Mark

Thanks Marg,

But i’m still missing your point. Are you trying to say that Pheobe fulfilled the same function as Paul, Timothy and even Jesus?

I could hardly think so. Jesus became a ‘servant’ to the circumcised. Timothy and Paul were both servants of Christ. It is unjustified to think that the office of ‘deacon’ is the same as simply being called a servant. But that is what i am understanding you saying. Is this correct?

Now in regards to Pheobe i can grant that she was a servant of the church (like most of the other NT uses of the word). I can even possibly grant that she was a deacon (based on 1 Tim 3:11 where it may refer to women deacons) but i cannot grant that all NT uses of diakonos in each of the context mean the same thing. The contextual evidence does not lead this way. In some circumstances, deacon is acceptable, in others it is not and servant is much more contextually appropriate. Pheobe could go either way without much disruption to my theology.

As i understand the NT, the office of ‘deacon’ were never responsible for the overseeing/shepharding of the church (as were the elders). The Book of Acts confirms this. Thus the elders are the responsible ones for the public teaching of the scriptures from which women are restricted.

I am interested in how you understand the office of deacon? In what way does it differ to elders? This may be where the confusion lies.

Considering the various translatable options, each context shows us which way to translate re: servant or deacon. You seem to be confusing or combining the two.