Hebrews (Part 1) - Introduction 10/23/08

Many scholars believe Hebrews to be the most profound of the New Testament books. The study of the book may yield rich results, but an approach of less than full commitment often leads to frustration. The epistle is not ordered in what we may consider a traditional manner of presentation for topical discussion. Two reasons may account for this. The first is that the book seems to have been written according to the style of the Greek orators of its day. Rather than the normal logical progression of premise, premise, conclusion, Hebrews tosses out a conclusion, then supports it through (seemingly) haphazard references, comments, and illustrations. The second reason for its particular approach is that its intended audience is not as general as we usually assume in reading the New Testament. Our assumption is often rooted in the idea that, after all, God delivered these books/letters to all Christians of all time. Yes, he did. However, we can’t assume that every book must conform to our current general life and culture. The epistle to the Hebrews was written to Hebrews—Mediterranean Jews of the first century. Their culture was their religion. Their focus in living, therefore, had been Judaism. Their travels to areas outside Palestine often served to focus their lives’ activities even more so on their Judaism as they faced an opposing and imposing Greek culture. In other words, they had their personal, protective shields up. Christianity, therefore, was not necessarily accepted by them as a new religion/culture or even improved religion/culture, but rather merely as an addition to their already settled Jewish culture. The writer of Hebrews seems to sense this and focuses arguments for Christ’s mediatorial excellence specifically against this attitude. To gain the most from the epistle, therefore, that “author intent” must be kept in mind.

DATE

Hebrews was probably written in the mid to late AD 60s (65-68). Hebrews refers to two times of Christian persecution. The first is referenced in chapter 10. The indication of verse 32 is that there had been a former time of persecution. The second reference is in chapter 12. That persecution had not yet intensified to the point of sacrificing lives. By matching these references to the historical times of Christian persecution in the first century world, we are able to determine the general timeframe of the writing. The first time of Christian persecution after the opening of the apostolic age was in AD 49 when the emperor Claudius expelled Christians from Rome. During Nero’s reign (and after Rome burned) Christian persecution lasted from AD 65 until his death in 68. One last significant period occurred under Domitian who reigned from 81 to 96 (this was during the time of the Apostle John’s exile to Patmos). The majority of scholars believe that the book was written during the Neronian persecution with the previous persecution of chapter 10 referring to the action of Claudius. And thus the generally accepted date is AD 65-68. The later date during Domitian’s reign seems implausible since Hebrews, although making reference to persecutions, makes no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple that occurred in AD 70—besides Christ’s life and death, the most significant event of Jewish history for the past several hundred years.

LOCATION

The epistle was probably written from Ephesus to Rome. The end of the book provides clues that lead toward this conclusion. In Hebrews 13:24 the author speaks of greeting those in Italy. If the author is writing from Italy, this reference may be a greeting from those with him in Italy. If the author is writing to Italy (Rome), this passage may express a greeting from those that are with the author who had previously come from Italy. I believe the second understanding to be true. The writer had just provided news of Timothy’s release from prison in the previous verse. At this time (mid-60s), Timothy was in Ephesus. (We know this because of Paul’s letters to Timothy that were of this time period.) The presumption, then, is that the author, being in Ephesus, provides news of Timothy’s release along with a greeting from those with the author who have come from Italy.

AUTHOR

Hebrews has no salutation as other epistles. Most likely the salutation was either lost or stripped off for some reason. That it had a salutation at one point seems probable since the letter writer speaks at times in the first person singular, seemingly sure that the recipients know from whom the letter came. But while they may have known who wrote it, we don’t. Several possibilities have been put forward over the centuries. Topping the list are Paul, Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, and, in more modern times, Priscilla (and/or Aquila).

Although Paul has been most often presumed to be the author, the evidence appears scanty at best. Some ideas in Hebrews seem to be Pauline, but that certainly does not prove his authorship. All those who knew or read Paul could incorporate the same ideas. The Greek of this epistle is stylistically different from Paul’s other letters. Even the vocabulary is different. The arguments are not pursued in the same manner that Paul pursued his points in other epistles. Therefore, few (very few) scholars today still insist on Paul’s authorship.

Some people argue that Paul wrote the epistle in the Hebrew language, and Luke (who wrote with more Greek proficiency) translated it. Two things argue against this reasoning. One is that the manner of the arguments is still inconsistent with other works of Paul. The other is that Old Testament quotations are from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT). It seems unlikely that Paul would write in Hebrew but quote from the Greek scriptures. Luke could have written the epistle on his own, but there is not much to commend this theory except that Luke wrote other books of the NT.

The case for Apollos is a bit stronger. Apollos was certainly skilled in Greek and in Greek oratory—the style of presentation used by the book of Hebrews. But that Apollos was a Christian orator that knew Greek is the only selling point. Barnabas and other friends of Paul are suggested as potential authors merely because they knew Paul and we know their names.

The more modern-day suggestion that Priscilla wrote the letter sounds, at first, like some stretch by biblical egalitarians simply to promote a woman. But there are actually some good points to the argument. Priscilla did know Paul, traveled with him, and was with him when he wrote at least one of his other epistles. She doubtless knew his points and analogies. The subject of Hebrews has to do with the messiahship or mediatorial work of Christ—exactly the subject on which she taught Apollos. Further, the authorship of Priscilla provides a good reason why the salutation has been stripped from the letter. The original recipients may have recognized the importance of the document, and, to ensure that others would read and heed its words, removed any reference to Priscilla in the greeting so that the male-dominated society would consider its message without dismissing the letter out of hand.

Priscilla also had opportunity. We can trace Priscilla and Aquila’s travels based on the book of Acts and letters from Paul. The chart below recounts their travels.



Notice that Priscilla is in Ephesus as Paul writes from Rome to Timothy in the AD 65-68 time period. Notice also that Priscilla has recently returned from Rome (Paul had sent greetings to P&A in his letter to the Romans in AD 57-58). Therefore, Priscilla had cause both to be familiar with and to write to the Jews of Rome. And she also was in Ephesus at the time of the writing of Hebrews.

Although much evidence supports Priscilla as the author, none of it is conclusive. The bottom line is that we do not know for certain who wrote the epistle.

SEPTUAGINT

Before starting into the book, a comment should be made concerning the frequent quotations in Hebrews from the Old Testament. The author quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew text. We know this to be true because there are differences in some of the verse quoted between the Hebrew and Septuagint.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was first done in about 250 BC. The library at Alexandria prided itself on important works from around the known world. To obtain the sacred writings of the Hebrews, the library commissioned 72 Jewish scholars (the name Septuagint derives from the number of translators -- about 70) to translate the OT into Greek. By the time of Christ’s first advent, the Septuagint was the form of Scripture used mostly by the Jews. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament about 320 times (37 times in Hebrews). The meaning or sense of the quote is consistent with the Septuagint 93% of those times. The meaning is consistent with the Hebrew (Masoretic) text about 68% of the time. For that reason you will read “a virgin shall conceive” in Luke which quotes the Septuagint while the passage quoted will read in your OT (translated to English from the Masoretic text) as “a young woman.”

The difference should not cause us alarm. No doctrinal disputation arises in the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic texts. The differences are non-doctrinal differences such as those found between the King James New Testament (and its Byzantine family of Greek texts) and the English Standard Version (and its Alexandrian family of Greek texts). The care in manuscript copying and translation directed by the provision of God has preserved for us reliable copies of his word.

Women (Part 10) - I Corinthians 14 - Silence in Church! 10/16/08

What we know as Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians was actually not the first time he wrote to them. First Corinthians 5:9 refers to a previous letter from Paul. And it is apparent from Paul’s discussion of things he has heard (1:11; 5:1; 16:15-18) and from a letter he also received from them (7:1) that most of this letter is in response to those matters reported to him either from travelers or through the letter from the Corinth church.

One thing that is apparent from all the correction that Paul makes is that the church in Corinth was a bit of a mess. From the outset Paul discusses factions that had developed within the church. A false piety is evident from arguments they had over presumed leaders of the faith. This factionalism developed with an incorrect understanding of the liberality experienced in Christ so that problems of sexual immorality and lawsuits (chs. 5 & 6) resulted as well as other disputes that Paul enumerates from chapter 7 on as he responds to their letter.

Of particular note (on which Paul spends several chapters) is the disorderly nature of their worship services. The discussion actually begins in chapter 11 as Paul addresses the lack of headcoverings among the women as an unnecessary distraction to the focus of the service. He continues in chapter 11 with admonition for focus on the Lord in the communion service. He urges not to come hungry so as to imbibe in a way in which attention is disrupted from worship.

Chapter 12 begins a discussion of spiritual gifts that continues through chapter 14. This is the section that we will focus on because it relates to our subject of the conduct of women within a church meeting. We must be careful from the start to maintain our own focus on the purpose and means of Paul’s presentation. Paul is responding to the disruption evident in the services at Corinth. In particular, this section discusses the misuse of spiritual gifts in church meetings that brings about the disruption. In chapter 12 Paul carefully addresses the basis of spiritual gifts which drives the Corinthians’ misunderstanding. They have clamored over gifts (as they did in their factional divisions of chapter 3) with attitudes desiring authority, prestige, and right of display. Paul’s first correction, then, is to inform them that their clamoring is wrong. He argues that all gifts come from the same Spirit. And all gifts are meant for mutual edification within one spiritual body.

As Paul moves to chapter 13, he says that without love (the desire to give of yourself for the benefit of another), their gifts mean absolutely nothing. Love is selfless. Therefore, if their spiritual gifts, which are meant for the edification of the body, are misused in attempts to claim authority or prestige, their gifts are rendered useless. From that basis, Paul moves to his discussion in chapter 14. “Earnestly desire the spiritual gifts,” he exhorts, but only after they “pursue love” (14:1).

Now that he has set the foundation in order, Paul works on the superstructure. This chapter appears to indicate that the Corinthians considered tongues the most valuable gift. But their value system was incorrectly prioritized. The gift of tongues (speaking in another language without prior training or knowledge of the language) seemed the most miraculous of gifts because its display was so extraordinary. The assembled group was not able to sense the miraculous in the display of other gifts such as prophecy or knowledge. Those who spoke in tongues, therefore, claimed a greater gift and demanded immediate attention. Of course, multiple tongues speakers also vied for the same consideration. The result was a disordered service in which focus was removed from the Lord and settled on self, contending for right of display, prestige, and authority.

Paul corrects the notion first by explaining that the gift of tongues is not the preeminent gift. Tongues is a gift primarily for presentation to the unsaved (14: 22) to draw them into consideration of the message. On the other hand, prophecy was a gift that benefited Christians—those gathered together in meeting for worship and edification. Therefore, Paul focuses their attention, not on the gifts, but the reason for them—to edify the body. Paul further instructs that, since edification is the purpose, any spiritual gift, whether tongues or prophecy, must be done in an orderly manner. If one is speaking in an unknown tongue, there must be an interpreter present or that one should keep silent (14:28). He follows that with the same instruction for those with the gift of prophecy. If one is bringing a prophetic message and another receives a prophetic message, the first should then conclude (be silent) while the next one continues (14:30). You can control this, Paul says, so that disorder and confusion do not reign (14:32).

Verses 34-35 at first glance seem out of place. Are we not discussing disorder and disruption related to spiritual gifts in a meeting? Why then does Paul turn his attention to arguing for the silence of women at these meetings, even to the extent that they cannot so much as ask a question in order to learn? Isn’t learning part of what we go to church for? What’s Paul thinking? The seeming change of thought in these verses is so abrupt that some ancient manuscripts (of the Western family) have removed or reordered these verses in an apparent attempt to make more contextual sense. But their inclusion within the major families of manuscripts (Alexandrian and Byzantine) argues for the correctness of their current placement in our English Bibles.

The conflict continues with the seeming strength of Paul’s command to keep women silent, which contradicts his earlier instruction. In chapter 11 Paul had argued for headcoverings while women prophesied in church. Could it be that three chapters later Paul has reversed his position, now arguing that women cannot prophesy in church? Even the immediately preceding verses argue for women prophesying. In the discussion of prophecy in verses 29 through 31 Paul says “you all” indicating everyone (unless we believe the Bible written only to men).

Some people have attempted to resolve the apparent contradiction in Paul’s thought by suggesting that verses 34 and 35 are actually not Paul’s words at all, but a quote Paul is using from the Corinthians’ letter to him. As support they turn to an example at the beginning of chapter 7. Here it is much more obvious that Paul quotes the Corinthians as saying, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” prior to giving them his teaching. Likewise in chapter 6, the phrases “All things are lawful for me” (6:12) and “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food” (6:13) are understood as the Corinthians’ comments to Paul. Therefore, in chapter 14, this view considers the passage (from verse 29 on) as follows:

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
“The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
What?! Was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.

While this solution does appear to solve Paul’s apparent contradiction from chapter 11’s authorization of women prophesying in church, we would still be left with the question of why Paul chose this point in his discussion to bring up the Corinthians’ seemingly unrelated quote concerning women speaking. We are still in the middle of a discussion on the orderly use of spiritual gifts in church.

I believe the solution is not that these verses are quoted by Paul, but actually spoken by Paul to focus on another problem of disruption. Women were interrupting the flow of the service in a questioning/contradicting manner as prophecy was being revealed. We must remember that a woman’s participation in a public meeting both in the Jewish culture and the Greco-Roman culture was not an established practice. The Christian church meeting was on the leading edge of this social reconstruction. However, even though women were participants, their knowledge may have been incomplete. This is evidenced by Paul’s emphasis on the women’s questioning. Jewish women knew only basics of the Law (Torah). Greco-Roman women knew little of decorum in a public meeting. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the deeper doctrines of faith, especially as it related to OT revelation, were new territory for most of the women. So what should they do? Apparently, they interrupted. Consider this quotation from Plutarch about the conduct of people at public meetings while someone else is speaking:

“But those who instantly interrupt with contradictions, neither hearing nor being heard, but talking while others talk, behave in an unseemly manner; whereas the man who has the habit of listening with restraint and respect, takes in and masters a useful discourse, and more readily sees through and detects a useless or a false one, showing himself thus to be a lover of truth and not a lover of disputation, nor forward and contentious” (Lectures 4).

Our conclusion that Paul is speaking about the disruption caused by the less knowledgeable women has the dual advantage of fitting the context while also revealing that Paul is not contradicting himself. Both the questioning and possibly the manner of questioning by the women of the prophetic utterances, instead of, as Paul pointed out previously, weighing what is said (14:29) so that all could learn and be encouraged, caused a disturbance that contributed to the shameful disruption of the service. Concerning the questioning disruption, Paul’s teaching is the same as that given for the tongues disruption (14:28) and the prophecy disruption (14:30), be silent! Those women who were not on a level of knowledge to keep up with the flow of the service should make up their deficit outside the service by asking their husbands at home (14:35).

Thus we find that the entire emphasis of this chapter is on organization and practice so that the former practice that the Corinthians employed in their services that caused disruption would be removed in favor of a proper, decorous approach. With regard to their services (and ours), “all things should be done decently and in order” (14:30).

This ends our series on the consideration of women and their activity in Christianity. We have found that from creation to the New Covenant, God’s purpose and plan for women is the same as that for men—one baptism, one faith, one Lord, one God and Father of us all, one purpose, one mission—the employment of gifts given by God to the edification of all to the praise of his glory.

Women (Part 9) - I Timothy 2 - Authority Threat 10/9/08

To begin our discussion of I Timothy 2, we need to become acquainted somewhat with the setting. Paul is writing to Timothy who is in Ephesus. Paul’s specific purpose in writing is revealed in verses 3 and 4. He says, “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.” Paul’s purpose is clear. Timothy is to watch out for false doctrine mixing in with the pure gospel of God delivered by Paul and the apostles (the foundation of the church – Eph 2:20).

It should be obvious to us in 21st century America that philosophical driftings in the popular culture usually infiltrate the church. The most recent blatant example is the mixing of postmodernism with Christianity in the emergent church movement. But we have had the same struggles with existentialism, humanism, and modernism over the past century or so. Paul’s charge to Timothy focused on that day’s errant philosophies and the religious myths so entrenched in the Asia Minor society. The religion of Ephesus focused on the Greek goddess Artemis. So, a little history is in order.

In Greek mythology, Gaia was the earth goddess that began everything. She created and married the god Uranus. Their offspring were the Titans. Uranus began delighting in doing evil things to his children, which pained Gaia. With the help of one of her sons, Cronus, Uranus was overthrown. Cronus and his wife/sister, Cybele (Greek – Rhea), ascended to supreme rule. Cronus, worried that his own children may then usurp his throne, began to do away with them. Again, Gaia acted with the help of Cybele in protecting one of Cronus’ offspring—Zeus, who eventually did overthrow Cronus and become the supreme god. Zeus was married to Hera; however, his relationship with Leto (a titan descendant) produced twins. The first born was Artemis followed a few days later by Apollo. According to the legend, Artemis (only days old) assisted in delivering Apollo. Legends about Artemis differed depending on locale. In Greece she was of minor import, known as huntress and virgin goddess. In Asia Minor she was known as a protector of wild animals and goddess of fertility. Ephesus, located in Asia Minor, boasted a magnificent temple (one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world) dedicated to Artemis.

That was the religion of the day. The philosophies of the day included, among others, Stoicism (already a few hundred years old by the time of the first century church, but still developing), Epicureanism, and an emerging/growing Gnosticism. These philosophies and religion were the infiltrators to the Christian church. We must remember that the new church did not have the New Testament to keep them in line as to authority of faith and practice. Thus, the gospel, first preached by the apostles, was easily distorted by orators intrigued with Christianity who mixed other philosophy and religion in their messages. Paul warns Timothy of this—especially in Ephesus, home of the worshippers of Artemis. Not only does Paul speak against errant philosophies, but in verses 8 through 11 of chapter 1, he also points out the ritualistic practices/sins of the false religions.

With this backdrop of emphasis, we now approach chapter 2. Paul begins in verse 8, “I desire then…” now speaking specifically to church action that should be taken in light of these false threats to pure gospel understanding. Men should pray reaching (focusing) to heaven and the pure message of God without anger (Greek orge – agitation of the soul) and quarreling (Greek dialogismos – questioning what is true). Here Paul calls for them to stop the attempts at coalescing that which is false with the true. Paul’s call is submission to the gospel.

In verse 9 he instructs the women to “likewise” submit—change their demeanor from officious meddlesomeness (the meaning of the Greek hesychia translated as "quietness" in the ESV and "silence" in the KJV). Paul goes further to say that women should not be in authority. Why? Should they leave that to the men? That is not Paul’s point. His point is that the women of the church in Ephesus were mixing the religion and false teaching of the day in with their practice of church life.

If Paul were arguing in favor of men as spiritual authorities and the women as spiritual subordinates, his reasoning would not make sense. The verses that follow tell us that his command is based on the order of creation (already discussed as insufficient to determine authority – see Women Part 1) and on the fact that Eve was deceived (men also are deceived and Adam’s failing shows even worse leadership tendencies that Eve’s). The confusing next verse argues that although women should not be in authority, they will be saved in childbirth. What?!

PCs have strained to make this a command for the hierarchical authority of men. But that is not Paul’s intent. Remember that his focus is on protecting the church from false religion/philosophy. We know that the false religion/philosophy of the day in Ephesus focused on the supposed spiritual superiority of women. Artemis was the female god they worshipped. The religious hierarchy was headed by the women priestesses. The mythology background began with a woman (Gaia) who was followed by the man (Uranus). Men failed miserably in their thoughts and decisions along the way (Uranus, Cronus) and their mistakes had to be rectified by the women (Gaia, Cybele, Leto, Artemis).

Paul’s argument is not that women should not have the authority that the men had, but rather that the women were assuming spiritual authority within the church, in parallel to the religious culture of the day, which should have had no spiritual authority among the people. Paul had just said in verse 5 of this chapter that there is “one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The women were creating a hierarchy of authority based on the false notion (the notion of the religion of the day) that they were spiritually superior. Paul says No! And to prove his point, he refutes the religion of the day in verses 13-15. No, Paul says, Gaia was not first; the woman was not first; “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” And the men aren’t all failures while women are spiritually superior, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” In anticipation of the fear that Artemis, the goddess of fertility and patroness of midwives, would somehow seek vengeance against Christian women, Paul says that the women “will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

Thus, the whole message of Paul is consistent with the thrust of these first two chapters in defending the church against the onslaughts of false religion and philosophy. This is also consistent with all Paul’s other writings. He is not creating a new doctrine here that men should be authorities in the church. He is disarming the emerging false doctrine that women should be the authorities.

One other point in I Timothy should be mentioned. Chapter 3 discusses qualifications (again, in light of needing to deal with false doctrinal attacks) for pastors and deacons. Many have pointed to the phrase “husband of one wife” as indicator that the pastor and/or deacon should be a male. The Greek word for husband is the same Greek word for man – aner. In Greek, the phrase is “one woman man.” In other words, if the pastor is married, the union should display the creation ideal of one man and one woman in oneness of spirit and not the cultural religious distortion of that day in polygamous marriage. Again, this call was to combat false doctrinal infiltration of the church. The use of the word “man” in this section is no more a qualification for male than Ephesians 4:13 is an argument that women will become male as they increase in faith.

Women (Part 8) - Ephesians 5 Love Relationship 10/2/08

The book of Ephesians is divided evenly. In the first three chapters Paul discusses our position in Christ, and in the second three we learn how to live based on that position. Chapter 5—located in the heart of the section on learning how to live—emphasizes the love that should characterize our lives. Paul begins urging us to imitate God and conduct our lives in love “as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us.” This phrase seems simple to grasp. Our love should be distinguished by the same kind of complete sacrifice of self that characterized Christ as he went to the cross. The statement does not mean that we should seek ways to die for Christ. Paul here emphasizes not the action, but the motivation of Christ—the desire to give of himself for the benefit of others. We know from John 15:13 that “greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.” And just so should the Christian conduct his or her life in that outward look toward giving for the benefit of others.

At first glance, verse 3 seems out of place. Paul has just introduced the theme of conducting our lives in Christ-like love and immediately then begins to argue against sexual immorality. The point he is emphasizing is the contrast with selfish living. Sexual immorality and impurity have an inward focus. Even in sex, the love that God designed for humans in the ultimate human relationship of marriage highlights an attitude seeking the benefit of the other, whereas the usual emphasis in sexual immorality is for personal pleasure. That is why Paul couples immorality and impurity with covetousness. Covetousness also is selfish ambition. Paul’s contrast, therefore, emphasizes the difference between love (the outward look) and selfishness (an inward desire). He continues this distinction in the next few verses.

In verse 5 Paul states that the sexually impure will not inherit the kingdom of Christ and God. His meaning is not that anyone who commits sexual impurity will automatically be sent to hell. Rather verse 6 explains that God’s wrath on sin condemns those not of the household of God. The appeal then to Christians is to avoid acting in a manner that embodies the very reason God condemns the world to hell. We are to imitate Christ. We are to conduct our lives in the light of the Lord. “Wake up!” he calls to the Christian. Wake and live in the light! Christ shines on those who forsake the worldly walk in favor of Christ’s imitation. The concluding verses of this general point (vv.18-21) begin with a call to avoid drunkenness. Again, Paul’s argument is not centered on alcohol. He admonishes us toward the outward attitude of love.

Beginning with verse 19, Paul employs a literary form called chiasm. Chiasm is so named because its structure “looks” like the Greek letter chi which is written as an X. Like the first line drawn for the X, the first point (or word or phrase or idea) begins the chiasm and will end the chiasm. The second point (the beginning of the second line drawn for the X) is after the first point initially, but comes before the repetition of the first point at the end. Okay, if you are not familiar with chiasms, I’ll grant that my explanation may not be very clear. Let me illustrate with a nursery rhyme.

-Old King Cole was (1st element)
----a merry old soul, (2nd element)
----a merry old soul (repeat 2nd element)
-was he. (repeat 1st element)

Of course, chiasms may be much more intricate involving several layers of elements. But they all start from an idea, continue on in development, and then retrace their steps to the original idea.

The chiasm of verses 19-21 involves love for others and for God.

-Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
----Singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,
----Giving thanks always and of everything to God…,
-Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

The first and last lines direct the outward look to one another. The interior lines direct the outward look to God. The identification of the chiastic form here helps us to understand what Paul means by “submitting to one another.” Submission could imply an authority/subordinate relationship. The one who is subordinate submits to the one who is in authority. But the chiasm shows that Paul’s intent for us here in submission is to exhort, encourage, and support other Christians. This is the exact point of his whole discussion so far. He urges us to a full, whole-hearted, Christ-like, giving of ourselves for the benefit of others. Instead of a submission to an authority, we are to submit much like parents would for a severely ill child. The parents remove from consideration any selfish conduct as they submit their whole lives for the caring of the child. So ought we to remove self from our consideration as we submit to the welfare of others. That is love in its purest form. Again, (although you may be tired of hearing it by now) the definition of love is the desire to give of yourself for the benefit of another.

These first 21 verses of chapter 5 are the foundation and must inform our understanding of the rest of the chapter. The very next verse (v.22) is an injunction for the wife to submit to her own husband as to the Lord. We know first of all that Paul does not mean for the wife to submit in worship just as she worships the Lord. That would be idolatry. Therefore, we know that we must understand this charge with limitations. The limiting consideration must coincide with Paul’s discussion so far throughout the chapter. The submission of the wife is a whole-hearted, self-sacrificial giving for the benefit of her husband—in other words, as we discussed, it is love in its purest form. Paul even continues in the next couple of verses to compare this submission/love to that of the church to Christ.

Paul draws on the analogy of the head and body that he has just used in chapter 4. In that chapter Paul says in verses 15 and 16, “…speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” Paul’s analogy to the head and body is consistently the same care relationship that we discussed in I Corinthians 11 in the last summary post. Paul is not putting forth an authority/subordinate relationship, but rather emphasizing the care-giving/vulnerable relationship we saw in I Corinthians. In chapter 5 he continues that analogy with regard to love submission. In the marriage relationship, the husband is analogous to the head and the wife is analogous to the body.

In verse 25, Paul turns his focus to the husband who must love his wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? He gave himself for it. The same idea is presented that Paul has discussed all along. Giving of oneself for the benefit of another is love, and the husband is to willfully and totally set aside his selfish ambition for the benefit of his wife. In verse 31 Paul quotes from Genesis 2 the principle that the husband-wife relationship is the ultimate of human relationships. Through this marriage example, Paul brings both partners of this supreme human relationship into correspondence with his charge made at the very beginning of chapter 5 to “walk in love, as Christ loved us.”

Paul closes his comments on the marriage love relationship in verse 33 with very strong language. The husband is told to love his wife and the woman is told to respect her husband. The repetition here for the husband seems as if Paul is warning the husband that he better pay attention—the rightness of his marriage depends on this selfless outlook. The woman’s warning is equally strong as Paul tells her to respect (Greek-phoebeo, meaning to fear or have awe of) her husband. The rightness of her marriage depends on this selfless outlook.

Paul, therefore, is not arguing that a marriage should be an authority/subordinate relationship. That is a misunderstanding and “dumbing-down” of the passage and its intent. Paul is speaking of returning to the created ideal of a pure love relationship in which each partner lays selfish ambition aside for the glory of the other and the whole.