Many Christians treat the Book of Revelation like a mystical puzzle or a codebook for Fox News, trying to match ancient symbols with modern headlines. Today I share why this is theologically dangerous and offer seven biblical keys to interpreting Revelation rightly.
Here are the top 10 articles you read, clicked, and shared in 2025.
Take a look back at the top 10 most-played sermons from Shepherds Conference 2024.
“We must be honest about the difficulties that accompany old age. The Bible doesn’t shy away from them, and neither should we. And yet, as we identify the struggles, glorious promises bolster us and give us hope.”
“A half mile from Christ’s cross, in the inner sanctum of Jerusalem’s temple, God the Father made visible the saving triumph of His Son. A veil, torn in two—a miraculous sign of the reconciliation Christ had achieved for His people.”
“In Psalm 23:5, David conveys that yes, the Lord as our Shepherd provides for our needs, but it goes deeper and means something richer than that. He not only feeds us, He welcomes us to His table.”
“As humans, we have limits. We must sleep. We must eat. We must rest our bodies and our brains. Play is good for us. Hobbies edify. The ability to waste time is a sign that we are humans, not machines, a distinction that will certainly become more and more essential in the coming years. But there’s a strategy behind this unproductivity. I’m convinced it’s best done together. God has designed us to be unproductive with people. To simply exist in each other’s presence.”
“The apostles, through the introductory formulae, claimed to continue the prophetic hermeneutic. They do not claim to change the Old Testament but to abide in it.”
Over decades of faithful ministry, our founder and chancellor, Pastor John MacArthur, authored an extensive body of work. From biblical exposition to systematic theology to practical Christian living, his books continue to equip and encourage believers around the world. Here is a list of favorites that have shaped our faculty and staff over the years.
“As the internet continues to dominate our lives, and the fractious nature of our nation grows worse, there will be more and more people who will assume there’s a conspiracy against the righteous. They will tell you it’s your job to wake up and pay attention to what’s going on. When you are called to this, remember these principles. As Satan loudly controls this world, our job is to love our neighbor, remember our limits, not occupy ourselves with things too high for us, and trust that one day, Jesus will right all wrongs.”
Look back at sermon notes from each Shepherds Conference 2025 general session.
“My prayer for you, dear reader, is that you too will fight the good fight triumphantly—that you will one day finish the course victoriously, and that you will keep the faith with unwavering devotion.”
Source: Most-Read Articles of 2025
Satan loves to convince Christians that he is a harmless myth, a legend uncovered in the sands of time. In one survey 60 percent of self-identifying Christians said the devil was symbolic, not real. This kind of confusion comes from not knowing what the Bible says about the devil, the Christian, and spiritual warfare.
Five times in Ephesians 6:12 Paul uses the word “against” in describing our spiritual warfare. We are battling “against” real beings: principalities, powers, rulers, and spiritual hosts of wickedness.
When we think of “against” we think of force, of someone or something pushing back against us. That is the nature of spiritual warfare— real beings pushing against one another; Satan against Christians.
Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesians to “be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might” (verse 10) is so they can enter this very real spiritual battle that is ongoing for all who follow Christ. There is a real “devil” (verse 11), a “wicked one” (verse 16), who shoots “fiery darts” (verse 16) at Christians. Those who believe what the Bible says on this point can learn to defend themselves against the devil. Those who believe the devil doesn’t exist will have to explain the “fiery darts” in their lives some other way.
Watch this sermon on YouTube >
Satan is given many names in Scripture, the following being just some of them: your adversary (1 Peter 5:8); the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10); the angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14); the deceiver (Revelation 12:9); the destroyer (Revelation 9:11); the evil one (John 17:15); the liar (John 8:44); the murderer (John 8:44); the prince (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11; Ephesians 2:2); the serpent (Genesis 4:3; Revelation 20:2); and the tempter (Matthew 4:3). All the names given to him represent various facets of his personality and strategies.
Satan originated in heaven as a wise and beautiful angel (Isaiah 14:12; Ezekiel 28:12, 14-15). Isaiah tells us that while he was named Lucifer, the son of the morning, and served in God’s court, pride rose up in Satan’s heart and he purposed to become like God (Isaiah 14:12-14).When Lucifer challenged God’s supremacy in heaven, God cast him out of heaven, down to earth. Lucifer and all the angels had free will just as we do, and the exercise of Lucifer’s will—and that of many angels who rebelled with him—cost him an honored place in heaven. The first sin we know about in the universe was Lucifer’s sin of pride (1 Timothy 3:6).
There are three positions that Satan legitimately fills at the present time: prince, ruler, and god.
The Bible calls Satan “the prince of this world” three times: John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 (NIV). He is also called the “prince of the power of the air” in Ephesians 2:2. As the prince of this world, Satan is in charge of evil men; as the prince of the power of the air he is in charge of evil spirits. In other words, Satan is the leader of evil whether on earth or in heaven.
First John 5:19 tells us that “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.” In other words, he is the ruler of the world system in which we live—the world of power, lust, ambition, greed, and lies. Satan has a kingdom just like God has a kingdom (Matthew 12:26). First and foremost, a kingdom is the authority to rule, not just a set of geographical boundaries. And Satan has a kingdom he rules—a kingdom of darkness (Colossians 1:13) in which he rules over angelic (demonic) beings (Matthew 25:41) and some human beings who have given themselves over to the powers of darkness. The principalities, powers, rulers, and hosts to which Paul refers in Ephesians 6:12 represent hierarchical levels of authority within Satan’s kingdom—perhaps as many as a third of the created order of angels who rebelled against God and went with Satan to earth (Revelation 12:4).
In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul refers to Satan as “the god of this age” (“god” with a lowercase “g”) with the power to blind the minds of the unbelieving to the light of the Gospel. We normally associate a “god” with a religion, and that is perfectly appropriate here. Satan definitely has his own religion. He has his own church (Revelation 2:9; 3:9), his own gospel (Galatians 1:8), his own ministers (2 Corinthians 11:15), his own doctrines (1 Timothy 4:1), and his own communion table and cup (1 Corinthians 10:20-21). His goal is to counterfeit everything God does so as to lead astray the unwary—and his religion serves that purpose.
Sign up to receive email devotions each day!
This may be the question most Christians have about Satan: How powerful is he? Does he have the power to hurt us as well as harass us?
For starters, 2 Thessalonians 2:9 says that Satan’s works are often accompanied by “all power, signs, and lying wonders.” So he does have supernatural power—as well as the power of death (Hebrews 2:14) and the power of a stalking lion (1 Peter 5:8). There is no question that Satan has power, but we should not make the mistake of thinking he has power equal to God. Satan is not the equal or opposite of God in position nor in power. (Michael, the archangel [Jude 9] is Satan’s opposite, both being created beings.) God is infinite and eternal; Satan is a created, limited angel.
The best way to remember Satan’s limited power is by remembering 1 John 4:4: “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.” Satan’s power is great compared to ours, but not even in the same league as God’s power. God has Satan on a leash (Job 1-2) and there he remains, in spite of appearances, until he will be cast into the “lake of fire” where he will live in torment forever (Revelation 20:10).
There are many action verbs attached to Satan’s activities in Scripture. I will summarize them by focusing on three that serve to reveal his purposes: Satan deceives, divides, and destroys.
In a conversation with religious leaders, Jesus set the record straight about Satan’s character: “[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44b). In Revelation 12:9, Satan is identified as the one “who deceives the whole world.”
Satan began sowing seeds of deception in the Garden of Eden when he twisted the words God spoke to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-4). As a deceiver, Satan is also a counterfeiter—one who always has a slightly different (and wrong) take on God’s words and actions. Almost everything Jesus was and did, Satan tried to copy. For instance, Jesus was the light of the world (John 9:5), so Satan disguised himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). Satan always mixes enough truth with error to make it attractive and enough error with truth to make it deadly. He knows the Bible well and can misquote it or take it out of context at will. He loves to ask us, “Has God indeed said . . .?” (Genesis 3:1)
The greatest defense against Satan the deceiver is a thorough, working knowledge of the Word of God.
The first thing Satan did after rebelling against God was to divide the hosts of heaven, the other angels, into two camps: those loyal to Satan and those loyal to God. And he’s never stopped dividing. He instigated a division in the early church in Jerusalem by promoting dishonesty by a member (Acts 5:1-11). Ananias wanted to be recognized for giving a financial gift to the church, but lied about the amount of the gift. It wasn’t that he held back some money for himself that was the problem; it was that he created the impression for the apostles that he had given it all.
Satan is still sowing seeds of division in the Body of Christ through lies, jealousy, pride, power, and finances. When “two or three are gathered in [Jesus’] name,” He is there to join with them in fellowship (Matthew 18:20). But Satan is also there looking for an opportunity to divide those two or three, to break up their unity. And often he uses the tongue—that human organ that “is set on fire by hell” (James 3:6).
Satan uses two means to destroy the people of God (see Revelation 9:11, “destroyer”): adversity and direct attacks.
There is no question about Satan’s ability to hinder, delay, or frustrate our lives. The great apostle Paul was not immune to such harassment as he told the believers in Thessalonica: “Therefore we wanted to come to you—even I, Paul, time and again—but Satan hindered us” (1 Thessalonians 2:18). It is an arresting insight for young Christians to gain: God does not always protect us from the difficulties of life, even when we are doing our best to serve Him. And that includes difficulties that are orchestrated by Satan himself.
Satan’s goal in creating adversity, of course, is to discourage us to the point that we will at least give up serving the Lord if not give up the faith altogether. There is an end-game to Satan’s strategies of which too many Christians are unaware.
Ephesians 6:16 makes a clear reference to the direct attacks from Satan we are likely to experience: “the fiery darts of the wicked one.” I believe one of Satan’s most oft-used direct attacks is that of discouragement, for this reason: If Satan can discourage us, it means we have lost hope. And if we have lost hope, then we have lost faith in God and His promises. And if we lose faith in God, we make God look bad. And that is Satan’s ultimate goal—to make God look bad in the eyes of all Creation. So,while Satan’s attacks are often directed at us, they are ultimately directed at God. The worse we do as Christians, the worse God looks as the One in whom we place our faith and to whom we direct our hope.
I read a story once about Satan going out of business, selling all his tools at a diabolical type garage sale. Hate, envy, jealousy, greed —all his tools were spread out on a table to be examined. Off to the side lay a small, wedge-shaped tool that was more expensive than all the rest. When asked why the small tool was the most expensive, Satan replied that the tool was discouragement. He explained that he could use discouragement to pry open a human heart better than any other tool. Once discouragement gets inside, the devil said, all the other tools can do their work.1
Unfortunately, Satan has not gone out of business and will not until God puts him out of business at the end of time. Until then, he is walking about seeking whom he might devour. The believer is helpless against the devil except when he or she is clothed in the armor of God. We cannot defend ourselves against his direct or indirect attacks in our own strength. It is only as we are “strong in the Lord and in the power of His might” (Ephesians 6:10) that we can walk in the victory God has planned for us.
Martin Luther, besides being the father of the Protestant Reformation, was a great lover of music as part of his defense against the devil:
Music is a fair and lovely gift of God which has often wakened And moved me . . . Music drives away the devil and makes people [happy] . . . Next after theology I give to music the highest place and the greatest honor . . . Experience proves that next to the Word of God only music deserves to be extolled as the mistress and governess of the feelings of the human heart.We know that to the devil music is distasteful and insufferable. My heart bubbles up and overflows in response to music, which has so often refreshed me and delivered me from the plagues of the enemy.2
As evidence of his love of music and his deep understanding of the theology of spiritual warfare, Luther penned some of the most powerful and accurate words ever written on the subject in his hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” He wrote, “For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe; his craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal.” He then goes on to clarify that we cannot defeat Satan on our own: “Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing; were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing; dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus it is He; Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same, and He must win the battle.”3
Citations:
1Robert Jeffress, The Divine Defense: Six Simple Strategies for Winning Your Greatest Battles (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 2006), 35.
2Bainton, 351-352.
3Martin Luther, trans. by Frederick H. Hedge, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, http://www.hymnsite.com (accessed 30 August 2010).
This excerpt was taken from Dr. Jeremiah’s teaching series on Spiritual Warfare.
The post Who is Satan in the Bible? appeared first on David Jeremiah Blog.
Source: Who is Satan in the Bible?
If you are like me, you sometimes wake up to a new day and offer a prayer to God. Sometimes my prayer (as I again prayed this morning) goes something like this: ‘Lord, help me to serve and obey you today. Help me to love and honour you today. Help me to glorify you and walk in your ways. Help me to please you today.’
As soon as I had made that prayer, an obvious thought came into my mind: ‘And what is it that pleases God?’ I thought of some biblical texts, and I knew that in my own personal concordance I had a list of such passages. So here are a few thoughts about some of the things that we know will please God.
And let me start by saying that in one sense, any good parent knows what it is that their children can please them with. They will want their children to have a close and loving relationship with them. They will want their children to be polite, respectful, obedient and so on. They will want their children to grow up to be good, upstanding citizens – those they can be proud of.
In many ways that would be what our heavenly Father is looking for in his own children. One big difference however is this: simply being born does not make us children of God. To be his child we must be born again. Our natural state is one of sin and selfishness, and we are not able to please God.
A few biblical truths can be mentioned here:
-We are by nature sons of disobedience
-We are by nature sons of the devil
-We are by nature sons of perdition
The first thing to do is to actually become a son of God. That is the essential action we must take in order to please God. We become his son or daughter by faith and repentance in Christ, God’s remedy for our alienation from him. As we read in Hebrews 11:6, “without faith it is impossible to please him”.
So becoming a member of God’s family is the necessary first step. We must be in the Son in order to earn the Father’s pleasure. As we read in the gospels when Jesus was baptised: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (see for example Matthew 3:17).
But once we are part of his family, there are plenty of things said in Scripture about how we can keep pleasing him. Simply taking a few passages which contain the word ‘please’ is a good way to approach this. Here are just some of these texts.
One broader text is 1 Thessalonians 4:1 in which Paul writes: “Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more.” So all that was said in this epistle, and in the rest of the New Testament writings, provide us with what we need to know about pleasing God.
One specific passage is Romans 12:1 which says: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship.” Given that we are doubly bought and owned by God – through creation and redemption – fully offering ourselves to him is eminently sensible – and something pleasing to God.
This thought of a sacrificial lifestyle for God is also found in Hebrews 13:16. It says this: “And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.” When we serve God and others as an expression of our saving faith, that is something God is pleased with.
A third passage which runs with this theme of sacrifice is this: “I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God” (Philippians 4:18). As we serve one another, we also serve and please our Lord.
And this command to serve one another is also found in 1 Timothy 5:4: “But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.”
Another text found in the book of Romans is this from 14:17-18: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.”
And in Ephesians 5:8-10 Paul gives us more insights into this matter: “Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord.” So there we are told to grow in discovering that which pleases our Lord.
These and so many other passages give us clear directions as to how we might please God. Indeed, the hundreds of imperatives found in the New Testament give us more than enough information on what we might do to actively please God.
So in a very real sense to please God is simply to do what he asks of us. It is simply to obey him. And just as in a parent-child relationship, parents are pleased when their children readily and cheerfully obey them, and not just begrudgingly or unwillingly, so too our heavenly Father delights in us wanting and desiring to do that which he asks of us.
And God knows that when we do this, it is for our own good as well. As Deuteronomy 6:24 explains, “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always.” He is pleased when we are pleased to be in relationship with him and do as he commands.
His commandments are not burdensome but are meant to help us best flourish and succeed in life (see 1 John 5:3 for example). Just as parents want what is best for their children, so too God wants what is best for us, his children. And as should be clear by now, a love relationship is one that entails obedience.
A few concluding quotes undermine this truth:
“Love is not just a sentiment. Love is a great controlling passion and it always expresses itself in terms of obedience.” Martyn Lloyd-Jones
“The final test of love is obedience.” A. W. Tozer
“It is Christ who is to be exalted, not our feelings. We will know Him by obedience, not by emotions. Our love will be shown by obedience, not by how good we feel about God at a given moment. And love means following the commands of God. ‘Do you love Me?’ Jesus asked Peter. ‘Feed My lambs.’ He was not asking, ‘How do you feel about Me?’ for love is not a feeling. He was asking for action.” Elisabeth Elliot
May we all go on in seeking to please our Lord.
[1209 words]
The post Pleasing God appeared first on CultureWatch.
Source: Pleasing God
In this video, Dr. Derek Thomas suggests some signs that legalism or antinomianism may have crept into a Christians’s life.
What are the signs that legalism or antinomianism have crept into the believers’s life? I think that all Christians experience this phenomenon. I tell young preachers to avoid 1 John in the first ten years of their ministry because they’re almost guaranteed to preach all of those demands that John makes in a legalistic fashion. I think legalism in its essence is trying to obey God’s commandments or ethical demands upon our lives in order to win God’s favor. So, we have a sense that we’re not walking with God as we should and God is sort of frowning on us. And so we need to introduce a little more Bible reading, a little more prayer—with a little more fervency and that’ll make us feel good. But we’re operating then under a sort of works righteousness model that God rewards your obedience and therefore that you are justified—that your standing with God is based upon your performance.
And that sort of performance mentality can very easily creep in. I think Christians in the past and present have tried to correct, make course corrections, in their pilgrimage by swinging from legalism. Okay, I’m now walking with so many rules and regulations and there may be rules and regulations that aren’t even in the Bible anymore. They’re rules and regulations that are imposed by others or imposed by ourselves. And therefore I need now a little bit of the opposite and you swing that the course correction for legalism is antinomianism. So I can let go for a season. And then the opposite is true that when you realize that you’re living a life that isn’t in obedience, that the correction to that is a little more rules and regulations. And I think both of those are mistaken because the answer to legalism and the answer to antinomianism is Jesus.
Paul’s methodology in sanctification and holiness in the New Testament is constantly to ask the question, “Who are you?” And the answer to that question is, “If I’m a Christian, I am a man in union and communion with Christ.” So in terms of “in Christ” or “in Christ Jesus” or “in the Lord,” and there are three or four different expressions that Paul uses—there are 150–160 uses of these. And it’s a reminder that the gestalt, the mindset of the Apostle Paul in thinking about gospel life, Christian life, is to remind yourself that you are in union with Christ and therefore to obey Him is the response of who you are. If I’m in Christ, I want to live in obedience to Christ. If I’m in Christ, I cannot live an antinomian, lawless life. And so having a relationship with Christ, walking with Him, fellowshipping with Him, talking to Him in prayer on a minute by minute basis, that I think is the corrective to a legalistic or antinomian way of life.
Source: What Are the Signs that Legalism or Antinomianism May Have Crept into a Christian’s Life?
Photo Credit: Thai Noipho / iStock.com
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
When it comes to any matter related to the Christian life—which is, in fact, every matter—our first priority is to ask what God desires for his people. This is true not only in our personal lives but also in matters of God’s revealed order for his church.
In some conservative churches, there is renewed debate over whether women may serve in the church under the title “deaconess.” While various progressive denominations have ordained women as elders and deacons for decades, some conservative churches have more recently adopted the practice of “commissioning” deaconesses in a non-ordained capacity.
A growing narrative suggests that Scripture permits women to hold the title deaconess and that withholding this designation prevents some women from fully exercising their God-given gifts—thus signaling a lack of appreciation and respect for their contributions to the church.
Before going any further, it is important to acknowledge that some women genuinely feel unseen or undervalued in their churches—not because they lack titles, but because they lack meaningful relational connection, intentional pastoral care, clear pathways for service, and affirming reminders of their God-given dignity within the church’s biblical structure. Naming this helps us recognize the Christ-centered longing many women have to fully participate in the life of the church—a longing that may at times be mistaken for a self-centered pursuit of recognition or position.
I appreciate that many women who advocate for female deacons or deaconesses are motivated by a sincere desire to uphold women’s dignity and bless the church. Likewise, many women who have served—or currently serve—in such roles do so with a heartfelt desire to honor Christ and care for his people. Yet good intentions, however commendable, must always be tested and governed by God’s Word. What, then, does the Bible teach about whether women should hold the title of deaconess?
We first encounter the office of deacon in Acts 6:1–6, where “seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” were selected to meet the practical needs of the church so that the apostles could devote themselves “to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (vv. 3–4). These seven men were “set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them” (v. 6).
According to 1 Timothy 3:1–13, God has appointed the offices of elder and deacon for his church (see also Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; and 2 Tim. 1:6). In this passage, Paul lays out specific qualifications for both offices:
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer [elder], he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:1-7)
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 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. (1 Tim. 3:8-13)
From these qualifications, we can conclude that elders and deacons are to be godly men who oversee their households well. While many progressive denominations have concluded that 1 Timothy 3:1–13 does not exclude women from either office, even within conservative church denominations questions persist about whether Paul intended to restrict the office of deacon to men alone.
Appeals to the presence of deaconesses in church history are often used to support women serving as deacons or deaconesses today. For the sake of brevity, we will consider just a few key aspects of how the historical church understood women serving in a diaconal capacity.
Historically, the existence of deaconesses varied in numerous ways and often arose from specific practical needs—most notably assisting with the preparation of women for baptism, which in the early church involved complete nudity. The mere existence of deaconesses in certain times and places, though, does not mean the practice carried universal or enduring ecclesiastical approval. Historical practice does not equal orthodoxy. Indeed, it is difficult to arrive at a fixed definition of what church leaders throughout the centuries meant by the title deaconess. For a comprehensive and careful examination of this subject, see Aimé Georges Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study, which documents both the diversity of deaconess practices and the positions of governing ecclesiastical bodies regarding whether deaconesses were understood to hold an office equivalent to that of deacons.
While some historians attempt to assert that deaconesses existed throughout the ancient church, Martimort observes that in the Western church—Rome, North Africa, and Spain—early sources describing church life and ministry make no mention of deaconesses.[1] When women do appear in these records, they are identified as widows or consecrated virgins devoted to prayer or charitable care, rather than as holders of a distinct role. This silence stands in contrast to evidence from the eastern Roman Empire, where deaconesses are attested in the early third century (pp. 196–98). Yet, the deaconesses of the East were not viewed positively in the West, for
in Rome as well as in Gaul, from the end of the fourth century on, the fact of the existence of deaconesses in the East was neither unknown nor passed over in silence; deaconesses were mentioned expressly in order to be excluded.[2]
Martimort also notes that during ordination ceremonies in the East, deacons and priests knelt (deacons on one knee and priests on both knees), whereas deaconesses remained standing and bowed their heads. Within the symbolic language of the Byzantine rite, this difference in posture suggests that the ordination of deaconesses was understood differently from that of deacons or priests.[3]
References to deaconesses in other historical writings and doctrinal statements are likewise sometimes cited in support of women holding the office of deacon or the title of deaconess. Still, context matters. The Council of Chalcedon, Canon 15 (A.D. 451) regulates the practice of laying hands on qualified deaconesses without grounding the existence of deaconesses in Scripture. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin denotes “two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves,” affirming women’s organized service in works of mercy while maintaining the restriction of ecclesiastical office to men.[4] As the Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us,
All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both. (WCF 31.4)
While studying the history of deaconesses in the church provides helpful perspective on how Christians have approached diaconal ministry over the centuries, such references do not establish biblical warrant. Only Scripture—not historical precedent, theologians, councils, synods, creeds, or confessions—is the final authority in all matters pertaining to God’s order for the church.
Next, we will consider several biblical passages commonly cited in support of the claim that women may hold the office of deacon in the church. One such passage is 1 Timothy 3:11, which reads,
Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.
Some theologians and laypeople argue that 1 Timothy 3:11 refers to women serving as deacons rather than to the wives of deacons (for two examples, see here and here). One reason offered for this view is the absence of a possessive pronoun with the word γυναῖκας (gynaikas) in verse 11. As Martimort notes, “If the author had really intended to specify the wives of deacons, why did he not write τάς γυναίκας αυτών, instead of just γυναΐκας?”[5]
When a biblical text presents interpretive difficulty because a term may carry more than one meaning, sound hermeneutical practice requires that clearer passages guide the interpretation of less clear ones. With that in mind, it is helpful to examine other places where Paul omits a possessive pronoun as the possessive sense is clear from context:
Ephesians 5:25
Here, the possessive relationship is supplied entirely by context. No pronoun is required in Greek for the relationship to be understood.
1 Timothy 3:4
Again, the possessive “his” is inferred from the subject under discussion—the overseer.
1 Timothy 3:11
As in Ephesians 5:25 and 1 Timothy 3:4, the possessive relationship in 1 Timothy 3:11 is implied by context rather than expressed grammatically. Since Paul at times omits possessive pronouns when the relational context clearly establishes possession, the absence of a possessive pronoun in verse 11 provides no decisive grammatical basis for interpreting γυναῖκας as referring to women holding the office of deacon.
Moreover, reading γυναῖκας as “women” in general rather than as the wives of deacons is contextually unlikely. Paul addresses men in verses 1–10, briefly mentions γυναῖκας in verse 11, and then immediately resumes addressing men in verse 12 (“Let deacons each be the husband of one wife”). A sudden shift to female officeholders—followed by an immediate return to male qualifications—would be abrupt and inconsistent with Paul’s orderly argument.
Calvin confirms this understanding in his commentary on 1 Timothy 3:11, writing, “Likewise the wives He means the wives both of deacons and of bishops, for they must be aids to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel that of others.”[6]
Since Paul considered marital status sufficiently important to address explicitly for men holding church office, it would be reasonable to expect him to address the marital status of women as well if 1 Timothy 3:11 were referring to women under consideration for the diaconate. The absence of any such discussion weighs against that interpretation. This is especially significant in light of appeals to 1 Timothy 5 in support of female deacons. There Paul speaks with notable precision about widows, specifying age, marital history, and conduct for those eligible to receive church support. If Paul was willing to be so explicit in chapter 5, the silence of chapter 3 regarding women’s marital status strongly suggests that women were not in view as candidates for the diaconate.
Theologian Edmund P. Clowney offers a further argument in support of interpreting 1 Timothy 3:11 as referring to women in general. He contends that the verse does not refer to the wives of deacons because there is no comparable description of the wives of overseers in the preceding verses.[7] Yet, for the sake of consistency, this reasoning would also need to be applied to other differences between Paul’s qualifications for overseers and deacons.
For example, overseers are instructed to be “not violent but gentle,” while no such qualification appears in the list for deacons. Conversely, deacons are required to “hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience,” a qualification not explicitly stated for overseers. These differences do not imply distinct moral standards. Rather, Paul’s broader point is that anyone holding ordained office in the church must be a godly man in every respect.
For these reasons, interpreting γυναῖκας in 1 Timothy 3:11 as referring to the wives of deacons—rather than to women holding the office itself—best fits the immediate context, the structure of the passage as a whole, and the clearer teaching of Scripture elsewhere.
Let’s now consider the word the apostle Paul uses for “servant” in his commendation of Phoebe in Romans:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (διάκονον) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (Rom. 16:1-2)
The Greek noun διάκονος is a general term for service, whose specific sense is determined by context. In the original biblical texts, the Greek noun διάκονος appears with different endings that indicate its case, number, and grammatical gender—that is, how the word functions within a sentence. Despite these variations, all 30 occurrences refer to the same Greek word διάκονος and must therefore be interpreted according to context rather than grammatical form alone.
Below is a complete list of occurrences of διάκονος in Scripture, with the corresponding ESV and NASB translations alongside the Greek text (Nestle–Aland 28th edition). For clarity, the occurrences are grouped into contextual categories based on how διάκονος functions in each passage.
Category 1: General service (non-office, non-authoritative) — διάκονος used in a broad sense of service or assistance, without ecclesiastical office markers
Matthew 20:26
Matthew 22:13
Matthew 23:11
Mark 9:35
Mark 10:43
John 2:5
John 2:9
John 12:26
Romans 13:4 (first occurrence)
Romans 13:4 (second occurrence)
Romans 15:8
Romans 16:1
1 Corinthians 3:5
2 Corinthians 6:4
2 Corinthians 11:15 (first occurrence)
2 Corinthians 11:15 (second occurrence)
Galatians 2:17
Category 2: Gospel ministry (commissioned service, still not an ecclesiastical office) — διάκονος describing gospel labor or apostolic ministry, without technical office indicators
(Note: although English translations often render διάκονος here as minister, these passages lack the contextual markers Scripture elsewhere uses to identify ecclesiastical office.)
2 Corinthians 3:6
2 Corinthians 11:23
Ephesians 3:7
Ephesians 6:21
Colossians 1:7
Colossians 1:23
Colossians 1:25
Colossians 4:7
1 Thessalonians 3:2
1 Timothy 4:6
Category 3: Established ecclesiastical office (Deacon) — διάκονος used in a technical sense, clearly identified as church office
Philippians 1:1
1 Timothy 3:8
1 Timothy 3:12
While the ESV and NASB differ at points in how they translate the Greek noun διάκονος, both translations reserve the term deacon for passages where the context clearly identifies an established ecclesiastical office (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3). As the passages above demonstrate, διάκονος itself is not a technical term for church office but a general word whose meaning is determined by context.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) identifies two primary senses of διάκονος: (1) “one who serves as an intermediary—agent, courier, or assistant,” and (2) “one who carries out a task at the direction of a superior, assistant.” [8] It is important to note that BDAG’s categories are lexical, describing the range of meanings a word may bear, not whether a given occurrence refers to ecclesiastical office. BDAG places διάκονος in Romans 16:1 under both categories, while classifying its occurrences in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:12 under the second category. Accordingly, BDAG treats διάκονος as a general term for service, with its specific sense determined by context rather than by the word itself.
Before moving on from Romans 16:1–2, I want to address another aspect of Clowney’s argument in support of Phoebe’s being a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. Clowney appeals to Anglican theologian C. E. B. Cranfield’s exegesis of the present participle of εἰμί (“to be”) in verse 1 to advance his case:
C. E. B. Cranfield concludes that the form Paul uses in Romans 16:1 speaks of ‘deacon’ in the official sense. [29] The present participle of the verb ‘to be’ is regularly used to identify an office (Jn. 11:49; Acts 18:12; 24:10). The addition of the name of the church in Cenchrea fits this identification: ‘Phoebe our sister, being also deacon of the church in Cenchrea… If diakonos were being used in the general sense of ‘servant’ we might have expected ‘servant of Christ.’[9]
Here is the fuller context of Cranfield’s commentary regarding Phoebe:
οὖσαν [καὶ] διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς. Phoebe is not only a fellow Christian; she is also διάκονος of the church in Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth. It is perhaps just conceivable that the word διάκονος should be understood here as a quite general reference to her service of the congregation; but it is very much more natural, particularly in view of the way in which Paul formulates his thought (οὖσαν … διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας), to understand it as referring to a definite office. We regard it as virtually certain that Phoebe is being described as “a” (or possibly “the”) deacon of the church in question, and that this occurrence of διάκονος is to be classified with its occurrences in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8, 12.[10]
While Cranfield places considerable weight on the formulation οὖσαν … διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας (“being … a servant of the church”), treating the construction as suggestive of office and drawing a strong conclusion (“virtually certain”), Clowney presses the point further by treating the present participle of εἰμί (“to be”) as though it regularly identifies office, rather than merely accompanying it where office is already clear. In the proof texts Clowney cites to support this claim—John 11:49 (“Caiaphas, who was high priest that year”), Acts 18:12 (“Gallio was proconsul of Achaia”), and Acts 24:10 (“many years you [Felix, the governor of Judea] have been a judge over this nation”)—the office in view is already clear from the historical and narrative context. In each case, the participial construction of εἰμί does not establish the office but simply describes a role that is already known to the reader. The grammar, therefore, accompanies an existing identification rather than creating it.
Both Cranfield and Clowney err in treating the verb “to be” (εἰμί) as a technical construction, a claim the evidence cannot sustain given the wide and ordinary use of εἰμί in Greek. In light of the weight they place on this common verb to support Phoebe’s holding diaconal office, it is difficult not to wonder whether the same exegetical pressure would be applied if Paul were commending a man rather than a woman at the beginning of Romans 16.
It’s also worth noting that when Cranfield wrote his commentary on Romans (vol. 1 [Rom. 1–8] published in 1975, and vol. 2 [Rom. 9–16] in 1979), deaconesses were already well established in Anglican life, and women were beginning to be ordained as deacons in the Episcopal Church. The ordination of women as deacons was later permitted in England in 1985. This Anglican context provides helpful background for understanding Cranfield’s openness to an official reading of διάκονος in Romans 16:1.
We can still appreciate Phoebe’s good works without unnecessarily ascribing the office of deacon to her. In his commentary on Romans 16, Calvin praises Phoebe’s distinguished service to the church and describes her as a trusted assistant, yet he does not treat Paul’s commendation as conferring ecclesiastical office: “She had always been a helper to all the godly; and since she was an assistant of the Cenchrean church, he [Paul] bids that on that account she should be received in the Lord.”[11]
This distinction is made explicit by theologian John Murray, who addresses the tendency to read Romans 16:1 as referring to the ecclesiastical office of deacon:
It is common to give to Phoebe the title of “deaconess” and regard her as having performed an office in the church corresponding to that which belonged to men who exercised the office of deacon (cf. Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13). Though the word for “servant” is the same as is used for deacon in the instances cited, yet the word is also used to denote the person performing any type of ministry. If Phoebe ministered to the saints, as is evident from verse 2, then she would be a servant of the church and there is neither need nor warrant to suppose that she occupied or exercised what amounted to an ecclesiastical office comparable to that of the diaconate. The services performed were similar to those devolving upon deacons. Their ministry is one of mercy to the poor, the sick, and the desolate. This is an area in which women likewise exercise their functions and graces. But there is no more warrant to posit an office than in the case of the widows who, prior to their becoming the charge of the church, must have borne the features mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:9, 10.[12]
Taken together, Calvin and Murray affirm that Phoebe’s faithful service can be fully recognized and honored without conflating commendable Christian ministry into ecclesiastical office—a distinction Scripture itself carefully maintains.
According to Aimé Georges Martimort, the setting of Cenchreae as a port city helps clarify the nature of the service Paul attributes to Phoebe in Romans 16:2,
Even more than that, it is possible to argue that what follows in the text provides the best clue to the nature of the service rendered by Phoebe. St. Paul specifies that for him, as for many others, she has been a helper, or protectress (ιιροαιάας).[10] This term suggests activities pertaining to the established and accepted practices, recognized by all, of providing hospitality and assistance. This interpretation is especially plausible when we remember that Cenchreae was the port of Corinth facing east; it was there that the Christian brethren from Syria or Asia Minor would normally have debarked in Greece.[11][13]
Paul’s commendation of Phoebe in Romans 16:1–2 is therefore richly informative. He expresses full confidence in the sincerity of her faith and her union with Christ, urging the Roman believers to “welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints.” He also demonstrates deep respect for her character by asking them to “help her in whatever she may need,” confident that she would make godly use of their support. Phoebe likely also carried Paul’s letter to the Romans. Finally, Paul notes that she had “been a patron of many,” including Paul himself, indicating her generosity and active support of the church. Taken together, these remarks show that Phoebe was unequivocally a beloved fellow saint in the church of Cenchreae—one who trusted in Christ alone for salvation and was marked by faithfulness, trustworthiness, and devotion to good works in both deed and generosity.
For a side-by-side illustration of the need for consistency when determining whether διάκονος refers to the office of deacon in Romans 16:1, let’s compare Paul’s use of the word “servant” with respect to Phoebe and Epaphras:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (διάκονον) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (Rom. 16:1-2)
Just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow servant (συνδούλου; “fellow [συν] bond-servant [δούλου]”). He is a faithful minister (διάκονος) of Christ on your behalf. (Col. 1:7)
| Feature | Phoebe (Rom. 16:1) | Epaphras (Col. 1:7) |
|---|---|---|
| Greek term used | διάκονον | διάκονος |
| Inflected form denotes | Accusative singular, in apposition to Φοίβην as the direct object of “I commend” | Nominative singular, describing Epaphras as the subject of the clause |
| Lemma (dictionary form) | διάκονος | διάκονος |
| Gender denoted by noun [14] | Common-gender (gender supplied by context, not morphology) | Common-gender (gender supplied by context, not morphology) |
| Context | Commendation of Phoebe to the Roman church | Description of Epaphras’ role in gospel ministry |
| Additional descriptors | “our sister”; προστάτις (“benefactor/patron”) | “faithful”; ἀγαπητὸς σύνδουλος (“beloved fellow servant”) |
| Office explicitly stated? | No | No |
| Paired with overseers or qualifications listed? | No | No |
| Nature of service described | Support, aid, and trusted service connected with a local church | Teaching and gospel labor on behalf of the church |
As the chart above highlights, Paul uses the same Greek word διάκονος to describe both Phoebe and Epaphras, even though their service differs in form and context. In neither passage does Paul explicitly identify the term as an ecclesiastical office or associate it with ordination, formal qualifications, or overseers. Instead, the nature of each person’s service is clarified by context, showing that διάκονος by itself does not establish church office or authority.
We can be certain that a specialized ecclesiastical meaning (“deacon”) arises for the word διάκονος only when the surrounding passage clearly signals an established church role, such as the pairing of deacons with overseers or the listing of qualifications (see Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8–13). In the absence of such markers, it is prudent to understand διάκονος as denoting service rather than office, even when used of individuals who are highly commended or prominent within the church (e.g., Rom. 16:1–2).
The historical emergence of deaconesses appears to reflect a convergence of practical concerns—such as caring for widows, addressing pastoral needs among women, and honoring women’s service in the church—along with, in some periods, an increasing emphasis on rites and ceremonies. While these impulses are often well intentioned, all such practices must ultimately be evaluated and governed by the authority of Scripture.
At the heart of the issue is a single word: authority.
The New Testament distinguishes elders and deacons from other forms of service not primarily by ceremonial actions—such as the laying on of hands—but by the exercise of authorized responsibility within the ordered life of the church.
Paul grounds this order in God’s own character. Writing to the Corinthians, he affirms that “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33) and instructs women to “keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission as the Law also says” (1 Cor. 14:34). The Rev. Zach Keele summarizes the intent of Paul’s instructions here in 1 Corinthians:
In short, it is not permitted for a woman to participate in the official teaching and preaching of God’s word in corporate worship. Thus, Paul’s order for women to be silent doesn’t refer to congregational singing. It does not include the corporate voice of all the saints to respond to God; women can sing, confess their faith, and join together in corporate prayers. Secondly, Paul grounds his command by saying, “as the Law also says.” The truth of the Old Testament supports Paul’s regulation. Yet, Paul does not refer here to any one specific Old Testament text; rather, this “Law says” reflects a general principle or truth found through the Old Testament. And what is this? Well, it refers to the fact that women were forbidden from the priesthood. Women could not be God’s anointed king. And with the exception of a few prophetesses, all the main prophets of Israel were men. All the special offices of the Old Testament were limited to men. Thus, Paul says the New Testament church is consistent with this Old Testament reality.
In 1 Timothy 2:11–14, Paul grounds his instruction in creation and the fall, explaining why women are not permitted to teach or to exercise authority over a man in the assembled church:
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (emphasis added).
Because Paul’s restrictions address authoritative teaching and governance in the life of the church, they also bear on roles that involve delegated authority within the church’s ecclesiastical structure.
Furthermore, arguments that flatten biblical distinctions between men and women by appealing to Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) would, if consistently applied, undermine large portions of Scripture that address authority and submission—not only in the church but also in marriage and civil life. Any interpretation that requires setting aside or nullifying clear biblical teaching cannot be sustained.
Authoritative service in the church involves acts carried out in the name of the church, the exercise of delegated responsibility, accountability for outcomes, and the expectation of recognition and submission. Because deacons are set apart as authorized stewards of the church’s ministry of mercy and administration—a responsibility that distinguishes their service from informal or voluntary assistance—it is difficult to maintain that the office of deacon lacks authoritative character.
Accordingly, in light of the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians 14:33–34 and 1 Timothy 2:11–14 regarding women’s roles in the gathered church, the office of deacon must be restricted to men.
The question is not whether women served faithfully and sacrificially in the early church, for they certainly did. Historically, however, the term deaconess was not necessarily intended to denote a female version of the ordained diaconal office. As Martimort explains,
One of the results of our study has been to recognize that the word “deaconess” has been used very differently from one church to another and from one age to another. Perhaps this inevitably had to be the case because the pastoral problems that had to be resolved were so different.[15]
Martimort also cautions readers about the inherent difficulties involved in interpreting ancient practices:
The complexity of the facts about deaconesses and the proper context of these facts prove to be quite extraordinary. There exists a significant danger of distorting both the facts and the texts whenever one is dealing with them secondhand.[27] It is also very difficult to avoid falling into anachronisms when trying to resolve the problems of the present by reference to the solutions appropriate to a past that is long gone [such as times when female assistants were needed since “baptism required total nudity” (p. 44)]. For the fact is that the ancient institution of deaconesses, even in its own time, was encumbered with not a few ambiguities, as we have seen.[16]
In light of this historical diversity, it is reasonable to conclude that the term deaconess was generally used to designate women appointed to assist the church in various practical ways, such as preparing women for baptism and caring for those in need.
The confusion surrounding deaconesses in church history is compounded by modern usage. In contemporary English, the “-ess” suffix is typically understood to indicate the female version of the same role (actor/actress, waiter/waitress). As a result, the term deaconess is often assumed to refer to an ordained female deacon—someone who holds a position of leadership within the church’s ecclesiastical structure. Although some churches use the term deaconess to describe non-ordained female service, the title itself frequently leads to misunderstanding.
Moreover, while women have served as deaconesses at various times in church history, many other historical practices—such as clerical celibacy, the veneration of relics, and prayers for the dead—were later rejected because they conflicted with Scripture. The case of deaconesses is no different: historical precedent cannot establish doctrinal authority.
The title deaconess carries implications of leadership and authority that Scripture consistently associates with ecclesiastical office. If Scripture neither commands nor clearly establishes a practice for the church, prudence counsels restraint. This question is not about women’s competence, giftedness, or godliness, but about obedience to the pattern Christ has given his church. The regulative principle of worship guards the church from instituting practices that go beyond God’s revealed order. Because the term deaconess is, at best, confusing and, at worst, suggestive of an office Scripture does not authorize, it should not be used as a title in Christ’s church.
At the same time, the church does well to provide non-authoritative structures that enable women to assist in diaconal ministry. The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) addresses this explicitly in its Book of Church Order:
9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need. These assistants to the deacons are not officers of the church (BCO 7-2) and, as such, are not subjects for ordination (BCO 17).
For further discussion of why the titles “female deacon” or “deaconess” should be avoided, see Thomas Rickard, “A Brotherly Plea to Cease Using the Title ‘Deaconess,’” and Brad Isbell, “The PCA’s ‘Essgate.’”
Throughout Scripture, we encounter women who served God faithfully and were honored for their faith, service, and character. Yet none of these godly women held ecclesiastical office in either the old or new covenant eras. Their example reminds us that fruitful service in God’s kingdom has never depended on titles or formal office.
Consider the following women, listed in chronological order by biblical book:
Old Testament
New Testament
These godly women served and strengthened the church in courageous and faithful ways, and Scripture remembers them with profound honor. Not one required a formal title to serve the Lord or to receive the respect of God’s people. Indeed, throughout biblical history we find no female priests, no female anointed rulers of God’s people, no female apostles, no female elders, and no undisputed female deacons.
In my own experience, I cannot recall knowing even one godly Christian woman who—like our sister Phoebe of the church at Cenchreae—faithfully served her church and community and yet was not respected.
Jesus did not seek the prestigious titles of his day—not Pharisee, not scribe, not ruler. He did not chase honor or insist on public recognition. The King of the universe came down from heaven and was born in the flesh to serve to the point of allowing himself to be stripped naked, beaten, and nailed to a cross in utter humiliation so that you and I could commune with God in perfect love for eternity.
Christian men and women alike must therefore guard against the temptation to pursue status, position, or recognition as the world does, and instead pursue humble, cross-shaped faithfulness. The good structure Christ has given his church exists so that those who do hold office may serve well while being held accountable in shepherding and caring for Christ’s flock. This structure was never meant to diminish anyone’s worth; it reflects Christ’s wise and loving ordering of his church.
Respect for God and for one another is good, right, and loving. Yet honoring God and others also requires upholding God’s revealed order for his church. Church leaders must therefore take care not to place women in ecclesiastical roles that Scripture does not expressly authorize.
Titles outside ecclesiastical office can serve a helpful organizational purpose. For example, if I want to learn more about opportunities for women to serve in my local church, a listing in the bulletin or on the church website for a women’s ministry coordinator helps direct questions and facilitate involvement. Such organizational structure can assist the church in connecting people, meeting needs, and encouraging the wise use of gifts, resources, and talents.
We must remain vigilant against interpreting Scripture in ways that conform to cultural expectations of honor while undermining God’s design for the church. Christians are never called to reshape Scripture to fit the culture, but to bear faithful witness by standing firmly on what God has revealed.
May we hold fast to a theology of the cross and walk in the footsteps of our Savior with humility and sacrificial love, serving one another gladly in the many ways God has appointed. Godliness is rooted in faithfulness, not in office, and God delights to honor those who walk in loving obedience—whether or not they bear a title.
Editor’s Note: AI-assisted drafting and editing were used in the preparation of this article. This article is an expansion of “Respect, Titles, and the Way of Christ” from Beautiful Christian Life’s November 2025 monthly newsletter, “Respect.”
Notes:
[1] Aimé Georges Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study (Ignatius Press, 1986), 196-97.
[2] Martimort, Deaconesses, 199.
[3] Martimort, Deaconesses, 161-62.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.3.9 (1559).
[5] Martimort, Deaconesses, 21.
[6] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1856), on 1 Timothy 3, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/1-timothy-3.html.
[7] Edmund P. Clowney, The Church (IVP, 1995), 232-33.
[8] Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 230, s.v. “διάκονος.”
[9] Clowney, Church, 232.
[10] C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (T&T Clark LTD, 1979), 781.
[11] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr.; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849), on Romans 16:1–2, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xx.i.html.
[12] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959), 226.
[13] Martimort, Deaconesses, 19.
[14] Although διάκονος is morphologically masculine, it is a common-gender noun whose form does not encode sex; the gender of the referent is supplied by context and agreement rather than by the noun itself.
[15] Martimort, Deaconesses, 255.
[16] Martimort, Deaconesses, 263–64.
The post Does God Want Deaconesses in the Church? appeared first on Beautiful Christian Life.
1 Then God said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there, and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee, when thou fleddest from Esau thy brother. 2 Then said Jacob unto his household and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and cleanse yourselves, and change your garments: 3 For we will rise and go up to Bethel, and I will make an altar there unto God, which heard me in the day of my tribulation, and was with me in the way which I went. Genesis 35:1-3 (1599 Geneva Bible)
idolatry 1: the worship of a physical object as a god 2: immoderate attachment or devotion to something (from Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary)
I’m sure that most Christians’ conception of idolatry is one in which people fall down and worship some statue or image or a facsimile of something that appears to resemble a god….
While that is an example of idolatry there is a more subtle form of idolatry that all people are neck deep in outside of the grace of God. If we look closely at the dictionary definition above, we will see that the first definition is our conception while the second is the reality of which we must all agree that we are guilty. The last word in that definition could easily be change from “something” to “someone.” Then all we have to do is look in a mirror to see who that someone is. We are all guilty of idolatry to some level. <Continue reading post>
Winter’s darkness can harden our hearts and lead to spiritual isolation, but God calls us to guard our tenderness.
How do you feel when you have to make major life decisions? You don’t have to make these decisions alone—God wants to give you clear direction. Dr. Stanley shares the principles necessary to making right decisions.
Source: Finding Clear Guidance – Part 1
Source: Saving Faith
Everything else keeps leaving you empty. This prayer helps you fix your heart on the only One who can truly satisfy.
Source: A Prayer for Satisfaction in Jesus – Your Daily Prayer – January 21
By Robert M. Bowman Jr.
[The first three installments of this series are available at Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.]
Unlike the other worldviews considered in this series so far, Jehovah’s Witnesses profess to base their beliefs entirely on the Bible, which they affirm is the only written word of God and fully true in all its teachings. Yet their actual beliefs are quite different from those of traditional Christianity.
The founder of the religion, Charles Taze Russell, had become skeptical of the Bible as a teenager until he encountered groups of people (which included Adventists not part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church) who professed belief in the Bible while rejecting doctrines they considered unreasonable. These doctrines included eternal punishment for the wicked (also rejected by the Seventh-day Adventists), the Trinity, and the incarnation. Thus from its beginning the religion, known originally as the Bible Students, reinterpreted the Bible to accord with what they considered reasonable.
In 1879 Russell launched a magazine called Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, and in 1881 he organized Zion’s Watch Tower Society in Pittsburgh, the precursor to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the corporation that publishes the religion’s literature. In 1931 Russell’s successor Joseph F. Rutherford changed the name of the religion from Bible Students (a name being used by some groups that rejected his leadership) to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
As the name suggests, Jehovah’s Witnesses place great emphasis on the name Jehovah, an Anglicized form of the Hebrew name for God, YHWH (usually understood by scholars to be pronounced Yahweh). They claim that the New Testament originally used this name and that apostate Christian scribes replaced it, usually with the Greek word kyrios (“Lord”), during the second century. In support of this position, the Watchtower published its own English version of the Bible called the New World Translation (NWT), which “restores” the name in the New Testament by replacing “Lord” (and in a few places “God”) 237 times with the name “Jehovah.”
In Watchtower theology, Jehovah God is a singular individual, the Father alone. He has a “spirit body,” albeit not one that literally looks human, and he is located along with the angels (who also have spirit bodies) in the “spiritual heavens,” an actual place outside or beyond the physical heavens. Thus, Jehovah is not omnipresent. Nor is Jehovah omniscient in the sense of knowing all things. He has exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present, but he does not know everything about the future but only what he chooses to foresee.
Jehovah’s Witnesses consider the doctrine of the Trinity to be an apostate doctrine of pagan origin. They believe that Jehovah the Father created a great angelic spirit, Michael the archangel, as “a god” and empowered him to make the rest of creation. When the time came, God transferred the “life-force” of Michael into the womb of Mary to create the man Jesus. During his earthly years, Jesus was just a human being, not a god or an angel in the flesh. After Jesus died, Jehovah “raised” him from the dead, not by bringing his human life back from the dead, but by recreating him as an angelic spirit again. (They speculate that his dead body was dissolved into gases.) In this third phase, he is known both as Michael and as Jesus Christ. The “holy spirit” (not capitalized) is not a divine person but is God’s invisible active force by which he exerts his influence throughout the world while remaining located in the spiritual heavens (much like in Mormon theology, although Mormons believe God has a physical body).[1]
From this overview of Watchtower doctrine, we can see that the Jehovah’s Witness worldview is not like the Christian worldview minus the Trinity. The Watchtower teaches a kind of theism but one in which God is by nature an embodied being located in some sort of space, even though it is a space beyond the physical cosmos. He is neither omnipresent nor omniscient as understood in classic Christian theism. While Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm that Jehovah is infinite, this term is applied to God in their theology only in some respects (e.g., that Jehovah has always existed and that his energy is unlimited). Moreover, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not view God as the sole Creator of all things. Rather, he created one creature directly, Michael, and then Michael made everything else with God’s power and instructions. From an orthodox perspective we might call this worldview a form of finite theism or finite Godism. What makes their version of this worldview unusual is that they believe in one Almighty God (Jehovah) who is finite in some respects and in a subordinate god (Jesus) who is definitely finite.[2]
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that all of the elements of this worldview are based on the teachings of the Bible. However, the Watchtower’s finite theism is incompatible with Scripture. For example, when Solomon stated in prayer to God, “The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, cannot contain you” (1 Kings 8:27 NWT), the expression “the heaven of the heavens” must refer to the absolute highest heaven. That means that God is not an embodied being contained in “spiritual heavens” located somewhere beyond our physical heavens.
Of particular interest to us here are the efforts of Jehovah’s Witnesses to reconcile their denial of the full deity of Christ with biblical proof texts often used by Christians in defense of the doctrine. Much of the work has already been done by the Watchtower Society in its New World Translation, which gives different renderings of key texts on the subject. For example, their view that the preexistent Christ was “a god” is enshrined in the NWT rendering of the last part of John 1:1, “and the Word was a god.” Although much could be said about this translation, I will make two simple comments. First, it is inconsistent with New Testament usage of the noun theos, which when used as a positive title of honor always means “God.” Second, in other places in the New Testament—and even in John—Christ is called theos in a way that even the Watchtower cannot translate as “a god.”
One such verse is John 20:28, where Thomas said to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (NWT). Jehovah’s Witnesses have offered a couple of (conflicting) explanations of Thomas’s statement, neither of them plausible. They have suggested that Thomas was referring both to Jesus (“my Lord”) and to the Father (“my God”), but John tells us explicitly that Thomas was addressing “him,” that is, Jesus, not “them.” They have also suggested that Thomas may have been expressing surprise, as when modern people say “O my God” when they are shocked by something. Such an interpretation doesn’t fit ancient Jewish culture, doesn’t fit the context in John 20, and doesn’t explain the two titles “Lord” and “God” used together.
The fundamental error of Watchtower Christology is that it places the preexistent Son on the created side of the line between Creator and creation. The New Testament disagrees: It teaches that all created things came into existence through the Son (or Word), the preincarnate Jesus Christ (John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10–12). The Watchtower attempts to overturn this teaching by adding the word other four times in Colossians 1:16–17, notoriously making it read as follows:
. . . by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist (Col. 1:16–17 NWT, emphasis mine).
Remove these occurrences of other from the passage and the text reads smoothly as saying that “all things” were created in, through, and for the Son, who existed before “all things.” “All things” was a standard Jewish expression (found, for example, in Genesis 1:31) to refer to the totality of the created world that the Lord God alone had made. Thus, read in its Jewish religious and theological context, Colossians 1 is clearly placing the Son on the uncreated side of the Creator-creation distinction.
Notes
[1] Watchtower theology is set forth in detail especially in their proselytizing handbook Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower, 1985, 1989) and their Bible encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures, 2 vols. (Brooklyn: Watchtower, 1988).
[2] On other forms of finite theism, see Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 185–215.
— Robert M. Bowman Jr. is the president of the Institute for Religious Research (IRR.org). He holds M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in biblical studies from Fuller Theological Seminary and South Africa Theological Seminary. Dr. Bowman has lectured extensively at Biola University and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary on apologetics, biblical studies, religion, and theology. Rob is the author or co-author of 18 books, including (with J. Ed Komoszewski) The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense (Kregel, 2024), which discusses the subject of this series in comprehensive detail.
It has frequently been observed that nothing is more intimate and expressive of our relationship with God in Christ than prayer. But how much conscious thought do we give to how to pray rightly, or how to pray in the right frame of heart and mind?
The stakes are high, for Satan is a diabolical saboteur of every device, every instrument, and every means of divine grace and spiritual warfare—prayer especially. Who among us does not struggle against distraction or disruption, not to mention stifling guilt and demoralizing shame?
But aside from external spiritual attack, we are warned in God’s Word against praying with wrong motives in James 4:3. Further, we are told in Proverbs 15:8 that there are some whose devotional activities are regarded as abominations “to the Lord.” However, God does not leave us to figure this out on our own. The proverb continues, “But the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him.”
There is a wrong way to pray, and there is a right way to pray. Thus, our Savior addressed His disciples and addresses us today, “Pray then like this” (Matt. 6:9).
One essential feature of true Christian prayer is its childlike simplicity and conversational frame. In prayer, we speak with God and to God as sincere friends, as those who enjoy the covenant favor, love, loyalty, and friendship of God our heavenly Father. While we could speak of appropriate postures, gestures, times, or topics of prayer, I will outline here some thoughts on how to prepare the heart for prayer.
In Job 11:13–15, we read the following counsel from one of Job’s three aged friends:
If you prepare your heart,
you will stretch out your hands toward him.
If iniquity is in your hand, put it far away,
and let not injustice dwell in your tents.
Surely then you will lift up your face without blemish;
you will be secure and will not fear.
In these few verses, Zophar the Naamathite rightly, but ironically, suggests that Job must be diligent to direct, or “prepare,” his heart even as he clasps or stretches out his hands to God in prayer. In principle, Zophar was right. But as is so often the case in the haunting book of Job, this wise counsel was misapplied. Little did Zophar know that Job, by the effect of a sincere faith in God, consistent righteousness of life, and unimpeachable integrity, could declare with King David in Psalm 57:7,
My heart is steadfast, O God,
my heart is steadfast!
Let me suggest four dimensions to this stirring resolution of the godly believer in his preparation for prayer.
As God directs in Matthew 6:6, we are to remove all thoughts and occasions of show and self-serving demonstration from our prayer life. This does not mean that we avoid public prayer meetings, but it does mean that we do not seek out notoriety, fame, or applause for our spiritual devotion and activities thereof.
The second dimension follows close on the heels of the first. As suggested in Ecclesiastes 5:1–2, we come into prayer to wait on God, even as we prepare our petitions in a spirit of humility and meekness. We do well to imitate the heart and model of the penitent publican in Christ’s parable rather than that of the braggadocious Pharisee (Luke 18:9–14).
Heart and mind are to be indivisibly united in focus and affection as we approach the throne of grace in prayer. Is your heart aflame with love for the God who beckons you to approach freely through the Son whom He gave over to die for your sake? Is your mind taken up with the matter of prayer and the glory of Christ your Savior and King? With David we shall sing,
Bless the LORD, O my soul,
and all that is within me,
bless his holy name! (Ps. 103:1)
The Holy Spirit gives us the new heart that delights in prayer rather than despairs to commune with God. He gives us the mind that apprehends the gospel truths we are to rehearse in praise and for which we pray to be granted to our loved ones. He drives us out of ourselves to meet with God. He Himself prays for us in ways beyond human expression. The Apostle writes, “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words” (Rom. 8:26).
Please do not misunderstand me to be suggesting that these four dimensions of preparedness are achievable by some mechanism of laborious meditation or by some superficial “penance checklist.” No, these are sanctified dispositions and habits of the seasoned prayer warrior. They are freeing and simple liberties rather than burdensome or heavy obligations. They are necessary correlates of a renewed human nature belonging to one born again and made holy by the Spirit of Christ sent from above.
In effect, consider the bearing these four dimensions of heart-preparedness in prayer have on our corporate prayer meeting. We gather to commune together with God before His throne, not to be seen or to broadcast our piety.
We come to receive grace from God by this means before we ever presume to add some sort of value to the experience of others or to the throne room of our Creator, who has no need of us. We come as suppliants rather than as paragons of human spirituality.
What place does the work and ministry of prayer have in your life? What sort of attention does it deserve? In God’s providence, other obligations sometimes press in, and there is no shame in that. Our God is no harsh taskmaster, but a loving and patient Good Shepherd known as such to those whom He calls. But do we give ourselves wholly to the activity of prayer when we head into the heavenly throne room?
Finally, dependence on the Spirit is marked by a natural mode of expression that employs scriptural language and biblical confidence as we pray God’s Word back to Him, lay hold of His promises, and seek for a deepening communion with Him. The sweet hour of prayer is no time for ostentation or impressive soliloquys. The language of prayer is the soul’s simple conversation with God.
Source: Preparing the Heart for Prayer
Do you feel like you’re stuck in a rut? You know, same job, same routine, day in and day out, same old thing. Would you like to learn how to break out of that rut and experience renewed joy and motivation? Join Chip as he shares how you can overcome personal stagnation.
All living things are either growing or dying.
7 Keys to Personal Growth:
People Who Grow . . .
Developing a Plan for Your Personal Growth:
Broadcast Resource
Source: Christian World View | Part 1
January 21
The Lord Hears
Exodus 8-10
We read stories of prayer in the Bible, and I fear that we sometimes gloss over them. When we do that, we miss an opportunity to be amazed by the power of prayer. As I have read the stories of the plagues on Egypt today, I’ve paused to focus on these texts (including the portions I’ve italicized):
With each of these plagues, Pharaoh asked Moses to appeal to God, and Moses interceded. He spoke to God—and God heard. The texts quite clearly show us that God responded to each of Moses’ requests. Meanwhile, the Egyptians were following a pantheon of gods who could hear nothing.
RESPONSE: Keep praying!
Source: 01/21/26 The Lord Hears
Truth2Freedom's Blog 