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!
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.
I preached this message at Mount View Presbyterian Church on June 28, 2026, “Proper 8” in the Lectionary. As with my previous message, I wanted to focus on the Romans passage for the day given my recent intensive study into the letter. I also wanted to establish what I think is an overlooked connection between the climax of the first 11 chapters of Romans, chapter 6 featuring Paul’s discussion of baptism, and the “conclusion” of that argument that Paul states in 12:1, namely, that we should offer ourselves as a living sacrifice in the waters of baptism.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
As I said a couple weeks ago, I wanted to focus on the Romans chapters in the Lectionary readings this month because of my recent “deep dive” into Romans. My purpose was twofold: to help my home church kick off a Romans study this past semester as well as to edify myself for my own personal encouragement and enrichment. The more I have drilled down into Romans, the more scriptural gold I find that enriches my own faith, calls me to a deeper commitment to faithfulness, and transforms my heart and mind in ways I have never experienced in 50 years of being an intentional Christ follower.
I’m especially excited this morning to share with you my message, mixed with a little bit of testimony, on the last half of Romans 6. I have discovered in the past year that Romans 6 is central point of Paul’s explanation of the righteousness of faithfulness. His whole discussion in the first five chapters leads up to the explanation of his stated theme. I’ve said before that Romans 1:5 is the main theme of the entire book of Romans, as is evident by Paul’s restatement of it at the end of Romans 16:26. Romans 1:5 says this:
“Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience of faithfulness for his name’s sake.”[1]
The connection of today’s passage with the concept of obedience, especially as it relates to chapter 6’s main topic of baptism, was clear as we read the text. But I want to issue a disclaimer here: when Paul is talking about obedience, he is NOT talking about a legalistic checklist we all must check off. Nor is he talking about mindless, robotic, walking-in-lockstep behavior. Obedience in this context means something much more personal, so let’s dive into the passage and find out what that is.
To refresh our memories, we need to look back at what immediately precedes our passage today, because, as I said a couple weeks ago, we need to see what the “therefore” in verse 12 is “there for.” Here’s what Paul said in vv. 3–5 as he introduces the topic of baptism:
“3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.”[2]
Then in verse 11, the verse leading into this morning’s passage, Paul says this to summary the first part of his discussion in chapter 6:
“In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.”[3]
Paul considered baptism to be the transformative moment in the life of the believer, then. Repenting and turning to God involves two (at least) sequential events: In dying with Christ, not only do we share in his crucifixion and suffering on the cross, but we become united with, made one with Christ as well for eternity. Just as Christ did not remain in the grave forever, so we too, at baptism, are alive with the resurrected Lord even in our mortal bodies. This is what I meant above that Paul’s main theme, the obedience of faithfulness, is more than just a list of rules and behaviors to abide by. This obedience of faithfulness means we’re actually living our lives in the presence of Christ himself.
This is where we catch up with this morning’s reading. The fact that Paul says “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires”[4] should not surprise us. If we’re living “in Christ” and walking daily in His presence, would we want to bring sinful habits, behaviors, and thoughts into that relationship? Of course not!
Paul gets a little more specific as he goes on in 13 and 14. Don’t let any part of yourself—body, soul, or mind—fall into sin. Paul is pretty much saying here it’s an all or nothing proposition, just as baptism represents a complete identification with Christ. Christ gave his all for us, after all. He calls us to offer our complete self as “an instrument of righteousness.”
Paul’s use of a word here that we have translated into English as “instrument” need not concern us, even though on the surface it may cause us to think we’re just chess pieces. But as we have seen, our connection to Christ is a relationship: he is the head of the church; we are his body. So again, it never hurts to repeat this fact: we’re not cut off from the body if do happen to sin once in a while.
The word for “instrument” (ὅπλον hoplon) may have reminded the Greek-speaking gentiles of Hoplite soldiers of ancient Greece. They were heavily armed infantry troops that were quite successful in their day. The point of making this connection is that the body of Christ, the diverse church, is united in moving the kingdom forward, preferably through peaceful means, just as an army is united in purpose even though different battalions may have different tasks.
Hebrews 6 can help us understand this concept a little better, I think. Hebrews 6 can be a little scary if we don’t understand the context. Here’s what it says:
“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”[5]
The idea of not being able to return to repentance if you’ve made a mistake is a little frightening. Does that mean you miss out on some heavenly rewards? Or worse yet, that you miss out on heaven? Fortunately not. In the opening verses of chapter 6, the author chides the Hebrews for still consuming spiritual baby food. One of the items in his list is “repentance from acts that lead to death.”
The author of Hebrews is telling his readers they don’t need to “re-repent” or get “re-baptized” to get back right with God after they sin. What he is saying, however, is that the Hebrews have to develop a more mature mind set about life. He knows they already believe, they just have to start acting like they believe. They must start acting “faithfully” to show they are walking in that “obedience of faithfulness.”
Getting back to Romans 6, Paul repeats his opening question of chapter 6 with a slightly different nuance but the same answer: “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!”[6] Of course not, Paul! Silly question, or so it seems, but evidently people thought that way back then. Paul goes on to talk about the difference between offering ourselves as “slaves” to righteousness as opposed to offering ourselves as slaves to sin.
The word for “offer” (παρίστημι paristēmi), which appears five times in Romans 6, is a word we should pay attention to, because the next time it appears in Romans is in 12:1: “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.”[7] If you’re not picking up on the connection here, let me spell it out:
Look at Romans 6:13b again. Paul says, “Offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life.”[8] In the context of Romans 6, what does that phrase “from death to life” refer to? We’ve seen that it refers to baptism.
Baptism is how we unite with the sacrifice of Christ and the life that comes from his resurrection. In other words, it’s the perfect definition and example of what it means to be a “living sacrifice.” When Paul exhorts the Romans in 12:1 to offer themselves as a living sacrifice, he’s exhorting them to participate in the obedience of faithfulness as represented by baptism. In Philippians 2:8, Paul tells his readers that Christ “humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!”[9] The faithful obedience of Jesus should encourage our own faithful obedience.
Finally, we can’t talk about the last half of Romans 6 without talking about the very famous last verse of Romans 6: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[10] For quite a long time, this verse has been treated as a warning to believers and unbelievers alike, in some cases, being used to scare us away from the devil and toward Christ. But I want to suggest to you this morning that Paul never intended to use this verse as a warning, but as a summary statement for chapter 6 that applies to everyone who’s made the decision to follow Christ.
We know that Christ paid the full wages of sin for us on the cross so we wouldn’t have to. By participating in Christ’s crucifixion through baptism, we get “credit” as if we had paid the wage ourselves. Christ’s righteousness clothes us when we come to him. The last verse is an affirmation that we have paid the wages of sin. Since baptism also connects us the gift of eternal life and the hope of the resurrection, we have already received that free gift but will not “redeem” it until we die and go to be with the Lord. So again, verse 23 is an affirmation of that life we have received, not necessarily a promise for good behavior.
That’s what makes it grace, then. As Ephesians says, we’re saved by grace through the faithfulness of Christ. We only need to respond to it willingly. If you haven’t already, I urge you to do so today. Peace to you, brothers and sisters, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love. Amen.
If you are interested in scheduling an engagement with me for teaching. pulpit supply, conference speaker, etc., please click my name in the signature and send me an e-mail. My preference is to remain within a two-hour drive of Omaha, but would consider farther for a longer weekend engagement.
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have a sophisticated knowledge of the micro and macro forces that have shaped planet Earth over time. I understand the basics of plate tectonics and seismic activity, and that the Pacific Rim is rife with volcanic activity. I understand that much of that, especially on the eastern coast of the Asian continent, is likely impacted by the massive forces exerted by the Pacific Ocean as it is “thrust” against that coastline by Earth’s rotation and is being forced away from the Pacific floor. After all, the deepest trench in the world is along a major plate boundary in that region. My knowledge goes a little deeper than all that, but I am by no means an expert. But I know enough to ask some probing questions and be skeptical about current assumptions.
As a Creationist and Intelligent Design proponent, I believe in a literal six-day creation as described in Genesis 1 beginning at vs. 3. However, the question of the age of the earth has always troubled me a bit, because I also believe that matter is eternal, even if it wasn’t always in the same form and operating in the same laws of physics, etc., that it does today. Scientists speak of the “Planck Epoch,” [1] the sliver of time 5.391 × 10–44 seconds just after the so-called “Big Bang” before which the laws of physics (or any other natural laws) do not apply. In other words, science can’t explain the Big Bang itself and how all the material in the universe could have come from that one mass of matter that exploded.
I hesitate only briefly to speculate that the Planck Epoch is also a God moment, for fear of making it seem like God is “God of the gaps” as some say. However, and this is my first big “what-if” question for my fellow Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, what if God initiated the Big Bang with all the physical laws of the universe already in place and allowed the universe to develop according to these laws? I’m not making a deist argument, necessarily, that God just “turned on” the universe like someone turns on a carnival ride. I think God did have a hand in creating our own solar system and earth’s perfect position it in the universe; so perfect that if any of the factors that affect our existence like gravity, distance from the sun, placement of the moon, etc., were tinkered with in the slightest, we would have never existed at all.[2]
Genesis 1:1–2 says this:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 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.[3]
The first thing to notice is that the language of these verses does not lend itself to be connected with the event of Day 1 of Creation: “Let there be Light.” Genesis 1:3ff assumes that the Earth and the waters upon it were already there. I have described elsewhere [The Trinity in Creation (Genesis 1:1–3; John 1:1–5; Matthew 28:16–20)] that Day 1 likely does not refer to any physical characteristic of earth, but in fact it refers to the other member of the trinity not mentioned in the first two verses: Jesus (see John 1:1–5).[4]
The second question that comes to mind as I ponder my “what-ifs” is what is implied by “In the beginning.” Is it a broad statement that covers all of the activity in Genesis 1 or is it more of an implication like “In the beginning [before God began his creative work in Genesis 1:3], God created [the raw materials that make up] the heavens and the earth.” As I speculated in my introduction, is this something that God took some time doing (whether intentionally or by allowing his created natural laws to work) in order to prepare for the creative work described after Genesis 1:3?
I want to dive a little deeper into that latter possibility. First of all, why would God create the Earth to be “formless and void” if he had done it with a word from his mouth? If God created the physical laws of the universe when he created the heavens and the earth (by whatever means), wouldn’t he want to have millions of years of evidence to support their truth so that as mankind began to explore and understand his creation more fully, they would have some measure of confidence that the laws they were discovering would also be verifiable? (I’m not arguing for evolution here; I think evolution is a gross misrepresentation of the fossil data.)
A couple more issues are related to this, then. If the earth has “waters” (the Hebrew term is plural, but it is often singular in sense) in verse 2, that means earth was not necessarily a cold, dead planet. The “waters” are separated on Day 2 into what seems to be an apparent vapor canopy (“the waters above”) for an initial greenhouse effect and the sea (“waters below” gathered in one place). If the waters are not frozen, then, it would seem reasonable at least to speculate that the earth still had some warmth to it to allow for water’s existence in both liquid and vapor states.
The purpose of the water, then, would have been to support what we sometimes jokingly call “the primordial soup.” The Creation narrative doesn’t mention prebiotic processes and protozoan and other microcellular life forms explicitly, ostensibly because primitive man would not have been able to discover such things (or so we think), so my what-if question here is, “What if those features were created when the heavens and earth were created to support the basic functions of life and death (i.e., the “circle of life”) on the planet once such things were created.” Without those features, the life forms (flora and fauna) God created on earth would not have been sustainable. Did he create these features all at once, or did they need time to develop naturally over millions of years so they could survive, function properly, and fill the Earth? Regardless, it shows God thought of everything in advance.
At this point, I have to say that writing out all my thoughts on this matter is starting become a bit of stream of consciousness. I had another “what-if” come up that I hadn’t even thought of before sitting down to write this article. Is there a spiritual analogy or typology in verse 2? The Holy Spirit is the one who sustains the life of Christ in us, transforming us from within to the depths of our souls in ways we cannot imagine. He is, in some respects, the “hidden” part of the trinity. We see imaginative depictions of God on the throne, whether anthropomorphic or not; Jesus was incarnate, so we have physical descriptions of him; but the Holy Spirit doesn’t really have much of a substantive description except as a dove in the case Jesus and perhaps tongues of fire on the believers at Pentecost. Just like the prebiotic and protozoan processes support our physical existence, the unseen Holy Spirit supports our spiritual life and existence. Things that make you go hmm.
I’ll close for now. I still have a lot of “what-ifs” about the flood narrative and what scientists and Intelligent Design folks have had to say about that, so I’ll save that for Part II of this series.
[4] As I’m sitting here writing this article, the thought occurs to me that this could also include the sun and the moon (notice the parallel language of separating light from darkness in vv. 4 and 18). This does not, however, nullify the interpretation based on John’s gospel. That would make Day 4 of Creation more of a designation of the purpose of the sun and moon rather than an actual statement of their creation. Of course, some may raise the point that if God is using natural processes for the formation of the universe, then stars created on the fourth literal day of creation would not be visible to us now, unless God had created them with their light immediately visible to us. Upon reflection, that seems a bit hokey, then. If God is eternal and omnipotent (and I believe he is), then he can sustain an entire universe for millions of years before beginning his creative activity.he is), then he can sustain an entire universe for millions of years before beginning his creative activity.
I delivered this message June 14, 2026, (Proper 6, Year A, Third Sunday after Pentecost). I broke from the practice of preaching from the gospel passage this day because I recently did some pretty intense study and writing in Romans (the epistles passage from the Lectionary for this Sunday) and wanted to share my thoughts.
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
This past semester, the church Jill and I attend had their small groups going through the book of Romans. In seminary, one of my professors had published an article about Romans 1:16–17, the passage about “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes,” and it opened my eyes to a whole new understanding of what Paul meant when he talked about the relationship between our faith and Christ’s faithfulness.
Prior to that, I had spent a great deal of time in Ephesians, memorizing the entire epistle. But the more I studied Romans, the more I saw the connections and the organization of Paul’s logic as he built the theology of justification by faithfulness. I began to understand why it was placed first among the Pauline epistles, and I was not disappointed. I was asked to speak for the kickoff of our Romans study at the church, so with those thoughts fresh in my mind, I wanted to share some of my insights the next couple times I’m with you using the Romans passages from the Lectionary readings for those respective Sundays. We’ll look at the first half of Romans 5 this morning. In two weeks, I’ll tackle the last half of Romans 6.
Since we’re diving into the middle of Romans here, I want to give a brief summary of chapters 1 through 4 to catch us up. Broadly speaking, chapters 1 through 11 form a cohesive argument about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and how each group understands their own respective shortcomings in the eyes of God. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul’s theme seems to be centered around what “faith” looks like for both Gentiles and Jews in spite of their lapses. After Paul introduces the overall theme of “the obedience of faithfulness” in Romans 1:5, he finishes his introduction with the statement: “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.’”[1] You might be interested to know that this “Righteousness of God” that is revealed is NOT a concept or abstract idea; it refers to Jesus himself. Jesus IS the Righteousness of God.
In the rest of chapter 1 and the first part of chapter 2, Paul addresses the Gentiles in the church at Rome, primarily indicating that nature itself demonstrates the existence and glory of God, and that those who violate their natural state are not respecting that natural order that God has otherwise made obvious to them. From the middle of chapter 2 to the middle of chapter 3, Paul makes the argument that the Jews have the benefit of having been chosen by a God who revealed himself to them directly, and yet, like the Gentiles, they still refuse to acknowledge God, causing Paul to quote Psalm 14:1: “There is no one righteous, not even one.” This is as much a criticism of the Jewish believers as the last half of chapter 1 was to the Gentiles.
From the middle of chapter 3 to the end of chapter 4, then, Paul begins to talk about what true faithfulness looks like and what it accomplishes, that is justification, first in Christ, then in the life of Abraham. He brings home the point that it is Christ’s faithfulness to fulfill God’s purposes through the cross and the resurrection that is the foundation of Paul’s mission to bring Jews and Gentiles to “the obedience of faith.” We even will get hints of this overarching theme in 5:19 and 6:16 as we move forward.
Now the other thing going on in the text of Romans is something that the average reader might miss. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul mentions the word “faith” or “faithfulness” 27 times, while only using words for “life” and “live” twice. But in chapters 5 through 8, Paul flips those numbers around. Paul has 25 occurrences of the two Greek terms for “life” and “live” while only 2 occurrences of the word for “faith” or “faithfulness,” and those two occurrences are found in the first two verses of chapter 5, so let’s dive into that text this morning.
Paul begins chapter 5 with the conjunction “Therefore.” If you’ve been in church long enough, you probably know the old saying: “When you see the word ‘therefore,’ we should find out what it’s (say it with me) ‘there for.’” Well, we already covered that briefly in the summary I just gave. What I want to unpack here is the summary that immediately follows the “therefore”: “Since we have been justified through faith.” That’s the point he just demonstrated in the first four chapters.
The verb “justify” (δικαιόω dikaioō) simply means “to be made right with God” in the context of Scripture. In some contexts, the word is translated “declared righteous,” so the noun “justification” (4:25, 5:16; δικαίωσις dikaiōsis) is closely related to the word “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη dikaiosynē). The word is used several times throughout Romans 3 through 5 but not always associated with the same phrasing.
In 5:9, Paul says something similar to 5:1, but he swaps out one key word: “Since we have now been justified by his blood.”[2] Why does Paul switch from talking about “justified through faith” and “justified by his blood”? Let’s look at few more verses to fill that out.
In Romans 3:22, Paul indicates that God’s righteousness, or justification, is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, the “Righteousness of God” whom the Law and Prophets point to.
In verse 24, Paul continues by saying “all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”[3]
In verse 26, Paul puts the emphasis on our own faith in Jesus: “[God] did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”[4]
From these verses, we can see that the concept of “justification by faith” has two components to it. The first is that the word for “faith” can also be translated “faithfulness.” In that sense, it refers to how Christ’s sacrifice brings about the possibility of our own justification: “By his blood,” “through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” In other words, he’s referring to Christ’s faithfulness to his earthly mission as I mentioned earlier.
On the other hand, we also see the importance of our response to that faithfulness: putting our trust (i.e., our faith) in Christ. We see the great love he showed us through his sacrifice and his victorious resurrection from the dead and are compelled to make but one response: declare our love and allegiance to Jesus.
Now I mentioned earlier that there is a shift from chapter 4 to 5 about Paul talking about, primarily, the faithfulness of Christ and its relation to our faith to the life we live when we are “in Christ.” We see that in vs. 3 as Paul begins to write, in general, about the sufferings they have endured for Christ. He doesn’t get specific with the Romans, because I’m sure each of them recognize the sufferings they’ve all endured, especially since the Jews had been expelled from Rome prior to Paul’s writing Romans and have just recently returned to find the Gentile believers still thriving in their house churches in Rome.
This is another reason why Paul had to address both Gentiles and Jews in Romans 1–4, so he could get the returning Jewish exiles on the same footing as the firmly established Gentiles. He knows that if they persevere under these difficult conditions, they will build a strong character that can withstand further challenges and help unite them as they were before. As they grow in unity, they will also grow in hope. They will truly experience and share the outpouring of God’s love through the Holy Spirit as they once again gather together to worship.
Paul also reminds them that there wasn’t anything Jews or Gentiles in Rome did to earn this blessing. Verse 8 is somewhat profound if you think about it: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”[5] Did you catch that? We didn’t have to do anything, because God was already at work through Jesus on our behalf “while we were still sinners.” We didn’t have to clean up our lives first. He reemphasizes that in vs. 10: “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son [there’s the “how” of justification again], how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”[6] Not only are we set free from God’s wrath, but we also have confidence to boast in God about the reconciliation we have received through Jesus Christ.
As we head into the summer months, I would encourage all of you to read through Romans at least once. You will begin to see why the early Church Fathers chose to put it as the first book, the shining star of Paul’s epistles in the New Testament. It is full of encouragement and hope and will help you see more clearly your place in the kingdom of God and in the local congregation. Paul wrote compassionately to those who were reuniting after a long separation, and he helped to restore the unity of the church in Rome so they could continue to be a mighty witness for the Gospel. I pray that you all will continue to be a mighty witness here at Mount View. Amen.
This Sunday’s gospel passage specifically and the weeks leading up to Pentecost are the anti-climax to the resurrection of Jesus. “Jesus had appeared to the women who came to the tomb, and even to two unnamed disciples on the road to the Emmaus, but the 11 remaining apostles had not yet seen him and, according to the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel, they didn’t believe either of those reports from earlier in the day. But on the evening of that same day Jesus was resurrected, Jesus literally drops in on them in the house where they were staying; the door was locked.[1]”
The disciples get an advance deposit on the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive (or not forgive) sins. There is no evidence to suggest this in the text, but I suspect that Christ also grants the apostles at least a limited or temporary ex cathedra dispensation here, as the passage seems to parallel Jesus’s response to Peter after his confession at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:17–19). The fledgling movement was both shaken by the death of Christ and now stirred by their reunion with their risen savior in a matter of three days, so they would have, in my opinion, needed this special dispensation to ensure the church would begin on a solid, unified foundation.
The Psalm 16 passage, especially vv. 9–11, and 1 Peter 1:3–9 have good material in them to supplement the principles gleaned from the gospel passage. Peter emphasizes that his audience has not seen the risen Christ but still love him and believe in him. This is not meant to be any kind dig against Thomas.
Peace to you as we begin the journey to Pentecost.
Heavenly Father, we come before you first and foremost pleading for your mercy in our lives. We admit that we are sinners and in need of your grace-filled salvation. But those of us who believe also know that in submitting ourselves to you and uniting with your death in our baptism, we were also raised to life to walk in your righteousness and power. Lord, we admit that we don’t often live in that power, which Ephesians says is like the resurrection power you used to raise Jesus from the dead. But now especially, O Lord, we who are Christ followers and God fearers need to rise up in that holy power that you’ve blessed us with in the heavenly realms.
Lord, even though our ultimate faith and trust must be in you, we recognize that we are stewards of the world and the times you’ve placed us in. As stewards and ambassadors of your kingdom, you have given us the responsibility to pray for those in power over us. You established the institution of government so that mankind might live in peace and order, regardless of that form of government. But as with any position of power comes the temptation to abuse it and oppress those who should be governed in peace. In our great nation of America, we are seeing the abuses of this power laid bare at almost every turn, and no one party or individual in power is solely responsible for this.
We know that mankind are not angels, that we are flawed, and flawed individuals have been leading us for nearly 250 years in this nation. But the flaws have nearly reached the peak of wickedness at the time of Noah. The principalities and powers that you ordained in the heavenly realms to oversee the nations and their government have become drunk with power and wickedness on the blood and toil of the innocents. From the blood of murdered children in the womb to blood in the streets for intentionally keeping people in poverty to lives lost to alcohol and drug addiction to poor state of our own health because of unscrupulous policies to benefit industries that keep us dependent on chemicals, almost everything controlled by the rich and powerful in the earthly realm seems destined to hasten our own demise.
So, Lord God, we come to you praying for the redemption of those powers and authorities in the heavenly realms, as you commanded your church to do in Ephesians. But Lord, we cannot do this with prayer alone. We give you thanks for providing flawed men and women in positions of power who desire to bring justice to the wicked, mercy to the oppressed, and walk humbly before you. We need these people in positions of power to use every tool at their disposal to undo the results of wicked and selfish leaders in our government. Expose the corruption! Punish the wicked, regardless of political affiliation! Let them confess their evil deeds and be treated according to the principles of government and justice you inspired our founders to set forth in the beginning.
Lord, we lift up our voices in prayer and to call others to prayer, especially those who understand the spiritual forces at work. We must with prayers and petitions support those in power who seek to do good, who seek to overturn the wickedness of times past, and who seek to bring restoration to those harmed by evil, greedy men and women. Let your justice be visible for all to see so mankind will know that you are a righteous and holy God. Let your church rise up to care for the poor and truly needy. Let professionals rise up who can bring healing and hope to those afflicted with mental disorders. Let your church shine like the sun into every dark corner, not only exposing the darkness, but finding and restoring those who are lost or trapped in that darkness.
Lord, we humbly but boldly ask for your hand to continue to work through those doing your will and doing the right thing. Raise up leaders where we need brave men and women to take the lead. Pour out your spirit in a double portion on these men and women and let the world see what your kingdom in supposed to be. In the name of Jesus our risen and glorious Lord, AMEN!
I preached this message at Mount View Presbyterian Church on February 9, 2025. A portion of this message was repurposed and modified from a message I preached on May 1, 2022. –Scott Stocking
Good morning! The Lord be with you!
Most of you remember the story of Jonah, right? God told him to go to Nineveh and “preach against it” and he straightaway and preached a hellfire and brimstone message for the ages, right? No, of course he didn’t. Nineveh must have been a pretty wicked place if Jonah didn’t feel safe going there. Jonah ran the other way and tried to get as far from Judah as possible. He wanted nothing to do with it.
But he didn’t get very far. While he was on his way to Spain or points further west, a huge storm came up, and irony of ironies, the one who was supposed to go fish for men in Nineveh wound up being “fished” himself. He became the bait to save the ship and her crew that he’d been travelling with. The large fish, big enough to swallow a man whole (i.e., it didn’t leave any bite marks that we know about), spat him back up on shore, and Jonah decided he probably shouldn’t waste any more time and headed off for Nineveh.
Contrast this with our gospel account today: Jesus was apparently at a popular fishing spot on the Lake of Gennesaret, otherwise known as the Sea of Galilee, where a decent-sized crowd had managed to gather to hear him teach. It’s not clear why Jesus needed to get into a boat. Perhaps the acoustics would be better from out on the boat. Maybe the crowd had pressed so closely around Jesus that his sandals were getting wet in the sea. Regardless, Jesus had his reasons for going out in the boat.
After he finished preaching, he decided to go fishing, like any good preacher would do, right? So after a brief objection from Peter (“We just fished all night with nothing to show for it!”) they set out. No sooner had Jesus told Peter to let down the nets then they caught more fish than they could handle. Zebedee’s boys had to come over and help them haul it in it was so large. It nearly sank their boats!
Peter was humbled and a little bit afraid of Jesus at that point. In fact, they were all astonished. But Jesus reassured them: “Don’t be afraid; from now on you will fish for people.” Unlike Jonah, Peter hadn’t become “the one that got away.” Instead of being swallowed up or sunk by all those fish, Jesus promised to take Peter and his companions under his wings to be his first disciples.
Before we look a little deeper at the apostles, I want to share a few take-aways from this passage. The first is that Jesus knew he would need help getting his message out. In those days, if you claimed to be a teacher, you needed to have a loyal following, otherwise, no one would give you a second look. That was a cultural reality of that time.
Second, it might be difficult to build a core from four individuals who could have come from four different backgrounds. In two pair of brothers (Peter and Andrew, James and John), he had four vibrant and hard-working young men who were apparently of a very similar mindset and deeply devout Jews to boot. They seemed to work well together too. Perhaps he felt they would already be up to speed with what Jesus wanted to do to get the good news out. Since Jesus was primarily coming for the Jews, these four were “salt of the earth” guys who could relate to the average hard-working Jews Jesus wanted to reach.
Third, Jesus wanted ordinary men to be his disciples. Had he chosen to try to work through the Jewish leadership of the day, I’m certain he would have faced no end of debate and questioning and hints and innuendos of blasphemy, etc. He wanted those who had a simple trust in the truth of his message and who wouldn’t cloud it over with a lot of hoity-toity academic musings.
How did Peter do as Jesus’s top draft pick for apostle? Of all the apostles who traveled with Jesus during his ministry, Peter is certainly the most famous. Throughout the Gospels, we see that Peter was often the first one to open his mouth, the first one to volunteer, or the first one to make a big promise. Of course, this also meant that he was usually the first to eat his words, the first one to be rebuked, or the first one to fail in some way, large or small.
Now Simon Peter, along with his brother Andrew, were the first two apostles to follow Jesus. In John 1:42, Jesus officially gives him the name “Cephas” (Aramaic), which is translated in Greek as “Peter,” both of which mean “rock.” In the lists of the apostles, Simon Peter is always found first, which is certainly a nod to his position in the early church at the time the Gospels were being written.
As I said above, Peter and the other three fishermen probably had a pretty good knowledge of the OT, especially the Psalms, from their time in the Synagogue on Sabbath and the basic education any Hebrew youth would have received. They just didn’t go on any farther in the education to be a pharisee or other religious leader.
In Matthew 14, we have the story of Jesus walking on the water to the boat the apostles were in, which was being buffeted by the waves. Of course, Peter is the first one to speak up about going out to see Jesus. Here’s a man who wants to take charge, take the lead, and show the others what it truly means to follow. Jesus invites Peter out of the boat to walk on the choppy waters, and for a time, Peter does walk on the water. But instead of keeping his eyes on and faith in Jesus, the wind and the waves around him cause him to fear and doubt, and he begins to sink. Jesus catches him, though, and they both get back on the boat.
What’s impressive here is that Peter was the only one who even thought of getting out of the boat, and then he followed through on his thought. None of the other apostles had the courage of Peter to follow their master in this radical way, by trying to muster up the faith to do what no other mortal had ever done.
It wasn’t long after that incident that Peter had the opportunity to say what none of the other apostles were willing to say. In Matthew 16, Jesus asks the apostles, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” The apostles hem and haw and beat around the bush, but Peter is the first to answer Jesus’s more direct question, “Who do YOU say I am?” Peter responds boldly, proclaiming that “[Jesus] is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus praises Peter for his response. But in the very next paragraph, when Jesus predicts his death, Peter rebukes Jesus for talking like that. Jesus immediately rebukes Peter, saying “Get behind me, Satan.” Talk about going from emotional high to emotional low!
Peter claimed he would never forsake Christ, yet on the night of the illegal trial to condemn Jesus, Peter denies knowing Christ three times. And Jesus had told him he would do that despite Peter’s repeated objections. Peter had to feel like the bottom of the barrel at that point.
In John 21:15–19 we have the story of Jesus reinstating Peter to his leadership role. But why did Jesus ask Peter three times if he loved him? Because Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus gave Peter a three-fold mission here: “Feed my lambs”; “Take care of my sheep”; and “Feed my sheep.” Again, not much difference between the three, but this was a commission to care for the church, young and old, when it would begin on the Day of Pentecost.
The result? In today’s language, we could probably say that Peter’s Pentecost sermon went viral. Over 3,000 souls were added to the number of believers after that Pentecost sermon. He boldly and passionately called for these would-be converts to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. He also warned them in Acts 2:40 to “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
A few chapters later, Luke records Peter’s vision of the unclean foods being let down on a blanket for him to eat from. At first he refuses, but then Jesus warned him to “not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This led to Peter being the first apostle to formally take the gospel to the Gentiles, a centurion named Cornelius and his household. After that, the story line transitions to Paul. And let’s not forget that Peter wrote two epistles as well.
So what can we learn from Peter here? First, don’t be afraid to do great things for God. “Great” may not necessarily be fabulous or seen by all. Sometimes the smallest gesture can have a huge impact. Theodore Roosevelt makes the point here: “Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they lie in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
Second, God can work with whatever level of faith you’re willing to bring to the table. It took incredible faith just for Peter to get out of the boat in those choppy conditions, let walking on water. As Yoda says, “Do or do not. There is no try.”
Third, know that when we mess up, it’s not the end of the road with God. Peter probably thought he had lost his place among the apostles. But as 2 Timothy 2:13 says, “If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself,” that is, he can’t disown those who are members of his body, the church.
Peter’s life as an apostle and “fisher of men” is just one example of how the apostles had a profound impact on the beginnings of Christianity. In 1 Corinthians 15:1–11, Paul records that all of the apostles (except for Judas) at some point witnessed the resurrected Christ. That is no small fact to be overlooked, especially in that day when eyewitness accounts were all they had to pass on news. Today, we have people who go out into the world and “plant” churches in places that need more exposure to the Word of God. These men and women, at least in the minds of some, are modern day apostles themselves. They’ve taken on the challenging of spreading God’s word in a place where in some cases it has never been proclaimed before.
You and I have that responsibility as well to share with those who need to hear the gospel. We may not do big things for God, but the little things we do are indeed great when we consider the lasting impact and implications of proclaiming the gospel to the world. Peace to you.
Hey, all! Thank you for your readership! This is already another record year for my blog and I’ve got some new things in the works that I hope I can reveal soon.
I wanted to take this opportunity to invite you, if you should be in the Omaha area in November or December, to come check out Mount View Presbyterian Church where I’ve been filling the pulpit occasionally since 2021. It’s also the church I grew up in. The part-time moderator is resigning as of next week, and the church has asked me to fill her scheduled preaching spots in the near future, which means as of this post, I’ll be preaching every Sunday from October 27 through the end of the year. I would love to meet some of my readers in person and chat with you about what God is doing in your lives.
On October 28, I’m back in the classroom after a 14-year hiatus from on-site teaching. I’ll be teaching Biblical Interpretation for Crown College’s Omaha extension campus. I had done some online teaching for a couple years from 2018 to 2020, but on-site teaching with live interaction with students just can’t be beat. I’ve learned so much since I was last in the classroom, because I started my blog after I moved away from now-shuttered Lincoln Christian University. I am excited to meet the students and be back in the classroom.
The opportunities for extra income come at a providential time for my family. My wife’s employer for the last 12 years for whatever reason had her manager and a VP conspire together to push her out of her job this week toward a different job that she didn’t feel safe in for several reasons that I won’t go into here. We’re trusting God to show us the next steps, and I’ve already had an encounter with an “Angel” (more about that at a later date) who says she has a prayer warrior ministry. I told her I believe in angels and that I’m a God-fearing man of God, so I’ll take her at her word and cherish her prayers and anyone else’s for that matter. I figure I’ll put up a donation button as well on the blog, since I believe the Lord would want me to use whatever resources I have available to me (Ecclesiastes 11:1–6; Matthew 25:14–30). Thank you for your prayers and support at this time.
If you want to contact me privately, use the email link that should appear on this page (scott.stocking@sundaymorninggreekblog.com). Again, thank you for reading, and Happy Fall!
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 