Women Serving the Church as Deacons: Romans 16:1 - 2 and Synonymous Parallelism?

The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

----------------

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?

Does the Bible Say How Much the Old Testament Saints Understood?

Recently I had a conversation with a very dear Brother in Christ about a book review that he wrote. Amongst the subjects he covered in his review was the issue of the extent of knowledge that the Saints in the time before Christ about how their prophesies would actually come to fulfillment. It was his belief that the book's author was wrong when the author wrote that the believers in the Old Testament (and particularly the Prophets) simply did not have a full knowledge of how their prophesies would be fulfilled. Furthermore, this Brother, made the additional assertion that we cannot know, based on the Bible, that the Old Testament writers did not fully understand how their writings would be fulfilled. In other words, Old Testament believers might have had better knowledge of Christ being the fulfillment of their prophesies than just the types and shadows would suggest.

However, I had a problem with both of his ideas, because the New Testament says that the Gospel going beyond the nation of Israel was "... the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people" (Colossians 1:26). A few days after this conversation, I was continuing to read Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry for my upcoming Interpretation of the Bible class at RPTS. Dr. Terry's chapter 9 of Part 2 considers rules for how we should interpret Biblical typology and symbols. On the printed page number 250, Dr. Terry begins to consider how we should understand types by saying:

The hermeneutical principles to be used in the interpretation of types are essentially the same as those used in the interpretation of parables and allegories.  Nevertheless, in view of the peculiar nature and purpose of the scriptural types, we should be careful in the application of the following principles:

On printed page 254 Terry writes the following:

3. The Old Testament types are susceptible of complete interpretation only by the light of the Gospel.  It has too often been hastily assumed that the ancient prophets and holy men were possessed of a full knowledge of the mysteries of Christ, and vividly apprehended the profound significance of all sacred types and symbols.  That they at times had some idea that certain acts and institutions foreshadowed better things to come may be admitted, but according to Heb. ix, 7-12, the meaning of the holiest mysteries of the ancient worship was not manifest while the outward tabernacle was yet standing.  And not only did the ancient worshippers fail to understand those mysteries, but the mysteries themselves the forms of worship, "the meats, and drinks, and divers washings, ordinances of flesh,imposed until a time of rectification" (διοϱθώσεωϛ, straightening up), were unable to make the worshippers perfect.  In short, the entire Mosaic cultus was, in its nature and purpose, preparatory and pedagogic (Gal. iii, 25), and any interpreter who assumes that the ancients apprehended clearly what the Gospel reveals in the Old Testament types, will be likely to run into extravagance, and involve himself in untenable conclusions.

Hebrews 9:7-12 says:

... but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Finally, let's consider the life of Abraham from the perspective of a man who is given a very specific promise in Genesis 12:7 about having offspring then how he and his family understand God's promise.

In Genesis 11:30, we are told that Sarai (later renamed Sarah) was not able to given birth to children. Genesis 12:4 says that Abram (later also renamed Abraham), Sarai, and Lot left Haran when Abram was 75 years old. In Genesis 15:1-6, God talks with Abram in a vision and in verse 4 God corrects Abram's fear that his extended family will inherit his house by telling Abram that the offspring God spoke of in 12:7 is Abram's "very own son" and not a relative of Abram. In Genesis 16:1-4 we read of Sarai's attempt to provide a fulfillment of God's promise by means of her servant Hagar. We read in verse 16 that Abram was 86 when Ishmael was born. In Genesis 17 and 18:1-15 we read of God's promise in 12:7 being given to Abram for a third time with far greater detail than the previous promises when Abram is 99 year old and Sarah's unbelief that she could actually give birth to a child. Finally, in Genesis 21:1-7, we read of the birth of Isaac and God's promise, in 12:7, being fulfilled through the means that God actually intended. By this time Abraham is 100 years old and Sarah is 90 years old!

Therefore, we have seen in the life of Abraham that Abraham was given a promise by God, undoubtedly shared that promise with his wife, and then both of them try two different ways of fulfilling God's promise according to their own ways. How much simpler would it have been if they just knew how God was going to bring about the birth of Issac from Sarah? However, they were only given the promise. The only reason why Abraham and Sarah tried to bring about God's promises through the two other means that they did in Genesis 15:1-6 and Genesis 16:1-4 is because they didn't know the 'how' and the 'when' of God's fulfillment to their family.

This conclusion should not scare us. This conclusion should cause us to pray and wait on the faithful God to bring us to the places we should be in our lives. This should also lead us into action. We have a God who is in control of opening and closing doors as we live our lives. Part of our waiting is being patient but it also involves us trying out different possibilities according to God's moral law. We can do this because we have full assurance that God will lead us to where he wants us to go.

While I still respect this dear Brother in Christ, because of the above mentioned reasons I must disagree with him on this matter, by saying that the Old Testament Saints were not more aware about how God's purposes would come to His fulfillment. The Scriptures, furthermore, are not silent on this issue. Yes, Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day and was glad (John 8:56-59) and the author of Hebrews said Abraham was looking forward to the city built by God (Hebrews 11:8-10). However, all of this was done by faith towards the faithful God who would bring about His promises in His way, not the way of what believers perceive as God's ways. It's okay for Christians, both in the Old and New Testament, to be surprised by God.