Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep948: A Complementarian Reading of the New Testament: Dr. Tom Schreiner

Episode Date: February 21, 2022

Complementarians believe that the Bible affirms the full equality of women and men, but that God only allows men to be elders and teachers in local churches. Dr. Tom Schreiner is one of the most well known and widely published (and respected) scholars who holds to this view. In this episode, Tom sums up his position and then responds to several counterarguments I throw at him.  Tom is James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and Professor of Biblical Theology (1997) and Associate Dean of the School of Theology. Schreiner joined the Southern faculty in 1997 after serving 11 years on the faculty at Bethel Theological Seminary. He also taught New Testament at Azusa Pacific University. Schreiner, a Pauline scholar, is the author or editor of several books including, Romans, in the Baker Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament; Interpreting the Pauline Epistles; The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law; The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance; Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives of Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, co-edited with Bruce A. Ware; Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of I Timothy 2:9-15; Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. https://www.sbts.edu/academics/faculty/thomas-r-schreiner/ Theology in the Raw Conference - Exiles in Babylon At the Theology in the Raw conference, we will be challenged to think like exiles about race, sexuality, gender, critical race theory, hell, transgender identities, climate change, creation care, American politics, and what it means to love your democratic or republican neighbor as yourself. Different views will be presented. No question is off limits. No political party will be praised. Everyone will be challenged to think. And Jesus will be upheld as supreme. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

All right. Hey, friends. I have on the show today a longtime friend slash mentor, the one and only Dr. Thomas Schreiner. Tom got his MDiv and THM from Western Seminary, PhD from Fuller Seminary. He's written like, I think, 10,000 books or pretty much close to it. He wrote this massive commentary on Romans that I read a long time ago. It just is an incredible commentary. He's written commentaries on 1st, 2nd Peter, Jude. He's written lots of stuff on Paul and his theology. One of the top, most renowned evangelical New Testament scholars. I wanted to have Tom on the show because he is kind of an expert on the so-called complementarian view of women in – I don't like this phrase. Women in ministry.

Women in pastoral leadership. So he holds to a more conservative view on that. And in most episodes that I've discussed this issue, I've had on people who don't agree with that position. And in my effort to represent all of you as well, I said, hey, I want to have the best representation of the complementarian view. Some of you don't like it. Some of you are going to hate it. Some of you are going to love it. And say, finally, you had somebody on to talk about this. Anyway, wherever you're at, we all need to understand the view before we refute a view. Before you disagree with it, you got to understand it. So that's what we're going to do today. It's an A to Z kind of

whistle-stop tour through all of the relevant passages in the New Testament on this issue. Before we dive in, a couple of reminders that the Theology in the Rock conference is coming up. There's only a few more weeks left. Go to pressandsprinkle.com to sign up. If you want to attend live in Boise, you got to do that ASAP. And if you can't attend live here in Boise, then we do have a live streaming option and all the info is in the show notes. Also, we have our resource that we are about to release for parents of LGBTQ kids. It's called, if you go to parentinglgbtq.com, parentinglgbtq.com, you'll see all the info on this really important resource. We get emails from parents all the time. Hey, my kid just came out. My son is now my daughter. And how do I

embody the love and grace and truth of Jesus in this new relationship that I have with my kids? So if that is you and you want a really thorough, robust discipleship tool, then check it out. ParentingLGBTQ.com. If you pre-order it in the next week or two, you'll get a discount. So it releases at the end of February. If you pre-order it, there is a discount available. Okay, let's dive into this controversial topic with the one-term friend, Tom Schreiner from Southern Seminary. Tom, do you remember the first time we corresponded over email? If you don't, that's totally fine. Well, I remember talking about a PhD. Was that the first time?

Yes, yes. I emailed you out of nowhere. You didn't know if I'm out. This must have been 2002, maybe 2003. And I had just gotten accepted at Aberdeen University, really wanted to write on Paul and the Law. I knew it seemed to be a topic that was kind of exhausting. I said, hey, do you have any recommendations for a PhD thesis?

I had sent emails out to lots of people. You're very well-known. And you emailed immediately with my topic, Leviticus 18.5. And that's what my PhD was on. Yeah, I remember that. Yeah. Yeah. So my PhD, I spent three and a half years researching Leviticus 18.5. And that's what my PhD was on. Yeah, I remember that. Yeah. So my PhD, I spent three and a half years researching Leviticus 18.5b.

So you've never forgiven me for that. Right? Here is why I would never do it differently. That topic, as you know, I wanted to become well-versed in Jewish literature. I kept hearing the Jewish literature says this and a Jewish background that. I'm like, I want to be the guy who's saying this is what it says rather than trusting other people. And that topic, not that Leviticus 18.5 is necessarily thrilling, but it took me through all kinds of pseudepigrapha, apocrypha. And I spent three years basically studying first century Jewish literature. And I'll never read the New Testament the same. So it was a win. Well, really, Roy, maybe it wasn't your second book, but it prepared you for your other book, huh?

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that's it. Yeah, PhD. you for your other book, huh? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

And that's it. Yeah. PhD. And especially that environment, it forces you to constantly be playing devil's advocate with yourself because it's, as you know, people don't let you get away with lazy thoughts. And that alone was, yeah, it was great. It was great. Yeah.

Yeah. I forgot what the verse even says. Well, in my class, we read it today because I'm having my students do an analysis of that Galatians 3, 10 through 14. Oh, yeah. That's a tough passage, man. Yeah, so much there. Well, you don't think it's tough. No, I think it's tough.

Yeah. It's tough. Yeah. All right. So I didn't have you on to talk about Leviticus 18.5. Yeah. All right. So I didn't have you on to talk about Leviticus 18.5. I want to talk about what does the New Testament say about women? And I don't even like the term ministry. It's too broad, but that talk around it are egalitarian. And I'm, it was just funny because I was raised complementarian. I'm kind of on the fence right now, but I'm like, man, I need to have some complementarians on. And you are, according to my egalitarian friends, you're their favorite complementarian.

Well, that's nice. That's nice. I hope that's still true after this interview. Well, I remember asking you, when you came out and taught a class on this, I think it was on this, years ago, that winter I'm at Eternity Bible College. Was that what it was on?

I forgot. Yeah. I think it was. Or at least a part of it. I asked you, I said, hey, what do you think is the strongest egalitarian argument? And you immediately said what you thought it was, which I thought, if people don't do that, it makes me almost not trust them. I'm like, if they say, oh, there's no good arguments, I'm like, I don't know. If you can't say here's the best argument, man, here's why I disagree.

And do you remember what you said? I don't know if you still't say here's the best argument, man, here's why I disagree. I just, my try. And do you remember what you said? I don't know if you still hold it to that. I would say now the argument. Oh, is that what I said then? So yeah, you just cut out for a half second. What was it? I would, I would say the argument from prophecy.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I thought, I, I mean, I thought that's what I said because, um, I've held that view for years. Yeah. Did, I mean, you, you actually go ahead. Uh, well, I've, I've, I've actually, maybe I shouldn't say this publicly, but I've actually thought I could write a good case for it. I'm not the case I would make. I haven't seen in writing, but maybe it's out there somewhere, but I'm not going to make a program. You're going to give some red meat to someone out there. Okay. So let's just, how about,

how about we start by you giving maybe, maybe a concise summary of why you are a complementarian, maybe even define what that is for some of us listening that don't even know what we're talking about. And then what is maybe the best New Testament case for complementarianism? Yeah. Well, I mean, I like to begin with women in ministry. Yes, I believe in women in ministry. You know, I think it's good to start with a broad framework. I agree with what you said at the beginning. Ministry is a very general word.

All believers are in ministry. And are women in ministry? Absolutely. I mean, just look at Romans 16. It's all over the place in Romans 16. And I won't go over the details, and I haven't checked the numbers, but what, 7, 8, 9, 10 women are mentioned there, something like that. I think a third of the names are female. Yeah, there's 26 names, if I remember correctly, and yeah, around a third are women. So, and then, you know, you think of Euodia and Syntyche, and you have female prophets, Philip's daughters, and of course you have Acts 2, both men and women will prophesy, sons and daughters will prophesy. You have Huldah in the Old Testament, and Deborah, and, you know, so forth and so on. So, yeah, I mean, I think we want to affirm, I would say we want to affirm women being in ministry in every way they, according to my reading, should be. Now, I also think when it comes to offices, complementarians, well, okay, what's a complementarian? You know, people don't like

the terms, a lot of egalitarians don't like that we call ourselves complementarians. They want us to call, they want us to say we're patriarchalists, but I like the designation complementarian because it means, you know, men and women working together have don't have precisely the same functions in every area, but they complement each other. They I mean, that's clearly true in marriage, at least physically. Right. We complement each other. Only women have babies and so forth and so on. So there's a complementarian relationship. In terms of the offices, I believe not all complementarians agree with me. I believe women can be deacons, function as deacons. That's how I read, you know, there's only two verses, 1 Timothy 2.11 and Romans 16.1. And some people think Romans 16.1 isn't even a verse on it, right?

Because it just says Phoebe's in Diakonon. Right. But I think that's talking about an office. Okay. So, you know, a lot of my complementarian friends disagree with me on that, but I'm very persuaded women functioned as deacons. But I would say, where do I draw a line? I don't think women were apostles. And clearly that'll lead to a question, but we won't get into it right now.

And I don't think women functioned as elders, overseers, pastors. So I agree with Ben Merkel, who's at Southeastern, wrote a dissertation on this. I think there's good evidence that elders, overseers, pastors are the same office. And I think from 1 Timothy 2, when Paul says, I don't permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. Those two functions, teaching and exercising authority, are what in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, 1 Peter 5, those are the two distinctive features of elders, overseers, pastors that are not true of deacons. So I think Paul says the very two things that would preclude women from functioning in that particular office. Now, there's so much more I can say, but maybe just start with that. Yeah, yeah. And I don't know if I should jump into all the pushbacks yet, but –

Whatever. Is there significance to, for your argument, all male apostles, the original 12, and even in the Book of Acts? I mean, I think Barnabas and Philip are called apostles too, and then Paul, obviously. Paul. The only time you have apostles in Acts is Paul and Barnabas. I mean, besides the 12. Paul and Barnabas in Acts 14. Okay.

So, you know, they even debate, there's a debate in scholarship, whether by apostoloi he means the same thing as he means for the 12 in Luke. Right, right. So, yeah, he doesn't call Philip an apostle, Philip one of the seven. He doesn't call him an apostle or Stephen. But yeah, I mean, I don't think the argument from the 12 is determinative. Right. I don't think that's an absolutely clear argument precluding women from functioning as pastors today, I would say it functions more as a confirming argument. So if I think it's instructive, but not finally provative, it doesn't finally prove the case, but it seems to fit. It fits the pattern.

It fits the pattern. It fits the pattern. Okay, okay. Yeah, I have all the what about this, what about that. Let me see. Whatever. Well, so going, you know, the patriarchal or whatever, can you give a moral rationale for why God would only allow males to be teachers, leaders? Is it because, well, yeah, I'll just leave it at that. Like what would be the rationale? Because that's really where the emotional kind of aversion can come from because it sounds like women are lesser than. And is the

complementarian view that you're articulating, is it intrinsically kind of demeaning towards women? How do you respond maybe to that? Yeah, I think that's a great question. Well, I think the scriptural vision is women are equally made in the image of God, Genesis 1, 26 and 27. Galatians 3, 28, there's neither male nor female. I take it in that context, there's equal access to salvation. 1 Peter 3, they're co-heirs of the grace of life, so there's an equal destiny. So ontologically, women are equal to men, intellectually, emotionally. Women are equal to men intellectually, emotionally. You know, men and women are different, but it has nothing to do with equality or inferiority or men are just better than women in some undefined way or maybe defined by someone. So I don't think I don't think that is the argument. I'd say, I mean, first, I just want to start with the text. I think Paul says, I don't permit a woman

to do this. This is the most important verse for me. Then he says, for Adam was formed first and then Eve. So for me, I've said this in some of my books, I've wanted to be an egalitarian even. But especially when I was at Fuller Seminary, I was searching for a reason. But I have never been persuaded by the attempts to explain by egalitarians verse 13, because Paul, in my mind, appeals to the good creation, not the fall. You know, the early egalitarians said, well, it's because of Genesis 3.16, it's because of the fall. Paul doesn't appeal to the fall. And then, I mean, I've read lots on this, you know, there's always news coming out, but you know, many commentators will say, well, verse 13 is really hard to understand. Well, I just don't agree with that. I think verse 13 is not very hard to understand.

I think verse 14 is hard to understand, but not verse 13. 14 is where it's women are saved through childbearing, right? Like that's, that's, is that the one? Yeah. Well, now I was thinking of the – it was not Adam who was deceived but Eve. Oh, right. Okay. Then the next verse is on the childbearing, yeah. Yeah. And then, you know, the typical egalitarian reading is something like the prohibition is because the women are peddling the false teaching or they're uneducated.

But, I mean, I have a couple of objections to that. One of my objections is I think the evidence that all the women in Ephesus are uneducated is difficult to prove. And I don't think fits with the Greco-Roman world. Plus, we have some evidence from, I think it's 2 Timothy, that Priscilla was there and she certainly wasn't uneducated. So I think that's quite a leap. The other thing I'd say is all the false teachers mentioned in the pastoral are men. So why does he forbid only the women? Secondly, is it the case that all the women

were promoting false teaching, so all the women have to be banned? That seems like rather a stretch to me to say, well, all the women are deceived. All the women are promoting the false teaching. But furthermore, he could have just said that. It's not hard to say, I don't permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over men because they're spreading the false teaching or because they're uneducated. But that's actually not the reason he gave. So I just have to follow what I think the text is saying. I respect egalitarians who have high views of scripture and a different view of authority.

I don't think they're heretical different view of authority. I don't think they're heretical or outside the faith. I don't say those kind of things. But I just say I can't be persuaded textually by those kind of arguments because I just don't think that's what the text says. I appreciate that. That's why I wanted to have you on because you're so exegetically focused and concerned. What about the argument from the word authutane, to teach and exercise authority? I just read an article by Linda Bellevue. I don't know if it's a new one or an old one, where she did a ton of historical background research and showed that... I think I don't want to take her... I think she said something like in almost every instance where we see this word used outside the new Testament, it's used in,

and it's not neutral exercise authority. It's actually a negative kind of authority so that it's like abusive authority or, and she even said that the grammatical construction with teaching and exercise and authority is teaching the kind of the same thing like teaching while exercising improper authority or something like that so it's not a blanket exclusion of women in authoritative positions have you what am i summarizing that argument well? Yeah, I mean, there's so many. There's so much out there.

But yeah, Linda has done a lot of work, and I consider Linda a friend. We've talked over the years. I would say, yeah, there's a lot of different studies out there on Authentane. We have about three editions of our book on, um, women in the church. I think Al Walter's article on Authentane is more persuasive. I mean, that's a very detailed, uh, study. Um, but, um, you know, I mean, I'd, I'd have to, I can't just rehearse the evidence off the top of my head because that's, that's a, that's a, you know, they're looking at the literature. And of course that is a hard

word to define. It isn't anywhere else in the LXX. So, or the new Testament. So we, we, we, we try to discern what he's saying, but I also think now I've read a lot of attempts to respond to Andreas Kostenberger's article. But I think Andreas does a very careful study, which is in our book as well, on when you have these two pairs with UDA. I don't, you know, I don't permit a woman to teach or exercise authority. And again, you'd have to look at the evidence, but I think Andreas is persuasive in saying, when you have those pairs like that, they're either both intrinsically negative or intrinsically positive. And I think Andreas is right.

To teach is not an intrinsically negative idea. Right. Because that word, I mean, it's didoskali, right? Yeah. I mean, it's the infinitive there. But yeah, from didosko. So there's nothing intrinsically negative about teaching because Paul does use the word hetero didoskala, didosko. Maybe it's with the lambda in there. I can't remember. But, you know, to teach otherly, to teach false teaching. So if I think if you put together what Al has done and what Andreas has done,

I think it's clear that Paul is saying, I don't permit a woman to do two positive things. In and of itself, teaching is good. In and of itself, exercising authority is good. So I don't think there's any clear contextual warrant in the meaning of the word or the grammatical construction that those activities, that the authority exercise there is a poor exercise of authority. And I've done a little work on, you know, why didn't he use another word, exiozo, for exercise authority? But actually, Paul can use that word, other New Testament writers, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. So I think it's hard to say that, oh, he should have used a different word. We'll have to ask Paul one day why he used that word, because it's created a lot of research,

at least. Same with kephale, which I'm sure we'll get to. I just read an online article that surveyed all the many studies done on kephale, which is translated head in reference to Ephesians 5, I think 23, which we can get to in a second. And this is a genuine question on my part. One of my big hangups is what is the rationale? Because even if we say, and I'm not agreeing with this necessarily. I'm just kind of throwing it out as a possible moral logic. Even if we say, look, men and women are different. Our biologies are different.

Our kind of brain makeup can be different. Um, and therefore God has wired a men, not every man, but the leadership position, like men are, you know, even biologically wired to fit that role. Even as I'm saying this, I can hear people screaming through their podcast app. But even if, and I would agree that biologically men and women are generally different in so many ways, but not absolutely. Like we could even see, say, women are, say, more emotional, whatever that means, maybe more agreeable, and men are more, I don't know, whatever. Whatever stereotype we want to say, even if we say that's generally true, that's not

exclusively true. So even if 70% of men would, if they were called to, you know, might be naturally wired for something like a leadership position, there's always exceptions to that. There's men that cry more than women and there's women that are more analytical than some men. So that's the hard, I just don't find it compelling to have any kind of like biological rootedness and why God would want one sex and not the other exclusively to be qualified. And this comes out when you'll hear some women teachers, I won't name their names, were like, dang, dude, she runs circles around most guys I hear. It's not a good exegetical argument, but I'm just trying to figure out why would God do it this way?

Or is that even a valid question to ask? No, I think it's a valid question. I mean, I think you'd agree, Preston. I mean, I want to start first, you know, I want to start first with the text. What does the text say? I think, you know, when we move to that second issue, it becomes more speculative and it becomes a bit more subjective. People, people have various views, but I think, right. There's always dangers of stereotyping, but I think, yes, I think it lies somewhere in, yeah, there's differences between the sexes that are great.

Women, we all know something. I think I could say that maybe everything's controversial today, right? But I think generally speaking, women form closer, more vulnerable relationships than men do. relationships than men do. Men tend to be more isolated. So there's a strength in women forming closer relationships, but there's also a strength in the way men are, right? There are various strengths and weaknesses. They probably end up equaling themselves out, but it may account for why I like to say may, in my view, probably accounts for why, oh, men are to function as, as the leaders and teachers. Um, I don't want to wriggle it. Yeah. Are some, some women, you know, right. Some women are, are less, maybe, you know, more like men, even relationally. I mean maybe – here I am saying this on a podcast.

But you think of someone like Margaret Thatcher. I mean she was a pretty amazing leader. And she could slam the door. Whether you agreed with her politically, she had that strength to slam the door on people who disagreed with her, you know, and say, no, we're going to do it this way. Um, which is not easy to do for anybody, which good leaders can do. So, you know, I don't, I don't think, I think what Paul is doing is giving a teaching that relates to how the church should function. I'm not comfortable introducing exceptions, but, you know, maybe I have often thought maybe everything operated better before this became such a huge controversy.

But maybe I guess people would say in reply, well, yeah, that's because you're patriarchal and you thought it was all fine. So you're fine saying, not to put words in your mouth, but that, hey, women naturally, yeah, some women absolutely would have the gifts of teaching. Some are amazing exegetes and have leadership qualities, but for whatever reason that we may not fully understand, there's different functions that God has planned, even if we don't understand the moral logic behind that. Yeah, yeah, I'm comfortable saying that. But I'd want to say I think there is something in the differences between men and women that accounts for it as well. Yeah, there's overlap. So great women teachers.

Absolutely. I just read Nancy Guthrie's little book on Revelation. She had me adore it and it was fabulous. I loved it. So you find women teaching at a seminary or reading a book by a female exegete or whatever, like you would see that as different than sitting under a woman teacher at a local church? Well, yeah, people cut the cake at different places. You know, at Southern, we would not have a woman in the Bible department or the theology department.

I don't know about the history department. I mean, we haven't written it all down. You know, people could disagree with that, obviously. Where do you apply it? I mean, that's sort of where we are on that. All right, let's go to another exegetical case. Well, I am curious, in your view, the strongest argument for egalitarianism, or, you know, my friends don't like that term either. They call it non-hierarchical complementarianism. But that assumes that leadership – That's too hard to say.

Huh? That's too hard to say. Well, it also kind of – and this is another thing I would need my egalitarians to respond to. Is Christian leadership a hierarchy? Not leadership, not secular leadership, not leadership the way it often goes in churches. I'm saying the New Testament vision for the leader being the servant of all and the first will be last.

It seems like the Christian vision for leadership is there isn't a hierarchy in that sense of the term. When I hear some people argue for an egalitarian vision, sometimes it feels like they're adopting a very secular view of leadership and submitting to leadership kind of framework. I don't know. Like, why can't I be up at the top or whatever? I don't know. Like, why can't I be up at the top or whatever? Like, well, is that not, not that I'm not quoting anybody there, but sometimes it feels kind of like, how come only men get to be up there in that prestigious position or whatever? And it's like, well, wait a minute. Like,

have you encountered that too? Or am I, am I making stuff up here? Yeah. But, but I think there is something there. I mean, I think the elders, I mean, I'm, I'm one of the, I've been an elder at our church since 1998, but I mean, I think the elders, I mean, I've been an elder at our church since 1998. I mean, we have to make some decisions. Sometimes the congregation doesn't like it. I mean, even in the last, I think a lot of churches have experienced this, especially in the last couple of years. You know, I mean, we won't get into this, but you wear masks or not.

you know i mean we won't get into this but you wear masks or not you know people i mean i don't know what it's like where you are but people feel really strongly and whatever you decide some people are not very happy yeah you know yeah so that's a leadership thing because you you can't say there's some things you know there's a lot of things you can get freedom on. You can believe whatever you want about the millennium, but you have to decide, well, as a church, are we going to wear masks or not? Are we going to require it or are we not going to require it? You know, of course, you can make a lot of decisions. You could say we're going to encourage it. But whatever decision. So so I'm just saying, yes, leader, we're servant leaders.

But then you have to decide some things, right? You have to make a decision and say, here's how we're going to do it. And yeah, people don't always like that. And then they can say, well, you're really authoritative and you're really mean and stuff like that. This is where it doesn't – where I resonate very much with the egalitarian side of like it just doesn't make sense. It just seems like wouldn't it be really wise to have at least some women in that room helping make the decisions for a church that's probably more than 50% female or even like

the teaching, preaching aspect. And again, this isn't an exegetical argument and I, and I'm with you. I want, I, the reason why I'm not egalitarian yet, um, is I, I need a satisfactory exegetical argument. Um, and, and I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I just haven't done the work, but like logically, it just seems like, of course, like as my wife and I are leading my family, the motherly perspective and fatherly perspective are both very healthy that that so to have like all males kind of leading the ship it just feels like this doesn't feel wise but again it's i'm not i'm not quoting a verse here but yeah well i guess i'd say if you're congregating now we're getting into ecclesiology but if you're i'm not we're not elder rule you, so a lot of people are elder rule. We are elder-led and congregationally ruled.

So, yeah, we don't have women as our elders, but any decision we make as elders can be reversed by the congregation. So the women can reverse a decision. So you said congregational rule, let's say 51% are women. So really females are ruling the church in a sense. Well, yes, but you know. I'm picking apart your Baptist ecclesiology. They don't vote as a block, right? You know, women have various opinions, right?

At least we haven't faced that. Here's what the men are voting. Here's what the women are voting. But yeah, I mean, I just would want to say I like our congregationalism in the sense that, you know, ecclesiology is super hard, but there's a check on us. super hard, but there's a check on us. We don't have, you know, I know a lot of churches do the elder rule thing, and there are great churches that do that, and it's not easy to decipher that, but I like the fact, yeah, we have elders. We make decisions. I mean, honestly, you know, any good elders, we're really informed by our wives, by the congregation as a whole. We're not, I mean, I think it's a really bad, you know, I think scripture says it's males only, but if it's males only and they're not being informed by and talking with their wives and other women. I mean, that's, that's a recipe for disaster. And yeah, I couldn't, I guess it could happen that way. It's a good old boys club. And I guess it's probably sadly happened that way too often in history. But I think, and honestly, I don't

think our church is perfect, but I think our church has had a good, you know, experience over the years. I mean, one time we made a decision. It was really a kind of minor decision, but an older lady in our congregation, she was really strong in her personality, but I really liked her. And she told me the elders are dictators. but I really liked her. And she told me the elders are dictators. And you know, I wasn't offended by her saying that. And we actually, we went back and we reversed that decision, not just because she said that, but other people gave us feedback. And we thought, you know, that wasn't a good decision. It wasn't like a huge thing. But I think when elders are working right, they're listening to people. We're not just like – the elders said it.

That settles it. That's – you know, there's a good feedback loop going on. That's good. That's good. Prophets, what do you do with the argument of you do have female prophets with the gift of prophecy in the early church? How is that not an authoritative position? Gordon Wenham's article, which he wrote a long time ago in Churchman. He's an Old Testament scholar for your listeners. Gordon wrote an article a long time ago saying the women in the Old Testament are prophets, but never priests. And the women are prophets in the New Testament, but never elders. And I think that's the difference, that there is a settled authority

with priests and elders that there isn't with prophets. I think that was true even in the New Testament time. So yeah, there's a complication introduced there as well, though. Clearly, the prophets' prophetic words are authoritative. Yeah. Well, are you a cessationist? I forget. You've gone back and forth on that, right? Because, I mean, if you're a cessationist, that kind of solves it.

Yes, I am. Well, I call myself a nuanced cessationist. I am a cessationist on apostleship and prophecy. And the reason I'm a cessationist on prophecy, I used to be, so for a while I held Wayne Grudem's view. And Wayne still thinks prophets are around today. But Wayne's view is that New Testament prophets, their prophecies are mixed with errors. And I, you know, I taught that, I held that, but I slowly came to think that's wrong.

So I came to the view that I think New Testament prophecy isn't distinct from Old Testament prophecy. Therefore, I think it's infallible. So I kind of, I'm getting in the back door. I don't think there's people around like that who utter infallible prophecies today. So it's hard for me to imagine, you know, if you hold Wayne's view, it's easy, you know, okay, you can utter a prophecy, Wayne's view, it's easy. You know, okay, you can utter a prophecy, but it could be wrong. But if you hold my view, then I think it's dangerous. You know, I see apostles and prophets as having fallen away. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. So yes, for me, I don't feel as much of a pressure because I don't think prophets are around today. But, of course, for Wayne, you know, what would a Wayne Grudem argue?

Which he'd say, look, prophets exercise their authority more spontaneously. They receive a revelation from God, and then they deliver it. It isn't quite the settled authority. I think there's something in this that priests and elders have. I mean, there's clearly something going on, you know, and Paul's saying this in 1 Timothy 2. I mean, what would it even mean if the women are proclaiming, prophesying in the congregation, and it's, how is it even distinguishable from teaching? I think the problem with the egalitarian reading there is

like, well, it almost ends up like, 1 Timothy, what does it even mean anymore, you know? So, but I think it's the best argument. I think the argument from prophecy is the best argument. But I would say, I think it's interesting in 1 Corinthians 11, even when the women are prophesying in the congregation, this is a super hard passage, but he wants them to be properly adorned because he says man is the head of woman. Well, there's the Kephali, right? Right says man is the head of woman. Well, there's the kephale, right? Right. Man is the head of woman. Now, but here's what I'll say. You know, this can stimulate you in any direction you want. I'd say, I don't care if you say, I think kephale means authority,

but let's say it means source. Even if it means source, he says because man is the source of woman, the woman has to be adorned in a certain way. Well, why? And then he starts saying things like, it wasn't woman who was created first, but the man, right? The man didn't come from the woman, but the woman came from the man. So it seems like Paul's bringing in some creational norm there again. And he's seen even in the exercise of the gift of prophecy, Paul seems to want to have that reflected in some way that's maintaining some creational norm. Yeah. Some distinction between male and female. I remember a few years ago working through that passage with Judith Gundry-Volff. She's done a lot of work on that.

Yeah. Because it's weird. That passage on one sentence, Paul seems like a total misogynist, and another sentence like a flaming egalitarian. Paul seems like a total misogynist and another sentence like a flaming egalitarian you know like I think she does a good job saying that he's trying to

honor to some extent the cultural norms and yet still maintain the counter-cultural vision of Christianity and so he's constantly writing that tension. I don't know enough I would need to work through the passage to know if she's right.

But that passage is incredibly hard. But the one thing that is clear is that Paul is honoring male and female distinctions on some level, even all the way down to how they present themselves, which is interesting. Okay. There's a lot of – go ahead.

I was going to move on. One of the ones that I'm – an argument that I'm really interested in is Phoebe. She's the letter carrier of Romans, right? I mean that can be assumed. Not really assumed. I mean I think first – Romans 16. Probably. Yeah, probably. I commend you, I think Romans 16. Probably. Yeah, probably.

I commend you, my sister. Okay. Or unless there was a... There may have been, but I think it's doubtful she went alone. Okay. Now, according to the studies that have been done from what I hear, like the letter carrier was responsible for reading the letter out loud and giving commentary, some sort of explanation, maybe even expanding on a point or whatever. So if that's true, and that's a big if, then Phoebe would have been the first one to kind of read and maybe even give commentary on the Roman letter in the first time it was read out loud in a church. Is that a likely historical reconstruction? And if so, does that do anything for you? I am very, I think it's hard to know that I am very cautious about bringing in such an extra textual, speculative scenario in order to interpret

what's going on. So maybe, but I'm not, I just can't grant, to me, it's just some leaps in the dark that we just don't know. So that doesn't strike me as a very powerful argument. But what if we could have – what if there was – and again, I don't know the literature. What if there was like really strong historical extra-biblical evidence that, man, every time we see a letter carrier where the situation is explained that that letter carrier does do that. That seems more like – more than a leap in the dark. I mean we are kind of reconstructing the scenario.

But I want to say – but I think that's what we lack. You know, what if – but I mean I've read the articles and it seems rather posited without really giving us clear examples that in the early Christian communities, that's what they did. Where do we see that clearly? I just don't. So I don't see any compelling evidence that that's what actually happened. So I want to say we don't know. We don't know what happened. Somebody read the letter. Did they give commentary on it? I don't know. We don't know what happened.

Somebody read the letter. Did they give commentary on it? I don't know. Yeah. So maybe. And you're saying it's also possible. Again, we just don't know that she was traveling with an unnamed guy. Maybe he read the letter.

Maybe she wasn't even carrying – maybe the mail letter carrier. Phoebe was going with them. Good friend of Paul. Wants her to be welcome to the church like i've often wondered like the i've often assumed and maybe i shouldn't that when he commends her that she is the letter carrier but is that yeah can we say that with certainty most people think that maybe there were five people traveling together. I mean, perhaps Paul wouldn't want a woman to travel all that way by herself. I mean, you know, the world was dangerous, you know? So, I mean, it's hard to know.

What about since we're on Romans, what about Junia? We've got to get the Junia. So Romans, for those who maybe aren't familiar, Romans 16, 7. I don't have the Greek in front of me, but it says Junia is highly esteemed. And there's a translation question here. Among the apostles, as in she's one of the apostles and she is esteemed. Or maybe some complementarians, maybe you would take this view that it's the apostles who esteem her. Not among them as an apostle, but the apostles really love Junia. Yeah. Yeah. Andronicus and Junius, are they outstanding in the eyes of the apostles, right?

Yeah. Or they're outstanding among the apostles, right? I'm going to get Greek out here real quick. So I agree Junia is a woman, you know. Some people have argued in the history of interpretation that it's Junianus and it was a man. But I think most agree now that Junia was a woman. I think it's likely they were a married couple, probably. Okay. Secondly, I think it is saying, you know, Michael Burr and Daniel Wallace argue against us, but I think it's saying they're outstanding among

the apostles. So I think the text is calling them apostles. But thirdly, the word apostolos, I would argue, is not a technical term. You know, we always read in context, apostolos means messenger. You know, it's used of Epaphroditus in Philippians 2. So I do not think it is likely that when he speaks of them as apostles, people disagree that they're amongst the 12. I think they are a missionary couple. And Rudolf Schnakenberg, who, you know, they say something like, clearly, maybe it's not clear, but maybe that's my word. But Junia especially worked amongst the women, especially in the patriarchal ancient world. So I'm not very moved by the arguments about Junia. I think it's quite a leap.

I think we need more specific, clearer evidence than that. So the grammatical construction, it's N plus the plural dative. You say the best way to read that is among, not by. That's my read. You know, I side with Baucom. I think Glenda Valville's written on this. You know, it's been a couple of years since I worked on it now.

But you have on the other side, Michael Burr and Dan, I think Dan Wallace would hold the other view. Yeah, it's not easy, but I do think, yeah, I think they're being called apostles. Okay. So for me, it's think they're being called apostles. Okay. So for me, it's what does that word apostle mean?

Okay. So I didn't look, you know, I didn't look what Moose said in his most recent commentary. That'd be interesting to see. I didn't, because his came out, because we both did a second edition of Romans, but I didn't get a chance to look at what he said. Oh, he updated his big Romans content? Yeah. And I did too. We both did.

When did yours come out, your second edition? A couple of years ago. Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's a beast, man. That's such a good commentary. Both your commentaries are excellent, by the way.

Man, I remember reading that in seminary. I think your first one came out when I was in seminary. 1998. And there were at least 20 major commentaries that came out in 1998 to 2018. Do you think we need more commentaries? I mean, this is a different different conversation but that's crazy i mean well you know every generation you know my commentary is going to be forgotten you know like jim kinney from baker said you know they have 20 year runs and then they're then so yeah we're going to keep writing them you know you don't you don't read i mean a few

people do but you don't read charles mean, a few people do, but you don't read Charles Hodge anymore, but he's very clear, but nobody, I shouldn't say nobody reads them. Few people read them, but mostly people are reading modern commentaries. So you got to keep, you got to keep writing them. But I did ask myself when I was first asked to do Romans, I'm like, I mean, in those days you had Cranfield, but isn't it funny? People don't even talk about Cranfield and it's so good. It's so thorough and like how he did that without a computer and stuff. I mean, these guys who wrote commentaries before computer programs and word searches, it's insane. It's incredible. And of course, if you remember, you know, Cranfield just puts the Latin down and of course if you remember you know cranfield just

puts the latin down there untranslated and you know you know i um when i was in aberdeen he was i found out he was still alive and i was writing a paper on the the theme of glory and romans and i was like i want to i want cranfield to proof this for me. So I snail mailed it to him. And he read it, shredded it, and responded back with this handwritten – oh, I think I don't have that anymore. It was a handwritten letter from C.E.B. Cranfield. You should have sent that. I know.

I might somewhere. That's – yeah. I mean he must have been like 92. I mean he was like 92. I mean he was really old. I think Simon actually gave me his – that's right. He gave – somehow Simon had his home address. Right. That's amazing. He gave me so – yeah, I just shredded it.

I felt like I was going to drop out of my program after that. But really, I mean the fact that he took that much time to read my discombobulated paper. Okay. So what about, I don't find these arguments too great, but maybe I'm missing something, but like, hey, you got Lydia who would probably own the house church. And it was common practice that the owner of the house was viewed as a leader. And then of course you have a lot of women referenced in Romans 16. Clearly, you had some women that owned the house where the church met, and that implies some kind of leadership role. I imagine you probably said the same thing that you did about Phoebe,

about that argument. Well, and I say, I actually think we have an example that it's not true. Because in Acts 12, they met in the house of John Mark's mother. She wasn't the leader. Huh. How do you know she wasn't the leader? I mean, the apostles were there. Oh. I think it's very unlikely. If she was the leader, when, yeah, I guess someone could say she was, but I think it's very unlikely. There's no evidence. There's nothing in the text to imply say she was, but I think it's very unlikely. There's no evidence. There's nothing in the text to imply that she was leading that meeting on some level or something?

Well, yeah. I mean, you're in Jerusalem with the apostles. It's kind of a stretch to, you know, the apostolic council. Yeah, if she's a prominent leader in the church, you know, you hear from Paul and Barnabas and Peter and James, where's John Mark's mother? I mean, she's like the leader of the church there, you know? Yeah, but if someone says, okay, your example's bad, I would just say, yeah, I think it's a jump to say we have no evidence that the person who owned the house was the leader. Okay.

So. There's a similar one with Priscilla and Aquila. Priscilla's name mentioned first. And she obviously, so, so two things, one Priscilla's name is mentioned first. And when they take Apollos aside and instruct him in the ways of the Lord,

you know, she's obviously teaching she's actually she's teaching and exercising authority over a man in that instance i think it's acts 18 or whatever um yeah well i would just say complementarians can get we can all be weird Complimentarians can be weird. You know, there can be, yeah, it's not a militaristic world. Yes, we can learn from women. Yes, women can tell us what the Bible means. But I would just say that's not a public meeting. That's all. Yeah, but there are, yeah, Priscilla, I think was a very prominent woman.

I think she was educated. I think she knew a lot. Um, I think a man would be foolish not to learn from a person like her. Um, so I think, and I, you know, I don't know where to cut the cake here. I definitely think there are settings for women to give public addresses and to speak and where you draw the lines on all that. I don't ask Priscilla to be the pastor of my church, but if she came in town, we'd maybe gather and she might give a talk, you know, and we'd all learn from her. So where are you on that? Because I know there's some complementarian light churches where male eldership leadership, but women can preach on a Sunday morning. Yeah, I'm no on that. I'm no on that. Yeah, I'm no, because I think it's totally inconsistent because yeah, I think there's venues where women can speak, but not, not, I would not say no to preaching because principally, so the problem with that view in my mind is this. I think it ends up being sexist, actually, because if they could preach one Sunday morning, why not the next? And why not the next? And why not always? What's this deal? argument, fine, just be an egalitarian. Because how do you get off by saying, well, yeah, you can preach two Sundays a year, but not three. Where does that come in? I mean, if the elders

say you can preach one Sunday, why not the next Sunday? And why not all of them? But then I think that just dissolves 1 Timothy 2. Okay, yeah. I forgot. I think Andrew Wilson. He'll say that. I know several people that... I've written against that in a little while. What's their argument?

Are they making a distinction between poiema, like shepherding, and being an elder? I had someone explain it to me once, and I haven't done any reading. Well, I haven't. Honestly, I haven't read it for a long time. But what I remember is they say something like, you know, it's under the authority of the elders. The elders say it's okay.

To which my response is, and why not every Sunday then? Why can't they say it every Sunday? Where do you get this idea you can do it some Sundays but not others? I think that's a very strange thing. Like, okay, why is it okay only for one Sunday, two, three? But not all of them. Interesting. I don't get it.

I can't. Maybe I'm just too rigid, but that makes no sense to me. Interesting. I got to find out because, yeah, I've got – I thought I've heard of an exegetical reader, something in the text that makes – Yeah, I don't – honestly, I'd have to – because I wrote about this more three or four years ago. You write so much, Tom. I don't know how you can remember what you wrote. Obviously, I don't. I don't remember what I said.

All right. Am I missing? Oh, here's one. Ephesians, that you have the gifts in Ephesians. Pastor, elder, teacher, prophet. Those are out of order. And obviously the letter is written to men and women, and there's no kind of distinction of, you know, some of these gifts are for men only and some are for women or not for women. I mean, I think I probably know what you're

going to say about it, but. Yeah, well, I think, you know, when you look at Acts 20, when Paul summons the elders, verse 17, and he says, you're appointed as overseers to shepherd, to pastor the flock. So we, you know, that's the only, the interesting thing is that's the only use of pastors as a noun is in Ephesians and the whole New Testament. So it's very interesting we call our leaders pastors. It's not wrong, but we only have one text, you know, because they're regularly called elders and sometimes overseers. Elders is the most common term, then overseers. So we don't have a lot to go on there, but I suspect the pastor's teachers are another way of talking about the elders. And the connection I draw between Acts 20, he summons the elders, he calls them overseers,

and they pastor. That's the verb. They shepherd the flock. Point my name if I remember right. And then in 1 Peter 2, 5, you have an interesting example as well. He speaks to the elders, then he uses the participle from overseeing, although that's textually disputed, but I think it's original. I mean, I've looked at that. So the elders, and then again, he talks about shepherding the flock. So I think the way I'd put it together, I think pastors are another way of talking about the overseers and elders. I don't think they're finally to be separated. That's not as clear, right? But it's interesting in our culture. You know, when I came in, I pastored our church as the preaching pastor from

1998 through 2015. And they were really concerned about us calling ourselves elders. And I just said to them, I don't really care what you call me, but that's the most common word. You like the word pastors and that's fine, but it's only once in the New Testament. So the noun is only used in Ephesians 4. That's the only time the noun is only used in Ephesians 4. That's the only time the noun, poiega or whatever. For leaders. For leaders. For leaders.

And then the verb is used in Acts 20 where you're pastoring. Okay. Interesting. The noun is used, Jesus is the good shepherd, right? Yeah. Yeah. The noun is used, Jesus is the good shepherd, right? Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, and obviously I'm sure there's parables where you have the literal shepherd. But for leaders, that's the only place, you know, with the nouns.

Yeah. But you have other uses of the word shepherd, right? Literal shepherds in the fields and you have Jesus is the good shepherd. But yeah, you know, it's fascinating. A lot of people don't know that that's the good shepherd. But yeah, it's fascinating. A lot of people don't know that that's the only use. It's our favorite term. I know. Yeah.

Do we know why that is? Just in church history, it just kind of caught steam? I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. Interesting. Well, Tom, I'm going to let you go. But before I do, can you recommend maybe what are the top two either books or articles or just some kind of argument for each side? Because somebody said, okay, I'm going to read a couple on this side, a couple on that side.

Give me the best. What should I wrestle with? So I contributed to a book, Two Views on Women in Ministry. So you have me on the complementarian side, and then a little more soft complementarian, Craig Blomberg. And then you have Craig Keener and Linda Belleville. I think it was Linda, yeah. Yeah, it was. I think that book is really the best entree into the discussion. Tom, real quick, has that been updated? That's like over 20 years, 25 years old? No, it's not that old.

Is it not that old? Is it? Oh, no, no. I read it when you came out. I probably read it in 2010. So maybe it's a little over 10 years, 12 years old. Oh, it's over 10 years old. Yeah, we haven't updated it. No. Okay. Okay. so maybe maybe it's a little over 10 years 12 years old yeah we haven't updated it no okay okay yeah maybe maybe it needs to be probably you know

more books like that are going to come out then um man i really i you know i think i mean cindy uh westfall's new book is well done and very stimulating on the egalitarian side. Is that Paul and Gender or does she have another one out? You know, I always forget the titles of books. But yeah, it's a big book by Baker on this issue that's come out in the last five years. Okay. I think. The years go by too fast for me now.

But I think it's the last five years. And then I think our book, Women in the Church, I mean, our last one was 2015, edited by me and Andreas Kostenberger, a fresh analysis of 1 Timothy 2, 9 through 15 god what i like about that book is we have stephen baugh on the background yarborough on the culture you know walter's on authentane andreas's study of the words uh you know i haven't even said this to andreas yet but it's getting close you know we did 1995 we did. Maybe the third one was 2016. But I think it'd be kind of fun if we're strong enough to do 2025. Yeah. Another one. Maybe. We'll see.

Yeah. Well, I think that, you know, I'd say Cindy's book, our book. I mean, honestly, egalitarians write a lot more books. I'd say Cindy's book, our book. I mean, honestly, egalitarians write a lot more books. But it's kind of hard to write a book as a complementarian because you're kind of saying, well, I think that's what I said 10 years ago is still what I think it means. Whereas egalitarians, I mean, they keep coming up with kind of new ways of reading it, which doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's kind of harder to write. Hey,

I think that old meaning is still right. Belzikian. He's one that I have his book. I always see people reference it's older one, but I don't think that's a first rate book. Okay. I think, I think, yeah, I think think i think keener has a book

out on it maybe um his has got to be i mean that guy everything he touches is it's very dated now too yeah yeah yeah i'd probably go with uh keen i mean i remember reading keen keener's article in the book you read for the two views book and yeah he's he never has an unthoughtful that book is trippy every article i read i'm like oh that's not okay that's where i'm at i'll read the next one like oh no that's where i'm at then i'll read oh gosh i feel like i swung it all over the place of that book maybe i'm just too naive i don't know but um yeah they're really those are high quality essays in there so well tom thanks so much for your time appreciate i'm sure you got another comment here you got to go right for tonight so uh thanks for thanks it's great to see you again

preston i've missed seeing you over the years but um you know i just don't go to idaho well i'll be in louisville in a couple days unfortunately it's kind of an in and out trip but uh i'm sure i'll be back yeah okay great to talk to you