and I don't think it should be--is the point that the office of deacon _carries authority_, and is therefore included in the prohibition.
Consider: Gregory Reynolds, "[Phoebe Was a Deaconess, But She Was Not Ordained](https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=868)"
Among the many helpful points Reynolds brings out, is this simple one: to 'ordain' _means_ 'to bestow with authority.'
Also consider: Daniel Schrock, "The Churchly Authority of the Office of Deacon":
- [Part 1 - Acts 6, Elders, and Deacons](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon-2/)
- [Part 2 - The Representative Authority of Deacons](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon-3/)
- [Part 3 - Deacons and Church Power](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon/)
But a plain reading of the qualifications Paul gives to both Timothy and Titus, for both elders and deacons, include qualifications for _their wives also_. It takes some mental gymnastics (in my opinion) to ignore the necessary presuppositions underlying those texts (can a woman have a "wife"? On what ground can we overwrite 'his' with the de-gendered 'a person's' and 'wife' with the de-gendered 'spouse'? I don't think we can without succumbing to the charge of blatant eisegesis).
Beyond that, if further argument is even needed--and I don't think it should be--is the point that the office of deacon _carries authority_, and is therefore included in the prohibition.
Consider: Gregory Reynolds, "[Phoebe Was a Deaconess, But She Was Not Ordained](https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=868)"
Among the many helpful points Reynolds brings out, is this simple one: to 'ordain' _means_ 'to bestow with authority.'
Also consider: Daniel Schrock, "The Churchly Authority of the Office of Deacon":
- [Part 1 - Acts 6, Elders, and Deacons](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon-2/)
- [Part 2 - The Representative Authority of Deacons](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon-3/)
- [Part 3 - Deacons and Church Power](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon/)