NOTE: Scroll down past this post to see the latest articles.
2025 Summary
The year of our Lord 2025 was a great year for the Sunday Morning Greek Blog. Views continue to increase year over year, so I’m grateful for that. While my viral math post views have dropped significantly this year, readers more than compensated for that by viewing more Bible posts. My message “Jesus the Good Shepherd” from 2022 showed up repeatedly as source in some search engines’ AI summaries of the topic, which boosted views on that article enough to put it in the top 10 posts for 2025.
Toward the end of the year, I signed up for the Google Console to try to learn more about how you are finding my material. However, I also noticed a significant dip in traffic around the same time. I’m thinking that may have been a mistake. If anyone out there has experience with that, let me know. Ostensibly I did that so I could increase traffic, but I think it may be downgrading me on the searches, even though I think my SEO skills are pretty good. My church used my posts on John’s gospel for its church-wide small-group Bible studies this past fall. Romans is up next for this spring, and I’ve been invited to kick off that study to the small groups in February.
Peace to all and Happy New Year! Thank you for reading.
PS: Look for a couple posts in the near future about our family trip to Poland and Prague over the Christmas holiday.
English: You may comment on any blog post in your preferred language, even one not listed here. I’ll use a translation program to convert to English.
India (Hindi): आप अपनी पसंदीदा भाषा में टिप्पणी कर सकते हैं।
Poland (Polish): Możesz komentować w swoim preferowanym języku.
Philippines (Filipino): Maaari kang magkomento sa iyong gustong wika.
Indonesia (Indonesian): Anda dapat berkomentar dalam bahasa pilihan Anda.
South Africa (Zulu): Ungaphawula ngolimi lwakho olukhethayo.
Germany (German): Sie können in Ihrer bevorzugten Sprache kommentieren.
Spain (Spanish): Puede comentar en su idioma preferido.
Brazil (Portuguese): Você pode comentar no seu idioma preferido.
Norway (Norwegian): Du kan kommentere på ditt foretrukne språk.
China (Mandarin): 您可以用您喜欢的语言发表评论。
Korea (Korean): 선호하는 언어로 댓글을 달 수 있습니다.
France (French): Vous pouvez commenter dans votre langue préférée.
Saudi Arabia (Arabic): يمكنك التعليق بلغتك المفضلة.
Swahili: Unaweza kutoa maoni kwa lugha unayoipendelea.
In late April 2023, I published a post on a non-Bible topic analyzing an oft-debated viral equation that is poorly understood. At the end of June of that year, the post went viral and has continued to dominate the top spot representing about half the views to my blog in the past two years. It is my most-viewed post of all time in the blog’s 14-year history. I have written several other blog posts on the subject and have made three videos for the Rumble platform. I list all the articles and videos here in reverse chronological order along with the dates they were published.
I wrote this paper 30 years ago this year and presented it at one of the early Stone-Campell conferences at St. Louis Christian College (now shuttered). The featured speaker in 1996 was Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary. This was my first ever academic conference presentation and is the background for my blog article Qualifications of Male and Female Leaders in the Church (1 Timothy) | Sunday Morning Greek Blog. My current church home used this paper with their eldership to support the addition of female elders to its leadership team.
Introduction
Women elders. No matter how one looks at the phrase, it is sure to stir controversy. To some, it is an oxymoron. Those who support such a concept in the church are usually branded as liberals, compromisers with a culture sympathetic to feminist concerns, or just plain radical. Yet in an age of increasing emphasis on “equity” concerns, the body of Christ would be foolish not to reexamine some of the more traditionally held beliefs about women. The body of Christ must encourage all believers, regardless of gender, to serve to their full potential in God’s kingdom.
A passage such as 1 Tim 2:12 (NIV; “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”) is often taken to be a prohibition against women serving as elders, regardless of the fact that 1 Timothy 3 says nothing directly about “authority” in the qualifications for the ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos, “elder/overseer”). Additionally, 1 Tim 5:17 implies that not all elders in First Century congregations necessarily had teaching responsibilities.[1] A proper exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 and 3, however, reveals that Paul had female leadership in mind when he wrote 1 Timothy 3:11—“deaconesses” at least, and perhaps female elders or overseers[2] as well.
Up to this point in history, there have been relatively few solid textual discussions on this passage in support of women elders. A number of excellent and not-so-excellent defenses of women elders have been presented from a cultural perspective. The problem with a cultural argument, at least from this author’s perspective, is that once a cultural argument is allowed to be the primary defense of a doctrine, this opens up any number of Pandora’s boxes for cultural justification of lifestyles and doctrines otherwise proscribed in the Scriptures. If a textual case can be made for women elders, then the cultural argument becomes at best a secondary support for the practice and at worst a moot point. This paper seeks to establish a textual basis for women elders in 1 Timothy 3.
Historical Considerations and Interpretations of 1 Timothy 2–3
The background of 1 Timothy 2–3 is simple enough in most respects. In Chapter 2, Paul addresses all Christians, male and female, regardless of their status in the church. These are general guidelines that apply to all believers. But note that the exhortations given here are gender specific. Most likely, Paul’s exhortations reflect the particular problems with which Timothy was confronted in Ephesus. Men were not praying as they ought, bickering about everything from “endless genealogies” to false doctrine (1:3–4). Women were dressing more like the pagan culture (Ephesus was the center of the Diana cult) and “expressing” themselves far more than Jewish women would have in those days. [Author’s Note: I expand on this in The Temple of Artemis of the Ephesians as Background for Understanding 1 Timothy 2 | Sunday Morning Greek Blog.]
In Chapter 3, Paul addresses the leadership of the Ephesian congregation. In vv. 1–7, Paul gives guidance to the overseers. In vv. 8–10, and 12, he addresses deacons. Verse 11 has been the troublesome verse for many. How are we to understand Paul’s instruction to “women” in the midst of all the instructions directed apparently to men?
The NIV and several other commentators and translations try to solve the problem with a gloss. They conclude (assume?) that the women (γυνή; gynē, “woman” or “wife”) must be the wives of deacons[3] (“their wives,” NIV), given the position of the verse in the text. Some go a bit farther and say that the women are wives of perhaps even the overseers. The problem with this is that the personal possessive pronoun “their” (αὐτῶν, autōn) is not found in the Greek text.
Those who recognize this obvious gloss are willing to admit that the passage may not be referring to wives, but women in general or perhaps even deaconesses.[4] Yet, again, the presence of the passage in the midst of the discussion of male deacons leads some to conclude that only women deacons are the subject of the verse. Those who conclude that the passage could support the office of women elders are in the minority, to be sure.[5] The problem is that such arguments are usually made from silence (i.e., the lack of a command specifically prohibiting women from the office of elder) or based on cultural considerations that are subject to a great deal of debate, both scholarly and emotional. As I stated above, this paper seeks to fill that gap by providing textual and semantic bases for women elders.
Structural Considerations of 1 Timothy 3
Before moving to the word study on ὡσαύτως, the structural role of ὡσαύτως in 1 Timothy 3 must first be examined. In fact, the structure of the passage by itself should be convincing enough to reject the notion that vs. 11 is referring only (if at all) to the wives of deacons and elders. Here is a rough outline of the chapter:
concluding remarks and summary of servant-leadership
16
benediction
Several observations can be made about the structure of this passage. First, Paul is obviously talking about various “official” positions in the church. Certainly the terms “overseer” and “deacon” have carried across their titular implications into the 20th century church. But “women” is used in parallel construction with deacons and overseer. Paul apparently sees these women serving in an official capacity in the church. This is strong structural support that these women were to be held with the same esteem and respect as the overseers as well. If Paul is employing a strict parallelism of titles here, then γυναῖκας is the corresponding parallel to ἐπίσκοπον and διακόνους (diakonous, “deacons”).
Verse 11’s position between two passages that begin with “deacons” has led many commentators to consider verse 12 to be a continuation from vs. 10. But the words used in verse 12 break from the previous pattern. The “likewise” of verse 8 covers the entire description of the overseer, that is, the deacon should be similarly qualified, and especially qualified in those things emphasized or added in vv. 8–10. That would cover the fidelity issue. In vs. 12, Paul breaks from the “likewise” structure and begins the verse with the nominative plural (the previous “offices” mentioned are in the accusative, because they are all subjects of the infinitive in vs. 2). Paul then uses the rare third person imperative of εἰμί, ἔστωσαν, instead of the δεῖ…εἶναι of vs. 2 (“Let the deacons be men of one woman”). Does he make this switch because he is resuming his discussion of deacons?
This verse parallels vv. 2 and 4, as a kind of inclusio for the entire passage, so it would be redundant to repeat the requirement for all offices. The fact that this verse breaks from the ὡσαύτως [δεῖ…εἶναι] pattern indicates that Paul has ended his discussion of qualifications for each of the offices. Instead, Paul is answering a question that Timothy may have had about single deacons. The use of the imperative suggests that Paul is giving permission for single deacons to get married, even though the single man is better able to serve the Lord.[8] Vs. 12, therefore, is not a continuation of the qualifications listed in 8–10, but a permissive or concessive decree by Paul.[9]
At this point I must comment on Jennifer Stiefel’s article on 1 Tim 3:11.[10] She does a commendable job of analyzing the structure of 1 Tim 3:8–11, but her exclusion of 3:1–7 and her apparent limited respect for the function of ὡσαύτως cause her conclusions to be somewhat short-sighted. She offers the following parallel structure for 1 Tim 3:8–11:
A (3:8–9) acc. pl. noun + ὡσαύτως modified by acc. adjectives and participles
B (3:10) nom. pl. pronoun + imperative + participle + imperative[11]
A′ (3:11) acc. pl. noun + ὡσαύτως modified by acc. adjectives
This organization is slightly different than the structure proposed above. Her structure focuses on the grammatical elements in the passage, which is an acceptable distinction. She recognizes the parallel structure of vv. 8 and 11, but the imperative parallel she sees (vv. 10, 12) does not seem a true parallel when the “sense” of the words are considered. Grammar is only a tool to organize the words and concepts used by the author. In vs. 10, the imperative translated “let them [first] be tested” (NIV) does seem to carry the force of a commandment, unlike the second imperative in vs. 10 and the imperative in vs. 12, both of which seem to be permissive. It makes sense that someone given a trust prove worthy of that trust, but it does not make sense that such a man should be compelled into that position (3:10b), or be compelled to marry before taking the position (3:12).
In the structure proposed in this paper, vv. 8–12 constitute at least a chiasmus of deacons–women–deacons. As mentioned earlier, vv. 1–12 may even represent a parallel construction of leadership positions. The latter may be subject to debate, but what is not debatable that vv. 1–12 constitutes a chiasmus regarding the marital status (or failure to mention such) of overseers and deacons and “the women.”
If parallel structure is important to Stiefel, then a consideration of the larger passage is helpful. The ὡσαύτως of vs. 8 parallels the office described in 1–7, and the ὡσαύτως of vs. 11 parallels both vv. 1–7 and 8–10. In fairness to Stiefel, she does offer the possibility (among other possibilities) of these women as a “separate group of ministers” based on ὡσαύτως, but concludes that the rest of the evidence is too inconclusive to support such an interpretation. Against this conclusion, she cites vs. 11’s position between the deacons and her proposed structure. She concludes that vs. 11 refers to “women deacons.”
Her isolation of 3:8–13 for structural consideration seems to be a circular argument, however. The fact that a form of διάκονος/διακονέω is used four times (nouns in vv. 8, 12; impv. in v. 10; ptcp. in v. 13) in this passage is significant. But as I have pointed out, there are other considerations in the passage, namely ὡσαύτως, that suggest that her passage and her conclusions, are too narrow in scope. The presence of ὡσαύτως in v. 8 demands the inclusion of vv. 1–7 in any discussion of structure.
Does this structure, therefore, require that we understand Paul to be discussing “deaconesses” only in vs. 11? By no means! If Paul wanted to ensure that vs. 11 was only going to refer to deaconesses, he could have broken from the ὡσαύτως [δεῖ…εἶναι] pattern at this point and simply continued to write about women. Paul intentionally uses this construction to place these “women” on an equal status with deacons and overseers or elders.
A Crucial Word
A much overlooked word in verse 11 (and verse 8, as well) leads me to believe that Paul was addressing women deacons and women elders, or at the very least, women who held offices of equal prominence and responsibility to both. That word is ὡσαύτως (hōsautōs; “likewise, in the same way/manner”). The word is used 17 times in the NT, primarily in the pastoral letters, but with a few occurrences in the Gospels. The word is a compound of the comparative ὡς (hōs; “as”) and αὐτός (autos; “same”),[13] the latter sometimes functioning as an identical adjective. A word study of ὡσαύτως reveals that it is a particularly strong word used to express similarity, even more so than ὡς or ὁμοίως (homoiōs; “in a similar manner”). Not only does it involve a similarity of action (as one would expect with such an adverb), but in most cases a similarity of the status of the subjects or objects of the action as well.
Information about ὡσαύτως is hard to come by in the reference material. Kittel, Brown, and Spicq are silent on the word. BAG-D and other lexicons list the word, but with little or no discussion of its weight. Commentators usually mention it in a passing reference, without much discussion.[14] Therefore, most of the conclusions about the word in this paper are fresh.
The Use of ὡσαύτως in the NT
The conclusions of the structural analysis are strengthened by Paul’s use of ὡσαύτως. A quick survey of NT passages that use ὡσαύτως will demonstrate that the word demands a high degree of similarity not only between actions, but between the actors and subjects of those actions as well. As an adverb, we would expect it to modify verbs and other adverbs, and indeed it does. But it also seems to carry with it a comparison of the subjects, objects, or both, of those verbs, on the level of an identical adjective. Given this, the careful student of Greek should not be surprised to find that the word demands a great deal of similarity when comparing subjects and the actions of those subjects.
In Matthew 20:5, ὡσαύτως is used with regard to the owner of a vineyard who went out several times in the day to hire workers. Each time, the owner goes out and asks the group of would-be laborers to come work in his vineyard—same question, same response. In Matthew 21:30, it is used of the father who asked his two sons to work in his vineyard, each time asking them in exactly the same way. In the parable that follows, the word describes the repeated sending of servants, who are repeatedly abused and beaten by the tenants of the vineyard. The tenants’ abusive treatment of the servants is predictable. Matthew’s final use of the word is in 25:17, where he describes the servants entrusted with their master’s money. The one given two talents doubled his master’s money exactly as the one with five talents had done. In each of these passages in Matthew, we see a consistent theme of either Father–Son or Master–Servant. Although the individual players change, their status or rank from scene to scene within each parable is exactly the same.
In Mark 12:21 (par. Luke 20:31), ὡσαύτως is used of the seven brothers who had to marry the recently deceased older brother’s wife in succession. Each brother had the exact same responsibility to fulfill when the next oldest brother passed on. In Mark 14:31, the word is used to describe all the apostles’ (except Judas’s) commitment to not disown Jesus, even if they had to die with him.
Luke uses the word in 13:5, but I will return to that in a moment. He also uses it in 22:20 (par. 1 Cor 11:25) in the Lord’s supper passage. The similarity here is the ritual blessing of the bread and the cup, which Jesus uses to define the terms of his crucifixion.
Romans 8:26 breaks somewhat from the pattern of the actors of equal status performing identical actions. This passage deals with the Spirit’s “groaning” prayer for us when we do not know how to pray. The comparison here is with creation’s groaning and our own groaning (8:22–23). Obviously, creation, humanity, and the Spirit are three completely different entities, and on the surface, the argument appears to break down in this verse. But there are a number of similarities that can be pointed out. The most obvious is that in this passage, the object of each entity’s groaning is redemption. Additionally, humanity is God’s special “subset” of creation; the fact that ὡσαύτως is used here with the Spirit’s groaning refers to the divine relationship with creation. Each of the three is a player in the redemption story in its own unique way.
In 1 Timothy 2:9, Paul uses the term to describe the godly conduct of women. His comparison is to v. 8, where he instructs men to pray. The exhortations to godliness are directed at the body of Christ at large, with particular attention to areas where men and women struggle the most. First Timothy 5:25 presents a minor problem as well, but it is easily overcome when the reader realizes that the “obvious nature” of the deeds (whether good or evil) is being compared, and not necessarily the doers of the deeds themselves.
In Titus 2:3 and 6, the similarities again become obvious, as Paul is instructing Titus on the education of various groups in his charge. The strength of ὡσαύτως is certainly evident here.
Before moving on to 1 Timothy 2 and 3, I want to return to Luke 13:5, which is a very telling passage on the nature of ὡσαύτως.
In Luke 13:3, 5, similar, but not identical, statements are made by Jesus. In verse 3, Jesus says: “No, I tell you, for unless you repent, you will perish in a similarmanner (ὁμοίως)” (NIV). Verse 5 changes only one word: “No, I tell you, for unless you repent, you will perish in the samemanner (ὡσαύτως)” (NIV).[15] Does Jesus (or Luke) simply use ὡσαύτως to strengthen the point of verse 3, or is something else at work here? The distinction may seem insignificant at first, but a closer examination of the context reveals some important clues. These clues may indicate a subtle shade of difference in meaning between ὁμοίως and ὡσαύτως.
In chapter 13, Jesus is in Jerusalem. A crowd of people asked him about some Galileans whom Pilate had persecuted and killed. They also asked about the Jerusalemites who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell. In the first case, Jesus compares the spiritual punishment awaiting unrepentant Jerusalem Jews to the Galilean tragedy; in the second case, he compares the punishment awaiting those same Jews to the other Jews who were killed in the tower collapse.
In the first case, the comparison is not exact (Jerusalemites to Galileans), which is why ὁμοίως is used. It only compares the quality of the punishment. In the second case, however, the comparison is exact (Jerusalemites to Jerusalemites). The fact that ὡσαύτως is used is very revealing at this point. Not only is the quality of the punishment exactly compared, but the objects of that punishment are exactly compared. Jesus is speaking to Jerusalemites who, like their fellow Jerusalemites (perhaps even a blood relative or two in the crowd) who died in the tower collapse, would suffer a horrendous punishment if they did not repent.
Louw and Nida (1988:619) seem to support this conclusion. They describe ὡσαύτως as “a marker of similarity which approximates identity.” I take “identity” to mean identification with a specific group or class. That further strengthens the conclusion that ὡσαύτως implies a high degree of similarity between groups compared.
An examination of the passage in question, 1 Timothy 3, is now in order. ὡσαύτως appears in vv. 8 and 11, each time introducing a new set of instructions for different groups in the church. Both subjects here (διακόνους, γυναῖκας) are accusative plural, which leads us back to the infinitive construction of δεῖ…εἶναι in vs. 2 as the primary verb for these two lists. The fact that we are led back to verse 2, added to the strength of the comparative adverb ὡσαύτως, reveals that the “women” mentioned in vs. 11 are not simply “generic” women, nor are they “wives” (as NIV, et. al.) of the deacons (or elders), but a distinct class of leaders in the early church.[16] To use Louw and Nida’s terminology, these women have an “identity” as church leaders.
The Role of the γυναῖκας in 1 Timothy 3:11
The nature of ὡσαύτως as discussed above becomes the second clue in deciphering just what function these women fulfilled. Church historians have more than adequately demonstrated that the early church indeed had a class of “deaconesses” who ministered primarily to women, especially in preparation for and participation in the baptism of female converts. The need for deaconesses is obvious to me; the reasons for such need not be restated here.
The question that needs to be resolved, however, is whether or not any of these women served in the position of overseer, elder, or some other office of equal respect and authority. Because ὡσαύτως seems to imply a high degree of similarity, I would argue that Paul did have female overseers as well as deaconesses in mind. Oepke’s discussion of γυνή in Kittel is especially revealing on this point. He describes the women in 1 Timothy 3:11 as:
official deaconesses with much the same duties as their male counterparts. Their work is designed to support that of the bishops or presbyters. It is certainly not limited to charitable endeavour, but consists rather in organisational or even pastoral work among women.[17]
Oepke’s description is significant in that he assigns pastoral (i.e., shepherding) work to women (even though he calls them “deaconesses”). Although deacons can certainly exercise pastoral care, the responsibility for this duty seems to rest primarily upon the eldership (Acts 20:28, Heb 13:17–21, 1 Pet 5:1–4).
Oepke goes on to suggest that these women are single (whether widowed or unmarried) who can devote themselves fully to the work of the Lord, or perhaps elderly women who have the wisdom of their years to pass on to women and men of younger generations. The fact that no marriage command is given to the women in verse 11 may be a selling point for the “single women” theory, but it need not be so. Women were not as apt to be polygamous as men in that time, so it would not have been a problem that needed to be addressed.
The crux of Oepke’s treatment of γυνή is that women in NT times and in the early church had a great deal of respect and responsibility, more so than the culture at large. So we should not consider it unusual that when Paul mentions the “women” of 1 Tim 3:11, he is referring to a respected group of women leaders who function right alongside the overseers and deacons. Consequently, the best translation for γυναῖκας in this context is “women leaders.”
A substantial case can be made that these “women leaders” are widows. There are a number of parallels between 1 Timothy 3 and 5 that demonstrate this point. The “one woman man” of 3:2 is turned around in 5:9’s “one man woman.” Hospitality (3:2, par. 5:10), raising children (3:4, par. 5:10), managing the household (3:4, par. 5:14, albeit for younger widows whom Paul suggests should remarry), commanding respect (3:2, 8, 11, par. 5:9, 14), and refraining from idle or malicious talk (3:3, 11, par. 5:13) represent several other connections between the qualifications for elders and the exhortations to the widows. It is also interesting to note that, in 5:1–6:2, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to show proper respect to each of the three groups (widows, elders, and masters), and to note especially that the widows are listed first, before the elders, and receive the most ink.
These parallels by no means establish beyond a shadow of doubt that the “women” of 3:11 were widows. What is clear, however, is that the “women” of 3:11 commanded the same respect as the deacons and elders for their godly lives. Certainly godly widows (especially older widows) would have (or at least should have) commanded this kind of respect.
What women we choose to lead (if any) in our congregations and what titles we give these “women leaders” would seem to be a matter of freedom, then. The situation at Ephesus evidently necessitated a group of women to work alongside the elders and deacons. Perhaps for other congregations that Paul and the apostles established, “women leaders” was not even an issue.
If one wanted to be strictly biblical, and call Bible things by Bible names, then the “title” for women leaders should simply be “women,” paralleling “overseer/elder” and “deacon” in the passage. It is a small step, however, to give these women leaders more official titles that parallel or equate them with “elders” or “deacons.”
Conclusion
First Timothy 3:1–13 provides three strong selling points for a textual, biblical justification of women overseers. The first is that the structure of the passage points to three distinct classes of leaders that Paul had in mind, or at least two classes (overseer and deacon) with a set of special instructions for the women who served in these offices. Secondly, the strength of ὡσαύτως strongly favors that the women of 1 Tim 3:11 were leaders who deserved at least as much respect as the overseers and deacons. Finally, the term γυνή certainly vacillates between “woman” and “wife” in the NT, but it often carries an element of respect,[18] which certainly seems to be the case in this passage.
The challenge for the body of Christ is this: give women their due respect in congregational life and leadership. Recognize those women who have leadership abilities; do not be afraid to appoint them to church offices (deacon or overseer) if they have earned that respect. Paul said in Galatians 3:28 that “there is neither… male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In 1 Corinthians 12, it is clear that the gift of administration is not given based on gender, but as God sees fit. More often than not, however, the rules and traditions of men have squelched the gift of spiritual leadership in women. The body of Christ would be greatly enriched if it recognized qualified women as overseers and deacons.
Bibliography of Sources Consulted
Aland, Kurt et al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 3rd ed. (corrected). New York: United Bible Societies, 1975.
Bachmann, H. and Slaby, W. A., eds. Concordance to the Novum Testament Graece. 3rd ed. New York: De Gruyter, 1987.
Balz, Horst and Schneider, Gerhard, eds. “ὡσαύτως”. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993, p. 510.
Bauer, Walter; Arndt, W. F.; and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Rev. by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
Blass, F. and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Tr. and rev. by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Bruce, Alexander Balman. The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, vol. 1: Gospels/John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.
DeWelt, Don. Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus. Joplin: College Press, 1961.
Earle, Ralph. 1 Timothy. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Evans, Mary J. Woman in the Bible. Madison: IVP, 1983.
Glasscock, Ed. “The Biblical Concept of Elder.” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (Jan–Mar 1987): 66–78.
Hurley, James B. “Women in Ministry.” In The Role of Women, pp. 121–140. Ed. by Shirley Lees. Leicester: IVP, 1984.
Key, Daphne. “Women in the Church.” In The Role of Women, pp. 141–152. Ed. by Shirley Lees. Leicester: IVP, 1984.
Knight III, George W. “Two Offices (Elders/Bishops and Deacons) and Two Orders of Elders (Preaching/Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders): A New Testament Study.” Presbyterion 11 (Spring 1985): 1–12.
Lea, Thomas D. 1, 2 Timothy. The New American Commentary, vol. 34. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Liddell, H. G. and Scott, Robert. A Greek–English Lexicon. New York: American Book Co., 1897.
Litfin, A. Duane. 1 Timothy. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Wheaton: Victor, 1983.
Louw, Johannes and Nida, Eugene, eds. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.
Marshall, I. Howard. “The Role of Women in the Church.” In The Role of Women, pp. 177–197. Ed. by Shirley Lees. Leicester: IVP, 1984.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975.
Moss, Michael D. 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin: College Press, 1994.
Noyes, Morgan P. The First and Second Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. XI. New York: Abingdon, 1955.
Oden, Thomas C. First and Second Timothy and Titus. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1989.
Oepke, Albrecht. “γυνή.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) 1:776–789.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Nashville: Broadman, 1934.
Stiefel, Jennifer H. “Women Deacons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary Look at ‘Women Likewise…’ (1 Tim 3:11)” New Testament Studies 41 (July 1995): 442–457.
Strauch, Alexander. Biblical Eldership. Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1988.
Tidball, Derek J. Skillful Shepherds: An Introduction to Pastoral Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Vincent, Marvin D. Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 4: The Thessalonian Epistles. McLean, VA: MacDonald, n.d.
Wigram, George V. The Englishman’s Greek Concordance. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
Winer, G. B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek. Tr. by W. F. Moulton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882.
[2]Throughout this paper, I will use the term “elder” to translate the Greek word πρεσβύτερος, and “overseer” to translate ἐπίσκοπος. The two terms appear to be roughly synonymous in the NT. The former, however, sometimes refers to older people in general, as well as to those who have earned some degree of respect—and responsibility for teaching—in the church (whether male or female, Titus 2), while the latter seems to imply an official position in the church (note feminine ἐπισκοπή in 1 Tim 3:1).
[3]Bible versions which translate γυνή as “wives” are: NIV (1984), KJV, Phillips. Several commentators support this view (DeWelt 1961:58–71, Vincent 4:234, and Earle 368). Noyes (1955 xi:417) argues for either deaconesses or deacons’ wives. He finds it strange, however, that some see the passage as referring to deacons’ wives only, and not overseers’ wives. Litfin (1983:736–8) argues for “a slim advantage”” for “wives” (of deacons).
[4]Bible translations in favor of “women” are TNIV and its successor NIV (2011), ASV, NASB, NRSV, Amplified; the NIV 1984 and 2011 versions’ footnotes suggest “deaconesses,” and the Good News margin suggests “women helpers.” Evans (1983:112) sees “women deacons” but does not think Paul envisioned women elders; James Hurley (1984:139) and Daphne Key (1984:150) see women deacons, but Key points out that there is apparently no equivalent office for women teaching elders described in 3:1–7. Key seems to imply that such a list should have occurred between 3:7 and 3:8.
[5]I. Howard Marshall (1984:193–194) sees women deacons and does not preclude the possibility of women elders based on the absence of a command prohibiting such. Gilbert Bilezikian (1989:184–9) argues that the “one wife” command in 1 Tim 3:2, 12 is culturally conditioned, because Paul’s ideal for service is to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:32–35). The married elder or deacon should be a “one woman man.” I believe the reason that the marital status of the women is not mentioned is because it would have been rare in Ephesian society for a woman to (legally) have more than one husband, while the reverse was not true for men. In other words, the phrase “one-woman man” was about the man not being a polygamist rather than never having been divorced.
[6] Δεῖ…εἶναι; dei einai, “It is necessary [for the overseer] to be; [the overseer] must be”
[7] ἔστωσαν; estōsan, “let [the deacons] be . . .”
[8] The 3rd person plural imperative διακονείτωσαν (diakoneitōsan, “let them serve as deacons;” NIV) in vs. 10 seems to have the permissive force as well. One would not expect Paul or Timothy to force these men to be deacons.
[9]Several grammars (Winer 1882:390, BDF §387, and Robertson 1934:948) support the permissive or concessive use of the imperative. In 1 Cor 7:9, Paul uses an imperative (γαμησάτωσαν) to permit marriage for those who lack sufficient self-control over their passions. This teaching may be the background for Paul’s “imperative” in 1 Tim 3:12.
[10]Jennifer H. Stiefel, “Women Deacons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary Look at ‘Women Likewise…’ (1 Tim 3:11),” New Testament Studies 41 (July 1995): 442–457. Her article was the only one I could find that even came close to dealing with ὡσαύτως to a degree helpful for this paper.
[11]This is her order. UBS 3rd edition has pron. + impv. + impv. + ptcp.
[13]From Homeric literature, we know the word was once ὡς δ ̓αὔτως, but the compounded form won out over this lengthier construction in post-Homeric Greek (LS). LS also considers this word a strengthened form of ὡς.
[15]The textus receptus switches ὀμοίως and ὡσαύτως in vv. 3 and 5, but the variant is not well attested and not even considered worthy of mention by Metzger in his Textual Commentary.
[16]Based on my conclusion about vs. 12 above (p. 5), it is possible that these women are not even deaconesses!
I preached this message on July 12, 2026, at Mount View Presbyterian Church. Although my mom wasn’t there, as I say in my opening remarks, my dad decided at the last minute he would come hear me speak. I’m so grateful to still have both my parents around.
Good morning! May the Lord be with you.
I’m feeling kind of bittersweet this morning. I think this is first time I’ve preached here that my mom isn’t in the audience. She and my sister have had a great time at Niagara Falls and will be flying back this evening.
Well, it seems like I started something a few weeks ago when I decided to preach on Romans chapter 5. I understand Al preached on Romans 7 last week, so I’m back to keep it going. One of the reasons I’ve come to love studying, teaching, and preaching on Romans is that the more I study it, the more structure I see to the whole letter. As Christ-followers, sometimes we forget that when we’re reading the epistles, we’re reading the author’s response to a story of the church and its members in a community we may not know much about. The author knows the stories and histories of his audience, but he rarely lets on what that entails. Unless we have evidence from elsewhere, like say, from the Book of Acts that detail much of Paul’s ministry activity, we’re often guessing at the context or trying to understand why Paul and the other writers are saying what they’re saying, and sometimes even how they’re saying it.
It’s important, then, to pay attention to how the epistle is organized. Paul isn’t just putting together a random set of platitudes in Romans with a few memory verses for his readers. He’s crafting an argument, by way of storytelling in some spots, to address the concerns he has for the two communities who have recently reunited in Rome. The Gentiles have been permanent residents there, but the Jews had been kicked out Rome a few years before Paul wrote Romans and had only recently returned, perhaps within the last two years, at the time he’s writing this letter to them. In a situation like that, you might expect there’s going to be some tension!
I’ve hinted at some of this in my past messages, but it bears repeating here, that Paul’s letter can be divided into two main sections. In chapters 1 through 11, Paul builds a theological case for salvation for both the Gentiles and the Jews. Chapters 12 through 16 are the practical chapters: how do you live for Jesus in such a diverse culture.
We can break up chapters 1 through 11 into three subparts. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul speaks of the importance of faithfulness, even to the point of contextualizing it a bit for the Romans. The Romans, as pagans, would have had a deep respect for nature and thus what some call “natural philosophy” or “natural theology.” That’s why Paul makes the argument in chapter 1 that nature itself reveals the very character of God, but then he challenges these Gentiles by saying one of their biggest “sins” is that men and women have corrupted and abandoned their own natures, something that would have been quite contrary to their natural philosophy. They were “unfaithful” to their natures.
But then Paul turns to the Jews and essentially says to them they’re in the same boat. They’re doing some of the same things the Gentiles are doing and ignoring the foundations of the Jewish law, that is, the Ten Commandments, that had been their heritage. That’s why Paul can say to them in the first part of chapter 3, “There is no one righteous, no not one.” Paul then brings in the big guns in the last part of chapter 3 and explains how the work of Christ on the cross has won salvation for Jew and Gentile alike. Then he wraps up that first section in chapter 4 with a story about Abraham’s faithfulness.
I’ll come back to chapters 5 through 8 in a moment, but I just wanted to say that chapters 9 through 11 speak of how God is reconciling both Gentiles and the Jews back to himself. Those are probably the toughest chapters to read and follow, but they do have a purpose of sealing the bond between Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ.
To the degree that chapters 1 through 4 were about “faith” and “faithfulness,” chapters 5 through 8 are about being “alive” in Christ and the “life” that we have in him, especially through the Holy Spirit as our passage today discusses. I said it a few weeks ago and I’ll say it again here: chapters 1 through 4 have over 25 occurrences of the word for “faith” and “faithfulness” and only two occurrences of the words that mean “life” or “alive.” But chapters 5 through 8 flip those numbers around with words for “life” and “alive” used about 25 times while “faith” and “faithfulness” are only used twice in the first two verses of chapter 5.
This theme of life becomes obvious as we start reading chapter 6 that this life is represented by baptism our connection with the death of Jesus and his resurrection. Chapter 6 is the central chapter in chapters 1 through 11, literally and logically. And here’s where I think the structure of Romans takes his argument to the next level. He’s not changing subjects from chapter 6 to chapter 7. Remember what the last verse of Romans 6 is: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” That verse is not just a summary of chapter 6 as I said a couple weeks ago, but it also states the subject of chapters 7 and 8 to tie those four chapters in a nice, neat bow.
In chapter 7, we see how destructive sin is to our lives if we continue to be slaves to it. The “I” of last weeks passage from Romans 7 is not Paul specifically, but the “I” is I. The “I” is you. The “I” is anyone who understands what it means to try and live a faithful life in the midst of a sinful world. But even with that expression of struggle, Paul still finds a way at the end of 7 to say, “Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”[1]
The very last part of Romans 7:25 is our transition into chapter 8, then. “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”[2] He summarizes chapter 7 and sets up the dichotomy he’s experiencing, by setting us up for the only thing that can truly transform our sinful nature and get our hearts and spirits in sync with our brain that knows Jesus is Lord: the Holy Spirit.
This why again we see Paul use the word “Therefore” at the beginning of chapter 8. We’ve seen how baptism works in the spiritual realm in chapter 6. Paul makes the first connection of this event with the Spirit in Romans 7:6, looking forward to chapter 8. Chapter 8 has, in some respects, the same purpose for the Romans as John 14 through 16 had for the disciples at the Last Supper: teaching about the Holy Spirit and how he works in the life of the believer.
When Paul says, “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” he’s following up on what he said in chapter 7. The condemnation that would have been ours under the Law has been swallowed up in Christ’s redemptive act on the cross. As Jesus promised at the Last Supper and reaffirmed at his ascension, the Holy Spirit has come and given us life, completely dispensing with the law of sin and death. That law never offered the chance to bring life; it was always about punishment.
Paul goes on to say that the righteous requirement of the Law, which we could not earn because our flesh was weak and we faltered, is fully met in us because we live in the Spirit. Thus, there is now only affirmation and assurance of our salvation, not condemnation.
Although our salvation is by grace and we can do nothing to earn it, it does always require our mindful attention. In verses 5 though 8, Paul gives a great deal of attention to where our minds are dwelling. There’s likely a subtle reference here to Deuteronomy, where Moses repeatedly exhorts the Israelites to “be careful.” For example, in Deuteronomy 4:9, Moses says this to the Israelites, shortly before they repeat the recitation of the Ten Commandments:
9 Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. [3]
Paul uses a similar exhortation to the Ephesians, in 5:15–17:
15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.[4]
God never expects us to rest on the laurels of our salvation and faith. When Paul says some have their minds set on what the flesh desires, he’s essentially saying that those people are living on pure instinct. Get what you can while you can. Go for the gusto. It’s a selfish way of life if you’re only looking out for number 1. Paul has even defined the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19–21:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.[5]
But those who have their minds set on the Spirit have a completely different focus in mind for how to live their lives, a focus that puts God and others first and trusts God to provide for their needs. Paul goes on in Galatians 5 to describe the results of a mind focused on the Spirit, and you’ll recognize this passage I’m sure:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.[6]
Before I get back to the rest of Romans, I want to take a moment and talk about why the NIV used “forbearance” instead of the word most of us are used to: “patience.” When that word (μακροθυμία makrothymia)[7] is used of God, it typically refers to God “holding back” his judgment on unbelievers. In Romans 2:4, it’s used in parallel with different word that’s translated forbearance: “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”[8] In fact, the word is translated “patience” in every other occurrence in the NT. I bring this up primarily because of the challenges we see in our world today. We see a lot of angry people in the news these days. “Patience” or “forbearance” doesn’t mean we have set our anger aside at the evils in the world. In fact, one of the roots of the Greek word means “anger” or “rage.” It refers to a higher form of anger that isn’t controlled by our flesh and our instinct. Another way to look at it is that it is anger that keeps its distance from the situation. It calls us to have the same patience and forbearance that God himself has for the sinful, no matter how awful things may be. It’s scary to see the surveys out there where people increasingly think violence is the answer to get their way. We have a higher calling as Christ-followers, but we shouldn’t be patsies either.
Paul closes out the last half of our passage this morning by essentially repeating the same thing in different ways and drills down to make the relationship increasingly more personal and familial with each step. If we live by the Spirit, then we belong to Christ and have access not just to living a life of love here on earth, but to that eternal life we eagerly await in the heavenly realms. He repeats the connection to the resurrection of Christ as well. Because Christ lives, we also will live.
He also repeats the warning of chapter 7 as well in verse 13: “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”[9] Those misdeeds are the do’s and do-nots of Paul’s subtle lament about the flesh in chapter 7.
Finally, we have the wonderfully reassuring promise that not only are we in Christ when we walk in the Spirit, but we are in fact called “children of God.” We’re no longer slaves; we’re sons and daughters of God, family. And God does not stand aloof in his relationship to us. He tells us to cry out, “Abba, Father!” Abba is essentially the baby word for “da-da” in Hebrew. It’s an intimate and emotional connection each of us can have with God to experience the unconditional love he has for each of us. As family, we are also heirs of God and coheirs with Christ. We share in his sufferings and glory, not just in our baptism experience, but in daily life as we walk faithfully with God and experience the victory that is in Christ.
I pray that each of you will have some experience of that victory in the weeks to come. God is good, even when life is challenging. The Spirit brings us life by reassuring us of the peace and presence of God in our lives, especially in the difficult times. May the peace of God go with you this morning. Amen.
I preached this message at Mount View Presbyterian Church on June 28, 2026, “Proper 8” in the Lectionary. As with my previous message, I wanted to focus on the Romans passage for the day given my recent intensive study into the letter. I also wanted to establish what I think is an overlooked connection between the climax of the first 11 chapters of Romans, chapter 6 featuring Paul’s discussion of baptism, and the “conclusion” of that argument that Paul states in 12:1, namely, that we should offer ourselves as a living sacrifice in the waters of baptism.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
As I said a couple weeks ago, I wanted to focus on the Romans chapters in the Lectionary readings this month because of my recent “deep dive” into Romans. My purpose was twofold: to help my home church kick off a Romans study this past semester as well as to edify myself for my own personal encouragement and enrichment. The more I have drilled down into Romans, the more scriptural gold I find that enriches my own faith, calls me to a deeper commitment to faithfulness, and transforms my heart and mind in ways I have never experienced in 50 years of being an intentional Christ follower.
I’m especially excited this morning to share with you my message, mixed with a little bit of testimony, on the last half of Romans 6. I have discovered in the past year that Romans 6 is central point of Paul’s explanation of the righteousness of faithfulness. His whole discussion in the first five chapters leads up to the explanation of his stated theme. I’ve said before that Romans 1:5 is the main theme of the entire book of Romans, as is evident by Paul’s restatement of it at the end of Romans 16:26. Romans 1:5 says this:
“Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience of faithfulness for his name’s sake.”[1]
The connection of today’s passage with the concept of obedience, especially as it relates to chapter 6’s main topic of baptism, was clear as we read the text. But I want to issue a disclaimer here: when Paul is talking about obedience, he is NOT talking about a legalistic checklist we all must check off. Nor is he talking about mindless, robotic, walking-in-lockstep behavior. Obedience in this context means something much more personal, so let’s dive into the passage and find out what that is.
To refresh our memories, we need to look back at what immediately precedes our passage today, because, as I said a couple weeks ago, we need to see what the “therefore” in verse 12 is “there for.” Here’s what Paul said in vv. 3–5 as he introduces the topic of baptism:
“3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.”[2]
Then in verse 11, the verse leading into this morning’s passage, Paul says this to summary the first part of his discussion in chapter 6:
“In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.”[3]
Paul considered baptism to be the transformative moment in the life of the believer, then. Repenting and turning to God involves two (at least) sequential events: In dying with Christ, not only do we share in his crucifixion and suffering on the cross, but we become united with, made one with Christ as well for eternity. Just as Christ did not remain in the grave forever, so we too, at baptism, are alive with the resurrected Lord even in our mortal bodies. This is what I meant above that Paul’s main theme, the obedience of faithfulness, is more than just a list of rules and behaviors to abide by. This obedience of faithfulness means we’re actually living our lives in the presence of Christ himself.
This is where we catch up with this morning’s reading. The fact that Paul says “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires”[4] should not surprise us. If we’re living “in Christ” and walking daily in His presence, would we want to bring sinful habits, behaviors, and thoughts into that relationship? Of course not!
Paul gets a little more specific as he goes on in 13 and 14. Don’t let any part of yourself—body, soul, or mind—fall into sin. Paul is pretty much saying here it’s an all or nothing proposition, just as baptism represents a complete identification with Christ. Christ gave his all for us, after all. He calls us to offer our complete self as “an instrument of righteousness.”
Paul’s use of a word here that we have translated into English as “instrument” need not concern us, even though on the surface it may cause us to think we’re just chess pieces. But as we have seen, our connection to Christ is a relationship: he is the head of the church; we are his body. So again, it never hurts to repeat this fact: we’re not cut off from the body if do happen to sin once in a while.
The word for “instrument” (ὅπλον hoplon) may have reminded the Greek-speaking gentiles of Hoplite soldiers of ancient Greece. They were heavily armed infantry troops that were quite successful in their day. The point of making this connection is that the body of Christ, the diverse church, is united in moving the kingdom forward, preferably through peaceful means, just as an army is united in purpose even though different battalions may have different tasks.
Hebrews 6 can help us understand this concept a little better, I think. Hebrews 6 can be a little scary if we don’t understand the context. Here’s what it says:
“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”[5]
The idea of not being able to return to repentance if you’ve made a mistake is a little frightening. Does that mean you miss out on some heavenly rewards? Or worse yet, that you miss out on heaven? Fortunately not. In the opening verses of chapter 6, the author chides the Hebrews for still consuming spiritual baby food. One of the items in his list is “repentance from acts that lead to death.”
The author of Hebrews is telling his readers they don’t need to “re-repent” or get “re-baptized” to get back right with God after they sin. What he is saying, however, is that the Hebrews have to develop a more mature mind set about life. He knows they already believe, they just have to start acting like they believe. They must start acting “faithfully” to show they are walking in that “obedience of faithfulness.”
Getting back to Romans 6, Paul repeats his opening question of chapter 6 with a slightly different nuance but the same answer: “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!”[6] Of course not, Paul! Silly question, or so it seems, but evidently people thought that way back then. Paul goes on to talk about the difference between offering ourselves as “slaves” to righteousness as opposed to offering ourselves as slaves to sin.
The word for “offer” (παρίστημι paristēmi), which appears five times in Romans 6, is a word we should pay attention to, because the next time it appears in Romans is in 12:1: “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.”[7] If you’re not picking up on the connection here, let me spell it out:
Look at Romans 6:13b again. Paul says, “Offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life.”[8] In the context of Romans 6, what does that phrase “from death to life” refer to? We’ve seen that it refers to baptism.
Baptism is how we unite with the sacrifice of Christ and the life that comes from his resurrection. In other words, it’s the perfect definition and example of what it means to be a “living sacrifice.” When Paul exhorts the Romans in 12:1 to offer themselves as a living sacrifice, he’s exhorting them to participate in the obedience of faithfulness as represented by baptism. In Philippians 2:8, Paul tells his readers that Christ “humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!”[9] The faithful obedience of Jesus should encourage our own faithful obedience.
Finally, we can’t talk about the last half of Romans 6 without talking about the very famous last verse of Romans 6: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[10] For quite a long time, this verse has been treated as a warning to believers and unbelievers alike, in some cases, being used to scare us away from the devil and toward Christ. But I want to suggest to you this morning that Paul never intended to use this verse as a warning, but as a summary statement for chapter 6 that applies to everyone who’s made the decision to follow Christ.
We know that Christ paid the full wages of sin for us on the cross so we wouldn’t have to. By participating in Christ’s crucifixion through baptism, we get “credit” as if we had paid the wage ourselves. Christ’s righteousness clothes us when we come to him. The last verse is an affirmation that we have paid the wages of sin. Since baptism also connects us the gift of eternal life and the hope of the resurrection, we have already received that free gift but will not “redeem” it until we die and go to be with the Lord. So again, verse 23 is an affirmation of that life we have received, not necessarily a promise for good behavior.
That’s what makes it grace, then. As Ephesians says, we’re saved by grace through the faithfulness of Christ. We only need to respond to it willingly. If you haven’t already, I urge you to do so today. Peace to you, brothers and sisters, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love. Amen.
If you are interested in scheduling an engagement with me for teaching. pulpit supply, conference speaker, etc., please click my name in the signature and send me an e-mail. My preference is to remain within a two-hour drive of Omaha, but would consider farther for a longer weekend engagement.
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have a sophisticated knowledge of the micro and macro forces that have shaped planet Earth over time. I understand the basics of plate tectonics and seismic activity, and that the Pacific Rim is rife with volcanic activity. I understand that much of that, especially on the eastern coast of the Asian continent, is likely impacted by the massive forces exerted by the Pacific Ocean as it is “thrust” against that coastline by Earth’s rotation and is being forced away from the Pacific floor. After all, the deepest trench in the world is along a major plate boundary in that region. My knowledge goes a little deeper than all that, but I am by no means an expert. But I know enough to ask some probing questions and be skeptical about current assumptions.
As a Creationist and Intelligent Design proponent, I believe in a literal six-day creation as described in Genesis 1 beginning at vs. 3. However, the question of the age of the earth has always troubled me a bit, because I also believe that matter is eternal, even if it wasn’t always in the same form and operating in the same laws of physics, etc., that it does today. Scientists speak of the “Planck Epoch,” [1] the sliver of time 5.391 × 10–44 seconds just after the so-called “Big Bang” before which the laws of physics (or any other natural laws) do not apply. In other words, science can’t explain the Big Bang itself and how all the material in the universe could have come from that one mass of matter that exploded.
I hesitate only briefly to speculate that the Planck Epoch is also a God moment, for fear of making it seem like God is “God of the gaps” as some say. However, and this is my first big “what-if” question for my fellow Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, what if God initiated the Big Bang with all the physical laws of the universe already in place and allowed the universe to develop according to these laws? I’m not making a deist argument, necessarily, that God just “turned on” the universe like someone turns on a carnival ride. I think God did have a hand in creating our own solar system and earth’s perfect position it in the universe; so perfect that if any of the factors that affect our existence like gravity, distance from the sun, placement of the moon, etc., were tinkered with in the slightest, we would have never existed at all.[2]
Genesis 1:1–2 says this:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.[3]
The first thing to notice is that the language of these verses does not lend itself to be connected with the event of Day 1 of Creation: “Let there be Light.” Genesis 1:3ff assumes that the Earth and the waters upon it were already there. I have described elsewhere [The Trinity in Creation (Genesis 1:1–3; John 1:1–5; Matthew 28:16–20)] that Day 1 likely does not refer to any physical characteristic of earth, but in fact it refers to the other member of the trinity not mentioned in the first two verses: Jesus (see John 1:1–5).[4]
The second question that comes to mind as I ponder my “what-ifs” is what is implied by “In the beginning.” Is it a broad statement that covers all of the activity in Genesis 1 or is it more of an implication like “In the beginning [before God began his creative work in Genesis 1:3], God created [the raw materials that make up] the heavens and the earth.” As I speculated in my introduction, is this something that God took some time doing (whether intentionally or by allowing his created natural laws to work) in order to prepare for the creative work described after Genesis 1:3?
I want to dive a little deeper into that latter possibility. First of all, why would God create the Earth to be “formless and void” if he had done it with a word from his mouth? If God created the physical laws of the universe when he created the heavens and the earth (by whatever means), wouldn’t he want to have millions of years of evidence to support their truth so that as mankind began to explore and understand his creation more fully, they would have some measure of confidence that the laws they were discovering would also be verifiable? (I’m not arguing for evolution here; I think evolution is a gross misrepresentation of the fossil data.)
A couple more issues are related to this, then. If the earth has “waters” (the Hebrew term is plural, but it is often singular in sense) in verse 2, that means earth was not necessarily a cold, dead planet. The “waters” are separated on Day 2 into what seems to be an apparent vapor canopy (“the waters above”) for an initial greenhouse effect and the sea (“waters below” gathered in one place). If the waters are not frozen, then, it would seem reasonable at least to speculate that the earth still had some warmth to it to allow for water’s existence in both liquid and vapor states.
The purpose of the water, then, would have been to support what we sometimes jokingly call “the primordial soup.” The Creation narrative doesn’t mention prebiotic processes and protozoan and other microcellular life forms explicitly, ostensibly because primitive man would not have been able to discover such things (or so we think), so my what-if question here is, “What if those features were created when the heavens and earth were created to support the basic functions of life and death (i.e., the “circle of life”) on the planet once such things were created.” Without those features, the life forms (flora and fauna) God created on earth would not have been sustainable. Did he create these features all at once, or did they need time to develop naturally over millions of years so they could survive, function properly, and fill the Earth? Regardless, it shows God thought of everything in advance.
At this point, I have to say that writing out all my thoughts on this matter is starting become a bit of stream of consciousness. I had another “what-if” come up that I hadn’t even thought of before sitting down to write this article. Is there a spiritual analogy or typology in verse 2? The Holy Spirit is the one who sustains the life of Christ in us, transforming us from within to the depths of our souls in ways we cannot imagine. He is, in some respects, the “hidden” part of the trinity. We see imaginative depictions of God on the throne, whether anthropomorphic or not; Jesus was incarnate, so we have physical descriptions of him; but the Holy Spirit doesn’t really have much of a substantive description except as a dove in the case Jesus and perhaps tongues of fire on the believers at Pentecost. Just like the prebiotic and protozoan processes support our physical existence, the unseen Holy Spirit supports our spiritual life and existence. Things that make you go hmm.
I’ll close for now. I still have a lot of “what-ifs” about the flood narrative and what scientists and Intelligent Design folks have had to say about that, so I’ll save that for Part II of this series.
[4] As I’m sitting here writing this article, the thought occurs to me that this could also include the sun and the moon (notice the parallel language of separating light from darkness in vv. 4 and 18). This does not, however, nullify the interpretation based on John’s gospel. That would make Day 4 of Creation more of a designation of the purpose of the sun and moon rather than an actual statement of their creation. Of course, some may raise the point that if God is using natural processes for the formation of the universe, then stars created on the fourth literal day of creation would not be visible to us now, unless God had created them with their light immediately visible to us. Upon reflection, that seems a bit hokey, then. If God is eternal and omnipotent (and I believe he is), then he can sustain an entire universe for millions of years before beginning his creative activity.he is), then he can sustain an entire universe for millions of years before beginning his creative activity.
I delivered this message June 14, 2026, (Proper 6, Year A, Third Sunday after Pentecost). I broke from the practice of preaching from the gospel passage this day because I recently did some pretty intense study and writing in Romans (the epistles passage from the Lectionary for this Sunday) and wanted to share my thoughts.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
This past semester, the church Jill and I attend had their small groups going through the book of Romans. In seminary, one of my professors had published an article about Romans 1:16–17, the passage about “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes,” and it opened my eyes to a whole new understanding of what Paul meant when he talked about the relationship between our faith and Christ’s faithfulness.
Prior to that, I had spent a great deal of time in Ephesians, memorizing the entire epistle. But the more I studied Romans, the more I saw the connections and the organization of Paul’s logic as he built the theology of justification by faithfulness. I began to understand why it was placed first among the Pauline epistles, and I was not disappointed. I was asked to speak for the kickoff of our Romans study at the church, so with those thoughts fresh in my mind, I wanted to share some of my insights the next couple times I’m with you using the Romans passages from the Lectionary readings for those respective Sundays. We’ll look at the first half of Romans 5 this morning. In two weeks, I’ll tackle the last half of Romans 6.
Since we’re diving into the middle of Romans here, I want to give a brief summary of chapters 1 through 4 to catch us up. Broadly speaking, chapters 1 through 11 form a cohesive argument about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and how each group understands their own respective shortcomings in the eyes of God. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul’s theme seems to be centered around what “faith” looks like for both Gentiles and Jews in spite of their lapses. After Paul introduces the overall theme of “the obedience of faithfulness” in Romans 1:5, he finishes his introduction with the statement: “For in the gospel the Righteousness of God is revealed—from faithfulness into faithfulness, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faithfulness.’”[1] You might be interested to know that this “Righteousness of God” that is revealed is NOT a concept or abstract idea; it refers to Jesus himself. Jesus IS the Righteousness of God.
In the rest of chapter 1 and the first part of chapter 2, Paul addresses the Gentiles in the church at Rome, primarily indicating that nature itself demonstrates the existence and glory of God, and that those who violate their natural state are not respecting that natural order that God has otherwise made obvious to them. From the middle of chapter 2 to the middle of chapter 3, Paul makes the argument that the Jews have the benefit of having been chosen by a God who revealed himself to them directly, and yet, like the Gentiles, they still refuse to acknowledge God, causing Paul to quote Psalm 14:1: “There is no one righteous, not even one.” This is as much a criticism of the Jewish believers as the last half of chapter 1 was to the Gentiles.
From the middle of chapter 3 to the end of chapter 4, then, Paul begins to talk about what true faithfulness looks like and what it accomplishes, that is justification, first in Christ, then in the life of Abraham. He brings home the point that it is Christ’s faithfulness to fulfill God’s purposes through the cross and the resurrection that is the foundation of Paul’s mission to bring Jews and Gentiles to “the obedience of faith.” We even will get hints of this overarching theme in 5:19 and 6:16 as we move forward.
Now the other thing going on in the text of Romans is something that the average reader might miss. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul mentions the word “faith” or “faithfulness” 27 times, while only using words for “life” and “live” twice. But in chapters 5 through 8, Paul flips those numbers around. Paul has 25 occurrences of the two Greek terms for “life” and “live” while only 2 occurrences of the word for “faith” or “faithfulness,” and those two occurrences are found in the first two verses of chapter 5, so let’s dive into that text this morning.
Paul begins chapter 5 with the conjunction “Therefore.” If you’ve been in church long enough, you probably know the old saying: “When you see the word ‘therefore,’ we should find out what it’s (say it with me) ‘there for.’” Well, we already covered that briefly in the summary I just gave. What I want to unpack here is the summary that immediately follows the “therefore”: “Since we have been justified through faith.” That’s the point he just demonstrated in the first four chapters.
The verb “justify” (δικαιόω dikaioō) simply means “to be made right with God” in the context of Scripture. In some contexts, the word is translated “declared righteous,” so the noun “justification” (4:25, 5:16; δικαίωσις dikaiōsis) is closely related to the word “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη dikaiosynē). The word is used several times throughout Romans 3 through 5 but not always associated with the same phrasing.
In 5:9, Paul says something similar to 5:1, but he swaps out one key word: “Since we have now been justified by his blood.”[2] Why does Paul switch from talking about “justified through faith” and “justified by his blood”? Let’s look at few more verses to fill that out.
In Romans 3:22, Paul indicates that God’s righteousness, or justification, is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, the “Righteousness of God” whom the Law and Prophets point to.
In verse 24, Paul continues by saying “all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”[3]
In verse 26, Paul puts the emphasis on our own faith in Jesus: “[God] did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”[4]
From these verses, we can see that the concept of “justification by faith” has two components to it. The first is that the word for “faith” can also be translated “faithfulness.” In that sense, it refers to how Christ’s sacrifice brings about the possibility of our own justification: “By his blood,” “through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” In other words, he’s referring to Christ’s faithfulness to his earthly mission as I mentioned earlier.
On the other hand, we also see the importance of our response to that faithfulness: putting our trust (i.e., our faith) in Christ. We see the great love he showed us through his sacrifice and his victorious resurrection from the dead and are compelled to make but one response: declare our love and allegiance to Jesus.
Now I mentioned earlier that there is a shift from chapter 4 to 5 about Paul talking about, primarily, the faithfulness of Christ and its relation to our faith to the life we live when we are “in Christ.” We see that in vs. 3 as Paul begins to write, in general, about the sufferings they have endured for Christ. He doesn’t get specific with the Romans, because I’m sure each of them recognize the sufferings they’ve all endured, especially since the Jews had been expelled from Rome prior to Paul’s writing Romans and have just recently returned to find the Gentile believers still thriving in their house churches in Rome.
This is another reason why Paul had to address both Gentiles and Jews in Romans 1–4, so he could get the returning Jewish exiles on the same footing as the firmly established Gentiles. He knows that if they persevere under these difficult conditions, they will build a strong character that can withstand further challenges and help unite them as they were before. As they grow in unity, they will also grow in hope. They will truly experience and share the outpouring of God’s love through the Holy Spirit as they once again gather together to worship.
Paul also reminds them that there wasn’t anything Jews or Gentiles in Rome did to earn this blessing. Verse 8 is somewhat profound if you think about it: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”[5] Did you catch that? We didn’t have to do anything, because God was already at work through Jesus on our behalf “while we were still sinners.” We didn’t have to clean up our lives first. He reemphasizes that in vs. 10: “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son [there’s the “how” of justification again], how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”[6] Not only are we set free from God’s wrath, but we also have confidence to boast in God about the reconciliation we have received through Jesus Christ.
As we head into the summer months, I would encourage all of you to read through Romans at least once. You will begin to see why the early Church Fathers chose to put it as the first book, the shining star of Paul’s epistles in the New Testament. It is full of encouragement and hope and will help you see more clearly your place in the kingdom of God and in the local congregation. Paul wrote compassionately to those who were reuniting after a long separation, and he helped to restore the unity of the church in Rome so they could continue to be a mighty witness for the Gospel. I pray that you all will continue to be a mighty witness here at Mount View. Amen.
I preached this message at Mount View Presbyterian Church on Trinity Sunday (First Sunday after Pentecost), May 31, 2026. I lay out how the Trinity is revealed in the first three verses of Genesis 1.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
In our Old Testament reading this morning, the first couple verses of Psalm 8 say this:
1 Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory in the heavens.
2 Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. [1]
Consider the story of the walls of Jericho, which the Jews Jews destroyed by marching around the city, blowing their trumpets, and lifting up a mighty shout of praise. We also have the story of Jehoshaphat, who put the male choir out in front of the army to sing praises to God as they marched out to war. God is the true King, and when we put him first, good things can happen. Psalm 22:3 in the English Standard Version says, “Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.”[2] If you’re used to the King James Version, that verse is translated, “Thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.”[3]
This demonstrates the point that our praise is mighty and effective against evil because the God who dwells in that praise as it goes forth from our lips and our lives is mighty. This is God Almighty, God the Father, God the King, the creator of all that is made, even life itself; the giver of breath; the author of wisdom and truth.
We see the might, power, and even the orderliness of God in the creation narrative, for example. But we find much more than that if we consider the broader context of Scripture.
In Genesis 1:1, of course, we have the well known statement: “In the beginning, God (אֱלֹהִים ʾělō·hîm) created the heavens and the earth.” The Bible begins with the assumption that God exists. That fact in and of itself has been the source of many questions and debates, the most popular perhaps being “Where did God come from?”
By faith, we who are Christ-followers believe what God has said about himself, that he is eternal and has never not been. For most believers, that’s not subject to debate.
Then there is the question of what vs. 1 means. Is it simply an introduction to the first chapters of Genesis telling us what God is about to do on the “formless and void” earth, or does it describe God creating the earth itself. Did he speak and fully formed planet appear? Was there some sort of “big bang”-like event that scattered material across the expanse of the universe providing the raw materials for earth? Did God create an iron core and place it somewhere where it would attract raw material and gases floating in space and eventually coalesce into a planet that was “formless and void”? How long did all that take? You can see these are not easy questions to answer, because the earth was already there when he began creating on it!
If that’s not challenging enough, we go on and read verse 2 and find out “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” Wait, “the Spirit (רוּחַ rûaḥ) of God”? We haven’t even got an answer to where God came from and they’ve already mentioned the Spirit of God? The word is the typical Hebrew word for “Spirit” that we would expect, but it could also be translated “wind” or “breath.” However, the New Revised Standard Version is the only English version that translates it as “wind”: “A wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” But the overwhelming consensus among translators is that this refers to the Holy Spirit.
Verse 3 is the beginning of God’s creative work of preparing the “formless and void” rock called Earth for life. This happens on the “first day,” so again it should go without saying that the Earth was already there. But on the first day, God doesn’t create anything on the earth. He creates something to illuminate the earth: light. Or should I say Light. What is unusual here is that we’re never told the source of the light. The sources of light in the heavens (the sun, the stars, the moon) aren’t created until Day Four.
So what is this Light? We get some hints in the Old Testament, especially with a couple direct references to God himself being a source of light.
Psalm 104:2–3 says:
2 The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent 3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.[4]
Daniel 2:22 says:
22 He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him.[5]
Numerous other Scriptures use “light” to describe God in a more personal relationship with his people. “The Lord is my light and salvation” (Psalm 27:1; cf. Micah 7:8); “The light of Israel” (Isaiah 10:17); “Let the light of your face shine upon us” (Psalm 4:7 et passim) are all examples of this. We can find many other examples of “light” being used in a number of different ways with respect to God, too numerous to mention here.
But let’s go back to Daniel 2:22. “Some Jewish commentators also cite Dan 2:22 as evidence that “Light” is one of the Messiah’s names.”[6] Psalm 119:105 says “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.”[7] Hmmm, where else have heard something about “light” and “God’s word”? Could it be in the New Testament?
Listen to John 1:1–5:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”[8]
Even to the casual observer, then, it seems obvious that John is connecting Jesus to Genesis 1, especially 1:3. Jesus is the “Light” that God “created” when he said “Let there be light.” Jesus is the light in several respects: He is the revelation of God’s character in every way. Just like God and the Spirit were already present at creation, so was Jesus. “Let there be Light” is more of a declaration about Jesus as the third person of the trinity.
That’s right. The trinity of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, three manifestations of the Godhead perfectly united, is mentioned in the first three verses of the Bible. Lest there be any doubt, we should mention Abram’s encounter with Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18–20 and how the author of Hebrews interprets that in relation to Jesus:
18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.”
Hebrews 7:3 describes Melchizedek as: “3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.”[10] All throughout the early chapters of Genesis, we see God revealing himself to individuals, but up until chapter 14, we have no mention of any kind of priest. All of the sudden, Melchizedek appears, seemingly out of nowhere. The text tells us he is the king of Salem, probably the early settlement of Jerusalem, and that “King of Salem” means “King of Peace.” The name Melchizedek itself means “King of Righteousness.”
We have some evidence, then, that there were early followers of “God Most High” (עֶלְיוֹן אֵל ʾēlʿěl·yôn) in the region. Is Melchizedek, then, the preincarnate Christ if indeed he has no genealogy in Genesis, unlike every other Hebrew person mentioned in Genesis? You’d think we’d have some story of how someone came to be a priest of the Most High God, but we know nothing of his origins. Why do we have a story about God calling Abram to be the progenitor of the line from which the Messiah would be born, but not one about the first priest? Keep in mind that we know Abram’s ancestors from Genesis, but we really don’t know how he came to be separated from the community in Salem where Melchizedek served. I think the Bible intentional leaves that a bit of a mystery for us, as a figure completely independent of Abram’s line validates that the worship of the Most High God is an established practice already when Abram is called.
I think it’s probably going too far to assume that the early Hebrews in Genesis had a fully formed doctrine of the trinity. However, the seeds are planted there to bring that concept to fruition. Even the creation story itself seems to reflect this “three-in-one” concept in more ways then one. Creation takes place in six days broken up into two sets of three: On days One through Three, God creates the environment to support life (light, water, land and vegetation), then on days Four through Six, he creates the inhabitants of the respective environments (sun, moon, and stars; fish and sea creatures; and land animals and critters and mankind).
In Deuteronomy 6:5, Moses exhorts the Israelites to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”[11] This reflects the trinitarian nature of our own being: The heart is our emotional connection to God and others; the soul is the eternal nature that God places in us, not only our spiritual connection, but also the personality traits that are in some sense innate to our being; and our strength is our body, which will be resurrected in the last days.
As with Pentecost’s call to evangelism, so too our Gospel reading has a similar call founded in the trinity. In fact, it was probably the basis for how Peter closes out his sermon in Acts 2: “19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”[12]
On this Trinity Sunday, then, let us give praise and thanks for God, the three-in-one, who through Jesus—the priest forever in the order of Melchizedek, the one who has both the fullness of God and has experienced the fullness of the human form in his incarnation, the one who died to pay the price for our sins and rose from the dead to secure our hope for salvation and perfection in heaven—has fashioned us in his image so that we might more fully know God and the blessings he has for us both here on earth and in the heavenly realms. Go forth and share the good news. Amen.
[3] Psalm 22:3. The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
The Lord be with you! Happy Birthday to the Body of Christ!
The festival known as “Pentecost” in the New Testament is as old as the Mosaic Law itself, having been established in the first few chapters of Exodus after Moses received the Ten Commandments. Yet you can’t find that name in the Old Testament, not even in the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. Pentecost simply means “50 days,” in the Christian context, that’s 50 days after Easter (Easter, or Resurrection Sunday, is considered “Day 1,” so subsequent Sundays are a multiple of 7 plus 1 in the day count[1]).
When it was established, it anticipated Israel being settled in the Promised Land, but of course it took them 40 years to get to that goal. In Exodus, what became Pentecost was originally the “Festival of Weeks” or “Festival of Harvest.” It occurred 50 days from the Sabbath of the Passover week. The Jews considered it a sacred day, a Sabbath if you will, and was one of the three festivals in the year where men had to appear before the Lord at the Tabernacle/Temple.
Even though the Greek New Testament uses the term πεντηκοστή pentēkostē, some English-speaking Christian traditions as early as the 12th century called it “Whitsunday,” for the white robes new converts wore after being baptized on that Sunday. It was common for the churches in the Middle Ages to set aside sacred days like Easter and Pentecost for confirming young communicants or recognizing those who completed the catechism and were baptized.
The name Pentecost, then, seems to blur what might otherwise be an obvious connection between what the festival represents historically and what Jesus said about his own ministry, why it makes the day of Pentecost that much more significant for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the birthday of the church. What did Jesus say about the harvest? Maybe you’ve already made the connection to John 4:35: “I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest.”[2] Jesus had said much about the harvest, usually in connection with the end times, but in Acts 2, the harvest theme seems to be in the background.
In Joel chapter 2, in the verses leading up to the passage Peter quotes at the end of our NT reading this morning, the prophet speaks of God’s blessings in terms of a complete harvest:
21 Do not be afraid, land of Judah;
be glad and rejoice.
Surely the Lord has done great things!
22 Do not be afraid, you wild animals,
for the pastures in the wilderness are becoming green.
In light of this background, then, let’s look at Acts 2 more closely. When the 120 or so initial followers of Jesus[4] gathered on the day of Pentecost, I’m convinced they had absolutely no clue what was about to happen. They simply gathered because Jesus had told them to wait in Jerusalem. They were likely continuing to evangelize in Jerusalem, and the large crowd present for Pentecost (remember, a required feast for men to present themselves) was wondering about the gathering of the Jerusalem-based believers would bring about.
It’s not clear where they were gathered at. Chapter 1 says they had been staying at a house. Verse 2 suggests they are still in the house, so it must have been a very large place in a location near the heart of the city where many others could gather. The text tells us the sound of the wind was so powerful that people heard it from a few blocks away. They began to gather around the house and they begin to recognize they’re hearing the praises of God being spoken in their own language.
It’s significant here that the miracle is in the speaking and not the hearing. God-fearing Jews from all over the world at this event, and each one is getting the seed of the Gospel and the outpouring of the Spirit in their own language so they can take that message back to their own people. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that some of those who were empowered to speak in other languages, perhaps a language they had never learned or had limited exposure may have also been commissioned to be a missionary to those people. That’s essentially what the purpose is of the gift of tongues. It’s not a personal prayer language; it’s a gift to help spread the gospel to people and places distant from Jerusalem.
The place names mentioned are most likely not exhaustive. The area covered is immense, from Persia to Rome east to west, and from northern Turkey to Arabia north to south. Within one generation, the gospel will have spread through the eastern Mediterranean region and the entire Middle East. There is no discrimination based on race, gender, or language. God’s blessing is no longer solely upon the Jews. Let’s break down the quote from Joel.
We saw leading up to Christmas that Jesus made a point of showing his ministry was not just to the Jews exclusively but to the Gentiles as well. We see this in the rest of the book of Acts along with the 13 letters Paul would eventually write to the young churches. Not only that, but we see it in the interaction among the churches, especially when some of the churches in southern Europe provided support for the church in Jerusalem.
Sons and daughters will prophesy. Prophecy is not necessarily proclaiming the future, although we see hints of that in the book of Acts. Prophecy is at its most basic level is proclaiming the Word of God. We see plenty of that coming from folks who aren’t part of the inner circle. Priscilla and Aquila; Apollos; Timothy; Phoebe and many of the others mentioned at the end of Romans; and the list goes on.
Stories of signs and wonders have perpetuated throughout history. Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity because he claimed to see a cross in the clouds and took that as divine appointment for his kingship. The Catholic Church claims to have validated several miracles, like the Lady of Fátima in Portugal in 1917.
However most of these “signs and wonders” seem to refer what will happen in the end times, as next verse refers to “the great and glorious day of the Lord.” Even as the church is being formed in its infancy here, the prophetic pronouncement of Peter here looks forward to the end of time. God wants to make sure the faith grows and that the whole world has the chance to hear the gospel eventually. The recent talk of revival breaking out is proof that the church is still fighting the good fight to get the gospel message out.
So the harvest that began on that first Pentecost after the resurrection is still going on even today. The promise of Joel, as affirmed by Peter, still holds true today as well: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” And this missionary call still applies to us as well.
In Romans 10, Paul says this:
9If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”l12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”p
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[5]
You and I are called to help bring unbelievers into the harvest. Just as we can love others because he first loved us, so we can call others to God because God has called us to him. In fact, other than laying our life down for someone else, there is no greater love we can show to our fellow man than inviting them to join you on your walk with the Lord, to join the fellowship of the faithful.
The early church grew rapidly in the first few years after this event, and the church has continued to grow in certain cycles. In a culture that is hostile to Christianity, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that people are in fact coming back to church in greater numbers. In places like China where the church continues to operate underground for the most part, the number of believers continues to grow.
As we celebrate the birthday of the kingdom, let us also recommit ourselves to sharing the good news with those in our lives. We may feel like the culture is against us, but we have a God who is bigger than our culture. We may feel like world events are too much to handle, we have a God who is still in control. We have God who’s promised that as the church advances against the gates of hell, hell’s gates cannot withstand the onslaught. We know that we win in the end in the great and gloriously day of the Lord. Let us live in that victory even now. Amen.
The New Testament writers make no bones about connecting baptism and forgiveness to the blood of Christ. Baptism, forgiveness, and Christ’s blood are inextricably linked throughout the New Testament. In the brotherhood I belong to (Christian Church/Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement) we have two primary “sacraments”: Communion, in which Jesus definitely connects his shed blood to forgiveness (Matthew 26:28), and Baptism (Romans 6:1–4) where Paul connects it with the death and resurrection of Christ. In fact, an analysis of the whole argument of Romans reveals that the central and climactic chapter of Romans 1–11 is chapter 6 on Baptism. The end of Romans 6 has the well known verse about “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.” Read in context, that verse refers to baptism: we pay the wages of sin by going under the water and receive eternal life by rising up out of the water. This sets up the reason Paul can say “Offer your bodies a living sacrifice” in Romans 12:1, after he’s finished his argument in 1–11. The “living sacrifice” is exactly what baptism is. Offer your bodies to be baptized/immersed. Baptism is our participation in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and his resurrection from the dead.
Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains
53.41βαπτίζωb; βάπτισμα,τος n; βαπτισμόςb,οῦ m: to employ water in a religious ceremony designed to symbolize purification and initiation on the basis of repentance—‘to baptize, baptism.’
……
According to the Didache (early second century) different forms of baptism were practiced in the early church, but with evident preference given to immersion.
The baptism practiced by John the Baptist would seem to reflect far more the Jewish pattern of ritual washing than the type of baptism employed by Christians, which constituted a symbol of initiation into the Christian community on the basis of belief in and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. There seems, however, to be no reason to employ a different expression for baptism in the case of John than in the case of the early Christians.[1]
I’m starting a new series similar to my Lectionary Helps articles. I’m creating a series of topically or Bible-book–reference posts featuring links to my videos and blog articles on the stated topic. As a Logos Affiliate, I’m also including a link to Logos Bible Software (60-day free trial), which is the source for some of the information herein. The Logos link does not imply in any way Logos’s endorsement of my blog or any of its contents. Your feedback is welcome here or in the individual links I’ve provided.
[Middle English resurreccioun, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin resurrection-, resurrectio act of rising from the dead, from resurgere to rise from the dead, from Latin, to rise again, from re- + surgere to rise—more at surge] 14th century
1acapitalized: the rising of Christ from the dead
boften capitalized: the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment
RESURRECTION Act of being raised from the dead, used in the Bible in three different contexts: (1) It refers to miraculous raising of the dead back to earthly life, such as when Elijah raised a boy (1 Kgs 17:8–24), Elisha raised the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18–37), Jesus raised both Jairus’s daughter (Mk 5:35–43) and Lazarus (Jn 11:17–44), Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42), and Paul raised Eutychus (20:9–12). There is no hint that these resuscitations would prevent future death. (2) It refers most frequently to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (3) It also refers to the eschatological resurrection of mankind at the end of time for punishment or reward (Jn 5:29; cf. Rv 20:5–6).[2]
Noun
414 ἀνάστασις (anastasis), εως (eōs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 386; TDNT 1.371—1. LN 23.93 resurrection (Mt 22:31; Mk 12:18; Lk 14:14; Jn 5:29; 11:24, 25; Ac 1:22; Ro 1:4; Heb 6:2; 11:35; 1Pe 1:3; Rev 20:5; Heb 11:1 v.r.); 2. LN 87.39 rising up, from a lower status to a higher one (Lk 2:34+), for another interp, see next; 3. LN 13.60 rising up, a change for the better (Lk 2:34+), for another interp, see prior[3]
Verb
482 ἀνίσταμαι (anistamai), ἀνίστημι (anistēmi): vb.; ≡ DBLHebr 7756; Str 450—1. LN 17.7 cause to stand up (Ac 9:41; Ac 2:30 v.r.); 2. LN 23.94 raise to life (Jn 6:39; Mk 16:9 v.r.; Ro 14:9 v.r.); 3. LN 23.59 ἀνίστημι σπέρμα (anistēmi sperma), procreate, bring into being, have children (Mt 22:24+); 4. LN 17.6 (dep.) stand up (Lk 4:16); 5. LN 15.36 (dep.) go away (Lk 4:38); 6. LN 13.81 (dep.) come into existence appear (Heb 7:11; Ac 7:18); 7. LN 23.93 (dep.) live again, come back to life, having been once dead (Lk 9:8; 1Co 15:51 v.r.); 8. LN 39.34 (dep.) rebel against (Ac 5:36)[4]
[2] Elwell, Walter A., and Philip Wesley Comfort. 2001. In Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 1121–22. Tyndale Reference Library. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
I preached this message on the third Sunday of Easter, April 19, 2026, at Mount View Presbyterian Church.
Psalms 111 through 119 make up a unique subsection of what your English Bibles call “Book V” of the psalms. They are called the “Egyptian Hallel” because each chapter begins or ends with the shout “Hallelujah.” We know that means “Praise God!” Psalms 111–112 are introductions to the Hallel, each being an acrostic psalm, that is, each “half-verse” of the psalm begins with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The last chapter of this Hallel, 119, is of course an acrostic as well, and most English Bibles will indicate that. Chapter 119 has 22 sets of 8 verses that are in alphabetical order according to the first letters of each of the verses in the respective sections. Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible, is also famous for its exaltation of God’s words and decrees, with all but three verses mentioning God’s word or decrees using a variety of terms.
The central psalms in the Hallel are 113–118. These are the psalms that were sung before and after the Passover seder meal, with Psalms 113–114 sung prior to the meal, and psalms 115–118 sung after the meal. This context “sets the table” (allusion intended) for taking a deeper dive into Psalm 116 this morning. Psalm 116 is reads like two psalms in one, because the second half of the psalm parallels the first half. As such, I want us to compare the two halves and see what gems we can discover. It’s also possible that the Emmaus disciples sang this psalm after their “surprise” dinner with Jesus since they were not too far out from Passover.
First of all, you may have noticed from our reading that there is a pervasive theme across the whole psalm of “calling on the name of the Lord.” In fact, it seems intentional that those who decided to pick and choose a few verses from Psalm 116 for the Lectionary reading were intentional about focusing on that theme. So let’s run with that.
You’ll notice that in the first half of the psalm, the author is calling on the name of the Lord in the midst of trouble and sorrow in vv. 1–4. The author speaks of crying out for mercy, being entangled in the cords of death, and overcome by grief, anguish, and distress. I think we can all relate to that at certain times in our lives. As we switch back and forth between having the air conditioning and furnace running in our not-so-stable Nebraska spring weather pattern, we ask the Lord that neither system fails us, right?
On a more serious note, we feel the sense of dependence when we lose a loved one or a loved one is facing serious medical issues. Even some of those who don’t attend church regularly will cry out to God for help in those situations. We feel the need for something beyond us to step in and bring hope or healing.
On the flip side of that, in the second half of this psalm, we see the author calling on God in the midst of good times as well. When he speaks of “lifting up the cup of salvation,” he’s referring to the last cup of the seder dinner, the same cup that Christ used when he said it was the new covenant in his blood for the forgivenss of tins. (see Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:28).
The good times, ironically, are also the times we can forget about calling on the Lord. Everything is going great, yet we forget that God is the one who had a hand in making things great for us. We forget to ask (and answer) the question in verse 12: “What shall I return to the Lord for all his goodness to me?” Since the context here is the Passover seder, the author is saying he will participate with joy in the celebration of escaping the slavery of Egypt. In other words, he sees the big picture of God’s plan from the earliest days of their nation. He also takes the opportunity to renew his pledge to live righteously in the world.
Allow me for a moment to switch to a related sidebar here: As Christians, we keep the Passover, so to speak, by taking communion together. Jesus essentially redefined the Passover seder to focus on his pending sacrifice on the cross. I know you know this, but it bears repeating: Communion is the time we come into the presence of the Savior and sit at the table he’s invited us to. Not only is it a time of remembrance for us, but also a time of recommitment to follow him. When the Bible says, “God remembered his promise,” that always means God is ready to act on the fulfillment of that promise. When we do communion “in remembrance of him,” we’re pledging ourselves to continue to walk in his ways.
Now let us look at the two halves of this Psalm side-by-side. In verse 1, the author says “I love the Lord,” while in verse 11, that love for the Lord prompts him to say “I trusted in the Lord” when he poured out his heart about his troubles. In verse 1, he also has the confidence to say that the Lord has heard his voice and turned his ear toward him.
The imagery in that last statement is key to God’s love for us: God doesn’t just sit on his throne and process prayer requests all day long. He leans into it. You and I might lean in to a conversation because our hearing is getting bad, but God doesn’t have a problem with hearing. He wants to hear what you have to say, and he never tires or gets weary of listening to us when we come to him in faith and humility. God wants to know our complaint or concern, even if it’s a broad generalization like in verse 12: “Everyone is a liar!” He knows what we mean. He knows what’s on our heart at the moment. Let’s not forget the promise of Romans 8:26 either:
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.[1]
The promise that follows in Romans here is why we can have confidence and trust in calling on the name of the Lord:
God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.[2]
The cry in vs. 4 after the author pours out his heart is “Lord, save me!” Verses 13–14 parallel this by the author providing his own solution: “I will lift up the cup of salvation.” He knows the seder ritual is more than just a ritual, but a powerful promise of God’s presence, just as I spoke of when I compared this our own communion service.
Hear the words of vv. 5–6, since they weren’t included in our reading this morning:
5 The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is full of compassion.
6 The Lord protects the unwary; when I was brought low, he saved me.[3]
The author follows through here on his cry in vs. 4 by affirming that the Lord did indeed save him at his lowest point. The author’s desperation at the beginning of the psalm may have put him in a frame of mind where he thought he was going to die. In verse 15, he has the confidence to say that the death of a faithful servant is “precious” in the Lord’s sight, so it would seem he had come to terms with his own mortality. This could also be a messianic prophecy about Jesus and the martyrdom in the early days of the church. We saw in verse 14 that he committed himself to live faithfully, and he does so again here in verse 16: “Truly I am your servant, Lord,” and compares it to the history of his own mother’s servant heart.
Verse 7 is a turning point in the first half of the psalm. The author feels complete, made whole because of the Lord’s goodness to him. This parallels the question of vs. 12 I spoke of earlier. In verses 8 and 9, he reaffirms that God has rescued him from sorrow and calamity. In verses 17–19, the author basically repeats verses 14–15, just like a singer might do with the chorus when they come to the end of their song. That’s the clue to us, the readers and worshipers, that this was the intended point of the whole psalm, and it sums up the psalm’s main points succinctly:
First, let us never fail to give thanks for the salvation we have through Jesus Christ. Whether we do that with words or worship, we can have the confidence to speak boldly and not hold back on those things that concern us. We can absolutely be certain that the Lord is trustworthy.
Second, call on the Lord. This is an essential part of our salvation experience. Romans 10:9 says:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.[4]
Additionally, Paul addresses the church at Corinth in terms of both their calling and whom they call upon:
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.[5]
Third, but not necessarily finally, commit or reaffirm your commitment regularly, and do so publicly. That doesn’t mean you need to make an alter call every Sunday morning; “publicly” just means you’re not hiding it. If you have an accountability partner or good friend that can keep you honest, that’s a good place to start. If you want to proclaim it more broadly, do that too. After all, the author says in the closing verse he will fulfill his vows in the temple as well as in the heart of the city of Jerusalem for all to see.
May God bless you this week as you continue to spread the gospel in word and in deed. Amen.
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 