You could read Romans 16:1 as saying that Phoebe was an office-bearer. It’s possible. But for a number of reasons, it is far from certain.

I imagine that I was not the only person bemused on Thursday afternoon at this year’s General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. I heard on the floor of the Assembly that the Greek construction of Romans 16:1 was proof that Phoebe, Paul’s friend and fellow worker from the church in Cenchreae, held the office of deacon. We were told that it was more than a possible interpretation, it was an exegetical fact that Phoebe held formal church office.

In exegesis, some interpretations are certain (e.g., in the beginning, God did create), some are probable, and some are merely possible. There will always be temptation to find the interpretation that we prefer and to misjudge its strength. Finding an interpretation is no problem. The trick is rightly weighing its validity and having the wherewithal to admit that a view you favor doesn’t have the exegetical strength to support it.

The debate over whether the office of deacon is open to women is perennial. Christians have held contrary opinions for centuries about whether Phoebe was a “servant” in general or an office-holding “Deacon.” It’s not surprising, or the central concern of this article, that the debate has found its way to the Reformed Church (again). Rather, this article questions the certainty with which Romans 16:1 is interpreted, especially the underlying Greek grammar.

The interpretive question is over Paul’s commendation of Phoebe:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, [being/ousan] a diakonos of the church at Cenchreae… (Rom 16.1).

The dissent filed against the General Assembly’s action repeats the same argument that was voiced on the floor. It argues:

We have a genitive construction paired with a named institution—Cenchreae—that almost universally points to an officially held office. And the late Dr. Strimple, in his 1988 OPC Minority Report, demonstrated that a copulative participle with a substantive noun was the normal Greek format for stating an office—and that this is precisely the construction Paul uses here, the same pattern found in references to the High Priest (John 11:49), the Proconsul (Acts 18:12), and the Judge (Acts 24:10).¹

The Greek argument is very technical, but is it valid? Is this certainty? Or probability? Or mere possibility without enough exegetical support to stand against stronger alternatives?

The dissent follows Robert Strimple’s 1988 OPC Minority Report “On Women in Church Office.” It argues that the genitive construction (“of the church at Cenchreae”) along with the copulative participle (“being”/ousan) make this a clear case of an official designation. Phoebe was not just a servant; she was a Deacon.

Before getting into the substance of the debate, it’s worth noting what a joy it is to labor in a denomination that is submissive to God’s Word. Disagreement over interpretation, in its own way, testifies to substantial health. It’s a good thing when Christians open their Bibles together to honestly and prayerfully ask, “What has God said?”

The “official designation” view is possible. You could read Rom 16:1 as saying that Phoebe was an office-bearer. It’s possible. But for a number of reasons, it is far from certain. In my judgment it doesn’t even rise to the level of probability, let alone certainty.

I’ll give four reasons why not.

(1) Diakonos is almost always general, not specific.

Read More