Chapter III: Of the Divine Authority of the Office of Deacon

Though the word deacon means a servant in general, and is in Scripture applied to the servants of god, whether in a more public or private capacity,—to the ministry of the gospel, the civil magistrate, and even to our Lord Himself, who is called “a servant or minister of the circumcision,” because a Jew, as regarded His human nature, He confined His ministry to the children of Israel,—yet it is the name also of a distinct ecclesiastical office. There is no question about this. It is too clear to be disputed. In the book of the Acts we have a detailed account of the institution. The epistle to the Church at Philippi is specially sent to the deacons and ministers of the gospel in that city; and the same writer, in his First Epistle to Timothy, after describing the character and qualifications of a faithful minister, describes not less clearly those of the deacon; evidently shewing that the offices were not only distinct, but permanent in the Christian Church. The office of deacon was to be as lasting as that of minister, and hence the counsels which are seen given to Timothy in regard to it; the nature of the office is as well marked as the office itself. It has no concern with the preaching of the gospel, or the administration of sacraments. There is not the slightest authority for this in the Word of God; nay, it is directly hostile to its teaching. The deacon was appointed (see the sixth chapter of the Acts), not because there was not a sufficient number of ministers of the gospel, but because it was indispensable to make provision for the temporal wants of the poorer Christians, on a different plan than had hitherto been pursued. The same reasons which called for the institution of such an office at Jerusalem, rendered it necessary in other quarters. Hence the apostle Paul addresses the deacons as well as the bishops of Philippi.¹—(Phil. i. 1.) In the account, again, of the qualifications of deacons, in his first letter to Timothy, there is not the slightest allusion to the preaching of the gospel and the the dispensation of the sacraments. It is not said of the deacon, as it is of the bishop or pastor, that he is to be “apt to teach;” nor is it said that he is to “care for,” by ruling, the Church of God. These belong to the bishop or minister. The deacon’s qualifications are summed up in those things most appropriate to the office of one who has the charge of the poor and the secular affairs of the Church generally:

Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let them also first be proved, then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Let the deacons be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

From these words several important points are apparent. It is obvious that though the calling of the deacon, comparatively speaking, be secular, yet that he must be a man of intelligent piety, and generally esteemed; that he has nothing to do with the teaching or government of the Church, or administration of ordinances, otherwise such important duties would not have been overlooked. The caution against being double-tongued, and given to wine, and the love of gain; and the exhortation to proved fidelity, are all peculiarly appropriate to one invested with the charge of public funds. Nor is there any thing inconsistent with propriety in the deacon, having served his office well, being raised to that of the ruling elder, and, with suitable education, even to the ministry of the gospel. Such cases are are not unfrequent in the early history of the Church of Scotland. It may be worthy of notice, that while the counsels given regarding the bishop are in the singular number, implying that the church has one pastor, the deacons are spoken of in the plural number, intimating that there were several in each church. This harmonizes with the idea that the deacon is the guardian of the interests of the poor, which need several. It is inconsistent with the notion that he is a preacher and dispenser of baptism. Other passages might be referred to, such as the 12th of the Romans, where “he that giveth”—evidently marking the deacon—is called upon to give “with simplicity;” and the 12th of 1st Corinthians, which, under the term “helps,” describes the same class of office-bearers; but we prefer to direct the reader’s attention to the original institution. It is too plain, and is given with too much detail, to admit of any misunderstanding.

It would seem that at a very early period in the history of the Christian Church, before Peter had set out on his first evangelistic journey, or Saul had been converted, it was necessary to make some permanent arrangement for the support of the poor Christians. Under the remarkable influence of the gospel, a self-denial and generosity had been manifested by the members of the Christian Church generally, which was perhaps unparalleled in the history of the world. Men parted with all that they had, selling even estates, and placing the proceeds at the disposal of the apostles. While this shewed the most ample confidence in the teachers, it necessarily exposed the apostles to a great deal of trouble and delicate management. They must, from the outset, one would think, have appointed some of the converts to assist them, but it soon became manifest that a permanent arrangement was indispensable. Either from mere oversight, or from the converted Jews of Judea preponderating in number, so it was that suspicions and murmurs soon got up among the converted Jews from foreign parts, who spoke the Greek language, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. In all probability the charge was an unfounded one; but to provide against it and all similar surmises, so injurious to the cause of Christianity, and fitted so quickly to destroy the spirit of pre-eminent harmony and love which characterised the first Christians, the apostles considered it proper that officers should be appointed for the express purpose of taking charge of the poor and of the general finance of the church. As a thing right in itself, and to give the people the greater confidence in the deacons, the people were called upon to elect. Having been informed by the apostles of what were the necessary qualifications, they selected seven; and so well did the people choose, that Stephen, the first, and one of the noblest of Christian martyrs, was in the number. The better to reassure the complaining Hellenists, the disciples seem generally to have voted for persons belonging to their party, and hence the names are Greek names. Nothing can be clearer than these statements. The origin of the office explains its nature. We have not the slightest hint of preaching or baptizing. Traces of these may appear, in connexion with the office of deacon, in ecclesiastical history, but they must be found in the Word of God ere any weight can be attached to them.

Dr Neander does not think, that from the expression “serving tables,” it can be certainly inferred that the apostles alluded only to the distribution of food among the poor widows. He considers this merely one of the tables of of service which they attended to, and that it is mentioned to mark more pointedly the distinction between the oversight of spiritual and that of secular concerns.

It is plain, from Scripture, that the whole work of the deacon regarded the secular affairs of the Church, chiefly the care of the poor. This is, if possible, made more manifest by the circumstance that there seem to have been female deacons, or deaconesses, in the early Church. Paul, in the 16th of Romans, ver. 1, commands Phœbe, a deaconess, to the attention of the Christians at Rome. Her office, we may believe, would correspond to that of the deacon, and as she is expressly forbidden, on reasons assigned, to teach publicly in the Church, the inference is obvious, that he was equally unauthorized to undertake this duty; and if not permitted to preach the Word, much less, may we believe, would he be permitted to administer baptism or the Lord’s supper. We have very little knowledge of the female deacon in Scripture, the passage in Romans being the only one where it is distinctly stated, but its very existence implies a corresponding office among male members of the Church. Probably it was intended to meet the peculiar circumstances of some Gentile church, in which, as in the East generally, strong jealousies prevailed in connexion with the female sex. It is well known how anxious the heathen were to disparage the claims of Christianity, by misrepresenting the character of its professors. The discharge of the duty of a deacon, in giving money to poor females, might, in such circumstances, be open to misrepresentation, and hence the wisdom and delicacy of appointing females to minister to their relief.

The only thing which is or can be alleged from Scripture in behalf of the deacon being a preacher and administrator of ordinances, is the fact that Philip, one of the seven original deacons at Jerusalem, preached the gospel in Samaria, and baptized the eunuch of Ethiopia. But the question is, did he preached or baptize in the character of deacon? Did preaching or baptizing form any part of the original institution of the deaconship? It is not unknown among the offices of the New Testament, that a man should hold two, and sometimes act in the character of the one, and sometimes in that of the other. Thus, both Peter and John, who were apostles, and so possessed an extraordinary office, which could not be transmitted to others, were at the same time, as they themselves inform us, “elders” or presbyters—pastors—ordinary ministers—in which capacity they could have successors, and transmit powers to all faithful ministers lawfully called, to preach the same gospel truth. Though Philip, then, was a deacon, this did not preclude him holding another office, and what that is, we are informed in Acts xxi. 8, where he is expressly called an Evangelist, an extraordinary office, which constituted him who bore it the companion and assistant of apostles, able to confer miraculous gifts on others, &c. It was as evangelist, then, not as deacon, that Philip preached and baptized; and this is the more certain, when it is remembered that the office of deacon was, as might have been expected, regarded as the humblest in the Christian Church, and, where its duties were well discharged, opened the way to a higher office. The apostle Paul, when treating of the subject, expressly says, “They that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree.” There can be little question, then, that Philip, having acquitted himself excellently as a deacon at Jerusalem, when the persecution arose with the death of Stephen, was clothed with the higher office of evangelist. It is certain that we find him travelling about as a missionary in Samaria, during which time he could not be acting the part of a deacon, attending to the wants of the poor widows at Jerusalem. When we next meet with him, at the distance of twenty years, he is resident at Caesarea, and bears the name of an evangelist—a residence which would equally unfit him for the deaconship to which he had been originally appointed. In connexion with Philip’s being denominated an evangelist, it may be noticed that, in Paul’s summary of offices, “for the perfecting of the saints, " &c., there is no mention of the deacon which might have been expected had that office embraced preaching and baptizing, with the care of the poor. It is said, “And he,” viz., the Lord Jesus, “gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teacherd”—evidently including the ordinary as well as the extraordinary offices—“for perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” There is no reference to a preaching or baptizing deacon.

The case of Stephen, another of the seven, is sometimes appealed to. It is said that his address was uttered as a preacher; but there is not the slightest evidence of this. He defended himself at the bar of his enemies as any other good man, as any humble female might have done in the same circumstances. Nothing of a public official character appears. Indeed, it would be a duty of all private Christians to lift up a similar testimony for Christ at the present day, were they persecuted in the same way. If the discourse of Stephen constitutes him an ordained preacher of the Word, and administrator of its ordinances, then all the martyrs of Scotland, and of every other land, male and female, have, in the same sense, been clothed with the pastoral office. Few pretences can be more absurd than that the deaconship involved more than the care of secular interests. Well may we conclude, with Thomas Scott, the commentator on the Scriptures, and a minister of the Church of England, that the office of deacon was evidently intended to take care of the property, not of the pastoral care, of the Church.