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.

This is written for people in our movement. I say this because my comments about Preston’s book reflect my theological convictions around church government and organization generally. I don’t think your typical Baptist or Presbyterian would have the same flexibility (or creativity) in terms of how to respond to Sprinkle or apply the scripture’s teaching on female contributions to church life. This is also written for someone who has read the book. Perhaps the easiest way to understand my comments would be to read them either as you read Sprinkle or just after you read each chapter. 

Preston is not a liberal. He is thoroughly committed to the final and full authority of scripture.
He wants to know what scripture teaches. This book is not proof of him caving to cultural pressure. He has demonstrated his commitment to scripture and strength to withstand cultural pressure by writing a book advocating pacifism while living in Idaho and a book arguing for traditional sexual ethics while living in America.

This book showcases passion for God’s word, humility in our search for truth, and honor toward those with whom we disagree.
Christians need to learn how to debate secondary issues in godly ways. This book gives a good example of how this can be done. He does painstaking work on the text of scripture, spending four years in research and writing, having dozens of conversations with world-experts on each aspect of the argument, and subjecting his findings and conclusions to scrutiny from all sides. Preston honors others by presenting some of their best arguments, speaking highly of them, and commending them as fellow believers and faithful exegetes even when he disagrees with their conclusions. We need more writing like this.

I lament how “the debate” is engaged.
Big picture, I grieve this debate. The reason is that it feels like a power struggle when Jesus wants us to “be slaves of all” (Mark 10:44) and to “outdo one another in showing honor” (Romans 12:10). The NT tells us to pursue humility and service, and we’re clamoring to get people leadership, to be in charge, to have authority, to get titles. The book feels this way at times, even though it pushes hard toward Jesus’ definition as well.

The first third of this book grieved me by its constant reference of “leadership,” authority,” and “being in charge.” Preston did ease my tension later, but the book would be improved by restructuring.
1. “The debate” always begins in Genesis and the OT, where we aim to show whether Adam was “in charge” or women “had authority.” Preston follows this pattern.
2. In the first chapter on Genesis, he argues that Adam was not “in charge.”
3. In the second chapter on women in the OT, he argues that women “had authority.”
4. I’ll address these chapters in more detail in my next points, for now I want to suggest an improvement.
5. In the third and fourth chapters on women in the ministry of Jesus and leadership in the early church, Preston shows how Jesus challenged prevailing notions of leadership. He wanted his people to serve and to seek greatness through sacrificial service rather than pursuing authority or practicing dominance. I was relieved by these chapters’ focus on service and humility and wished that Jesus’ teaching would have found its way into the first two chapters of the book.
6. If I were to write a book on this topic, I would begin with Jesus. I would show that greatness is service. “Leadership” as an idea is nearly invisible in the NT, because it hides behind the idea of being imitable. In the NT, you “lead” not by having authority but by presenting an example of Christ-likeness (in word and deed) that others ought to follow. Jesus seemed to want his people to be less interested in “being leaders” than in “being great.” True greatness is being a slave/servant of all.
7. If you begin with this definition (imitate Jesus so that others follow) and then return to Genesis, you will discover a very different approach to the question of “leadership.”
8. God called both Adam and Eve to be imitable, to create a culture of godliness by representing him well.
9. They needed each other to accomplish this task, for you cannot imitate the God who loves without having someone to love.
10. God called both men and women in the OT to be imitable, sadly very few took him up on the call. Shining examples like Samuel and Abigail hearten us to the reality that at least some of God’s people want to create a godly family, culture, and nation. But their influence failed to multiply.

Genesis doesn’t prove everything but it also doesn’t say nothing.
1. Preston tilts the debate in the first chapter. He asks whether Adam and Eve exercised “mutual rule.” He poses this option in opposition to hierarchical rule. But, to my mind, complementarians have always agreed with the idea of “mutual” rule. We’re called “complementary-ans” for a reason. We believe that men and women complement one another in their God-given commission to subdue the earth.
2. Elsewhere in the chapter, his word-choice verges on the hyperbolic. He asks if Adam was “in charge”? He concludes the text doesn’t indicate that Adam is ruling, leading, exercising authority, and or putting Eve into subordination. Some complementarians claim to see this kind of dominance in Genesis. I’m with Preston, and I can’t see domination here. But I do see difference.
3. In each of the five points Preston explores, he concludes that either a complementarian reading is wrong or that it’s not sufficient to prove that Adam was in charge. To me, it sounds like he’s saying it’s either got to prove everything or it proves nothing. But, I see it differently. I think Genesis hints at something true about the nature of our partnership as men and women.
4. Genesis 1 speaks of man and woman working together to have dominion and subdue the earth (1:26-28). They can’t do it alone. They must have each other. But, it’s also true that that they can’t do the exact same job and hope to fulfill their calling. At the very least, men must impregnate and women must become pregnant, otherwise there’s no fruitfulness and expansion. The text doesn’t say they have different roles, it simply knows that they do. Preston doesn’t mention a possible comparison with the sun and moon. He says the only “rule” language speaks of mutual rule of humans, but there is other “rule” language in reference to the heavenly bodies (1:16-18). Do both rule the heavens? Yes. Do they rule in exactly the same way? No. There is difference and there is interdependence. The job cannot be done by one alone, nor are the two heavenly bodies interchangeable.
5. Adam was created first. Does this mean he has authority over woman? Preston presses the point further than need be done. “I don’t think Genesis alone demands that Adam’s first-created status establishes male authority over woman.” (23) True. But this, and the next three points, can combine to be suggestive. Complementarians should not say that Genesis 1-3 demands that Adam (men) has authority over Eve (women). But, they can say that there are hints and suggestions that the differences between the sexes indicate different responsibilities for men and women. For my part, I’d like to step away from the word “authority” and speak instead of responsibility. Adam being created first indicates he has responsibility before Eve shows up.
6. Eve being a “Helper” doesn’t diminish her importance or make her subordinate. True. It’s easy to show that “Helper” in the Bible most often refers to God who comes to assist his people in need. So, “Helper” in reference to Eve doesn’t mean she’s worse or weak in some way. But it might suggest that Adam has responsibility and she’s there to share it with him. When God shows up to help Israel, it’s because they have a responsibility to do something and can’t make it happen on their own. They need a partner.
7. Adam naming animals and Eve doesn’t mean he’s “in charge,” but it does mean he has responsibility. He was supposed to bring order and naming animals helps do this. It was an expression of putting things in order. When Adam names “woman” (a derivative of “man”), he puts her into order—next to him, from him, with him, for him (in partnership). Can we abandon the pyramid shaped hierarchy picture and think instead of a complex system? Everything in nature needed to take its place in order for the system to thrive. Birds must go up, fish and worms must go down, seas go this far and no further, woman comes out of man but stays really close by. Birds aren’t better than worms because they’re up instead of down. Each thing in its place makes the world system flourish. It’s not a pyramid but a web of interconnected relationships.
8. “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) is not the bedrock of good complementarian theology. The verse is very difficult to interpret. I found Sprinkle’s interpretation helpful, but I disagreed with his conclusion. In biblical interpretation, we look to the closest context to decipher words’ meanings. For Gen 3:16, the nearest parallel is 4:7. It’s troubling that this text speaks of sin desiring Cain but Cain needing to rule over it (desire and rule are the same words from Gen 3:16). No one wants to compare this to woman’s desire for her husband and his need to rule her. Preston concludes that her desire to rule/dominate is a bad thing (like the sin in 4:7), but he says that the husband’s response (rule) to this bad desire is also bad. I disagree. Cain’s conquering/ruling of sin is good. A husband’s ability to prevent his wife from dominating the relationship would be a good thing too. If she wants to transgress boundaries, the loving thing to do is to stop her. 
9. Preston’s conclusion is that Genesis 1-3 doesn’t demand that Adam has authority over Eve or that men naturally have authority over women. I would agree, but then pushback that the various clues are suggestive of differences in responsibility.

Preston’s chapter on women in the OT reveals very interesting insights but also demonstrates an over-fixation on “power” and “authority.”
1. I love to celebrate the heroes of the OT, many of whom are women. It is true that by percentages women are far godlier than men in the OT.
2. If Preston took my advice and grounded “authority” and “leadership” in the gospel definition of Jesus, he could show all the ways women were truly great through their service. Most women (except some of those with titles, like Jezebel) expressed true greatness by representing God well in service.
3. But instead, we hear constant mention of “power.” For example, women can make bread which means they have power in the home (42-43). Rephrased through a gospel lens, women are truly great because they serve their families through the grueling service of bread-making. Another example, women have “sexual power” over their husbands in the Song of Songs. Rephrased through a gospel lens, this wife is truly great because she gives herself fully and freely to her husband (as he does to her). 

Showing that women were “leaders” in the OT should help complementarians mature their approach to women in the church.
1. The second half of chapter 3 talks about female leaders in the OT. It doesn’t contradict the kind of complementarian that I am. I’m happy to embrace the fact that women served in all kinds of important capacities in the OT and that many of these capacities have a parallel in the church.
2. My trouble is, again, with the over-fixation with the word “leaders.” It smacks of American-ism. We want people to be on the top of the pile. I would much rather talk about the valuable contributions women made, their inspiring examples, the culture they helped to foster, the ways that they represented God. That is, I would rather shake off the word “leader” and instead describe godly, gospel shaped greatness portrayed by women.
3. Deborah was awesome. She heard from God, exhibited courage, inspired the people, and partnered with God. As a prophet, she provides a fitting example for NT courage and partnership with God.
4. Huldah was another excellent prophet. Sprinkle takes issue with Schreiner who suggests that her prophesying “did not obstruct male headship” (60). Prophecy is leadership to Sprinkle because it has authority. It’s true that prophecy has authority, but authoritative prophecies still have a place in the social order. They contribute to God’s leadership of the people. They stand in tandem with scripture, wisdom, and other prophetic contributions. They’re one item in the system rather than being the top of the pyramid. Huldah is great because she wasn’t trying to dominate but to serve.
5. Sprinkle suggests there was a hierarchy in the OT, with prophets at the top. They had “more authority” than priests and kings (61). I disagree. I think priests, kings, and prophets were designed to work together in a mutual/complementarian kind of way where each contributed their unique perspective and God-given authority.
6. Our fixation with and warped understanding of “leadership” makes us ask the wrong question, namely, “Were women leaders?” We would do better to ask, Did God equip women to contribute to the health of the community through prophecy? Yes. Did God equip women to contribute to culture making by making them godly? Yes. Did God give women vital, irreplaceable roles in the thriving of Israel? Yes.

Contrary to Sprinkle’s conclusion, the all-male priesthood demonstrates that God can demarcate some roles for some types of people and not others.
1. Since priests were the primary teachers in ancient Israel, complementarians point out that their being an all-male group points to the priority of men teaching in the church.
2. Preston explores some rationales for the all-male priesthood before concluding the rationale doesn’t matter. Then, he dismisses the complementarian argument because both men and women are considered priests in the church. Therefore, he concludes the door should be open for female teachers.
3. But in so quickly dismissing this point, I think he overlooks another option. God’s selection of male Levites for the priesthood doesn’t mean that only male Levites can teach the church. But it does demonstrate that God can choose one type of person for a role and not have to give us a reason for doing so. God can choose women to have babies and not men, the Kohathites to carry tabernacle furniture not the Gershonites, etc.
4. Preston’s conclusion to chapter 2 seems to go beyond his argument. He concludes that male only leadership follows cultural norms rather than God setting a precedent (64). But, as far as I can tell, God selects patriarchs, leaders, kings, and priests on purpose. He doesn’t seem shy about bucking tradition. If God wanted to be egalitarian in the ancient world, he could have done so. Would having a queen have been more counter-cultural than Sabbath or sex laws? I doubt it.

Preston’s chapter on women in the ministry of Jesus recounts the glorious contributions of women and their alignment with God’s heart.
1. He shows how women “suffer” and “serve” in just the ways Jesus idealizes of great people. Preston inserts “leader” in place “great one” several times in this chapter. I think this makes sense to modern Americans, but I think it obscures Jesus’ richer point.
2. Jesus commends women more often than men.
3. In all the gospels, women appear to fit Jesus’ picture of the ideal disciple, learning, serving, suffering, believing, communicating the truth. They testify/bear witness and are the first to proclaim the resurrection.
4. “But are they “leaders”?” Sprinkle asks. I doubt the women cared. They were called (as are all Christians) to be servants and they met that ideal.
5. Sprinkle answers the question carefully, by saying that technically they weren’t given titles or positions like the twelve apostles. But, nevertheless, they fit the character qualifications of leaders and they communicate the gospel as leaders do which is “suggestive of women proclaiming messages about Jesus to a community of men gathered in a house on a Sunday” (85). In my kind of complementarianism, this isn’t a problem. I’m happy to have female prophets and evangelists (perhaps even apostles) proclaiming the truth about Jesus.

Sprinkle downplays the importance of an all-male apostleship, whereas as I see it as another demonstration that God can demarcate some roles for certain types of people (without satisfying our desire for a rationale).
1. He shows how often these men fail and yet the women in the gospels live up to Jesus’ standard. He thinks this might hint that the apostles aren’t held up as a paradigm of godliness which would make way for women to be so regarded.
2. I think this is a misreading. The gospels portray the failures of the men in order to communicate that God uses the weak things of the world to shame the strong. The gospels portray female success to prove the same point; God selects unlikely ones to be his heroes.
3. Sprinkle is right that the all-male apostleship doesn’t mean “only men can be leaders.” But it reminds us that God sometimes selects certain people or types of people for roles. It’s something of a pattern—Levites, kings, apostles. (Matt Hosier pointed out that whenever God chooses representative covenant leadership in biblical history, he always chooses men: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus.)

Jesus recasts “church” and its authority structure in light of his character.
1. This chapter is super insightful and helpful. There’s tons to commend about rethinking leadership and authority in light of the gospel. As I’ve said before, I wish chapters like these came much earlier in the book.
2. Preston begins by reminding us of Mark 10:42-45 and Jesus’ redefinition of greatness. Again, Sprinkle inserts “leadership” and “authority” where Jesus says “greatness” and “first.” Jesus points his people toward greatness more than leadership, service rather than authority. Sprinkle’s word-exchange subtly reinserts the very thing Jesus tried to challenge, namely a lust for “authority.” I’m sure Preston doesn’t want this, but it’s my contention that the way this whole debate is framed causes exactly this problem. Instead of encouraging people to service, we’re trying to find out where the authority can be found.
3. In the next few pages, Sprinkle vacillates between searching for authority in the NT and recalibrating it in light of Christ. He notes that Paul eschews the use of common leadership terminology. Paul also “proves” his apostolic authority by reference to his suffering rather than supremacy.
4. He shows that “elder” was more like an honorific (a complementary title) rather than official office.
5. He then demonstrates how women and men use their gifts to build up the church in various ways. My trouble with this section is that we feel compelled to constantly call people leaders, as if this is what Jesus would want us to do. Jesus, for his part, seemed to say “Call no man father or teacher” because he saw the danger in our obsession with preeminence.
6. Sprinkle shows that there was a general call to Christians to care for, manage, and lead the church. Various types of people did these roles (e.g., 1 Thes 5:12). The same terminology refers to elders in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. So, he begins to suggest, overlapping roles probably means that any qualified person regardless of gender could do any job in the church.
7. But, I see it differently. Yes, there is tremendous overlap in pretty much all the titled roles of the church (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, elder, teacher, deacon). But that doesn’t mean there’s never differentiation or that some people would be admitted and others not. Apostles had to be hand (of God) selected—just because you could “do the job” didn’t make you an apostle. I compare it to Levites being selected for the priesthood; most men and women in the ancient world were really good at butchering meat, they all had that skill and could do that job, and yet God chose only Levites to do it (not because they were especially good butchers, by the way).
8. Sprinkle demonstrates that women were excellent servants (a term for leader), evangelists, coworkers, laborers, and prophets. Praise God! For my kind of complementarianism, this poses no threat. I happily embrace these gifts without feeling like they conflict with the notion of a male-only eldership.
9. He argues that house church hosts were default leaders of the churches. This was true in the culture generally, that the male or female head of household ran things in the home. But, I think we have reason to think this didn’t carry over directly to the church. At least, we can say that heads of households weren’t elders by default. Being rich enough to own a home does not qualify you for Christian eldership (then or now). Paul lays out clear requirements for elders and I think it is because he doesn’t want us to default to what the norm was in Roman culture (111). It’s possible, as Sprinkle says, that heads of households were leaders of some sort, but this doesn’t conflict with a male-elder view of leadership. Females could be head of home and the church still has all male elders. Both the head of home and the elders contribute to the strengthening of the church.
10. Since Preston believes (as I do) that the church is a home and family, I believe his interpretation of Ephesians 5 (a text about in-home relationships and order) should have carried more weight. We’ll discuss this later.

Paul “worked” with and celebrated the valuable contributions of many women both in evangelism and among the churches. Ch. 5
1. Sprinkle helpfully identifies the “work” language connected to women. These types of words refer to Gospel proclamation, evangelism and discipleship, which many women engaged in.
2. Paul commends many women for their outstanding efforts and contributions to Gospel ministry (Romans 16). In fact, he shines a light on female contribution. Preston discusses Phoebe, Priscilla, and Junia,
3. Paul commends Phoebe as a patron and servant. He might have entrusted her with carrying the letter to the Roman church. At this point, Sprinkle posits some historical reconstructions to indicate her responsibilities, but I feel more cautious than Sprinkle about what to make of these (potential) roles. 
4. Patrons carried authority and responsibility over communities. However, Jesus also considers “patron” (a closely related term to “benefactor”) to be part of the “worldly” idea of leadership (see Luke 22:24-26). I would be cautious to apply all of what is entailed in that role to someone in the church. Wealth, we would all agree, is not the primary prerequisite of church leadership.
5. “Servant” (as Phoebe is called) often refers to leaders in local churches. However, “servant” might often refer to a Christian “leader”, but not always to an elder (the point with which male-elder complementarians are concerned). That is to say, I happily embrace female “servant-leaders” who are evangelists (Phil 4:2-3) and prophets (Acts 21:9) without concluding that “servant” language opens up the role of elder to women.
6. Letter carriers were usually entrusted with interpreting/applying/expanding upon the intent of the letter. I’m not inclined to build too much of my theology off what might be the case. Phoebe might have carried this letter which might have meant she interpreted it. I’d rather build my case off what is explicitly in the text. If the NT corrects, changes, or re-envisions normal, secular roles with Christian ideas (as it does with elder, oikodespotes, and other leader language), then I will not assume that just because a patron or letter carrier had certain roles in secular culture that they also had those in the Christian community. If we’re doing historical reconstructions to support our theology, then I could posit that Paul trained Phoebe about a new type of letter carrying in Christian community, one which did not conflict with his explicit teaching in 1 Timothy 2-3.
7. Paul commends Priscilla and Aquilla as coworkers in the Lord. Indeed, this couple was incredible in their gospel ministry.
8. Since they hosted a church in their home, this might have given them certain responsibilities of “leadership.” In my reading, this qualifies as “responsibility” and “service” open to any believer. We don’t know exactly what they would have done, and I don’t want a pattern of inferring from “what was normal” in those days into the church. Paul clearly differentiates overseers/elders as being more than hosts of churches.
9. Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos (Acts 18). Did she “teach and exercise authority over a man” in a way that conflicts with 1 Tim 2? Evidently not, since Luke doesn’t seem to have any problem with it. Again, in my reading, females can be apostles, prophets, and evangelists (without being elders). Priscilla’s role in this story could be any of these three without contradicting Paul’s intention in 1 Timothy 2-3. It is also worth noting that it is the couple who engages with Apollos. Finally, the conversation between these three seems personal (private) and intentional. I don’t know any complementarians who have a problem with women engaging in personal conversation with men about the gospel, and I know some extremely conservative complementarians. If a husband and wife together share the gospel with an up-and-coming teacher, praise God.
10. Paul commends Junia as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom 16:7). Sprinkle spends a lot of time on this point. In my complementarian circles, we’re comfortable saying she was an “apostle.” Preston is right to follow this with the question, “What kind of apostle?” There were several kinds—general messengers, authoritative delegates of the main apostles, main apostles, the twelve. What kind was Junia? We can be honest and say “we don’t know.” Sprinkle contends that they be considered main apostles. His main reason is “the” before apostles in Romans 16:7. This seems overly speculative to me. Again, I don’t prefer to build my theology off speculation of what could have been the case. It’s possible this couple were really good messengers, carrying notes and supplies back and forth among the churches. It’s possible they were official delegates who had leadership responsibilities. It’s also possible that they completely distinguished their responsibilities among those churches, with Andronicus doing ministry among men and Junia ministering among the women. We simply don’t know. If Paul required a differentiation among the ministries of men and women, I assume that this couple maintained such a differentiation. 
11. One thing I love about this section in Sprinkle’s book is that he reclaims the centrality of suffering in the identification of apostles. Apostles risk their lives for the church. Andronicus and Junia did just this. They suffered for the gospel, praise the Lord.

The role of female prophets in NT churches challenges me the most. God clearly and consistently equips women to proclaim his word (both revelation and applied interpretation of scripture) to his people. Ch. 6
1. I have always been convinced that prophecy and prophets belong in modern churches. I have also been convinced that we need to recapture a biblical definition of prophecy so that we can know what we’re looking for. Preston helps us a lot toward this goal, showing us in both Old and New Testaments what prophets did.
2. There are many named and unnamed female prophets in the Old and New Testaments (Miriam, Huldah, Isaiah’s wife, Anna, Philip’s daughters). It’s beyond dispute that women should play this role in the church (Acts 2:17-18).
3. Sprinkle concludes that NT prophecy “had a function similar to teaching and preaching” (155). The Puritans refer to preaching as “prophesying,” so perhaps there’s a similarity of idea here.
4. He builds this case from:
5. 1 Corinthians 14:3 describes the effect/intent of prophecy in language similar to teaching and preaching. In particular to the word parakaleo is used here and in reference to Timothy’s teaching ministry (1 Tim 4:13).
6. We see parakaleo (exhort) and oikodomeo (build up) language used in reference to lots of teaching, preaching, and prophesying activity in the NT.
7. “This doesn’t mean prophecy is the same thing as teaching: the two are clearly distinct gifts. But it does suggest a functional overlap between the two.” (160)
8. He also shows how prophecy “instructs” (1 Cor 14:18-19) so that you “learn” from it (14:31). Again, here’s an indication that prophecy can include something like teaching.
9. What really hit me hard is the reminder that OT prophecy often was Bible interpretation and application. Isaiah interprets and applies Deuteronomy. Daniel reads Jeremiah 25 when he discovers it’ll be fulfilled in a different-than-expected way in his day (Daniel 9).
10. This happens again with the prophecy of Zechariah in the NT. He alludes to over a dozen OT passages, interpreting and applying them as being fulfilled in the ministries of John and Jesus.
11. So, prophecy is similar to “teaching.” Next, Sprinkle wants to show that prophecy carried “authority.” This seems beyond dispute. How could prophecy not contain authority?
12. The main counter-argument would be that prophecy is “tested”. Does this indicate that we have authority over it? Or, that it is less authoritative? Not at all. All teaching should be tested as well. You sit down and compare it with God’s word, as the Bereans appear to do (Acts 17:11). Deuteronomy gives “tests” for true and false prophecy as well (see Deuteronomy 13 and 18). Once a prophecy or teaching passes the test, you immediately recognize its authority.
13. Prophets had a fundamental/foundational role in establishing the church (Ephesians 2:22) and the ongoing equipping of the church (Ephesians 4:11). Attempts to reduce their role to something beneath the office of elder seem far-fetched. Paul places apostles and prophets first and second in his commendation of these gifts (1 Cor 12:28). They come before “teachers,” so Paul clearly doesn’t relegate prophets.
14. The most personally challenging aspect of this chapter is how it impacts Sunday morning preaching. If prophecy includes the interpretation and application of scripture, then it would seem that Sunday morning preaching can at times be called “prophecy.” What I’m still wrestling with is the question “what differentiates the role of an elder from other roles, especially when it comes to teaching?” Perhaps, in general, Sunday morning preaching can be “prophesying” and therefore open to any member of the church. On the other hand, it might be the case that we see the Sunday morning moment as “something only elders do” and therefore not open to all members.

Today we live in an oddly neo-Donatist age where there is still a tendency to conceptualize ministry in terms of personal qualities and experiences, although these are now determined by the psychologized values of the therapeutic society rather than responses under persecution. And this neo-Donatism takes various forms: Women need to have pastoral roles because men, lacking the lived experience of womanhood, cannot adequately minister to their needs. Elderly pastors who grew up in a pre-social-media age cannot speak to young people because of the generation gap. And straight pastors who have never experienced homosexual temptation have less authority in counseling those Christians who do. Experience grants authority.

No, no, no. The minister preaches the word and administers the sacraments. These have an objective validity that does not depend upon the moral or experiential qualities of the man expounding the Bible, sprinkling the water, breaking the bread, and filling the cup. Yes, the minister’s character is important. Paul’s list of qualifications for eldership makes that clear, and when a minister is found to be wanting, he should be removed by due process. But the performance of public vulnerability is not a qualification for ministry.

Every now and again, a historical anniversary crops up that is simply too important not to celebrate. Over the course of the last couple of decades, three landmark Reformation dates have been thoroughly worthy of celebration. In 2009, at Together on a Mission, I ran a Calvin seminar track to celebrate the 500th birthday of the great French reformer. I must admit, I thought the seminars would attract a couple of dozen church history nerds but, to my utter amazement, the room was packed for three mornings with hundreds of leaders. For me, one of the highlights was the late Greg Haslam, then Pastor of Westminster Chapel, revealing a pen portrait of Calvin that he had drawn as an 18-year-old student at Durham University. It was stunning.

In 2017, King’s Community Church Southampton, the church I lead, hosted a Luther 500 conference to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. It was a wonderful time celebrating the great truths that Luther rediscovered, such as justification by faith alone, the authority of Scripture, and the priesthood of all believers. We enjoyed great contributions from people such as Glen Scrivener, Michael Reeves, and Andrew Wilson. We also ate lots of bratwurst, drank German beer, and watched a powerful one-person dramatization of Mark’s Gospel.

Tyndale 500 promises to take my Reformation celebrations to a whole new level. The event will, of course, mark the 500th anniversary of the publication of William Tyndale’s New Testament, the first-ever translation of the Scriptures into English from the original Greek. Tyndale, who was martyred for his faith and his translation work in 1536, is unquestionably the most important influence on English evangelicalism in the Reformation period. His New Testament not only changed Christianity in the English-speaking world but also had a hugely important influence - arguably even greater than Shakespeare’s - on English culture.

Speakers at the conference will include Glen Scrivener, Andrew Wilson, John Stevens, John Risbridger, Natalie Williams, and myself. Other highlights will include a virtual tour of the Reformation by Ben Virgo of Christian Heritage London and a brand-new performance by Stefan Smart, who gave us Mark’s Gospel in 2017. For the last couple of years, Stefan has been committing the Acts of the Apostles to memory, and he will be performing it for the very first time at the conference.

There will also be two interviews and book launches at the conference. I will be interviewing Terry Virgo, the founder and elder statesman of Newfrontiers. I have recently written an authorised biography of Terry, which will be launched at the event. We will also be launching a 21st-century Toposa equivalent of Tyndale’s English New Testament. My friend Simon Fry has been working in South Sudan for the last 20 years. When he began, the Toposa tribe was an unreached people group with only a handful of believers. Not any more - today there are thousands of Toposa believers and, at Tyndale 500, we will be celebrating the publication of the first-ever Toposa New Testament, translated by James Lokuuda, a local pastor who has worked faithfully over many years with the Tyndale Bible translators.

Five hundred years after Tyndale, his work continues. Jesus promised that the gospel would be preached to every people group, and then the end will come (Matthew 24:14). I would love you to join us and be part of our celebrations on 5th and 6th November at King’s Community Church. We are one minute from Junction 7 of the M27. You can book here.

The Face of Dismas

The whole of my life I have heard it said
That God made me dumb for being “half-bred,”
That there’s a reason for my dreadful face:
My father’s sin remains acute disgrace
For me, his only son. So I have spent
These years discerning all that Moses meant,
His tales of sacrifice and holiness—
A path to glory, roads of righteousness
For those like me, outcasts who long to be
Of better blood. Resolved, I faithfully
Obey the law in every thought and deed,
So to solicit alms I’ll have no need.

But in Jerusalem, work’s hard to find
When you’re not of the well-born, clever kind.
Of course the local quarry won’t refuse
The backs of those willing to daily choose
A life of hauling heavy loads. So with
Both flesh and soul I heave a monolith
Of stone and law, for I have heard it said
A man can change himself. And yet instead
Of transformation, I taste still the same
Dull disappointment sharpening my shame.
Excepting sorrow, I remain unchanged
And from ambitious dreams, all but estranged.

Until, that is, I chance to overhear
That on a mount up north will soon appear
A Teacher – or a Healer. Both, say some.
Might either craft impel me to become
At least the likeness of another man?
For I heard it said that this Rabbi can
Make even deaf ears hear and blind eyes see;
What sort of kindness might be done for me?
I have no demon, nor some leprosy —
Just my gray plague of inadequacy.
So with some friends I make for Galilee
To hear this Jesus preach his homily.

But any comfort I had hoped to find
Dissolves as vapor in my muddled mind.
This Rabbi’s teaching I begin to dread
And wince each time he says, “You’ve heard it said.”
For to the law he joins his own decree,
Each one a sheer impossibility.
“Give even to the evil ones your love;
Be Perfect as your Father is above.”
Am I to be like God? How can that be
If even lust is now adultery?
Upon my life it was a curse he spoke,
Condemning me beneath his weighty yoke.

Bereft of fortune and ability,
I plunge into a sea of apathy
And sloth. But I discover small relief
In the mild prospects of the common thief.
For if a king could steal the sacred loaves,
So might we dogs amongst the homeless droves
Find crumbs beneath the table of the world?
But in my clumsy haste, I’m caught and hurled
In jail. So forty days and nights I wait
To hear my sentence from the magistrate.
A lowly death awaits, I’ve heard it said,
For those who dare to steal their daily bread.

And so with trembling I’m brought to court
And listen as a clerk makes the report
Of my offense and also of the poor
Soul standing next to me, who did no more
Than take some bread and wine to feed his bride.
With silent faces we stare terrified,
Like reeds both bent and bruised and fit to break.
The judge but glares at us and I forsake
All hope. He reads our sentence from his seat
With vengeful hatred and self-sure conceit.
O God, the worst is come—I’m horrified
To hear it said we shall be crucified.

Next day the soldiers march us to the place
Called Golgotha and there mark out a space
For a third cross. With us, who shall ascend
This mount of suffering and make his end?
But hearing distant shouts I turn to see
The Preacher I once heard in Galilee
Approaching from within an angry crowd,
Obscured by blood and in a scarlet shroud.
I hear it said from someone passing by,
“His death will hopefully thus satisfy
The wrath of Pilate and the Pharisees–
For they won’t tolerate his blasphemies.”

With Jesus in between, they place us three
Upon our crosses, tools of infamy
And terror I know well. A group of guards
Soon pins us down by driving iron shards
Into our flesh. Hysteric now, I scream
Aloud and twist upon the wooden beam.
Once hoisted up, convulsively I lurch
To somehow breathe upon this wretched perch.
We shiver naked as exposed we stand
In cloudy shadow covering the land.
I’ve heard it said that there’s a curse for those
Who hang from trees, or so the saying goes.

For hours we writhe for breath and gasp and pant,
Until the other thief begins to rant:
“If Christ you are, then save yourself and us!”
But surely that taunt is injurious.
Our suffering is great, yet his seems more;
What sort of judgment is this man in store?
I shout: “To fates of thieves we two belong!
But I tell you that he has done no wrong.
My Lord, when you into your kingdom come—
Remember me!” And as I’m overcome
With grief I hear the words that must suffice:
“This day you’ll be with me in paradise.”

I cannot say for sure what Jesus meant,
Except that even now I should repent.
With my confession made, I hear it said
From those below, “Behold, the Rabbi’s dead!”
Centurions approach with pointed spear
And pierce his side as one in voice sincere
Cries, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
But to another, he then gives a nod
To signify the time has come for me
To die. They break my legs below the knee
And as the skies remain still overcast
I close my eyes on them and breathe my last.
____________

When I awoke, I could not say
If ages passed or just a day.
But how to you can I relate
My first forays into that great
New land of weighty majesty
And otherworldly quality?
I stood and saw that all around
The earth with glory had been crowned:
Beside me lapped a glassy sea;
Just off the beach, there I could see
A grove of oaks with livened leaves
Applauding sweetly in the breeze.
But then at once I heard it said
In thundering voice overhead,
“Your time of judgment now is come!”
In terror both my legs went numb
As I collaps’d upon the shore
In gloom. It was not long before
The voice again spoke to dictate
My life’s details, both small and great.
For hours I wept as it revealed
The life of sin that I’d concealed.
Humiliations once complete,
I braced for death to soon repeat.
Yet there before me did appear
A flaming creature drawing near.
As I shrunk back in nervous dread,
World-mending words, I heard them said:
“O Heaven’s son, Be Perfect now!”
What came to pass next did somehow
Exceed the marvels thus far seen:
My body glowed in light pristine.
With caution to the sea I walked;
At my reflection there I gawked—
It was my face, but somehow changed.
My ugliness had been exchanged
For noble strength, none other than
The likeness of Another Man.
Then only did I understand
The meaning of his old command:
What I had heard as fatal curse
In Jesus found its true inverse;
What I could not do—happily—
My Lord has done it all for me.

Where is technology taking us?

My friend, and sometime Think contributor, Bryan Hart wrote this poem about AI, voiced by my daughter Nancy, to introduce a sermon on technology.

You can find Bryan’s entire message here.

1. Instruction (torah) is the headline word in 119:1 and the most frequently occurring law word. That it appears only in the singular “suggests that it is a global term for the totality of God’s revelation” (Wenham).

2. Testimony (eduth) appears in the plural. In Exodus 31:18 “the two tablets of the testimony” refers to the covenant Decalogue. The word may have the sense of standing as a “witness” against the people of God (Deut 31:26) and also the sense of bearing witness to the faithfulness of the covenant God.

3. Precept (piqqud) always occurs in the form “your precepts.” This noun derives from the verb “to show concern for, test, visit,” and it conveys the idea of God’s words as deriving from a God who “cares about detail” as he watches over his people (Kidner).

4. Statute (khoq) always appears in the form “your statutes.” This perhaps emphasises the binding force of what God has said.

5. Commandment (mitsvah) usually occurs in the plural. This term simply points to the authority of God to say what ought to be done.

6. Judgment (mishpat) is the most difficult word to translate with consistency. It means the decision of a judge. This decision may be expressed in a law, but it may equally seen in the “judgment” given for or against someone in court. The word “rule” covers the former but not the latter, especially when the ruling is in the plaintiff’s favour, for the divine Judge, as in Luke 18:7, will act to vindicate his elect.

7. Word (dabar) is the most general of the expressions. Usually in Psalm 119 it appears in the form “your word,” where the singular sums up the totality of God’s covenant revelation.

8. Promise (imrah) means “something that is spoken” and is often more or less indistinguishable from dabar. The context often indicates that what is spoken by God has the character of a promise.

What unites these words is covenant. The covenant name (“the LORD”) appears twenty-two times, an average of once for each stanza.

It’s a shame that Andrew’s book on happiness isn’t hitting the shelves until the summer: it’s in the winter that many of us particularly need help finding the joy. From ‘blue Monday’ (the third Monday in January and apparently the most miserable day of the year), till now in February with endless rain, we need a mood boost.

I’ve read Happiness in pre-publication issue, and it is excellent. I encourage you to buy it when it appears. I’ve also recently re-read Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ classic, Spiritual Depression – a book I first read on honeymoon 32 years ago. Yes, Grace did find that a bit odd.

My conviction is that Christians are meant to know joy. God is very happy, so getting close to Him means an encounter with happiness. That means the pursuit of joy should be a central part of our discipleship. There are many ‘joy-suckers’ though, which can rob us of joy. Lloyd-Jones offers an analysis of this which I have found helpful. Here are five things he highlights that we should be alert to if we are not to sink into the doldrums.

Personality type

But while I emphasize, with all my being, the fact that temperament does not make the slightest difference in the matter of our fundamental salvation, I am equally anxious to emphasize the fact that it does make a very great difference in actual experience in the Christian life, and that when you are trying to diagnose a condition such as that of spiritual depression, it is something with which you should start, it is something to put at the very beginning.

Salvation is no more dependent on our personality type than our eye colour, but personality does impact how we feel and respond to things. This is why it is important that we know ourselves. Some people are more naturally tiggerish than others, but whatever our personality, the Lord provides pathways along which we can find joy. We need to follow the paths that lead to true happiness and not the false paths that offer comfort but in the end only make us more miserable. If you want to be happy, know yourself.

Physical conditions

Is anyone surprised again? Does someone hold the view that as long as you are a Christian it does not matter what the condition of your body is? Well, you will soon be disillusioned if you believe that. Physical conditions play their part in all this.

Ill-health can suck joy. The physical and spiritual are deeply intertwined but the reason we are feeling glum might very well be because of physical conditions rather than some spiritual failing. How to overcome in this reality and fight the fight for joy? It is a huge topic but my observation is that it is those who deliberately practice gratitude who overcome illness and pain and find their way to joy. Thankfulness is pain relief.

Post-blessing depression

Another frequent cause of spiritual depression is what we may describe as a reaction—a reaction after a great blessing, a reaction after some unusual and exceptional experience. I hope to call attention sometime to the case of Elijah under the juniper tree.

This is a strange one, but I’ve found it to be true – an emotional slump following hot on the heels of a time of special blessing in God. Elijah went from the triumph of Mount Carmel to suicidal ideation within a matter of hours. If we experience times like this we shouldn’t be surprised but recognise it as a blip, not the prevailing reality. Joy has to be pushed into, not assumed.

The devil

In a sense, and in the last analysis, that is the one and only cause of spiritual depression— it is the devil, the adversary of our souls.

It is just Satan who, though he cannot rob us of our salvation, can definitely rob us of our joy. His great concern is to prevent anyone becoming a Christian, but when that fails, his one object then is to make them miserable Christians.

We have an enemy, a discourager, an accuser of the brethren, and must not ignore the spiritual dynamic at play. God is very happy but the devil is very miserable and he wants to make God’s people miserable too. When that happens to us it is a problem personally, but it is also a problem missionally. If Christians are as miserable as everyone else what do we have to offer the world? The gospel is good news! That must mean it brings us to joy – and that means we must resist the devil.

Unbelief

Have you realized that most of your unhappiness in life is due to the fact that you are listening to yourself instead of talking to yourself?

All of us experience doubts; the real problem is when doubt hardens into unbelief. That can happen when the narrative in our heads is negative, discouraging, and lying. It is very easy to listen to this negative voice and allow unbelief to grow. Instead of that, we need to preach to ourselves, declaring the truth and power of the gospel and commanding the negative inner-voice to silence.

Earlier today there were a few minutes of brightness. Now the rain is sheeting down again. It’s a grim time of year. But in the Lord there is joy, now, forever and even in February (Ps 16:11)!

1. Generosity begins in the heart of the pastor. If you don’t give generously, why should your people?
2. Money is both a thermometer and a thermostat for the heart.
3. When you teach about money, don’t apologize. Money is one of the biggest competitors with God, and helping people live in line with God’s financial principles is a huge gift. Better to say, “If you’re a guest, you couldn’t have picked a better Sunday to be here.”
4. Keep track of and thank first-time givers. It’s a big step of involvement in a local church (bigger than attending the first time), so treat it accordingly.
5. It’s not necessarily good to say, “I don’t know what anybody gives.” Set up a system where, as the Lead Pastor, you can find out what people give if you have a good reason. If you’re mature enough to know what everyone gives, fine.
6. People typically start giving months after they start attending and stop giving months before they stop attending.
7. There are five “pockets” that people give from. Wise churches provide opportunities over the year for people to give out of all five: (1) General fund — they like supporting the pastors and basics; (2) Building — they want the church to have good facilities; (3) Directed Designated — special projects that you identify; (4) Benevolence — helping the needy; (5) Missions & Church Planting — taking the gospel.
8. You need to disciple high-capacity givers. To whom much is given, much is expected — and they need help stewarding what God has entrusted them. If you don’t know how to help them, find some other higher-capacity financial people and do it together.
9. People do not give first to vision. They give to success.
10. Beware of assuming you have a right to people’s money. Everything they give is a gift.
11. It takes just as much work to do a 3-year initiative as a 2-year, but you typically get 25% more money.
12. Giving begets giving and generosity begets generosity. Don’t fear that giving to a big project or initiative will hurt the general fund. It will usually help it.
13. Create doable classes and pathways for people to get help with learning the nuts and bolts of getting out of debt and managing their money. Then you can say, with integrity, “This is not about what we want from you — it’s about what we want for you.”
14. In your first few hires, make sure they are in positions that will eventually pay for themselves — either by freeing you up to be much more effective or by being in key-growth areas.
15. People respond to being challenged (in general) — it’s true for money too. Don’t be afraid of doing a 90-Day Tithe Challenge.
16. Make the basics of your church’s financial situation visible regularly to the people, either through your bulletin or weekly email. They need to regularly know how the church is doing financially.
17. Every year, talk publicly on a Sunday through the basics of your financial situation. What you budgeted last year, how much was given, what the plan is for that year, etc. Shouldn’t be a sermon; more like an extended vision-casting announcement.
18. Do not outsource preaching on money to somebody else. The church needs to hear it from you and you need to build up your confidence.
19. Set next year’s budget based off of this year’s actual giving. This way you aren’t presuming upon growth.
20. Most people are 3S Givers (Spontaneous, Sporadic, Sparingly). Challenge them to be 3P Givers (Priority, Percentage, Progressive).
21. Sometimes you have not because you ask not. God can prompt people to give without you asking. He is also more likely to prompt people to give if you ask.
22. You will not do the church staff any favors by setting your salary artificially low. Develop a system to set your salary and staff salaries fairly without it having to be a huge ordeal.
23. Figure out your average per capita giving ($/attender/week). Use this as a way to plan for future hires — how much you have to grow to be able to afford them.
24. Churches that are in portable facilities need to have the discipline to save cash (of equivalent leasing payments) so that they have the money to move on something when the time comes.
25. More money rarely leads to more creativity — usually the opposite is true. Remember the “Apollo 13 table.” This is what we have—make it work.