Paul Misunderstood: Women in the Church (Part 2)

In a culture like ours where EQUALITY is highly valued and talk of gender DISTINCTIONS is taboo, the teachings of the Apostle Paul, as they relate to women in the church, have been classified as ‘male chauvinistic’.  But is this label warranted? Have we correctly understood what Paul meant when he said things like, “Men are the image and glory of God but women are the glory of man” and “Women should remain silent in the churches?”

In the last blog, we began to make the case that these statements are often misunderstood because they are understood outside of the context in which they are made. So is Paul trying to suppress the voice and influence of women in the church by demanding, “Women should remain silent in churches?” Let’s find out…

THE CONTEXT

As we learned in the last blog, women were allowed to pray and prophecy in the church as long as they were wearing a head covering (for cultural reasons). Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 11. And so we must ask ourselves, “Is Paul contradicting himself in 1 Corinthians 14 or did he change his mind later in the letter?” The answer: NO!

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the disorder that has presented itself while people in the church are together prophecying (that is, presenting a hymn, word of instruction, revelation, or a tongue and interpretation—1 Cor. 14:26). Apparently, everyone in the church is trying to prophecy at the same time (14:31) and this is presenting confusion and discouragement rather than instruction and encouragement. This disorder is also not allowing an adequate pause so that the individual prophecies can be weighed and evaluated (14:29-30).

So how does Paul’s statement that women should be silent in the church fit into this context?

WHO IS PAUL ADDRESSING?

Apparently, some of the women in the church are bringing disgrace to their husbands by speaking in the church (1 Corinthians 14:35). So then why does Paul instruct ALL women to be silent in the church and not just wives? Answer: HE DOESN’T! The Greek word gyne used here can refer to either “women” or “wives” depending on the context (There is not a separate Greek word for ‘wives’!).  And in this context where women are bringing disgrace to their husbands, the word gyne is clearly (in my opinion) referring to ‘wives.’ And so Paul is really saying, “WIVES should remain silent in the church.”

So is Paul communicating that WIVES can never speak in the church?

THE EXTENT OF PAUL’S INSTRUCTION

The context is clearly indicating that wives are bringing disgrace to their husbands. But how are they doing this? The context would indicate that the wives are ‘inquiring’ about their husbands’ prophecies and ‘asking’ them questions in the public forum rather than at home.

But what’s so bad about asking your husband a question in public? Well, the compound Greek verb for ‘ask’ (epe-rotatosan) in this passage (14:35) is used elsewhere to mean ‘interrogate’ (Mark 11:29; 14:60-61). And so the wives are not just innocently ‘asking’ (rotatosan) their husbands questions, they are ‘interrogating’ (epe-rotatosan) them in public during the time when prophecies are being weighed and evaluated. It isn’t difficult to imagine how a wife could bring shame to her husband by interrogating him after he gives a prophecy. As Ben Witherington puts it, “The speaking in question denotes activity of sifting or weighing the words of prophets, especially by asking probing questions about the prophet’s theology or even the prophet’s lifestyle in public.” This type of interrogation certainly would bring a sense of disrespect to just about every husband I know!

THE BOTTOM LINE

And so Paul is not making a blanket statement that wives must never speak in the church. He is instructing wives NOT to speak within the church in ways that bring shame and disgrace to their husbands. In fact, the word ‘silent’ (sigao) does not always communicate an unqualified ‘lack of speech.’ Depending on context, it can mean ‘to hold one’s tongue, hold one’s peace, or to refrain from using a particular kind of speech, or speech in a presupposed context.’ And so in this context, wives are being instructed to hold their speech in church contexts when their husbands are prophecying.

APPLICATION

And so the principle we can draw from this passage is NOT: “Wives (or women) are not ever allowed to speak in the church.” NO. The principle Paul is applying in this context is: “Wives should respect their husbands by NOT belittling them in public.” And I would submit that husbands should do likewise toward their wives! And so may God strengthen your relationships as you show honor and respect to others (including your spouse)!

Paul Misunderstood: Women in the Church (Part 1)

Did you know that the Apostle Paul wrote, "...he [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man" (1 Corinthians 11:7) and "women should remain silent in the churches, they are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (1 Corinthians 14:34)? Is Paul a male chauvinist and a promoter of male elitism? Many in our culture certainly think so. And these verses are used as ammunition to fire the label 'female suppressionists' at the Christian faith. Of course, most people who place this label on Paul and Christians have not studied these texts in any great detail (and usually not in their literary context and original languages!). And so I want to do that here...

PAUL EXPRESSED DIGNITY TOWARD WOMEN
Often overlooked are the unprecedented liberties Paul and the Christian faith afforded to females in the male dominated Roman culture of the 1st century. Women were allowed to pray and prophecy in the church (1 Cor. 11:5, 14:31). And many women were influential co-workers in the church (including Phoebe, Junia, Prisca, Mary who are enthusiastically greeted by Paul in Romans 16)! And Paul even expresses man's codependence on women when he says, "In the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God" (1 Cor. 11:11-12). That's not all! Paul calls for mutual submission between a husband and a wife in Ephesians 5:21 when he instructs the husband to love his wife "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Does Paul sound like a person who lacks respect for women?

But what are we to think of the statement, man "is the glory and image of God; but woman is the glory of man?" After all, this doesn't sound like much of a compliment. But what did Paul mean and what was the context of this statement? Let's find out...

THE MAIN ISSUE
This statement didn't emerge out of thin air. NO. It is part of a greater context. So what is the context? Well, throughout 1 Corinthians, Paul is addressing disorder in the Corinthian church. And this disorder stems from tension between Jesus' teachings and the practices of the popular culture in Corinth: Patronage. Social Classism. Elitism. Pagan Worship. And so Paul is teaching the Corinthians how to follow Jesus in a secular culture full of competing values and practices. And the issue that is raised in 1 Corinthians 11 revolves around head coverings. Specifically, do Christian women need to continue to embrace the cultural norm of wearing a head covering?  

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FEMALE HEAD COVERINGS
But why would Paul even care about this issue? And why were head coverings such a big deal in the Corinthian culture? Well, head coverings were a symbol of modesty according to Philo. This is why an adulterous woman would have her hair shaved off. This was a public sign of disgrace and shame. Additionally, going uncovered in public was a way for women to give nonverbal clues that they were "available." This is why sexual promiscuity was associated with the uncovered head of a married woman in public. Most husbands probably didn't want their wives "playing the field."

So how might this have factored into the church context in Corinth? Anthony Thiselton summarizes the issue well when he writes, "Public worship was neither the occasion for women to become 'objects' of attraction to be 'sized up' by men; nor an occasion for women to offer cryptic 'suggestions' to men." (I guess this serves as the Biblical basis for ChristianMingle and eHarmony!)

But not only this, a married woman who did not have her head covered in the public setting of the church community brought dishonor to her husband. Why? Sexually promiscuous, married women were the ones walking around with uncovered heads in public NOT modest Christian wives. This is why Paul writes, "Every woman who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head (that is, her husband see 1 Cor. 11:3) - it is the same as having her head shaved" (1 Cor. 11:5).

But if women had to wear head coverings then shouldn't men also? After all, head coverings were a cultural norm in Corinth for men too! But Paul instructs the church in 1 Cor. 11:4, "Every man who prays or prophecies with his head covered (lit. 'having down from the head') dishonors his head (that is, Christ see 1 Cor. 11:3)." Is Paul promoting a double-standard here?

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MALE HEAD COVERINGS
In this passage, many people believe that Paul is disallowing males to have long hair (that is, "hair down from the head") because it effeminates them. This type of hair style that blurs gender distinctions dishonors Christ. While this is a possible interpretation, Plutarch uses this same language to describe Scipio walking through Alexandria attempting to go incognito by "having his garment down from the head." And in fact, it was normative in the Roman culture for males to wear their togas over their heads (and hanging down from the head) at pagan sacrifices as an act of piety and devotion. Based on this cultural understanding, Paul is indicating that such a pagan practice shows disgrace toward Christ in the setting of Christian worship. This is why Paul instructs men not to have anything "down from the head" in worship.

CONCLUSION
So when Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:7 that man "is the image and glory of God; woman is the glory of man," He simply means that males are visible representatives (that is, the glory) of God and women are visible representatives of man (specifically, their husbands). BUT it is important to note that the disjunctive word 'but' present in most English translations is not in the original Greek text. Why is this important? The 'but' makes it appear as though Paul is communicating that women are NOT the "image and glory of God" BUT merely the glory of man. But this is not so! Rather, Paul is communicating that as visible representatives of God, men should not engage in the pagan practice of wearing their togas "down from the head" during Christian worship. This brings shame to God. Likewise, as visible representatives of their husbands, wives should not follow the flirtatious practice of walking around with uncovered heads (especially in worship). This brings shame to their husbands.

APPLICATION
So how does this culturally distant passage apply to us today? Paul is explicitly drawing from a principle: Males and females are representatives of both God and their spouses. Therefore, they need to avoid anything that would bring dishonor and shame to God or their spouses. Is there anything in your life that is bringing shame to either God or your spouse?

So what are we to make of Paul's statement, "Women should remain silent in the churches, they are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says?" Find out in the sequel to this post!

God's Love Misunderstood (Part 3)

Because love means so many different things to so many different people, it is at risk of losing its meaning altogether. To some, love is a feeling of infatuation, to others it is a willingness to sacrifice, and to others it is an unconditional acceptance of everybody. But how does God define His love?

GOD'S LOVE AND HITLER
To many people (including a majority of Christians), God's love is unconditional. And so according to them, God loves Hitler in the same way that He loves a follower of Christ. But imagine that someone tells a follower of Christ, "God loves you just like he loves Hitler." How is that person to take this 'compliment'? Does this statement bring immense value to God's love or does it cheapen it? And more importantly, is it true? Does this statement accurately represent God's love?

Some would resoundingly say, "YES! God's love is so great that it cannot be fathomed. God loves both believers and Hitler in the same way." They would then quote Romans 8:38-39, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

But is Romans 8:38-39 saying that God's love is limitless toward everybody? I guess the answer lies in the details. Who is the 'US' referring to in the phrase, "[nothing] will be able to separate US from the love of God in Christ Jesus?" Not only this but can someone experience the love of God that is IN CHRIST JESUS if they themselves are not IN CHRIST JESUS?

My take on this passage is that the 'US' is referring to those IN CHRIST JESUS (8:1), who are living according to the Spirit (8:4), and in whom the Spirit lives (8:9-11). In short, you can only experience the love of God that is described here if you are in Christ Jesus. And so because Romans 8:38-39 only applies to those in Christ Jesus, the security of God's love is only available to authentic Christ followers!

So does God NOT love sinners like Hitler? ANSWER: It depends. John 3:16 tells us that God sacrificed for everybody through Jesus to demonstrate His love. In this way, God loved Hitler. But Psalm 5:5 seems to indicate that God hates ALL who do wrong [in the sense that they are defiantly living in rebellion toward God]. In this way, God hated Hitler. This is why John 3:16 also teaches that belief in Jesus is a requirement for eternal life with God [versus perishing apart from God]. And so as we can see, God's love is multifaceted. He sacrificed for all but he does not accept all people.

GOD'S LOVE AND CHRIST FOLLOWERS

So, does God accept ALL people unconditionally who claim to be Christ followers? After all, if nothing can separate Christ followers from God's love in Christ Jesus, can't they just live however they want without putting God's love toward them in jeopardy? NO. Remember that Christ followers by definition have the Spirit of God living in them (8:9-11). If God lives in a person, He will ultimately manifest Himself in that person's life. Think of it this way, if the spirit of Mother Theresa lived in me, don't you think that I would have a desire to feed the poor and a passion to commit my life to issues of social justice? If I didn't, don't you think that it would be legitimate for people to question my claim that I possess her spirit? In the same way, people who do not manifest God in their lives (at all) do not have the Spirit of God living in them. 

And so does God accept ALL people unconditionally who claim to be Christ followers? NO. God's love isn't unconditional even in relation to Christ followers! However, the Spirit of God and the death of Jesus satisfy God's conditions on their behalf. In other words, God's love and grace satisfy His requirements in us! This is the reason nothing can separate us from God's love IN CHRIST JESUS.

CONCLUSION

So why are Christians so hesitant to distance themselves from the idea that God's love is unconditional? SIMPLE. It causes people to question their salvation! And to many, this is an unhealthy insecurity to place in the life of a professing Christian. But the apostle Paul seems to see things differently when he says in 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves." Some professing Christians need to examine themselves to make certain that the Spirit of God is truly living in them. This was certainly the case with the church in Corinth.

But there are believers who are carrying with them the weight of guilt from past sins that the Spirit of God and the death of Jesus have conquered. These Christ followers need to embrace the reality of God's love as described in Romans 8:38-39. God wants us to be driven by His love and not burdened by the guilt of our past sins.

And so may God give you the grace you need to conquer sin in your life and live in the security of His love! 

God's Love Misunderstood (Part 2)

In the last blog, it was claimed that God's love as portrayed in the Bible is more complicated (and multifaceted) than many of us realize. But unfortunately, most Christian people would sum up God's love with one simple word: unconditional. And it is from this label that has come the popular statement, "God hates the sin but loves the sinner." However, many Bible passages convey God's love as conditional toward sinners (Jude 21) and several passages even tell us point blank that God hates sinners (Psalm 5). And so we must ask ourselves, "Is 'unconditional' the best way to describe God's love?" I am convinced that this label is more confusing and misleading than helpful. Here's why...

THE DANGERS OF THE 'UNCONDITIONAL' LABEL
Those of us who defend God's love as being summarily 'unconditional' might unknowingly be encouraging universalism. Let me explain. If God's love is summarily 'unconditional' then the universalists have got the message of salvation right: Jesus died based on an unconditional love for all people and so no one can be eternally condemned based on any conditions. Why? That would violate the unconditionalness of God's love! And so Jesus lovingly saves everyone without condition; All roads must lead to God (and are actually irrelevant); Hell is just a myth; And a love devoid of justice ultimately wins; PERIOD. But we know that this is NOT what the Bible teaches. Maybe this is why the Bible never tells us that God's love is 'unconditional.' This label would contradict the very message of salvation, a message that encapsulates God's love for all of humanity! Why? Salvation has a condition: repentance from sin.

JOHN 3:16 AND GOD'S LOVE
But maybe you're thinking, "John 3:16 says that God loved the entire world and therefore sent His son to die for sinners. And Romans 5:8 tells us that Jesus died for us WHILE we were still sinners. Don't these verses indicate that God's love is unconditional?" Well, they certainly teach us that Jesus' death WAS an undeserved expression of God's love for ALL of humanity. But while this expression of love might demonstrate to us that God's love has 'unconditionally' PURSUED us, it doesn't seem to demonstrate that God's love 'unconditionally' ACCEPTS us. Because according to John 3:16, salvation has a condition: belief.

Additionally, while John 3:16 clearly teaches that God HAS extravagantly LOVED the world in the PAST through Jesus, we need to ask ourselves this question, "Does John 3:16 also teach us that God will ALWAYS love ALL of humanity without condition in the FUTURE?" John 3:17 certainly makes this a possibility. It indicates that God did NOT send Jesus in the past to condemn the world (but rather to save the world). But then John 3:18 tells us that whoever does not believe in Jesus stands condemned. This is reiterated in John 5:22 which teaches that IN THE FUTURE Jesus will judge and condemn the world. How are these seemingly contradictory verses to be held together? This (in my opinion) is where verses like Jude 21 and Psalm 5 bring further clarity to the nature of God's love.

And so John 3:16 clearly teaches us that God's love is AVAILABLE to all people in the world. That God's love is SELF-GIVING. That God's love has PURSUED sinners and saints alike. And that God's love is extremely GRACIOUS. But does it teach that God's love is SUMMARILY unconditional? I leave that conclusion up to you (but please don't ignore John 3:18!).

JEREMIAH 31:3 AND GOD'S LOVE
But wait a minute. God's love is said to be 'everlasting' (hb: olam) in Jeremiah 31:3. So how can an EVERLASTING love ever STOP loving humanity? Answer: It can't and it doesn't. But just because God's love is permanent (or everlasting) does not mean that His love is unconditional.

How can this be? Well, the permanence of God's love is expressed CORPORATELY (not individually) in Jeremiah 31:3. As we've already seen, God's everlasting love is CORPORATELY lavished on humanity (John 3:16a) but must be INDIVIDUALLY appropriated to be received (John 3:16b). And so this is why God can say in Exodus 20:6, "But I lavish UNFAILING (hb: olam) love (hb: hesed) for a thousand generations ON THOSE WHO LOVE ME AND OBEY MY COMMANDS." In this way, God never stops loving humanity even though He can stop loving defiantly disobedient INDIVIDUALS!

And so in Jeremiah 31:3, God's love has withstood Israel's CORPORATE acts of disobedience. But does this mean that God's love has been manifested without condition to every INDIVIDUAL Israelite person? NO. How do we know this? It appears that in the context of Jeremiah 31:3, God's everlasting love will only be experienced by those who "survived the sword" (31:2), to "Virgin Israel" (31:4), to "the remnant Israel" (31:7).

So who exactly are those who died by the sword? Who is the non-Virgin Israel? You have to go all the way back to Jeremiah 29:15-19 to find this out. They are those who did not listen to God's words (29:19) and did "outrageous things" such as commit adultery with their neighbors' wives (29:23). These Israelites were DEFIANT sinners. And so they were treated by the Lord like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon burned in the fire (29:22). Did these defiant INDIVIDUALS experience God's EVERLASTING love? It certainly doesn't sound like it.

So does this mean that God's love is really NOT everlasting? I don't think so. Let me explain. Imagine I told you that I will NEVER STOP loving my home state of Illinois but that I don't love the traffic in Chicago, does this mean that I have stopped loving Illinois? NO. Just because I love the state of Illinois does not mean that I am required to love ever INDIVIDUAL detail about the state. I can love Illinois and still hate the Chicago traffic. The same is true when it comes to God's everlasting love. Just because He loves THE WORLD does not mean that He is required to love every INDIVIDUAL in the world. In this way, God's love for humanity is EVERLASTING.

THE BOTTOM LINE
And so God can love the world with an everlasting love and still hate the defiant sinner. To some, this makes God sound mean and intolerant. And the truth is that God is intolerant when it comes to people who intentionally set out to ruin His world through their defiant sin. But we must not let God's intolerance of evil overshadow the greatness of His love. Because even though God's love may not be unconditional, it is still gracious, self-giving, available to all people, relentlessly pursuant, and everlasting (...and the list could go on). In short, God's love is extravagant even though it is not unconditional. So then why does rejecting the notion that God's love is unconditional make so many evangelical Christians uneasy? We'll look into this question in the next blog.

God's Love Misunderstood (Part 1)

Somewhere along the line, the idea of God's love as being "unconditional" crept into the Christian vocabulary. So where did this concept of God's love come from? The Bible? Bible scholars? NOPE. This term is never used in the Holy Scriptures and neither was it acquired from Biblical scholarship. So where did it come from? To the best of my knowledge, it originated with the pop psychologist Erich Fromm in the 1930's. He ultimately wrote the book The Art of Love (1956) that laid out various stages of love. According to Fromm, love reaches its pinnacle with "Motherly Love." And to quote Fromm, "Mother's love is peace. It need not be acquired, it need not be deserved." In other words, Motherly Love is unconditional and separates the individual from his or her behavior. So is this how Christians should understand God's love? Does God love the sinner even though He hates the sin? Does God's love reach the pinnacle of love based on Fromm's standards? Let's take a look at what the Bible says.

GOD'S LOVE IS AGAPE
When talking of God's love, many begin with the classical Greek distinctions of love: storge, eros, philia, and agape. How do these words differ in meaning? Agape refers to a selfless love that expects nothing in return. Eros refers to a romantic love based in emotion and physical beauty. Philia is a loyalty shared between friends that involves some level of give and take from both people. Storge is a natural affection between two people such as a mother and daughter. So the question is, "Does the Bible uphold these distinctions or like most languages, were these fine, surgical semantical differences lost over time (and before the New Testament was written)?"

Many point to John 21:15-19 as a proof that these distinctions remained intact at the time of the New Testament's writing. In this passage, Jesus asks Peter, "Do you agape me more than these?" Peter replies, "You know that I philia you" to which Jesus replies, "Feed my arnia (sheep)." Not satisfied Jesus asks again, "Do you agape me?" to which Peter replies, "Lord, you know I philia you." Jesus reiterates, "Take care of my probata (sheep)." Jesus asks a THIRD time, "Simon, do you philia me?" Peter responds, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I philia you." Jesus repeats for the THIRD time, "Feed my probata." Is Jesus challenging Peter to a greater agape love only to settle for the only love Peter is willing to offer, philia love? If the distinctions of classical Greek hold up, this would be the appropriate conclusion.

However, in light of the fact that John also uses two terms to refer to "sheep" (arnia and probata) in these same verses, many believe that his interchange between philia and agape is merely stylistic. This conclusion is reinforced by the observation that Jesus' THREEFOLD questioning of Peter's love for Him parallels Peter's THREEFOLD denial of Jesus before His crucifixion. Therefore, based on this explanation, Jesus isn't repeating the same question with the hope that Peter will commit to a higher type of love in his relationship with Jesus (agape vs. philia). NO. Peter is being subtly challenged to follow Jesus no matter the cost and refuse to deny Jesus ever again. And this explanation seems very plausible. And so, John 21:15-19 (in my opinion) does not provide an airtight argument that proves the various Greek terms for love maintain their classical distinctions in the New Testament.

Far more informative (in my opinion) is Jude 21 which says, "keep yourselves in God's agape as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." This verse certainly sounds like people (even professing, "called" Christians! - Jude 1) can stand outside of God's agape (if, as most conclude, 'the love of God' is understood in this verse as a subjective genitive). That doesn't sound very unconditional or "motherly" to me. And John 15:10 adds fuel to the fire (literally; see John 15:6). It says, "If you keep my commands, you will remain in my agape." It certainly appears that God's agape love (in this verse) requires something in return! If true, the classical Greek distinctions of love appear to have been flattened (or at least diluted) to some degree by the time of the New Testament. And as a result, context (and not an appeal to classical Greek) is what should drive our understanding of the word agape. And as we've seen, agape can be laden with conditionality in certain contexts.

IS GOD'S LOVE ONLY CONDITIONAL?
But maybe you're thinking, "God sent His son to die for the world while we were still sinners because He loves the world in some 'unconditional' sense (John 3:16; Romans 5:8); and the Bible implies that no one can separate us from God's love (Romans 8:35-39); and even the Old Testament claims that God's love is 'everlasting' (Jeremiah 31:3). Certainly these verses must be factored into the equation." And you would be right. These verses do need to be considered when trying to understand God's love. But unfortunately, these verses have received all of the limelight and completely overshadowed verses like Jude 21. And as a result, the Bible's portrayal of God's love has been oversimplified in our day and age. But we must understand that God's love as portrayed in Scripture is more nuanced than most of us realize! D.A. Carson's book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, exposes the complexity and various contours of God's love!

And so in the next blog, we will look deeper into the various nuances of God's love and specifically the verses that many people use to support the 'unconditionality' of God's love.

Paul and the Danger of Parallelomania

There is a very common Bible study practice out there today called Parallelomania. What is it exactly? It's a type of Biblical interpretation that finds hidden meanings in the Biblical text using historical details and cultural practices (usually from rabbinic traditions like the Mishnah or Greek and Roman culture). Let me give you an example from a recent book I read. Here's what the book described:

During the Jewish Passover, each Jewish family would put the family name around the neck of their lamb they were taking to the Temple to be sacrificed. Well, when Jesus, the Lamb of God, was on the cross, a sign was hung over his head that read, "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews." Interestingly, in paintings of Jesus' crucifixion you will find the initials 'INRI'. These are the first letters of each of the nouns in the inscription in Latin ("Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum"). When this phrase is translated into Biblical Hebrew the inscription would read: "Y'Shua HaNatzri V'Melech HaYehudim." When you take the first letter of each of these words you get "YHVH", the name of God! Jesus is the Son of God!

Sounds pretty amazing doesn't it! But really all it amounts to is a Biblical fallacy. Why? First, the New Testament authors don't translate this phrase into Biblical Hebrew to make this point. They easily could have done this but they didn't! In fact, most of the Biblical authors give an abbreviated version of what the sign on Jesus' cross read: King of the Jews. And Mark even makes it clear that this inscription described the charge against Jesus (not a hidden reference to the name of God).

Second, notice that the Latin translation does not include any definite articles ("the") or conjunctions ("and"). It literally reads, "Jesus Nazareth King Jews." But the supposed Hebrew translation given here literally reads, "Jesus THE Nazarene AND King of THE Jews." "Ha" is a definite article in Hebrew that is not always needed and the "V" is a conjunction ("and") that isn't even in the Biblical greek phrase to begin with. If you want to compare apples to apples (that is, Latin to Hebrew) then the Hebrew phrase (without the definite articles or conjunction) would be "Y'Shua Natzri Melech Yehudim." And this translation doesn't register the name of God using the first letter of each of these nouns! This is Parallelomania in action! And it is thoughtlessly embraced by many.

THE HIDDEN DANGER OF PARALLELOMANIA
Why am I making such a big deal of this errant Bible study method? Here's why. Parallelomania adds uninspired meaning to the text that the inspired authors (and by extension God) never intended to communicate! As D.A. Carson bluntly puts it in his book Exegetical Fallacies,

Conceptual parallelomania is particularly inviting to those who have taken advanced training in a specialized field (psychology, sociology, some area of history, philosophy, education) but who have no more than a serious Sunday-school knowledge of the Scriptures. Many of the specialists who fall into these fallacies are devout believers who want to relate the Bible to their discipline. They think they have a much firmer grasp of Scripture than they do; and the result is frequently appalling nonsense.  

Adding historical details to unearth new or hidden meaning in the Bible is an abuse to God's inspired Word (sorry if that sounds harsh!). Historical backgrounds should only be used to help clarify the details already in the text (not used to add new details!).

Let me give you another example to help clarify further what I mean. I recently read a book on the Jewish Feasts in Leviticus. Here are the details and hidden meaning given regarding the manner in which the Paschal lamb for the Passover Feast was prepared:

The Paschal lamb was roasted upright on a pomegranate pole with a crossbar through its shoulders. This would obviously bring to mind the cross of Jesus. But not only this, the entrails were tied around the head so everything could be roasted evenly without boiling (which was prohibited). This, of course, resembled Jesus' crown of thorns. Jesus was truly our Paschal Lamb who died on the cross and wore a crown of thorns!

Wow! This is an exciting teaching! Jesus' crucifixion was predicted (or at least pictured) in the Passover Feast! But wait. There is a problem here. Even though lots of details are given in the inspired book of Exodus regarding the protocol for preparing the Passover lamb, none of these "historical," Jesus-esce details or practices are mentioned. NO. Rather, this information is based on debatable historical "facts" from Justin Martyr (a person who was alive in the 2nd century, well after the time of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple and its sacrificial system). Parallelomania is certainly capable of jumpstarting a person's interest in the Bible but the irony is that it is grounded in extra-Biblical sources (that is, its information comes from outside of the Bible). This violates the principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone).

PAUL'S LETTERS
So how does Parallelomania relate to where we are at in the Eat this Book Challenge? SIMPLE. There have been some Parallelomania trends surfacing regarding Paul's letters to the Philippians and Colossians. These parallels have centered around the prominence of the imperial cult (that is, the worship of Caesar) during the time of Paul. Paul certainly uses some political terms in his letter to the Philippians in verses 1:27 (politeuesthe; "exercise your citizenship") and 3:20 (politeuma). Paul also describes Jesus as Savior (2:5-11) even though this is not one of his common titles for Jesus.

Because of this, many believe that the profession "Jesus is Lord" is in response to the proclamation "Caesar is Lord" that Roman citizens were expected to make. Based on this interpretation, Paul wants believers to worship Jesus and not the Roman Caesar. The problem surfaces when this Roman background is generalized to the point that Paul is understood as ONLY confronting the influence of the imperial cult in the lives of Christian believers in his letter to the Philippians. While there might be a hint of truth to this interpretation, the term politeuesthe can also be traced to Jewish sources where it means "following the Jewish way of life." And Paul does, in fact, show in his letter to the Philippians that he is primarily concerned about wayward Jewish influences that have surfaced in the church. We see this when he mentions "the circumcision" in Philippians 3:3. And so Paul is NOT writing primarily to confront the imperial cult (and the same is true in Paul's letter to the Colossians)! But Parallelomania would have you believe otherwise (just check out the book Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire)!

THE BOTTOM LINE
Many people embrace Parallelomania (in my opinion) because they have become bored with the Bible and therefore want something "deeper," something "new," something "novel." In other words, they've heard all of the same Bible stories before (that is, they've been over-churched) and want something "new" to spice up their Christianity. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad with wanting to gain a deeper understanding of Scripture! But what people often fail to realize is that maybe they've grown bored because they are not living out what they already know from the Bible. And so they don't need to learn more. NO. They just need to put what they already know into action and transition from being primarily "takers" to becoming "givers", from "disciples" to "disciple-makers." This doesn't mean that you completely stop "taking." NO. But it does mean that you begin passing on what you have come to know about following Jesus to the next generation. This includes both "head" knowledge and knowledge in "action." And so my prayer is that you would resist the allure of Parallelomania and find excitement Jesus' way (the old fashioned way!): By being a disciple of Jesus and making disciples for Jesus!

Romans and Paul's Confrontation With Disunity (Part 2)

In the first half of Paul's letter to the Romans (chapters 1-11), Paul establishes the fact that there is no room for BOASTING in the gospel. Why?

1.) All humans are GUILTY SINNERS, not just the unclean Gentiles or the rebellious Israelites (1:18-3:20).
2.) God's RIGHTEOUSNESS doesn't come through Jewish birthright or works of the Law but rather through Jesus' death on the cross (3:21-5:21).
3.) Life transformation is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT and not manufactured through human effort (6:1-8:39).
4.) God's PROMISE of salvation is available to ALL humanity, not just an elite few (9:1-11:36).

So how does Paul APPLY the gospel message to confront the disunity that exists within the church at Rome? Here's how...

POINT #2: WHEN WE TRULY UNDERSTAND THE GOSPEL, WE STOP BOASTING AND START SERVING AND SUBMITTING!

According to Paul, the gospel message promotes a life of humility which creates unity among believers. And so in the second half of his letter to the Romans [the imperative section], Paul calls the church to a life of humility. Check out these verses...

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual act of worship. (12:1)

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. (12:3)

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor...contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. (12:9, 13)

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. (12:16)

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. (13:1)

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. (13:8)

As for the weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. (14:1)

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer [on matters of food or drink etc.], but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. (14:13)

So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. (14:19)

Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up...May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus that you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (15:2, 5-7) 

THE BOTTOM LINE
The gospel message (when understood correctly) leaves no room for self-promotion. And when we stop promoting ourselves, we can begin building others up through sincere acts of encouragement. This was Paul's hope in his letter to the Romans: That unity would be restored as people more accurately understood themselves in light of the gospel.

And so may a bond of unity be established and grow between you and others as you better understand yourself in light of the gospel message. And as a result, may you find yourself loving others extravagantly!