Sunday Morning Greek Blog

August 19, 2026

“God’s Gifts and His Call Are Irrevocable”: Romans 9–11

Filed under: Christology,Deuteronomy,Ecclesiology,Evangelism,Faith, Faithfulness,Leviticus,Righteousness,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 10:58 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.[8]

[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[4] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[5] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[6] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[7] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[8] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

My views are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

August 4, 2026

Podcast Episode: Baptism And Christian Life (Romans Podcast Part 4)

Filed under: Christology,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Immersion/Baptism,Repentance,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 9:45 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Pip: Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the footnotes go six layers deep and the baptismal theology is somehow more soaking wet than you’d expect.

Mara: Scott Stocking has been doing a deep dive into Romans, and what surfaces is a case that baptism and the call to be a living sacrifice are more tightly connected than most readings let on. That’s the territory we’re covering today.

Pip: Let’s start with that connection — baptism as theology, not ceremony.

Baptism as Living Sacrifice: Romans 6 and 12:1

Mara: The central claim here is that Romans 6 and Romans 12:1 are not two separate ideas — they are one continuous argument, and baptism is the hinge between them.

Pip: And the evidence for that hinge is a single Greek word that shows up five times in Romans 6 and then reappears exactly when Paul says what he means by a living sacrifice.

Mara: Right — the word is paristēmi, translated “offer.” It appears throughout Romans 6 as Paul urges believers to offer themselves to God and then surfaces again in 12:1: “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God — this is your true and proper worship.”

Pip: So the living sacrifice of chapter 12 is not a new instruction — it is a callback to what baptism already accomplished.

Mara: Exactly. And to understand why, you have to follow Paul’s logic from the earlier part of Romans 6. The setup is verses 3 through 5: “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

Mara: What that means in practice is that baptism is not primarily a public declaration — it is the moment of union with Christ’s death and resurrection. The believer does not merely symbolize something; they participate in it.

Pip: Which reframes the famous last verse of Romans 6 considerably. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” — usually read as a warning — is actually, on this reading, an affirmation for people who have already come through baptism.

Mara: That is precisely the argument. Because Christ paid the wages of sin on the cross, and because baptism unites the believer with that crucifixion, the verse functions as a confirmation of what has already happened, not a threat about what might.

Pip: The obedience Paul keeps returning to — his stated theme from Romans 1:5 all the way to 16:26 — is not a checklist. It is what life in Christ’s presence actually looks like after baptism.

Mara: And that reading is reinforced in the earlier post on the mystery of immersion, which makes a closely related case: that immersion is “the glue that ties the two pillars of the faith — Christ’s death and his subsequent resurrection — together.” That post works through the benefits linked to each pillar separately, from justification and reconciliation on the death side, to bearing fruit and victory over death on the resurrection side.

Pip: Both posts land in the same place — baptism is not peripheral, not merely a work of the flesh, not optional color commentary on the real theology happening elsewhere.

Mara: The phrase from the immersion post is worth sitting with: immersion is “a near-complete picture of who we are and what we have in Christ.”

Pip: Romans as a unified argument, baptism as the hinge, and the living sacrifice not as a new ask but as a return to the starting point.

Mara: There is more in Romans to surface. We will be back when the next posts land.

August 3, 2026

Podcast Episode: Faithfulness And Righteousness in Christ (Romans Podcast Part 3)

Filed under: Christology,Christology,Ecclesiology,Evangelism,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,Righteousness,Romans — Scott Stocking @ 9:40 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Justified by Christ’s Faithfulness

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.

Walking in Jesus’s Righteousness

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.

Pip: Neither, apparently, is Paul’s.

August 2, 2026

Podcast Episode: Faithfulness In Romans (Part 2)

Filed under: Christology,Ecclesiology,Faith, Faithfulness,forgiveness,Grace,Greek,Righteousness,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 3:28 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Romans 3:23–24 and the Faithfulness That Saves

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.

August 1, 2026

Podcast Episode: Spiritual Warfare in Ephesians

Filed under: Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Eschatology,Greek,Pneumatology,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 6:46 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

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.

Spiritual Warfare in Ephesians

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.

July 31, 2026

Podcast Episode: The Meaning of Baptism

Filed under: 1 Peter,forgiveness,Greek,Immersion/Baptism,John Gospel of,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 8:23 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Pip: Sunday Morning Greek Blog — where the Greek is original and the theology is anything but shallow.

Mara: Scott Stocking has been working through one of the more contested questions in New Testament theology: what immersion actually does, what Peter and Paul meant by it, and whether the word itself carries more weight than most translations let on.

Pip: Let’s start with the text that says it most plainly — 1 Peter 3.

Baptism as Event, Not Ritual

Mara: The question driving these posts is deceptively simple: does immersion save, and if so, how does it work — what gives the water any power at all?

Pip: First Peter 3:21 is the sharpest answer in the New Testament, and the post on that passage offers a translation that cuts through the usual hedging: “This immersion now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the body-dirt removal immersion, but the clear-conscience-pledge to God immersion.”

Mara: So the power is not in the water itself. The resurrection is the qualifier — it is what carries the person through immersion the way the floodwater carried the ark. Without that phrase at the end of the verse, the whole thing collapses into ritual.

Pip: And the Greek grammar backs that reading up. The relative pronoun at the start of verse 21 is neuter, which means it points back to water, not to the ark — Peter is saying the flood water corresponds to immersion, not that the ark does.

Mara: The post on The Mystery of Immersion picks up that thread and pushes it further, asking whether ascribing salvific power to immersion while calling the Lord’s Table a mere symbol is a theological inconsistency — either both carry mysterious power, or both are symbols.

Pip: That is a genuinely uncomfortable corner to be argued into.

Mara: Mystery of Immersion, Part Two lands the argument more firmly. It reads Romans 6 as the centerpiece of Paul’s entire theological argument in chapters 1 through 11, with immersion as the event that binds Christ’s death and resurrection together in a single act.

Pip: So immersion is not a footnote to salvation — it is, in Paul’s architecture, the load-bearing joint.

Mara: The Part Two post puts it this way: immersion is “the glue that ties the two pillars of the faith together.” United with Christ’s death, the believer receives justification, reconciliation, and a cleansed conscience. United with the resurrection, they bear fruit and share the victory over death.

Mara: And across all three posts, one consistent boundary holds: a purely outward act, the “dunk and ditch” version, accomplishes nothing — the pledge of a clear conscience is what makes the event real.

Pip: From water as typology to Romans as architecture — the question underneath all of it is what it means to be all-in for Christ.

Pip: Three posts, one through-line: immersion is not where the journey ends — it is where it starts in earnest.

Mara: The Greek keeps pulling that thread. More to come.

Podcast Episode: Romans And Faithful Obedience

Filed under: Christology,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Immersion/Baptism,Righteousness,Romans,Soteriology,Textual Criticism — Scott Stocking @ 5:50 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Pip: Sunday Morning Greek Blog is back, and if you thought Paul’s letter to the Romans was just a greatest-hits playlist of salvation verses, Scott Stocking is here to walk you through the whole road — construction specs included.

Mara: Scott Stocking covers two connected territories this episode: what righteousness actually means in Romans, and how the phrase “obedience of faithfulness” functions as the letter’s spine from opening greeting to closing benediction.

Pip: Let’s start with righteousness — and what it costs to define it carefully.

Righteousness as Foundation

Mara: The central question in this segment is what Paul means by “the righteousness of God” in Romans 1:17 — and whether it’s something God hands over to believers, or something embodied in a person.

Pip: The answer lands hard. The post sets up Romans 1:17 carefully, then offers this reading: “The righteousness of God then isn’t an object to be given. It is embodied in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the righteousness of God.”

Mara: The upshot is that righteousness isn’t a transaction — it’s a participation. Because Jesus fulfilled every requirement of the law, he alone is called righteous, and believers share in that only by being “in Christ.”

Pip: Which reframes the familiar Romans Road considerably. The post uses a road-construction metaphor that actually earns its keep: righteousness is the substructure — the rebar, the compacted earth, the dowel bars — and Jesus’s faithfulness is the surface we walk on.

Mara: Romans 1:17 gets parsed as “from faithfulness into faithfulness” — Jesus’s perfect obedience to the law moving into his faithfulness unto death on the cross. The post ties that directly to Philippians 2:8: “he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross.”

Pip: So “obedience of faithfulness” in Romans 1:5 isn’t just a theological motto. It points, specifically, to the crucifixion.

Mara: Romans 2 extends this. Paul warns both Jews and Gentiles against hypocrisy — knowing the law isn’t the same as following it. The post notes that circumcision and baptism function as parallel initiation rites in Paul’s argument, and reads Romans 2:25–29 as groundwork for the baptism discussion coming in chapter 6.

Pip: The small-group kickoff context matters here — this is a congregation being asked to read Romans one chapter at a time, and the post is honest that chapters 1 and 2 alone carry enough freight to slow anyone down.

Mara: That honesty is part of the argument. The post closes the Romans 1 and 2 discussion with a summary worth quoting directly: if we remain faithful to living in the righteousness of Christ, then as Romans 2:13 says, “we’ll be declared righteous when we stand before our maker.”

Pip: Which brings us to the phrase that holds all of this together — and how it functions across the whole letter.

The Obedience of Faithfulness

Mara: The question the second post takes up is whether “obedience of faithfulness” is a throwaway greeting formula or the actual organizing theme of Romans — and the answer is the latter.

Pip: The post on “Obedience of Faithfulness: A Walk On the Romans Road” opens with personal testimony but arrives at a precise textual claim. Paul, it argues, “told us what he was going to say, he said it, and he told us he said it” — the phrase appears in Romans 1:5 and again, word for word, in the closing benediction of Romans 16.

Mara: That’s not a coincidence. The Greek is only two words, and the post explains that the structure implies the terms define each other: “obedience is faithfulness, and faithfulness is obedience.” Faith, in this reading, is never purely intellectual — it always carries action with it.

Pip: The post traces this through baptism in Romans 6, reading immersion as the believer’s own enactment of the pattern — buried with Christ, raised to new life. That’s the “obedience of faithfulness” made physical.

Mara: And Romans 12:1–2 closes the arc: “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God” and “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” The post is careful to note these are promises for life now, not only for life after death.

Pip: Two posts, one through-line — the road Paul built was always meant to be walked.

Mara: Righteousness as foundation, faithfulness as the road you actually travel — that’s the frame Romans keeps returning to.

Pip: Next time, we’ll see where else on the blog that road leads.

July 27, 2026

ὡσαύτως hōsautōs: A Biblical Word Study

Filed under: 1 Timothy,Textual Criticism,Women in Leadership — Scott Stocking @ 4:58 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I excerpted this word study from Women Elders (1 Timothy 3) | Sunday Morning Greek Blog. The word study stands on its own, but it is focused on the use and application 1 Timothy 3.

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”),[1] 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.[2] 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 [of 1 Timothy 3] 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 similar manner (ὁμοίως)” (NIV). Verse 5 changes only one word: “No, I tell you, for unless you repent, you will perish in the same manner (ὡσαύτως)” (NIV).[3] 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.[4] To use Louw and Nida’s terminology, these women have an “identity” as church leaders.

My opinions are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

[1]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 (Liddell, H. G. and Scott, Robert. A Greek–English Lexicon [LS]. New York: American Book Co., 1897). LS also considers this word a strengthened form of ὡς.

[2]One notable exception is Moss, Michael D. 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin
: College Press, 1994, pp. 77–8).

[3]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.

[4]Based on my conclusion about vs. 12 above (p. 5), it is possible that these women are not even deaconesses!

July 26, 2026

Podcast Episode: Women Elders (1 Timothy 3)

Filed under: 1 Timothy,Ecclesiology,Greek,Women in Leadership — Scott Stocking @ 7:38 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

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.

The Holy Spirit’s Groaning (Romans 8:22–39)

Filed under: Christology,Ecclesiology,Genesis,Immersion/Baptism,Pneumatology,Prayer,Romans,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 5:07 pm
Tags: , , , ,

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:

“Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it

all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return.”[2]

That’s a long time to groan.

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!

Peace!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Life in the Spirit (Romans 8:1–11) | Sunday Morning Greek Blog

[1] Romans 8:22–25. The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] Genesis 3:17–19. The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Ephesians 3:18–19. The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[4] Romans 8:28. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. 1989. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[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 Byz Lect 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.

[7] 2 Corinthians 4:16–18. The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.