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.
Lectionary Help for Third Sunday in Lent, March 8, 2026, Year A.
Taking a look at the literary context and historical setting of the account of Jesus speaking to the woman at the well in Samaria can help answer a few questions people may have about this passage. For example, why was Jesus so insistent that he “had” to go through Samaria? Consider the following points.
John begins his gospel by saying Jesus is the light of the world and has been around “from the beginning.”
Jesus shows his earthly authority over the Temple at Jerusalem by overturning the tables of the money changers, yet that doesn’t seem to be enough for him to insist that Jerusalem is the proper (or only) place of worship.
The well where he meets the woman is Jacob’s well. Jacob, of course, is one of Jesus’s earthly ancestors, so Jesus is in the land of his ancestors when he first reveals (at least in John’s gospel) he is the Messiah. That fact shouldn’t be overlooked.
“He establishes Jesus is fully divine and that God is his Father. Since he’s God’s “only begotten” on Earth, Jesus then is the primary authority in the Temple, which the Jews believed was home of God’s presence. Finally, Jesus, having been established as the authority for the Jewish religion, essentially abolishes the long-standing prejudice against Samaria by going to the place where his ancestor Judah’s father, Jacob (renamed Israel) first established himself in the Promised Land after returning from Laban’s home. I think this aspect of the story lends to its credibility and to the principle of worship he puts forth.”
The epistles passage is Romans 5:1–11. This is where Paul makes the point that Christ died for us “while we were still sinners.” This ties in nicely with the woman at the well story, of course, as Jesus is offering the woman living water in spite of her current social and relationship status.
A few Old Testament passages can provide some background for the “living water” Jesus speaks of. Isaiah 49 (esp. vv. 6 & 10) speaks of springs of fresh water, while Jeremiah 2:13 and 17:13 both describe the Lord as the Jews’ “spring of living water.” Of course, we can’t forget Ezekiel’s prophecy in 14:8–9:
“On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter. 9 The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one Lord, and his name the only name.”
I pray this helps you prepare this week. I’m updating my previous message, which includes both NT passages, to reflect some of the things I’ve learned or rediscovered in my recent work in Romans.
I presented this message on January 25, 2026, at Mount View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE. On the liturgical calendar, it was the third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year A.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
Much of today’s gospel passage from Matthew is very similar to the events and themes we covered in last week’s Gospel passage from John. As such, I’m not going to spend much time in that passage today and instead want to look at our Old Testament reading, Psalm 27.
However, I will say a just a few words about the Matthew passage because there is a story in Matthew 4 that appears at first blush to disagree with John’s account about a similar encounter. Last week you may remember that Andrew was the first one of the disciples to want to follow Jesus, and he had meet Jesus at the place John the Baptist was baptizing in the Jordan River. He in turn went and got his brother, Simon Peter, to share the news that he had found the Messiah. After Peter met Jesus, John says they went and spent the day with Jesus.
Matthew’s account, as you heard, also has to do with the calling of Andrew and Peter, along with James and John, the sons of Zebedee as they’re fishing in the Sea of Galilee. However, in Matthew’s story, this comes immediately after Jesus spends 40 days fasting, praying, and being tempted in the wilderness. It seems clear then, that one of the things Jesus was praying about was who, among all the people he had met and interacted with during John’s “baptism revival,” would make the best choice for his band of 12 disciples. After all, Jesus had been in the wilderness 40 days, so it’s possible Andrew and Peter may have wondered what happened to him by that point. I’m guessing the four of them were pleasantly surprised to get the call from him, even if they didn’t yet understand the kind of commitment they were making.
The important takeaway for us in the choosing of Matthew is that Jesus wasn’t apparently looking for the well-educated scribes and well-respected, Pharisees, and Sadducees to be his followers. They surely would have argued with him the whole time given what we learn about them in the gospels and Jesus wouldn’t have gotten anything done. Although Jesus did come to preach repentance and a proper understanding of what our relationship to the Law and eventually Grace would look like, he was even more concerned about bringing people eternal hope, love, and joy in the midst of a religious structure that had grown increasingly legalistic and impersonal. The religious leadership of the Jews seemed to have a stranglehold on what the Jewish faith should look like, with hundreds of extra rules in place to keep you from even coming close to breaking the law.
This is where Psalm 27, a psalm of David, comes in. David’s leadership helped establish the nation of Israel as a regional powerhouse after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and a few hundred years of rule by regional judges. It was during the period of Joshua and Judges where they conquered and in some cases wiped out nations that had “earned” the wrath of God for their wicked practices and animosity toward God’s chosen and beloved people.
Psalm 27 is filled with confident assertions and positive desires from David that he and perhaps the rest of Israel are in a right relationship with God. The Israelites were still adjusting to being a unified “kingdom,” not just scattered tribes ruled by local judges. But the attitude and the joy expressed by David in Psalm 27 seems to reflect a different mind set in his day than what comes across in the gospels. After all, you don’t see any of the Herods writing these kinds of psalms of praise! On the contrary, we get the impression that the Herodian Dynasty, which had descended from the Maccabees who had overthrown Greek rule almost 200 years prior to Jesus’s ministry, had become corrupt and heartless toward their own people in trying to appease their Roman overlords.
Our reading this morning left out a few verses from Psalm 27 this morning, so I would like to read through the whole Psalm a few verses at a time to talk about what it has to say to us this morning. We’ll start with vv. 1–3:
David didn’t have Pharisees and Sadducees telling him how to interpret God’s word and who added a “hedge” around the law. The “hedge” was a set of rules that rabbis had established much later in Israel’s history, probably sometime around 200 B.C. They were not strictly biblical commands, but they were guidelines intended to keep you out of situations that might increase the temptation to sin. It’s sort of like how some denominations today don’t want their members to dance because it might lead to “other things.” One such example from the Bible is when Jesus criticized the Pharisees because they tithed their mint, dill, and cumin—the smallest spices they knew about—but did nothing about justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23).
David knew where his power and protection came from in Psalm 27: it came straight from God. He is emphatic that he has no need to fear. He knows his enemies will stumble and fall regardless of who comes after him. That is true faith, true confidence in God’s sovereignty. It’s no wonder he was called a man after God’s own heart.
4 One thing I ask from the Lord,
this only do I seek:
that I may dwell in the house of the Lord
all the days of my life,
to gaze on the beauty of the Lord
and to seek him in his temple.
5 For in the day of trouble
he will keep me safe in his dwelling;
he will hide me in the shelter of his sacred tent
and set me high upon a rock.
6 Then my head will be exalted
above the enemies who surround me;
at his sacred tent I will sacrifice with shouts of joy;
These three verses are interesting in that David speaks of God’s dwelling, his temple. Yet at this time, the first Temple had not been built yet. But twice, David references God’s “sacred tent.” This is a reference to the Tabernacle that the Jews had carried around in the wilderness for 40 years and was in use by David and the priests right up to the time Solomon built the Temple (1 Chronicles 6:32; 2 Chronicles 1:5)[3].
David understood the importance of a leader being present at worship regularly as an example to the people. David had brought the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem, so had been in the visible presence of God at least one time in his life. That is how he knows how awesome it is to gaze on the beauty of the Lord.
How does that apply to us today? We know when Christ died that the veil was torn in two, from top to bottom, so God’s presence no longer “hid” behind a thick curtain. God’s new way of working in his people after the death and resurrection of Jesus was to give each of us the Holy Spirit. So we most likely will not see a manifestation of the presence of God inside our four walls here, but we can see how the Holy Spirit is working in each of us as we fellowship, worship, and serve together in his name and for his glory.
David also realized in times of trouble that being in God’s presence allows him to call upon the Lord for mercy, protection, and strength. He asks God to “hear my voice” and for God not to “hid your face from me.” He desires to be taught continually so he is better able to serve God and lead his people away from and protect them from the dangers of the surrounding nations. He knows that people are out to get him. He knows God is the only one who can protect him from those aggressors.
We do this as well on Sunday mornings here, and throughout the week, by praying together for those things that are on our hearts. As a fellowship we can seek support from one another to receive comfort and strength. In all my years as a minister, I’ve lost track of how many people have told me they don’t have to go to church to be a Christian. Technically, that may be true, but it sure makes the Christian walk much easier when you have others around you who share the struggles and joys of human existence.
This is David’s concluding benediction, which seems to serve the same purpose in worship as something like our “Gloria Patri” or the Doxology choruses. David reaffirms the confidence he had in vs. 3. He calls on all the worshipers to “Wait for the Lord.” The most common translation for the Hebrew word translated “wait” [קָוָה qāwā(h)] is “hope.” David is waiting, hoping with confidence that the Lord himself will act to keep him and his people safe in the land of the living. David also calls the worshipers to “be strong and take heart,” something both Joshua and Jesus said in their respective ministries.
Early in Joshua’s account of taking the Promised Land, he writes to his fellow Israelites:
6 Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their ancestors to give them.
7 “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go.
……….
9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”[6]
Jesus said in his final instructions to his disciples just before his prayer at the end of the Last Supper:
33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”[7]
So I leave you with those words of encouragement this morning. May the peace of God reign in your hearts as you go from this place. Amen.
[3] In 1 Chronicle 23:26, David relieved the Levites of their responsibility to carry the Tabernacle since Israel was permanently settled in Jerusalem.
I’m coming up on the 25th anniversary of my very first full-length article published in Christian Standard, February 4, 2001. When I wrote the article, I had been working with the Paxton (IL) Church of Christ (Instrumental) to help get a new contemporary service going. It was also a time when “worship wars” were prevalent in many denominations as contemporary music was starting to enter the “sacred” Sunday morning service scene. Do we even have worship wars anymore? I’ve been in a large, contemporary church for so long now I’m out of touch with what’s going on in smaller churches that have a mixed demographic.
I’m including a link to the Christian Standard archive site below for the article. If you wish to comment on it, you can do so on this post.
Christian Standard, a once weekly publication for Christian Church (Instrumental) goers of the eponymous publication house, published this article I wrote for their May 26, 2002, issue with the theme “Not the only Christians…” I had been teaching for a Missouri Synod Lutheran high school at the time I wrote it, but I only taught for one year there. I’ve provided the link for it below. If you want to comment on it, you can do so on this page. This has been sort of my life, having taught Bible in the colleges of several different denominations over my teaching career and now preaching half-time at Mount View Presbyterian Church in Omaha where I grew up and where my mom still attends.
I preached this sermon at Mount View Presbyterian Church on November 23, 2025. It was the last Sunday of Year C of the Lectionary Calendar, commonly known as Reign of Christ the King Sunday. It was also the Sunday before Thanksgiving and the Sunday before the first Sunday in Advent. I had not checked the advanced copy of the church bulletin thinking they would have the Lectionary gospel reading for the day printed, but as it turned out, they had a Thanksgiving Service planned (more music), so I hadn’t prepared a message based on the reading. I went ahead preached the message I had prepared, which worked out find, because with more music, the service was a little longer than usual, and my message had been shorter than usual. I’ve also included some links to past Advent messages since the season is upon us.
We had a soup lunch afterwards and had a drawing to give away a few of the quilts our ladies had made. I won what I’m calling my Joseph Quilt. It is a nice sized quilt worked on by several of the ladies. My mom provided the stitching/decoration around the border.
Have you ever seen one of those movies where they start with some dramatic scene. In the cop shows, it’s usually a murder or finding someone badly injured in an unexpected place. In a Hallmark movie, it might be a wedding scene or a passionate kiss (we all know that’s coming in the Hallmark movie, so no need to put it off until the end!). But then in the next scene, the graphic pops up: “Six months earlier.” The opening scene has gone by so quickly that you didn’t even get a chance to figure out much about who the characters are, then you’re thrust back in time and have to figure it out all over again.
Today we come to the conclusion of the liturgical calendar: “Reign of Christ the King” Day. It’s hard to believe Advent (and the new liturgical year) starts next week. The Lectionary is kind of like those movies I mentioned earlier. Even though we read about the crucifixion of Jesus this morning, we’re not going to get back to that dramatic event of the Resurrection that kicked off the last eight months of the calendar until Easter next year.
This past year, we’ve journeyed through the gospel of Luke, which has the most material on the life of Jesus. Five months ago, we read in Luke 9:51 that Jesus “resolutely set out for Jerusalem.” The rest of Luke’s gospel from that point on is set in that context of Jesus knowing his life would be cut short. Yet he continued loving, healing, and teaching the masses about God’s true love for them. He also did not shy away from confronting the religious leaders of his day for their abuse of the spiritual authority God had entrusted to them. That violation of God’s trust brings us to where we are today in the gospel, the crucifixion.
Luke has details in this story that the other three gospel writers do not have. Luke is the only one who has Jesus saying “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” He wasn’t just talking about how the Roman soldiers were treating him either. Matthew and Mark tell us that the criminals who were crucified with Jesus were BOTH hurling insults at him, but Luke indicates that one of them must have had a change of heart after hearing Jesus say “Father forgive them” and asked Jesus for forgiveness in his last hour. Jesus, of course, granted it.
The religious leaders were jeering and sneering at him as well. “He saved others, or so he claims! Let him save himself if he’s the Messiah!” One might expect that kind of behavior from criminals, but from those who had presumably dedicated their lives to serving God at the Temple or in the local synagogues? You know you must be getting close to the corruption and hardness of heart when the people who should be on your side are rejecting you for your teachings.
Even though our gospel reading stops just short of the final moments of the crucifixion, we are all familiar enough with that story to finish it from memory. And we know that because Christ defeated death and rose again into his heavenly glory, he lives and reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. While his kingdom is here on earth, it is not of this world. Paul says in Ephesians 1:3 that God has “blessed us [i.e., Christ followers] in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. It was evident from the moment of Pentecost that God had begun a new work in his people through the empowering of the Holy Spirit sent to us by our risen Savior.
As Christ followers, then, we are by default emissaries of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. In the rest of the New Testament we see Paul and the other apostles planting and shepherding churches that are growing by leaps and bounds in various places. In many cases, the word of God has already spread to places where Paul had yet to travel because other believers were doing that missionary work as well. In the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Colossians, we get a glimpse at Paul’s heart for them in the first chapter. Paul praises them for having a faith that is “bearing fruit and growing” in their hearts and around the world. Let’s pick up his praise for them in verse 9:
9 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, t10 so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, 12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. [1]
Paul has incredible respect for the Colossians and wants to ensure they continue on the path of growing in righteousness and faithfulness. This is significant in that Colossae was an incredibly diverse town in south-central Asia Minor. He wants them to be filled “with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives.” Paul has a similar thought for the Ephesians in the opening of that letter: “18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe.”[2]
In Colossians 1:6, Paul affirms that the gospel is “bearing fruit and growing through the whole world. He reassures the Colossians are doing their small part to contribute to that in vs. 10.
Being strengthened in all power means that they understand the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives. They do have some challenges, apparently, with some coming among them making “fine sounding arguments” against the gospel. But Paul has confidence that their knowledge will help them discern false teachings and stay the course of the true gospel with patient endurance.
They are also continually giving thanks because they’ve been rescued from darkness. They believed the gospel and have been living it out boldly because they know they’ve been forgiven and redeemed.
After praising them, Paul continues from verse 15 talking about the supremacy of Christ and why he reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. [3]
The concept of Jesus being the “firstborn” here seems to have a dual meaning. In verse 15, Paul says Jesus is the firstborn over all creation. That seems to suggest what we learn from John, that Jesus, the light of the world, was the “light” that God created on Day One of creation. A few verses later, in verse 18, Paul calls Jesus “the beginning,” which would seem to confirm the Genesis theory, but the then also calls Jesus “firstborn from the dead.” John also uses the phrase “firstborn from the dead” of Jesus in the opening chapter of Revelation (1:5). This of course is a reference to his resurrection.
Even though there are a few others in the history of the Bible who were raised from the dead, they all came back to life in their original human bodies. Jesus is the first one whose body was raised from the dead AND transfigured into its heavenly version. That earns him the title of head of the church—King of Kings and Lord of Lords—having supremacy over everything. This supremacy is not only for this world, but in the heavenly realms as well as Paul indicates.
Harkening back to Ephesians 3:10, we see that we have a role in proclaiming the gospel not only here but also in the heavenly realms. “10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.”[4] The passage in Ephesians 6 on the armor of God reaffirms our role in fighting the good fight not only against flesh and blood, but against the powers in the heavenly realms. We have the divine protection and strength to stand firm in those battles because of Christ’s victory over death and the redemption he won for us. Not only does he reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords in our lives, but he has also provided the means for us to walk faithfully in this world.
As we wrap up the liturgical year and look toward Advent and the Christmas season, we can take comfort and courage in having citizenship in the kingdom of Christ. A blessed Thanksgiving to all of you this week, and please join us for the meal after service. Amen.
I left for an eight-day road trip to Houston and then Minneapolis the day after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. With all the travel and spending time with my kids for the first half of the trip and my coworkers the last half, it was difficult to sit down and focus on any serious reflection. This is probably good, because I’ve had a chance to see the reactions of others and witnesses the abomination of those especially on the Left who are mocking or celebrating Charlie’s death before I could finish up what I’m presenting here. The problem is Evil, pure and simple, and Charlie was a warrior fighting against the darkness of that evil in the heart of enemy territory at times. I had done the same thing on a much smaller scale thirty some years ago as a campus minister, so I appreciated Charlie’s courage. Here’s my reflection on how he influenced and emboldened me.
As a former campus minister who, with some fear and trepidation, walked into the offices of the nation’s largest Gay/Lesbian Student Union at Northern Illinois University in the early 90s to try to develop a dialogue with a very militant group (at least their rhetoric against Christians in the school paper made it seem as such), I have looked up to Charlie Kirk ever since he came on the scene in 2012. His approach was similar to mine. Let’s talk about the assumptions you’re making about Christianity and that some Christians are making about homosexuals. AT NIU, I was able to have what I thought were “productive” conversations with the G/LU to show a more compassionate side of Christianity that didn’t hate the sinner a la Westboro Baptist in Topeka, Kansas, back in the day. I earned enough respect to be invited to sit on some panel discussions, and several appreciated the tone I took. (For historical context, keep in mind that “political correctness” was just starting to rear its ugly head in those days.)
Unfortunately, that rhetoric has now reached intolerable levels. The way to counter speech you don’t like should be more speech. That is the Right’s attitude with a few rare exceptions. However, the Left’s attitude has been to cancel, shame, dox, impose fear, name calling, and rename our position as “politically incorrect.” Let’s not forget that they also burned up cities and vilified the police, and even committed open anarchy in places like Seattle all in the name of a criminal drug addict who refused to comply with police. Now you can add deadly violence to that as well. I’m not going to be silenced, and I have never shied away from confronting such things in my blog or from the pulpit.
I don’t think it’s a cop-out to suggest that mental health is part of the problem here, but the bigger problem is just plain evil. If we just say “Violence is wrong regardless of who commits it,” but it misses the point of the larger scope of violence, not just the act of cold-blooded murder. (The echoes of those criticizing “Our thoughts and prayers are with you” is still ringing loudly in my ears.) The moral equivalence would seem to stop there. Charlie Kirk stood for freedom of speech and freedom of peaceably assembling, guaranteed First Amendment rights. As a Christian, I believe those First Amendment rights are also God-given rights based in the Bible. Those First Amendment rights are guaranteed and protected, in part, by the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. Tyranny seeks to strip those rights from those who are citizens. The Second Amendment should not necessarily be the first response unless danger is imminent, but it can’t be ignored, either.
When you juxtapose what Charlie Kirk stood for against say the Democratic Farm-Labor Party former Speaker of the Minnesota House who was targeted, the moral contrast is stark if not frightening. Charlie stood for free speech, community engagement, and dialogue with those who disagreed with him. He believed in human dignity. That’s the fundamental basis for First Amendment rights. On the other hand, the Minnesota State Legislature, led by Speaker Hortman at the time, passed a law in 2023 that expanded abortion rights and eliminated clear language about NOT classifying pedophilia as a sexual orientation in favor of extremely vague language:[1]
Let the record show that Speaker Hortman voted in the affirmative for that bill (2023 S.F. 2909).[2]
Here’s a Twitter post that gives additional evidence that the bill (now law) is a step toward normalizing pedophilia.[3]
Here’s the finished product after it was enrolled (i.e., the law was updated):[4]
Yet for all these things she supported, she was never targeted by a MAGA loyalist for violence. Nor, apparently, were any of these things the motive for her and her husband’s assassin. Let the record show that their assassin was apparently not a MAGA supporter. He had “No Kings” literature in his vehicle when they caught him, and the “No Kings” rallies in Minnesota were cancelled after that discovery.[5] Those were anti-Trump rallies planned around the time of the 250th anniversary of the Army. Just a few days earlier, Hortman had voted with Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature as the only Democrat in support of a bill stripping State-funded health care benefits from adult illegal aliens (Who Is Vance Boelter? What We Know About Suspect in Democ… – Newsweek). Presumably that is what prompted the assassin to take lethal action (https://x.com/amuse/status/1969070353356820789). That puts the lie to the claim that the Right fostered any kind of culture of violence in this situation. When the violent, dangerous criminal and drug user George Floyd died, the country erupted in violence. No one in the media seemed to condemn that kind of violence. If violence is never okay, then why didn’t anyone make a concerted effort to stop that kind of violence when it spread across the country?
Yet when Charlie Kirk gets murdered by an assassin, Christians come together and pray and do NOT riot in the streets or burn down cities. When a liberal speaker comes to a campus to speak, there’s barely a fuss about security. When someone like Charlie or Ben Shapiro or Candice Owens comes to a campus to speak, there are riots and violent protests and a heightened need for greater security.
The causes of the Left’s violent bent are precisely the kinds of things Hortman and her Leftist colleagues supported. Abortion is the murder of innocents; the blood of the innocent is on the hands of the so-called professionals who perform them AND the politicians who legitimize the procedure. Otherwise, why would Minnesota law have to exempt abortion from the Minnesota criminal Murder statute when it comes to unborn deaths? If violence is never okay, then why do people continue to want to legitimize the violence of abortion against the innocent and helpless unborn?
Transitioning youth is also an act of violence against the human body. It involves bloodshed as well when you start cutting off body parts and making phony structures (glory holes; inflatable penises; etc.) in the body. It involves violence against the body when you start introducing high doses of the opposite-sex hormone into a system that was designed to function on the hormone native to the biological sex of the individual. If violence is never okay, then why is the violence of transitioning youth and making them infertile for life in many cases still tolerated and promoted?
Whether you transition from boy to girl or girl to a boy, pumping opposite-sex hormones into a body not designed for those hormones is like putting motor oil into the fuel tank of a car designed for unleaded gasoline. The body will push back against that. It will try to create what is missing or eliminate what it considers invasive. We’re starting to see what happens with these kinds of procedures, both mentally and physically. That’s why many European countries have started restricting or banning such transition procedures.[6] The individuals often end up in worse mental and physical shape than they were in before the transition. If violence is never okay, then why do we continue the violence of experimental surgeries on vulnerable populations?
In other words, when the Left condemns violence, they should start within their own house. None of these facts justify in any way the assassination of Hortman and her husband. But they do create the contrast between what Hortman stood for and what Charlie stood for.
Charlie Kirk argued against these acts of violence; held peaceful, orderly assemblies where he allowed those who disagreed with him to come to the front of the line; and preached the gospel of peace and salvation in Jesus Christ to a generation in need of hope, yet he was violently assassinated by a left-wing nut who confessed openly to it. If violence is never okay, then why do some on the Left mock, ridicule, and cheer on the death of a man of peace?
If you haven’t already seen it, I would encourage you to watch Erika Kirk’s Address to the Nation on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination she made just two days after his death. I would encourage you to look up the recording of the September 15, 2025, broadcast of the Charlie Kirk Radio Show hosted by Vice President J.D. Vance where he interviews several people from the Trump administration (including Robert F. Kennedy) talking about the influence and character of Charlie Kirk on their own lives.
Let me ask this question of men: Men, are you living the kind of life and loving your wife in such a way that she would praise you as Erika did Charlie? None of us are perfect, of course, but what can each of us do better? Women, do you love and support your husbands in such a way that they know they are appreciated and honored in your home?
Charlie Kirk’s assassination shows that the Left will stop at nothing to try to silence Christians and the political Right. We who believe are ALL in danger and need to be vigilant against such attacks. But we must also pray and allow God to be the one to take revenge in his time, not in our own. This is not to say we can’t act to protect ourselves or others from an immediate threat like an active shooter situation or an out-of-control individual flailing a knife around. The people who kill or try to kill in cold blood like these assassins and would-be assassins have mental health issues. We need to keep cooler heads and immerse ourselves in prayer and service. Get connected with a community of believers if you’re not already. Stay in your community of believers for mutual support and encouragement. Don’t stray from your community and act the lone wolf.
Put on the full armor of God, everyone. We are likely going to need it.
