Hagar2282 wrote:Wasn't Phoebe in Romans 16:1 a deaconess?
This is not only a bad English translation, but is an uncommon one too. Please compare a few other versions:
KJV Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
ASV Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae:
NIV Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.
NIB Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.
NAS Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;
NAU Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;
RSV Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae,
NRS Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae,
NKJ Romans 16:1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea,
YLT Romans 16:1 And I commend you to Phebe our sister -- being a ministrant of the assembly that {is} in Cenchrea --
Translations vary because the Greek word for "deacon" (
diakonos) is the same word for "servant". It can be translated either way. Actually, the word "deacon" is a transliteration of the Greek, copying the Greek straight into English, making a new word (
diakonos -> deacon).
The word does have a special significance as an office of the church (
Philippians 1:1 - notice that overseers and deacons are listed separately from saints; plus, it has qualifications beyond that of being a Christian -
I Timothy 3:8-13). However, it also has a more fundamental, primary, and general meaning of "servant". In fact, it is more often translated as "servant" or "minister", instead of "deacon" (24 of 27 - exceptions are
Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8, 12).
How do we know when the "special office of deacon" is intended instead of the "generic role of Christian servant or minister"? The same way we interpret any word that can have more than one meaning - in any language - look at the context!
Although I have looked dilligently, I cannot find anything in the context that suggests Phoebe held a special position beyond that of any Christian servant. Moreover, she clearly does not satisfy the qualifications for deacon, primarily "husband of one wife" and "ruling their children and houses well" (
I Timothy 3:8-12). Therefore, because the majority of translations suggest otherwise, and in the absence of necessary evidence that Phoebe held the
special office of "deacon", and because it would flatly contradict
I Timothy 3:8-12, I conclude that Phoebe was a servant of the church, opposed to our English "deacon".
Fundamentally, shenever a passage can be interpreted multiple ways, any interpreation that violates other clear Scriptures, must be dismissed. Otherwise, we challenge God's ability to clearly present truth, by accepting that two passages contradict each other (
John 17:17; Titus 1:2). Since
Romans 16:1 can be interpreted either way, why would anyone demand one interpretation, considering that such an interpretation would fly in the face of clear Scripture (
I Timothy 3:8)?
Hagar2282 wrote:Also let me get this straight. If my wife leaves me for selfish reasons but not adultress reasons, I am totally excluded from being an elder (this hasn't happened but I am just wondering)
If someone is married and but cannot have children, can he be an elder? Why or why not? What will be our standard? The inspired Bible or our own emotionally driven, subjective opinion?
If a man's wife leaves him, is he still the "husband of one wife"? Does he meet the qualifications?
Remember, the qualifications for being an elder or deacon are not an
absolute statement of righteousness. There are many righteous females, single men, fatherless husbands, and young Christian children, who are disqualified because of uncontrollable circumstances. This does not imply that they are without function in the Lord's body (
I Corinthians 12:14-25). It just means they cannot function as an elder or deacon (
I Timothy 3:1-3).
Whether it is accepting the inability to serve as an elder, preacher, deacon, or any other public role, we need to focus on what
we can do, not on what we cannot do (
II Corinthians 8:12). Such fixiations are ultimately selfish ("I only want to serve if it is how I want to do it.") and un
Christian (
John 13:3-17). We must let them go...