----------------
One comment about my first post was a helpful question about my fourth point of exegetical arguments in favor of women serving the church as Deacons. The question was, if it is possible that Paul's words about Phoebe in Romans 16:1 - 2 are an example of Semitic parallelism? For the sake of having the translation in front of us let us look once again at Dr. Strimple's translation of Romans 16:1-2:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever manner she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.Let us consider the definition of Semitic parallelism, so that we can understand the question. According to Louis Berkhof, in his Principles of Biblical Interpretation (a free pdf is available here), on pages 63-64 parallelism is when "in two lines or members of the same period, thing for the most part answer to things, and words to words." Parallelism can be further divided in three or four different groups, depending on who is counting. The most likely type of parallelism being asked about in Romans 16:1-2 is synonymous parallelism, which is one idea repeated in different words. Two further examples of this type of parallelism are synonymous parallelism between similar ideas (Ps. 24:2; Job 6:5); or synonymous parallelism that demonstrates an identity between words (Prov. 6:2; Ps. 93:3).
The question is asking if Paul is repeating the same thought about Phoebe in Romans 16:2 ("... she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.") as he already said in Romans 16:1 ("who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea ...")? The implication of this question is, Paul may simply only writing in verse 1 about Phoebe being a servant, as opposed to a deacon, and repeats the idea of Phoebe's service in verse 2.
However, let us consider another writing of Paul to help us understand the relationship between Romans 16:1 and 16:2. In Paul's letter to the churches in the region of Galatia, Paul writes in 5:25:
If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.Is Paul's language about "... keep in step with the Spirit ..." repeating the same idea as "... live by the Spirit"? No. In verse 25, Paul starts with a indicative ("If we live by the Spirit ...") and then gives the churches an imperative ("... let us also keep in step with the Spirit."). The ideas are different. There is a relationship between both of Paul's ideas though. The imperative can only happen if the indicative is true. We can only keep in step with the Spirit if we live in the Spirit. It is important to note that the word "also" highlights that the thought Paul is communicating is a thought of progression, not a thought of repetition.
In Romans, likewise, Phoebe's office in the church of Cenchrea of deacon and then her service to many in that church demonstrates a progression of thought about Phoebe. In Romans, Paul uses the word "also" again like he did in the letter to the churches of Galatia. Unfortunately, right now, I do not know Greek, so please feel free to provide feedback if this argument does not reflect how Greek works.
Since this question focuses on the fourth exegetical argument, it should be noted that this argument builds on the previous three arguments being true. Dr. Strimple's fourth argument is not built on a house of straw, but I do believe that the argument for this passage being a Semitic parallelism could lose sight of the context of the letter to the Romans. While Paul's mind is Semitic, Paul's audience would be primarily Greek. I am sure the Greek audience was familiar with the Psalms, etc. as a part of their new faith, but I do wonder how probable it is that Paul would be using Hebrew poetry to address a Greek audience in a letter addressed to the church in Rome?
1 comment:
I think your example helpfully points out that even if there is parallelism in Romans 16:1-2, a parallel thought is not necessarily an identical thought. In fact, if there is a parallelism in Romans 16:1,2, it would actually be a chiasm (abb'a'), correct? One might then note that "receiving" (16:1) is not the same as "helping" (16:2) in the middle lines of those verses. In a similar way, being a "deacon" is not necessarily identical with being "helpful", though it is related. In fact, "receive" could very well denominate a more formal action, in connection with the formal office of deacon which Phoebe holds, and "helping" the moral informal action of assisting her in her work as a deacon. The thought would then be something like, "receive her in her office as deacon (formal), and help her in her work (informal)," because she herself has proven worthy of holding this office, seeing that she has previously fulfilled the functions which the office entails.
Post a Comment