“Wives” or “Women”?

Last week I preached through Paul’s instructions concerning deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. When we came to v.11, I noted that this verse was a bit controversial in its interpretation. Not wanting to sidetrack our service with a detailed discussion, I gave my position on the verse and moved on with the rest of the message. Now I would like to share a little more about this verse and the positions which are held on it.

In the NKJV it says, “Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.” The majority of English versions translate it similarly, but a few key ones read more literally here. For instance, the NIV states, “In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” The primary point of disagreement is whether the Greek word should be translated “wives” or “women.” As is often the case in these matters, there are arguments on both sides. I will list these arguments in no particular order.

In Favor of “wives”

1. In v.8-10 Paul is clearly talking about the qualifications for deacons, and he returns to address them in v.12-13. To insert qualities for a separate office here would be awkward without some textual clue that the topic has changed.
2. Vv.11-12 develop the common theme of the deacon’s home life: his wife must be blameless, and he must be faithful and manage his children well.
3. Some have suggested that Paul inserts v.10 as a parenthesis. This would connect v.11 back to v.9 and assume that the verb “holding to” governs the conduct and character of the deacon’s wives as well.
4. If v.11 is introducing a new office, we should expect it to be more detailed and demanding. As it stands, it would be indicating that the qualifications for female deacons are considerably less than those of the men.
5. The same word for “women” is used in v.12 in the phrase “husbands of one wife,” where it clearly is referring to the deacon’s wives, so it should be translated the same in v.11.
6. Paul is not generally shy about coining new terms. If he wanted to introduce female deacons, he could have made up the feminine form of the word “deacon,” but he did not.
7. Paul specifically prohibits women from exercising authority over men (2:11-12), so it would be contradictory for him to suggest the church should elevate women to the deaconate, a position of some authority.
8. There are no unambiguous references to the office of deaconess in the NT or to anyone serving in that capacity.
9. There is no mention of the marital status and fidelity of these women like there is for both deacons and overseers, supporting the idea that these women were married to the deacons.

In Favor of “women”

1. The use of “likewise” in v.11 introduces a new category, just as it introduced the office of deacon in v.8.
2. V.8 and v.11 have nearly identical sentence structure, reinforcing the use of “likewise” to designate a separate office.
3. The qualifications listed here, though much more brief, are still very comparable to those of the deacons.
4. If the word refers to wives, it should have a qualifier like “their” wives. The absence of any such term is hard to explain. (Many English translations have inserted the word “their”, but there is no basis in the Greek for the inclusion of this word. It is based solely on their decision to use “wives” instead of “women”.)
5. The office of deaconess appears very early in church history, suggesting that this was not a late development.
6. There is no corresponding reference to the wives of overseers in the list of their qualifications. It seems quite odd that a deacon’s wife must meet certain criteria, but an overseer’s might not.
7. Romans 16:1 identifies Phoebe as a deacon (translated “servant” in almost all English versions, the NIV, NLT, and NRSV being major exceptions).
8. Since there was no feminine form of the word deacon yet, Paul used the more generic term for “women” in order to make it clear that he was not talking about the deacon’s wives.

Now, how do we handle a situation like this, where we have two options and both are supported by multiple lines of argument? Should we just count up the arguments in favor and go with the one that has the most? I don’t think so. Some arguments are likely stronger than others, so we cannot treat them as equals. I think there are at least a couple of principles to keep in mind.

First, there are some questions about the Bible which we simply cannot answer. We are never going to iron out all of our wrinkles, and the more we learn the more questions arise that need answering. So whatever position we take on the meaning of this verse, we ought to hold it with care, knowing that others may disagree with sincerity, and that they have good arguments on their side. Humility is a must. It may be that further study will shed more light on this verse and allow us to make a more definitive interpretation.

Second, we cannot allow our incomplete knowledge to give way to an attitude of despair as to the true meaning of Scripture. God’s word is not a mysterious puzzle whose interpretation has been lost in antiquity, as some would have us believe. These qualifications for women are clear and helpful for all women in the church, whether Paul intended them for deacons’ wives or for those women appointed to serve with and assist the deacons.

Finally, we cannot dismiss this verse as irrelevant and an excuse to do whatever we want. We must study diligently, examine all the evidence, draw a conclusion, and then seek to follow it in our practice. I think we will answer to God more for how we obey what we think it means than for whether we get this one word right.