There are so many great Easter hymns and worship songs out there. After all, how can a songwriter go wrong proclaiming the glorious truth of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection? It was hard to narrow it down to my ten favorites, but I gave it a shot.
I’ve created a YouTube playlist with these songs called Resurrection Day. Got a favorite song about Jesus’ resurrection? Suggest it, and maybe I’ll add it to the playlist!
(Please note- I am not familiar with all of these musicians. Their presence here is not an endorsement of any unbiblical theology any of them may hold to. Please thoroughly vet the doctrine of any Christian musician you choose to follow and make sure it matches up with Scripture.)
Nominated by my 11 year old son, who said in the car on the way home from church, “They need to do ‘Jesus Paid it All’ next week, because it is a very appropriate Easter song.”
The resurrection is not an allegory for your personal problems coming to an end. Other than that, this is pure 80’s “in your face, Devil!” CCM awesomeness.
In 2014, I led my women’s Sunday School class through a one year chronological study of the Bible. Each Sunday, I taught a lesson from that week’s reading. The lesson below is taken from week 15 of that study, which I taught on Easter Sunday. You can find the entire chronological study at the Bible Studies tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page.
Filthy Rich (2) 3000 sheep/1000 goats was definitely rich (even today it wouldn’t be too shabby). While cattle are more valued in our culture for their meat, milk, and leather, sheep and goats were more valued in Israel for these, and also for sacrifices. Sheep and goats were Israel’s “pantry on the hoof.”
I Pity the Fool (3) The name “Nabal” means “fool.” As we have seen throughout the Old Testament, names weren’t just random labels. They told something about the person’s character or life, where he was from, who he was related to, etc. Sometimes names were changed to reflect life circumstances: Ben-oni (son of my sorrow) to Benjamin (son of the right hand- Genesis 35:18), Naomi (pleasant) to Mara (bitter- Ruth 1:20), Simon (God has heard) to Peter (rock- Matthew 16:18).
It seems odd, even by Israel’s standards, to name an infant “fool,” but we have no way of knowing whether this was the case or whether he acquired this name later in life after earning it by his behavior.
“Abigail” means “My father is joy.”
An Offer You Can’t Refuse? (4-13, Deuteronomy 22:1-4, 18:7, 21:11, 15:7-8, Leviticus 19:10, 23:22) This incident hits our Western ears as odd or inappropriate, even presumptuous or akin to extortion, but Middle Eastern hospitality etiquette and neighborliness, not to mention God’s Law was, and still is, much different from ours in many cases.
Nabal did not ask David to guard his shepherds and flocks. Indeed, he probably didn’t even know David was doing so unless the shepherds told him when they brought the sheep in for shearing. (And since “one cannot speak to him” {17} maybe they didn’t.) David, however, when he met up with the shepherds, took it upon himself, out of his own good will, to look out for them. Maybe he had sympathy for them because he had also been a shepherd.
David and his men likely put their lives on the line numerous times protecting Nabal’s livelihood. And he didn’t do it with an “I scratch your back; you scratch mine” attitude, thinking he would later demand pay from Nabal. He also didn’t take advantage of the shepherds (such as extorting sheep/goats in exchange for protection) while they were with him. David was obeying the spirit of all those “good neighbor laws” we read about (ex: Deuteronomy 22:1-4). The law is not just “don’t harm your neighbor,” but also, “do good to your neighbor.”
Remember, these shepherds were alone out in the wilderness with the flocks. There was no police force or army to protect them from raiding bands of Philistines. If the Philistines saw a thousand goats and 3000 sheep and wanted them, they just took them and captured or killed the shepherds. No legal redress, no sheep insurance. Nabal’s entire portfolio was at stake. You would think once he found out what David had done –for free and out of the goodness of his heart—Nabal would be extremely grateful. But was he? Nope.
David’s men arrived, explained themselves, and asked politely for whatever food Nabal could spare (kind of hard to make groceries when you’re on the run living in caves). They did not demand his best, and they did not demand he provide enough for their entire company of 600 men. They had even come on a feast day when Nabal was celebrating his wealth, should have been in a good mood, and should have had plenty of extra food on hand. And notice this telling little phrase, “they said all this to Nabal in the name of David, and then they waited.” (9) Now here’s one way Middle Eastern culture is similar to Southern culture. If someone was standing there telling you about all those nice things he had done for you, how long would it take before you gleefully interrupted him and offered him everything under the sun in thanks? Well, Middle Easterners aren’t as shy about interrupting as we are, and furthermore, they would take it as the highest insult if you didn’t take everything they offered.
Not Nabal, though. First, he pretended not to know who David was. Pretty ridiculous, since David’s conquests were well known throughout Israel (18:7, 21:11- even outside Israel), not to mention the fact that he was next in line for the throne. Next, he insulted David’s men by accusing them of lying about working for David. Of course, if he had been interested in finding out whether or not that was true, he could have brought his shepherds in and asked them if these were the guys who had protected them.
David’s men went back and reported what had happened. David’s immediate response was for everyone to “strap on his sword.” It seems like kind of an extreme response to us, but we have to keep a few things in mind. First, the Law. Nabal was breaking both the letter and the spirit of it. While there was no specific law covering a band of mighty men coming to you and asking for food on a feast day, there were laws about taking care of people who were hungry and poor, such as the gleaning laws (Leviticus 19:10, 23:22).
Deuteronomy 15:7-8 says: “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be.”
When we read through Ruth, we saw Boaz doing a great job of fulfilling this law for Ruth and Naomi. Here, Nabal is showing the exact opposite of Boaz’s kindness and generosity.
Second, Nabal’s actions showed disregard and ingratitude for God’s provision and blessing. God blessed Nabal with wealth and protected that wealth (through David) without Nabal even knowing about it. Do we see any evidence that Nabal was humbled that God should do such a thing for him, or thankfulness to God for what He had provided? No. We see only selfishness, stinginess, and a blatant disregard for God as sovereign provider.
Finally, David’s response was likely an answer to Nabal’s accusations. “He wants to know who David is? He wants to know whether or not my men are lying? Well, let’s go show him the answer to his questions and see if he changes his tune.”
The Go-Between (14-31, John 12:14-15) Abigail was quite a remarkable woman. This was not the first time Nabal had acted this way. He had a long standing history of being harsh and worthless (“son of Belial” is also applied to Satan in 2 Corinthians). And here, Abigail was going behind his back and defying him. This was no small thing for any wife in Israel. But for Abigail, it could have meant a beating or worse when Nabal found out. It’s possible she was even risking her life. And for what? To save him. Without his knowledge that she was saving him. Without his knowledge that he even needed saving.
Why in the world would Abigail want to save someone who was probably making her life a living hell? She could have just let David and his men handle Nabal. Certainly he would have gotten what he deserved. But she stepped in because it was the right thing to do. It was right to obey God by providing for David and his men. It was even right to protect her husband from his own foolishness and bringing David’s wrath down upon himself. But even more, she did it because she loved God, and maybe even her husband, too.
She sent the gift on ahead (19) to appease David’s wrath, then presented herself to him on Nabal’s behalf. Notice that she got down off her donkey (23). Kings rode donkeys. Rich people and people of high standing rode donkeys. She left her wealth and position behind and got as low as she could get, bowing down, humbling herself, and submitting herself to David. For Nabal.
Then Abigail did something even more remarkable. She said (24-25), “On me alone, my lord, be the guilt. Please let your servant speak in your ears, and hear the words of your servant. Let not my lord regard this worthless fellow, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he.” She—a completely innocent party to Nabal’s sin (25)—voluntarily takes on the guilt and consequences of his sin. (Is this starting to sound familiar?) In v. 28, she asked David to “Please forgive the trespass of your servant.” It wasn’t her trespass, but Nabal’s. She was asking forgiveness for him.
The King’s Response (32-35) David blessed Abigail, not just for her prudence and godliness, but also because she had satisfied his wrath and kept him from exercising it on Nabal. Her gift was sufficient, and David granted her petition to extend forgiveness to Nabal.
Happily Ever After (36-42) Well, except for Nabal. Abigail had to tell Nabal what she had done. She’d been gone for a while and had taken quite a bit of food out of the house. No sense trying to cover it up. Hopefully Nabal would be grateful she saved him from certain death. When she told him, did he repent? Humble himself? The text doesn’t say that he did. It says “his heart died within him.” It’s generally believed this means that Nabal had a stroke (especially since it further says that he “became as stone” and lived for ten more days). Did he become enraged at what Abigail had done, and this physical exertion contributed to a stroke? We can’t know for certain. What seems unlikely is that he genuinely repented, because God “struck Nabal and he died.” As we’ll see later with David, while we usually do suffer the consequences of our sin, God shows mercy and forgiveness to the repentant.
David was thankful he had not taken matters into his own hands and that God had handled the situation. Justice had been served. And for her faithfulness, Abigail—who considered herself the lowliest of servants, only fit to wash the feet of other servants—ascended to the position of Queen. Back on her donkey where she belonged, exalted out of humility to sit at the right hand of the king.
The Backstage Gospel (Psalm 14:1, Philippians 2:6-8, 9-11) Often, in stories like this, the characters aren’t just playing themselves, they’re playing out the parts of the gospel.
Often, in stories like this, the characters aren’t just playing themselves, they’re playing out the parts of the gospel.
As with Nabal, God blessed His people, Israel, richly with life, family, provisions, and all kinds of other blessings she wasn’t even aware of. The people didn’t ask God to do these things. God, the Good Shepherd, did these things for them out of the goodness of His own heart, the same way David had done for Nabal. But, as with Nabal the fool, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.” (Ps. 14) The same way David presented himself to Nabal and told him what he had done for him, God, over and over, reminded Israel of the way He had protected and provided for them. But just as Nabal rejected David, so, Israel rejected God, and rebelled against Him in favor of their own sin and selfishness. And, like David, God’s wrath was inflamed.
Enter Jesus. Just as Abigail intervened on behalf of Nabal, Jesus intervened on behalf of Israel and all mankind. Just like Abigail, He laid down His life to save us. Before we ever knew Him. Before we ever knew we needed saving. Why? Why would He even want to save us Nabals? He could have let God exercise His wrath on us. We certainly deserve it. But in the same way that Abigail acted in love and in doing what was right, Jesus loved His Father and us enough to fulfill righteousness and to bring God glory by staying His hand of wrath.
Jesus laid down His life to save us. Before we ever knew Him. Before we ever knew we needed saving. Why? Why would He even want to save us Nabals?
In the same way that Abigail got down off her donkey, leaving behind all prestige and humbling herself to the lowest position possible—a servant only worthy of washing other servants’ feet— Jesus “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant [one who washed other servants’ feet], being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil. 2:6-8) And for whom? Us Nabals. “On me alone, my Lord, be the guilt,” Jesus said, even though, like Abigail, He was completely innocent. He voluntarily took on the guilt and consequences of our sin when He died in our place on the cross, and He did it to win forgiveness for us.
Jesus sent this offering of His life for the atonement of our sin on ahead of Himself to the Father, and God’s wrath was satisfied. Jesus’ offering was sufficient, and God granted His petition to extend forgiveness to the likes of us. And just as David picked Abigail up from her humility and she ascended to the position of queen, Jesus ascended to sit at the right hand of the King, and “God has highly exalted him [Jesus] and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2:9-11)
This story didn’t have a happy ending for Nabal, because Nabal didn’t repent and submit himself to God. Nabal ended up taking the guilt and consequences for his sin himself (death) instead of gratefully humbling himself and being thankful for the gift of Abigail’s intervention and David’s forgiveness. But the rest of us Nabals can have a happy ending. Jesus has paid the price for our sin with His death, burial, and the resurrection we celebrate today. He completely satisfied the wrath of God on our behalf. It is finished. Forgiveness has been purchased with His blood. If we will humble ourselves, repent of our sin, and accept the beautiful gift of forgiveness God is extending to us at the request of His Son, we can be reconciled to God now and live happily in the ever after.
Jesus has paid the price for our sin with His death, burial, and resurrection. He completely satisfied the wrath of God on our behalf. It is finished. Forgiveness has been purchased with His blood.
It was a day that should have been the high point of His ministry.
As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”
Luke 19:37-38
After three years of hard work and harder prayer, miracles, and countless hours of teaching, the people were finally getting it. They recognized that Jesus was the Messiah. His people were giving Him the praise He was due.
Or were they?
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luke 19:41
What’s this? This isn’t part of the Palm Sunday pageant. In every Bible, commentary, and Sunday School lesson, this scene is called “The Triumphal Entry”. Why is Jesus over there crying? What’s that He’s saying?
saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
Luke 19:42-44
Why is Jesus over there crying? What’s that He’s saying?
Once again, Jesus sees through the outer display of behavior and lays the heart of the people bare.
They’re praising Him because He multiplied bread and fish.
Because He healed diseases.
Because they think their Messiah has come to set them free from Roman oppression.
They don’t get it after all. And that’s why He’s weeping.
They don’t get that Jesus didn’t come to give us stuff. They don’t get that the bondage of sin is far worse than enslavement to Rome. They don’t get that taking up a cross and following Jesus will get them something far sweeter and deeper and more satisfying than all the miracles and riches and healings in the world. It will get them Jesus. And that’s what He wants to give them.
And as I watch my Savior’s heart break over His people so many years ago, I wonder– is He still weeping today?
As I watch my Savior’s heart break over His people so many years ago, I wonder– is He still weeping today?
Every Sunday, we, Jesus’ people, offer Him loud Hosannas. We lift our palms in celebration of His goodness and blessings. We sing out His praise. We kneel before Him.
But is He weeping?
Does He see through our outward behavior to a heart that just wants worldly trinkets from Him? Does He see a church that draws near to Him with its lips but whose heart is far from Him? A stiff-necked people who deign to physically bow the knee but not crucify the will?
I had no idea who “Cliffe” in this video is, until I reposted it on X (thanks to Jon Root for the original) with my comments, and followers informed me that this is Cliffe Knechtle, who (along with his son, Stuart) seems to be an open air apologist with a large following on YouTube.
I’m hoping Cliffe just had a no good, very bad day on the day this was recorded and that he goes back, examines the pertinent texts more carefully (and in context), repents, and publicly corrects his errors.
Because, for someone who – I’ve been told – is a respected apologist, this is embarrassingly bad, not to mention, deceptive, even if he didn’t mean it to be.
Let this be an example of how to critically evaluate teaching according to Scripture. And, in case any of your friends and loved ones hold some of these same errant beliefs, here’s how you can help them see the truth of Scripture.
So, ladies, let this be an example to you of how to critically evaluate teaching according to Scripture. And, in case any of your friends and loved ones follow Cliffe or hold some of these same errant beliefs, let me offer a biblical corrective you can use to help them see the truth of Scripture. Open your Bible and follow along with the video. Cliffe’s words below are in bold. (I’ve also interspersed some additional helpful resources.)
Now I’m guessing Cliffe would probably agree with me about that, and I, myself, use that kind of phraseology sometimes, too, but it’s important to remind ourselves – especially with passages of Scripture that broken, sinful human beings have made controversial, like this one – that this is God speaking, not Paul, the sinful human being dreaming this up and imposing it on the church.
“I don’t think that’s a fair translation.”
Then how come every single trustworthy translation of the Bible (and even a lot of the untrustworthy ones) translate it that way? Is Cliffe an expert in the biblical languages and knows better than all the expert Bible translation teams who translated it the way he disagrees with?
Furthermore, although it’s a true summary of what he did write, Paul didn’t write, “Women are not to be pastors.” It’s important to rightly handle and accurately quote the actual text when you’re teaching a biblical concept.
It’s important to rightly handle and accurately quote the actual text when you’re teaching a biblical concept.
“He does write, ‘I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man.'”
No, He (God) writes, “I do not allow a woman to TEACH OR exercise authority over a man…”. Again, it’s important to rightly handle and accurately quote the actual text when you’re teaching a biblical concept.
It’s also important to incorporate the entire body of text that applies to the issue you’re dealing with. In this case, that would be not just 1 Timothy 2:12, but 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 and Titus 1:5-9. The pastoral qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are also crystal clear (“Husband of one wife,” and male pronouns throughout, anyone?) that pastors must be men.
“And yet Paul had a partner in ministry named Priscilla…”
Not in the sense that she was a pastor or taught or exercised authority over men in the gathering of the body, or he would have been the biggest hypocrite in the Bible, because that would have violated God’s breathed out Word – which Paul wrote – in 1 Timothy and Titus. Scripture nowhere characterizes Priscilla as a pastor or any sort of egalitarian “partner in ministry” to Paul that in any way violated clear, New Testament, didactic passages on the role of women in the church.
“…who taught the great preacher Apollos.”
Read the actual passage in Acts 18:24-28. It’s not like she was his seminary professor and she trained him for the pastorate. She and Aquila heard him preach an incomplete gospel and pulled him aside privately and corrected him. Once. Briefly. We have no idea how much of the correcting Priscilla herself did, but even if she did all of it, this does not violate 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 because that passage prohibits women from pastoring, teaching, and exercising authority over men in the gathering of the Body.
In the Acts 18 passage, Priscilla was not a pastor, nor was she teaching or exercising authority in the gathering of the Body. This was a private meeting, possibly even led by her husband.
“So what on earth is he saying when he says, ‘I don’t allow a woman to have authority over a man’? I would argue…that he’s pointing out that in Ephesus… there was a goddess, Diana of the Ephesians, so there was massive confusion about sexual roles…”
Why would you argue that, brother? God plainly tells us His reason for prohibiting women from pastoring, teaching, or exercising authority over men in verse 12. It’s right there in verses 13-14…
For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into trespass.
1 Timothy 2:13-14
…and it has nothing to do with Ephesus, Diana, confusion about sexual roles, women abusing their freedom in Christ, or education (which he mentions later in the video). God clearly and unequivocally tells us His reasons for this command: the Creative order and the woman’s deception.
And when you replace God’s reasons in verses 13-14 with any other reason or explanation, you’re calling God a liar. You’re saying His reasons are wrong and yours are right. That you know better than God. That is a very dangerous and blasphemous statement to make.
What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief abolish the faithfulness of God? May it never be! Rather, let God be true and every man a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, And overcome when You are judged.”
“That’s [massive confusion about sexual roles due to the goddess, Diana of the Ephesians,]…” why he says in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, he says, ‘I don’t allow a woman to teach a man’.”
That’s not what 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 say, that’s what 1 Timothy 2:12 says. First Corinthians 11:1-16 is about male headship and authority. It makes no mention of women teaching men. First Corinthians 14:26-40 is about keeping order in the worship service. It makes no mention of women teaching men.
Furthermore, while God may have, indirectly, been addressing some sort of “confusion about sexual roles” in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, this sexual confusion had nothing to do with the “goddess, Diana of the Ephesians” because this is in Corinth, not Ephesus.
And again, 1 Timothy 2:12 is the verse that prohibits women from teaching men, and the reason for this prohibition is not “massive confusion about sexual roles due to the goddess, Diana of the Ephesians,” the reason is the Creative order and the woman’s deception, as verses 13-14 clearly tell us.
This kind of confusion and conflation is what happens when you depend on your memory instead of opening the Bible and reading the text, especially if it’s a passage you haven’t dealt with recently. (Trust me. I know. I’ve done it myself.)
“Some very strong Christians, whom I respect highly, disagree with me.”
That’s because what you’re saying is a completely unbiblical mangling of the text. Anyone with third grade reading comprehension skills should disagree with you. “Paul had partners, who were women, in ministry.”
No he didn’t. Not in the egalitarian sense he’s trying to make these kids believe. (See above about Priscilla.) And if he’s referring to women besides Priscilla, there’s even less information about them in Scripture, so any pronouncement that these other women were pastors or egalitarian “partners” is not only pure conjecture, but also eisegesis of the highest order. “If God gives a woman gifts, we’re to give women the opportunity to use those gifts.”
Certainly, within the parameters of Scripture. God, the giver of all gifts, has every right to place restrictions on how we may use those gifts. God has never gifted a woman to teach with the intent that she should use that gift to teach men in the church because that contradicts His written Word. If He did that, He would be a liar and a hypocrite and He would cease to be God. There are plenty of ways women can use the gifts of teaching and exhortation without violating God’s commands about the role of women in the church. Ask me how I know.🙂
In fairness, we can’t see most of the audience, but notice that, of the audience members we can see, no one seems to have a Bible in his or her hands in order to be a good Berean and check out what Cliffe is saying against Scripture. And it doesn’t look like anyone is raising a hand to ask him any questions, either. (Hopefully, those things happened after the end of the video.)
Don’t just believe what you’re told. Go to God’s Word, be a good Berean, and check it out. And help your friends and loved ones to do likewise.
Don’t just believe what you’re told. Go to God’s Word, be a good Berean, and check it out. And help your friends and loved ones to do likewise.
I recently received some questions about nursing home ministry, so I thought I’d put all the answers I’ve given in the past in one post so they’d be handy.
A female relative of mine teaches a women’s Bible study at a Catholic nursing home (my relative is a Protestant Christian). Sometimes, a male resident or two – none of whom are saved – will wander in and attend her class. Occasionally, one of them attempts to correct her according to Catholic doctrine. Even though she’s not technically teaching “in the church” (1 Timothy 2:12) she’s uncomfortable with men attending the class, as well as with having to biblically correct their unscriptural Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, she shares the gospel every time she teaches, and she doesn’t want to turn away anyone who might receive the good news and be saved. What should she do?
I love it when Christians think deeply about issues like this. It is encouraging to interact with godly people who want to be obedient to Christ, and it pushes me to desire to obey Him better myself.
Foreword:
Just to lay a quick foundation for my answer to this question, it needs to be understood that people who currently believe and practice Catholic doctrine as it is written in Catholic documents are not saved. There are numerous unbiblical beliefs Catholics hold to (which I will not go into right now because that’s beyond the scope of this article) but for the purposes of understanding my answer, in a nutshell, the Catholic religion does not teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (in fact, Catholicism anathematizes {condemns to Hell} anyone who teaches this), works must be included in the salvation process. If you believe your own good works play any part in earning your salvation, you are not saved. Salvation is all of Christ, and Christ alone.
✢✢✢✢✢
I am assuming that whoever invited this teacher to teach a Bible study in the nursing home knows that she is Protestant and will be teaching Protestant (biblical) doctrine. I am also assuming that the person who invited her to teach is OK with this. I would not advise someone to give the appearance of teaching in compliance with Catholic doctrine and then surreptitiously “sneaking in” Protestant doctrine. That’s deceitful and dishonest, and it would be understandable for the Catholic residents to be correcting her.
✢✢✢✢✢
If you’re unclear as to why having men in her Bible study class is a dilemma for the female teacher, I’d encourage you to read these two articles before moving on to my answer:
1. If the people attending the study are Catholic, then the female teacher is evangelizing the lost outside of the church, not discipling (teaching) Believers who are the church, unless some of those attending the study have gotten saved (the question indicates none of the male “drop ins” are saved). Evangelism falls under the “do” of the Great Commission, not the “don’t” of 1 Timothy 2:12. (see #11)
2. We always have to keep the definition of “church” in mind when we’re talking about women teaching or holding authority over men “in the church.” The gathered body of Believers is the church, not the building in which they meet. The mere fact that a group meets in a nursing home, house, park, community center, or other edifice that isn’t a church building doesn’t automatically mean a woman is free to teach men (see #7). It doesn’t automatically mean she can’t teach them either.
3. If the male attendees are being disruptive and introducing false doctrine, the teacher is well within her biblical rights and wisdom to say that this a women’s only group and exclude the men. (The same would apply to excluding any women who behave the same way.)
4. If, at some point, genuinely regenerated men begin attending the class because they want to be taught the Bible, praise God! The best case scenario would be for the teacher to go to her pastor, explain the dilemma, and have him ask one of the associate pastors, elders, or another appropriate male church member to volunteer to teach the men.
I need some direction. I’ve been teaching/sharing God’s Word at a nursing home for over two years on Sunday mornings. We have mostly women, but there are two men who join us. I was asked by the nursing home to lead our little church because they haven’t been able to find any men willing to do it. That’s my dilemma, I know Paul said he wouldn’t allow a woman to teach men, I don’t know how to handle this. I myself am not part of any other church, so I don’t have a pastor to help. I’ve reached out to some churches, but no one is getting back to me. Since we can’t find a man willing to lead, am I okay to keep doing what I’m doing?
That is quite the dilemma! Let me see if I can help.
You started your e-mail by saying, “I need some direction,” so I hope you’ll be open to some direction that’s in a bit of a different direction than the one you’re asking about.
It’s wonderful that you’re wanting to help out at the nursing home and teach God’s Word. We need more women in mercy ministries like this, and I’m sure you’re a joy and a blessing to the ladies. But I’m afraid there’s a bigger issue you need to deal with than whether or not to be teaching at the nursing home.
The Bible knows nothing of unchurched Christians, and serving at the nursing home is not a reason not to be joined to a local church. You could always serve at the nursing home on Sunday afternoons after worshiping at your own church, or serve on another day. If you’re asking around at churches for someone to volunteer on Sunday mornings, this is why you’re not getting much of a response – you’re contacting churches. Pastors and their church members are supposed to be in church on Sunday mornings, not somewhere else.
I know you might be thinking that your group of ladies at the nursing home is your church because you called it “our little church”. It might be an awesome group of ladies with super close fellowship, but what you have there is a women’s Bible study class, not a church. It doesn’t have a pastor, elders, or deacons. It doesn’t have a membership, so there’s no mechanism for church discipline. Nobody is giving offerings or serving the Body. You’re not performing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (I hope). This is not a church.
Have you ever been on an airplane and noticed that when the flight attendant gives the safety instructions, she always tells you to put on your own oxygen mask first before assisting others with theirs? It’s good advice in this situation too. Right now, you’re disobeying Scripture by not being joined to a local church, so you’re setting a sinful example for your ladies while simultaneously teaching them that they need to obey God’s Word. Put your mask on first. Repent and join a local church. You also need to be sitting under good preaching and teaching at your own church so you’ll have something to give these ladies and to keep your own theology on track so you can make sure what you’re teaching them doesn’t veer off into false doctrine. Put your mask on first. You can’t help other people breathe if you’re passing out from lack of oxygen. Finally, joining a local church will fix the problem you mentioned of, “I don’t have a pastor to help.” If you’ll put your mask on first by finding a good church to join, you will have a pastor, elders, deacons, and lots of other men to help.
When we do things God’s way, in God’s order, most of the secondary things, like your dilemma about the men at the nursing home, tend to fall into place. Tell you what. You find a good church to join – maybe one of the ones you contacted for help (check out the “Searching for a new church?” tab at the top of this page if you need it) – get plugged in, and ask your pastor for some help with this. If he can’t or won’t help you, write me back, and we’ll go from there, OK? I’ll bet you won’t need to.
Is it appropriate for a woman chaplain to teach men, evangelizing and then answering questions using the Bible to present truth in nursing home one on one or in a coed worship service at the nursing home?
I think I must have a number of followers who visit and care for those in nursing homes, because I’ve received several questions over the years about nursing home ministry. Can I just take a moment to say – thank you so much. What a blessing and an encouragement you must be to those precious ladies and gentlemen.
Let’s unravel your question just a bit because there are several issues at play:
First of all, should a woman even be a chaplain? I don’t want to give an across the board “no” because “chaplain” is such a catch-all term these days, and different organizations (hospitals, prisons, the military, nursing homes, etc.) probably all have different job descriptions for their chaplains which may or may not require a woman in that position to violate Scripture.
But if I were asked, “Should women be chaplains?” and I had to give a yes or no answer, my answer would be no, for the simple reason that most lost people (or even Christians) aren’t going to differentiate a chaplain from a pastor. To them, a chaplain is just a pastor who works in a hospital (or wherever) instead of a church. And it’s unbiblical for women to be pastors, so you don’t want to give the evil appearance of someone living in unrepentant sin. Even if you’re not technically violating Scripture in your position, you appear to be.
OK, for your next several questions, it’s immaterial whether or not these things take place in a nursing home:
Is it OK for women to evangelize (share the plan of salvation with a lost person) and answer biblical questions one on one with a man? Yes. Carefully and with wisdom: Rock Your Role FAQs #11
Is it OK for a woman to evangelize (share the plan of salvation with lost people) a co-ed group? Not if she’s essentially preaching a sermon and functioning as a preacher, which is what I’m inferring by your use of the term “worship service”. Rock Your Role FAQs #11
If it’s something more akin to you hanging out with 5 or 6 friends, some male and some female, and you start sharing the gospel with them, that’s different. That’s really more like a one on one situation.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
