One of the elders of our local church recently called the issue of women’s roles in the church “the gorilla of church issues.” Last week, I reviewed biblical church roles; this week I’d like to take a look at gender restrictions on those roles. In doing so, I want my readers to know that any preconceptions I had when I first became interested in the issue of women’s roles in the church leaned toward all-male church government and assembly leadership. I grew up in and now live in a decidedly patriarchal home. My dad, a career Navy physician, had a sign hanging in the den which read “The Captain’s word is law.” However tongue-in-cheek that sign may have been, my two brothers and I never wondered who “wore the pants.” Nor do I have any hidden agenda in discussing this issue—neither my wife nor either of my two believing daughters feel the call to particular roles in the church.

In the centuries leading up to the dawn of the Christian era, the culture of the Mediterranean world was dominated by Greek philosophy, particularly that of Aristotle and his followers. The Aristotelian view was that women are by nature inferior to men. In Politics 1.5, Aristotle writes: “the relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled” Women were considered physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually weaker than men.

In Greek culture, women held low social status and had few options in life. Women were so undervalued that excess daughters (usually anything more than one) were sometimes discarded—exposed to the elements either to die or to be picked up by a slave dealer for future service. Generally speaking, a woman was confined to her parental home until her father chose a husband, at which time she transferred to her husband’s home to fulfill her primary function—bearing and raising children. In most areas of the Greek world, women had no access to formal education, being limited to domestic training by their mothers. Any rights they enjoyed were tied to their husband and were therefore revoked if the husband died. There were exceptions, of course, but generally women were little more than slaves or children in the Greek culture of the First Century.

Women hardly hard a better lot in First Century Hebrew culture. The divorce practices of the time are particularly revealing of their status. According to rabbinical teaching, a husband could divorce his wife for something as trivial as burning his dinner, yet Hebrew women were not allowed to divorce their husbands. Hebrew women had virtually no property rights. Most women received no formal religious education and had no official religious or leadership roles.

Into this deep-seated philosophy of female inferiority came a man who repeatedly defied and challenged the status quo. He and His disciples restored the equality ideal that God had established when He created Man, male and female. This ideal relationship between male and female was contaminated when they willfully disobeyed God’s command not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Curse God was obligated to inflict on the woman included “…your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Sin entered the world through their disobedient act and enslaved the entire human race. But when the God-Man Jesus died on a Roman cross, the debt owed from sin was paid and the Curse was lifted. With this act, men and women were again given the opportunity to live in the kind of relationship God intended, husband and wife in intimate interdependency and all people is mutual submission.

But equality does not mean to same thing as identity. The creation of Man was a two-part event: part one, male, and part two, female. God did not create another male to complete Adam, He created female. The female was created as a helper (Hebrew, ezer) for the male. God Himself is frequently referred to as an ezer to people (Ex 18:4; Ex 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9, 10, 11; 121:1, 2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos 13:9). To suggest that Eve being an ezer to Adam places her in a subservient role is to suggest that God is also in a subservient role.

During His life, Jesus demonstrated a particular compassion for those in lower social roles—women, slaves, tax collectors, prostitutes, common workers, etc., and the roles women play in the Gospels model the equality God ordained: Elizabeth is the first to recognize Mary’s child as the Messiah (Luke 1:45); the prophetess Anna is the first evangelist (Luke 2:38); Mary Magdalene is one of the key figures—at the foot of the cross (Mark 15:40), at the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47), at the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8), at the Resurrection of her Lord (Mark 16:9-11); Joanna and Susanna provided the support for Jesus’ ministry (Luke 8:3).
He challenges the divorce practices of His time.
He centers important lessons around women. Mary of Bethany is commended by Jesus for choosing “the good part” when she listens to Him rather than helping her sister with traditional female tasks (Luke 10:38-42). The Syrophoenician woman might be considered the first Gentile convert (Matthew 15:21-28). The fact that she refers to Jesus as “Lord” and “Son of David” suggests that she had some inkling of His identity. The generous widow serves as a model for giving (Luke 21:1-4). The adulterous woman is the focal point of a lesson about judging (John 8:3-11).
Over and over, Jesus upholds the value of women—in stark contrast to the prevailing attitudes.

On the Day of Pentecost, women were present in the upper room and were filled with the Holy Spirit at the same time as the Apostles (Acts 1:14; 2:1, 4). Throughout Acts and the Epistles, women are cited as important contributors to the work of the early church. Paul resoundingly proclaimed this recovery of the ideal: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28)

Especially revealing information lies in Romans 16, where Paul commends a number of Christians in the imperial capital for their faith and their work, doing so with absolutely no distinctions between the men and the women. Noteworthy in the list are Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis, all of which are cited as hard workers. While we cannot know precisely what their work was, it is unlikely that Paul is referring to their child-rearing skills, nor their good cooking. The kind of work Paul cared about was that which proclaimed and furthered the cause of Christ.

The biblical record reveals that the ekklesia was made up of people dedicated to Jesus—gender or other social distinctions made little difference to their roles. The burden of proof therefore lies with those who insist on gender-based restrictions within the church, not those who advocate gender equity.

At the same time, the gender-specific distinctions between male and female that God created remain. The most obvious of these is the bearing of life that God creates, but there are others. God ordained that the female would bear children when He could have easily ordained otherwise.

With this backdrop, let’s look at gender roles within the church, again using Paul’s lists in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians, combined with his instructions about elders and deacons in 1 Timothy and Titus.

Apostles – This may be a moot point since the office of apostle was apparently limited to the first generation of Christians, but it is instructive to note that there may be one biblical example of a female apostle: "Greet Andronicus and Junia(s), my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me" (Romans 16:7). The name “Junias,” as it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, and RSV, is a male name , but the NLT, NCV, and KJV read “Junia,” the female counterpart, because that’s what many of the oldest manuscripts have. The name is therefore ambiguous, as is the verse itself (were Andronicus and Junia notable apostles, or were they well-known by the Apostles?), but there is at least a suggestion that a woman named Junia might have been recognized as an apostle (a messenger). While the “office” of Apostle was limited to 13 men and ended around the turn of the second century with John, there is no reason to assume the role of apostle/messenger has died. Just as the early apostles broke away from bonds of established religion to reveal the Grace of God, there are those who do so today—both men and women.

Prophets – There are five female prophets (fore-teller or inspired speaker) cited in the New Testament: Anna (Luke 2:36) and the four virgin daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9).

Evangelists – There are only two named evangelists in the New Testament: Philip (Acts 21:8) and Timothy (2 Timothy 4:5). The Greek term that we translate “evangelist” is euaggelistes, which has the same root as the Greek word for angel (aggelos), so an evangelist is literally a “good news angel or messenger. Another term for an evangelist is a preacher, and preaching (Greek, kerusso, to proclaim or herald) is mentioned extensively throughout the New Testament; in fact, evangelizing is simply preaching (proclaiming) the good news.
The prophetess Anna can be reasonably recognized as the first evangelist: "And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem." (Luke 2:36-38) Anna proclaimed the coming of the Messiah publicly.

Furthermore, we are told that "Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison. Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word." (Acts 8:3-4). Saul (who was later renamed Paul after his conversion experience on the Damascus Road) was concerned about the spread of the Jesus sect. The fact that he was putting both men and women in prison strongly suggests that both were proclaiming the gospel.
Proclaiming the gospel is central to the purpose of the ekklesia—without it, there are no new believers. "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:14-15a) Preaching is the essence of the Great Commission, a charge given directly to the Apostles but applicable to all believers.

Teachers – Women were teachers in the First Century ekklesia. Priscilla taught Apollos (Acts 18:26). In Romans 12, Paul tells us that through Grace, each of us is given gifts, among which is teaching. No one would disagree that the gifts of prophecy (see above), service, encouragement, giving, and mercy are exhibited by women (often much more than by men)—why would we suggest that teaching is excluded?
In fact, older women are directed to teach: Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. (Titus 2:3-4)
There is no question that the gift of teaching is given to some women, just as it is to some men.

Pastors – As I detailed last week, pastor (Greek, poimen, shepherd), bishop (Greek, episkopos, overseer), and elder (Greek, presbuteros, old man) describe different functions of a single “office” in the ekklesia (see Acts 20:17-28), and there are no examples of women in this role in the literature of the early church. Furthermore, Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus, he specifically calls for them to appoint men as elders. This is what God ordains, but why He does so is a matter of some conjecture. Probably, however, it relates to God’s call for men to be the heads of their families, the church being frequently described as a family. I suspect that God’s plan is more aimed at challenging men than at restricting women—all too often men will abdicate responsibility in social relationships. Regardless of God’s purpose, the role of pastor/overseer/elder is limited to men.

Deacons – Phoebe was a deacon in the church at Cenchrea (a port city adjacent to Corinth). There is a reference to the deaconess Grapte in the Shepherd of Hermas, a book revered by the early church. Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (northwestern Turkey), referred to deaconesses in a letter he wrote to Emperor Trajan seeking advice on the persecution of Christians. Tertullian, an influential early church leader, refers to “women in Ecclesiastical orders.” In Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, a third century work, there are numerous references to deaconesses. Women served the early church as deacons.

Phoebe, the only female deacon mentioned in the Bible, deserves some discussion. “And I commend you to Phebe our sister—being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea—2that ye may receive her in the Lord, as doth become saints, and may assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you—for she also became a leader of many, and of myself..” (Romans 16:1-2 Young’s Literal Translation [YLT]) The word that the YLT translates as “ministrant” in verse 1 is the same word (Greek, diakonos) that appears in Paul’s instructions to Timothy about deacons. Diakonos can be translated as “deacon,” “minister,” or “servant” depending on the context. The question here is: is Paul referring to Phoebe as an “official” deacon of the Cenchrea church or simply as one who has served the church well, but not in any “official” capacity? The first thing to notice is that Paul entrusted her with the letter he most certainly recognized as containing some of his most important comments. It is obvious he had complete trust in her. Phoebe is also referred to as a “leader,” (Greek, proistatis), which Bible versions render as “benefactor” (RSV), helper (NLT, NIV, NCV, RSV, NASB), or “succourer” (KJV), but according to Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, proistatis means “patroness” or “protectress” and is the feminine form of proistemi, which means have charge over, leads, manage, or rule. The YLT translation as “leader” is more faithful to that meaning. There is at least a strong possibility that Phoebe was an appointed deacon in Cenchrea. Paul is not sloppy with his wording, and there are a number of other similar words he could have used to designate Phoebe if he merely meant that she served the church.

It is worthwhile here to quote the entire 1 Timothy passage dealing with elders and deacons. I use Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) here because it largely removes the insertions of “man” or “men” that are assumed by many other translations, but not specifically stated in the Greek.

"Stedfast is the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth; it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach, not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money, his own house leading well, having children in subjection with all gravity, (and if any one his own house how to lead hath not known, how an assembly of God shall he take care of?) not a new convert, lest having been puffed up he may fall to a judgment of the devil; and it behoveth him also to have a good testimony from those without, that he may not fall into reproach and a snare of the devil.
"Ministrants—in like manner grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not given to filthy lucre, having the secret of the faith in a pure conscience, and let these also first be proved, then let them minister, being unblameable.
Women—in like manner grave, not false accusers, vigilant, faithful in all things.
Ministrants—let them be of one wife husbands; the children leading well, and their own houses, 13for those who did minister well a good step to themselves do acquire, and much boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 3:1-13)

Verses 1-7 are about elders (overseers), and verses 8-13 are about deacons (ministrants). There are parallels between the two discussions (husband of one wife, sober, not greedy, well-managed homes), but there are also some differences, such as “apt to teach,” an elder quality not required of deacons. The most distinctive difference, however lies in verse 11, where women (Greek, gune) are mentioned. Gune is translated “women” or “wives,” depending on the context. In the case of verse 11, the New Living Translation, King James Version, and New International Version translate gune as “wives”, while the New Century Version, Revised Standard Version, and New American Standard Version translate gune as “women.” So which is it, and does it matter?

It certainly does matter, because if the correct meaning of gune is “women”, we are forced to consider that Paul is referring to women deacons, whereas if it’s “wives,” the reference would be to the wives of male deacons. But “wives” doesn’t fit because Paul did not mention anything about the wives of elders in 1-7, and their characteristics would certainly be at least as important as wives of deacons. Consequently, it appears that Paul has three subsections in his discussion of deacon qualities: 8-10, general deacon qualities (men and women); 11, female deacon qualities; and 12-13, male deacon qualities.

Those of you who rely, as I do, on the NASB, may be saying, “But the text reads, ‘Deacons likewise must be men…’, but the Greek doesn’t say that at all. It says, ‘Deacons, likewise, must be…’ The insertion of “men” in the NASB (and other translations) is an interpretation, not a translation, depending on whether one sees “likewise” as referring to the gender of elders or the qualities of elders.

Against this overwhelming evidence of the full participation of women in the life and mission of the ekklesia are pitted two isolated passages: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12. These verses have served as the manifesto for women’s roles in the church, and the clear story of women’s contributions to turning the world upside down is perverted by interpreting the preponderance of Scripture in light of these two passages, when what we should do doing is interpreting these passages in light of the preponderance of Scripture!

Entire books have been written on these two passages, and I won’t try to cover every point, but I’d like to offer a few observations.

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

1. Is Paul writing about women or wives? Again, gune, can mean either. In the passage, it is likely that Paul is referring to wives, not women in general, since he goes on to suggest that women should pose their questions to their husbands. If Paul meant women in general, he has committed a serious omission by failing to tell unmarried women how they can learn. The context of passage strongly argues that it is directed at wives, not women in general.
2. The word translated here as “keep silent” is sigao is used elsewhere in the New Testament, including twice in the same letter (14:28, 30). In those cases, there is no implication that the silence is permanent, nor that it encompasses all forms of expression. In the case of 14:28 (tongues) and 14:30 (revelations), Paul is asking that one speaker temporarily give way to another. If one concludes that 14:34 is a universal, permanent imposition of silence on women, one would be forced to also conclude that 14:30 imposed universal, permanent silence on anyone who had already shared a revelation.
3. What kind of speaking is Paul referring to? We can eliminate prophetic speech and prayer because of Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and Romans 12. The most likely meaning comes from v. 35, where Paul amplifies the keep silent comment: “If [wives] desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.” The speaking therefore appears to be spontaneous questions in the assembly. Since women of that era were denied most formal education, they would have no knowledge of proper educational etiquette. The sight of overenthusiastic and spiritually thirsty women interrupting speakers with their questions is easy to envision in Paul’s comments.
4. The sense of “to subject themselves” is a voluntary action, giving up something one is otherwise entitled to do. This suggests not that silence was a universal command, but rather some special circumstance which called for voluntary submission.
5. Why would it be “improper” for a woman to speak? The sense of the Greek word (aischros) is more of shame or dishonoring, but who would be dishonored? One obvious answer is her husband. That fact that a wife asks a question might embarrass her husband because the question discloses that he has failed to uphold his duty as leader of the family.

Whatever the “correct” meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is, there is certainly sufficient ambiguity to disqualify the passage as the one against which all other instructions about women’s participation in the assembly are measured. It simply fails to meet the burden of proof.

I personally believe that Paul was most concerned about appearances—he views the spectre of wives calling out questions in a public forum as a potential obstacle for the unbeliever or the weaker brother; therefore he asks them to voluntarily hold back and discuss it with their husbands later. But this certainly does not preclude a woman from initiating prophecy, proclamation, revelation, testimony, or other forms of expression.

" A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." (1 Timothy 2:11-13)

We have already seen that women can be gifted as teachers. From a practical perspective, all we have to do is look at our Sunday Schools to know that. The issue comes down to whether or not women can teach men, but we have already seen a biblical example of a women (Priscilla) teaching a man (Apollos). In order to harmonize Priscilla’s role with Paul’s comments to Timothy, we have two choices:
1. Conclude that Priscilla was only allowed to teach Apollos under Aquila’s authority. The problem with that solution is that the Scripture never says that. All that we know from Acts 18:26 is that Priscilla taught Apollos.
2. Conclude that Paul’s instructions to Timothy are either a special circumstance or the translation is faulty.

I have seen a persuasive argument that 1 Timothy 2:12 really means “I do not permit a woman to teach that she has authority over a man.” But why would Paul have to make such a command—who would teach that women had authority over men? Ephesus was a major center of mother-goddess worship, and one aspect of that was that the mother-goddess was the source of all life and therefore had authority of men. When one looks at the sentence immediately following Paul’s the “I do not permit” instruction, that interpretation is supported: “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” Paul appears to be refuting the mother-goddess order of creation claim. Some have interpreted Paul’s order of creation comment as the reason women can’t exercise authority over a man, but if the order of creation is determinant of authority, then Man could not have authority over animals, since animals were created before Adam. Furthermore, Paul’s point about Eve’s transgression is sometimes used to suggest that the reason he does not permit women to teach is because they are less reliable, but elsewhere Paul has clearly laid the blame for sin entering the world on Adam (Romans 5:12).
And once again in these verses, we face the gune-wife/woman problem. The key phrase can also be translated “But I do not allow a wife to teach or exercise authority over her husband.” This translation is again supported by the immediate context. Paul concludes this section by writing, “But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” (1 Timothy 2:15) Yet again, “wives” is at least as appropriate a translation of gune is this verse because Paul refers to child-bearing. Would Paul suggest that bearing children out of wedlock had any bearing on a woman’s salvation? Of course not.
Given the fact that Paul may be referring specifically to wives and husbands rather than universally to women and men, another viable interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 is that Paul is forbidding a wife to nag (the Greek verb translated “teach” carries the implication of a continuing action) her husband.
Regarding Paul’s comment that a woman should “remain quiet,” Paul uses another form of the Greek word (hesuchios) in 1 Timothy 2;2, where he refers to “quiet and tranquil lives” with no implication whatsoever of complete silence.

Once again, the uncertainty about the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 fails to meet the burden of proof, and if we are honest to the scriptures, we should recognize the unambiguous statement that Priscilla taught Apollos.

There are additional practical problems presented by a reliance on a literal (mis?)interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12. Does a mother have authority over her 14-year old baptized son? If women aren’t reliable teachers, why would we allow them to teach impressionable children? Is a Christian woman prohibited from proclaiming the gospel to an unbelieving man? There are so many biblical and practical problems with the “traditional” application of 1 Timothy 2:12 that it is an untenable position.

I recognize that it is difficult to overcome a lifetime of belief in a concept, and I know that many of you have grown up in churches where women have no role in assembly events and never teach a class. I believe God revealed what was then new freedom, opportunity, and responsibility for women in the ekklesia—when we restrict women against His clear examples, we rob the church of the richness over half of our body can bring to the ekklesia.

It is like a group of horticulturalists wandering into a huge forest full of evergreen trees, coming upon two lonely oak trees and classifying the forest as hardwood on the basis of those two trees.

Not surprisingly, there were some widely disparate reactions to the last issue (Women in the church). Only two, however, related to actual practice—I’ll share those first.

From a Texas subscriber: “Our congregation uses the gifts of male and female believers indiscriminately as ministry leaders (same as "deacons"), in every sort of private ministry, and in public gatherings to read Scripture, make announcements, give testimonies and reports, vocalize prayers, conduct worship, collect offerings and serve Communion. We are about to make a thorough study of Scripture, history and our congregation to determine whether the eldership should also be open to qualified women.”

And this from Tim in California: “At our congregation, women may lead any part of the assembly, and this has been the case for several months now. Our study concluded that the only things we weren't completely sure that women could do was to be elders or preachers -- though I think the attitude toward preaching comes more from tradition than logic. Women participate in and lead our praise team, say prayers, do readings, officiate and pass trays in the Lord's Supper, make announcements, perform drama, and anything else the rest of us (the men) do, with the exception of being the preacher. There are some days that a woman will be a part of delivering the "message of the day," but as part of a group doing an unconventional presentation, such as mission reports, testimonies, etc.
This came after our elders and staff studied the pertinent passages, concluding the more permissive understanding, and then the congregation studied together, and a survey was conducted to determine how the congregation felt we should proceed. It was not without its tense moments, and we did not get through it without losing a few people. But it has brought us so many more benefits: the prayers said by some of our sisters are priceless for their heartfelt expressions; the communion devotionals are insightful and inspiring; there are more hands available for the various tasks of the assembly; and the feeling of empowerment it has given several of our ladies and young women have given them a renewed passion for serving in ways outside the assembly, as well.”

I had an exchange of understandings with John from Kansas that is much too long to include here. His conclusion in one of our e-mails was “The design of creation all the way to the New Testament just does not have ample evidence to support an erasure of nearly all role distinctions between men and women in the church.” John also suggested that there is far too much cultural accommodation in many churches, and I agree. The difference I see is that many of the restrictions of women in church roles were born out of earlier accommodations to pagan Greco-Roman culture.

The problem I have with John’s statement is that it presumes the role distinctions that have dominated the church since the second or third century, when the Christian message began to be merged with cultural norms. John believes we must now unequivocally prove that these role distinctions are not biblical, and that’s where I disagree. If the church is going to effectively disenfranchise half (or more) of its members, it is incumbent upon us to unequivocally prove that that is God’s design.

Incidentally, John apparently thought I was advocating leadership roles for women, but that’s a matter of definition. I believe there is only one real leadership position in the church—elders/pastors—and that role is, I believe, restricted to men. Roles such as teacher and deacon are not leadership roles, as I indicated in the Church Government issue of ET&N.

This note I received from a different John is unfortunate: “My, My, such profound scholarship. What did Christians do before you came along?”
DS: I hope Christians strive to take a good look at Scripture to try to understand what God is saying to us. I would always hope that most would do so without stooping to sarcastic comments about people who come to different conclusions.

In addition, there were a number of positive responses, and here are two examples:.

From Henry in Ontario: This is so refreshing. Thank you for sharing this ideas with the rest of us.
From James in Texas: Your article was (and is) so encouraging to me! These central items are exactly what I have been teaching here. In the months to come I will be preaching on “servants” which will naturally encompass these things. Good work!

DS: Of course, I’m always aware that just because people agree with my conclusions doesn’t necessarily make them right!

NEXT ISSUE: Persecution (September 2)

© Richard M. Soule, 2003 Unlimited copy and distribution permission is hereby granted on the condition that this copyright notice is included. Website: www.peculiarpress.com
Unless otherwise noted, all biblical citations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB)