In Ephesians 5-6, Paul uses the “household code” framework to show how the Gospel (past and future) reorients Christian households. Since the NT church is often an extension of a household, this biblical chapter provides a seminal framework for the organization of a church. Ch. 7
1. Preston’s chapter includes lots of insights about the ancient world. He makes the text come alive in fresh ways.
2. He shows the grossness of much “leadership” and “authority” in the ancient world, contrasting this beautifully with the new way in Christ.
3. It is surprising, for example, to learn that they rarely use the language of “submission.” Rather, they tell wives to “obey” or assume that the husband can enforce obedience without addressing the wife at all.
4. Paul, by contrast, speaks directly to wives, encourages their submission, and describes husbands in language reminiscent of servants (e.g., washing clothes; 175-76). Clearly, the servant-king Jesus is the model of this family.
5. Scholars debate the “head” language in this chapter (and its use throughout Ephesians). Sprinkle correctly contends that it means “authority” (rather than “source”), as it does in reference to Christ in chapter 1. But, just as it is with Christ’s authority, husband-authority is self-giving, self-sacrificing, serving authority. Whereas the ancients prioritized “protect[ing] the head at all costs,” the Christian “head” sacrifices his safety in the interest of others (181).
6. Sprinkle addresses the phrase “submit to one another” in a way that confuses me. In my reading, “submit to one another” does not mean “all Christians submit to all Christians.” Preston seems to agree (in theory). Wives submit to husbands. Children submit to parents. Servants submit to the boss. But, parents don’t submit to their children, etc.
7. The expression “mutual submission” is, in my opinion, nonsense. To “submit” is not the same as “to serve” or “to sacrifice.” They reveal themselves in similar ways in human actions but they remain different. To submit is to put yourself into order, to take your place under authority. Paul wants the Christian household to have an order in which each person takes their place and thrives in their role. When Paul says “submit to one another” he is speaking to those members of the household (wives, children, servants) who need to position themselves under various authorities (husbands, parents, bosses). A husband submitting to his wife would be “out of order,” just as the foot should not try to be the hand, nor the nose the ear, so also the head shouldn’t try to be the body and the body the head. If you are diving off a cliff, you want the head to take the impact and make way for the body. If the body tries to be the head and go in first, you get a belly flop.
8. Sprinkle’s comments about there not being much practical difference between submitting and sacrificing are true enough. Both husbands and wives ought to sacrifice their lives for each other. Both ought to serve each other. To an outside observer, it will often be hard to tell who is “submitting”, if both are sacrificing. But in Sprinkle’s comments, I felt like he was nervous about the word “submission” and about offending egalitarians. I would have preferred him to dig more deeply into the numerous times that the Bible commends submission to all Christians. From beginning to end of scripture, “submission” or taking your proper place in society is depicted as a highly virtuous, life-giving thing. All Christians, for example, must submit to parents, to bosses, to governments, and ultimately God. Taking our proper place in our relationships enables the social system to flourish.
9. I find Sprinkle’s conclusion to the chapter and application of Ephesians 5 to the question of leadership unconvincing. He contends that Peter and Paul (who both teach submission in the home) were extremely concerned about the broader culture and so they essentially adjusted their teaching for missional reasons. He apparently assumes that if Greco-Roman culture were egalitarian, so also would Peter and Paul have been. This does not match the text. Peter and Paul give Jesus as their reason for their perspectives on marriage. In nearly every verse, Paul mentions Jesus (Eph 5:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33). He references the very foundational scripture on marriage (Genesis 2:24) as the reason for his teaching. He talks about our being filled with the Spirit and needing to imitate Christ (Eph 5:1, 2, 18). He talks about future marriage with Christ (Eph 5:32). This teaching about marriage is not missional. It’s theological and Christological. Peter and Paul had no shyness about directly confronting the culture and going in a completely different direction. They were not accommodating to culture here but rather commending Christ’s kingdom ethic for believers.
10. The second unconvincing aspect of this chapter was the (lack of) application it has for women in leadership. Preston effectively says that because this is a chapter on marriage that it doesn’t speak directly to women in leadership. Why not? The Christian church is a household. This is a household code, telling us how the house should be set up to thrive in Christ. Why would it not provide at least a picture of a flourishing family/church system? I think it does. It doesn’t say “women can’t be leaders.” Instead, it says, “There is a good and godly order for families. Husbands, fathers, and bosses should take their responsibilities as self-sacrificing servants Wives, children, and servants should take their place with a willing heart, desiring to serve.” Ephesians 5 provides a picture for us that tells us that each person in the church has a role they should take in order to bless the church. Each role matters. Submitting to authority is a beautiful thing in God’s sight.

No one should base their conclusions to this debate on 1 Corinthians 11. The best it can do is nudge in a direction. Ch. 8
1. I’m still confused about the meaning and application of 1 Corinthians 11.
2. Preston does a solid job of laying out the possible background issues and the arguments for various positions on this chapter. Some of the positions are harder to maintain than others.
3. He concludes that man being the “head of woman” refers to a husband’s authority over his wife. Her being his “glory” tells us that one of her roles is to honor (a closely related term to glory) her husband. So far, this sounds like it’s in alignment with Ephesians 5.
4. Everyone agrees that both men and women are made in the image of God. This had been disputed by some in the past, so I just want to make sure I state it clearly here. Some misread verse 7 to say “[only] he is the image and glory of God.” In fact, both he and she are the image of God (Genesis 1-2).
5. Where I disagree is in how Preston reads verses 11-12. He takes “in the Lord” to be highly contrastive. It’s as if up to this point (verses 2-10) Paul had been talking about the created order, but now he’s talking about new creation. Something very different happens “in the Lord” (212). Women would cover their heads based on creation, but “in the Lord” there is “profound mutuality and interdependence.” I don’t see this in the text.
6. I read “in the Lord” as the fulfillment or culmination of God’s vision in the creation; new creation starts when “the Lord” re-invigorates his people to do what he had initially designed them to do. We were designed in the beginning to be profoundly mutual and interdependent. It is not good for man to be alone. He can’t do his job alone, and neither can she. We’re not “independent.” Independence is literally death, the end of life, the end of culture, the end of society, the end of the mandate to fill the earth. We’ve always needed each other, and now “in the Lord” we’re equipped to do so. 
7. For this reason, I don’t see a big contrast between verses 2-10 and 11-12. I think Paul is making one continuous argument, that what God designed in creation applies now (in the beginning, in Corinth) and will apply in the future (in the Lord).
8. I also disagree with Preston’s application of this passage to the debate over women in leadership. He says too little and too much. First, this passage commends women to pray and prophesy. Presumably this is when the church gathers. So, Christians should be open to women speaking in terms of prayer or prophecy in gatherings. Second, the text doesn’t say “women must submit to elders” or “women cannot be leaders,” but it does give us a second affirmation of the truth from Ephesians 5, namely that God expects ordered relationships in homes/churches. It is something of a pattern in Preston’s book that if a text doesn’t say everything then he concludes it says nothing. It’s true that 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t provide a full argument for complementarianism. But it does provide a picture of husband authority in family life, and of the wife’s call to honor her husband in the church gatherings even when she prays or prophesies. This picture of women being active participants in church life while still willingly submitting to/honoring their husband tells me something about the culture Paul hoped to create in church.

1 Corinthians 14:32-36 is very challenging to interpret in a way that promotes female speaking authority in church gatherings.
1. Sprinkle identifies four major options for interpreting this notoriously difficult passage: 1) Paul didn’t write it (obviously wrong). 2) Paul quotes the Corinthians; they were the ones who wanted women silent in the churches (the text consistently indicates Corinthian opinions, and those indicators aren’t here). 3) Paul forbids women from interpreting prophecy (the context contains this content, so it’s plausible, but the words of the passage don’t speak directly about prophetic interpretation). 4) Preston prefers the conclusion that Paul was prohibiting disruptive speech (even though disruptive/disorderly words aren’t in the text)).
2. He interprets “silent” (14:34) not as “never talk” but as “wait your turn” and “be humble.” The challenge is that Paul explains what he means by silent within the sentence: “for they are not permitted to speak” and again later in the paragraph “it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
3. Sprinkle states that this last statement about it being “disgraceful” refers to women interrupting prophets thus preventing people from learning. Sprinkle thinks it’s a uniquely Corinthian problem. The problem is that Paul doesn’t say this. Paul doesn’t say, “You Corinthians have an issue with disorderly women.” Instead, he includes several details which communicate that this is his global-church perspective: “all the churches:” (33), “the law also says” (34, presumably the OT), “the word of God” originates outside Corinth (36), “the Lord’s command” (37). This is not missional or situational instruction from Paul specifically for Corinth.
4. “All the churches”—Paul has used this or a similar expression in 4:17; 7:17; 11:16 and 14:33 and 34 (also 2 Cor 8:18; 11:28). In each instance, he is referring to a rule/teaching/practice that applies to all Christians at all times. The first debate about this phrase in 14:33 is over where it goes. Does it belong with the previous sentence or the following sentence? 1) Paraphrase 1—God wants order in all the churches. 2) Paraphrase 2—God wants women to be silent in all the churches. Bible translations are split, approximately half and half. The fact that Paul repeats “in the churches” in verse 34 makes the point moot. He seems to be saying “in all the churches” applies to women’s speech. Some argue that Paul means something universal with “all the churches” but contextual with “in the churches”; to me this sounds like special pleading. Paul demarcates contextual issues more overtly.
5. Preston concludes that “Paul is not making a categorical statement that it’s disgraceful any time any woman opens her mouth in church” (231). In my opinion, Preston did not address the evidence which argues for the universal application of Paul’s teaching (what I listed in the previous point). Believe me, I want to agree with his conclusion, so I really wish that he had addressed these points. Instead, what I see in this section is an assertion of his hope that Paul was speaking to Corinth alone.
6. He then demonstrates that community etiquette was a common topic amongst philosophers. He suggests that Paul provides for Christians what Plutarch provided for pagans. Plutarch talks about “interrupters” as being problematic. When I’ve heard others argue Preston’s position, my first question is always, “Were the men just that perfect in Corinth that none of them needed a rebuke for interruptions?” That seems implausible. Preston’s later comment that Paul does silence men from interruption in 29-33 doesn’t address the issue. The issue is why Paul singles out women in this paragraph and specifies the silence to such a level. Paul’s instruction in 29-33 is “wait your turn.” His instruction in 34-35 is “wait till you get home.” Those are very different.
7. After showing the public conversation about proper dinner party speaking rules, he suggests that Paul was missionally protecting the women from being uncouth. He wanted them to respectfully listen rather than interrupt because that would have offended Greco-Roman men. Maybe. Or, maybe Paul really loved God’s word and prophecy and thought that interruptions dishonored the word of God. Maybe his primary motivation was the glory of God’s word more than the mores of Greco-Roman culture. Or, maybe he thought that certain female speech disrespected the harmony of the ordered church life so he encouraged women to remain quiet and keep the peaceful harmony intact.
8. For “submit” he concludes that it isn’t about submitting to male authority or to their husbands but rather to the prophet who’s speaking. However, the most straight-forward reading would be that women are quiet, therefore men would be talking, and women would be submitting to authority (which would in this situation be some of the male prophets).
9. Since I believe that Paul encourages women to prophesy in the church, I’m struggling to figure out how to interpret and apply 1 Corinthians 14. I’ve always preferred option #3 from above, namely that Paul is forbidding women from interpreting prophecy. Preston’s right that the specific words about interpretation aren’t in this paragraph. The problem is that the words which are there are much broader and more general than simply “don’t interpret”. The “silence” would, therefore, be wider. For the past ten years, I’ve held the “don’t interpret prophecy” view but very loosely because I’m only slightly more convinced by it than a very strict “women shouldn’t speak in church gatherings” interpretation. This stricter interpretation, to me, has lots of problems with many passages in the Bible, which is why I’m not convinced Paul could have meant “no public speaking at all.” I do think Paul expects/wants women to speak (through prophecy, prayer, etc.), so I’m confused about what he meant in this paragraph.

Each aspect of 1 Timothy 2-3 requires our attention. I find most of Sprinkle’s observations and research helpful for understanding the passage and the nature of the current conversation. I can understand his logic, but I’m not persuaded by his arguments.
1. Preston opens with reference to 1 Tim 2:9-10, suggesting that Paul’s directly addressing women wearing jewelry indicates he’s thinking of the local situation. While the references to wealthy women fits well for ancient Ephesus, other biblical authors bring up the same basic idea (e.g., 1 Peter 3; Isaiah 3:16-24). So, while Paul’s comments could indicate that he’s got the local context as his reason for these comments, it could just as easily be the case that God communicates this normally.
2. I really appreciate Preston’s desire to study the Bible in depth so that we can know it and honor it as God’s word. He is not trying to undercut scriptural authority; he’s trying to strengthen it. 

I find Sprinkle’s interpretation of authentein (to “exercise authority”) in 1 Timothy 2:12 unpersuasive.
1. Paul uses a very rare word (authentein) to identify what women are not permitted to do. It is usually translated “authority” (or some variation of this).
2. The word is hotly contested, with some claiming it simply means “authority” (whether good or bad) and others claiming it means “domineering.”
3. Since the word isn’t used in the Bible, scholars must examine its use outside scripture in order to determine what it means.
4. Sprinkle walks us through several uses of the term in secular writings. His conclusion is that authentein signifies a domineering, hierarchical kind of authority that is antithetical to Jesus’ teaching on authority. Thus, he concludes, Paul is prohibiting women in the church from exercising a domineering, hierarchical kind of authority.
5. I’m not convinced. The reason is simple: if we look in secular writings to define a term it is obvious that we are going to find secular definitions. The same would be true for many terms connoting “authority.”
6. For example, Paul could have said he prohibits women from being or having despotes, archon, exousia, or kurios (four words indicating authority). I could then show you dozens of examples from the secular world where those terms refer to a type of authority antithetical to Jesus’ teaching. Despotes, for example, is the word from which we get “despot.” Certainly, one would expect that such a terrible (tyrannical even) term could not be used to describe someone positively in the New Testament. And yet, Jesus and the Father are both called “despotes” (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4, Rev 6:10; 2 Tim 2:21). When Paul later encourages widows to manage their households, he uses a compound word which includes “despotes” (1 Timothy 5:14). [He doesn’t feel the need to qualify the term saying, “but in a Christian way.” He assumes these women know he means their management should be done in a Christian way despite his use of a word that normally meant “domineering.”]
7. Therefore, the word’s use in secular contexts cannot be definitive for how Paul used it in this sentence. It is always the case that the rest of a sentence, plus the surrounding paragraph, are our first clues as to a word’s meaning and to a sentence’s message.
8. It seems to me that the rest of the sentence in 2:12 helps us understand what Paul has in mind. The woman should not be teaching or authentein but rather “remain quiet.” The word quiet doesn’t mean silent. It means submissive and respectful and orderly. It doesn’t mean “don’t talk”, it means “willingly put yourself in a posture to learn.” All Christians must be quiet (1 Thes 4:11; 2 Thes 3:12; 1 Tim 2:2); all Christians must learn. This doesn’t rule out their contributing to the meeting by speaking. But it means that when they speak, they do so from a posture of humility, knowing their God-given gift to bring.
9. As Sprinkle’s arguments about authentein and authentes continue, he starts to sound like he’s saying that Christian churches should reject all notions of authority. Like when he rebuts the use of kurios (lord) because it connotes the idea of “master” because “[s]ervice—not ownership or mastery—is the mark of Christian authority” (254). Don’t get me wrong, I love the point he’s making. I think this whole debate about “women in leadership” is distorted by the fact that we don’t begin with a Christian understanding of authority. But, with that said, Christian churches and society still have people in positions of authority and authority can be exercised in Christian ways. So, terms for authority shouldn’t be thrown out just because outsiders use them in unchristian ways.
10. This problem of throwing out all authority is most evident in his treatment of 3 Maccabees’ use of authentes (254-55). Sprinkle considers the context one of “hierarchy.” When a slave is put back into their lower status (authentias), Preston thinks this communicates something very bad about the word authentias itself. To him, it reflects hierarchy which (to him) is always wrong. But I think this is an overreaction. It’s true the person is put into a lower position, but that doesn’t mean that positions in society are always a negative thing. If that were the case, then there should be no leaders at all in the church. Authentias could just as easily communicate “place” or “position” or “situation.” Much like Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, God puts us in different positions and we do well when we try to thrive in that position. He allows us to avail ourselves of opportunities to move out of that system, but not to stress about attempting to move.
11. Preston’s conclusion about authentein is that it connotes secular, authoritarian, abusive authority. I do not. I think it can mean this or it can mean simple authority or it could mean something else. I don’t think we have enough relevant data (external or internal) to make a confident conclusion about what it means. Even if authentein can be awful, Paul uses other secular terms for leadership (without qualification) for members of the church. He must have assumed they’d know how to interpret his use of those words in a Christian way.
12. Therefore, I’d say that authentein most likely meant “authority” in a general sense, or that the audience would have known to apply it in a Christian sense.

“To teach” and “to exercise authority” interpret and inform one another. Since “to teach” normally means something positive (unless context dictates otherwise), Paul refers to normal authoritative teaching done in churches.
1. Preston argues against what I’ve just written.
2. If you didn’t realize it, Paul uses lots of pairs in 1 Timothy 2 (go back and look). In each, the two help interpret each other (e.g., kings and those who are in high positions; peaceful and quiet life; godly and dignified). “Teach” and “exercise authority” are another example of this. They go together and interpret each other. The question has been: are they both positive or are they both negative?
3. Since authentein (to exercise authority) is nearly impossible to translate confidently and didaskein (to teach) is used all over the place, it has been commonplace for interpreters to use didaskein to help them understand authentein. Sprinkle would like to change this. He suggests that we start with authentein as a negative thing and then read didaskein as also being negative (258). He asks rhetorically, “Why not let authentein shape our understanding of didaskein rather than the other way around?” (258) The reason, to me, is because it is a basic principle of hermeneutics that we use clear texts/words to help us understand less clear texts/words. We have dozens of uses of didaskein in the Bible, and in Paul’s writing, and in Timothy/Titus. We can see what Paul means with the word. We have only one use of authentein, so we have little confidence about it’s meaning.
4. Sprinkle claims (rightly) that didaskein on its own is a neutral word, and that context indicates whether it is positive or negative. He also (rightly) admits that didaskein is almost always positive in the New Testament. But when he gives possible counterexamples, I have to admit I’m unimpressed by the argument. Titus 1:10-11 uses didaskein twice, but the context clearly tells us that those who speak are wicked. In Galatians 1:12, those who teach do in fact teach something good (i.e., the gospel). In Romans 2:21, those who teach, teach something good (i.e., good morals) even though they don’t live up to their ideals. In none of these is the teaching content bad. This reduces the force of Sprinkle’s argument. Context would have to dictate that the teaching in 1 Tim 2 must be bad, and nothing in the direct context indicates a bad type of teaching. It is best therefore to take didaskein as something positive and therefore authentein is most likely positive. Even if we follow Preston halfway, saying didaskein is “neutral” (without context we can’t really say it’s either positive or negative), this would mean that authentein would also be “neutral”. The net result is the same. Females should not teach or exercise authority over men in good, bad, or neutral ways.
5. Because Paul frequently uses pairs of words to interpret one another, it’s likely he does the same with this pair. Therefore, Paul prohibits women from “teaching in an authoritative way.” I agree with Preston in part, that Paul cares how the women teach. But I disagree with what he thinks this means. He thinks the wrong “how” is “domineering” (since he takes authentein as a strong negative). I think the wrong “how” is “authoritatively” (i.e., in the way that elders teach), because I take authentein to generally mean “authority.” Women are allowed to prophesy (which is a type of instruction) and to teach other women but they should stop short of putting themselves above the teaching authority of the elders. In practice, I think this probably just has to do with a heart posture of humility. A genuine prophecy has God’s authority, but it can be offered to the community in a spirit of humility and submission to the elders. Wise elders will receive it as God’s word for the community, feeling that the word has authority for the community.
6. The next debate is around the word “for” which begins verse 13. Is Paul making a universal claim about men and women or is he giving an illustration to make his point? After a lengthy discussion, he concludes that Paul uses Adam and Eve as an illustration to counter a local problem in Ephesus. My question is, “Why would an illustration make Paul’s point from 2:12-15 only local and not universal?” Surely Paul uses illustrations elsewhere to make universally valid and applicable points (e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Peter 2:15). Maybe Paul uses Adam’s being firstborn and Eve’s being deceived to illustrate that even our first parents show us that Adam should have been teaching and Eve made a mistake with her authority. If it could happen to Adam and Eve, it could happen to anyone!
7. To summarize my previous point: The teaching of 1 Tim 2:12-15 is universal because Paul said it, in direct language, not because of the way that he refers to Adam and Eve. Their mistakes illustrate the universal claim in 2:12.
8. Sprinkle offers really interesting insights about ancient Ephesus and the cultural background (270-77). It’s fun to read them and I think they can help us preach. Those of us who live in wealthy, egalitarian cultures like Ephesus will certainly resonate with what we learn. It’s insightful to see how Paul responds to these things. Rather than diving toward egalitarianism because it would be missionally advantageous, Paul reminds his Christian audience that God has a different order for his people. It is not the case, as was pursued in Ephesus, that women and men are interchangeable, nor that women were superior to men. It is instead the case that men and women are interdependent and that God desires each to take their place of service in the community so that harmony is achieved. 
9. His conclusion that Paul addresses a specific situation in Ephesus seems plausible because it seems to fit the background, but it runs against the problem that Paul says “I do not permit [the following things]” (1 Tim 2:12). I don’t think Preston adequately addresses this observation, which to me sounds like Paul was speaking of his general approach rather than his specific, situational advice.

Paul seems to assume that only men would be overseers/elders, because of his language in 1 Tim 3. The flow of thought from 1 Tim 2:12-15 into chapter 3 makes me more confident about this conclusion.
1. Sprinkle opens his argument against “male-only eldership” by focusing on Paul’s inclusion of “one-woman man” and “keeping his children submissive” (1 Tim 3:2, 4).
2. It is certainly plausible that Paul is “describing” rather than “prescribing” that an overseer will be a “one-woman man.” If, as is likely, nearly all elders in the ancient world were men, then he’d use male language to describe them, even in an overall context of prescription.
3. The best argument, to me, in favor of this would be Jesus who was both single and childless and yet Peter calls him the “Shepherd and Overseer of our souls” (1 Pet 2:25). Would Paul consider Jesus disqualified from eldership because he was single and childless? Peter apparently did not.
4. Preston brings together his argument about leadership in the church by reminding us that ancient churches met in homes and felt like family (284-85). As such, they were governed by “family rules,” so to speak. Preston then reminds us that in ancient homes men were usually in charge but it could also be the case that women (especially wealthy widows) could be responsible for managing the homes. It’s at this point that I want to go back to his chapter on Ephesians 5 and say, “This is why Paul’s instruction about the differences between non-Christian and Christian homes matters so much in this debate.” If churches reflected home life, then we must ask ourselves not what “Greco-Roman homes” were like but what “Christian homes” were like. In Paul’s instruction, Christian homes differ in that there is sacrificial service in the core, and order is made possible not by force of the husband but by the willing submission of the wife. He’ll be sacrificially serving her, thus not feeling like he’s “in charge.” So, to bring about God’s desired order and harmony, she should serve and submit to him.
5. If, as Sprinkle correctly concludes, ancient churches reflected home life, then passages like Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, and 1 Peter 3 must make their way into the middle of this conversation. In three very different context (urban Ephesus, rural Colossae, and diverse “dispersion”), these biblical authors communicate God’s desire for order in the home, brought about not by authoritarian leadership but by Christlike submission. In all three chapters, the authors base their arguments not on “culture” or “missional strategy” but with frequent references to the Trinity and the Gospel. If we’re to take Preston’s argument from 1 Corinthians 11, Paul enjoins wives to submit to their husbands because something new, “in the Lord”, has come which inspires it.
6. Therefore, if Christian churches reflect Christian homes, then we ought to expect male “headship” that reflects Christ’s “headship” of the church. Since church overseers seem similar to heads of households, the “home picture” of church would seem to envision male overseers. Of course, this “leadership” would be sacrificial service that (to me) often doesn’t even feel like modern-day leadership. [Perhaps one way to summarize the differences in our conclusions would be this. Preston seeks to make sense of Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2-3 based on Ephesus, whereas I seek to make sense of it based on Ephesians. He looks for a cultural background within which his view makes sense; I look at the scriptural background within which my view makes sense.]
7. Preston concludes that Paul only references men in 1 Tim 3 because that was most common. I disagree. I think he references men and talks about their homelife because he expects the church to reflect the home. In the home it is the sacrificial headship of fathers which “washes them with the word” so that they might become holy. That is, Paul wants to see if the potential overseer loves his family like Christ to the point that they reflect a well-loved and therefore “made holy by being loved” kind of family. If this happens in his home, he can be given responsibility to love the church (in someone else’s home).
8. To me, the strongest argument in favor of male-only eldership is the flow of thought from chapter 2-3. Since Paul has explicitly forbidden women from exercising authoritative teaching over men and then follows up with his description of elders who will do authoritative teaching, it seems likely his mention of men in chapter 3 is intentional. He gives explicit instruction that women wouldn’t have this role in chapter 2 and then follows by assuming men would have this role.
9. With this in mind, I can address what I consider the strongest counterargument to my conclusion, namely that Jesus was unmarried and childless and yet an Overseer. Paul is prescriptive about gender being a decisive factor in authoritative teaching in 1 Tim 2. He, therefore, may be descriptive about marriage and bearing children in 1 Tim 3 without opening the door to female elders. Thus, with Robert Yarbrough, one can conclude that “an overseer is a male who, if married, has a female wife who to whom he is fully and exclusively dedicated” (282). The maleness of elders is established by 1 Tim 2:12-15 and 3:2

In the final chapter, Sprinkle helpfully summarizes in one paragraph each of his chapters’ central arguments and conclusions. I’ll provide a response to each.
1. Ch. 1—Genesis 1-3 doesn’t overtly describe hierarchical leadership, but it does communicate something about Adam’s priority in terms of responsibility and assumes differences in the ways that each “rules” with God. NT references seem to assume Adam had priority of responsibility (1 Cor 11; 1 Tim 2).
2. Ch 2.—The OT includes praiseworthy women in many wonderful and influential roles. Their influence was often godly and glorious. This poses no threat to a charismatic complementarian view. For example, we see no problem with female prophets in the Old or New Testament. The all-male priesthood doesn’t have to mean “only men can be teachers” of any sort, but it hints that God can restrict some roles in his communities based on gender (without explaining why).
3. Ch. 3—Jesus defines leadership as service. I don’t think this is a “redefinition” in contrast to the OT as much as a “reminder” of how God intended life from Adam and Eve onward. (It is a “redefinition” from the world’s standard.) Women excel in service and the types of things Jesus wants to see from his people/leaders. The Gospel descriptions of women excelling and the apostles failing in this regard is one way they communicate the over-arching “reversal” of expectations and humility of faith in Christ.
4. Ch. 4—Paul’s use of a variety of terms (elder, overseer, servant, worker, etc.) communicates that early Christians required a lot of input, instruction, and modeling of this counter-cultural faith. To lump them all under the term “leader” to me sounds out of place. I get the sense that the men and women who called themselves “servant” wouldn’t have enjoyed the term “leader.” They were trying to serve, not looking for a title. But, nevertheless, women were incredibly influential in the church, inspiring and training both men and women to follow Christ.
5. Ch. 5—Women like Apphia, Phoebe, and Priscilla would have been influential in the church. Again, I don’t think they’d enjoy being called “leaders,” when they were trying to serve. A charismatic complementarian doesn’t have a problem with women “leading” in a whole host of ways. The texts which Sprinkle deduces their leadership from do not specify in what ways they “led.” In my view, any “leadership” that wasn’t “elder” is totally fine. So, I can celebrate if Preston’s interpretation of their influence in the church is correct. (He cannot demonstrate that they were considered elders.)
6. Ch. 6—The church needs female prophets. Prophecy carries a bunch of useful attributes, among which is instruction and teaching, scriptural interpretation and application. This challenges the complementarian view, for sure. One specific way I must grapple with this is in defining what Sunday morning preaching “means” in our church. Is it an “elder only” type of thing or can it include “prophets” (among which would be women)?
7. Ch. 7—Ephesians 5 is much more important for this conversation than Preston allows. It’s true that Paul recalibrates the ancient household code, but he doesn’t remove the idea of leadership and order altogether. Instead, he expects a Christian home to be “led” by a servant, so that everyone follows him (down) into service of Christ. This would be reflected in churches, where male elders would lead by modeling service so well that the church follows them into service.
8. Ch. 8—1 Corinthians 11 encourages women to prophesy in light of their husband’s headship over the family. This is not changed by the gospel (“in the Lord”) but fulfilled and beautified by the gospel. When Jesus redeems male-female relationships, it frees women to submit and contribute under godly, humble leadership.
9. Ch. 9—1 Corinthians 14 still baffles me. If anything, this chapter provides a very big obstacle for the view that women can enter any church leadership position they want. That’s the hardest possible interpretation to justify. Certainly, women shouldn’t interrupt/throw off a church service (nor should any man). But the text sounds more restrictive than that. I’m just not sure what to make of it yet.
10. Ch. 10—Authentein cannot be confidently defined as “always negative in Paul’s mind.” To me, it’s use in combination with didaskein suggests that both had a generic/positive connotation. Paul forbids women from exercising the “authoritative teaching” done by overseers. Preston errs in thinking the male-elder (my basic view) rests on 1 Tim 3:2 and 4; I hold the view because of 1 Tim 2:12-15 and its flow into 1 Tim 3. Paul directly teaches that women should not teach or exercise authority and then he outlines a significant teaching and authority position (overseers). His assumption that these would be men is not cultural but theological; it is part of his teaching. I agree that the male-elder view errs in its notions of church leadership. To me, “elder” is not the “highest authority in the church.” It is one, central authority but apostles, prophets, and evangelists also had authority. I don’t think the OT or NT communities of God had a “highest human authority.” They had a diversity of influential and authoritative voices under God.
11. In my view, women can have any of these influential and authoritative roles except overseer/elder. They can be apostles, prophets, and evangelists. This is actually what Preston is able to prove when he speaks about females being “leaders” in the NT. They fill these roles, but never fill the role of elder.

Complementarians should read this book, because Preston is “one of us.”
1. By us I mean Jesus-loving, Bible-centered, humble, serious, God-glorifying people. It’s what we aim to be and he is that. Our differences over this topic do not put us into us versus them categories.
2. If you haven’t read a lot on this debate, and especially if you haven’t read a trustworthy egalitarian presentation, then start here. Preston brings together all the best arguments made by egalitarians and puts them together in the best expression possible.
3. If you don’t want to be accused of making “straw men or women” out of egalitarians, then read this book because it is an iron man/woman expression.

Some egalitarian arguments feel like they’re just caving to culture, tickling the ears, and ignoring scripture. This is not that kind of book.
Preston wants us to formed by scripture. He looks at the text before he considers our culture or even ancient culture. The fact of the matter is that every Christian interpreter eventually looks at ancient and modern culture to make sense of the scriptural text. We disagree not over the principle of doing this but at what point and in what ways we do this.