Theology in the Raw - From Genesis to Junia: Responding to Critiques, Pt. 1

Episode Date: June 8, 2026

Preston's book From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says about Women in Leadership has been out for 3 months and has recieved many positive reviews--but also some critical ones. In this episode, Preston responds to some of the critiques he's recived, focusing largely on Tom Schreiner's critical review. Preston has also written a response to Tom Schreiner's review.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

So my book from Genesis to Junia, an honest search for what the Bible really says about women and leadership has been out now for almost three months. And I wanted to give an update on the book and respond to some of the critiques that I've received on the book, both from complementarians and also from egalitarians. I am really shocked at the positive responses that the book has received. I honestly didn't expect so many positive responses, even from people that say I disagreed with their conclusion, but really, you know, learned a lot, was challenged, forced me to go back to the text. I mean, that's, that's what I asked for. That's one of the main goals in the book is I want to push people to go back to the texts of scripture to root their views on women and leadership in a rigorous, curious, robust study of the text of scripture. And overall, it seems like the book has contributed toward that end. I was expecting, honestly, I would say more critiques. I've definitely received critiques. You know, I've even got people saying, how are you doing, handling all the critiques of your book?

I'm like, I'm the same. My first rodeo, I mean, most books I write get a lot of critiques. and, you know, negative reviews and whatever, criticism, blah, blah, blah. So that's just Tuesday for me. I was expecting more from this book, honestly. Compared to the other books I've written, I think the positive responses from Genesis Jr. far outweigh the critical responses. And to be clear, I just love, I thrive on healthy, good faith, thoughtful critiques of

anything I do say, right? So there has been some really good, thoughtful critiques of the book. Some of the ones that would say aren't are less maybe thoughtful or maybe aren't made in the best faith. But again, that's just, that just comes with the territory. You know, if you've got to put yourself out there, you write a book, you have to expect you're going to get critical feedback. You're going to get people that critique your book that haven't even read it. You're going to get people who make fun of your name or your rip on your character. It's just, it's the world we live in. So if you, if you don't want that, then you probably shouldn't write a book or say, speak publicly. Just stay up social media and you won't get any of that. So I do want to respond to some of the

more substantial critical reviews that I've gotten. Before I do, I want to give a couple quick kind of responses to stuff I've heard from no one in particular, but just I've heard kind of several people say, you know, here and there online conversations, social media. Some people don't really like my subtitle, an honest search for what the Bible really says about women in leadership. I think there's two, it's a little punchy. It is. And I don't mind being a little punchy in especially subtitles. You could just not be punchy in.

you know, just have a kind of a boring, clear title or whatever. I like to have a little bit of a little bit of salt to my subtitles. But to be clear, you know, some people said, oh, an honest search, like, what, you're the only one who's like honestly looked at this question. And no, I don't think I am. And it actually didn't say that. Like it, the subtitle literally says, and on a search, not the honest search. So in no way. am I claiming that I am the first one to make an honest search about what the Bible says about women and leadership. I think that one should have been obvious. I was not expecting people to critique me for claiming that I'm the only one to make an honest search. So again, it is an honest search,

not the honest search. And, you know, other people kind of got hung up on the word what the Bible really says. I actually went back and forth on that. And with everything I do and write, especially titles. I've got, you know, half a dozen, a dozen people that I consult with titles. And I always want to pass by these things with lots of people because I'm, you know, sometimes I, you know, I might like something, but other people say, well, it kind of comes off this way. You shouldn't do that. And with this small community of people that I discussed the subtitle with, we kind of went round and around about the word, really. Believe it or not, some people were like, yeah, I don't like that. it just seems a little snarky.

Other people are like, I don't know, it kind of adds a little spice to it. It kind of like stirs it up a bit. And I ended up leaving it in because it is, it speaks more to my personal curiosity in the conversation. I want to know what the Bible really says about women in leadership. I don't want to defend a certain position out of the gate. I don't want to simply. examine contemporary models of women in church leadership. I just want to know what the Bible really says. So again, it's not meant to say other people aren't doing that. It just is speaking

to my personal approach to the topic. So I can see where people would be a little annoyed at the word, really. But I don't know. It is what it is. It's there. It wasn't intended to throw shade on other people who have, who have research this topic. Another critique I've gotten, again, this is more of a general critique, and I'll get into some of the specific critiques in a second and dig, like I'll go down a really thorough analysis

of some substantial critiques that people have made. But a general critique that I've heard is that I prioritize the historical cultural background of, the New Testament over the text of Scripture. And this, as you probably know, is a very familiar way of framing the so-called egalitarian and complementarian debates. That complementarians are just going with a plain reading of scripture. This is just what the Bible says. Women can't teach or leave

men. And it's the egalitarians that have to come up with some sort of like fanciful historical background and say, well, even though the Bible clearly says this, it doesn't actually say this, you know? And so I think egalitarians have often gotten critiqued for prioritizing the background of scripture over the clear or plain reading of the text of scripture. I find that critique problematic on several levels. I mean, to be clear, do some egalitarians do that, prioritize some kind of fanciful, you know, theoretical background and to override the plain meaning of scripture? I mean, I'm sure, I'm sure some people do it. I'm sure some complementarians do that as well. So people do do that. I'm very well aware of that error. And I can,

and say that is not at all what I sought out to do. I mean, you'd be the judge if you read the book. I don't think I did that at all. Certainly didn't intend to you. My approach is to interpret the Bible as it was written and understood in its historical context. So some people are like, well, the plain reading of the Bible, and they almost like detached the Bible from its historical context. So while we don't want to override the quote unquote plain media,

reading of scripture, whatever that means, by some theoretical or fanciful historical background that doesn't have a lot of evidence of support. Of course, we don't want to do that. But we also don't want to just think the Bible fell out of the heavens or whatever and wasn't written by real people in a real time and place. So in order to understand the intention of a first century ancient Jewish writer of scripture, I focus largely on Paul, but also the Gospels. If we're going to understand the meaning of those words put to paper, put the parchment, we have to understand the context. We can't rip that person out of the context. We can't rip the historical audience out of the context. We have to ask a question, how would these

ancient writers and ancient audience have understood these words? So I think it's a false dichotomy to say, well, either we take the text of Scripture and just interpret the words of scripture, or we examine the background. We have to interpret the Bible in its historical context. So I, there's one chapter in particular where I've seen people say, oh, you, you just dismissed what Paul says based on some, you know, cooked up historical background. And this is my chapter on 1 Timothy 2. And if you've read the book again, you know, some of these critiques you don't know,

have they actually read it because I don't know how they would get that. In my section on 1st Timothy 2, it's the longest chapter of the book, about 50 pages. And the majority of that chapter is focused on the meaning of these Greek words in 1st Timothy 2, 9 to 15. and then I have a few pages on chapter three. So by far, most of my energy was spent on syntax, the meaning of words. I have a lengthy word, you know, section of doing a word study on Offentane, the word

translated exercise or assume authority in First Timothy 212. I look at the syntax of the Greek word gar in chapter 2, verse 13. I look at how verse 13 is related to verse 14. syntactical connection there. I look at how all of that is related to verse 15 and the linguistic kind of bookends of the chapter, which, or of that section, which starts in verse 8 and ends in verse 15. So, so heavy on the actual text of scripture, then I do have a section exploring the Artemis background. And I think there are, I mean, most scholars would say, there are some seemingly clear allusions to some kind of influence from Artemis mythology.

Verse 15 is the clearest kind of window into this where, you know, Paul says women will be saved through childbearing and there's lots of interpretations of what that means. And it's such an odd thing for Paul to say. It doesn't make sense in the context, according to our modern perspective. But when you understand that Artemis, the Artemis cult and Artemis mythology that surrounded the cult, that that permeated the socioeconomic, religious fabric of Ephesus. And again, that's not disputed. This is, you know, pervasive in the first century context of Ephesus. And it just so happens that Artemis, one of the main features, main beliefs about Artemis and Artemis mythology was that she was like a divine midwife who delivered women through child.

When, you know, having kids in the ancient world was incredibly risky. Many women died in childbirth. And Artemis was believed to be the kind of protector who brought women through childbearing. So given the fact that he's writing to a church in Ephesus, given the fact that Artemis mythology permeated the socioeconomic, religious fabric of the city, and given the fact that Artemis was known for being a divine midwife, I don't know. Just seems like Paul might have that in mind when he says that they will be saved through childbirth. And if they continue in, you know, faith and what, Safrasune, modesty or sober-mindedness or whatever. So, yeah.

So it's like, okay, I think most people, even if they're nervous about, like, being too confident about the historical background, most people are like, it's kind of, kind of, uh, uncanny. It's kind of a, yeah, interesting that there's some strong touch points. to Artemis mythology and what Paul says in verse 15. And then if you, you know, so that's kind of how I began kind of getting into Artemis mythology. And then when I looked at, you know, did a lot of reading on Artemis mythology. There's a lot of ancient sources that talk about Artemis.

We know a lot about what people thought about Artemis and how pervasive her mythology was. And once you kind of live in that world for a little bit, then you go back and read the chapter, or Paul section in verses 8 to 15 in 1st, Timothy 2, you actually see several touchpoints, not just verse 15, but you also see a lot of linguistic connections between what Paul says and things stated in Artemis mythology. So I do think that's worth exploring. Do we know exactly what Paul's trying to refute on every turn? No. Do we know how much Artemis mythology was in the back of my mind when he wrote 1st Timothy? No, but there's too many touch points, too many commonalities that I think it would be naive as an exegete to just kind of say, oh, you know, Artemis mythology

brings nothing to the interpretive table as we're reading this letter. I think that would be an historical and an unhelpful approach. Having said all that, even in the section of my book, where I probably dive deepest into trying to understand the historical background and see how can this help inform how we interpret this passage, even then, I say clearly in the chapter, my main argument form how I'm interpreting this passage rests on the text of Scripture. So even if all the things I explore about Artemis are bunk, okay, that's just, oh, that's trash. No, no, that's real.

My argument would still stand because it's based on the linguistic, syntactical connections of Paul's argument. I just explore the Artemis background to say, can we color some of this in a bit? And some of the difficult interpretive decisions, like why does Paul appeal to Adam and Eve in verse 13? I think it's possible, not, it's not for sure, but it's possible that exploring the artist's background might help us understand the kind of shape of Paul's argument there. And in, you know, so that was where I really went into the background, the heaviest. Again, in every chapter, in my whole interpretive approach to scripture, I'm always trying to interpret the words of scripture, not detached from the historical context, but in light of or in their historical context.

So, so yeah, I don't think a kind of sweeping critique of, you know, I just prioritize background over the plain meeting of scripture. I think that's not an accurate critique in my book. And I just, can we just ditch the whole plain meeting? I just, yeah, that phrase just kind of bugs me, the plain meaning of scripture. Well, unless you're fluent in ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, you don't have a plain meaning of scripture. You might have a, think you have a plain meeting of somebody else's interpretation or translation of the original text into your target language. And even there, there's some things that can get lost. But the plan, like, there is no such thing as it's just a plain meaning of scripture. All

interpretate, all reading, every reading of scripture requires some kind of interpretation. And a thoughtful, responsible interpretation does take a bit of work. And there are some statements in scripture that can be really difficult to understand, can be nearly impossible to fully understand. Like Paul's reference to because of the angels in First Corinthians 1110. What does that mean? Anybody that confidently knows what that means is probably not somebody you should pay too much attention to. And it just so happens that a lot of the key passages regarding the question about women of leadership, they do happen to be in context that are notoriously difficult to interpret. at 1 Corinthians 11 being one of them.

So let's just ditch that phrase plain meaning or plain reading. And let's roll up our sleeves, dig deep, understand this ancient text in light of its own historical context. Okay. If you've been listening to Theology and Raw for a while, you know that I care about serious biblical scholarship. And that's one reason why I really appreciate the new living translation. I found one of the biggest misconceptions about the NLT is that because it's so understandable and enjoyable to read, it must be less scholarly. But that's actually not true.

The NLT was actually translated by more than 100 leading biblical scholars, including Tremper Longman, John Oswald, and Dan Block, all of whom are just absolutely amazing scholars. Enjoy preaching, teaching, and reading the Bible like never before with the accurate, understandable, and audibly enjoyable new living translation. And in celebration of the NLT's 30th anniversary, listeners to the show can go to Tindale.com and use the code raw 30 to get 30% off any NLT Bible. Again, that's Tindale.com and use the code raw 30 to get 30% off any NLT Bible. Hey friends, if you missed the recent Exiles in Babylon conference or you just wanted to watch it again, the entire conference, including all the breakouts, are now available on demand.

and just head over to TheologyNrod.com to check it out. We had some amazing conversations and talks about AI, immigration, mental health, and a couple of different dialogical debates on the historical reliability of the Bible and another one on Christians and War. The speakers include Sandy Richter, Piedens, Shane Claiborne, Paul Copeland, Dan Allender, Chinway Williams, Rick Heels, and many others. My favorite part of the conference, I mean, it had to be all the dialogues and Q&A portions of each session where speakers had to go off script and address some challenging questions in the moment.

These raw conversations are always the best. Again, if I want to get access to the conference, check it out, theology in the raw.com. The first lengthy review to come out, it actually came out, I think, the day before my book released. And this comes from Tom Shreiner, who wrote a critical review of the book over at the gospel coalition. And I knew this was coming. I gave Tom a copy of the book, the manuscript months ago. I mean, it was back in the late fall sometime. And I think he even told me he was been asked to write a review for the gospel coalition. And I was excited about this. I mean, Tom, me and Tom go way back. I, okay, so if you don't know, Tom Shrine,

their new, like, renowned New Testament scholar at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, written tons of books, tons of commentaries, just a down-to-earth, humble guy. When I was in my, in seminary, exploring PhD topics to research, I remember feeling so overwhelmed, like, how do you even get into a PhD program? What do you ride on? I don't even know where to start. I knew I wanted to ride on like the Jewish background or the New Testament. Testament. I wanted to understand first century Judaism on its own terms. I wanted to be an expert

in this kind of all the literature written around the New Testament. But I didn't know what to do. I didn't even know how to write a proposal. And so I just kind of reached out to a few scholars, hey, can you help me out? Do you have any ideas? You don't know me from Adam, but blah, blah, and of course, nobody really responded, except for one, Tom Schreider. And I think my email was like asking him about like a, you know, dissertation topic. you know, and I didn't expect a response. Not only did he get a response. I got one like two minutes later.

I was like, wait, what? This is back with emails first started, too, by the way. 2002, I think it was. And bo-boom, whatever that sound was. Bupo. Got the email response with Dom Shrider. It was so thorough, so kind. And he actually, yeah, he was the one who suggested a dissertation topic that ended up

becoming my dissertation topic, understanding. the interpretation of Leviticus 185 in the New Testament, which don't, you can Google that. I'm not going to get into that. But anyway, I ended up writing a dissertation on that. So I've gotten together with Tom since then. He's been at my house before. I invited him to teach a winter class at Eternity Bible College where I was teaching at the time. And he's just always been very, very impressed with him.

And most of all, what I love about Tom is he's, he gets along with people. He disagrees. with. Like we didn't always see I die on stuff. I would say 25 years ago, we saw I die on almost everything. Since then, I've shifted and changed in some areas. And he might have shifted and changed in other areas. But anyway, always appreciated Tom. So he wrote a pretty critical review of the book. I knew it would be critical. I knew he would disagree with the conclusion. I would say that his review was more maybe the maybe the

his language his rhetoric and the review was stronger than I was than I was anticipating which is totally fine it would just maybe wasn't anticipating that from Tom

but I want to work through just a few of his critiques and I would invite you to go check out as always read the original source don't take my word for it okay if you haven't read it yet it made its rounds

on social media so a lot of you maybe we've already read it but I would first go read Tom's critique in my book. And then I wrote a response to Tom called, what do I title of? A response to Tom Shrinner's review of from Genesis to Junia on the Theology and Raw website. So TheologyNorah.com, just go to the blogs. And I think it's one of the more recent blogs. So what I'm doing here is I'm kind of summarizing what I said in that written response.

So if you want the whole written response, then you can go read that on TheologyNerra.com. So the first thing, Paul, Tom critiques me on is for, and I really want to quote him directly, so I don't put words in his mouth, but he critiques me for quote, disregarding creation order, unquote. And the reason is because I don't believe that Genesis 2 supports the notion that Adam being created first is meant to promote the principle of primogenitor, the ancient belief that the firstborn son has priority over his siblings when the father dies. That was a common principle in the ancient world. And some people assume that that principle is sort of at work in Genesis 2. It's baked into the pre-fall creation account. Adam was created first. And that first-born or first

created status reflects the principal of primogeniture. And translated means that Adam has authority over Eve. And my point is pretty simple. I just, I don't think primogenitor fits Genesis 2. Adam and Eve are not siblings. There's no deceased father. And the text itself does not describe firstborn inheritance or priority. Most importantly, though, when it comes to prima genitur, God often overturns the

priority of the firstborn at key junctures in the scriptural narrative, especially in Genesis, as I say in my book, and I quote, God gives priority to Isaac, not the firstborn, Ishmael, to Jacob, not Esau, to Joseph, not his older brothers, to Ephraim, not Manasseh, to Paris, not this pattern is repeated at key points elsewhere in the Old Testament story. God chooses Moses over Aaron, David over his seven older brothers. And there are many more examples that we can give, not least, Jesus's oft-repeated mantra that the first will be last, the last will be first. Therefore, as I say in my book, it's unlikely that God was establishing a universal principle of primogeniture since he was so fond of overturning it, unquote. So my whole point,

again, aside from the fact that Adam and Eve don't really reflect the primogeniture categories, Again, they're not siblings, no deceased father. I just, yeah, I think it's unlikely. But again, the fact that God, even if there was kind of some kind of prema generative going on in Genesis 2, God so frequently overturns it. So to say that this is baked into creation as some sort of universal norm from which, you know, to form the foundation from which we can determine male authority over female on some level in the home, the church, whatever. then why is God so fond of overturning primogeniture? So it's unlikely that Genesis 2 establishes this as a universal rule baked into creation.

Now, Tom believes that, and I quote, none of these arguments accounts for the text as it's actually written in Genesis, unquote. And he asserts that, quote, Sprinkle explains away instead of explaining, unquote. I you go go you can go read go read his review go read my response read the book if you have time I just don't know how he can say that I'm simply explaining a way instead of explaining my approach is simply to stay close to the text of scripture and to refuse to make assumptions that aren't actually in the Bible as I point out the principal primogeniture doesn't factually fit the situation of Adam and Eve. Tom acknowledges that Adam and Eve aren't siblings and there's no dead father in text, but he still argues that Genesis do establishes a rule of primogeniture

etched in the creation. As for God often overturning prema genitur in scripture, Tom thinks these moments are, quote, exceptions that prove the rule of prima genitor. So those are simply exceptions. I don't know. I mean, I guess I just don't, there's, I mean, how many exceptions do we knee before the exceptions become the rule. I mean, it seems like there's more exceptions to primogeniture that are endorsed by God than the norm that God sort of lifts up the priority of the firstborn.

The first shall be last principle captures so much of the ministry of Jesus as he introduces and embodies so many like kingdom reversals to cultural norms. So I don't know. I think my analysis is a prema genitur derived from the text, not in spite of the text, as Tom suggests, but I'm happy for you to decide whether my observations of the text are as, quote, mystifying as Tom thinks. He thinks my reading is

mystifying. Another area where Tom critiques me is where on my interpretation of Eve as helper. Eve is described as Adam's helper in Genesis 2, 18, and 220. And I point out that the word helper at-etzer in the Hebrew, Ezr, that it almost never describes someone under the authority of another person. And this is not, this is, I mean, almost everybody points us out. This isn't like some new thing I'm out into the conversation. And, you know, Tom seems to agree with that. but he points out that there are a few exceptions to this rule.

And he goes to, he references First Chronicles 12, 1, where David's soldiers offer help to David, who has authority over them. Okay, so I, and this is right of scratching my eyes a little bit, because here, he just critiqued me on, well, those are the exceptions of the rule.

And then here he points out an exceptions, an exception to the rule. So I don't know. Are exceptions to the rule? Like a positive argument or not? Because it just seems like it was Tom, if maybe I'm misunderstanding him, but it seems like he was being inconsistent here on how he sees exceptions to certain rules. Anyway, Tom argues that when God is described as helper, as he often is, you know, most often, etzer is referring to God helping Israel, usually through like a military intervention. in a war. He says, well, when God's described as a helper, the word doesn't refer to a subordinate under the authority of another. But in the context of Genesis 2, Tom says, helper does imply a subordinate role when it describes Eve. Tom says, quote, the issue centers on what Genesis 2 means in its own context when it describes the woman as being a helper. Crucially, Paul picks up on the idea of a woman being helpers in 1st,

Corinthians 119, where woman was created for man's sake. Unquote. I, so in my book, I, you know, I do want to try to interpret Genesis 1 to 3 on its own terms, how it was understood in that original context. I, I didn't want to just kind of jump over to allusions to Genesis 1 and 1 to 3 in the New Testament, because there are some, 1st Corinthians 11, as Tom says, and 1 Timothy too. Not because those aren't important. Those are really really important to understand how Paul interpreted Genesis 1 to 3, of course. But I wanted to wait until I work through those New Testament passages much more thoroughly before I can speak with confidence of what I think Paul is doing or how he's interpreting Genesis 1 to 3. So I wasn't, so I was kind of just setting like,

here's how I'm understanding Genesis 1 to 3 on its own terms. Now we will get to. the New Testament allusions to us later, but I don't want to use those. I don't want to just kind of quickly reference the New Testament to kind of override what is going on in Genesis 1 to 3 on its own terms. So now so, but so I don't, again, you be the judge. It seems like Tom just kind of quickly referenced 1st Corinthians 11.9. It says, well, this shows that helper. it means that the woman has a subordinate status and the Adams the authority. To be clear, the word helper does not occur in First Corinthians 11. It does say that, you know, man was not created for a woman, but woman for man. Some debates about what that even means, which again,

I explore in my chapter on First Corinthians 11. But in terms of understanding what the Hebrew word etzer means in its context in Genesis 2, 18 to 20, I do think First Corinthians 11 is of limited help. It's not unimportant, but Paul doesn't, if we're trying to understand the meaning of the specific word helper, because that's what the argument is based on, that, well, Eve's called helper, therefore she's a subordinate to Adam. Well, if we're trying to understand the meaning of that word, etzer, in its Old Testament context, I think 1st Corinthians 11 is of limited help. But even if it is some help, I think 1st, Corinthians 11, 9 needs to be interpreted. in the light of verses 11 to 12, which I explore thoroughly in my chapter when I get there.

Paul's argument doesn't stop with, in first one of these 11 doesn't stop with a woman being created for man because he goes on a couple verses later to seem to seemingly kind of balance out or almost like overturn some of the previously, some of the things you said previously, it's a really complicated argument. So I would encourage you to check out my chapter on that. I try to honor and explore a lot of these complexities. In any case, I don't think there's evidence for etzer, meaning a subordinate who is under the authority of another. Here's my, here's a summary of my arguments.

And Tom doesn't really deal with this in his review. So a summary of my arguments, number one, since ETSER is most often used of God help in Israel, the word itself does not imply that the helper is under another's authority. Even in 1st Corinthians 12, the brave warriors who help David, first one are later identified as mediating the help of God. Success to those who help you for your God will help you,

verse 18 and first chronicles 12. David would go on to make these warriors, quote, leaders of his rating bands. The point is, the word helper simply means help. it's not intended to convey some kind of authority structure between the helper and the helped. If we read that meaning into Genesis 2, we're inserting it for ourselves. We're not drawing it out of the actual text. If the author of Genesis wanted to highlight Adam's authority over Eve, using the word helper is not a clear indication of this.

That's my first counter argument. Second, there's nothing in the context of Genesis 2 suggesting that Eve being, a helper means that Adam is her authority. As I say in my book, quote, Eve is created to help Adam to carry out the creation mandate of Genesis 1, 26, to 28, populating, cultivating, and ruling over the earth. Genesis 1 makes no distinction between male and female in the ruling roles, unquote. If Adam is Eve's authority, this conclusion must come from elsewhere,

not from the word helper or the context of its use in Genesis 2. And my third response, Tom appeals to Paul's interpretation to Genesis 2 in 1st, Corinthians 11, 8 to 9, which clearly, to his mind, says Adam has priority over Eve. Indeed, I acknowledge Paul's that Paul's interpretation to Genesis in these verses seem to support the view that Adam has some kind of priority over Eve. But as Tom notes, I don't believe this is the best way to interpret 1st Corinthians 11, 8 to 9 in light of verses 11 to 12. Tom, of course, disagrees with my interpretation of this passage. Regardless, 1st Corinthians 11 says nothing about the meaning of the word helper, nor does it say anything about only men and women occupying positions of leadership in the church. Indeed, the only ministries mentioned in this chapter, prayer and prophecy, chapter 11 verse 8, are performed by men and women alike. So Tom concludes this section on helper by asserting that, quote, Sprinkle seems to think equality and mutuality cancel out, different roles and responsibilities, unquote, between men and women, and that I, quote, flatten the biblical text and the beautiful differentiation between men and women in Scripture, unquote.

I don't think he, I don't think he represents my arguments well here. I never, and this is purpose. I never appeal to, quote, equality in my argument. I think that, I think, That's a very modern, western concept. And I'm really nervous about importing that concept into the in ancient Eastern text. In fact, I argue throughout the book that quote, this is a quote for me, we shouldn't read our modern notions of equality and power into an ancient nearison text, unquote, page 44. And I disagree with, quote, secular perspectives about equality, some of which try to erase male, female differences. unquote, page 2.93. So contrary to Tom's assertion, I write that, quote, I still believe passionately that men and women are different by design. I just don't think these, our differences,

determine who can teach or lead in our churches, pages to 91 to 92. So rather than, quote, flattening the biblical text, unquote, my argument is based on close attention to the actual text of scripture, extensive word studies, contextual analysis. This doesn't mean my conclusions are correct, of course, but the approach Tom claims to disprove and his review is not the approach I take in my book. Okay, the rest of Tom's critique is focused on my interpretation of First Timothy 2, which he identifies as the key text on men and women. And again, my chapter on First Timothy 2 is the longest of the book, 50 pages. So, I do want to respond to some of his critiques on First Timothy 2, but I want to first of all point out that Tom doesn't interact with huge portions of my book.

I mean, my book is 10 chapters. He doesn't interact with chapters 2 through 9, not extensively. He makes kind of a passing reference. I mean, this forms like the scriptural backbone of my view. He focuses almost exclusively on my treatment of Genesis 1 to 3 and 1 Timothy 2. He doesn't deal with my analysis of women in the ministry of Jesus, female prophets in the Old and New Testament, Paul's diverse leadership language, which is, if you've read the book,

I hope you agree with this. I feel like chapter 4 where I deal with leadership in the first century house churches, I feel like that's kind of the most important chapter of the book. Like that's, yeah, it just kind of just reshapes how we even think about these categories. When we ask, can women serve in leadership? I think a lot of people have kind of a modern understanding of what that even means. And so I spent a whole chapter saying, what was leadership in first century house churches? What was that even like?

We need to understand that before we can even answer the question. Can women serve in leadership? He doesn't deal with Tom doesn't address any of that. He doesn't deal with, you know, female house church hosts that I talk about in that chapter. Paul's description of Phoebe, Priscilla, Jr., and other women described as leaders or doing leadership type activities in the early church. He does mention a passing that I quote, reflect on leaders and leadership, female prophets in the Old Testament and the marriage relationship in Ephesians 5. But he doesn't analyze any of my arguments or offer counter arguments. He simply says, quote, these matters have been debated at.

infinitum. I never find that. I see that a lot. And this, I don't want to focus too much on Tom here because I, I don't know. I see people like if you raise an issue and you give an argument for your view on whatever it is,

just whatever passage of scripture. And if somebody says, well, yeah, but that's debated. Some scholars disagree. that. That's not a counter argument. It's a distraction. It's a red herring. It's just like, yeah. I mean, every word in the Bible is debated by somebody somewhere. That doesn't mean, that doesn't, like, why even say that? It doesn't, that's not a counter argument. So, um, just to say, well, he takes this view on that and this. Wow. But yeah, but those are debated. Like, I'm just like, that doesn't, doesn't mean anything. So, um, now, to be clear, I don't expect Tom to,

you know, it's a short review. I'm, sure gospel coalition probably gave him a word count maybe a thousand words maybe 1200 words i don't know what it was maybe 15 but you couldn't have turned in like a 5 000 word review so i don't um so i'm not i'm not necessarily critiquing him for not really addressing chapters two through nine of my book necessarily it might have been helpful i would say it would have been more helpful if he had said hey you know sprinkle or pressing you know he's got a lot more gone on the book i just i want to focused on two areas that I found particularly problematic, but would encourage the reader

to go check out the rest of his arguments. I'm just not going to deal with those because I want to deal more thoroughly with these two chapters. That's totally fair. At least acknowledging that you're only dealing with small portions of somebody's argument. If that's what you want to do, then that's

that's fair. I just think stating that clearly would be helpful because people that just read his review and not my book will think, we'll maybe get the impression that he kind of like refuted most of the stuff in the book or attempted to refute when he only addressed a small portion of the book. Okay. Tom's critique of my interpretation of First Timothy two, it centers on three issues. Number one, the meaning of to have authority, oftentimes. Number two, the meaning of

to teach didaskine. And number three, whether the Artemis cult shapes Paul's argument. That's the three areas he focuses on. Again, those aren't, you know, there's a lot more that I talk about in that chapter. Those are three big, big parts of it. So I think this is fair for him to focus on just those three aspects. So regarding Authentane, the word authority here at First Timothy 212, I do not, Paul says, I do not permit a woman to didaskin Uday Authentine. I think that's the Greek phrase. So to teach nor neither to teach nor exercise authority or authentane over man. In my book, I do an extensive word study on authentane. It's a very rare word, only used once in the Bible, only used a few times outside the Bible

within the general time frame of when Paul's writing. And every time the verb authentane is used, it refers to the kind of authority exercised by a master's, over his slave or a high status person over a low status person. In other words, Othentane describes the very kind of authority wielded by Gentiles who, as Jesus says, lorded over them, according to that famous passage in Mark 10 and parallels. Now, I think that's really important. Like, how do you understand the meaning of a word?

Well, you look at usage. Okay? People say, well, no, you go to a dictionary and look up the definition. Well, guess how the people who wrote that article understood the words meaning. They looked at usage. So looking at usage is how you understand what a word means. Now, Tom seems to agree with how the word is used elsewhere, but he still finds my argument, quote, astonishing. He writes, quote, we would all agree that a master exercise and authority over a slave isn't a good thing since slavery is wrong.

but that tells us nothing about the terms meaning in an ancient text. He goes on to argue, for this argument to carry much force, Sprinkle would have to show that in the ancient text where Authentane is used, the authors in question thought masters exercising authority over slaves was negative, or that those in the social hierarchy thought exercising authority over one lower on the social ladder was negative, unquote. I just, well, actually, let me go back and just clarify in case sometimes I assume that you're like well versed in these arguments and stuff. So here's the biggest question. When Paul says, I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, the biggest question in that

verse is, is Paul referring to a godly Christian kind of authority that men should exercise? But women shouldn't because they're women? is it a godly kind of authority that women are prohibited from wielding from from having or is it a negative kind of authority one of domination a more secular kind of authority CEO top down rule over others that is consistently denounced in in the Bible for both men and women that's the biggest question Because if Authentane refers to a more negative

kind of authority that's really prohibited from both men and women, it's just Paul, for various reasons, singles out women here. Maybe this was a problem among women. So he singles them out because they were the ones

doing this in that context. It's kind of a game changer because this is the one verse that where women are prohibited from teaching and exercise and authority. some people might reference first grendeans 14 34 to 35 i have a chapter on that i don't think that's talking about that if anything it isn't say don't teach don't exercise authority it says

women can't even speak in church and there's yeah um all kinds of interpretive issues there that i'm not going to get into here so really i mean so if if if if authentane means a negative kind of authority, not a godly authority good for men but not women. This is a game changer. This is, I mean, this is kind of the main, by far, the main passage to support a complementarian reading. Okay. So anyway, so now you understand the context. Now, again, Tom says that authentane degrees, yeah, it's used of slaves exercising authority over, or sorry, masters exercise and authority over slaves outside the Bible, a high social status person,

exercising authority over low social status person. But because those writers of those ancient text didn't think it was negative, therefore the words not negative negative. I just don't, I went back over and over and over to make sure I understand, I'm understanding Tom correctly because his reasoning sounded just so unconvincing

to me on just a basic linguistic level. But I'm like, maybe I'm not understanding. right because it's just like, wait, that's not how you do linguistics. But yeah, this is what he says. So, and I just, yeah, I don't know. Tom's so brilliant. He's a great linguist. He knows Greek better and I know English.

So I want to, here's my response, and I just want this to be cautious, I guess, because gosh, maybe I'm still missing something. Because it seems so like, gosh, this doesn't sound like a good argument. at all. So, but Tom's brilliant. He knows languages. He knows how to do linguistics. And so maybe I'm missing something, but here's my thoughts. A word's meaning is shaped by how it's used in other context, not whether one author agrees with another author's worldview. So secular masters wielding authenticity over the slaves. Yeah, they didn't think anything was wrong with this kind of master slave authority. But their positive understanding of authentane doesn't mean Paul must view

such authentane, master-like authority over slaves, doesn't mean Paul must view it positively, just because other people in the Greco-Roman world didn't have any problem with masters wielding authenticity over their slaves. I mean, that would be like saying the word katakurisen,

which is the Greek word translated to lord it over others. You know, Jesus says, Gentiles lorded over others, but it will not be this way in my kingdom, right? Mark 1042. you. So that would be like saying the word, Katakiricin must be a positive word in the eyes of Jesus since the rulers of the Gentiles

were quite fond of ruling over the people this way in that day. Gentile rulers didn't think Lording it over others was a bad thing. They're like, no, that's a sign of high status and power. That's a good thing. So I don't, I mean, even humility. I would need to verify this, but I, you know, I always grew up hearing, you know,

humility was kind of a vice, not a virtue in the Greco-Roman world. Well, just because, yeah, the New Testament doesn't need to agree with the worldview of others using the same word for the word to mean what it means in both contexts. So Tom is, anyway, so I just, I don't, again, go read it, go read his take, go read my response, mull over it, pray over it, and see what you. you think? I just, I just was very unconvinced with his pushback of my understanding of authentane because he agrees with how I'm seeing it use in other contexts. Tom is also, quote, astonished. He's astonished quite a bit in this article at my understanding of to teach,

didos gain in First Timothy 212? Here's the issue. Again, with authentane. Good authority, bad authority. Same with teaching. Is this a good kind of teaching that, men should do, but women shouldn't do? Or is there something negative about the kind of teaching, or maybe the manner in which they're teaching that Paul is prohibiting? So in my book, I point out that the word didoscan, it's just, it's a neutral word, it just means to teach. It can be used positively or negatively based on the context. And I work through several examples to illustrate the point. And sometimes it's not clear. Sometimes it's not really the content. It's not really the content is negative, like you're

like you're false teaching false things, but maybe it's even the manner in which you're teaching or teaching, but you're being hypocritical in your teaching. So the word teach can have positive, negative, or just kind of a neutral connotation. And this is determined from the context. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot

in the context of First Timothy, too, to say one way or another. Now, some people, I think, approach this question wrongly. They say, Paul almost, like, usually uses the word teaching. positively, therefore it's positive, like it's positive and less proven negative. I would say it's a neutral word unless the context shows that it's positive or if it's negative. Now, since teaching is coupled with

the word authentane, which if you, I don't know, if you agree with my reading of this word, not just my reading, but many others, then it's a negative kind of authority. And the fact that it's coupled, the fact that teaching is coupled with this negative word, then this would suggest that the kind of teaching Paul has in view is negative. Because Paul joins Dadaskiin with Athentaine, a word that most likely conveys a negative kind of authority. Paul is therefore prohibiting women from teaching men in a domineering manner. Tom claims that I don't engage, quote, in a significant way with Andreas Osterberg's careful

study the syntax of the phrase teach and exercise authority, which shows that both teaching and exercising authority are positive. He says, quote, my skating over Kastenberger's analysis is a serious deficiency since that analysis hasn't been overturned even after much discussion, unquote. Well, I think Tom might have skated over my analysis of Kossenberger's article. I do cite and engage with the study on page 244, note nine, and throughout pages 257 to 261. In fact, my argument agrees with Kastenberger's syntactical analysis. Kossenberger simply says that when two words are joined by the neither nor construction, as it is here in 1st, Timothy, 212, both must be positive or both must be negative. You can't have one

negative or one positive. And Kossumberger argues that since Dadas gained is positive, therefore authentane must be positive. I agree with Kossenberger's premise, and yeah, I don't think it's refuted. But I just simply turn it around. Since Authentane is negative, and there's no indication in this context that Dadoscan is positive, it's more likely that both terms overlap to convey a negative idea. It wouldn't be unusual for Paul to join Dadascane to Authentane with the Ute-Ude construction to convey a single idea, namely that women are not permitted to teach in a dominary manner over man. That's a quote from my book. So, yeah, so I not only do I cite and interact with Kossenberger, I agree with his premise. I just

kind of apply it in a different way than Kossumberger does. Lastly, Tom critiques my exploration of how the Artemis cult may have shaped Paul's argument in 1st Timothy 2, 8 to 15. I think Paul raises, I think he raises, sorry, I think Tom raises some good points here. I think he overstates some others. I'll be brief here because I do want to get on to some other critiques in my book. So first, Tom rightly points out that in 1st Timothy, quote, Artemis is never mentioned. And Tom says, this is strange of the cold exercise such remarkable influence.

Yeah, Paul never mentions Artemis. So if Artemis had such an influence, why does he mention? mentioner. It's actually not strange at all. As I point out on page 272, 272 note 90, quote, Paul never mentions foreign deities in any of his letters. Luke does throughout acts, but Paul never does. Certainly, Paul dealt with the influence of pagan deities throughout his letters. Like, you would have to rip Paul out of his first century historical context to say all these Greco-Roman deities had no influence on the people he was writing to you, which would be ah historical. and not a sound way to interpret an ancient text.

So Paul, for sure, dealt with the influence of pagan deities throughout his letters, but he always avoids mentioning the names of pagan gods. I don't know why. Maybe somebody does, but it must seem like it's kind of Paul's policy not to mention foreign deities in his letters. Luke does in the book of Acts, so it's not like anti-New Testament. It's just Paul wasn't really down with doing that for whatever reason. So we wouldn't expect Artemis to be named in order for her influence to be felt.

Secondly, Tom notes that the, quote, deviations perpetuated by the false teachers actually point to Jewish roots. Not, you know, Artemis cult stuff. Devotion to myths and genealogies, Chapter 1, the Jewish law versus Chapter 1, 6 to 11. Aceticism, Chapter 4, and Knowledge, Chapter 6. Well, yeah, yes. And my response to that is, yeah, of course, there's Jewish influence on false teaching and Ephesus, but the influence of Artemis permeated the fabric of the social, economic and religious fabric of Ephesus. And First Timothy also shows many touchpoints to Artemis mythology.

First Timothy 215 is a clear example. So I would just, it's just to be, it's not a false, I think it's a false dichotomy to say, no, there's Jewish influence on false teaching in First Timothy, not anything to have to do with Artemis cult. Hellenistic Judaism in the diaspora blended all kinds of stuff together. Judaism with other things in the Greco-Roman world. I mean, Philo, first century Jewish philosophers, a great example of this. You don't know when he's quoting the law of Moses or Plato. I mean, so yeah, I think just false dichotomy to point out to some passages and say, no, Paul's dealing with Jewish influence, not anything from Artemis.

Lastly, Tom critiques me by noting, quote, egalitarians tend, as we see here with reference to Artemis, to appeal to matters not stated or found in a text to overturn what the text actually says, unquote. Okay, maybe they do. Can't speak for all egalitarians, but this would be an inaccurate summary of my argument, as I state plainly on 278. To be clear, my exegesis of 1st Timothy 2, 18 to 15, rest primarily on the text itself, not. on the cultural context surrounding Artemis. While this context might help color in Paul's argument, the text itself must direct our interpretation. And again, as I said, at the beginning of this episode,

which is getting quite long. I got to check the time here. I do think we should interpret the text of Scripture what the text actually says in its actual historical context. So no, you don't use historical context to override what the text is saying. Neither do we try to understand an ancient text. apart from its ancient context. I knew Tom and I would disagree on some key exegetical points,

and I truly thank you for reading earlier drafts of the book. I guess my main concern with this review is how frequently he implies or asserts that I quote, flatten the biblical text, domesticate the text, don't account for the richness and fullness of what the text says, and that my arguments echo contemporary cultural norms. I mean, these are pretty certain. charges. They're not, however, arguments. You know, disagreement over action Jesus is healthy. I think asserting without evidence that someone is capitulating to culture is less helpful.

If scholars are going to have vigorous scriptural debates over this important topic, I recommend that we avoid such mischaracterizations and stick to exa Jesus. As for the strengths of my exegetical arguments in my book, I'm very happy letting the readers decide for themselves. So anyway, I do thank Tom for the review. Challenge my thinking in certain parts, though, as you can tell, I'm not convinced of his critiques. I'm going to stop there and come back. I want to make this a two-part series here. It's been an hour.

I thought I would be able to cram all of this in in less than an hour and a half, but I'm only a quarter of the way through my notes here. In the next episode, I want to deal with my friend John Whitaker's. I would say much more helpful critical review of my book. I want to deal thoroughly with his critiques. And then I want to turn to some of the critiques of my book from a more egalitarian perspective.

Now obviously that's where I end up landing. So you might wonder what critiques could come from the people who agree with you. Well, people can agree with their conclusion. It's still critique your argument. Or not just your argument. Yeah, they can critique the fact that you're a, maybe a man writing on women in leadership.

and that is, that's a, not a, it's a very general kind of characterization of some of the critiques I've gotten. So I want to, I want to wrestle with some of the concerns that Beth Barr has raised. Beth and I have had some good conversations both offline and online on other podcast platforms that I will summarize kind of some of the concerns she's raised and how we've interacted. And then there's a few other kind of like just statements I've seen repeated from a more egalitarian view that seem to be not just some one-off social media post, but seem to be kind of like, oh, I'm seeing this like several people kind of say the same thing. So I'm going to address some of those concerns from a more egalitarian. perspective. But I'm going to get to all that in the next episode. So thanks for listening, folks. Appreciate all your feedback, those of you who have given it on the book. And yeah, look forward to continuing to engage people in this really important conversation.