I preached this message on August 23, 2026, at Mount View Presbyterian Church in Omaha, NE, as part of a continuing series through the Romans passages indicated in the Lectionary for each Sunday. The congregation has received these messages quite well. I’ll tackle the last half of Romans 12 for the following Sunday. The last Romans passage in the Lectionary for this year is Romans 14 on September 13, but after August 30, I won’t preach there again until September 20.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
Well, here we are. We’ve taken a closer look at the first 11 chapters of the Paul’s letter to the Romans and have heard much about faith and faithfulness, life in Christ through the Holy Spirit, and free gift of God’s grace that brings us salvation when we confess Christ as our Savior and Lord. Chapter 12 begins a very different section of Romans, one in which Paul starts to address unity among the house churches in Rome. But he’s not addressing unity just for the sake of unity. Paul wants the Roman believers, both Jews and Gentiles, to present a united front in the way they fellowship with each other and reach out to and evangelize their family, friends, and neighbors in Rome.
The first two verses of our passage today represent the application of all that Paul has just taught in the first 11 chapters. We’ll look closely at those two verses, then we’ll look at verses 3–8 to see just what Paul expects of believers with respect to living in unity (Psalm 133), especially when it comes to addressing the diversity in the Roman culture more broadly, and the differing worldviews that Jews and Gentiles bring to the (dinner) table.
Once again, in 12:1, we see the word “therefore.” This is our clue that Paul is referring to at least the previous three chapters of Romans that we touched on last week, but more likely, given some of the verbal parallels here, he’s referring to the entire eleven chapters up to this point.
One of the first things Paul says in vs. 1 is that he’s urging the Roman believers to “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice.” Now when it comes to being a living sacrifice, you’ve probably heard quotes similar to what John MacArthur cited recently in one of his daily devotions: “But as someone has rightly said, the problem with living sacrifices is they tend to crawl off the altar.”[1] But this quote has a couple problems in my mind.
First, no one seems to know who originated the quote. The closest Copilot AI can come to nailing it down seems to be the mid-20th century to a couple holiness preachers.[2] I have four respectable commentaries on Romans going back about 50 years among them, and none of them use this sentiment in reference to this passage, at least not in the main discussion of the passage.
Second, if God wants us to be “living sacrifices,” why in the world would we stay on the altar? Some of the commentators who have used the “crawl off the altar” statement suggest that implies we bail on God when the fire gets turned up. But the passage we’re looking at this morning seems to have a completely opposite view of that. Our passage this morning, as we’ll see shortly, calls us to go into the world and use our gifts for God.
So what is Paul talking about when he says “living sacrifice” if it means that the sacrificial rite, so to speak, isn’t going to lead to our death? We need to look back no farther than Romans 6:3–4 to see just what that is: “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.”[3] Our baptism makes us a living sacrifice!
If you were baptized as an infant, your parents, family, and church dedicated themselves to raising you in the faith, and here you are today. I have many friends who did not get baptized until they became adults, but they also now are living sacrifices. Christ went to the cross for us so we wouldn’t have to. When we “offer” or “present” ourselves to God in this way, we’re not expected to climb up on the cross or jump up on a burning altar. The sacrifice has already been made; we participate in the result of that sacrifice by living our lives for Christ and his kingdom. God wants us out in the world sharing the good news of Jesus. That is where we’ll experience both the joys of salvation and in some cases the struggle of persecution and rejection. In other words, the world is our “altar.”
In the NIV, Paul calls this our “true and proper worship”; in the version we read this morning, the New Revised Standard Version, it’s translated “reasonable” worship. The word in the original language sounds like our English word “logical” (λογικός logikos) and is used to refer to the “pure spiritual milk” Peter says we should crave. [4] We worship in the world by living our lives for Christ. Worship isn’t just singing and gathering at church; it’s ministering to a lost world.
As we go out into the world, then, two things happen to us if we’re focused on Christ. First, we begin to see the futility of the way the world lives without God, without guidance from the Holy Spirit, and without an understanding of the sacrificial love Jesus demonstrated for us. As we witness that regularly, we begin to understand why Paul exhorts us: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world.” The pattern of this world is without hope; we begin to desire God more and more, because he is the only one who can fulfill the second part of that exhortation in verse 2: “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” so you can “test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. ”[5]
The exercise of our faith is no different than exercising our bodies or practicing a sport or skill. If you’re faithful in your exercise routine, you will begin to see results for your body. The more you practice a sport or skill, the more muscle memory you build so that your actions become more instinctive than forced or mimicked by rote. It is in those actions that we find out just how good God is, how effective God is, and how true his Word is.
In verses 3–8, Paul summarizes the gifts of the Spirit from chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians, which he had written a couple years earlier. Similarly, verses 9–21, which we’ll look at next week, parallel Paul’s “love” chapter, 1 Corinthians 13. Paul exhorts the Roman believers to exercise some humility by exercising “sober judgment” with yourself in accordance with your faith. What he’s saying here is not that everyone should be equally humble: certain gifts may be more prominent than others, and if you’ve got one of those gifts, don’t be afraid to use it. But also don’t look down on others who may have a different gift that may not be as popular or that may make us uncomfortable in a good way. We are unified as a body, and each gift has its purpose for the edification of the body. In that sense, we are all equal in the eyes of God, so let’s be sure to see each other through his eyes instead of our own.
Now in case it’s been a while since you’ve looked at these gifts of the Spirit, whether here or in 1 Corinthians, let me take a few minutes here to speak to those and just what those gifts entail. If you’re curious about what your gifts may be, spiritual or otherwise, there are some decent ones online. Some are longer than others, but if they’re thoughtfully prepared and have a robust rubric to analyze your responses, you should be able to get a pretty accurate reading for yourself. For example, this survey from churchgrowth.org has 108 questions covering the gifts mentioned in Scripture: Spiritual Gifts | FREE Spiritual Gifts Survey | Assessment, Analysis, Test.
Almost 16 years ago, after I had fully integrated into my current home church, I took the Gallup “Strengths” survey. Although the strengths are not necessarily defined as spiritual gifts in all cases, the survey does reveal how God wired you as an individual and may help you figure out areas of ministry that would be a good fit for you. My top gift was “intellection,” and one of the key actions it said I should follow through on to exercise that strength was to start a blog. Well little did that survey know I had indeed just started doing that about a month earlier, so when I got home after viewing my results, I immediately set up my current blog on WordPress.com, and it is still going strong to this day.
Now, about the gifts that Paul mentions. The first gift he mentions is prophesying. It may surprise you to learn that prophesying in Scripture is not necessarily about foretelling the future, but about forth-telling the Gospel, sometimes in ways that make people uncomfortable. There’s a difference between warning about possible or probable outcomes of sinful behavior, but that’s not the same as predicting a specific future event. By the same token, prophesy might also be about edifying the church as well, as seems to be the thought in 1 Corinthians 14:4: “Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.”[6]
You don’t have to be a preacher to have the gift of prophesying, nor do you have to run out and quit your job if you discover you have the gift of prophesying and become a preacher. If you feel God is calling you in that direction, then that’s okay too. Exercise some “sober judgment” as Paul says, pray and ask for guidance, and speak to your family as well so you don’t shock them with a life-altering decision out of the blue. Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 14:32: “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.”[7] How you exercise that gift is in accordance with your faith. It’s important to exercise some due diligence to flesh out any implications.
The gift of serving, I think, is probably the easiest one to wrap our brains around. It’s a generic enough category that just about anyone can fit into depending on your gifts and talents. These gifts of service are typically those things that help improve peoples’ lives, whether it’s serving in a food line or caring for an elderly or disabled friend or family member who can’t afford to pay someone to help with activities of daily living.
Teaching is another obvious one, and this, I believe, is my strong suit as a spiritual gift. The first-ever spiritual gifts inventory I took tagged me as having the gift of teaching, which I thought was odd as a junior in college since I had never even considered teaching as a career. And yet here I am at 63 years old with over 30 years of college and primary education experience. I’d like to think God knew what he was doing way back then.
I’ve seen a lot of encouragement in this congregation in the five years (has it been that long?) that I’ve been an adjunct pulpit-filler here. That is one of the beauties here, especially as a small congregation. The support and care you show for one another and have shown for me and my family in some of our struggles has meant so much to each other and myself. I think that’s one of the gifts you have that can attract more people to walk through our doors.
The gift of giving, as you might imagine, is not one that depends on how much money you have in the bank or the size of your paycheck every payday. Being a giver reflects an attitude of the heart, one that is, I think, accompanied by a strong faith in God’s provision. You’re not afraid to give because you know and have experienced God’s provision in your own life.
Leadership is a tough one, I think. So much goes into the concept of leadership, and sometimes the skillset that accompanies that gift will look different depending on the setting in which God is calling you to leadership. Are you a visionary that can see the potential in an idea or a person? Are you a financial whiz that knows how to keep a company in the black? Do you have strong people skills that can help with conflict resolution? Leadership in the church doesn’t necessarily mean you have to know the Bible as well as the preacher. Sometimes you can lead in compassionate ministry or children’s ministry.
Finally, Paul addresses mercy. I’m not afraid to tell you that mercy is an area I need some work on, especially as I get older, crankier, and more set in my ways. I shared with some of you last week about the trials of trying to Jill and Becca’s luggage to them in Scandinavia. After the third time in 24 hours that the luggage headed west back to Chicago instead of east over the Atlantic, mercy was about the farthest thing from my mind. In my defense, and in defense of the rest of us who get angry from time to time, the Bible does say it’s okay to get angry, as long as we don’t sin with our actions that accompany that anger.
Those are the gifts Paul mentions in Romans. If you want to see other gifts, you can review 1 Corinthians 12–14 to get an idea about the gifts and some extended instruction on how to use them.
I do want to issue you a challenge this morning. Most of you know each other, so I don’t think this is going to be too weird for you. Look around the sanctuary from where you’re sitting, if it’s not too difficult to turn around for you. Yeah, make eye contact. During our fellowship time afterwards, I’d like you to consider encouraging one another by complimenting them on a gift you see in that person. It doesn’t have to be one that we’ve talked about, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be a spiritual gift. We’re a family here, and one of our goals should be to edify each other. When you get home, do the same for someone significant in your life as well: a sibling, your spouse, a child or grandchild, etc. Let’s be living sacrifices for the growth of God’s kingdom. Amen.
Barnhouse used the line in his Romans radio expositions and later in print. He never claimed authorship; he also attributed it to “someone has said.”
This is the earliest reliably documented usage.
• Early Keswick / holiness preaching (1940s–1960s)
Several holiness and revivalist preachers used similar phrasing, often anonymously:
“The trouble with a living sacrifice is that it keeps trying to get off the altar.”
“Living sacrifices tend to crawl off the altar.”
These appear in sermon transcripts and devotional pamphlets, but without attribution.
[3] Romans 6:3–4. The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. See also Edwards, James R. Romans. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. 1992. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, p. 283, where he cites a similar statement from Romans 6:8.
I preached this message at Mount View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE, on August 16, 2026. The preachers from the previous two weeks had not covered Romans 9 & 10 from the lectionary, so I did a brief overview of those two chapters before tackling chapter 11. Message was captured in audio (here) and video (Rumble) formats.I preached this message at Mount View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE, on August 16, 2026. The preachers from the previous two weeks had not covered Romans 9 & 10 from the lectionary, so I did a brief overview of those two chapters before tackling chapter 11. Message was captured in audio (here) and video (Rumble) formats.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
I’m continuing on through Romans today. While the first eight chapters were pretty heavy on doctrine, the nature and role of faith and faithfulness, and the “how” of life—both here and beyond—in the Spirit, Paul hasn’t really dealt with the social and cultural dynamics of the mix of Gentiles and Jews in the Roman churches. That’s where chapters 9 through 11 fit in.
Remember that the Roman church was a healthy mix of Jews and Gentiles, with Gentiles in the majority, especially after the banishment of Jews from Rome ended and the Jews had begun to return. There are hints later in Romans of some of the tensions that may have arisen when the Jews returned, most notably involving the diet restrictions that Jews followed but Gentiles did not. That would have caused no small kerfuffle at their fellowship meals, to be sure.
It would seem from Paul’s comments in chapters 9–10 especially that each group felt they had one-up on the other. The Gentiles, after all, had kept the churches alive and growing in the absence of the Jews, while the Jews had the rightful claim of being the religious and ethnic “home,” if you will, of the Messiah. Paul attempts to balance that tension by using the metaphor of the olive tree.
Sure, the Jews represent the original olive tree, the foundation from which Christianity arose through the Messiah. But Gentiles had some bragging rights as well, having been welcomed, or in Paul’s terms, “grafted,” into the new Christian “sect” of Judaism where they had previously been deemed as second-class humans, or worse, as dogs, by traditional Judaism. I’m sure it must have been difficult for life-long Jews who had converted to Christianity to get over some of these biases about Gentiles.
What Paul is doing in chapters 9–11 is trying to convince the Jews that their standing, as well as the Gentiles’ standing, with God isn’t based on their ethnicity alone. It is based on what they believe about God, their faithfulness to his commands, and the state of their hearts. The Jewish Christians aren’t more saved or more blessed than the Gentile Christians simply because of their ethnicity. By the same token, the Gentiles aren’t more saved because they are inherently free of the constraints of the law that was deeply etched in the Jewish mindset. That doesn’t mean the Gentiles aren’t responsible for the moral behaviors reflected in the law; they just don’t have the kind of bias against a Jew that a traditional Jew might have against Gentiles.
We see this in Chapter 9 with a couple notable passages. Verse 14–16 state:
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” r
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.[1]
In other words, God will bring about salvation for Jews and Gentiles in his own way.
Then in verses 27–28, Paul quotes Isaiah’s warning from chapter 10 of his prophecy:
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[2]
God’s “sentence on earth” is like a reference to the warnings in the Torah about disobedience, especially Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. These warnings speak directly to why some of the Israelites were considered the branches cut out of the olive tree. What’s interesting about these warnings about disobedience are much longer than the promises for obedience that precede them in each of these chapters.
Here’s a sampling of Leviticus 28:14, 16–17.
14 “ ‘But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands… 16 then I will do this to you: I will bring on you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and sap your strength. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. 17 I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.[3]
Leviticus goes on with a series of paragraphs that take us down the infamous slippery slope by introducing subsequent sections with the sentiment: “If you don’t listen to me and turn back after all this, here’s what else is coming” with list of even more painful and in some cases gruesome consequences.
Deuteronomy isn’t any more pleasant (28:15–19):
15 However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:
16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.
17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.
18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.
19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.[4]
They can’t run and they can’t hide from the consequences. But it is because of God’s mercy that he didn’t wipe them out completely.
Chapter 10 (verses 8–10) makes it clear what our next step should be to escape this. I’m sure many of you have heard this before as part of the Romans Road:
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” [Deuteronomy 30:14] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 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. 10 For 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.[5]
This brings us then to our passage this morning from Romans 11. We’ve only read the first and last part of the chapter, but they are the opening and closing summaries of the heart of the passage. Paul is proud of his Jewish heritage, just as he enumerated the blessings the Jews have from their history at the beginning of chapter 9. He speaks of “the remnant [of Israel] chosen by grace,” that is, those who reaped the rewards of obedience from the first verses of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. Their salvation is a completely free gift of God. There’s no application to fill out, no extensive background check, no references to check, because God already knows that. All he needs to see is that circumcised heart, represented by your confession that Jesus is Lord.
In 11:28, Paul calls the disobedient Jews “enemies” to the Gentiles when it comes to the gospel, but because the Jews are God’s chosen people, they are still considered “elect” and God’s love never fails for them. The promise of vs. 29, that “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable”[6] is as applicable to Israel as it is for the Gentiles. That promise to include the Gentiles goes all the way back to Isaiah, at least. Verse 32 about Jews and Gentiles being bound for disobedience comes across as a sticky wicket of sorts, until you realize Paul is just restating what he said way back in Romans 3:10–11: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.”[7] We can never be saved by the works of the law; we can never be declared righteous by following any law. That only comes from the mercy and the declaration of God because of what Christ has done for us.
Paul realizes he’s laid on the theology and doctrine rather heavily in these first 11 chapters. But he ties it up in a neat little bundle here, at least by implication, by returning to his opening concept from chapter 1 of the “obedience of faithfulness” in contrast with all of us being bound over to disobedience. Romans 1–11 give us great promises of salvation: resurrection, new and eternal life, life in the Spirit, and even a corporate fellowship among those who used to be enemies. It is a beautiful picture of salvation based solely on grace and not on any ethnic connection. I’m looking forward to next week when I tackle Romans 12 and get into some of the real-life issues we face as believers, especially around the call to love our neighbors. The principles of the first 11 chapters show up often in the last 5 chapters of Romans, so we’ll see how all Paul’s theology and doctrine play out in real life.
The benediction at the end of 11 is as profound as it is encouraging, and I close with that:
33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?” b
35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?” c
36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
Donations are not tax deductible. Donations help defray the annual costs of maintaining the blog. I am committed to keeping blog content free. If you would like me to teach or preach at your church, please contact me through the email link in my signature line. Thank you.
Pip:Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the word “therefore” is never just a transition — it’s a theological event horizon.
Mara: Scott Stocking brings us two sermons this episode, both circling the same gravitational center: how Christ’s faithfulness, not just our own, is what justification actually rests on. We move from Romans 5 to the temptation in the desert and back again.
Pip: Let’s start with what Paul is actually arguing in Romans 5 and why the word “faith” might be doing double duty.
Mara: The post works through Romans 5:1–12 as part of a longer Romans study, and the central question it raises is whether “faith” in Paul’s letters refers only to our belief — or also to Christ’s own faithfulness to his mission.
Pip: And the answer, apparently, is both, which changes the weight of the whole argument considerably. The post frames it this way, reading from Romans 1:17: “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.'”
Mara: What this means in practice is that the “Righteousness of God” Paul invokes isn’t an abstract moral standard — it refers to Jesus himself. Jesus is the Righteousness of God, and his faithfulness to the cross is what makes our justification possible in the first place.
Pip: So when Paul writes “justified through faith” in 5:1 and then pivots to “justified by his blood” in 5:9, he isn’t contradicting himself — he’s showing the two sides of one coin. Christ’s faithfulness is the foundation; our trust is the response.
Mara: The post also tracks a structural shift in Romans that’s easy to miss as a casual reader. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul uses words for faith or faithfulness 27 times and words for life only twice. In chapters 5 through 8, those numbers nearly reverse — 25 occurrences of life and live, and only 2 for faith.
Pip: That’s a deliberate rhetorical gear change, not an accident.
Mara: Exactly — and it lands hardest in verse 8, which the post calls “somewhat profound”: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” No prior cleanup required.
Pip: The historical context sharpens that. Paul is writing to a Roman congregation where Jewish believers had been expelled and were only now returning to find Gentile house churches still thriving — so the unity argument isn’t abstract theology, it’s pastoral triage.
Mara: And perseverance under that pressure is precisely what builds the character and hope Paul describes in verses 3 through 5. That thread connects directly to what Jesus himself modeled when his own faithfulness was put to the test.
Mara: The second sermon takes up Matthew 4:1–11 alongside Romans 5:12–19, and the framing question is pointed: where Adam failed under temptation, what did Jesus actually do differently, and what does that mean for everyone who comes after?
Pip: The post opens with a comparison most sermons wouldn’t lead with — that Satanism is an oxymoron — but it earns the setup, because the whole argument depends on understanding what Satan is actually after.
Mara: The key move comes in Romans 5:19, quoted directly: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
Pip: So the upshot is that Jesus’s obedience isn’t just a moral example — it’s the structural reversal of Adam’s failure. One act of faithful obedience undoes what one act of disobedience broke.
Mara: The post draws a careful parallel: Satan used the same three categories against Jesus in the desert — appetite, spectacle, and power — that he used against Eve in the garden. Jesus refused each one by knowing exactly what God had actually promised, not the distorted version Satan offered.
Pip: And the post makes the point that what made the crucifixion uniquely effective wasn’t only perfect legal obedience to the Law — it was love. Bulls and goats couldn’t love anyone. Jesus could and did.
Mara: Which is why the post lands where it does: believers are “in Christ” in a concrete sense, baptized into his death, freed from the law’s demands, and called to walk in the righteousness he earned and extends to them.
Pip: Two sermons, one through-line — Christ’s faithfulness is prior to ours, and that sequence matters for everything that follows.
Mara: Romans keeps pulling the thread. There’s still the second half of Romans 6 ahead, so this conversation isn’t finished.
Part 1 of the Romans podcast series may be found here.
Pip: Welcome to Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the coffee is hot and the participles are passive — and sometimes that’s the whole point.
Mara: Scott Stocking is our guide this episode, working through Romans with a close eye on the Greek text — what words like pistis and dikaiosyne actually mean, and why the translation choices matter for how we understand salvation.
Pip: Let’s start with the Romans Road and what happens when you read it in the original language.
Pip: The post on Romans 3:23–24 opens a question most readers skip right past: when Paul says we are justified by faith, whose faith is he actually talking about — ours, or Christ’s?
Mara: The post frames it this way: “For all who are being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came through Messiah Jesus sinned and are lacking the glory of God.” That rearrangement of word order is deliberate — the participle dikaioumenoi, meaning “who are being justified,” attaches directly to “all,” making justification an ongoing process, not a completed event.
Pip: So the grammar itself is doing theological work. Being justified is present tense, active right now, not a box you checked at conversion.
Mara: Exactly. And that present-tense framing connects to a comparison with Ephesians 2:8, where the parallel construction swaps “through the redemption in Christ Jesus” for “through faithfulness, and this not from yourselves.” The argument is that the faithfulness in view is Christ’s — his obedience to the cross — not a quantity of belief we have to produce on our own.
Pip: Which dissolves a question that has quietly tormented a lot of Christians: do I have enough faith to be saved? If the faithfulness is Christ’s, the answer is structurally irrelevant to us.
Mara: The post makes that point directly. If salvation rests on our faith, it becomes relative — how much is enough? But if it rests on Christ’s faithfulness, the statement becomes absolute. Our own trust in Jesus is, as the post puts it, “not so much for the purpose of being saved but the result of being saved.”
Pip: That’s a quiet but significant inversion of how the passage usually gets preached.
Mara:The companion piece on pistis across Romans 1–5 develops this at length. It argues that the phrase pisteos Iesou Christou — “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” — in Romans 3:22 is a subjective genitive: Christ is the one being faithful, not merely the object of our faith. The post traces that reading through the whole arc of Romans 1–5, from God’s wrath under the Law in chapters 1 through 3, to Abraham’s faithfulness in chapter 4, to the application in chapter 5.
Mara: The inclusio that brackets the entire letter is telling: the phrase eis hypakoēn pisteōs — “into obedience of faithfulness” — appears in both 1:5 and 16:26, the first and last occurrences of pistis in Romans. That structural frame suggests Paul’s whole argument is about faithful obedience, not faith as a discrete interior event.
Pip: So Romans is less a manual for how to believe and more a demonstration that Christ already did the believing on our behalf — and we walk in the wake of that.
Mara: With the caveat that our own faithfulness still matters — the post is careful to say this doesn’t imply universalism or unconditional security, but rather a call to trust more deeply because God has already demonstrated his reliability. Works, confession, and obedience all follow from that trust.
Pip: From the mechanics of justification to the question of who the righteous one actually is — that thread runs all the way back to Romans 1:17, which is where the deeper argument begins.
Mara: The thread connecting both posts is really one question: what kind of faithfulness is Romans built on, and does the Greek text change the answer?
Pip: Turns out the grammar has opinions. Next time, we’ll see where else those opinions show up.
Pip:Sunday Morning Greek Blog — where the armor of God comes with footnotes, a chiastic structure, and Walter Wink citations. Scott Stocking has been thinking hard about Ephesians, and the result is not a quiet devotional.
Mara: That’s right. Today we’re digging into Ephesians — its architecture, its theology of power, and what spiritual warfare actually looks like when you take the text seriously. Let’s start with what Paul was building.
Pip: Ephesians has a reputation as Paul’s most polished letter, but the post here argues it’s also one of his most structurally deliberate — a chiastic architecture with spiritual warfare running through it as a subtheme, not a footnote.
Mara: The phrase that anchors it all is “in the heavenly realms” — used five times in Ephesians. And chapter 6 makes the stakes plain: “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
Pip: So the heavenly realms aren’t simply heaven. They span good and evil — which raises the obvious question of who exactly is living there.
Mara: That’s where Walter Wink comes in. His framework, drawn from his Powers trilogy and condensed in The Powers That Be, describes these entities as created by God to steward human institutions — families, corporations, governments — but subject to corruption by the people inside them.
Pip: Created good, fallen, and in need of redemption. Which is, frankly, a description that fits most institutions I’ve encountered.
Mara: The post works through concrete examples — Enron as a case of institutional corruption feeding on itself, Tylenol’s 1980s recall as a case of a corporation doing the right thing and sending a message that reverberated through the corporate world.
Pip: And then it turns personal. Westboro Baptist gets named as a case study in what spiritual warfare is not — protests that fuel the violence of the powers rather than redeeming them.
Mara: The alternative the post argues for is love as the primary instrument. Not tolerance of wrongdoing, but direct relational engagement — and prayer underneath all of it. Wink is quoted again: “Prayer is never a private inner act disconnected from day-to-day realities. It is, rather, the interior battlefield where the decisive victory is won before any engagement in the outer world is even possible.”
Pip: So action without prayer is self-justifying good works. Prayer without action is incomplete. The post holds both together — and lands on love, not protest, as the mode.
Mara: Exactly. And that framing — what we do in visible institutions reflects and shapes invisible powers — is what makes the Ephesians structure matter beyond the outline.
Pip: The architecture of the letter and the theology of the powers turn out to be the same argument.
Mara: What stays with me is that “in the heavenly realms” doing so much work — from blessing in chapter one to spiritual combat in chapter six.
Pip: Same letter, same phrase, completely different register. That’s worth sitting with until next time.
Pip: Welcome to Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the word “likewise” turns out to carry thirty years of argument inside it.
Mara: Scott Stocking is back with a paper he first presented at a Stone-Campbell conference in 1996 — now published here — making a textual case from 1 Timothy 3 that Paul had women in official leadership roles in mind.
Pip: Let’s start with what the Greek actually says about who qualifies for what.
Women Elders and the Greek of 1 Timothy 3
Mara: The post frames its stakes right at the top: the question isn’t whether culture permits women elders, but whether the text does. The argument is that a cultural defense, once allowed as primary, opens what the post calls “any number of Pandora’s boxes for cultural justification of lifestyles and doctrines otherwise proscribed in the Scriptures.”
Pip: So the move is to beat the traditionalists on their own ground — scripture, grammar, structure — rather than appeal to the zeitgeist.
Mara: Exactly. And the structural case comes first. First Timothy 3 lists qualifications for the overseer in verses 1 through 7, then deacons in verses 8 through 10, then women in verse 11. The post lays this out as a parallel pattern, each group introduced with the same grammatical machinery.
Pip: Verse 11 sitting between two deacon passages has let a lot of readers conclude those women must be deacons’ wives — but apparently the Greek doesn’t cooperate.
Mara: It doesn’t. The NIV supplies the word “their” to read “their wives,” but as the post notes, “the personal possessive pronoun ‘their’ (autōn) is not found in the Greek text.” That pronoun was added by translators, not Paul.
Pip: A gloss doing a lot of heavy lifting for a very contested doctrine.
Mara: The post calls it an “obvious gloss” and moves on to what it considers the real crux: the adverb hōsautōs, translated “likewise” or “in the same way.” It appears in verse 8 introducing deacons and again in verse 11 introducing the women. The word study here is the heart of the paper.
Mara: Louw and Nida describe hōsautōs as “a marker of similarity which approximates identity” — and the post takes “identity” to mean identification with a specific group or class of leaders, not just a behavioral resemblance.
Pip: So “likewise” isn’t just saying these women should be dignified — it’s placing them in the same category as the offices already named.
Mara: That’s the argument. Because hōsautōs in verse 11 pulls the reader back grammatically to the same infinitive construction governing the overseer list in verse 2, the women of verse 11 are, in the post’s words, “a distinct class of leaders in the early church.” The post also engages Jennifer Stiefel’s 1995 article, which reaches a similar structural conclusion but stops at “women deacons” — the post argues her analysis is too narrow because she excludes verses 1 through 7 from her structural frame, which is precisely where the overseer qualifications live.
Pip: Leave out the overseer passage and you can’t see that hōsautōs is doing double duty — linking the women to both offices, not just one.
Mara: The conclusion is that Paul “intentionally uses this construction to place these ‘women’ on an equal status with deacons and overseers or elders.” The post also connects the women of 3:11 to the widow passages in chapter 5, noting parallel qualifications — hospitality, raising children, commanding respect, refraining from idle talk — which suggests these women leaders may have been widows, though the post holds that loosely.
Pip: And the companion piece, “Qualifications of Male and Female Leaders in the Church,” extends this reading into a broader look at the leadership passages — this 1996 paper is the academic foundation that piece builds on.
Mara: Right. The practical upshot the post names is direct: “give women their due respect in congregational life and leadership” and “do not be afraid to appoint them to church offices if they have earned that respect.” The post notes this paper was actually used by a real eldership to support adding female elders — so the thirty-year-old argument found a live application.
Pip: Which brings us to the cultural backdrop that shaped the Ephesian congregation Paul was writing to in the first place.
Mara: The thread running through all of this is that close reading of the Greek — structure, adverbs, what pronouns are and aren’t present — can reopen questions that translation choices quietly closed.
Pip: Next time: whatever Paul wrote next, we’ll be here parsing it one word at a time.
I preached this message July 26, 2026, at Mount View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, Nebraska. It follows up on my previous message two weeks’ prior on the first third of Romans 8 (Life in the Spirit (Romans 8:1–11) | Sunday Morning Greek Blog). I also video recorded the message for my Rumble and Instagram accounts. I will post those links when they are available.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
A couple weeks ago we looked at the first part of Romans 8 and talked about the life that we have in the Holy Spirit. Today, we’re going to close out this second major section of Romans, chapters 5 through 8, by walking through Paul’s “deeper dive” into the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives in the last third of Romans 8.
I’m scratching my head a bit at why the editors of the Lectionary chose to break the text between last week’s Romans 8 passage and this week’s. The most obvious clue we have that this break may not have come at a natural stopping point is the fact that our passage begins with “Likewise” in the version we read, or “In the same way” in the NIV.
Seeing this word or phrase in the biblical text should give us cause to pause for a moment and ask, as we do with “therefore,” what is it there for? Likewise compared to what? In the same way as…? Well, the obvious place to look is the paragraph just before our text, beginning in verse 22, because there are some obvious verbal parallels we can’t ignore.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.[1]
Did you hear the connection to today’s passage in the first couple verses? It’s the idea that not only is the earth itself groaning right along with us. I want to come back to that in a minute, but it’s important to drill down a bit into the implications of the Greek word translated “likewise” (ὡσαύτως hōsautōs).
In our English translations, we probably don’t even give much of a second thought to such a word. For some of us, it probably carries about the same weight as the word “whatever.” But this word appears to have a specialized use in the New Testament, one that implies a deeper or more profound connection to the situations or persons being compared. That’s important because as the body of Christ, we live in fellowship not only with Christ but with one another as well. This simple little word is shorthand for letting Paul’s readers (at least in the original language) know that something special is going on here.
The word is typically found in lists or narratives of repeated action. For example, it’s used in the parable Jesus tells about Levirate marriage, where the next youngest brother is responsible for marrying his older brother’s widow to continue the family line. It’s used a couple times in 1 Timothy 2 and 3—once to say that men and women should worship God similarly but with instructions specific to each gender. Then in chapter 3 he uses it in reference to the three leadership groups mentioned: elders have their qualifications; just like the elders, deacons have their own qualifications specific to their ministry; and just like the deacons and elders, “the women” in leadership have their own qualifications specific to their ministry.
Recognizing that this connection exists between the entities compared helps give us a deeper appreciation of what it means when Paul says, “Likewise…the Spirit intercedes for us through wordless groans.” Creation itself has been groaning for redemption ever since Adam and Eve at the forbidden fruit. From Genesis 3, you may remember God told Adam:
When Paul first mentions groaning in vs. 22, he uses a special form of the word translated “groan” that adds a prefix meaning “together with.” We see that prefix in modern English in words like sympathy and symphony. It supplements the implications of the word “likewise.” It wasn’t just the ground itself, but the greenhouse-like paradise God had created for his creation to dwell in was disrupted very shortly after that by a flood that literally reshaped the world and created the weather patterns we see today: tornado season, monsoon season, hurricane season, the four seasons, earthquakes, etc. I believe those are all manifestations of the curse God spoke upon the land in Genesis 3. Those things will not exist when God establishes the new heaven and new earth.
Paul says in verse 23 that you and I are groaning right along with creation as we await our own redemption. We’re all keenly aware of that kind of “groaning.” When we’ve been hurt deeply by someone who loved us, or even when we, intentionally or not, hurt or severely disappoint those closest to us. We feel when we get fired or “downsized” from a good job that has been a source of security for us. We feel it when a child is ill and all we can do is hold them closely to help them get through the sickness. We especially feel it with the loss of a loved one, of course. We mourn with those who mourn, and somehow that brings some small comfort or a sense of security even when we don’t have the words to express our sorrow.
We see this groaning in our world in other ways as well. Poverty, political aggression, and religious oppression, to name a few are evils that haunt us. War, mental illness, and substance use disorders often arise from undesirable or unhealthy ways to address those evils and compel us to lift our cries for redemption, even when we cannot find our words to express it.
So, when we come to our passage today and see that, “in the same way” we groan for the things troubling our hearts, the Holy “Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.” This isn’t some supernatural spiritual language, then. If you’re in Christ, the Spirit knows your heart and mind intimately, so he feels the pain and the sorrow that causes us to groan. The mystery of the Trinity is that the Spirit is the presence of Jesus in your life, and therefore the presence of Jesus’s deep love for you. Additionally, God the Father knows precisely what the Spirit is conveying to him on your behalf, so God knows your pain as well and begins to work through his Spirit and his Word (Jesus) to comfort us and provide for our spiritual and emotional needs in our time of distress (vs. 27).
When we understand the groaning of the Holy Spirit and what it is accomplishing for us, we can begin “to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge”[3] as Paul says in Ephesians 3. If his love surpasses knowledge, then it kind of sounds like there are no words to describe it. That’s pretty deep, extremely profound. It’s heavy, but in a good way, because, as Paul continues in Ephesians 3, we’re “filled to the measure of all the fulness of God.” This is how great his love is for us, and this is the taste of the eternal life that awaits us as believers.
What we’ve just covered here is Paul’s response to what he calls “our present sufferings” in Romans 8:18 and begins the process of revealing God’s glory in our lives. That is the context for vs. 28, then, “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”[4] Now if you’re following along in a printed Bible with this passage, you may notice a footnote here that suggests a couple alternate translations, but the version we read from (New Revised Standard Version) has the most straightforward translation. The issue has to do with grammar, and you didn’t come here this morning for a grammar lesson. But if you want an explanation, ask me after the service.[5]
The “all things” refers to what Paul was talking about in chapter 8 that we already mentioned: the present sufferings, the groaning for redemption, and so on. Whatever has happened to us and whatever is currently happening to us is all part of God’s design for our lives if we love him and walk with him. The phrase “Those whom he foreknew” most likely does not refer to individuals but rather to a group. In Romans 11, the same word refers to the Jews. In 1 Peter 1:20, it refers to Jesus being chosen before the creation of the world to be savior, so by extension, the implication in Romans 8 here is that it refers to Jews specifically and everyone else who would follow Christ in history. He describes those Christ-followers as called, justified, and glorified.
This brings us to the grand conclusion of chapter 8 specifically, and chapters 5 through 8 as significant subset of Paul’s larger treatise. Paul hearkens back to the opening verse of chapter (“There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus”) by asking in verse 34, “Who then is the one who condemns? No one.”[6] We have assurance that with God on our side, no one and nothing can stand against us. Nothing can bring us down. Nothing can or should raise questions about our standing or relationship with God.
All of that is possible because of Jesus’s sacrifice and what that accomplished as Paul explains especially in chapter 6. If we are in Christ, God has justified us. If we are in Christ, God has guaranteed us eternal life through the resurrection of Jesus. Baptism is the outward expression of that security. And along with the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, Jesus is at the right hand of God interceding for us as well. We can’t lose!
Paul puts it this way in 2 Corinthians 4:16–18:
16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.[7]
None of the troubles that Paul mentioned earlier in chapter 8 can separate us from God’s love. The worries of chapter 7 and “doing what I don’t want to do” are banished when we realize that we are no longer slaves of sin but “slaves” of Christ. Our participation in the death and resurrection of Christ in baptism assures us of the eternal life we have in Christ.
This is why Paul says in 8:37 that we are more than conquerors! Amen? We have assurance and confidence that we are fully secure in the body of Christ and in God’s kingdom for eternity when we walk with and in him. We have victory in Jesus! Let us go forth today and share the good news of that victory with those who need to know the assurance of his hope. Amen!
[5] The underlying text is vague, but the theological significance among the options is minimal in my opinion. The issue is with the word πάντα panta (“all things”), which, as a neuter form, can either be the subject of the sentence (nominative case) or the direct object of the sentence (accusative case). The NRSV (here), KJV, and ESV have the most straightforward translation: “All things work together….” The NIV confuses the issue by putting panta in the dative case (“in all things”). The more recent Common English Bible (CEB) has “God works all things together…,” which requires the translator to infer God is the subject of the verb. However, “God” as a nominative case noun does not occur in the eclectic text.
Metzger’s Textual Commentary (p. 458) on the variant reading where it does occur in some copies of the text is helpful, but not necessarily conclusive ([B] rating):
“Although the reading συνεργεῖ ὁ θεός (𝔓46 A B 81 copsa (eth) Origengr2/5) is both ancient and noteworthy, a majority of the Committee deemed it too narrowly supported to be admitted into the text, particularly in view of the diversified support for the shorter reading (א C D G K P Ψ 33 614 1739 ByzLect itd,, vg syrp, copbo arm Clement Origengr3/5, Eusebius Lucifer Cyril-Jerusalem Chrysostom Augustine al). Since συνεργεῖ may be taken to imply a personal subject, ὁ θεός seems to have been a natural explanatory addition made by an Alexandrian editor.”
[6] Romans 8:34. The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Contextually, since the chapter begins with, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” the answers to the questions in this section (vv. 33–35) about who is bringing charges, who is condemning, and who is separating us from Christ’s love are all “No one” by implication. The “No one” in vs. 34 (NIV) and the “No” at the beginning of vs. 37 (NIV) are glosses to indicate this, that is, they are not translated from Greek words in the text, and consequently some translations do not include those glosses.
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 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.
The gospel passage this week is Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. It is the only one of the seven miracles of Jesus recorded that coincides one of his seven “I am” statements he makes in John’s gospel in the same chapter.\
This passage shows the full range of Jesus’s human and divine natures, especially the human emotions that Jesus expressed. It’s important to emphasize Jesus’s humanity as evidence that he was a high priest able “to empathize with our human weaknesses—yet he did not sin.” (Hebrews 4:15),
Martha is the one trying to hold it all together. It seems as if she’s not even started the grieving process yet. She and Mary are both upset that Jesus didn’t get there in time. But Martha is sure of the resurrection, something many of the disciples, I think, were still trying to wrap their heads around.
Jesus’s response just before he himself weeps is worth noting here. When John says Jesus was “deeply moved…and troubled” (NIV), some commentators have suggested Jesus may have groaned in agony or even anger at death itself. He was doing all he could to control his emotions when he asked, “Where have you laid him?” I’m not so sure he asked that politely. More like, “Let’s get this over with.”
Jesus seems to be in take-charge mode at this point. In vs. 38 we see he is “deeply moved” again, to the “Take away the stone!” command may have sounded like a very frustrated outburst.
We must be careful not to generalize from Jesus’s actions and attitudes in this event any sort of pattern for how you and I respond to the death of a loved one. Each one of us handles grief in our own unique way, but the one generalization we can make is that Jesus was fully relying on God in this moment of earthly existence. The one who came to bring us life had to confront the very thing he came to defeat.
I do hope this will give you some good ideas on how to make this story “come to life” (so to speak) for your congregation. I’ve included a couple links below, one with an audio file of my sermon, and the other that highlights the connections between Jesus’s miracles and his “I am” statements in John.
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 