From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Fri Dec 01 1995 - 03:25:26 EST
dear Alison,
Office vs. function is a very tricky distinction between words. But I
wouldn't agree with the statement that only in Phil. 1.1 and I Tim. 3.8 does
Paul write about the title (="office"?) "deacon".
The Corinthian correspondence seems to involve some discussion of the titles
"apostle" (I Cor. 9.1; II Cor 11.12-13) and "deacon" (I Cor. 3.5; II Cor.
3.6-7; 6.3-4; 11.12-15, 23). In I Cor. 3.5, TI OUN ESTIN APOLLWS; "He is a
deacon through whom ye bellieved". The context could indicate a title of
respect. In II Cor 3.6-7, Paul talks about his crew, not the recipients,
"God authorized us to be deacons of a new covenant, not of the letter but of
the spirit." The context fits an official commission. Chapter 11 attacks
"false apostles" (v. 13) and false "deacons of righteousness" (v. 15). The
context seems to be that these are people falsely using the titles "apostle"
and "deacon". V. 23 asks the question:DIAKONOI XRISTOU EISIN; The preceding
verse indicates that this is honorary language comparable to "Hebrews",
"Israelites", and "seed of Abraham".
By the way, II Cor. 8.23, written in the context of a letter of
recommendation for Titus and "the brother", asks EITE ADELFOI hHMWN,
APOSTOLOI EKKLHSIWN, DOKSA XRISTOU, "about our brothers - they are apostles
of the churches, the glory of Christ". Here Paul shows both the importance
and arbitrariness of titles.
richard arthur, the ice is on the pond, Merrimack NH, lisatia@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT