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 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.
Pip: Sunday Morning Greek Blog is where you go when you want your Genesis commentary to casually brush up against particle physics — and somehow it works.
Mara: Scott Stocking’s latest post opens a series asking what the creation narrative in Genesis 1 might look like if you take both the biblical text and the natural sciences seriously at the same time. Let’s start with those creation “what-ifs.”
Pip: The tension this post sets up is a real one — if you hold to a literal six-day creation and also believe matter is eternal, those two commitments are going to bump into each other eventually. The question is whether that collision is a problem or a starting point.
Mara: The post frames it as a starting point. On the age of the earth and what Genesis 1:1–2 actually implies, the argument opens here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
Pip: So verse 2 is doing more work than it usually gets credit for. The earth and its waters are already present before Day 1 even begins — which raises the question of how long they had been there.
Mara: That is exactly the pivot the post makes. The argument is that “In the beginning” may function less as a timestamp and more as a preface — covering whatever preparatory work preceded Genesis 1:3. The suggestion is that God may have allowed the physical laws he created to operate over a long span of time before the six days of creative work began.
Pip: Which is not the same as deism — the post is careful about that. God initiating the Big Bang with natural laws already in place is not the same as God walking away from the carnival ride.
Mara: Right. And that distinction matters for how the waters in verse 2 are read. If the earth already had liquid water before Day 1, it was not a cold, dead rock. The post raises the possibility that prebiotic processes — microcellular life, the basic infrastructure of the circle of life — may have been part of that pre-Day-1 preparation, even if Genesis doesn’t name them explicitly.
Pip: Genesis being written for people who couldn’t peer through a microscope is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, but it’s a fair point.
Mara: There is also a theological turn near the end. The Spirit of God hovering over the waters in verse 2 becomes a typological image — the Holy Spirit as the unseen sustainer, supporting life the way prebiotic processes support physical existence. The post notes that the Holy Spirit is the least visually described member of the Trinity, and finds that absence meaningful rather than incidental.
Pip: The flood narrative and what geologists and Intelligent Design researchers make of it are coming in Part II — which means the most geologically contentious questions are still ahead.
Mara: What stays with me is the core move — treating the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3 as theologically significant space rather than a problem to explain away.
Pip: Formless, empty, and full of open questions. Part II should be interesting.
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 preached this message on July 12, 2026, at Mount View Presbyterian Church. Although my mom wasn’t there, as I say in my opening remarks, my dad decided at the last minute he would come hear me speak. I’m so grateful to still have both my parents around.
Good morning! May the Lord be with you.
I’m feeling kind of bittersweet this morning. I think this is first time I’ve preached here that my mom isn’t in the audience. She and my sister have had a great time at Niagara Falls and will be flying back this evening.
Well, it seems like I started something a few weeks ago when I decided to preach on Romans chapter 5. I understand Al preached on Romans 7 last week, so I’m back to keep it going. One of the reasons I’ve come to love studying, teaching, and preaching on Romans is that the more I study it, the more structure I see to the whole letter. As Christ-followers, sometimes we forget that when we’re reading the epistles, we’re reading the author’s response to a story of the church and its members in a community we may not know much about. The author knows the stories and histories of his audience, but he rarely lets on what that entails. Unless we have evidence from elsewhere, like say, from the Book of Acts that detail much of Paul’s ministry activity, we’re often guessing at the context or trying to understand why Paul and the other writers are saying what they’re saying, and sometimes even how they’re saying it.
It’s important, then, to pay attention to how the epistle is organized. Paul isn’t just putting together a random set of platitudes in Romans with a few memory verses for his readers. He’s crafting an argument, by way of storytelling in some spots, to address the concerns he has for the two communities who have recently reunited in Rome. The Gentiles have been permanent residents there, but the Jews had been kicked out Rome a few years before Paul wrote Romans and had only recently returned, perhaps within the last two years, at the time he’s writing this letter to them. In a situation like that, you might expect there’s going to be some tension!
I’ve hinted at some of this in my past messages, but it bears repeating here, that Paul’s letter can be divided into two main sections. In chapters 1 through 11, Paul builds a theological case for salvation for both the Gentiles and the Jews. Chapters 12 through 16 are the practical chapters: how do you live for Jesus in such a diverse culture.
We can break up chapters 1 through 11 into three subparts. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul speaks of the importance of faithfulness, even to the point of contextualizing it a bit for the Romans. The Romans, as pagans, would have had a deep respect for nature and thus what some call “natural philosophy” or “natural theology.” That’s why Paul makes the argument in chapter 1 that nature itself reveals the very character of God, but then he challenges these Gentiles by saying one of their biggest “sins” is that men and women have corrupted and abandoned their own natures, something that would have been quite contrary to their natural philosophy. They were “unfaithful” to their natures.
But then Paul turns to the Jews and essentially says to them they’re in the same boat. They’re doing some of the same things the Gentiles are doing and ignoring the foundations of the Jewish law, that is, the Ten Commandments, that had been their heritage. That’s why Paul can say to them in the first part of chapter 3, “There is no one righteous, no not one.” Paul then brings in the big guns in the last part of chapter 3 and explains how the work of Christ on the cross has won salvation for Jew and Gentile alike. Then he wraps up that first section in chapter 4 with a story about Abraham’s faithfulness.
I’ll come back to chapters 5 through 8 in a moment, but I just wanted to say that chapters 9 through 11 speak of how God is reconciling both Gentiles and the Jews back to himself. Those are probably the toughest chapters to read and follow, but they do have a purpose of sealing the bond between Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ.
To the degree that chapters 1 through 4 were about “faith” and “faithfulness,” chapters 5 through 8 are about being “alive” in Christ and the “life” that we have in him, especially through the Holy Spirit as our passage today discusses. I said it a few weeks ago and I’ll say it again here: chapters 1 through 4 have over 25 occurrences of the word for “faith” and “faithfulness” and only two occurrences of the words that mean “life” or “alive.” But chapters 5 through 8 flip those numbers around with words for “life” and “alive” used about 25 times while “faith” and “faithfulness” are only used twice in the first two verses of chapter 5.
This theme of life becomes obvious as we start reading chapter 6 that this life is represented by baptism our connection with the death of Jesus and his resurrection. Chapter 6 is the central chapter in chapters 1 through 11, literally and logically. And here’s where I think the structure of Romans takes his argument to the next level. He’s not changing subjects from chapter 6 to chapter 7. Remember what the last verse of Romans 6 is: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” That verse is not just a summary of chapter 6 as I said a couple weeks ago, but it also states the subject of chapters 7 and 8 to tie those four chapters in a nice, neat bow.
In chapter 7, we see how destructive sin is to our lives if we continue to be slaves to it. The “I” of last weeks passage from Romans 7 is not Paul specifically, but the “I” is I. The “I” is you. The “I” is anyone who understands what it means to try and live a faithful life in the midst of a sinful world. But even with that expression of struggle, Paul still finds a way at the end of 7 to say, “Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”[1]
The very last part of Romans 7:25 is our transition into chapter 8, then. “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”[2] He summarizes chapter 7 and sets up the dichotomy he’s experiencing, by setting us up for the only thing that can truly transform our sinful nature and get our hearts and spirits in sync with our brain that knows Jesus is Lord: the Holy Spirit.
This why again we see Paul use the word “Therefore” at the beginning of chapter 8. We’ve seen how baptism works in the spiritual realm in chapter 6. Paul makes the first connection of this event with the Spirit in Romans 7:6, looking forward to chapter 8. Chapter 8 has, in some respects, the same purpose for the Romans as John 14 through 16 had for the disciples at the Last Supper: teaching about the Holy Spirit and how he works in the life of the believer.
When Paul says, “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” he’s following up on what he said in chapter 7. The condemnation that would have been ours under the Law has been swallowed up in Christ’s redemptive act on the cross. As Jesus promised at the Last Supper and reaffirmed at his ascension, the Holy Spirit has come and given us life, completely dispensing with the law of sin and death. That law never offered the chance to bring life; it was always about punishment.
Paul goes on to say that the righteous requirement of the Law, which we could not earn because our flesh was weak and we faltered, is fully met in us because we live in the Spirit. Thus, there is now only affirmation and assurance of our salvation, not condemnation.
Although our salvation is by grace and we can do nothing to earn it, it does always require our mindful attention. In verses 5 though 8, Paul gives a great deal of attention to where our minds are dwelling. There’s likely a subtle reference here to Deuteronomy, where Moses repeatedly exhorts the Israelites to “be careful.” For example, in Deuteronomy 4:9, Moses says this to the Israelites, shortly before they repeat the recitation of the Ten Commandments:
9 Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. [3]
Paul uses a similar exhortation to the Ephesians, in 5:15–17:
15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.[4]
God never expects us to rest on the laurels of our salvation and faith. When Paul says some have their minds set on what the flesh desires, he’s essentially saying that those people are living on pure instinct. Get what you can while you can. Go for the gusto. It’s a selfish way of life if you’re only looking out for number 1. Paul has even defined the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19–21:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.[5]
But those who have their minds set on the Spirit have a completely different focus in mind for how to live their lives, a focus that puts God and others first and trusts God to provide for their needs. Paul goes on in Galatians 5 to describe the results of a mind focused on the Spirit, and you’ll recognize this passage I’m sure:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.[6]
Before I get back to the rest of Romans, I want to take a moment and talk about why the NIV used “forbearance” instead of the word most of us are used to: “patience.” When that word (μακροθυμία makrothymia)[7] is used of God, it typically refers to God “holding back” his judgment on unbelievers. In Romans 2:4, it’s used in parallel with different word that’s translated forbearance: “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”[8] In fact, the word is translated “patience” in every other occurrence in the NT. I bring this up primarily because of the challenges we see in our world today. We see a lot of angry people in the news these days. “Patience” or “forbearance” doesn’t mean we have set our anger aside at the evils in the world. In fact, one of the roots of the Greek word means “anger” or “rage.” It refers to a higher form of anger that isn’t controlled by our flesh and our instinct. Another way to look at it is that it is anger that keeps its distance from the situation. It calls us to have the same patience and forbearance that God himself has for the sinful, no matter how awful things may be. It’s scary to see the surveys out there where people increasingly think violence is the answer to get their way. We have a higher calling as Christ-followers, but we shouldn’t be patsies either.
Paul closes out the last half of our passage this morning by essentially repeating the same thing in different ways and drills down to make the relationship increasingly more personal and familial with each step. If we live by the Spirit, then we belong to Christ and have access not just to living a life of love here on earth, but to that eternal life we eagerly await in the heavenly realms. He repeats the connection to the resurrection of Christ as well. Because Christ lives, we also will live.
He also repeats the warning of chapter 7 as well in verse 13: “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”[9] Those misdeeds are the do’s and do-nots of Paul’s subtle lament about the flesh in chapter 7.
Finally, we have the wonderfully reassuring promise that not only are we in Christ when we walk in the Spirit, but we are in fact called “children of God.” We’re no longer slaves; we’re sons and daughters of God, family. And God does not stand aloof in his relationship to us. He tells us to cry out, “Abba, Father!” Abba is essentially the baby word for “da-da” in Hebrew. It’s an intimate and emotional connection each of us can have with God to experience the unconditional love he has for each of us. As family, we are also heirs of God and coheirs with Christ. We share in his sufferings and glory, not just in our baptism experience, but in daily life as we walk faithfully with God and experience the victory that is in Christ.
I pray that each of you will have some experience of that victory in the weeks to come. God is good, even when life is challenging. The Spirit brings us life by reassuring us of the peace and presence of God in our lives, especially in the difficult times. May the peace of God go with you this morning. Amen.
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 