Here is another commentary on the subject by Bob Deffinbaugh:
Phoebe: A Woman to Welcome
(16:1-2)
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe,129 who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;130 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.
The thrust of Paul´s words in the first two verses of chapter 16 is to commend Phoebe to the church at Rome so that she will be welcomed and helped during her stay at Rome. This however is not the main point of interest to Christians or to the commentaries. The question of greatest interest to many is this: "œWas Phoebe a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea?" Stating the matter more broadly, "œIs there an office of deaconess in the New Testament church?" Many think there is.131
The arguments for such an office, and for Phoebe being the only "œdeaconess" ever named in the New Testament, are few and far from convincing. Nevertheless, I mention them because they are so often and so dogmatically stated by the supporters of this position. First, they inform us that the term used here (diakonon) is feminine in gender and thus best rendered, "œdeaconess." Second, they suggest that this verse, found in 1 Timothy 3, most likely refers to "œdeaconesses":
Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things (1 Timothy 3:11).
Third, they would tell us that such a position was necessary because of the need to minister to women.
Functionally speaking, I would not be very distressed that any church would determine there is such an office as that of "œdeaconess," so long as Paul´s teaching on the role of women132 was not set aside by this practice. I have no problem with women exercising leadership over women or children in the church. But there is a serious problem in the lack of biblical evidence in support of the view of deaconess and the way in which the Scriptures are used. At best, the conclusion that the Bible indicates there is such an office as that of "œdeaconess" should be tongue-in-cheek and admitted as having no compelling evidence in its support. I am inclined to think those who "œsee" such teaching want very badly to find it. It is hardly a position the evidence compels us to hold.
I would therefore wish to offset the confidence of those who believe Phoebe was a deaconess with evidence which strongly points in the other direction, namely that there is no such office, and that Phoebe most certainly was no more than a "œservant" of the church.
(1) The use of the root term strongly argues against a formal office. There are three Greek terms used in the New Testament which share a common root. Altogether these three terms are found 101 times in the New Testament (in the King James Version). Out of these numerous occurrences, the term is rendered "œdeacon" only three times. Apart from this one occurrence in Romans 16:1, the translation, "œdeaconess," would never be considered an option. Even so, "œdeaconess" is the marginal reading of the NASB and the NIV. In the text itself, both versions render the term in question, "œservant," and rightly so, for this is the most natural rendering. Some of those versions which translate more loosely do render the term "œdeaconess." J. B. Phillips, for example, renders it this way. The statistics strongly argue against this.
(2) The offices of elder and deacon are leadership and management positions, and this is precisely what women are forbidden to do by Paul (see 1 Timothy 2:12).
(3) Women were not appointed to oversee the care of the widows in Acts 6; men were. It is often argued that deaconesses are not given authority over men but only over women. They argue that this leadership role is necessary because of the special needs of women, to which women can better minister. This may be true, but when the feeding of the "œwidows" in Jerusalem became a problem, the apostles did not appoint women to oversee this matter; they appointed seven men. If there was ever a case when a deaconess seemed to have been needed, it was at this time. But women were not put in this leadership role, even though the ministry was a ministry to women.
(4) The one verse in 1 Timothy 3 which is used to support the "œdeaconess" position seems rather to argue against this position.
Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things (1 Timothy 3:11).
None of the terms related to the office or function of deacon are used in this verse. The term is one which can be rendered either "œwomen" or "œwives," as the marginal notes indicate. As the text is laid out, the most logical explanation is that this verse refers to the character of the wives of both elders and deacons. Surely a man´s wife can make or break his ministry in leadership. We would expect to find some reference to the wives of both elders and deacons. Here it is.
If this one verse refers to deaconesses, as some maintain, why are the qualifications for a deaconess so few? Why, when the qualifications for elders and deacons are nearly identical, are the qualifications for a deaconess so different? It is a very long reach to say that verse 11, which is a somewhat parenthetical verse, refers to some new category of office. If this is indeed an office, why is it not clearly identified as such somewhere? And why, if it is an office, in addition to that of elder and deacon, does Paul slight the deaconesses at Philippi by greeting only the elders and deacons (see Philippians 1:1)?
(5) Phoebe´s reception by the church in Rome has nothing to do with her office (of deaconess); she is to be received "œin a manner worthy of the saints" (v. 2). Paul did not seek to set Phoebe apart from or above other saints; he urged the church in Rome to receive her as a saint, not as a deaconess. Leadership has nothing to do with being welcomed into the church and helped by the saints. It has everything to do with being a saint. Paul´s use of the term in question is to characterize Phoebe as a "œservant" and to encourage the church to serve her as well.
(6) Paul´s description of Phoebe´s ministry in verses 1 and 2 is not that of deacon-like duties but that of faithful service. Paul specifically mentions her service to him. Did she serve him as a deaconess? I think not. She simply served.
(7) Ministry in the New Testament is not rewarded by bestowing an office or a title on someone. Ministry is simply service. Why do we think that a person who is faithful in their service deserves an office, as a kind of reward? Why do we equate ministry with an office or a title? This concept is not foreign to the church today, but it was foreign to the church of Paul´s day.
(8) The post-apostolic church fathers were neither divinely inspired nor inerrant in their practices, and thus the existence of deaconesses (or their likeness) in the post-apostolic church is not proof this office has apostolic sanction. Often the writings of the church fathers are cited to show how the early post-apostolic church functioned. I do not doubt the accuracy of their description of how things were, but this does not make it biblical. If church history proves anything, it demonstrates how quickly the church departed from its biblical form and function to that of human design.
Source:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2329
