Deacon. One of only two offices in the New Testament local church, the other being elder or overseer.  The word deacon comes over into the English text untranslated from the Greek diakonos.  A diakonos was a household servant, who was above a slave (doulos).  Hence, a deacon was a servant in the church operating in an official capacity.  It is important to distinguish between an official servant and a generic servant in the New Testament.  Jesus, in effect, ordered us all to be servants (Mark 9:35), but not all who serve are church leaders.  Acts 6:1-6 seems to be the origin of the office of deacon.  The Greek widows complained that they were being discriminated against because of their ethnicity.  The apostles had a clear mandate from the instructions and example of Jesus.  Their job was not to serve tables, but to serve the Word.  They asked the brothers to look for seven men who were above reproach and filled with the Holy Spirit.  Presumably the Apostles reserved veto rights.  The congregation complied, and seven Greek believers were chosen to assist in serving tables.  The Apostles appointed these deacons to their ministry. The qualifications for deacons are given in 1 Tim. 3:8-13.  The women mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:11 are most likely deacon candidates' wives.  This is true for two reasons:  (1) Deacons must be the husbands of one wife, an impossible task for a female deacon.  (2) If ever there were a time to appoint a female as a church officer, it would have been at the inception of the office in Acts 6:1-6.  It was a female problem, and yet males were appointed to be officers in charge of a ministry.  If one asks why the deacons’ wives are mentioned but not the elders’ wives, a possible answer is that, while deacons’ wives might be expected to assist them in a serving role, elders’ wives would not be expected to assist them in teaching and leading the flock.  It is accurate to conclude that Paul spoke of "our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (diakonon, accusative case of diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1) in an unofficial, rather than an official capacity. Phoebe obviously had a servant's heart in the fellowship at Cenchrea, and is believed to be Paul's letter-bearer to the Romans. The description of a deacon’s role in the New Testament is necessarily very broad.  Deacons are called upon to assist elders in supervising ministries in areas that would otherwise pull elders away from their prescribed task of shepherding the flock by guiding, guarding, and feeding them.  A church can function without deacons; it cannot function without elders.  Philippians is the only letter addressed to both elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1).

Return to Top

Dead Sea Scrolls. A collection of leather and papyrus scrolls found in caves along the western shore of the Dead Sea. They contain carefully preserved Biblical texts and fragments from every book of the Hebrew Bible except the book of Esther. These scrolls also contain copies of Hebrew commentaries on certain books such as Pesher Habakkuk and Pesher Psalms. (Pesher means commentary.) The rest of the documents reflect the theological/political views and struggles of a conservative religious sect that inhabited Khirbet Qumran between approximately 150 B.C. to A.D. 68. The scrolls were discovered in 1947 when an Arab shepherd boy threw a rock up into a cave near Qumran. He heard a “chink” and crawled up to see what he had struck. A great many of the scrolls had been preserved in urns. The boy’s rock had struck an urn. Early discoverers had no idea of the enormity of their find. Some of the first manuscripts were used as wrapping paper! Between 1947 and 1956 other scrolls were discovered in eleven caves near Qumran at the northwest corner of the Dead Sea. But the term “Dead Sea Scrolls” also applies to other scrolls discovered in the general area. Some, for example, were discovered at the Jewish fortress of Masada at the southwest edge of the Dead Sea. The value of the scrolls lies in their demonstrating the accuracy with which the Masoretes copied the Hebrew Scriptures in the seventh to tenth centuries A.D. Most scrolls contain few significant differences between the accepted Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible of today. See Qumran.

Return to Top

Devil.  See Satan.

Destruction of the Heavens and Earth.  The final dissolution of the present physical universe paving the way for God’s creation of New Heavens and Earth.  The existing universe was ruined by Adam’s sin and the ensuing curse.  Decay and entropy set in.  The existing universe began slowly to die.  It is not a fit habitation for resurrected humans.  God had no other choice than to destroy the existing universe by fire, purging the effects of sin.  A new universe without decay and with a new earth graced by New Jerusalem as its capital city is the home of redeemed and resurrected man throughout eternity!

Return to Top

Dispensation. A method of God’s dealing with man in a particular time frame.  God has issued a decree of all that shall come to pass without making Himself in any sense responsible for evil.  God does not work the same way with particular groups of people in different eras.  He has different methods of administering His Kingdom here upon earth (Eph. 1:10).  A dispensation is a particular way God deals with a particular group of people at a particular point in history. See Dispensationalism.

Return to Top

Dispensationalism, Dispensational Theology.  Dispensationalism is the system of theology that recognizes that God works with different peoples in different ways at different times.  Dispensationalism is characterized by a grammatical, historical, literal interpretation of Scripture, while recognizing the existence of figures of speech and symbolism.  Dispensationalists make a point to understand Scripture as it was understood in the day in which it was written by the people to whom it was written.  Though New Testament interpretations of Old Testament Scripture may provide additional light and revelation on Old Testament passages, they do not displace or abrogate the Old Testament meaning. Dispensationalism thus distinguishes God’s program for Israel and His program for the Church.  For example: while the New Covenant God made with Israel (Jer. 31:31-37) is applied to the Church (1 Cor. 11:23-25; Heb. 8:6-13; 9:11-15), that New Testament application does not invalidate or supersede God's plan to restore Israel under the terms of the New Covenant, described repeatedly in the Old Testament as an everlasting covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8; Jer. 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; 37:26). While God put Israel on the shelf as a nation, that displacement from His sphere of blessing is only temporary, as Paul made abundantly clear in Romans 9-11.  True blessing on this earth and throughout eternity will only take place when God’s people, descendants of Abraham, Isaac, through Jacob (Israel), have been reconciled to Him through Jesus their Messiah.

Return to Top

Dynamic Equivalence. The theory of Bible translation championed by Eugene Nida which "emphasizes the reaction of the reader to the translated text, rather than the translation of the words and phrases themselves. In simplest terms, dynamic equivalence is often referred to as 'thought for thought' translation as compared to 'essentially literal' translation ..."^DE1 A "dynamic equivalent" is "a meaning in the receptor language that corresponds to (is 'equivalent' to) a meaning in a native-language text (for example, the 'heart' as the modern way of denoting the essence of a person, especially the emotions, which for the ancients was situated in the kidneys)."^DE2 Dynamic equivalence, then, is "a theory of translation based on the premise that whenever something in the native-language text is foreign or unclear to a contemporary reader, the original text should be translated in terms of a dynamic equivalent."^DE3 The opposite of a dynamic equivalence translation is an essentially literal translation: "a translation that strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text in a translation, but not in such a rigid way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax in the receptor language."^DE4 Formal equivalence, or "word-for-word" translation is another way of identifying an essentially literal translation philosophy. A formal equivalence theory is more concerned about fidelity to the original language and culture of the Biblical text than it is about appealing to the sensibilities and culture of the target language. In general terms, a dynamic equivalence theory of translation is more concerned about appealing to the sensibilities and culture of the target language than it is about preserving fidelity to the original language and culture. 

C. John Collins has identified four ways in which dynamic equivalence is "opposed to accuracy: (1) such translations make interpretive decisions for the reader, and run the risk of deciding wrongly; (2) such a philosophy requires the translator to resolve ambiguities for the reader; (3) this philosophy urges the translator to interpret images and figures for the reader; and (4) this philosophy generally leads to the loss of important repetitions."^DE5 To Collins' list I would add a fifth way that dynamic equivalence opposes accuracy. (5) Since this philosophy is more devoted to the reaction of the reader to the translated text than it is to fidelity to the original, the subjective target audience becomes the ultimate arbiter for translation rather than the original text. In practical terms, this philosophy permits the translators to edit the translation so that it is not objectionable to the readers. To be even more specific, if the presumed audience has been brain-washed by a particular political dogma, such as feminism, many of the masculine terms in Scripture will be deemed offensive to the sensibilities of modern society seduced by that feminism. This is precisely my objection to such translations as the New Revised Standard Version, The Message, the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version, the New Century Version, and just recently, the NIV 2011. (I am not saying that all these translations are on the same par when it comes to dynamic equivalence. But all have been influenced by political correctness and by the mantra of that which they prefer to call "gender inclusiveness" and which I prefer to call "masking of masculinity.") Surely God wants His Word to stand in judgment upon culture rather than for culture to stand in judgment on God's Word.

For a critique of dynamic equivalence online, read "Against the Theory of 'Dynamic Equivalence'" by Michael Marlowe, revised, August, 2010.

Return to Top

Search WordExplain.com here.