Deacons’ Wives or Deaconesses? 1 Timothy 3:11 Reconsidered

By / Dec 16

Recently, my fellow elders and I took a weekend retreat devoted to thinking carefully about a handful of matters related to our church. One of the topics under consideration was whether women should be included in the diaconate.

Our church has always had only men serve as deacons, but we wanted to seriously consider whether 1 Timothy 3:11 taught that women should be deacons as well. As anyone who has studied this passage in detail knows, there are compelling arguments on each side of the debate. In this short article, I will detail some of those arguments and then describe why we ultimately landed on “deacon’s wives.” The major reason I decided to write this article was not to try and convince everyone that we were right, but, rather, to provide a basic intro into the relevant arguments on each side and to hopefully provide some guidance along the way.

Perhaps the most helpful place to begin is to read the passage at hand. 1 Timothy 3:8-13 (ESV) says,

8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Before looking at specific arguments, a general comment is in order to set the stage for the discussion. The focus of this debate is on verse 11. In this verse, Paul says that “‘gynaikas’ must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober minded, faithful in all things.” The difficulty is that gynaikas can either mean “woman” or “wife” depending on the context. Therefore, depending on how one interprets the context, the text can legitimately read either “wives must be dignified…” (as in deacon’s wives, though there is no modifier in the text) or “women must be dignified…” (as in “women deacons” or “deaconesses”). Hopefully, the rest of this article will help you as you think through the relevant argumentation on each side.

Arguments for Deaconesses

Let’s now turn our attention to the arguments for deaconesses. First, Paul uses gynaikas eight other times in 1 Timothy and, in most of these occurrences, “women” is the proper understanding and not “wives.” More specifically, in 1 Timothy 2:9, the same phrasing occurs using “women likewise” (gynaikas hosautos). Therefore, since this phrase in 1 Tim 2:9 is understood to be “women likewise,” we should also expect this phrase in 3:11 to be understood the same way. Second, why would there be qualifications for deacons’ wives but not elders’ wives? One could argue that it would be even more important for an elders’ wife to be qualified than for a deacons’ wife. Third, there is no possessive modifier in the text, meaning “their”, as in “their wives,” is not actually in the Greek text. Fourth, hosautos (“likewise”) is used in v. 8 to introduce the qualifications for deacons. Its use in v. 11 seems to indicate that a new category is being introduced that is parallel to deacons, namely, the office of deaconess. Fifth, the awkward structure of the passage (male deacon qualifications vv. 8-10, then deaconess qualifications v. 11, then back to male deacon qualifications v. 12) is explained by the fact that Paul “bookends” the qualifications for the deaconate with general qualifications (vv. 8-10, v. 13) and then in between he specifically addresses female deacons (v. 11) and male deacons (v. 12). Overall, we can see a compelling case in which this passage supports the view of deaconesses.

Arguments for Deacon’s Wives

Now, let’s consider the arguments for understanding this passage to be referring to deacon’s wives. First, in the very next verse, gynaikas is understood as “wife” (“Let deacons each be the husband of one wife”). The immediate context of v. 12 should have more weight on our understanding of gynaikas than the similar phrasing using hosautos in 1 Timothy 2:9. Second, if Paul were referring to deaconesses, why would he use the ambiguous gynaikas? Though there was not yet a Greek term for “deaconess” at the time Paul penned this epistle, diakonous is what is known in Greek as a third declension noun that could be either masculine or feminine. Therefore, if Paul intended to clearly communicate that he was referring to female deacons, all he had to do was add a feminine article to the noun. Third, if Paul were referring to deaconesses, why would he not include marriage qualifications for them as he had previously done for elders (v. 2) and male deacons (v. 12)? Fourth, the structure of the passage is awkward in that it goes from male deacon qualifications (vv. 8-10) to female deacons (v. 11), and then back to male deacons again (v. 12). Finally, as to why Paul would include qualifications for deacons’ wives and not elders’ wives, Guy Waters writes,

In light of the sensitivities surrounding deacons’ work, and in light of the fact that wives may be called on to assist their husbands–particularly in addressing the needs of the church’s women–one could see why Paul might have desired that the church be satisfied with the character of a candidate and his wife as they assessed his suitability for the diaconate.

While one may be more or less convinced by arguments on each side, it should be clear that there are valid textual arguments–as well as arguments from silence–on both sides of this exegetical debate. What is one to do, then?

The Tipping Point

For me, the tipping point that led me to side with the view of deacons’ wives involved three arguments in particular. First, the structure of the passage turned out to be paramount in my mind. The explanation for the awkward structure by those who hold to deaconesses is that Paul addresses general diaconal qualifications in vv. 8-10, then specific qualifications for women in v. 11, then male specific qualifications in v. 12, and then concludes by once again addressing deacons in general in v. 13. While this is at first compelling, a closer look proved unconvincing to me. The problem is that Paul begins the so-called general qualifications in v. 8 with “Deacons likewise must be dignified.” Now consider how Paul begins v. 11: “Their wives likewise must be dignified.” If v. 8-10 were general qualifications, then why would Paul repeat “dignified” again when considering deaconesses? In light of this, it seems more likely that vv. 8-10 are not general but are set apart, in a sense, from the qualifications that are given to the women in v. 11. Ultimately, this would mean that male deacons have 4 verses specifically dedicated to them and female deacons would have just one. The lack of qualifications is problematic if Paul were actually speaking to the office of deaconess. The more natural reading of the text, then, seems to be that vv. 11-12 would fall under family and marriage qualifications for male deacons, which is not too dissimilar to elder qualifications mentioned above (vv. 1-7).

Second, along the same line of thought concerning qualifications, the fact that Paul does not include marriage qualifications for women is troublesome for the position that this could be referring to deaconesses. When I began to study this issue, I initially thought Paul probably left off marriage qualifications because of a cultural reason. Meaning, men were often more sexually promiscuous in the ancient world, so it was likely assumed that women didn’t need to be told to be a “one-man woman.” However, the problem with this reasoning is that widows were not allowed to be enrolled to receive support by the church if they were not “one-man women” (1 Tim 5:9). Therefore, this does not seem to be a cultural issue, but, rather, the reason there is not a marriage qualification for the women in v. 11 is because Paul is not describing a new office but is, instead, continuing to describe qualifications for male deacons.

Finally, though this may appear insignificant, if the structural argument by those who hold to deaconesses is adopted (general qualifications vv. 8-10, female v. 11, male v. 12, general v. 13), then why does Paul use “diakonoi” in v. 12 instead of “aner” (meaning “male”)? In other words, why would Paul say in v. 11, “women” and then in v. 12 say, “deacons” instead of “men”? If he were actually referring to male and female deacon qualifications, we would expect him to use “women” and “men” instead of “women” and “deacons.” The fact that Paul uses “diakonoi” in v. 12 seems to be another reason to favor the understanding that he is continuously addressing male deacon qualifications in v. 8-13. With this understanding in view, “deacons’ wives” seems to me to be the best understanding of v. 11.

In conclusion, I recognize that this is not a simple exegetical matter to think through. As stated above, there are sound arguments on both sides. This is not a matter in which we should be utterly dogmatic. Rather, when discussing or even debating this passage, charity is essential. My hope is that this article will be a helpful starting place for those who are new to the topic or additional exegetical fodder for those who are trying to work out what they believe.



Episode 147: FTC Mailbag

By / Dec 15

On this episode of the FTC Podcast, Jared Wilson and Ronni Kurtz answer reader-submitted questions on leaving a ministry well, pros and cons of multi-site churches, the problems with “vritual reality” church, the trend of deconstruction, and more.



My Cup Overflows

By / Dec 15

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. – Psalm 23:5

Psalm 23:5 envisions a great banquet. David is not just an invited guest. He is the guest of honor. As David enjoyed the delicacies at the table, his mortal enemies stand around the table looking on. David did not fear the evil in the valley because of his shepherd. And David did not fear the presence of his enemies because of his host.

David was not a delegate who negotiated his way to the table. He was a friend with a reserved place at the table. To make this clear to David’s congregated adversaries, the host breaks open an expensive flask of fragrant oil and pours it on David’s head. This is more than basic hospitality. It is extravagant generosity. When the host puts the bottle of wine down, he picks up a bottle of wine and pours it into David’s cup until it overflows.

David was a recipient of personal, ongoing, and abundant blessings. This is the testimony of all who trust in the Lord. Pessimists see the cup half-empty. Optimists see the cup half-full. Christians see the cup running over.

The Hand That Pours

Psalm 23 is not the boast of a spoiled youth. This is not the testimony of a trouble-free life. It is not the memoir of a peacetime king. David was a neglected shepherd boy in his father’s house. David was a fugitive from the murderous ways of Saul. David was a father whose rebellious children broke his heart. David was a wartime king who faced one enemy after another. David was an exile whose own sought to overthrow him, Yet David exclaims, “My cup overflows.”

Unbelief only sees an empty cup. Doubt debates whether the cup is half-full or half-empty. Worry fears the cup will be lost, broken, or stolen. Faith sings of an overflowing cup. “My cup” is tied to “my shepherd.” You cannot separate the cup that overflows from the hand that pours (Psalm 16:5). Cups break. But God has more cups in the cupboard. When your cup breaks, God is able to give you another cup. If you know and trust the hand that pours into our cup, you can sing, “My cup overflows,” no matter the circumstances.

The Cup That Receives

Metaphorically, a cup refers to one’s life, fate, or destiny. It usually warns of impending judgment. When a cup is used as a metaphor in scripture, it is typically not good news (Psalm 16:5; Jeremiah 25:15-16; Revelations 14:9-10). In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39). The cross was the cup. The Righteous one said, “I thirst,” so that sinful ones can sing, “My cup overflows.”

Because of Christ, your cup is not empty. God pours favor into your cup. It is not just a sip. God fills our cups to the brim. He does not stop here. God pours until our cups overflow. Do not complain that you do not have what you desire. Thank God that you do not have what you deserve. Do not compare, compete, or complain. If you try to move your cup, you will miss the outflow that leads to overflow. The Lord can make your cup overflow wherever you sit.

The Drink That Satisfies

Nothing in this world can satisfy the thirst of the soul. But there is a storehouse of blessings available to all who are in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). It is yours for the asking. Lift your cup to the Lord. Your cup is not greater than God’s fountain. Your thirst is not greater than God’s supply. Your need is not greater than God’s provision. Your weakness is not greater than God’s strength. Your hurt is not greater than God’s comfort. Your sin is not greater than God’s grace.

God is able to bless you in superabundance (Ephesians 3:20). You ask for one blessing. God gives many blessings. You needed help to forgive. God enables you to forgive and forget. You ask for a job. God gives you a career. You desire the pain to stop. God heals you completely. You wanted a loved-one to stop acting up. God radically changes their lives. You yearn for the Lord to use you. God grants you a fruitful ministry to many. Your cup overflows! An overflowing cup should result in overflowing praise.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published at hbcharlesjr.com. 



Loving Even the Cantankerous

By / Dec 15

He was one of the most cantankerous men I had ever known. When all the church wished to move forward into a new area of ministry, you could count on him confronting the elders about it in a negative way. In fact, “negative” was his middle name. Our system of decision-making did not allow his views to be buried in a hidden vote, but brought him straight into contact with the leaders with whom he almost always disagreed. Time after time, there he was, the only “aginner.”

What did we do?

The leaders decided not to solve the problem administratively, by a system change. No, we were looking for a heart change. We felt we should confront him directly in the hope that he could become the man God wanted him to be. Much to our surprise, it worked! He received our admonition with amazing calm. He appreciated our concern. And he completely reset his life and renewed his sense of commitment to the church. At the end of it all, our greatest leadership curmudgeon became one of our most reliable allies. Love won out.

Why should we desire love above administrative solutions?

First of all, love is the highest mark of maturity. Therefore, not loving the other members of the church is a sign of our immaturity. There may be problems with the other person that are inexcusable, but no problem makes love impossible. In fact, it might be love that calls for helping the offending person see the right way, if you can do it with grace. Or, in other cases, it might mean overlooking his or her fault.

Second, love is the “perfect bond of unity,” the glue that keeps the church together, according to the apostle Paul (Col. 3:14). Do you want unity in the church? Of course you do. But love is critical to make that happen. A church that does not major on love is headed toward disruption. Nothing bonds like love as it works itself out in forgiveness and acceptance.

Third, love is the way of blessing because it is grounded in humility.

“Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:3-4).

God says that the humble person is the blessed person. “Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for ‘God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble’” (1 Pet. 5:5). A church is always in need of more grace. More grace comes from more humility toward each other. And humility toward others is, in essence, love at work.

Finally, love is the reasonable return for what God has given you. “Forgive each other as God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven you” (Col. 3:13; Rom. 15:7). Christians should never forget God’s mercy toward them. If you have experienced the love of God, it is natural for you to extend the same toward others.

Getting practical toward the persons hardest to love

As you are seeking to raise the level of love in the church as a whole, some will not cooperate. Here are some practical reminders for loving the cantankerous person, the person who seems to be out of sync with everyone.

  1. Invite him to your home. His fear of you may be at the heart of his problem. Deflate that by letting him into your life. When he is there in your home, give him much respect, ask him questions and show genuine loving interest. It will do both of you good. Often people squeal only because nobody pays them any attention.
  2. Try to find out what drives him. Most people are resistant to change. This man will likely think of a certain period in his church life as the most exciting. Perhaps in the 50’s he was the young married man who had a lot to do with the changes taking place then (there were plenty of them). He fought for them and they appeared to succeed. But now he is marginalized and someone is introducing changes that leave him cold. You could do well to find out more about his way of thinking. And remember that you might be in the same position someday.
  3. Within reason, give him some servant responsibility. I don’t think we ought to promote cantankerous people to positions that give them a platform for their negativity. Nor do we reward sin. Yet, all believers should serve. Perhaps this difficult person had notable responsibilities in the past, but now has none. Imagine how he feels. Yet there are important jobs that he can do, and do well. Employ him in a servant’s role (rather than a management role) that makes a difference. Check up on his progress and commend him when appropriate.
  4. Confront him if he continues to cause problems in the church. It is sinful to disrupt church unity, so, sadly, you must confront people who are creating unrest. Do it kindly, with as much interest in their side as possible. See if God will turn on the light of understanding for both of you. Pray much for a loving attitude toward him. If he persists in sin, he will need further discussions and even a rebuke or church discipline.[1]

The church’s unity and loving acceptance is not a minor matter, and is worth all your efforts at restoring it. This will always involve reaching out to the resistant persons in the group. Do it with genuine love. The old poem by Edward Markham is still instructional:

He drew a circle that shut me out,

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But Love and I had the wit to win,

We drew a circle that took him in.

When the cantankerous person will not keep from harming the church, action must be taken that maintains the unity of the Spirit without him. Sad, but true. It is loving toward the disruptive person and toward the church as a whole to deal decisively with this disunity, and it must be done.

[1] See Restoring Those Who Fall, a church discipline policy statement for clear instructions. Order at www.CCWtoday.org.

 

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published at ccwtoday.org. 



Getting Started with Gospel Conversations

By / Dec 14

You want to engage your family, friends, and neighbors in gospel conversations, but you don’t know what to say or you feel awkward moving the conversation toward spiritual matters. Let me share two of my favorite questions that effortlessly lead any conversation toward the gospel. Don’t think of these questions as silver bullets; rather, they are tools for your toolbelt.

Before revealing the questions, let me explain why I love them. I love these questions because they remove two of the most common barriers to starting gospel conversations.

The first barrier is not knowing how to start. Many people appreciate learning these simple questions because they spell out what to say without being impersonal or mechanical. There is nothing wrong with having a stock question in your pocket that you can pull out any time you need it. Learning a stock question allows you to focus on the other person without worrying about what you will say right off the bat.

The second barrier is feeling weird, awkward, or uncomfortable. The world, the flesh, and the devil want to discourage you from speaking up by making you believe you will be a pariah. The great thing about these questions is that they are natural, casual, and disarming. You can ask them in all kinds of settings with people from all kinds of backgrounds. They are not offensive or jarring. In fact, most people are happy that you have taken an interest in them.

The first question is: “Do you consider yourself a spiritual person?” Along the same lines, you can ask, “Do you have any spiritual beliefs?”

Asking about a person’s spirituality moves the conversation a little beyond, “How’s the weather?” but it does not go so deep so fast that people put their guards up. In fact, most people are starved for meaningful conversation and they like talking about themselves. This is a “softball” question that gets them talking. Their answers provide a lot of insight into their beliefs and worldview. This insight comes in handy when tailoring your gospel conversation to them. Most people consider themselves spiritual in some sense, but even if they don’t have any spiritual beliefs, they will not mind the question. Regardless of what answer they give, you can probably find a tangent that connects to the gospel.

The second question is: “What do you think is the biggest problem in the world?”

Nearly everyone knows there is something wrong with the world. Even those few outliers who believe suffering is an illusion will complain about something sooner or later. Clearly the world is not the way it should be, so your conversation partner will have some opinion about the worst problem we face. Unlike the first question, this one is not an obvious turn toward spiritual things—but that is part of its beauty. You get a chance to learn a lot about the person’s values and priorities, which will help you craft a gospel message just for them.

I have asked this question all over the world, and the different responses always fascinate me. Some people say terrorism, others say corruption, and others say the economy. I have heard people say over-population, pollution, and climate change. You can agree that almost anything a person says is at least slightly problematic, so you do not have to directly contradict them. Sometimes, I will press them to see if they really believe they have identified the biggest problem in the world. I try to get them to dig a little more. More often, I say something like, “Yes, I can see why you would say that is a big problem, but I do not think that is the biggest problem we face. Those problems are external, but our biggest problem is internal. Most problems are the fruit, but the root is sin that separates us from God.”

I heard a story—possibly fictitious—about a London newspaper that asked its readers, “What is the biggest problem in the world?” Supposedly, G. K. Chesterton replied simply, “I am.” Apocryphal or not, this story captures the essence of what we want our audience to realize: each person’s biggest problem is sin.

Most people tend to shield their eyes from their own faults, blame others, make excuses, and externalize sin. Asking “What is the biggest problem in the world?” gives you an opportunity to discuss the seriousness of sin, the holiness of God, and the impending wrath of God against sin. Russian novelist and philosopher, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, wrote, “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”

One of the first jobs of evangelism is to help people confront the horror of their own sinful hearts. Helping individuals face the sinfulness of their hearts and their powerlessness to change it, we position them to appreciate the grandeur of the gospel. Each person has rebelled against God, disrespected his honor, and offended his holiness. Each person needs the salvation Jesus alone provides. Only Jesus fully obeyed the law of God, honored his heavenly Father, and lived in submission to the Holy Spirit. Jesus alone was qualified to represent humanity before God, and he bore the full weight of God’s wrath when he died on the cross. Jesus rose from the dead and conquered sin, death, hell, Satan, and he fully satisfied God’s justice. Through faith in Jesus, we are united to him. United to the eternal Son of God, we receive the status and position of adopted children of God.

The gospel message is good, and faithful Christians long for those around them to hear it and believe, but moving from surface-level topics to the gospel often seems like a daunting task. I pray the two questions described in this article will better equip you to seamlessly and fearlessly start gospel conversations. While talking about the gospel may cause offense, asking strategic questions may give you more confidence to try, and well-worded questions may give your audience a more receptive ear.

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared in Midwestern Magazine.



Redeeming Pastoral Ambition

By / Dec 14

Forest fires rage each year in California and Arizona in the summer consuming everything in their path. Saplings as new as the spring and mature trees as old as the Declaration of Independence are scorched to ash. Too often, our desire for greatness is like that—an all-consuming fire.

CORRUPTING TRUE GREATNESS

The Bible recounts story after story of men and women who sought their own greatness. We see this in godless rulers such as Pharaoh in the book of Exodus and Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel. Sometimes we see worldly glory seekers among the faithful, like when God rebuked Jeremiah’s trusted scribe, saying, “And do you seek great things for yourself? Seek them not” (Jeremiah 45:5).

Yet the quest for glory still rages. Incalculable amounts of exertion, passion, money, and skill are employed in the pursuit. If we could know our own hearts perfectly, we’d have to admit that this is our story too. Some vision of greatness, whether consciously or not, tugs us along. It seems to be the subject of every commencement speech. “Go change the world,” ambitious graduates are told, which usually means, “Go become great in the eyes of the world.” Our current culture of side-hustles can stoke discontentment too; at times I’ve struggled to feel like my calling to pastor a local church is enough, as though if I did more then I’d be something more worthwhile. I’m probably not the only pastor who feels this way.

The disciples of Jesus had this same problem. In Mark 9, after beholding the glory of their Lord in his transfiguration, Mark tells us the disciples engaged in quite possibly the dumbest argument in the history of the world: a fight over which of the disciples was the greatest.

The context of the conversation makes their argument even more ridiculous. Consider what happened in Mark 9. Jesus revealed his glory on the mountain, showing he’s not weak and feeble but strong and glorious. Jesus then received the stamp of approval from God the Father and was highlighted as far more important than Moses and Elijah, two significant Old Testament prophets. Then Jesus victoriously battled a demon which had previously defeated the disciples. Then Jesus promised to rise from the dead, invoking imagery of himself as the exalted “Son of Man” figure mentioned in Daniel 7:9–14. The grossly understated takeaway from Mark 9 is that Jesus is a big deal.

When Jesus asks the disciples what they discussed, Mark says they kept silent because “on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest” (9:34). They won’t answer because of shame. They’ve got hands in the cookie jar but reckon that if they slide the jar behind someone’s back, well, maybe Jesus won’t know.

But he knows. He sees the crumbs on the floor and the chocolate on their cheeks. Their petty and myopic argument about worldly greatness is sin, just like when we pastors size each other up at conferences and seminary students view classmates as competitors.

THE INVITATION TO TRUE GREATNESS

Zack Eswine notes in his book The Imperfect Pastor that ambition has a certain “arson” to it. That’s certainly true. But if we read Jesus’s words carefully, we’ll see Jesus doesn’t want to put the fire out. He wants to douse our desire for greatness with gasoline.

You might expect Jesus to issue a harsh rebuke. I mean, he is a prophet, and prophets do that sort of thing from time to time. Instead what they got—and what we get—is patience. He teaches; he instructs; he redefines; and he redirects. We would fire these disciples and hire others. But Jesus loves them. He tells them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” Notice the exact phrasing: “servant of all,” not just servant of the greats, like servant of a famous pastor or a seminary president. His point is that the greatness of our service is enhanced not diminished by the lack of greatness of those we serve.

For us visual learners, Jesus goes on to illustrate his point. He called a child to himself, took the child in his arms, and said to the disciples, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me” (9:37). Jesus implies that greatness is receiving children because they are a specific example of the broader principle of servanthood. In receiving children, Jesus shows us that true greatness—by his definition—is serving, loving, and caring for the needs of people who cannot repay you.

THE REDEMPTION OF GREATNESS

Of course, the disciples don’t get it—not before the cross and resurrection, anyway. As Luke records, even during the last supper with Jesus, this same argument flared among them. “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, ‘Take this, and divide it among yourselves. . . . A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest” (Luke 22:17, 24).

Christ’s lesson on true greatness didn’t stick. Ultimately we need more than a lesson or an invitation. We need redemption. Our definition of greatness is too corrupt. We all have in us what comedian Brian Regan calls the “me-monster.” I give away 20% of my income. I memorized the book of Ephesians. I have 2,000 Facebook friends. My church had a dozen baptisms last month. I bench press 350 lbs. and run marathons. I . . . I . . . I . . .

Jesus told his disciples, “I am among you as the one who serves” (Luke 22:27). Indeed he was. And his service to sinners leads him to the cross where he dies for our sins, including those we commit pursuing greatness in the eyes of the world. And he redeems our corruption and shows us a better way. If you want to change the world, have the ultimate side-hustle, and be a modern prince of preachers, then by the grace of God be a servant of all.

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at the 9Marks blog and is used with permission.



Remembering Why We Feast this Christmas

By / Dec 13

It’s that time of year again. Christmas cookies have invaded the office. Egg nog has graced the refrigerator shelf with its rich presence. And before the Thanksgiving turkey has been fully digested, I’m already dreaming of the Christmas dinner that lies ahead. As the old song says, this is truly the most wonderful time of the year, and much of it has to do with the holiday feasting that comes with it. As Christians, we should remember that there is no such thing as mere food or a simple holiday dinner. Our feasting carries a much deeper meaning. When we feast, there is something special—something spiritual—that is happening that we rarely stop to appreciate.

The sad reality is that the hardships over the last couple of years have put us in danger of forgetting why we feast. And so, as we begin our Advent season, it is worth pausing and preparing our hearts to remember what our holiday feasting actually is.

Our Feasting is Retrospective

When we eat, we look backward and remember all the good that God has given us. Most of the festal celebrations in the Old Testament (especially the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Tabernacles, and Purim) were celebrated to commemorate a great work of salvation in Israel’s past. These feasts provided opportunities to teach the children what God had done (Exodus 12:26-27; Esther 9:30-32). Feasting, then, gives us a platform to tell of God’s past goodness. At the festal table, “One generation shall commend your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts” (Psalm 145:4). As we dig into the rich food, we “tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the Lord, and his might, and the wonders that he has done” (Psalm 78:4).

Our Feasting is Prospective

Another way to say this is that our feasting points forward to the eschatological kindness that awaits God’s people. It is significant that the Bible envisions the future as a great feast. Isaiah 25 speaks of an eschatological feast that the Lord himself will make “for all peoples.” God, the Great Chef of Redemption, will cook up a “feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined” (Isaiah 25:6). And as God’s people are swallowing down the rich food, God will “swallow up death forever” (Isaiah 25:8). Jesus also spoke of a future feast where the nations will come and “recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11). Revelation ends by declaring that the wedding feast of the Lamb has arrived (Revelation 19). The Bride and the Spirit invite others to come and take the water of life without price (Revelation 22:17), which itself is a reference to Isaiah 55’s feast. When we feast, we look ahead to the future feast. Our festal celebrations in the present are delicious appetizers of the satisfying entrée that is still to come when our King returns and sits with us at the Kingdom’s table.

Our Feasting is Symbolic

Again, food is never just food. It is a symbol of deeper spiritual realities. In fact, the symbolism of our feast is richer than the food itself. Just think of the wide variety of flavors that send our palate into joyful awe. God displays his manifold greatness as the Great Chef that he is by providing colors and textures, not to mention the vast array of savory and sweet dishes. And he has done all this not just so that we will survive but also so that we may enjoy. Eating and drinking in its most proper form glorify the Chef (1 Corinthians 10:31). In our prayer of thanks, we give our compliments to the Redemptive Chef, who has done more than was necessary for our joy. There is a reason the Psalmist says, “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 78:8). Peter describes those who have been saved as those who have “tasted that the Lord is good” (1 Peter 2:3). The Lord’s goodness is just one aspect of our symbolic feasts. Our festal tables also remind us of God’s overabundant provision. A feast that has been properly prepared never runs out of food. At the redeemer’s table, people like Ruth may eat and be satisfied and yet still have leftovers (Ruth 2:14). In the same way, we eat till we are full because we have a Savior who has filled us with good things (Luke 1:53).

Our Feasting is Transformative

 If you have never noticed, we become different people once our feasting is over. We come to the table “hangry” and empty but leave full and satisfied. The deep sighs and happy patting of the belly are visible signs that contentment has been accomplished. Our feasts whisper to us that a great reversal is on the way. Those who were once empty will be full. While we suffer many forms of emptiness—an empty seat at the table where a loved one once sat, empty arms that crave a child, or empty eyes that have been drained of every last tear—God has not left us without a redeemer. And that redeemer will not leave us empty-handed in the end. He has already begun the work of filling our emptiness, but future grace and kindness is just over the horizon. When the time for the Kingdom’s feast finally comes, we will be forever full as we sit, sip, and eat in the presence of our Great King. With that parting thought, may your feasting be merry, your empty bellies satisfied, and your hungry heart filled!



Links for the Church (12/13)

By / Dec 13

How Mary’s Song Bridges the Old and New Testament

“The coming of Jesus changed the course of history, but it was also the continuation of a far older story. If only I had understood that if I had a relationship with God, it was only as part of his people, as a new shoot grafted onto the old tree. If only I had seen what it meant that Jesus was a king like David—and one who would reign with perfect justice and peace.”

The Life of Naomi and How Adversity Disguises God at Work

“My life as a Christian is not what I expected. In fact, at one point I said to God, ‘Is this worth it? Thirty years I have followed you as closely as possible, and this is how it turns out? Should I just leave you now? What is the point?‘”

Can Christians Be Under a Curse?

“You may suffer here in the body, but can have the assurance that Christ has dealt with the final consequence of all your sin.”

Devotionals For a New Year 

A list of devotionals, compiled by Tim Challies, recommends full-year, partial-year, topical and bible study devotional material for the new year.



Ye Serve the Lord Christ

By / Dec 11

“Ye serve the Lord Christ.”
Colossians 3:24

To what choice order of officials was this word spoken? To kings who proudly boast a right divine? Ah, no! Too often do they serve themselves or Satan, and forget the God whose sufferance permits them to wear their mimic majesty for their little hour. Speaks then the apostle to those so-called “right reverend fathers in God,” the bishops, or “the venerable the archdeacons”? No, indeed, Paul knew nothing of these mere inventions of man. Not even to pastors and teachers, or to the wealthy and esteemed among believers, was this word spoken, but to servants, aye, and to slaves. Among the toiling multitudes, the journeymen, the day labourers, the domestic servants, the drudges of the kitchen, the apostle found, as we find still, some of the Lord’s chosen, and to them he says, “Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.” This saying ennobles the weary routine of earthly employments, and sheds a halo around the most humble occupations. To wash feet may be servile, but to wash his feet is royal work. To unloose the shoe-latchet is poor employ, but to unloose the great Master’s shoe is a princely privilege. The shop, the barn, the scullery, and the smithy become temples when men and women do all to the glory of God! Then “divine service” is not a thing of a few hours and a few places, but all life becomes holiness unto the Lord, and every place and thing, as consecrated as the tabernacle and its golden candlestick.

“Teach me, my God and King, in all things thee to see;

And what I do in anything to do it as to thee.

All may of thee partake, nothing can be so mean,

Which with this tincture, for thy sake, will not grow bright and clean.

A servant with this clause makes drudgery divine;

Who sweeps a room, as for thy laws, makes that and the action fine.”



Merry Christmas Now and Forever: Irenaeus on the Incarnation of Christ

By / Dec 10

Irenaeus (AD 125–202) was the bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (modern Lyons, France). He was a stalwart opponent of heresy and an influential defender of the Christian faith. Irenaeus studied under Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John. John’s gospel begins,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1-3).

The Word-become-flesh (John 1:14) was the rock upon which Irenaeus built his theology. The incarnation served as his Christ-centered theological starting point for understanding all things. Christ was the beginning and end all aspects of his theological understanding; creation, fall, redemption, and new creation. Therefore, Irenaeus rejected any and all attempts to pit creation against redemption. For Irenaeus, history is integral to the incarnation. Christ is taking on our entire story and in the life of Christ, we see all of salvation history recapitulated.

Thus, Irenaeus compared and contrasted the two Adams of the Bible in relation to salvation. The first Adam (Gen 3:6-20) led the human race astray through the original sin, so, “the last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45), the Word-become-flesh came to bring fallen humanity back to God (John 1). Jesus of Nazareth, came in flesh and blood, the living Word, in Mary’s womb in order to redeem a fleshly, fallen race. Irenaeus writes,

For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus.1

In The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus explains,

And, because in the original formation of Adam all of us were tied and bound up with death through his disobedience, it was right that through the obedience of Him who was made man for us we should be released from death: and because death reigned over the flesh, it was right that through the flesh it should lose its force and let man go free from its oppression. So the Word was made flesh, that, through that very flesh which sin had ruled and dominated, it should lose its force and be no longer in us. And therefore our Lord took that same original formation as (His) entry into flesh, so that He might draw near and contend on behalf of the fathers, and conquer by Adam that which by Adam had stricken us down.2

Or as the sermon of Hebrews asserts,

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. or surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham (Hebrews 2:14-16).

For Iranaeus, the incarnation of Christ is of one cloth with God’s purposes from the beginning of the created order. Adam was always heading toward Christ. The last Adam was always heading toward eschatological consummation. As Paul explains, all things are happening “with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him” (Ephesians 1:10). As the creator of all things, the Word is at work summing up all thing in Himself, on earth and in heaven.

He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself. But the Son, administering all things for the Father, works from the beginning even to the end, and without Him no man can attain the knowledge of God. For the Son is the knowledge of the Father; but the knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and has been revealed through the Son; and this was the reason why the Lord declared: “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor the Father, save the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal [Him].” For “shall reveal” was said not with reference to the future alone, as if then [only] the Word had begun to manifest the Father when He was born of Mary, but it applies indifferently throughout all time. For the Son, being present with His own handiwork from the beginning, reveals the Father to all; to whom He wills, and when He wills, and as the Father wills. Wherefore, then, in all things, and through all things, there is one God, the Father, and one Word, and one Son, and one Spirit, and one salvation to all who believe in Him.3

Merry Christmas now and forever!

  1. Irenaeus, The Writings of Irenæus A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, Eds., A. Roberts & W. H. Rambaut, Trans. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: T. & T. Clark; Hamilton & Co.; John Robertson & Co, 1868-1869): 1: 338
  2. Irenæus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching W. J. S. Simpson & W. K. L. Clarke, Eds., J. A. Robinson, Trans. (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Co., 1920), 98.
  3. Irenaeus, The Writings of Irenæus A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, Eds., A. Roberts & W. H. Rambaut, Trans. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: T. & T. Clark; Hamilton & Co.; John Robertson & Co., 1868-1869), 1:393.

 

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published at davidprince.com.