1 Tim. 3:11

From: David Moore (dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed May 01 1996 - 22:01:33 EDT

Gary T. Meadors wrote:

>Is there validity in the argument that GYNAIKAS in v. 11 should be
>as the category "women" deacons rather than "wives" of deacons since
>three accusatives (vv. 2, 8, 11) are in an object relationship to DEI
>v. 2??
>Although it seems awkward in interupt male deacons and return to them
>in v. 12, v. 12 at lease starts a new structure when it readdresses
>male deacons.

        Opinion is divided on whether the reference is to wives of
ministers and deacons or whether the GUNAIKES referred to are
deaconesses or ministers of some kind themselves. Against their being
wives, is the lack of the article with the noun. A genitive pronoun
could also have made such a relationship clear. On the other hand, one
might say that Paul could have used a more technical term if the women
referred to had some office. In answer to this objection, Kelly points
out that Paul's use of the word DIAKONOS (a masculine noun) to refer to
Phoebe in Rom. 16:1 is an indication that the feminine form of the word
was not in common usage in his time. (Kelly, of course maintains the
primitiveness of the Pastorals :-) )

        I quoted from the NIV in an earlier post, and it translates,
"their wives" (It places "deaconesses" in the margin.). But upon
consideration, it appears that "deaconesses" is better. The word
hWSAUTWS in v. 11 points in that direction, and it seems that the
article would really be expected with GUNAIKAS if they were being
referred to as wives of the aforementioned men.

        I apologize for not including the correct *subject* header on
this message, but I'm trying out a new mailer and I find that it has
been saving my messages without that part of the header.

David L. Moore

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:41 EDT