Mark

Marg,

You may have misunderstood me. I am not saying Pheobe was a ‘servant’ in the sense of master/servant, simply that ‘diakonos’ means ‘servant’ literally. Therefore is does not necessarily mean Pheobe was a ‘deacon’ in the official sense. She could have been simply a ‘servant’ in the same sense Paul uses it of himself, Timothy and others, as in the ‘service of God’. That is different to a deacon’s position aswell as the ‘real’ servant. Take for example Luke 10:40

Martha is there ‘serving’ in the kitchen. This is the same root word. But it does not mean Martha is a deacon or a leader of a church. Nor does it mean she was a ‘real’ servant with a master. She is simply a ‘servant’! This is equally possible for Pheobe. She was simply a servant of the Church, she served the Church.

As for your claim she was a leader, well i’m sure your aware that that word is again heavily disputed. Do you think Paul really intended to say she was a leader (patron) over him? Did she really have authority over Paul, the apostolic founder and missionary of the gentile Churches. Or is more likely that she has ‘helped’ him and therefore the Romans should ‘help’ her? Note also Paul immediately talks about Priscilla and Aquilla who were ‘fellow- workers’. It seems much more natural to me to say Pheobe was a servant of the church who had helped Paul in his ministry, similar to Priscilla and Aquilla in the following verse. But i realise we cannot be certain about that. We can not know simply exegetically.

I have been quite up front that i don’t know what is the best way to interpret this verse: it could go either way without much difference. So i have to protest that my bias is interferring here. I would have thought the opposite may be true considering you are the one so certain she was a deacon/leader without acknowledging that there are other exegetical possibilities which appear to be more likely given the rest of NT teaching.

Thanks Marg for the chat!