Traditionally, 1 Timothy 3:11 has been interpreted as qualifications for the wives of deacons.  This is very curious in light of the lack of qualifications for elder’s wives.  A preferable interpretation recognizes the natural divisions of the section on deacons, noting that in the first century at least some women were serving in specific tasks for local congregations (see Romans 16:1).  C. R. Nichol (God’s Woman, published 1938) was a vocal proponent of this position; I believe he was correct.

It is quite disingenuous to argue another meaning for “deaconess” in Romans 16:1, when that is what the text clearly says. Even though I generally prefer the the NASB, in this case “servant” would better translate the meaning if it recognized the gender which is inherent in the original. Since we do not have a word "servantess," then "deaconess" is preferred. But then, that is what I must prove, isn't it? The thinking of some is defective when it ignores or qualifies the word describing the faithful work of Phoebe as explicitly stated in Romans 16:1.

The Deacons and Their Qualifications

1 Timothy 3:8-13 is the only place in scripture where the qualification of deacons are specified. Someone argues, "The passage specifies deacons in the masculine form and then describes them as men."  This is both true and false. Even worse, it exhibits poor respect for what Romans 16:1 says about Phoebe and her work. Another will object, "But, you always quote Romans 16:1. That is only one passage. How can just one passage prove the point?"  Again, this shows poor respect for the Word of God. How many times must God saw what is His will before we accept it? Furthermore, if "just" Romans 16:1 is objected to because it is only one passage, then why is not 1 Timothy 3:8-13 objected to because it is only one passage? It is both poor exegesis and even worse theology that is so inconsistent.

So, what does the scripture say?

8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.

11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

Let's examine this passage: Verse 9 says "Deacons likewise must be men..." and "These men..." But, does the use of the masculine noun preclude inclusion of women under that word? If so, then every passage where people are called to obedience to the gospel excludes women from that requirement. This is an insurmountable problem for those who would object to Phoebe actually being what Romans 16:1 says she was or women of the character and qualifications in this modern day being what Phoebe is said to be.

The reality is, verses 9-10 state qualifications for servants of the local church generally, and the verses even end with the testing and appointment. But, that is not all Paul--and God--has to say about the matter.  Because women may be particularly suited for certain tasks, those who will be tested and appointed to service are given narrowed qualifications.

We hear an objection: "But, the passages says, 'Their wives'!" Actually, it says no such thing and those who make that argument merely indicate their ignorance of the scriptures. What these objectors should say is, "But, the King James Version says, 'Their wives'!" There is a HUGE difference between what God said (and other translators and translations clarify) and what the King James Version translators say. The word which the KJV translators rendered by the phrase, "their wives" is from Gr. gune, a woman (compare our word, gynecology, the medical field that concerns the health of woman). In fact, its meaning must be determined from the context. In Ephesians 5:22ff, the word means "wife" because it is used in connection with a man with whom that woman has a specific obligation of submission. But, in 1 Timothy 3, that context does not exist. It is better translated by the term "women" (as the ASV and NASB, among other translations, render it) and the meaning determined by what is otherwise said about those women. That is why, in the context of deacon's qualifications, it is my studied view that in light of what is said of Phoebe, there must have been something that qualified her for that task and I believe 1 Timothy 3:9-11 suit that purpose. To denigrate a "deaconess" is to denigrate Phoebe. One needs to be very, very careful about criticizing those whom God has appointed to His service.

In verse 12, Paul (revealing the will of God in the matter) turned to the matter of males, and specifying that (among other things), such a one must be the husband of one wife. Someone may object that, in my view, Paul did not require that a woman be the wife of one husband, so the qualifications are not equal for both men and women who would be task servants for the local church. I believe this is a fair objection, but I am not sure there is an answer to it. Why should any person think himself qualified to explain why God said anything? I'm not sure there is an answer, because God did not explain Himself beyond what He has said. Some have suggested a connection to 1 Timothy 5:9-10, but how that would be determined escapes me. I rather suggest that the tasks appointed for qualified women to serve were not of the nature to bring them into possible condemnation. On the other hand, men who might serve the church might be in danger of moral accusations, but for the requirement that they be married.

The section of 1 Timothy 3:8-13 concluded with Paul returning to the more general, applicable to both men and women who might be appointed to serve some tasks for the local church, and pointing out the great blessing it is to be merely servants. I cannot help but recall the words of Jesus, "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). Every mother knows what greatness is all about, and it has absolutely nothing to do with authority, power, prominence, or visual standing: What matters most is that children are raised by devoted mothers who serve their best interests.

One Problem We Confront

There may be room for discussion about evidence that early churches of Christ had so-called "deaconesses," but one thing is clear: The position of authority in which modern church place their deacons is without scriptural precedent. The term translated "deacon" simply means "servant."  It is preposterous to argue that a woman is acting outside of the role in which God placed her, when she is doing service. Is it not remarkable that a man who can see that his wife is not acting outside Divine approval when she serves the family, would argue that a woman who serves the church is acting outside Divine approval? Scripturally, no deacon possesses any authority over anything, beyond that which is placed under the scope of his service. A deacon possesses no more authority over or in the church than does a janitor in the business or school in which he works. His authority extends only to the broom in his hand and the dirt which is pushed it.

Our problem has not historically been over deaconesses, but rather the extent and function of oversight. Whether we see this or know it is beside the point. It is a fact, nonetheless.  Some churches have deacons who are acting like deacons, while elders act like boards of directors. The scriptures are clear in showing that elders are to exercise oversight and deacons are to serve tables (exactly as a restaurant server serves food or clears a table, or a wife and mother serves tables in the home).The point is often missed that in Acts 6:1-6, where the first deacons were appointed to their tasks, the business over which they were placed was the serving of tables (although some dispute that those who were appointed are properly called deacons, yet the very term "serve tables" has Gr. diakonos as the root term). Where is the authority, power, oversight or prominence in serving tables?

What Services Would Be Performed by Deaconesses

Deaconesses may have had principally the care of women or assisted females who presented themselves for baptism, but whether that could be proven in scripture or from external sources is not the point. In the case of Phoebe (of Romans 16:1), I don't have to prove "what" she was serving in, since God has called her a "servant-ess." She may have exercised some fiduciary function for the Cenchrea church that would have required her presence in Rome and the assistance of the Roman church for the duration of her labor, but I don't have to prove that, either.  Whatever she was, she was no more than a servant-ess of the church in Cenchrea and deputed by it to do something in their behalf. If it is argued that this would place a woman in an unscriptural position, then the church in Cenchrea placed Phoebe in an unscriptural position and Paul commended her for being in it! Who can believe such a thing? 

In fact, Paul's endorsement of Phoebe and whatever work she was in Rome to accomplish, and his frank imposition of obligation upon the Roman church(-es) to provide for her is proof positive that God authorized whatever it was Phoebe was doing and the description Paul attached to her for it. What I would challenge detractors of this position to do is show how they--meaning the church of which they are a part--would appoint a woman to do exactly what the church in Cenchrea deputed Phoebe to do without violating the principles of scriptures. This, they cannot do. They cannot consistently "appoint" any woman to do any specific work for any specific period of time under any specific set of circumstances. Yet, these very brethren think nothing of their mothers, wives, or daughters doing the very thing within the home that Phoebe was deputed to do for the church in Cenchrea. Let the man arise to deny it, if he will.

Conclusion

No woman has the right to enter a role God has not defined for her, nor would she have a right to expand her role into an area defined for men.  But, that she can be a task-servant as was Phoebe (“of the church in Cenchrea”) is clear from scripture, for that is what Phoebe was defined to be. Furthermore, Philippians 4:2-3 and numerous other citations in Romans 16 show women in supportive roles of ministry. Yet, they were never acting in ways that were inconsistent with God's defined role for them.

This is not an issue of godly women acting in a forbidden way, but it is an issue of doing what God said.  No godly woman is ever a threat when she is doing what God authorized her to do. If we have traditional biases against what God said, that is OUR problem, not God’s.