Deacons who are Men and Women
Making Sense of 1st Timothy 3:11-12
Healthy Food for a healthy Household of God: a series of articles and podcasts complementing the sermon series, on the why and how of Reforming.
Painting by by Albert Bierstadt
Anyone preparing to lead a small group Bible study or teach on the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3 runs into tricky ground at verse 11. Paul has just finished listing what deacons must be like (3:8-10), and is about to add a further requirement in verse 12, 'Let deacons each be the husband of one wife', but sandwiched between the two he writes a sentence about 'gynaikas' (γυναῖκας), the ordinary Greek word for women. And this is where it can get tricky for us in our discovery Bible studies to understand if men and women can serve as Deacons.
Yet not only does this get tricky at Bible study, but this subject has been debated with and across denominations (even different Presbyterian denominations have landed in different places).
My aim here is to particularly provide some help for our Reforming Group Leaders and Reforming Members in seeing what the Bible says, and what the Presbyterian Church in a couple of places, have said. I aim to show why our denomination (the Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Presbyterian Church of Victoria) have rightly come to the conclusion that the ministry of Deacons is filled by those who are men and women.
Exegesis of 1st Timothy 3:11-12
As we come to these two verses, the first thing we notice (particularly for us ESV users) is that the word translated in verse 11 as 'wives' in the ESV has a footnote that says effectively… "mmmm, maybe not".
In the ESV there is that footnote which highlights that verse 11 could well be translated as, 'Women, likewise, must be dignified…'
The trickiness is that there is this New Testament Greek word 'gynaikas' (γυναῖκας), and it can really mean wives or women, depending on context.
What that has meant is that there are a bunch of faithful English translations that are split on it. The ESV renders it 'their wives'; whereas the NASB, LSB and the NIV renders it simply 'the women.' Those are two quite different sentences, and they point to two quite different pictures of who is being addressed.
So which is it? Is it deacons' wives, or a distinct group of women who themselves function in the diaconate?
The case for reading verse 11 as women in the office, not deacons' wives
There are many (and far better) scholarly papers that dig into these arguments I could point you to, yet here are a few features of the text that argue against the 'wives' reading.
Paul uses the that Greek word 'gynaikas' (γυναῖκας) nine times in 1 Timothy, and in eight of those instances it's best translated 'women' rather than 'wives.'
The first five uses (1st Timothy 2:9-12, 14) aren't controversial, as everyone agrees those mean 'women.' The debate is over 3:2 and 3:12, where the phrase "one-woman kinda man" (we saw in the sermon from Sunday) is traditionally rendered 'husband of one wife.'
But that translation isn't required by the Greek, it's more literally "one-woman kinda man". Reading it as 'woman' rather than 'wife' actually makes more sense, since it would let single men and widowers qualify as deacons too. The real point of the phrase is that the man is known for faithfulness toward women generally, not just his own wife.
This matters for 3:11 specifically because its grammatical structure, 'likewise... women...' does closely echo 2:9, which everyone agrees means 'women.' So the parallel construction is one piece of evidence that 3:11 should also be read as 'women' (that is, women deacons/servants), not 'wives' (or deacons' wives), though on its own it's not decisive. Paul also uses 'likewise' at 2:9 simply to pivot from men's conduct to women's conduct within the same topic, not to introduce a new office. So the word itself can carry either weight; it's the combination of signals below — the missing possessive, the silence about elders' wives, the shared vocabulary with verses 2 and 8 that all does the real work of tipping the reading toward 'women deacons' rather than the word 'likewise' by itself.
It's important to see is that there is no possessive in the Greek. Paul does not write 'their wives'. The word for 'their' is not there(!). That word is supplied by translators to make sense of the flow. Left untranslated, the sentence is simply 'women likewise.'
Also, the word 'likewise' is pivotal in making connection to the broader text of 1st Timothy 3. Paul uses the same term in 1st Timothy 3:8 to pivot from elders to deacons. Which is important, for if he is using it again in 1st Timothy 3:11 to pivot to a further group then the more natural reading is that he is introducing another category of person alongside male elders and male deacons (that of female deacons), and not switching subjects mid-list to talk about marriage.
Then there is also an argument from absence.
For if Paul thought a deacon's wife needed her own moral qualifications in order for her husband to be considered fit for office, we would expect the same logic applied to elders. But that is what we do not see.
That elders make pastoral home visits too, and would presumably need the same kind of trustworthy companion. But no such requirement appears for elders' wives and their character appear anywhere in the letter. This makes total sense if verse 11 isn't about wives at all.
Then sentence structure itself points this direction. Both verse 8 and verse 11 use the exact same construction, 'likewise; followed by 'dignified' followed by three qualifications. Paul isn't varying his language between the two verses, he's mirroring it. That kind of deliberate repetition signals the women belong with the deacons, not in some separate category of their own.
Now, some will want to push back here, saying, "hang on a minute…if Paul really meant a further office alongside the deacons, why didn't he just say so?" The argument is that since he's already used the word 'deacons' two verses earlier (v. 8), why not write 'the deacons' or 'women deacons', and put the question beyond doubt?
It's a fair question, but it cuts both ways. Paul is mid-list, using 'likewise' as his connecting word for elders (v. 2), all deacons (v. 8), and now this third group he specifically addresses within the diaconate of female deacons (v. 11). If he'd switched to a fresh technical label at exactly that point, it would have broken the very structure that's doing the work of including them. 'Likewise... women...' is Paul continuing the pattern he's already set up, not introducing a new one. And there's a simpler answer for this too, in that the feminine form of 'deacon' (diakonissa) hadn't been coined yet in Paul's day. He doesn't have the tidy technical word we'd reach for. What he has is 'gynaikas', and he uses it the way he's just used it five times already in this letter, to mean 'women.'
What we see is that connecting word, 'likewise', doing this same connecting work three times over—for elders in v. 2, all deacons in v. 8, and women deacons in v. 11. All three are being set in parallel, which means the real dividing line in the passage isn't between deacons and women, it's between elders and deacons as the two offices, with the women standing on the deacons' side of that line.
There are some who object that this reading creates a strange back-and-forth for deacons, then women, then deacons again. But the awkwardness disappears once you see the shape Paul is working with. He frames the whole section with general deacon qualifications (vv. 8–10 at the start, v. 13 at the close), and tucks in between them two short, targeted sections, one on what's required of the women (v. 11), one on what's required of the men (v. 12). Laid out in order of elders (vv. 1–7), deacons broadly (vv. 8–10), women specifically (v. 11), men specifically (v. 12), a closing summary (v. 13).
There's also a vocabulary link worth noting here in that the qualities listed for the women aren't random. We see 'sober-minded' echoes what's required of elders in verse 2, and 'dignified' echoes what's required of deacons in v. 8. Reusing that specific language makes far more sense if these women are being evaluated for an office, not just praised for good character.
Doesn't 3:12, 'husband of one wife' assume Deacons are men?
This is where people often think the question is settled the other way, from the next verse…
1 Timothy 3:12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.
If a deacon must be 'the husband of one wife,' doesn't that assume deacons are male?
It's worth noticing what the requirement actually does. It's a qualification about marital faithfulness — one wife, not several, not a pattern of unfaithfulness — addressed to the men Paul clearly has in view through most of the passage. Now that's different from saying the office itself is restricted to men.
The same phrase is used of elders in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, and there it's reasonable to conclude that eldership is restricted to men, because that requirement can't sensibly be inverted ('wife of one husband') for a female elder (a teaching office) is not permitted a few verses earlier from 1st Timothy 2:12. But the deacon requirement doesn't carry that same all-or-nothing logic once you allow, as verse 11 suggests, that women are also part of the diaconate under discussion.
Paul is most naturally read as picturing male deacons as he writes qualifications for them, while also directly addressing a further group of women serving in the same capacity — which is exactly why he needs the word "likewise" to introduce them at all.
To be clear about the shape of this argument: this isn't 3:12 independently proving women serve as deacons. It's the reverse — 3:11 makes the case first, on its own grounds, and 3:12 is then read as compatible with that conclusion rather than overturning it. If you don't find the case for 3:11 persuasive on its own terms, 3:12's masculine language will look like the more natural default reading, and that's a fair place for two careful readers to end up disagreeing. Put simply: 3:12 describes what's expected of the male deacons in view; on the reading argued above it doesn't function as a blanket exclusion of women from the office, especially once 3:11 has already put women in the frame two verses earlier.
Now of course none of this proves the case beyond doubt. If Paul's flow between elders, deacons, and this group of women is compressed and doesn't spell out exactly what relationship they have to the office. But the weight of the grammatical and structural evidence tips toward verse 11 describing women who themselves serve in a diaconal role, not an aside about the domestic qualifications of deacons' spouses. And added to all this, there is more exegetical weight behind the purpose of having women serve as Deacons elsewhere in the New Testament.
Acts 6 and the Seven Deacons
It's worth pausing on Acts 6 itself, since that's often where people plant their flag.
There we see in church history that the Jerusalem church put forward seven men (Acts 6:3), and some argue that this sets the pattern the office should follow ever after. It's a real argument, and I don't want to dismiss it. But notice what kind of argument it is — it's an argument from a single historical instance, not from a stated qualification. It's worth adding, too, that Acts 6 never actually calls the seven 'diakonoi' (deacons) — the text uses 'diakonia' to describe the task of distribution, not a title for the men doing it. Many scholars are genuinely unsure whether Acts 6 is describing the later technical office of deacon at all, or simply an ad hoc arrangement for a specific problem. That makes it an even thinner foundation to build a permanent, gender-restricted rule on than the "seven men" detail alone suggests.
We've heard this before in our Book of Acts series a few years ago that the Book of Acts has in it descriptive and prescriptive elements, and that the way to work out what is which is through the contextual circumstances and speeches.
And what we notice in Acts 6 is that nowhere are we told that the seven had to be men because deacons must be men. Descriptively we are told that the church chose seven men who happened to fit the moment. Compare that to 1 Timothy 3, where Paul is doing the opposite by laying down qualifications for who may hold the office. When a description (Acts 6) and a prescription (1 Timothy 3) seem to sit in tension, it's the prescription that should govern our reading, not the description. Acts 6 tells us what happened once, whereas 1 Timothy 3 tells us what's required.
Phoebe strengthens the picture
In other areas of the New Testament, Romans 16:1 is the natural companion text to what we're studying in 1st Timothy 3:8-13. Here Romans 16:1 speaks of a female Deacon.
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, Romans 16:2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.
The Greek word behind 'servant' is diakonos (διάκονος), the very word rendered 'deacon' everywhere else Paul uses it of an office-holder.
Notice that Paul doesn't call her a servant of Christ in general, the way he does elsewhere, rather he ties her title specifically to a particular church — which reads more like an office than a description of her style of ministry.
It's also worth noticing exactly how Paul ties her title down. Everywhere else he uses 'diakonos' (servant/deacon) of a person, it floats free of any one congregation. For example Paul is a 'diakonos' (servant/deacon) of the gospel' (Ephesians 3:7), Epaphras 'diakonos' (servant) of Christ' (Colossians 1:7), Tychicus 'diakonos' (servant/deacon) 'in the Lord' (Ephesians 6:21). Whereas when writing about Phoebe, Paul anchors the word to a specific church: 'diakonos' (servant/deacon) of the church at Cenchreae.'
Now, that's a strange thing to do if he only means 'she's a servant-hearted woman', as servant-heartedness isn't the sort of thing you localise to one congregation. Tying the title to a single church is exactly what you'd expect if he means she holds a recognised position there. He also doesn't just say she is a ‘diakonos’, but that she exists as one. This is language that leans toward role rather than a passing description of her helpfulness.
So what we see with this description of her as a benefactor is of a person in a role who has supported many people, including Paul himself. The natural reading is that Phoebe held a recognised position of service in her congregation.
Here is what we see, that the same word used for the office of Deacon elsewhere is used of Phoebe here, which gives real biblical weight to the idea that women could and did hold that office in the earliest churches.
This isn't a question that can be settled by grammar alone; it also turns on what kind of office a deacon actually is. Scripture and church history are consistent that the diaconate is not an office of teaching or governance. Elders are given oversight of the church (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:7) and are required to have the gift of teaching (1 Timothy 3:2). Whereas deacons are given neither responsibility.
Elders will give an account before God for how they led the church (Hebrews 13:17) and nothing comparable is said of deacons.
The historic Presbyterian standard, the Westminster Assembly's Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1645), puts it plainly: ‘the scripture holds out deacons as distinct officers in the church, whose office is perpetual, and to whose office it belongs not to preach the word or administer the sacraments, but to take special care in distributing to the necessities of the poor.’
Deacons come under the spiritual authority of the elders; the two offices are not parallel tracks with the same kind of authority, but different kinds of service.
There's a related objection worth sitting with, because it's the more serious one. Even granting that deacons don't teach or govern, doesn't real influence still come with the job? Someone entrusted with distributing to the needs of the poor, visiting the sick, and managing the church's mercy ministry is going to carry weight in a congregation whether or not we call it 'authority.' If 1 Timothy 2:12 is read broadly enough to catch any kind of influence a woman might exercise over men, then opening the diaconate to women looks like it's smuggling back in exactly what Paul just forbade.
But that's not what 2:12 says, as when we saw this in our sermon series wherePaul's prohibition is specific: the teaching and exercising authority in the gathered assembly. It’s the kind of authority an elder holds when he governs the church and will give an account for souls (Hebrews 13:17). Influence isn't the same thing as that office.
A deacon organising meal rosters or managing benevolence funds is exercising the kind of practical, delegated responsibility that plenty of people, men and women, exercise in a congregation without it amounting to eldership. If 'carries some influence' were the test, we'd have to strip authority from Sunday school teachers, women's ministry leaders, and committee conveners too. The line Scripture draws isn't between 'has any influence' and 'has none' - it's between the governing, teaching office and everything else.
That distinction is what allows the two positions, a male-only eldership and a mixed-gender diaconate, to serve together in the church without contradiction. The constraint in 1 Timothy 2:12 concerns teaching and exercising authority over the gathered church; it was never a constraint on organising the church's mercy ministry, or the Board of Management providing a budget line for Deacons to manage funds set aside for the needy, or visiting the sick and vulnerable on the congregation's behalf. Deacons do carry real authority, executive authority to act on the tasks entrusted to them, but not the governing authority that belongs to the eldership and the wider courts of the church.
Why the difference between American and Australian Presbyterianism
If the exegetical case has this much going for it, why do the American PCA and OPC restrict the diaconate to men, while Australian Presbyterian churches, including the PCV, do not?
The honest answer is that this isn't purely a difference in Greek exegesis, it's a difference in history and church polity.
The Presbyterian Church in America (1973) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of America (1936) are both twentieth-century denominations that formed substantially in reaction against liberalising trends in mainline American Presbyterianism. Most recently at this year's American PCA General Assembly, an overture to allow local sessions to ordain women deacons (Overture 37) was voted down heavily (I watched some of this on livestream in my free time). Despite this Overture drawing some support that cited complementarian scholarship, the example of Phoebe, and historical Reformed precedent, and despite several other conservative Reformed denominations already permitting it - it’s not for the American PCA at this time.
Australian Presbyterianism carries a different history of the ministry of deacons (you can read more about this here). The PCV's 1894 General Assembly formally recognised ‘the expediency of setting apart suitably qualified women for special service in the Church,’ drawing on precedent from the churches of Scotland, England and Germany. It's worth being precise about what that decision actually rested on. It was on (in the Assembly's own language) grounded in expediency and precedent rather than a formal exegetical ruling on Romans 16:1 or 1 Timothy 3:11 - though some members at the time clearly did regard the role as a biblically sanctioned office being restored, not merely a pragmatic innovation. So it's fairer to say the 1894 decision is consistent with, and was later reinforced by, the kind of reading argued above, than to say it was itself an act of settled exegesis on these two texts. What is true is that this recognition predates second-wave feminism and the culture-war framing that shaped the later American debates, and so was never adopted as a concession to contemporary pressure.
So the divergence between the denominations isn't best explained by one side reading the Greek correctly and the other side getting it wrong. It's each denomination weighing a genuinely contested text differently, and doing so under very different historical contexts, one shaped by a response to liberalism in living memory and the other by a much older and less contested historical precedent already present in Presbyterianism.
Deacons who are Men and Women
1 Timothy 3:11 is not a text that settles easily on internal grammar alone. It is true that the word for 'women' can really can mean either 'women' or 'wives,' and Paul doesn't spell out which in ways we wish he did. But the structural signals (the lack of a possessive, the silence about elders' wives, the shared vocabulary with verses 2 and 8), together with the lexical overlap between Phoebe's title in Romans 16:1 and the office of deacon, tip the balance toward women in this passage being described as fellow deacons and not merely as deacons' spouses. This is a considered reading of a genuinely disputed text, not the only reasonable one as careful and conservative interpreters land on both sides of it - and it's worth holding it with that same honesty and humility in front of our group leaders.
If you read alongside 1st Timothy 3:12, then this conclusion holds together once we're clear about what kind of office a deacon is. A Deacon is not a teaching or governing role, but a spiritual office of practical service under the authority of the Session of Elders. That is also, not coincidentally, the historic Presbyterian position going back to the Westminster Assembly's own definition of the office (as we saw earlier).
This leaves us where we are in the PCA (Australia) and in our beloved PCV. The office of deacon is open to suitably qualified men and women, and the Presbyterian Church of Victoria's long standing recognition of women deacons is consistent with solid exegetical ground, and not merely a historical accident.
For further reading
Reformed and Presbyterian scholars and writers such as John Calvin, B. B. Warfield, John Frame, and Edmund Clowney, are commonly often referenced in this debate as having argued for women serving as deacons. Although, Calvin had some pretty unique and contextual circumstances around his concept of women serving in this way that this has led to debates about what his writings and practice.
Contemporary complementarian scholars and writers sometimes cited as reading 1 Timothy 3:11 and Romans 16:1 as compatible with women deacons include John Piper, Mark Dever, Andreas Kostenberger, Tom Schreiner and Matt Smethurst.
Pliny the Younger's Letter to Trajan (circa 111 AD) is often cited as early external evidence of women serving in a diaconal capacity in the early church.
