Let’s skip ahead all the way to the central controversial text of the controversy —
(1 Tim 2:11-14) A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
The translation
Notice a few interesting things here.
* Paul instructs that “a woman should learn.” This was contrary to the cultural norms of the day. The Jews offered a limited education to their daughters, but girls didn’t study Torah. In some surrounding cultures, women were left altogether illiterate.
* “Quietness” in v. 11 is the same word that’s translated “silent” in v. 12 and “quiet” in 1 Tim 2:1-2 —
(1 Tim 2:1-2) I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone– 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
“Silent” is an indefensible translation. Strong’s definition is —
keeping one’s seat (sedentary), i.e. (by implication) still (undisturbed, undisturbing) — peaceable, quiet.
The real meaning is “peaceable.”
* The KJV translates “have authority” (authenteo) as “usurp authority,” which quite a different thing. This translation is very controversial nowadays, but “usurp authority” is correct.
First, authenteo is phrased in contrast to “be in quietness.” “Domineer” better suits the evident contrast.
Second, standard Greek dictionaries confirm this conclusion. Strong’s Dictionary defines authenteo –
to act of oneself, i.e. (fig.) dominate:-usurp authority over.
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines the word –
to exercise authority on one’s own account, to domineer over, is used in 1 Tim. 2:12, A.V., “to usurp authority,” R.V. “to have dominion.” In the earlier usage of the word it signified one who with his own hand killed either others or himself. Later it came to denote one who acts on his own authority; hence, to exercise authority, dominion.
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996) translates,
one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, … an absolute master … to exercise dominion over one … 1 Tim. ii.12.
Spiros Zodhiates The Complete Word Study Dictionary-New Testament (AMG International, Inc.: 1992) translates –
to use or exercise authority or power over as an autocrat, to domineer (1 Tim. 2:12).
The Revised Standard Version translates “have dominion.” Many other translations are similar: New English Bible: “domineer over”; American Standard Version: “have dominion over”; Living Bible: “lording over.” Of course, many other translations, including the NIV, translate “authority over.”
Third, other Greek sources use the word in this sense. Carroll Osburn, a professor at ACU, comments in Women in the Church 2, p. 82,
Both from the first century BC, a papyrus in Berlin clearly has the meaning “to domineer,” as does Philodemus, who mentions “dominating masters.”
Osburn points out further examples of the meaning domineer in the writings of early Christians, pp. 217-219, John Chrysostum (4th Century) and Hippolytus (3rd Century).
And so, we re-translate —
(1 Tim 2:11-14) A woman should learn in [peaceableness] and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to [domineer] over a man; she must be [peaceable]. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Now, as we see “teach” contrasted to “peaceable,” we must presume that Paul saw a woman teaching a man as somehow interfering with the peace of the church. Osburn argues,
Both “teach” and “domineer” have “man” as a direct object (here in the Greek genitive case because “domineer” takes that case). When, in Greek, two verbs are joined in this way, the nearer qualifies the farther. Hence, the lack of quietude/peacefulness that is stressed both before and after this admonition is countered by “not to teach in a domineering way.”
Page 112, relying in part on Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. G. Messing; Cambridge, Harvard University Press 1956), pages 364-365. Osburn provides several New Testament examples in this construction where the second clause (”domineer” in this case) defines and limits the first clause (”teach”), p. 221, including Acts 4:18, Gal. 1:16-17; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; and Acts 16:21.
Greek scholars call this construction hendiadys.
Thus, the translation becomes,
(1 Tim 2:11-14) A woman should learn in [peaceableness] and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach [in a domineering way] over a man; she must be [peaceable]. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Gune
We need to add one more wrinkle. The word translated “woman,” gune, is completely ambiguous and can mean either “wife” or “woman.” As Paul is arguing from Genesis 2, “wife” seems to fit the context better. Moreover, Paul concludes the chapter with v. 15, which says,
(1 Tim 2:15) But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
This is tough verse under any theory, but Paul surely has wives in mind, not unmarried women!
And the word translated “man” is equally ambiguous and could just as well refer to husbands.
Thus, our translation becomes,
(1 Tim 2:11-14) A [wife][ should learn in [peaceableness] and full submission. 12 I do not permit a [wife] to teach [in a domineering way] over a [husband]; she must be [peaceable]. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the [wife] who was deceived and became a sinner.
Thus, Today’s New International Version translates,
11 A woman [a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; [b][c] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women [d] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Footnotes:
- 1 Timothy 2:11 Or wife; also in verse 2
- 1 Timothy 2:12 Or teach a man in a domineering way; or teach or to exercise (or have) authority over a man
- 1 Timothy 2:12 Or over her husband
1 Timothy 2:15 Greek she
The case isn’t made yet, but by now you should understand that the translations are sometimes biased and not nearly as clear as some would like to have it.
Genesis
The reason this passage is so central to the “spiritual leadership” and paternalist positions is the obvious reliance of Paul on Genesis 2. As he’s building his case on Genesis 2, surely his commands are not merely referring to temporary, cultural concerns, it is argued.
But by now, we should already be suspicious of this argument. There is nothing in Genesis 1 – 2 that says women can’t teach men or have authority over men. (And it’s very unlikely that Genesis 2 tells us that Christian women may not have authority over men in church but may have authority over men in the world — which is how we normally interpret this passage. Where is that?)
I’d like to suggest that Paul was making a chiastic argument, which is a form of argument that was common in the First Century world. I suggest outlining the passage as follows (with a’ explaining point a and b’ explaining point b):
a women should learn in quietness and full submission
b do not teach or exercise authority (in a domineering way), but be peaceable
b´ For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
a´ Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
This structure is called a chiasm and was commonly used by the ancients in their writings. (The idea for a chiastic reading is from Osburn. My interpretation is a bit different from his.) In a chiasm, the arguments are arranged in the symmetric order shown, which would be unusual in our culture but not in Paul’s culture.
a. The reference to Eve being deceived makes the point that women should learn so as to avoid following Eve’s bad example in being deceived. When women do not study, they allow themselves to become victims of false teaching, and they can’t count on their husbands’ learning to protect themselves, any more than Eve was protected by Adam from the serpent’s lies.
This is exactly what was going on in Ephesus (the destination of 1 Timothy) at the time, and it continues to be sound advice (1 and 2 Timothy are filled with warnings against false teaching, especially against false teachers taking advantage of women). Paul’s first command is that the women “should learn.” Only by learning can the women avoid following in Eve’s footsteps.
Paul uses the account of Eve’s deception to make essentially the same point to all Christians in 2 Corinthians 11:3 –
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
As in 1 Timothy, Paul sees Eve’s sin as a warning to Christians against being led astray by false teachers.
b. The argument from the creation order does not indicate subordination. After all, in Genesis 1, man — male and female — was made last, but that hardly argues for subordination of the man to the animals! Moreover, we’ve already seen that the subordination of women begins with God’s curse of the Creation.
Thus, the point must be found in the purpose behind the order of creating men and women. Man was not good alone. He needed a suitable complement. God made women to complement their husbands.
Therefore, if a wife domineers, she fails to be the complement that God intended. The order-of-creation argument therefore is about duty of wives to be suitable complements for their husbands.
Thus, Paul says that women should learn because Eve was deceived (and women should not follow her bad example) and that wives should not domineer over their husbands, because they were created to be suitable complements, not dominators.
Nothing in this passage teaches that women are gullible or more gullible than men. Indeed, if being compared to Eve’s sin makes a gender gullible in God’s eyes, then both genders are gullible because both men and women are compared to Eve in 2 Corinthians 11:3. And Paul blames Adam for the Fall of Man in Romans 5.
The point isn’t whose fault the sin was or some odd notion that women inherit the sin of Eve. The point is that a wife is called to complete what’s lacking her husband, to be his companion, supporter, and friend. And therefore she should not do anything that might bring shame to him. And it was unthinkable in Jewish and many other cultures of the day for a woman to teach a man.
Conclusion
This interpretation has a lot going for it.
* It fits the Story. Paul is reminding wives of their role — defined in Eden — as suitable complements to their husbands. They should not bring shame to their husbands.
* It avoids the absurd notion that all women are more gullible than all men. That can’t be Paul’s argument.
* It avoids any implication that women are innately inferior to men.
* It’s avoids the idea that women gifted to teach cannot teach men even when the women are more knowledgeable in the subject.
* It restores us to the doctrine of gifts taught in 1 Cor 12 and Romans 12.
* It show Paul elevating women by assuring that they’re educated, just as Jesus had female disciples — contrary to the Jewish traditions of the day.
* It avoids the need for modern church leaders to rationalize. For example, it’s fairly common to ask a woman to run the preschool department and to then put a deacon between her and the elders, so there’s a man able to speak for her (poorly, as a rule) at the deacons meetings. There’s no need to limit church business meetings to just the men.
* It submits to God as giver of the Spirit and the Spirit as giver of gifts. It allows the church to use its talents where God is best served.
* It allows churches to have more balanced leadership. Does anyone believe that the Churches of Christ would be as divided and hateful to each other as they are today if women had more say so?
You know, when the US took over Iraq, they insisted that there be at least 25% women in the Iraqi parliament, because the presence of women would reduce the infighting. Now, there’s a gift our churches could use.
* It avoids the absurd notion that all women are more gullible than all men. That can’t be Paul’s argument.
* It avoids any implication that women are innately inferior to men.
I totally agree.
"You know, when the US took over Iraq, they insisted that there be at least 25% women in the Iraqi parliament, because the presence of women would reduce the infighting. Now, there’s a gift our churches could use."
As an engineering manager for several years, I always wanted at least one female on my staff. The guys were better behaved that way.
I do struggle with limiting the scriptures to just a husband and wife thing. I thought all women had pain in childbirth, not just those who were married.
"* Paul instructs that “a woman should learn.” This was contrary to the cultural norms of the day."
Here! Here! Like Paul, we should not be afraid to defy our current social norms.
Editorial: This is a good post that tries to understand God's teachings on the matter. I have high respect for that. I personally don't like my understanding of what the Bible teaches. It seems contrary to current culture which is more open. However, I haven't seen a credible explanation of a more open position. I see stretching a definition here and again there until it starts to sounds like current cultural norms. This post doesn't take it as far as some. Again, I appreciate the scholarship.
Rich,
The argument is laid out in detail in my earlier series Buried Talents. /index-under-construction/b…
Rich
Great comment. I too was an engineering manager, project manager and managed project managers.
The ladies on my staff were much more attentive to details, very pleasant with all and behaved better under pressure than most men, I would have very little limitations of their roles in the church.
Melissa Scott, wife of the former Dr. Gene Scott, Los Angeles University Cathedral, is a scholar and evangelist that can out do 90% of the Church of Christ preachers today.
As Jay said, if we had left it to the ladies we wold not be in the mess we are in today.
"As Jay said, if we had left it to the ladies we wold not be in the mess we are in today."
Here's how I communicate to others God's heart for relationship when it comes to the fallen man and woman:
As fallen, man will do what's easiest. If it is easier to shirk responsibility, he will do so, especially if he gets an earful whether he's responsible or not. If it's easier to "not", man will "not".
Women have nurturing and protection (mama bear) instincts. The man not being responsible puts her and her children in harm's way. So she is naturally inclined to do that which the man should be doing, and is usually very good at it. She knows things WILL get done if she does them. She knows they only MIGHT get done if left to the man, and experience tells her probably not.
In His plan of redemption and making things right, God asks both sexes to do what is not natural for the fallen man or woman, but what is natural according to the original design specs.
Men: take responsibility and initiative. Love your family as Christ loves the church.
Women: Let your husband do it. You might be better at it, but I am returning both you and your man to original spec, and it won't happen with you running the show, even though you have become amazingly wonderful at it.
The issue is not who is best for a given job, but the story of God unfolding on the earth, as He makes things right in His church as a contrast and beacon to the world.
The "mess" is caused by being fallen. The solution is not for the women to keep on doing what they've had to do (stand in for fallen man), but for all to pray for the renewing of men's minds.
And also, give men the grace to stumble as they awake from sleeping.
Hubbell’s Paraphrase of Philodemus…
“To tell the truth the rhetors do a great deal of harm to many people, and incur the enmity of powerful rulers, whereas philosophers gain the friendship of public men by helping them out of their trouble. Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of powerful rulers are villains, and hated by both gods and men?”
I believe that Osborn was referring to another work by this Rhetorician when he said “dominating masters”. My question is…
According to this quote, why would people hate them for being enemies with evil tyrants? Maybe I’m misunderstanding. Has this been translated correctly?
Sounds like a lot of vain wrangling to me. Paul said, As in “all” the congregations of the saints- women were to “remain” silent (keep on being silent).They are “not allowed” to speak. “Must be” in submission. If they desire to ask or inquire – ask husbands at home. It’s “shameful-disgraceful” for a woman to “speak” in the church. We may ask what manner(kind) of speaking is “shameful” (opposed to modesty or of impurity)?
In the context of 1 Corinthians 14 it is any type of speech where a woman is in a position of authoritative speaking(teaching and preaching). Even something as seemingly harmless as asking questions has the potential to turn into being shameful. How so you might ask? I’ll give you an example: I was taught in my extensive sales training of years past that “he who asks the questions is in control.” I was trained in in-home sales(think of Seig Ziegler). Either the customer is going to ask of you a bunch of questions(you’ll be on the defensive) or you’re going to lead the customer by your questions(thereby being in control). In any exchange of ideas and information someone is the giver and someone is the receiver of such ideas and information(teaching). That’s not to say of course that a customer(student) shouldn’t be allowed to ask a question, but that the sales person(or teacher) maintains control by being the one who asks the questions. A repeated bombardment of questions by a customer, student(or woman in the church) to a teacher(sales person espousing his product) threatens the authority of the person leading and can turn contentious.
It seems obvious that Paul will stand for none of that. I can’t imagine Paul giving these instructions here and in 1 Timothy and appealing to who was formed first and believe that he’s not referring to a certain flow of authority from God-to man-to woman. Christ is head of the church, as man is head of the wife. Eve was deceived and uncovered her head (acted without the authority of her husband ) by what she did regarding the Serpent and the eating of the forbidden fruit. Paul is saying, that failed in the beginning and he’s not going to allow the woman to have leadership/headship(authority) in speaking to the church. It gets the flow of authority wrong.
I know it’s not the politically correct interpretation and I have a high view of women, and I have heard women preachers and teachers who could speak rings around a lot of men- still doesn’t make it proper and fitting to do so. It has nothing to do with qualifications, strengths or talents and everything to do with God given authority in speaking to the church.
Acts 2:17-18 God says: In the last days I will pour out my Spirit on all kinds of people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. At that time I will pour out my Spirit also on my male slaves and female slaves, and they will prophesy.
Romans 16:1-4 I have good things to say about Phoebe, who is a leader in the church at Cenchreae. Welcome her in a way that is proper for someone who has faith in the Lord and is one of God’s own people. Help her in any way you can. After all, she has proved to be a respected leader for many others, including me. Give my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila. They have not only served Christ Jesus together with me, but they have even risked their lives for me. I am grateful for them and so are all the Gentile churches.
Philippians 4:2-3 Euodia and Syntyche, you both belong to the Lord, so please agree with each other. For this I make a special request to my friend who has served with me so faithfully: Help these women. They worked hard with me in telling people the Good News, together with Clement and others who worked with me. Their names are written in the book of life.
If taken as literally as some are viewing it, Paul’s injunction goes much farther than our traditional limitation of not letting a woman in the pulpit during the three ordained “public worship services” we hold every week–plus gospel meetings. Monty gives us a “context” here which less actual context than it is speculation about Paul’s motives and the limitations of their application. But we cannot ride this train in two directions at once. A woman speaks. Silent is silent, shameful is shameful. We cannot slip back and forth between mutually-exclusive interpretations during the 15 minute interregnum between the end of the auditorium class and the beginning of the 10:30 service. We cannot squeeze our way conveniently between a literal, legal view and our cultural view on an artificial schedule simply to fit our own current practices. But this is just what we keep trying to do. This leaves us without any credibility, for we press for a literal view only under limited circumstances, at which point we convert to a non-literal view –say, at 8:30 Wednesday night– only to return again to literality at 10:30 am Sunday.
Paul’s phrase “in the church” is being somehow translated to refer only to the “three official weekly worship services, plus gospel meetings”, an interpretation which unapologetically comes out of thin air without the least foundation offered. Our inconsistency is apparent and makes fools of us. Those outside may think us either irrational or hypocritical on the subject, and either accusation is going to be hard to argue with.
If we are hold literally to the text as law, we violate Paul’s prohibition when we allow a woman to talk about the sermon in the foyer after services. Let her ask her husband at home. Or when we allow her to comment during Sunday school, or in the middle of a congregational dinner-on-the-ground. We cavalierly move from a woman’s words being “proper and fitting” in the auditorium class at 10:15 am to it being “shameful” behavior fifteen minutes later in the self-same pew among the same group of believers, and back again to proper and fitting after the benediction at 11:30. As though Paul would allow this particular deviation.
“The church”, in the context of a gathering of believers is not limited to three weekly events. No, we are just as much a gathering of the body of Christ in a Sunday school class, or a home fellowship, or an ice cream social. Do we somehow take off what makes us the corporate Body after the benediction? If we gather to eat homemade ice cream, we are the church. The church is who we are, not simply what we are doing at the time.
But, asks my literalist friend, is this what Paul was really talking about? Of course not! Why not? We have no idea why not, other than that’s not the way we do it. We toss out some lame ex post facto explanations about what the difference is between an “official” worship service, and other gatherings, but such a distinction cannot be found in scripture. Apparently our old “when two or three are gathered together” definition had to be jettisoned to make the current rules work. Else, the sisters would have to keep their mouths shut at just about any conceivable gathering of believers, whether for the purpose of worship or to play dominoes.
Women can speak at a “ladies’ meeting”, although how we justify a gathering specifically intended to weasel out from under the Pauline prohibition is never adequately explained. Apparently we are not a gathering of “the church” if only ten thousand female believers are present. It takes a man to make us the church. Or, perhaps, a twelve-year-old baptized boy. If it’s a shame for a woman to speak in the church, does it suddenly become proper when the one man present leaves the room? Yes, because that same sermon becomes shameful again as soon as he gets back from the men’s room.
It is perhaps our most common error is to conflate what God is saying to us with the conclusions we sometimes draw from our own investigation into certain scriptures. Our conclusions may be pointed out as foolish in a dozen ways, but that is not enough to make us abandon them. We choose rather to wrap our conclusions in the pages of scripture, as one might wrap a dead fish in a newspaper.
The difference being that no one thinks that the newspaper is where the fishy smell is coming from.
Grace,
What good does it do to try to pit some Bible verses against others? THose verses you stated don’t negate Paul’s instructions for women to remain silent where instructing men in the assembly is concerned.
I’m not sure what BT you used for Phoebe being a “leader” instead of a servant? But certainly there is a way that these verses can be reconciled without giving women the speaking roles to the assembled church. You may infer that women were the preaching ministers and teachers in a mixed assembly, but just think about all the inferences that you would deny about baptism for the remission of sins(even though it’s clearly stated and not even an inference). And I could probably name a few others too, perhaps weekly communion(which I’m sure you would deny that’s how often they took it). But my point is there is a much better case for that than for women going around preaching in campaigns and leading the worship in the assmbly. Trying to make those verses give women the permission that Paul denied they had seems a bit like grasping at straws.
The term “diakonos” is always used by Paul to refer to a minister. Romans 16:1-2 Phoebe was a minister and a leader in the church at Cenchreae.
Charles,
You are the champion of pointing out inconsistencies in the COfC. Never listened to anyone who did a beter job at it. Kudos. BUt for all of your tearing down of things that need to be torn down (perhaps), you still haven’t given me or anyone else for that matter(that I am aware of) a good explanation of how to interpret Paul’s teaching about women and how they are not supposed to teach or assume authority over man. How exactly is it that they are to keep quiet in all the churhes? Granted they can sing,talk,instruct the kids,whisper to their husbands about how dry the preacher is, etc, etc, but pray tell how are they to “remain silent in all the churches?” Has to be talking about some type of authoritarian teaching right? If not, then what? I haven’t heard any teaching yet on the matter at hand that didn’t take a Phiadelphia lawyer to understand (or maybe a Birmingham one) 🙂 BUt that is exactly what progressives say about CofoC mainstream teaching on instrumental worship and psallo.
Now how we slice and dice things today may be laughable at times, I concur, but still, the heart of the teaching is upheld. Women do remain silent in the CofC as far as instructing the men goes. Pointing out the shortcomings of how we have implemented a teaching doesn’t negate the teaching itself. (In other words we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water).It just means we have more work to do.
I have read most all of the leading feminist movement leaders who have written on the subject over the past week, and it sincerely seems IMO to be grasping at straws. I hope you will believe me when I say I’m not trying to “hang onto” CofC teaching. TRuth yes, tradition no.
Grace,
Although you’re arguing on the side of the angels (that is, the side I agree with), this particular argument does not hold up. In Rom 16:1, “diakonos” is a noun in the accusative voice. It only appears in this exact form there and in —
(Rom 15:8 ESV) For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,
— where the thought is not at all connected with a church office. Paul surely is thinking of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant in this passage.
The grammatical argument is only weakened when you consider the several other cases where Paul uses DIAKONOS as a noun. I don’t think you can get to “church office” along this path.
More fruitful, to me, is considering the parallel with PROSTATIS, which means “patron,” a word that carried considerable weight in Roman and Greek culture — and which I blogged about recently.
Perhaps more pertinently, but for the CoC’s peculiar history of interpreting “deacon,” I’m not sure that the question gets us anywhere even if we could find a affidavit in Paul’s own hand proving Phoebe to have been a deacon.
In the early church, there unquestionably were female deacons. We don’t know that much about their work, but they were charged in part in helping baptize female converts — at a time when many churches baptized converts naked.
But there’s little evidence that male or female deacons had much in the way of authority, contrary to contemporary Baptist practice and the practice of some Churches of Christ of making deacons a house of representatives to the elders’ senate — which is utterly without scriptural or ECF justification.
In other words, even if you prove Phoebe to have been a deacon, you’d not have shown her to have had authority over men, which is the real issue, I think.
Hence, I think the role of women question is much, much more about the reading of 1 Tim 2 than Rom 16:1.
Strong’s Number: 1249
Original Word Word Origin
diakonoß probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands, cf (1377))
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Diakonos 2:88,152
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
dee-ak’-on-os Noun
Grace,
From Strongs:
Definition
one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
the servant of a king
a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
a waiter, one who serves food and drink
How in the world do you get a preacher/teacher of men out of that?
It literally means someone who runs errands. I’m quite sure Paul had several ladies who ministered to him and to their respective churches in a servant type way – official or unofficial. Some no doubt were high profile type servants, but you just can’t reason they were women preachers, because it means minister, whereas a minister today is generally one who teaches and preaches. Surely a minister of a congregation “serves” it’s people, however it is wrong to make the leap that in the first century a servant was always a preacher/teacher.
I never said she was a preacher, Phoebe was a minister and a leader. The context tells it even more as Paul says they are to assist her in whatever business she has need of them.