Pip:Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the word “therefore” is never just a transition — it’s a theological event horizon.
Mara: Scott Stocking brings us two sermons this episode, both circling the same gravitational center: how Christ’s faithfulness, not just our own, is what justification actually rests on. We move from Romans 5 to the temptation in the desert and back again.
Pip: Let’s start with what Paul is actually arguing in Romans 5 and why the word “faith” might be doing double duty.
Mara: The post works through Romans 5:1–12 as part of a longer Romans study, and the central question it raises is whether “faith” in Paul’s letters refers only to our belief — or also to Christ’s own faithfulness to his mission.
Pip: And the answer, apparently, is both, which changes the weight of the whole argument considerably. The post frames it this way, reading from Romans 1:17: “For in the gospel the Righteousness of God is revealed — from faithfulness into faithfulness, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faithfulness.'”
Mara: What this means in practice is that the “Righteousness of God” Paul invokes isn’t an abstract moral standard — it refers to Jesus himself. Jesus is the Righteousness of God, and his faithfulness to the cross is what makes our justification possible in the first place.
Pip: So when Paul writes “justified through faith” in 5:1 and then pivots to “justified by his blood” in 5:9, he isn’t contradicting himself — he’s showing the two sides of one coin. Christ’s faithfulness is the foundation; our trust is the response.
Mara: The post also tracks a structural shift in Romans that’s easy to miss as a casual reader. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul uses words for faith or faithfulness 27 times and words for life only twice. In chapters 5 through 8, those numbers nearly reverse — 25 occurrences of life and live, and only 2 for faith.
Pip: That’s a deliberate rhetorical gear change, not an accident.
Mara: Exactly — and it lands hardest in verse 8, which the post calls “somewhat profound”: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” No prior cleanup required.
Pip: The historical context sharpens that. Paul is writing to a Roman congregation where Jewish believers had been expelled and were only now returning to find Gentile house churches still thriving — so the unity argument isn’t abstract theology, it’s pastoral triage.
Mara: And perseverance under that pressure is precisely what builds the character and hope Paul describes in verses 3 through 5. That thread connects directly to what Jesus himself modeled when his own faithfulness was put to the test.
Mara: The second sermon takes up Matthew 4:1–11 alongside Romans 5:12–19, and the framing question is pointed: where Adam failed under temptation, what did Jesus actually do differently, and what does that mean for everyone who comes after?
Pip: The post opens with a comparison most sermons wouldn’t lead with — that Satanism is an oxymoron — but it earns the setup, because the whole argument depends on understanding what Satan is actually after.
Mara: The key move comes in Romans 5:19, quoted directly: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
Pip: So the upshot is that Jesus’s obedience isn’t just a moral example — it’s the structural reversal of Adam’s failure. One act of faithful obedience undoes what one act of disobedience broke.
Mara: The post draws a careful parallel: Satan used the same three categories against Jesus in the desert — appetite, spectacle, and power — that he used against Eve in the garden. Jesus refused each one by knowing exactly what God had actually promised, not the distorted version Satan offered.
Pip: And the post makes the point that what made the crucifixion uniquely effective wasn’t only perfect legal obedience to the Law — it was love. Bulls and goats couldn’t love anyone. Jesus could and did.
Mara: Which is why the post lands where it does: believers are “in Christ” in a concrete sense, baptized into his death, freed from the law’s demands, and called to walk in the righteousness he earned and extends to them.
Pip: Two sermons, one through-line — Christ’s faithfulness is prior to ours, and that sequence matters for everything that follows.
Mara: Romans keeps pulling the thread. There’s still the second half of Romans 6 ahead, so this conversation isn’t finished.
Part 1 of the Romans podcast series may be found here.
Pip: Welcome to Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the coffee is hot and the participles are passive — and sometimes that’s the whole point.
Mara: Scott Stocking is our guide this episode, working through Romans with a close eye on the Greek text — what words like pistis and dikaiosyne actually mean, and why the translation choices matter for how we understand salvation.
Pip: Let’s start with the Romans Road and what happens when you read it in the original language.
Pip: The post on Romans 3:23–24 opens a question most readers skip right past: when Paul says we are justified by faith, whose faith is he actually talking about — ours, or Christ’s?
Mara: The post frames it this way: “For all who are being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came through Messiah Jesus sinned and are lacking the glory of God.” That rearrangement of word order is deliberate — the participle dikaioumenoi, meaning “who are being justified,” attaches directly to “all,” making justification an ongoing process, not a completed event.
Pip: So the grammar itself is doing theological work. Being justified is present tense, active right now, not a box you checked at conversion.
Mara: Exactly. And that present-tense framing connects to a comparison with Ephesians 2:8, where the parallel construction swaps “through the redemption in Christ Jesus” for “through faithfulness, and this not from yourselves.” The argument is that the faithfulness in view is Christ’s — his obedience to the cross — not a quantity of belief we have to produce on our own.
Pip: Which dissolves a question that has quietly tormented a lot of Christians: do I have enough faith to be saved? If the faithfulness is Christ’s, the answer is structurally irrelevant to us.
Mara: The post makes that point directly. If salvation rests on our faith, it becomes relative — how much is enough? But if it rests on Christ’s faithfulness, the statement becomes absolute. Our own trust in Jesus is, as the post puts it, “not so much for the purpose of being saved but the result of being saved.”
Pip: That’s a quiet but significant inversion of how the passage usually gets preached.
Mara:The companion piece on pistis across Romans 1–5 develops this at length. It argues that the phrase pisteos Iesou Christou — “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” — in Romans 3:22 is a subjective genitive: Christ is the one being faithful, not merely the object of our faith. The post traces that reading through the whole arc of Romans 1–5, from God’s wrath under the Law in chapters 1 through 3, to Abraham’s faithfulness in chapter 4, to the application in chapter 5.
Mara: The inclusio that brackets the entire letter is telling: the phrase eis hypakoēn pisteōs — “into obedience of faithfulness” — appears in both 1:5 and 16:26, the first and last occurrences of pistis in Romans. That structural frame suggests Paul’s whole argument is about faithful obedience, not faith as a discrete interior event.
Pip: So Romans is less a manual for how to believe and more a demonstration that Christ already did the believing on our behalf — and we walk in the wake of that.
Mara: With the caveat that our own faithfulness still matters — the post is careful to say this doesn’t imply universalism or unconditional security, but rather a call to trust more deeply because God has already demonstrated his reliability. Works, confession, and obedience all follow from that trust.
Pip: From the mechanics of justification to the question of who the righteous one actually is — that thread runs all the way back to Romans 1:17, which is where the deeper argument begins.
Mara: The thread connecting both posts is really one question: what kind of faithfulness is Romans built on, and does the Greek text change the answer?
Pip: Turns out the grammar has opinions. Next time, we’ll see where else those opinions show up.
Pip:Sunday Morning Greek Blog — where the armor of God comes with footnotes, a chiastic structure, and Walter Wink citations. Scott Stocking has been thinking hard about Ephesians, and the result is not a quiet devotional.
Mara: That’s right. Today we’re digging into Ephesians — its architecture, its theology of power, and what spiritual warfare actually looks like when you take the text seriously. Let’s start with what Paul was building.
Pip: Ephesians has a reputation as Paul’s most polished letter, but the post here argues it’s also one of his most structurally deliberate — a chiastic architecture with spiritual warfare running through it as a subtheme, not a footnote.
Mara: The phrase that anchors it all is “in the heavenly realms” — used five times in Ephesians. And chapter 6 makes the stakes plain: “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
Pip: So the heavenly realms aren’t simply heaven. They span good and evil — which raises the obvious question of who exactly is living there.
Mara: That’s where Walter Wink comes in. His framework, drawn from his Powers trilogy and condensed in The Powers That Be, describes these entities as created by God to steward human institutions — families, corporations, governments — but subject to corruption by the people inside them.
Pip: Created good, fallen, and in need of redemption. Which is, frankly, a description that fits most institutions I’ve encountered.
Mara: The post works through concrete examples — Enron as a case of institutional corruption feeding on itself, Tylenol’s 1980s recall as a case of a corporation doing the right thing and sending a message that reverberated through the corporate world.
Pip: And then it turns personal. Westboro Baptist gets named as a case study in what spiritual warfare is not — protests that fuel the violence of the powers rather than redeeming them.
Mara: The alternative the post argues for is love as the primary instrument. Not tolerance of wrongdoing, but direct relational engagement — and prayer underneath all of it. Wink is quoted again: “Prayer is never a private inner act disconnected from day-to-day realities. It is, rather, the interior battlefield where the decisive victory is won before any engagement in the outer world is even possible.”
Pip: So action without prayer is self-justifying good works. Prayer without action is incomplete. The post holds both together — and lands on love, not protest, as the mode.
Mara: Exactly. And that framing — what we do in visible institutions reflects and shapes invisible powers — is what makes the Ephesians structure matter beyond the outline.
Pip: The architecture of the letter and the theology of the powers turn out to be the same argument.
Mara: What stays with me is that “in the heavenly realms” doing so much work — from blessing in chapter one to spiritual combat in chapter six.
Pip: Same letter, same phrase, completely different register. That’s worth sitting with until next time.
Pip: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.
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.
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.
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.
Pip: Sunday Morning Greek Blog — where the laws of ancient Israel turn out to be hiding a family scandal the whole time.
Mara: Today we’re following Scott Stocking into the structural heart of Exodus 21, where a chiasm built around slavery, parents, and kidnapping turns out to be pointing directly at the patriarchs.
Pip: Let’s start with the structure itself and what it reveals.
Mara: The post opens with a seminary assignment — Exodus 21:12–27 — but when the Hebrew text revealed that verses 1–27 formed a complete paragraph, the scope expanded, and so did the discovery.
Pip: And what the expanded passage reveals is a chiasm — ideas presented in one order, then mirrored in reverse, with the most important element locked at the center.
Mara: The center, in this case, is kidnapping. And the post explains why that placement matters: “Kidnapping was the ultimate form of mistreatment of another person. That is why it was at the center of the passage.”
Pip: So the architecture of the law is doing theological work — the center of the structure is the center of the argument, not just a formatting choice.
Mara: Right, and the Hebrew confirms it. The word translated “kidnap” is the phrase meaning “the one stealing a man,” using the same root — ganav — as “steal” in the Ten Commandments. Same word, much higher stakes.
Pip: Stealing a man means removing him from his covenant community and erasing the life he had planned. That is not a footnote crime.
Mara: Which is why it sits flanked by laws about striking or cursing parents, and by the Hebrew slave provisions that open and close the passage — all of them potentially capital offenses, all gathered under the shadow of the lex talionis.
Pip: And then the historical context lands, and the whole structure suddenly reads like an indictment.
Mara: Exactly. Joseph’s brothers kidnapped him, sold him into slavery, and lied to their father — which the post calls equivalent to a curse. The first law code after the Ten Commandments is a direct mirror of what Israel did to its own.
Pip: The message being: you are the case study. The law you just received describes crimes you already committed.
Mara: The post frames it plainly — even though God intended it for good, that cannot become an excuse. Structure and context together make the passage a warning, not just a statute.
Pip: Moses built a legal code that doubles as a confession. That is a long way from a seminary homework assignment.
Mara: The deeper point is that how a text is arranged is part of what it means — structure carries argument.
Pip: Which means reading carefully is not optional. It’s the whole job.
Be sure to click the links in the transcript to the full articles.
Pip: Welcome to Sunday Morning Greek Blog — where the ancient world has opinions about your church bylaws, and those opinions come with footnotes.
Mara: Scott Stocking is back with a deep dive into one of the most contested passages in the New Testament — first Timothy chapter 2, and what the Temple of Artemis has to do with reading it honestly.
Mara: The central question here is whether Paul’s instructions to women in first Timothy 2 reflect timeless prohibitions or something far more specific — a particular city, a particular cult, and a particular moment in early church history.
Pip: The post opens with Ephesus as a major trade city in western Asia Minor, home to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. And the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary describes the goddess Artemis as portrayed as “a more mature woman. Her robe is draped in such a way as to expose her bosom, which is covered with multiple breasts, depicting her gift of fertility and nurture.”
Mara: So the upshot is that the women Paul is addressing were living in the shadow of a major fertility cult — and some may have been former priestesses themselves, transitioning out of temple service into married Christian life.
Pip: Which reframes verses 9 through 12 considerably. Paul’s instructions about modest dress, braided hair, gold, and pearls aren’t random modesty rules — one search for images of Artemis priestesses confirms those were exactly the markers of pagan religious status.
Mara: And the Greek text supports a less restrictive reading than the surface suggests. The word translated “silence” — hēsychia — is better rendered “in an orderly manner.” It appears earlier in chapter two describing the kind of peaceful, ordered lives Paul wants for everyone, not a command for women to be mute.
Pip: The post also unpacks the adverb hōsautōs — “in the same way” — which links Paul’s expectations for women directly to his expectations for men, and those same character traits appear again in chapter three for overseers.
Mara: On the verse about women being “saved through childbearing,” the argument is that this was pastoral reassurance: former virgin priestesses, whose holiness had been defined by celibacy, needed to hear that marriage and motherhood still made them full members of the body of Christ.
Pip: The Artemis connection runs deeper still — an additional note in the post cites Apollodorus on the legend that Artemis herself served as midwife at Apollo’s birth, which is why women in labor called on her. Paul may have been redirecting that devotion entirely.
Mara: The companion piece, Qualifications of Male and Female Leaders in the Church, extends this reading into first Timothy 3, where the same Greek terms for propriety and self-discipline that describe women in chapter two are applied directly to overseers.
Pip: Context, it turns out, does a lot of heavy lifting.
Mara: What holds all of this together is the insistence that a text written to a specific city, in a specific cultural moment, cannot be read as if it dropped from the sky without an address.
Pip: The Temple of Artemis is rubble now, but apparently it still has things to teach us about first Timothy. More Greek next time.
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 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).[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.
[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!
Pip: Welcome to Sunday Morning Greek Blog, where the word “likewise” turns out to carry thirty years of argument inside it.
Mara: Scott Stocking is back with a paper he first presented at a Stone-Campbell conference in 1996 — now published here — making a textual case from 1 Timothy 3 that Paul had women in official leadership roles in mind.
Pip: Let’s start with what the Greek actually says about who qualifies for what.
Women Elders and the Greek of 1 Timothy 3
Mara: The post frames its stakes right at the top: the question isn’t whether culture permits women elders, but whether the text does. The argument is that a cultural defense, once allowed as primary, opens what the post calls “any number of Pandora’s boxes for cultural justification of lifestyles and doctrines otherwise proscribed in the Scriptures.”
Pip: So the move is to beat the traditionalists on their own ground — scripture, grammar, structure — rather than appeal to the zeitgeist.
Mara: Exactly. And the structural case comes first. First Timothy 3 lists qualifications for the overseer in verses 1 through 7, then deacons in verses 8 through 10, then women in verse 11. The post lays this out as a parallel pattern, each group introduced with the same grammatical machinery.
Pip: Verse 11 sitting between two deacon passages has let a lot of readers conclude those women must be deacons’ wives — but apparently the Greek doesn’t cooperate.
Mara: It doesn’t. The NIV supplies the word “their” to read “their wives,” but as the post notes, “the personal possessive pronoun ‘their’ (autōn) is not found in the Greek text.” That pronoun was added by translators, not Paul.
Pip: A gloss doing a lot of heavy lifting for a very contested doctrine.
Mara: The post calls it an “obvious gloss” and moves on to what it considers the real crux: the adverb hōsautōs, translated “likewise” or “in the same way.” It appears in verse 8 introducing deacons and again in verse 11 introducing the women. The word study here is the heart of the paper.
Mara: Louw and Nida describe hōsautōs as “a marker of similarity which approximates identity” — and the post takes “identity” to mean identification with a specific group or class of leaders, not just a behavioral resemblance.
Pip: So “likewise” isn’t just saying these women should be dignified — it’s placing them in the same category as the offices already named.
Mara: That’s the argument. Because hōsautōs in verse 11 pulls the reader back grammatically to the same infinitive construction governing the overseer list in verse 2, the women of verse 11 are, in the post’s words, “a distinct class of leaders in the early church.” The post also engages Jennifer Stiefel’s 1995 article, which reaches a similar structural conclusion but stops at “women deacons” — the post argues her analysis is too narrow because she excludes verses 1 through 7 from her structural frame, which is precisely where the overseer qualifications live.
Pip: Leave out the overseer passage and you can’t see that hōsautōs is doing double duty — linking the women to both offices, not just one.
Mara: The conclusion is that Paul “intentionally uses this construction to place these ‘women’ on an equal status with deacons and overseers or elders.” The post also connects the women of 3:11 to the widow passages in chapter 5, noting parallel qualifications — hospitality, raising children, commanding respect, refraining from idle talk — which suggests these women leaders may have been widows, though the post holds that loosely.
Pip: And the companion piece, “Qualifications of Male and Female Leaders in the Church,” extends this reading into a broader look at the leadership passages — this 1996 paper is the academic foundation that piece builds on.
Mara: Right. The practical upshot the post names is direct: “give women their due respect in congregational life and leadership” and “do not be afraid to appoint them to church offices if they have earned that respect.” The post notes this paper was actually used by a real eldership to support adding female elders — so the thirty-year-old argument found a live application.
Pip: Which brings us to the cultural backdrop that shaped the Ephesian congregation Paul was writing to in the first place.
Mara: The thread running through all of this is that close reading of the Greek — structure, adverbs, what pronouns are and aren’t present — can reopen questions that translation choices quietly closed.
Pip: Next time: whatever Paul wrote next, we’ll be here parsing it one word at a time.
I 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!
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 