The Phoebe Hoax

Phoebe Was Not the First Preacher of Paul’s Letter to the Romans

Never has more been made of so little than what egalitarians make of Paul’s mention of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. This is no disrespect to Phoebe, who clearly was a faithful Christian woman from the environs of Corinth. But egalitarians have fabricated an entire mythology around this woman that is not justified by what Paul actually says about her. Keep in mind that Phoebe’s only mention in the entire Bible is Romans 16:1-2, and here is what Paul says about her:

Romans 16:1-2, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; ² that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.”

Based on those two verses—and those two verses alone—here is a sampling of the extraordinary claims that egalitarian scholars make about Phoebe:

N. T. Wright: “Phoebe is a businesswoman who is able to travel independently”; “She was in a position of leadership, and Paul respected her as such and expected the Roman church to do so as well.”[1]

Philip Payne: “Paul submitted to her leadership, presumably when he was in the church in Cenchreae. Paul practiced the mutual submission he commands in Eph. 5:21. Paul’s description of Phoebe would have encouraged those hearing this letter to value and respect her as a reliable resource regarding its meaning and significance.”[2]

Scot McKnight: “These household-directing women became de facto directors and leaders of local household churches. A good example is Phoebe”; “This word ‘deacon’ is… for a leader in the church”; “‘Deacon’ describes an official ministry of God’s Word”; “Phoebe probably read the letter aloud and answered questions the Roman Christians may have had”; “Phoebe, to put this graphically, can be seen as the first ‘commentator’ on the letter to the Romans.”[3]

Lucy Peppiat: “She occupied a position of leadership”; “she was the one who carried the letter of Romans to the churches in Rome… she would have had the task of explaining it to the gathered churches… she was theologically knowledgeable and wise enough to have understood it first and then to take a role in explaining it to her hearers”; “I find it impossible to see how this role can be properly divorced from a public teaching role.”[4]

Amy Peeler and Jennifer McNutt: “She ‘would have had a role in explaining the contents of Romans.’ She would have been present, as Paul’s representative, to answer questions about it”; “Paul established a precedent that we follow today… every time we listen to Scripture being read and explained. We hear God’s Word proclaimed through the voices of others, just as Phoebe spoke and explained Paul’s words to the church of Rome.”[5]

Nijay Gupta: “It is possible that she, too, was a freed slave who went on to obtain an impressive level of status and perhaps also wealth…”; “she could travel freely, apparently without a husband”; “she was a ministry leader… a respected Macedonian church leader”; “someone of great power and status serving as a guardian and protector of a person or a group”; “Paul was sending Phoebe as an ad hoc apostle”; “she was a leader like Paul”; “Phoebe took responsibility for engaging with the letter’s contents in communication with Roman leaders;” “she was indeed the first interpreter of Romans”; “Paul would have ensured that she truly understood his main ideas and could reinforce them among the Roman house churches”; “Phoebe [was] a representative of Paul, an apostolic agent acting on his behalf.”[6]

Now that you have read some egalitarian claims about Phoebe, take a moment to read again what Paul actually says in Romans 16:1-2. Read it in multiple translations if you can. You will notice that the grand claims made about Phoebe—that she is the first expositor of the letter of Romans, that she’s a cosmopolitan business woman and leader in the church, and that she even has some sort of apostolic authority—has no basis in the text. It’s just not there.

If it is not there in the text, then on what basis do so many egalitarian scholars makes such incredible claims? They argue on the basis of some unlikely definitions of key terms and on the basis of alleged background information concerning first-century letter carriers. I will show that neither of these bases are coming from the text (exegesis) but are being read into the text (eisegesis). In other words, these interpretations are not reflecting what Paul actually meant but what egalitarians wish that he meant.

Mistakes about Key Terms

Egalitarians claim that Phoebe was a leader in the church based on their understanding of the term diakonos, which is rendered as “servant,” “deacon,” or “minister.” In various ways, they contend that this term refers to a function of leadership within the church. But anyone who knows even a modicum of Greek understands that the term diakonos simply means “servant.” In certain contexts, it can refer to leaders (e.g., Eph. 3:7, Col. 1:23), but it can also refer to those who serve at the behest of a superior (e.g., Matt. 22:13; John 2:5, 9). That is why it is important not to confuse the meaning of the term with its referent.[7] The meaning of diakonos is simply one who serves or assists someone. Any notion of leadership would be indicated by context, not by the term itself. It’s possible that the term refers to the office of deacon (that is not my view[8]), but even so the office is not the ruling office in the church. The ruling office is pastor/elder/overseer, which isn’t in view at all in this text.

Egalitarians also claim that most English translations wrongly render the term prostatis as “helper,” “patron,” or “benefactor.” They argue that the term actually means “leader” and that Phoebe was not merely Paul’s benefactor but his leader. Philip Payne even argues that Paul submitted himself to Phoebe’s authority.

Egalitarians seem to be importing the meaning of a different term – prostatēs, a masculine noun which can mean “leader” in certain contexts – into the feminine noun that Paul uses in Romans 16:2.[9] But when we consult what major Greek lexicons say about the feminine term Paul is using, none of them define Paul’s term prostatis as “leader.” Liddell-Scott-Jones’ lexicon gives no definition at all but simply provides a string of examples that indicate something like “patron/protector” or “benefactor.” The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek gives similar examples but also provides the gloss “protectress, patroness.”[10]

The most authoritative lexicon of New Testament Greek (a.k.a., BDAG) simply lists the meaning as “a woman in a supportive role, patron, benefactor.”[11] There is nothing in this lexicon or the others suggesting that the term means “leader.” That is why the vast majority of English translations do not render the term as “leader” but as “patron” (ESV), “benefactor” (CSB, NIV, NRSV), or “helper” (NASB, NKJV, RSV). So the major lexica do not support the idea of prostatis meaning “leader.”

The context of Romans 16:2 militates against “leader” as well. Paul exhorts the Romans, “help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a prostatis of many and of myself as well.” The logic here is that the Romans ought to help Phoebe precisely because she has been a help/benefactor/patron to so many others—including to Paul himself.[12] That logic breaks down if “leader” is inserted.

Furthermore, Paul has insisted elsewhere that he is not subordinate even to other apostles (Gal. 2:1-11). He has specifically forbidden women from exercising authority over men—which would include apostles (1 Tim. 2:12). In that light, is it reasonable to think Paul the apostle is announcing his subordination to a virtually unknown female letter-carrier named Phoebe? It’s not reasonable at all. It would be perfectly reasonable for him to say that she helped him, but not that she led him or was in authority over him.

Mistakes about Letter-Carriers

Egalitarians also claim that first century letter-carriers had the responsibility of explaining and interpreting the letters they delivered on behalf of the authors. Since Phoebe was a letter-carrier, she too must have been the first interpreter and expositor of Romans. Since Phoebe was an expositor of Romans to the church in Rome, so also it must be appropriate for women today to take up the same role in churches—to teach and exhort the entire congregation from the word of God. Or so the egalitarian argument goes.

The argument, however, is tendentious and flawed. To begin with, the alleged historical background is overblown. It is by no means the case that all first century letter-carriers were deemed as authoritative interpreters of the letters they carry. The evidence doesn’t show that at all. Peter Head did an important study of first century letter carriers in 2009.[13] He read all the ancient letters published in the 68 volumes of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. There were 450 letters published in the collection at the time of his research. Of those 450, only about 40 of them include reference to a named letter-carrier.

Of those 40, only some of them show any evidence of the letter-carrier being tasked with additional information from the sender. And none of the letters indicated that the letter-carrier was to be the authoritative interpreter who preached a message to a congregation from the letter. At most, the letter-carrier may provide some incidental details from one party to another. But again, this was not a universal practice. It was merely a feature in some of the 40 letters he studied. The practice wasn’t evident in the larger corpus of 450 letters.

Other New Testament epistles which mention letter-carriers do not give any indication that the carrier was supposed to read the letter aloud or to give detailed commentary on obscure details in the text.[14] Paul does say that he wants his letters read aloud before the assembled congregation, but he never specifies the carrier as the reader (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). On a couple occasions, Paul says that the carrier may bring additional information about Paul’s circumstances (Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–9), but he never says that the carrier will be the authoritative expounder of the letter.[15]

To make some grand sweeping claim about Phoebe being the first preacher of Romans or having some measure of apostolic authority is not justified by this paltry evidence.[16] Especially when we take into account the fact that Paul elsewhere explicitly prohibited women from assuming such a role. Paul writes, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:12). Phoebe was from the eastern port of Corinth. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that male headship was something that was observed by all the apostles and all the churches (1 Cor. 11:16). Are we really to believe based on some specious historical background that Paul intended for Phoebe to do in Rome the very thing he prohibits women from doing in every other church? It would be absurd to reach such a conclusion.

Conclusion

So I say at the end what I began with. Never has more been made of so little than what egalitarians make of Paul’s mention of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. There is no direct evidence of Phoebe being the first preacher of Romans or of her having some kind of ruling authority in the church—much less of her having apostolic authority. Egalitarians are way out over their skis exegetically when they make such claims.

Nevertheless, we can honor Phoebe with the very same honor Paul gave to her. She was a sister in Christ, a faithful servant of the Lord, and a benefactor of the saints and of Paul himself.[17] And she very likely was the one who delivered Paul’s letter to the Romans. To say anything beyond that is going far beyond what the text actually says. Egalitarians make that eisegetical error quite frequently, but there is no reason for anyone else to follow them into that hermeneutical dead-end.

[1] N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 2002),  761-62

[2] Philip B. Payne, The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God’s Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality (Zondervan, 2023), 35-36.

[3] Scot McKnight, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (Zondervan, 2008), 182-84.

[4] Lucy Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts (InterVarsity, 2019), 124-25.

[5] Jennifer Powell McNutt and Amy L. B. Peeler, “PHOEBE: THE FIRST INTERPRETER of ROMANS: Paul’s Most Beloved Letter Was Entrusted to a Woman We Hardly Know,” Christianity Today 64.8 (2020): 57–58.

[6] Nijay K. Gupta, Tell Her Story: How Women Led, Taught, and Ministered in the Early Church (InterVarsity, 2023), 114-25.

[7] Some authors “confuse meaning with reference. The meaning of διάκονος in Paul is demonstrably quite general: ‘servant,’ esp. servant of Christ. Depending on context, this term can then refer to Christian workers of many different kinds. But there is no warrant to import the reference that the term has when used, e.g., of Paul himself, to Phoebe here.” See Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Eerdmans, 2018), 930 n. 191.

[8] Denny Burk, “1-2 Timothy and Titus,” in ESV Expository Commentary: Ephesians-Philemon, ed. Iain M. Duguid, James M. Hamilton, Jr., and Jay Sklar (Crossway, 2017), 409-10.

[9] “Although the related masculine noun prostatēs can mean ‘leader,’ the actual feminine noun (prostatis) does not take the meaning ‘leader’ but is defined as ‘protectress, patroness, helper.’” See Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A Survey of Old Testament and New Testament Examples and Teaching,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Crossway, 1991), 219–20.

[10] Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1527; Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015), 1827.

[11] Walter Bauer, Frederick Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 885.

[12] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Baker, 2018), 761.

[13] Peter M. Head, “Named Letter-Carriers among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31.3 (2009): 279–99.

[14] Rom. 16:1–2; Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–8; Col. 4:9; Phlm. 10–12; Phil. 2:25–30; 2 Cor. 8:16–24; 1 Pet. 5:12.

[15] In E. Randolph Richards’ important study, he lists four “additional tasks of a letter-carrier” besides actual delivery of the letter: (1) bringing materials or supplies, (2) providing additional information, (3) reading the letter, and (4) serving as Paul’s envoy. See E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (InterVarsity, 2004), 201-4. While Richards can point to specific examples of letter-carriers doing the first two things on the list, he doesn’t provide any hard evidence that carriers read the letters aloud or interpreted them. Richards says it was “possible” that the carrier read the letter aloud. He says “perhaps” the carrier “could comment and expound upon the letter” (202). None of this is evidence to support Richards’ claim but pure conjecture.

[16] Unfortunately, even Head’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence he presents. While his evidence indicates an occasional role for letter-carriers to expand on details within the letter (p. 297), he draws a sweeping, unjustified conclusion: “In the Pauline tradition the accredited letter-carriers functioned not only as personal private postmen, but as personal mediators of Paul’s authoritative instruction to his churches, and as the earliest interpreters of the individual letters.” See Head, “Named Letter-Carriers among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri,” 298.

[17] I am persuaded by MacGillivray that there is little evidence of an official patron-client relationship between Phoebe and Paul, with all the hierarchical implications that such a relationship entailed in the first-century Roman world. I disagree, however, that “helper” inappropriately introduces an idea of subservience. Paul was an apostle after all and certainly had a unique, divinely appointed authority over all Christians. Thus, “helper” or “benefactor” could be appropriate renderings of prostatis, but “patron” would not be. See E. D. MacGillivray, “Romans 16:2, προστάτις/προστάτης, and the Application of Reciprocal Relationships to New Testament Texts,” Novum Testamentum 53.2 (2011): 197–98.