This report primarily interacts with the New Testament exegetical report made by the women’s study committee, giving special attention to Romans 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-12. My report does not set out to prove the committee’s findings as erroneous, but rather to show that their conclusions are, at best, tenuous.

Introduction:

The study committee on women in ministry was tasked to evaluate how women are to use their gifts to serve the church. Given the rich nature of the topic, the committee, with much grace and diligence, was able to work through many of the major issues. While the committee did not agree on everything, we tirelessly worked to come to a consensus. However, there is one area where I was not able to come to an agreement with the rest of the committee – the office of Phoebe in Romans 16:1 and the likely translation of γυναῖκας as wives in 1 Timothy 3:11. The committee has thus graciously allowed me to write this statement to voice my concern on this particular issue.

This report primarily interacts with the New Testament exegetical report made by the women’s study committee, giving special attention to Romans 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-12. My report does not set out to prove the committee’s findings as erroneous, but rather to show that their conclusions are, at best, tenuous.

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has always given tremendous respect and trust to the local sessions on issues that are not materially supported by biblical warrant. As a result, the PCA has grown into the diverse and harmonious denomination. I believe that women in the diaconate is one such issue, and the denomination should entrust the local session to address it as it sees fit according to scripture. A close study of this issue leads to the conclusion that there is a dearth of evidence to affirmatively support the inclusion or exclusion of women in the diaconate; therefore, I believe this is an issue that should be left to the wisdom of the local session. I hope this statement will aid our denomination in coming closer to this view.

Exegetical Study of Romans 16:1

The committee’s report does not directly address the text of Romans 16:1, but addresses it indirectly in its analysis of 1 Timothy 3:8-12. According to the committee’s report, Romans 16:1 is not an essential piece of the discussion on the role and participation of women in the diaconate because there is no way to definitively show that Phoebe held an office from the text.

The report states, “In Romans 16:1 Phoebe may be a deaconess, but we cannot be sure she had an office, since Romans 16 does not focus on church order, and since the word diakonos is generally nontechnical in the New Testament as we have seen.” While Romans 16:1 is not focused on church order, if it is shown Paul did write διάκονος in a technical sense (meaning διάκονος is referencing an official office), then the text of Romans 16:1 becomes a very important piece of data in establishing any book of church order.

The committee’s report states that διάκονος should be read in a general, non-technical sense and comes to this conclusion using Dr. Bob Yarbrough’s chart, which tracks Paul’s use of the word διάκονος. Overwhelmingly, when Paul uses the word διάκονος, it refers to someone who performs a service or ministry, and rarely does it mean someone appointed to a church office. However, if we consider other lexical and syntactical factors surrounding Paul’s use of the word διάκονος in the specific instance of Romans 16:1, the likelihood that Paul is doing so in a technical sense becomes much greater.

One lexical inquiry shows that διάκονος in Romans 16:1 cannot, on its face, take on a general, non-technical sense. According to Dr. Jimmy Agan, in determining the lexical nature of the word διάκονος, the context surrounding the use of the word must be taken into consideration to determine its lexical usage.1 He provides four possibilities of what διάκονος can mean depending on the context of its usage during the Greco-Roman period. διάκονος can be used to refer to (i) a table attendant, (ii) a domestic attendant, (iii) a communicant or deliverer, or (iv) an agent or instrument. He eliminates the first two references as possibilities for the intended meaning behind διάκονος in Romans 16:1 because for the word to take on the table or domestic attendant meaning, there needs to be a key semantic component – namely, the association with food or drink, and these components are missing in the text.

While Agan does not believe that διάκονος refers to the office of deacon (he believes the term refers to a position of communication or a deliverer of some sort), he still views the word as a technical, even official term, as he writes on Romans 16:1:

While the text does not explicitly indicate the reason for her journey, it is possible that while in Rome, whether or not it is other business that takes her there, she represents the church(es) at Cenchrea/Corinth by urging the Roman church to support Paul’s mission to Spain (Rom. 15:17-24, 28). In this case, she would be speaking not simply her private opinion, nor expressing her viewpoint as an individual supporter of Paul (the emphasis 16:2), but communicating as a representative of her church as a whole.3

Agan hesitates to call Phoebe a deacon in the ecclesiastical sense, but he essentially acknowledges that Phoebe held some kind of official post that was recognized by the community.

The lack of any reference to food or drink is big for Agan, and it should be big for others. And itis not only the lack of contextual indicators that influence Agan, it is also the present contextual indicators that influence his translation. The genitive phrase that occurs after διάκονος “of the Church at Cenchreae” conveys that a community designated Phoebe to represent them in some manner. Agan is not alone in seeing that phrase as an essential element in understanding the usage of διάκονος.

Read More