{"id":18502,"date":"2018-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-12-09T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/ecclesiology-043\/"},"modified":"2018-12-09T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-12-09T06:00:00","slug":"ecclesiology-043","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/ecclesiology-043\/","title":{"rendered":"Ecclesiology 043"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[99],"series_event":[484],"sermon_service_type":[473],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-18502","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-1-timothy","series_event-ecclesiology","sermon_service_type-sunday-school","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Ecclesiology 043","sermon_date":"20181209","sermon_month":"12","sermon_year":"2018","sermon_notes":6273,"sermon_slides":6281,"sermon_mp3":6282,"sermon_id":"129181425254325","series_or_event":484,"service_type":[473],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":99,"chapter_and_verse":"3:8-13","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nEcclesiology 43, 1 Timothy 3:8-13\n\n12-9-18\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 43\n\nFather, we\u2019re grateful for today, and grateful for the freedom that we have in this country to worship as\u00a0 You called us to do, without restriction.\u00a0 Of course we commemorated Pearl Harbor this last week and so we reflect upon the great tragedy that occurred there, the many, many lives that were lost and yet how\u00a0 You used that event to allow the United States to beat back what probably would have been worldwide fascism had we not intervened in that war so we acknowledge all of those things and commemorate the many victims.\u00a0 I do ask, Father that You\u2019ll be with us during the Sunday School hour and the main service that follows and the children\u2019s program later on this evening.\u00a0 I ask that in all things Your name would be lifted up and glorified.\u00a0 We ask these things in Jesus\u2019 name, and God\u2019s people said\u2026 Amen.\n\nWhy don\u2019t we open our Bibles to 1 Timothy 3 verses 8-13.\u00a0 I trust you guys are enjoying this global warming we\u2019re experiencing today.\u00a0 It\u2019s kind of a relief in a way to get some cool weather... amen!\u00a0 Houstonians understand that, as do Texans.\u00a0 As you know we\u2019re continuing along in our study of Ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church, having really taken a look at many, many activities or many, many things related to the church, including its activities, which we saw in Acts 2; it\u2019s model of government, which we believe the best support that you have in the New Testament is the elder model, elder rule model.\u00a0 So if all of that is true there should be some place in the Bible that tells us that a church is to be governed by a plurality of Godly men and what kind of qualifications do those men possess, must they possess to be elders.\u00a0 And so that logically leads into Roman numeral X there, a discussion of church officers.\u00a0 We\u2019ve looked at, first of all the office of elder; its qualification or qualifications for elders, the concept of the plurality of elders, distinction amongst elders, duties of elders, the whole issue of can an elder be removed.\n\nSo we dealt with elders and then from there we moved on to deacons and we saw that deacons really their role begins in Acts 6.\u00a0 And the function of a deacon really is to take care of a lot of the day to day operations of the ministry which frees up the elders to pursue their calling which is the ministry of the Word and prayer.\u00a0 And we\u2019ve also seen that just as there are qualifications for elders there are also qualifications for deacons.\u00a0 And those all character type qualifications that we took a look at last time in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.\n\nNow if I was trying to be politically correct and trying to avoid controversy I would have just left out this next session related to elders and deacons because if you\u2019re around Christianity for a while you start to see there\u2019s a lot of controversy on this and it has to do with gender restrictions concerning the two offices.\u00a0 Are there gender restrictions on the office of elder?\u00a0 Are there gender restrictions on the office of deacon?\u00a0 And last time we started kind of looking at that and I tried to make some preliminary comments on it because a lot of people will sort of miss hear what you\u2019re saying.\n\nWe\u2019re not saying, number one, that women have no place in the church when we talk about gender restrictions on certain offices and that\u2019s where I referred you to the notes by Thomas Constable who was my professor at Dallas Seminary and he has online seven thousand pages of Bible study notes all of which are verse by verse commentaries through the Bible.\u00a0 And in his 1 Timothy notes, which\u00a0 you can find at Soniclight (all one word) light is l-i-g-h-t, not like lite mayo but light as in physical light, Soniclight.com appendix 2, he lists all of the things that women do in the Bible for God.\u00a0 And I tried to read you some of those things and Old Testament\/New Testament it becomes over\u00adwhelming that God uses and wants to use women in the church.\n\nSo when we talk about certain gender restrictions we\u2019re really talking about a small percentage of total ministry.\u00a0 And we made the point last week that if you took every woman out of Sugar Land Bible Church the church would probably collapse.\u00a0 So women play a great role, not only in our church here at Sugar Land Bible Church but throughout the pages of God\u2019s Word you see God actively using women.\u00a0 So a limitation on some ministry should not be understood as women have no place in ministry.\n\nAnd we also tried to communicate the point that just because there\u2019s a restriction in terms of a role for a female that is not a statement of her value or her worth before God.\u00a0 And one of the things I tried to use to communicate this point was the doctrine of the Trinity where we believe there\u2019s one God, that He has expressed Himself in three separate personages, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.\u00a0 And it remains true that God the Son submits to God the Father; He certainly did that, Jesus did, in His incarnation.\u00a0 He said over and over again, I have come not to do My will but the will of Him who sent me.\u00a0 [John 6:38, \u201cFor I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.\u201d]\n\nSo there was a submission by the Son to the Father.\u00a0 But that submission was in role only, it wasn\u2019t in terms of value or worth, or the fancy word for that would be ontology.\u00a0 So the Son, and I could show you all the passages, even in His submission never relinquished one iota of deity.\u00a0 In fact, the Son, Jesus Christ, said over and over again, \u201cI and the Father are One,\u201d John 10. [John 10:30, \u201cI and the Father are one.\u201d]\u00a0 \u00a0He claimed to be the great \u201cI AM,\u201d John 8:58, which is a title that only belongs to God.\u00a0 [John 8:58, \u201cJesus said to them, \u2018Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.\u2019\u201d]\n\nSo over and over again you see Jesus representing or communicating the fact that he is still 100% God, 100% man.\u00a0 So it\u2019s a very important thing to understand that in His submission to the Father He never gave up one iota of deity.\u00a0 The submission was not ontological or value based; the submission was in role only.\u00a0 And I think this is a very helpful model to understand when you get into this subject of gender restrictions on some offices within the church and the fact that within marriage the woman is called upon to submit to her husband.\u00a0 What is happening is when people hear that in our culture, which has become very feminized as you know, they think it\u2019s a statement that women have no value or are less valuable than the man. And that simply isn\u2019t true.\n\nJust as the Son\u2019s submission to the Father is in role only the female submission to the male is in role or function only because when you go back to the beginning of God\u2019s Book, Genesis 1:27 you learn that men and women together are both co-image bearers of God.\u00a0 Genesis 1:27 says, \u201cGod created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 So both genders have the same ontology or \u00a0value or worth in terms of creation.\u00a0 They both have the exact same ontology or value or worth in terms of redemption because I showed you this passage from 1 Peter 3:7 which says the woman is \u201ca fellow heir of the grace of life.\u201d\u00a0 [1 Peter 3:7, \u201cYou husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.\u201d]\n\nSo a woman is saved just the same way a man is.\u00a0 So a woman and a man together in Christ, not only do they have the same value in terms of their creation, as co-image bearers of God but they actually have the same value or worth in terms of salvation.\n\nAnd beyond that, when you start to make comments about certain offices having a gender limitation on them people start to ask can a woman run a Fortune 500 company, and can she run for office and would you ever vote for a female for the President of the\u00a0 United States.\u00a0 And my answer is well, it depends on the female I guess, this last election cycle I don\u2019t think I would have done that. But there are a number of female leaders that if I had the chance to vote for them I would. One of my favorites in history, going back a few decades back, is Margaret Thatcher.\u00a0 Had I lived in her jurisdiction and that time period I would have voted for her over and over again.\n\nSo these comments that Paul makes are really related to the church only, that we\u2019re looking it.\u00a0 You should extrapolate concerning female business owners, CEO\u2019s, leaders in education, etc. etc. etc.\u00a0 So let\u2019s\u00a0 not make more of these gender limitations than what are actually there.\n\nBut those remarks having been made it\u2019s very clear that when you survey the passages related, first of all to elders, there clearly are gender limitations on those roles.\u00a0 I gave you several last time so I won\u2019t rehash all of them but you see the repetition of \u201che\u201d or \u201chim\u201d in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, and Titus 1:6 talking about elders.\u00a0 [1 Timothy 3:1-2, \u201cIt is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.<\/em> [2] An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.\u201d]\n\nAnd it also says in those passages that he must be \u201cthe husband of one wife,\u201d you know, even in our transgender (gender surrender culture) I think it\u2019s very difficult to rewrite that.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know how a woman could be the husband of one wife, I guess we could talk to Bruce Jenner about that or Kaitlin Jenner or whatever.\u00a0 But I think God is pretty clear on this concerning gender limitation.\u00a0 And one of the passages we looked at last time was 1 Timothy 2:11-14 where Paul, and again these are all part of the pastoral letters.\u00a0 [1 Timothy 2:11-14, \u201cA woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [13] For it was Adam who was first created, and<\/em> then Eve. [14] And it was<\/em> not Adam who<\/em> was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.\u201d]\n\nThere are three books of the New Testament that we call the pastoral letters meaning that they\u2019re written to tell pastors how to be pastors.\u00a0 And so many people want to build their philosophy of female leadership from Deborah, or whoever, in the Book of Judges.\u00a0 Well the Book of Judges was written during a completely different dispensation.\u00a0 The point of the Book of Judges is Israel needs a king because everyone did what was right in their\u00a0 own eyes over a three hundred year period of perpetual cycles of disobedience leading to bondage.\u00a0 I think there\u2019s seven cycles there.\u00a0 So are we really going to go to Judges to build our philosophy of church government?\u00a0 No, Judges is a wonderful book but that\u2019s not why the book was set up.\u00a0 You know why the book was set up, because you get to the end of the Book of Judges and it says \u201cthere was no king\u201d there was at least three times, maybe four, \u201cin Israel in those days and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.\u201d\n\nSo we\u2019re not going to go to Judges to develop a philosophy of female leadership.\u00a0 That\u2019s what\u00a0 you call descriptive material, not prescriptive.\u00a0 And probably you should learn the difference between descriptive and prescriptive. There are things happening in the Bible that are describing what is happening but they\u2019re not prescribing what we are supposed to do.\u00a0 So we have a description of David\u2019s adultery and murder.\u00a0 Now should I go out and commit adultery and murder because it\u2019s right there in the Bible?\u00a0 NO, that is describing a sin of somebody, it is not prescribing what we are supposed to do.\n\nSo to figure out what is supposed to be normative in the age of the church and what is normative in the church you go to the right text for that, and books, and you build your case primarily on the pastoral letters.\u00a0 Those are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.\u00a0 1 Timothy written by Paul between Roman imprisonments from Macedonia to Timothy in Ephesus showing Timothy how to be a pastor.\u00a0 And 2 Timothy written from Rome in Paul\u2019s second Roman imprisonment, also written to Timothy, a pastor in Ephesus teaching him again how to be a pastor.\u00a0 And then of course you have the book of Titus, written between the two Roman imprisonments of Paul from a place called Nicopolis, to Titus on this little island (actually we were just there on our trip) called Crete where he was put in charge of organizing house churches on the island of Crete.\n\nSo if\u00a0 you want to figure out what is God\u2019s philosophy of leadership for the church those are the passages\u00a0 you go to.\u00a0 And\u00a0 you\u2019ll notice that all of these passages that I\u2019m quoting here come from those pastoral letters.\u00a0 And in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 I think Paul is very clear, he says that a woman is not to teach nor to exercise authority over a man.\u00a0 [1 Timothy 2:11-14, \u201cA woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [13] For it was Adam who was first created, and<\/em> then Eve. [14] And it was<\/em> not Adam who<\/em> was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.\u201d]\n\nAnd people say well, you know, that was just the culture of the day and they make all these sort of cultural arguments.\u00a0 I call it the cultural copout, and the reason I think it\u2019s a copout is because when you study 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (really 11-15) very carefully you\u2019ll see that Paul anchors his whole case of why a woman is not to teach nor exercise authority over a man within a church to pre-fallen creation, which is transcultural.\u00a0 It has to do with how God has made the woman and how God has made the man. And Paul there makes the point that it was the man who was created first but it was the woman who sinned first.\u00a0\u00a0 The man was created first demonstrating his headship over her.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why God allowed Adam to name Eve in Genesis 1 and 2. And beyond that when Eve sinned first God called out to the man, Genesis 3:9.\u00a0 [Genesis 3:9, \u201cThen the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, \u2018Where are you?\u2019\u201d]\n\nNow why would he call out to the man?\u00a0 Because when Enron goes belly up you go out to the CEO, you don\u2019t go after someone lower on the chain.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 So this concept of male headship is something that existed before the fall and that\u2019s very important because we have today what\u2019s called evangelical feminism. Evangelical feminism is basically trying to abolish all gender roll distinctions between men and women and they\u2019re trying to make the point that those gender restrictions only came into existence because of the fall.\u00a0 Now when you actually study this out you learn that that\u2019s not true at all; these gender roll distinctions, in terms of male headship, existed prior to the fall.\u00a0 In other words, this was God\u2019s original design.\n\nSo when the Apostle Paul makes a statement in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, which should carry a lot of weight to us because this is a pastoral letter, and he says a woman is not \u201cto teach or to exercise authority over a man.\u201d \u00a0[1 Timothy 2:11-14, \u201cA woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [13] For it was Adam who was first created, and<\/em> then Eve. [14] And it was<\/em> not Adam who<\/em> was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.\u201d]\n\nWhen you study that passage, and we looked at it last week, Paul\u2019s whole point is anchored in pre-fallen creation which transcends any cultural argument you can think of. It\u2019s not a cultural Paul is dealing with here because pre-fall predates all cultures.\u00a0 See that?\n\nAnd we tried to make some balancing comments last time because people say well, I guess a woman can\u2019t teach at all in the church.\u00a0 Well, that\u2019s not true either because you have 2 Timothy 1:5 and 2 Timothy 3:15 where young Timothy was taught the Scriptures from infancy by who?\u00a0 Lois and Eunice.\u00a0 Well who are they?\u00a0 That\u2019s mom and grandma.\u00a0 [2 Timothy 1:5, \u201cFor I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is<\/em> in you as well.\u201d\u00a0 2 Timothy 3:15, \u201cand that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.\u201d]\n\n[1 Timothy 2:11-14, \u201cA woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [13] For it was Adam who was first created, and<\/em> then Eve. [14] And it was<\/em> not Adam who<\/em> was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.\u201d]\n\nSo Timothy became the person that he became because he was inculcated with the Scripture at a very early age so that opens up the door clearly for a woman to teach youth.\u00a0 And then you have Titus 2:3-4 where it talks about how a woman, an older woman should be teaching the younger women.\u00a0 [Titus 2:3-4, \u201cOlder women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, [4] so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] to be<\/em> sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.\u201d]\u00a0 So clearly there\u2019s a place within the church for females to teach other females.\n\nAnd then you have a situation in Acts 18:24-26 where Priscilla and Aquila, a husband and wife team, took the very gifted Apollos aside and taught him the way of the truth more accurately.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0[Acts 18:24-26, \u201cNow a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. [25]This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; [26] and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.\u201d]\n\nSo Apollos up to that point in time is what we would call an Old Testament saint; he had a know\u00adledge through John the Baptist of a coming Messiah but he didn\u2019t know the name Jesus and he didn\u2019t know much about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and all of these other kinds of things that had started a few decades back in the age of the church.\u00a0 So he\u2019s kind of a transitional figure, this man Apollos; a very gifted orator, very gifted debater.\n\nSo Priscilla and Aquila, that\u2019s a husband and wife together, took Apollos aside, Acts 18:24-26 says they taught him the way of truth more accurately, they filled in the gaps for him.\u00a0 And that meant Apollos, who was effective before now became even more effective with the full knowledge of God\u2019s truth.\u00a0 And it was again a husband and a wife team doing that.\u00a0 So there\u2019s obviously a place in a non-congregational setting where a husband and wife can teach somebody else.\u00a0 So you have to look at all of the verses on this rather than just one or two verses.\n\nBut having said all of that I think the case is pretty crystal clear that you can\u2019t have female elders nor can you have what we would call female\u2026 today we use the vernacular female senior pastors.\u00a0 A female or a woman should not be behind the pulpit teaching a mixed audience.\n\nAnd what I\u2019m going to so id I\u2019m going to cover deacons, the deacon issue real fast and I know you all have probably lots of questions so I\u2019m going to try to stop early for a change\u00a0 and entertain whatever questions you may have. But that\u2019s basically my best understanding of gender restrictions on the office of elder or what we would call teaching pastor.\u00a0 So that\u2019s office number one in the church.\n\nAnd what about office number two, the office of deacon?\u00a0 I don\u2019t think the case is as open and closed as I used to think it was. So if a church wants to place a gender restriction on the office of deacon I think I can completely understand that, that\u2019s the way Sugar Land Bible Church operates.\u00a0 But if a church, on the other hand doesn\u2019t want to do that I can understand their position as well.\u00a0 And I\u2019ll try to explain why I think that.\n\nSo this is an area that I would call a gray area in the Scripture.\u00a0 I\u2019m all in favor of being dogmatic where God Himself is dogmatic.\u00a0 But there are some areas of the Scripture that really aren\u2019t as dogmatic as we think they are and I\u2019ll try to present that to you.\u00a0 So I\u2019m less likely to use the \u201cH\u201d word, heresy against churches that have female deacons.\u00a0 I used to use that word to them quite a bit but I don\u2019t do that anymore because I think there\u2019s some ambiguity there.\u00a0 And by the way, I\u2019m not on any big crusade to change anything at Sugar Land Bible Church. Our doctrinal statement and constitution says what it says, I don\u2019t think we\u2019re doing anything wrong by the way we do things here.\u00a0 I just want us to recognize that the clarity on this may not be crystal clear and I think that should of soften our attitude maybe a little bit towards other churches that do things differently, not so much on elders of senior pastors, I think that\u2019s crystal clear, but on the office of deacon.\u00a0 So here we go.\n\nShould there be female deacons and of course we would call them a deaconess.\u00a0 A lot of people say there should not be female deacons, there should be a restriction on the office of deaconess.\u00a0 Why do they think that?\u00a0 Well they have some good reasons for thinking that.\u00a0 The first reason they think that is Acts 6:3.\u00a0 Acts 6:3 is the beginning of the office of deacon and what does it say there? \u201cTherefore, brethren, select from among you seven\u201d what\u2019s the next word, \u201cmen of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.\u201d\n\nSo you notice that when the first deacons were selected there were no females.\u00a0 Now how binding is that?\u00a0 Well, that\u2019s the Book of Acts; the Book of Acts is describing a lot of things which are a description of history that we don\u2019t necessarily see as binding in the church today.\u00a0 For example, in the Book of Acts you\u2019ll find folks in Samaria believing in Christ, Acts 8, but not receiving the Holy Spirit until hands were laid upon them.\u00a0 So there\u2019s a difference in time between trusting in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit.\u00a0 Now that is something happening in the Book of Acts that is descriptive but it\u2019s not normative today.\u00a0 There was a particular reason why that happened; it was to avoid the Jewish-Samaritan conflict which existed for seven hundred years and it\u2019s to avoid having a schism in the church right out of the gate.\u00a0 And so the Spirit was delayed so that the Jerusalem saints could understand that Samaria now belonged to Jerusalem and Jerusalem belonged to Samaria, and Samaria belonged to Jerusalem and vice versa.\n\nIt also talks about in Acts 2 about people who sold their property to have resources on hand to share with out of towners who had gotten saved on the day of Pentecost, to learn more about apostolic doctrine so does anybody here own a home; are we violating God\u2019s will because we own a home and the Book of Acts says they all sold their homes?\u00a0 No, because the Book of Acts is basically giving history which is descriptive.\u00a0 If you\u2019re going to say something in the Book of Acts is prescriptive you can\u2019t just find it in the Book of Acts because there\u2019s a lot of abnormalities taking place in the Book of Acts.\u00a0 You also have to find it in the epistolary literature.\n\nSo when people build their case here on male only deacons from Acts 6:3 I look at that and I say well, that\u2019s very interesting but it\u2019s the Book of Acts and the Book of Acts is a wonderful book but it\u2019s a book of history and not necessarily designed to be a book of binding doctrine.\n\nWhen you go to 1 Timothy 3:8 and verse 10 and verse 13 you see some more evidence as to why many people with a clear conscience believe that there should not be a deaconess, deaconesses in the church.\u00a0 And Paul there in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 is laying out the qualifications for a deacon and if you look at verse 8 what does he say? \u201cDeacons likewise must be\u201d<\/em> what? \u201cmen of dignity.\u00a0 And then if you go down to verse 10 what does it say?\u00a0 \u201cThese\u201d what? \u201cmen must also first be tested\u2026..\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 And then when you go down to verse 12 it says, \u201cmust be\u201d the what? \u201chusbands of only<\/em> one wife,\u201d so there are three times Paul seems to indicate that deacons are males.\u00a0 So those would be the arguments for placing a limitation on females for being deacons or deaconesses.\u00a0 Acts 6:3 which I don\u2019t think is entirely persuasive but also 1 Timothy 3:8, verse 10 and verse 12.\n\nBut what about, as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story.\u00a0 I mean, why do so many churches seem to believe you can have a deaconess?\u00a0 Do they have any grounds for it?\u00a0 Well one of the verses that they use is Romans 16:1.\u00a0 So you might want to jump over there just for a minute.\u00a0 Romans 16:1, Paul is writing to the church at Rome, and he says, \u201cI command to you our sister, Phoebe,\u201d Phoebe obviously is female because she\u2019s referred to as a sister, and then Paul says this, \u201cwho is a servant,\u201d now the word for \u201cservant\u201d there is \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00a0(diakonos<\/em>), which is the same word for deacon.\u00a0 Isn\u2019t that interesting.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026who is a servant of the church which is in Cenchrea.\n\nSo many people will use this verse to say well there it is, right there in the Bible, you\u2019ve got Phoebe who is clearly a servant or a deacon because the word translated servant is the same word we use for deacon.\u00a0 And to that particular argument I would say not so fast on that because a lot of people will look at this and say well, it doesn\u2019t say she held the office of deacon, what it says is she was simply serving or was a servant in the church.\n\nAnd I have this quote for you from the NET Bible, The New English Translation, and they make this comment on Romans 16:1.\u00a0 Concerning Romans 16:1, \u201c\u201cOr \u2018deaconess,\u2019\u201d they say, \u201cIt is debated whether\u00a0\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00a0(diakonos<\/em>) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church. In the New Testament some who are called deacons, or\u00a0\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00a0are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons,\u201d in other words, they don\u2019t hold the office of deacon, \u201cbut tather are \u2018servants\u2019 or \u2018ministers\u2019 (other viable translations for\u00a0\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2).\u201d And the NET Bible says these are other translations of diakonos.<\/em>\n\nThe NET Bible goes on and it says this:\u00a0 \u201c\u201cFor example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a\u00a0\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00a0in\u00a0Colossians 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In\u00a01 Timothy 4:6\u00a0Paul calls Timothy a deacon, or a\u00a0\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. \u201c\u00a0 Now why wasn\u2019t Timothy a deacon?\u00a0 Because he was a what?\u00a0 He was an elder, he was what we would call a teaching elder, pastor-teacher.\u00a0 \u201cIn addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: within the New Testament the\u00a0\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd word group rarely functions with a technical nuance.\u00a0 In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative.\u201d\n\nNow what is a technical nuance?\u00a0 A technical nuance is the idea that a word, every time you see it means the same thing.\u00a0 And most people really don\u2019t understand how language functions. Rarely do you have a word that\u2019s technical; rarely in the New Testament or in language in general do you have a word which always means the same thing every time it\u2019s used.\u00a0 Take for example the word apple.\u00a0 How many meanings can you generate from the word apple?\u00a0 It could be a piece of fruit if I\u2019m eating.\u00a0 Or it could be a computer if I\u2019m working on my word processor.\u00a0 Or it could be New York City, \u201cThe Big Apple.\u201d\u00a0 Or it could be the pupil of one\u2019s eye, the \u201capple of the eye.\u201d\u00a0 Take the word run, how many meanings can the word \u201crun\u201d be generated.\u00a0 My car was running, a lady might say I have a run in my stocking, I ran down the street to the grocery store.\n\nSo what I\u2019m trying to demonstrate is words mean many, many different things.\u00a0 And so how in the world would you ever determine what a word means.\u00a0 You have to look at it according to its context. The three rules of real estate are location, location, location.\u00a0 The three rules of Bible study are context, context, context.\u00a0\u00a0 So my point is simply seeing the word deacon in the text doesn\u2019t seal the deal at all because yes, it could refer to an office holder, and it does in some contexts.\u00a0 Or it could refer to someone who\u2019s just serving in the church without an office.\u00a0 And the NET Bible is sort of the persuasion that that\u2019s how it\u2019s being used here in Romans 16:1.\u00a0 That\u2019s what they mean when they say, \u201cthe word group rarely functions with a technical nuance.\u201d\n\nAnd you have to watch people very, very carefully, particularly systematic theologians, because they\u2019ll try to sell you on a theological system.\u00a0 And with each of their points they\u2019ve got a bunch of verses that back up their points.\u00a0 Seeing verses quoted under a point doesn\u2019t prove anything because you have to look at those verses in their context and try to determine is that verse really supporting the point the systematic theologian is trying to promote.\u00a0 And it was James Barr who called a practice illegitimate totality transfer, ITT for short, that\u2019s how I remember it, I<\/u>llegitimate T<\/u>otality T<\/u>ransfer where you develop the meaning of a word from another context, same word, and then you read it back into\u00a0 your present context when the present context may not support it.\n\nSo if I am writing a text about a computer and I see the word \u2018apple\u201d and all of a sudden I throw into that word apple an understanding of fruit, as one of the fruit groups, then I just committed illegitimate totality transfer because I\u2019m reading into the word \u201capple\u201d a foreign idea that the context doesn\u2019t support even though the word \u201capple\u201d may mean that elsewhere.\u00a0 Do you see that?\n\nAnd people will do this to you all the time in theology.\u00a0 For example, there\u2019s one group of people, called five point Calvinists, and they basically believed Christ did not die for everyone; He died for the elect.\u00a0 And then you say well wait a minute Mr. Five Point Calvinist, my Bible doesn\u2019t say that.\u00a0 John 3:16 says, \u201cFor God so loved the world,\u201d well, they\u2019ll run over to John 12:19 where Jesus is coming into Jerusalem on the Triumphal Entry and everybody early on was embracing Him and the Pharisees say if we don\u2019t stop this He\u2019s going to become very popular because look, John 12:19, the whole world \u201chas gone after Him.\u201d\u00a0 [\u201cSo the Pharisees said to one another, \"\u2019You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.\u2019\u201d]\n\nAnd the five point Calvinist will say well, see, there it is in John 12:19, the word \u201cworld\u201d doesn\u2019t mean the whole world, it means just the people in Jerusalem that were embracing Christ.\u00a0 And the response is that\u2019s illegitimate totality transfer.\u00a0 You just defined the same word \u201cworld\u201d which is the Greek word cosmos<\/em>, which has multiple meanings, you just defined it from a foreign context and you that read that into the present context in John 3:16.\u00a0 The word \u201cworld\u201d may mean that in John 12:19, that\u2019s not what it means in John 3:15. See that!\u00a0 So if you don\u2019t learn anything else in this church just learn that context is king and people do this a lot with diakonon<\/em>, concerning\u00a0 Phoebe and they want to make her a deacon in the church when in reality the word deacon may mean an office holder in some context but it could just mean a common servant.\n\nSo the NET Bible says, \u201cIn any case the evidence is not compelling either way.\u00a0 The view accepted in the translation above\u201d that\u2019s the NET Bible, is that Phoebe was a servant in the church and not a deaconess, although the conclusion should be regarded as tentative.\u00a0 So when someone is using Acts 6:3 to support male only deacons I\u2019m a little bit hands off on that because it\u2019s the Book of Acts only.\u00a0 When someone is using Romans 16:1 to argue that there should be in the church a deaconess I\u2019m a little bit hands off on that because the passage could very well be saying that Phoebe was not necessarily an office holder but she was a mere servant in the church.\n\nHowever, the one that sort of changed my perspective on this was 1 Timothy 3:11.\u00a0 1 Timothy 3:11 right there in the middle of Paul giving the qualifications for deacons, right there in the middle of the passage says this: \u201cWomen\u201d that\u2019s the Greek word \u00a0<\/strong>[gyn\u0113<\/em>] \u201cmust<\/em>\u00a0likewise\u00a0be<\/em>\u00a0dignified,\u00a0not malicious gossips, but\u00a0temperate, faithful in all things.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, he\u2019s talking about deacons, a man, a man, a man, a man, and then right there in verse 11 he throws in the word a woman.\n\nSo what in the world do you do with that?\u00a0 Well, there\u2019s two views on it.\u00a0 View one is that verse is just talking about the wife of a deacon, not opening the door to the office of a deaconess, it\u2019s just talking about the deacon\u2019s wife.\u00a0 Well the question is can gyn\u0113<\/em> be used to describe a wife?\u00a0 Yes it can, in Ephesians 5:22.\u00a0 [Ephesians 5:22, \u201cWives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.\u201d\n\nWho holds this view that it\u2019s not opening the door to the office of a deaconess because it\u2019s talking about merely the wife of a deacon.\u00a0 No less of an authority than Charles Ryrie holds this view.\u00a0 But is there a problem with that view.\u00a0 There is a problem with it and here\u2019s the problem.\u00a0 Why would Paul give qualifications to the wife of a deacon in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, and\u00a0 yet he never did that for an elder in verses 1-7.\u00a0 Isn\u2019t that kind of strange.\u00a0 In other words, if he is giving qualifications for the wife of a deacon that seems kind of odd because he never did that for an elder.\u00a0 And so that\u2019s sort of the problem with the Charles Ryrie view on this as best I can tell.\n\nWhich means maybe there\u2019s another possibility here; maybe verse 11 is opening the door for a female office holder, a female deacon that we would call a deaconess, in this case the word gyn\u0113<\/em> does not mean wife but it just means woman.\u00a0\u00a0 And\u00a0 you say well does the word wife, or does the word gyn\u0113<\/em> can it mean woman?\u00a0 And it can.\u00a0 Matthew 9:20, and many other passages we could cite.\u00a0 [Matthew 9:20, \u201cAnd a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak;\u201d]\u00a0 So this is what makes this whole thing very perplexing is that Greek word gyn\u0113 <\/em>could mean a wife, deaconess, a wife of a deacon rather, or it could mean just woman opening the door to a deaconess.\n\nNow who holds the deaconess view? \u00a0No less of an authority than Thomas Constable, I graded for him, he was my dissertation reader, he\u2019s written a lot of Bible study material, so now I\u2019m having to choose between Ryrie and Constable.\u00a0 What a terrible position to be in.\u00a0 BUT, just like there\u2019s a problem with the Ryrie view there\u2019s a problem with the Constable view.\u00a0 What\u2019s the problem.\u00a0 Ryrie talks about this in his note in verse 11, I\u2019m not entirely sure you have this quote in your handout because I added this the last minute.\u00a0 But if you\u2019re a reader of the Ryrie Study Bible, which is the Bible Version of all Spirit-led Christians, [laughter] you\u2019ll find it there.\n\nAnd he says this, verse 11.\u00a0 \u201cMost likely a reference to the wives of the deacons, rather than to a separate office of deaconess, since the qualifications for deacons are continued in verse 12. If he had a different group in mind, it would seem more natural for Paul to have finished the qualifications for deacons before introducing the office of deaconess.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 So what is Ryrie\u2019s point?\u00a0 If Paul is opening the door for\u00a0 a deaconess there in verse 11 it seems like kind of a disruption of the flow of thought because he continues on with male deacons in the subsequent verses and if Paul was opening up a brand new office why would he just kind of abnormally disrupt the passage the way it does?\n\nAnd you say well, Pastor, what\u2019s the answer.\u00a0 Here\u2019s my answer\u2014I don\u2019t know if I have an answer to this!\u00a0 I can see Ryrie\u2019s view, the Ryrie view is the view of Sugar Land Bible Church, and I\u2019m no big crusade to change it.\u00a0 But at the same time I\u2019m looking at the Ryrie view and I\u2019m seeing a big problem with it.\u00a0 Well, then there\u2019s the Tom Constable view and I can see his point but at the same time I\u2019m seeing a problem with Constable\u2019s view.\u00a0 So what am I saying?\u00a0 I\u2019m saying in matters of ambiguity like this you have to be gracious in tone and spirit, that\u2019s what I\u2019m saying.\n\nYou know, being a fire breathing fundamentalist is fine when God is crystal clear on something, and my only point, and I\u2019m obviously not a feminist and trying to crusade or change anything, I\u2019m just sort of trying to be an intellectually honest objective Bible reader and if a church wants to place a limitation on the office of deacon I can go for that.\u00a0 If I\u2019m in a church and they don\u2019t want to place a limitation on the office of deacon and open it up to deaconesses I guess I\u2019m fine with that too.\u00a0 In other words, I\u2019m not going to leave a church over that issue.\n\nNow if it moves into, well now we\u2019re going to have female elders, now that\u2019s a different story because I think the Bible is clear on that where it\u2019s not really that clear on what I\u2019m talking about.\u00a0 And if you have a woman getting into the pulpit and teaching a mixed audience of men and women then I have a problem with that and I would leave a church over that.\u00a0 But I\u2019m not going to leave a church over something that I think is somewhat ambiguous. So should there be a gender limitation on elder and pastor?\u00a0 Yes!\u00a0 Should there be a gender limitation on deacon, if a church wants to do that go for it but if a church doesn\u2019t want to do that I can kind of see their point too. So I think this is an area that needs some liberty and some grace for reasons that I\u2019ve explained.\n\nSo therefore that competes our discussion of elders and deacons and that very thorny question of gender limitations.\u00a0 The conclusion if you haven\u2019t tracked with it is\u00a0 yes, there\u2019s a gender limitation on pastor, elder and maybe a gender limitation on deacon.\n\nAnd from there we will get into next week ordinances or rituals in the church that the Lord has prescribed.\u00a0 Those would be communion, baptism, and oh my gosh, we have a question mark by one, foot washing.\u00a0 Have you ever been to a foot washing service. It does smell a little bit but my wife was raised in the Grace Brethren denomination where they had regular foot washing just like they had regular communion.\u00a0 I have to admit, it\u2019s a very humbling experience to be in one of those services.\u00a0 And if a denomination wants to do that I don\u2019t see why they can\u2019t, but is that something that we should all be doing, and saying \u201cthus saith the Lord, if\u00a0 you\u2019re not doing a foot washing service then you\u2019re out of the will of God just like not taking communion regularly.\u00a0 So we\u2019ll get into that subject.\n\nAnd then the last thing that we\u2019ll talk about under Roman numeral XII there is purity.\u00a0 How does the church keep itself pure in an impure world practically?\u00a0 Well, the Lord has given to the church two vehicles for that: one is something called church discipline, which is rarely practiced in North America, and one is a practice that\u2019s really not practiced correctly so we\u2019ll get into that subject.\u00a0 And then there\u2019s another tool that God has given to the church to keep it pure and that\u2019s the doctrine of separation.\u00a0 The big push today is ecumenism, we all need to come together and I\u2019ll try to make a biblical case that you don\u2019t come together with people that have a completely different theology and worldview than you do.\u00a0 And there\u2019s a case in the Bible for Christians to separate from other so-called Christians over doctrinal issues.\u00a0 It\u2019s the exact opposite of the way people think today because the big push today is \u201cthe urge to merge.\u201d\u00a0 But when you merge with someone with a deficient doctrinal system the church has the potential of becoming doctrinally, practically impure. So I\u2019ll show you the passages that reveal the doctrine of separation.\u00a0 That\u2019s the two areas that we\u2019ll be covering now that we\u2019ve finished the church offices.\n\nNow I\u2019m going to stop talking at this point and if you all have comments or questions would be preferred, we can entertain those.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t