Theology in the Raw - Women in Leadership: Live Dialogue from Exiles 26 with Dr. Sandy Richter

Episode Date: July 6, 2026

Watch the full Exiles Conference On Demand and get access to the entire conference—including all breakout sessions—for just $49.At Exiles 26, my friend Dr. Sandy Richter joined me for a panel discussion and Q&A about my new book, From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Actually Says about Women in Leadership. Once we got going, we ended up talking longer than expected and only had about three minutes left for audience questions.So to make up for it, we’re releasing the full conversation here, along with a follow-up episode where I respond to the top upvoted questions from the event. That follow-up episode drops on Thursday. In the meantime, enjoy this conversation.You can find more from Dr. Richter at sandyrichter.org.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the raw. The following episode is a recording of a breakout session that I did with my friend, Dr. Sandy Richter at this year's Exiles in Babylon Conference. For the breakout, Sandy interviewed me about my book from Genesis to Junia. And then we were supposed to address questions sent in by the audience. However, we pretty much ran out of time. I think we got to like two or three questions and answer them super quickly. So what I'm going to do is address all the top questions. questions that came in during the breakout in the next theology in the raw episode. So stay tuned for that episode. There are a lot of really challenging and juicy questions that came in. Okay, please welcome back to the show, the ones and only's Dr. Sandy Richter and me. I for so many years was interested in the question, what does the Bible say about women in church leadership? and, you know, as some of you know, I grew up in a very, like a strong complementary background that had no women leaders, you know, other than like women leading other women, but women were not in any kind of leadership role over kind of the big church gathering. And that just seemed like perfectly normal and right to me. I read First Timothy too and made sense to me. So I'd never really questioned it until as I got older.

I think it was like, I kept meeting other, like, Bible scholars who, you know, I were told that if you don't believe in, like, a complimentary view, then you don't read your Bible, but you probably hate the Bible, and, you know, you probably don't even really love Jesus, you know. I wish that was an overstatement. I really do. And then as I, you know, got progressed in ministry and education, kept meeting other scholars who, I was like, God.

they seem to like read their Bibles and they seem to really love Jesus and yet they don't hold to that that view. And so it kind of caused me to question a little bit like, well, maybe maybe there's more to this than I had originally, you know, thought. And every time I peaked at the literature on the topic, I just got overwhelmed. Like just, I remember opening up Bill Mounce's commentary on the pastoral epistles. And I, I've very, I've very, I've very, I've vividly remember going to the section on 1st Timothy 2 and in the commentary they always list like all the bibliography the book's written on just this one passage and I think in his commentary it's like 12 pages of bibliography just on those like six verses and I was like oh my god I i don't have I

can't read all that right now and that's just one passage and I just get so obsessive when it comes to figuring out what the Bible says I feel like I have to read everything and consider every argument. And so, I would say about maybe 15 years ago, I kind of stopped saying I'm anything. When people ask me, what's your view on women in leadership? I just said, I honestly don't know. I have not done the study necessary to have an educated opinion on the topic. So, yeah, yeah. So a few years ago, I got time to do that. And so I just spent, you know, a few years researching the topic. And it was very, very narrowly focused on what does this ancient religious document say about the topic. It wasn't, I would say it wasn't as, it's going to sound bad,

it wasn't as pastorally focused as some of my other books. It was really, I just want to know what does the Bible say. And once they try to figure that out, then there's other, you know, practical questions that will probably flow from that, but I want to focus just on understanding what the Bible says. And I didn't begin with a conclusion in mind. Some people, it's funny, I've had people tell me like, well, we knew you would land complementarian. It's obvious, you know, that's where you're going to land. Other people, we knew you're going to land egalitarian. It was obvious, you know. So apparently people that know my beliefs better than I do, but I didn't have any need for a certain conclusion to be correct.

I just truly want to know what the Bible says and then go from there. So, yeah, long story short, I did land on the view that is often called egalitarian. I don't love that term. I don't love most terms. I think there's problems with that term. There's problems with most terms in this topic, labels and stuff. But yeah, I came to the conclusion that I do think that all kinds of, All levels of levels, that's not only the right term. All leadership gifts and roles in the church are open to gifted and called men and women alike.

So, yeah, that's the quick summary. What we're going to do today is, I'm so nervous about this. Why am I so nervous? I feel like you're going to grill me. I'm really nervous about Sandy Richter being here. Sandy Victor, everybody. Welcome. Sandy will also be in our next session doing a dive.

about the historical reliability of the Bible with Dr. P. Dens. And I asked Sandy, would you interview me? Usually I'm the one interviewing. I know. I'm still going to sit here because I'm deaf in my left ear. And if I sat there, I wouldn't hear anything Sandy's grilling me about. But yeah, I asked Sandy, would you be willing to like interview me about my book? And then we'll do that for, I don't know, however long you want, 20, 30 minutes. And then we're going to have Oh, okay. Q&A. I thought I had an hour to grill you.

No, go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. After that, then we have the slideo is open. It's been wiped, so you can ask questions in slide. I already saw one really good question that came up. And then, yeah, we'll try to be done. Oh, that's the countdown clock.

I see that. Okay, yeah. You ready? I'm ready. I'm ready. Yeah. Are you ready? Yeah.

I think we should shake hands before. Don't you think? Yeah. Honestly, I'm so honored, seriously, to be the one interviewing Preston Sprinkle on his stage at his conference. I'm the one who gets to ask the podcaster of all podcasts, questions. And I do have to say up front that I don't have a podcast, so I don't really know what I'm doing. So I'm probably going to mess this up. but don't worry, I have five pages of questions.

So, how much time do we have? No. Okay. All right, so you actually answered my first set of questions in your introduction, which is how you got here. And one of the things I find so interesting about the book that you all are going to buy before you leave the conference

is that you didn't start with a conclusion in mind. And you didn't go in. into this project, researching to prove a conclusion. You went into this project, researching because of an inquiry. And you say in your introduction, I'm inviting you to peek over my shoulder as I journey through scripture to figure out what I believe it says about this contentious issue. So I find Genesis to Junia, Junia, excuse me, a little bit like reality TV. only slower, you know, and there's not as much drama. So one of the questions I wanted to ask,

coming out of your background, who were the scholars who had made the deepest imprint on how you thought about this issue? Like early on? Yeah, so if seven, eight years ago, ten years ago, someone had said, hey, Preston, who's really shaping your thought process? on women in pastoral leadership, in ministry leadership,

who would you have named? That's a good question. I don't know if there was any, so I was, you know, raised in, went to college and seminary at the school, John MacArthur is, he's the president of. So that would be one name. Yeah, I don't know if I can remember a direct sermon from maybe.

It was more just kind of in the air, that environment, the professors, the students, and everything. And so it was, yeah, I think just more in the air. And then I started to kind of question some things about that environment. And John Piper was a huge influence in my thinking early on. But again, that was more in terms of his view of missions and the supremacy of God in all things and just things like that. So again, I don't even remember.

remember, like I never read that big thick biblical manhood. The Wayne Grudem. Yeah, yeah. So we didn't, or maybe I was supposed to read it and didn't and cheated on the test or something. I don't remember reading that, even though that was. It's over 400 pages in case you're curious. So if you need a good doorstop, if nothing else, very big book. Yeah, so I would say the closest person that shaped my thinking to some extent early on would have probably

been Tom Shriner. I did read the Two Views book. I had Tom come out and teach a winter class and women in ministry 2011 or something like that. Okay, okay. Sat in on that. So that was probably the most research I had kind of done on it, which is basically next to nothing. But I would say Tom was probably the one that would have shaped my thinking. But again, it was on a minimal level. So it sounds like in some ways, the, issue of women in ministry was kind of a peripheral issue and kind of coming in on the wings of other stuff. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So you talk about your intellectual curiosity stepping into the book. Maybe emotional is what I want to say or cognitive. When did you start feeling uncomfortable enough with those views that you were willing to commit this kind of time. Because you started this in 22, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

To start moving through this book. I would say it was probably 2000. I mean, this is a really general date, 2012, 13, 14, maybe. When I started to kind of stop saying what I believe, I kind of entered into a stage where I'm like, I don't know what I believe. And I would say,

I didn't just therefore default to my complementarian view. I said, I don't know. So even things like, well, when I taught Old Testament survey at Cedarville University, very complementarian school back in 2007 to 2009, I assigned your book, Epic of Eden, written by a woman. And I didn't think about it because I was like, this is the best, book to give to college students to introduce them to the Old Testament. Amen. And I know because people have asked me, and I know there's, I would say most compliment hearing scholars

probably wouldn't have a problem. Most, most, not all. But for some people that might have been like, whoa, like, are you okay doing that? Honestly, reading your book and reading the scholars you were tagging, I was realizing that I sit on the NIV committee with about half of them. and we're teaching each other all the time. Like, so much fun to see 15 biblical scholars have a fight, you know, because we're so polite. But, yeah, we're doing that all the time. And I wasn't even realizing that a number of those guys

would identify themselves as complementarian. Okay, interesting. Yeah. So, and then even like the podcast, I've tried to have on, you know, I strive to have kind of half men, half women on the podcast. Again, I don't think that would even be, even if I was still very complimentary. I think I would still do that. I don't think that would go against the complementarian position.

Exiles, this might get closer to where some complementarians might not have done this, but from the very beginning. Oh, this is now 2022. So this is later on. Yeah, I always try to have a lot of male and female. Like it's very intentional. So, yeah. And you're very good at that, by the way.

You really are. In fact, if I didn't say it already, I think that what Preston and Chris Sprinkle are doing for the church is phenomenal. And if everyone wants to applaud all of a sudden, go ahead. Yeah. Okay. great so far. All right.

Are you enjoying yourself? It's going to get worse. Okay. You know that feeling when you're in bed trying to get comfortable and so you roll over and suddenly the sheets slip off the corner? Now you have like a decision to make. Do I get up and fix the sheet or do I just crash and wake up stuck to the uncovered mattress?

I've been there. And if that's you, there's a good chance your sheets are worn down. So it's time for a simple upgrade. That's where Bowling Branch comes in. They make everything your bed needs. Their signature organic cotton sheets, pillows, blankets, and comforters are all designed to be breathable, incredibly soft, and somehow they get better over time. I love my signature sheet set and my waffle blanket. Didn't know what that was until I got one from Bowling Branch. Even in the summer months, everything is breathable, cool, and super comfortable.

So sleep cooler this summer with Bowling Branch during their annual summer event. For a limited time, get 20% off sitewide at Bowling Branch.com slash T-I-T-I-T-I-T. with code T-I-T-R. That's B-O-N-B-O-L-L-A-N-C-H.com slash T-I-T-R with code T-I-T-R to take 20% off. Bolandbranch.com slash T-I-T-R, code T-I-T-R. Exclusions apply. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Mosh. If you've listened to the show for a while, you know that I'm constantly on the go,

which means I'm always looking for snacks that will satisfy me, but also help me live in intentionally. That's why I try to keep a couple mosh bars in my bag when I'm on the go. Each mosh bar is made with ingredients that actually support brain health like Aschwaganda, Lions Main, collagen, and omega-3s. And, you know, some protein bars, they're super healthy, but they actually taste like an old shoe. Not so with mosh bars, they taste great.

Not too sweet, but just sweet enough. Find your favorites, build your boxes, or keep things fresh with a variety pack. Mosh bars are the best way to customize your health while giving back. Just head over to moshlife.com slash TITR and subscribe today to get 25% off your first variety pack and 20% off your monthly subscription with code TITR. Okay, that's 25% off your first pack and 20% off your subscription of brain boosting bars delivered straight to your door. Start building brain health into your every day with Mosh bars. Thanks to Mosh.

sponsoring this episode. Let's go here. We're going to organize this interview around old and new testament issues. And we're going to start with the Old Testament because it comes first and it's twice the size of the New Testament. And well, it's where all the best stuff happens. Okay, maybe not all the best stuff. But as an, as an Old Testament person and he's a New Testament person, I just needed to stake my claim. Okay. So in Genesis 1 through 3, you talk about primogeniture. And I've got to say that as an ancient near-eastern anthropologist kind of person, I read discussions on primogeniture in this complementary. I won't use these terms, so I've never even said them out loud.

So I'm going to try again, complementarian and egalitarian debates. And I hear folks talk about primogeniture in the creation of Adam and Eve. And I think, what? How in the world did Tom Shriner and his kin come up with that argument? How is Adam instead of Eve somehow a firstborn? This makes no sense to me. So can you explain some of that to us? Yeah, well, I came across the same thing because growing up,

it was kind of a given that wise Adam the authority over Eve? Well, he was born first. It was kind of like self-evident. And I was like, well... There is no belly button. Just letting you know. I do think, you know, 1st Timothy 2.13, you know, on the heels of 212, I do not permit a woman to teach nor exercise authority over a man.

She must remain quiet. Why? Because Adam was created first, not Eve. So there is that on a, what I would call, like a surface reading of the English translation that I can see where somebody would get that. But to root it in the ancient practice of primogeniture, that's the, it's one thing to say, well, Paul makes that logical argument, so it must be something. It's another thing to say, yeah, this ancient neary's principle of prima genitor, the firstborn over his younger brothers. And when the father dies, he gets, you know,

kind of takes over as patriarch of the family. And that's where I just saw more incongruing. than congruences. And the biggest one for me wasn't just the incongruences between like ancient primogeniture and then Adam being created first, not born first, E being a spouse, not his sister. But it was the fact that God loves to overturn that principle throughout Genesis especially, but all throughout scripture. He's often, you know, lifting up the lastborn, not the first born. Well, and ignoring all of those casts that we as humanity have set up, you know, that Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, older young.

Yeah. Right, right, right. So I, what, and even my goal in the book, too, was not to say, okay, I don't think this argument holds way, therefore the other view is true in the book. It was kind of like, I really wanted to keep score. as I was kind of going along. So I'm like, okay, I don't think this argument is really that compelling. Doesn't mean other ones can't be.

Maybe when I get to the New Testament, I'll realize, well, that's how Paul read it. And so he thought it was compelling. And then I need to go back and say, well, is there something that I missed in my reading of Genesis? If Paul's reading Genesis differently. So it was kind of a slow build. I didn't want to dismiss a view out of hand just because I wasn't seen strengths in some traditional arguments that I grew up growing. And you do that very well in the book, I think the keeping score thing.

And one of the things I learned from the book that I realized before is that two of the passages in the New Testament that are so confusing about women in leadership are tied to this primogeniture argument. So, you know, 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 212, I was like, oh, okay, that's really interesting. interesting to me to you. Okay, so now literary critic, why would someone like Shriner decide to champion Genesis 2 as regarding the creation of humanity as opposed to championing Genesis 1? Does, I mean, is his thought pattern that we should do the first story first? Well, that would be Genesis 1. Is he claiming that Genesis 2 is older than Genesis 1 and that's why he's championing it?

or is he championing it because it fits his preconceived ideas about how man and woman should operate? Okay. Let me inhabit his viewpoint and represent it. Genesis 1 clearly says that male and female are created in God's image. So there is... At the same time, apparently. Same time, yeah. At same time.

And so there is ontological... to use a modern term, equality. I don't, you know, but yeah, for the sake of, you know, ontological equality. They're equal before God. It's not like you have a lesser than and a greater than human being. And almost most complementarians I've read would say that, you know. Now, but, and they're both commissioned to rule the world, rule over the animal kingdom. That just gives us the kind of big picture, ontological,

equality they are to rule over creation. Genesis 2 gives us a much more deeper kind of window into how they're going to do that. And so you have ontological equality in Genesis 1, but you do have more like role distinctions spelled out in Genesis 2. And it is logically possible for there to be role distinctions, even in authority structure, between two ontological equals. A parent and child has an authority structure, and they're ontologically equal. A boss and a non-boss, there's an authority structure,

and yet they're ontologically equal. So it is at least theoretically possible to have both, ontological equality and an authority structure within that framework. So the question I'm asking is chronology. Oh, okay. So Shriner has chosen. to champion Genesis 2, assuming that what he's reading in Genesis 2 is a chronology. One comes first and the other comes second.

So he's decided the chronology of Genesis 1 is inaccurate? Is Genesis 1, I feel like I'm arguing. I'll play the role. Is Genesis 1 even, it's just kind of giving a big picture. It's just saying God created them. It's not concerned about... On day one, day two, day three, does that sound like chronology to you? Day four, five, six, and seven.

So why does Genesis 2 get the high road on chronology and not Genesis 1? Well, because, I mean, Genesis 2 says explicitly Adam was created first and Eve was created from. Genesis 2 doesn't say that. No. No, but Paul does. Paul does say that. Genesis doesn't say Adam was created first? He says, and so God Yatsard Ha'am, the human being.

Yeah. And then God causes a deep sleep to fall upon Ha'adam and to separate from the woman. By the way, I'm not grilling Preston. I'm after Tom Shrinner. I will channel his presence here. So, but my point being, can you, can you, yeah, spell that out. Yeah, my point being that we are making decisions of chronology about Genesis 1 and 2, whereas if we stepped into the gospels and Matthew, put one miracle earlier than John did, would we necessarily make the decision

that John's chronology of the miracles is correct and Matthews is incorrect, or would we instead step into those two gospels, assuming that we have two different authors with two different agendas, and those theological agendas, are different and perhaps neither of them are chronological. You tell me, I don't know.

What's it? What's it? So, but the Ha-Adam thing. So you're saying in Genesis 2, the language is God created the human, humanity, and then they were sort of divided. from that into Adam and E, the male-female. Right. Yeah.

And what are we going to do with that? Are we going to argue for an androgynous human or some such thing? I'm not going to argue for an androgynous human. But I would argue that that author is very interested in the fact that Adam and Eve are the same stuff. They were separated and they come back together. Right. Which I think is very important to the agenda of that author. But when I look at some of the current debates about egalitarianism and complementary,

the only interest seems to be chronology. So that's what I'm poking at. That's good. So yeah, Hebrew Ha'adam can mean a generic human, or it can be kind of a personal name. this person called Adam and in Genesis 2 and three you have kind of both

at play. Right? Is that how, yeah. And it's kind of sometimes hard to distinguish when does the generic human all of a sudden now is referring to the individual known as Adam?

And we're dealing with really ancient literature and we're dealing with all sorts of elevated theological agendas. But we're going to drop that one now Now we're going to talk about snakes. Ready? Okay. Because there's snakes in Genesis 1 through 3.

So here's my segue. Ready? Press and sprinkle. Hypothetically speaking, you're on a hike with your children and a snake shows up. This is a multiple choice question. I think he's going to do okay. A, would you grab your children, throw them behind you, and put your body between them and the imminent source of danger?

That's question one. Two, would you grab your children and run for the hills because, hey, you're scared? Or would you, three, surrender your youngest daughter to the snake because there's a precedent for that in ancient literature and run like a girl? Which would you do? Where's my wife? No, because this is not theoretical. I, okay. Chris, do you want to come up there?

The answer is see. I have a fear of snakes that is abnormal. If I saw a gardener snake in the back room, I would get shivered. I would like be paralyzed right now. And there was one time in the backyard of my house in Cedarville, Ohio. Oh, see, I thought it was a hike. See? It wasn't a hike, but everything else is true.

The kids played a joke on me. Right? Aubrey, were you the one that? I was holding my youngest daughter. I heard. You did? No, you set me up. You set me up.

Absolutely. So I'm walking over to the playhouse, and they're like, Dad, there's a snake in there. And it was a reality. Okay, it was just like, I just, so I put Josie, my third daughter, in between me and the playhouse. And I ran like a girl. Yeah, you did.

That's terrible. So much for snakes. Let's move on to Deborah. How do we feel about this? Okay, so you know I put out a Bible study a couple of years ago on Deborah, and I'm working on my chapter for the Old Testament in its world on judges right now. So I've spent a little bit of time with the Margaret Thatcher of the ancient world. That's what I like to call her.

So let's start with names. Are you going to go for Deborah the honeybee, or as Richard Hess argues, Deborah Yahweh will lead. What do you think? Hmm. Hmm. I would say Yahweh would lead. I didn't dig into that much, but yeah, that makes more sense given the context.

Isn't that so cool? Yeah. Yeah. You know, his gig is Amirite names. So he's all about the, on amostocons. Yeah, pretty cool. Is that what Deborah means?

That's what he argues it means. And because he controls eight languages and I only control like five, I just go with him. So yes, Yalai will lead. Devar, there is in Ugaritic and some of the earlier Canaanite stuff Dahleth Bait Rish can be to lead.

And so her name could mean Yawai will lead. I'm very grateful that you rejected fiery woman. for wife of Lopadoat. Lopadot means lightning, which is very cool. Sorry, Lapidot means torches. Barack means lightning. I think these are military names. That's what I think.

I think they're military titles. And I think that our girl, Deborah, is a military widow by the time we meet her. Now, some people, and this might be motivation. I don't know. I saw some people who, it seemed to add one more argument for like a more, lack of her terms, egalitarian view, I think they didn't like the fact that she's being referenced,

in reference to her husband. And so they say, well, lapidote, if you know the passage, judges 44. Oh, is that where that's coming from? I sense that. I've never read a commentarian that would make that argument. Okay. I'm not saying it's always agenda-driven, but yeah, you reference a woman with her husband.

Like her identity is she's a wife of this man, Lappidoat. I think some people are like, I don't like that. And you can also, but you could translate Lapidot as a woman of torches. So it's not a personal name. It's a description of the woman. Her husband's not mentioned. And I actually said, oh, that sounds interesting. I saw scholars that said that.

I think I even lean that way. You correct me in early drafts. You're like, that is a weird. translation, it's very normal for women in the ancient world to be named in reference to her husband or her father if she's not married. And just like a son would be referred to as the son of whatever. That's just normal societal designation. And just this is why I was so eager to just understand what the Bible says, not try to make passages fit every time I get a chance like to make this argument fit, this argument fit, this argument fit. So there were several

several times when I would side with an interpretation of scripture that, again, for lack of better terms, was more popular among complementarians. Not because I was whatever. It's just I think that's what the text says. But trying to represent both. Right. Yeah. I, yes, I think it's perfectly normal to refer to her by her husband's name. I also don't think the narrator is drawing attention to her gender by the woman the prophetess. because we have lots of references to the man, the whatever. I just, I don't, I honestly don't think the biblical narrator is interested in her gender at all. Really?

Which I find wonderful and liberating. What is he interested in? He's interested in the fact, as you cite in the book, that like Samuel, who is the absolute rock star of the era of the judges, Deborah is listed the only other character, and you cite this as both prophet and judge. And her itinerant visitation stopping points, that was very articulate of me,

are the same as Samuels, or at least two of the three. She's being mapped upon Samuel on some level, right? There's some literary association. And even the business, Michelle Knight turned me on to this one, the fact that she sits in judgment is an exact quotation of what Moses does in the wilderness wanderings. So she is, and as we all know, that the prophet is mapped onto Moses' role, and the judge is the precursor of the king.

So that's all cool. So with all of that in mind, what do you think of Wayne Grudham's take that Deborah wasn't actually leading. She was just encouraging Barack to lead. Let me throw in another quote. This is Grudem. She seems to be the only judge in judges who has no military function. Yeah, you know, with, obviously spent a lot of time in Wayne Grudem's work. He's written extensively on this topic. and I mean he's yeah very he's very capable of making like really good thoughtful, strong biblical arguments. I didn't find this to be one of them. I thought it was...

I just liked the phrase, I'm sorry. I thought it was the most forced reading of a passage. that he has taken in this conversation. And I say that, and there's other areas. Like, oh, yeah, I think he's got something here. Other areas, I'm like, you know what, I disagree with his reading, but I could see where he would get that. I thought this was just like just a flat contradiction

of what the text actually says. And you point out in the book that Deborah is not advising Barack. We have votes for that. She is summoning him. And if you look at the maps, she is summoning him. across 70 miles of enemy territory. And at no point in time does our clan commanders say, really? Really, really today?

Oh, how about Wednesday at three? I think maybe I'm free then. Go ahead. No, no, no, that was, I was, I had to read it several. I remember reading several times, like he can't be. You can, you can say, okay, yes, it's an exception to the rule. There was no male leaders, so God had to shame the men by raising up a month. There's other ways you could read the text.

still preserved that in this incident, she is leading. And it has military capability, because that's just clearly what they think is saying, I think. So that's where I keep, I, because I hate straw manning. I'm like, this, is he really saying this? Is anybody else saying this? Am I missing something? And nobody else was saying this, yeah. And not, the argument will go. Can I read another quote?

This, again, is not Dr. Smerkle here. Other male prophets exercised a public ministry where they proclaimed the word of the Lord. Deborah did not prophesy in public. Instead, individuals came to her in private for a word from the Lord. The difference between Deborah's prophetic ministry and that of male Old Testament prophets is clear. She did not exercise her ministry in a public forum as they did. And one of his arguments for this is because she's meeting people under the tree of Deborah. And that must be a private setting.

Go. I mean, beating under a tree is like Old Testament for this is where military planning happens. Saul beats under a tree and gathers his troops. And it says all Israel came to her. So it's not like she had some private confession booth or something to make sure she was protecting. You know, there's just nothing in the text that would just say that. So, again, I'm most passionate about being honest with the text. And I felt like, and I'm not saying, you know, I just, I did not find his reading

compelling. Compelling. You didn't find it compelling. Of that passage. Other passages? I'm like, yeah, this is good. And when we pay attention to the text, there are so many times and places where a tree is named.

And if you spend any time in Israel, you know why the tree is named because there's one. You know, it's not Minneapolis. It's not North Carolina. and these two, 300-year-old, often evergreen oaks, become marks of history. So that we wind up with a tree outside the Shackamite temple that several of the patriarch's name, having gone there, worshipped, built an altar, met with someone in particular,

and it's the tree of Shekam, that sort of thing. Yeah, so, yeah, nothing. Nothing about private. And I also would argue that what Deborah is delivering is the standard pre-battle prophetic oracle, just like any other prophet would. And whereas Samuel does show up with a sword in hand, Moses doesn't. Moses stands and watches the battle, even though he's given the prophetic oracle and said, okay, team, here we go, which is what I would say Deborah is doing a while. If you've been listening to Theology Naraw 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 Trimper 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. Okay. New topic. Ready? Okay. inquiring minds want to know exactly how many wings can Preston sprinkle eat in a single sitting do you want to know I hear that it's impressive go were you my wife hanging out back there how many wings a lot more when I was like 34 but uh at 50 I could put down I could put down

at least a dozen. I mean, I shouldn't. I could do more, but I tried to... What I have last night? What's the record? That's what we want to know. What's the record? When I was 20 years old working at Little Caesars,

I think I put down 50 wings in one city. Okay, very impressive. All right, back on task. When I'm researching something and I get lost in it, you know? Like I'm on hour 16 and I haven't even noticed that the sun is set. You've been there. And I want to get all the way to do. down to bedrock. And when I get to bedrock, all the, okay, this piece fits, this piece fits,

all right. I want to hear at least one of those moments for you in writing this book when you felt like, okay, there's bedrock. I can put my feet down. And these pieces are coming together. Give us one of those moments. There were several. One that is really important for the book. And my journey, and I would say the vision of the New Testament church is Romans 16. Okay. Yeah, Romans 16 is the passage nobody reads because you've already read all the theology of Romans,

all the important stuff, and then you get to a whole chapter where he lists tons of names, and they're like, this is boring, this is irrelevant. If this wasn't in the Bible, it wouldn't matter. I think I took a class on Romans and Seminary. I don't think we even got to Romans 16. No one ever does.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like you get through Romans 8, and then they say the glasses are. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Upon further research, I realize, and this is not debated, that in ancient letter writing, the end of the letter is oftentimes the most important part. The greetings are often the most important part. In fact, the manner in which the author shapes his greetings and who he greets is tethered to the content of the letter itself. And so in Romans 16, he names 24 people.

Well, actually, let's back up. Romans is one of the longest letters in the ancient in the first century. Letters were usually, you know, like the size of like Philemon or, you know, Philippians a little longer, you know. Romans is a massive letter. It's also so crucial, not just for Protestants and Martin Luther, but it was a key letter in Paul's ministry because he had kind of covered, you know, the eastern part of the Mediterranean world, and he was so passionate about taking the gospel to Spain. He talks about it in

several letters. I got to get to Spain. I got to get the Spain. And so he wants to set up home base in Rome as the new Antioch as a launching point to his Spanish mission. This is what's driving Paul towards the end of his ministry. But he's never been to Rome. And in that day and age, everything's network and connections. And so he has to build camaraderie with the Roman church so that he can end up setting up home base in Rome. To do that, he names 24 people, which is a massive amount of people that are involved in Paul's ministry that are also in Rome or known to the Roman people. He's like, oh, this person you guys have, all right, we go way back. And this bird, we know them, and I know him, greet them, greet them,

to establish that relational connection of the 24 names he mentions, 10 are women. So not quite half, but in the first century, that's a pretty high percentage. But when he describes with active terms, describing the ministry activity that these 24 people are engaging in, then if you add it all up, he actually describes more women. and then men as being particularly active in the service of the gospel. And there's three in particular, Phoebe, Priscilla, and Junia that I highlight in the book. They get kind of the most ink, or at least the most significant terminology. And that's where, again, I would say I was going in that chapter, skeptical of Phoebe and skeptical of Junia.

Phoebe, people are like, you know, she's not just a servant, she's a deacon. I'm like, the word Giaconos just means servant. The office of deacon isn't even really around yet. So it's like, and even the office of deacon is like not debated, but I mean a lot of people say that's not even like a leadership role even. And that's debated, okay? But I don't, you know, so I wasn't, I know, I was like. Phoebe, I don't know, yeah. She's a

active in the gospel. She's a faithful contributor, faithful follower Jesus, significant person for the early church, significant for Paul. But all those things can be true without somebody being like referred to as a leader in the church. Junia, I knew there was a debate about the translation of is she

is Paul calling her an apostle or is he calling or is he saying she was highly esteemed? in the eyes of the male apostles. So I already knew like, well, some people just assume she's an apostle, but there's a debate about the Greek, so I need to do a lot of work on that to see, you know, where I land on that. All that to say, having looked at those three women and all the terminology, all the words that Paul uses to describe these three women,

I just felt like the cumulative case for Paul identifying these women, with specific leadership terminology to me was pretty overwhelming. I would say that might have been the turning point in my book where I'm like, like, yeah, I mean, okay, I know there's First Timothy too. And First Corinthians 14, there's other passages like I get to, but in this case, he's using leadership terminology. And I just, I, yeah. So I think that's where, yeah.

I loved the conclusion that you were writing about Junia. And for those who don't know, Junia actually winds up imprisoned for her preaching. And to be imprisoned in Rome is already horrific. You're thrown into the bottom of a hole in the ground and you and all of your bodily functions and all of the rats and everybody else who's been thrown in that hole gets to live there until somebody dies,

but on top of that, she's a woman. And you had several lines in there about when she stood with the community of faith, every scar was a sermon, every breath was a testimony. If you haven't read the book yet, you'll want to at least read that paragraph. It was...

Yeah. First of all, it was beautiful. But on top of that, our ancient authors don't champion emotion. That's part of ancient literature. You know, it's a just-the-facts ma'am kind of presentation. So I really appreciated what, you know, how you animated her for us. That was, yeah, in Romans 16-7, it's almost like a, I don't want to say a throwaway phrase, but some people just, they camp out on, is she an apostle? Is she not an apostle? If she is an apostle, what kind of apostle? And then they kind of lose steam,

I think when he says they were in prison and Janicus, her husband, probably her husband and Junio were in prison with me. But then I was like, what's, what have that been like? And it was Nije Gupta has written a really good peer review scholarly article. He did a deep dive research on what was it like for a first century woman to be thrown in prison.

And I remember reading that article. And he talks about it in his book, tell her story as well. And he's citing original sources like sister, you know, like so he really heavily researched. searched and that's when I was just like putting together the, this is going to the depths, right? Like I went to the, I was like so absorbed in the scholarly understanding Roman imprisonment and stuff, but then I kind of sat back and just thought, shoes in prison. Oh my gosh. Yeah.

And there was no separation between men and women in prison. Yeah. Because they're all going to die anyway, so why bother separating them? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that was powerful. Okay, I can't judge time. How many more? How many more? Let's do one more and then we'll do some audience. Okay, well, I kind of wanted to. Are you? A couple more. I have a whole other page, Gerer, what are we talking about? You lead.

Well, okay, well, I wanted to talk with it. I wanted to hear about authenticine. Yeah. And this is coming from the biggest problem passage, 1st Timothy 212. And I'm just going to read it out loud to remind us what it says. I do not permit a woman to teach

or assume authority over a man. You're going to do a deep dive on authority. She must be quiet. Yeah. For Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not the one deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, love, holiness, with propriety. I want to just throw three questions at you, and you can pick up whichever one you want.

I want to hear what you do with the Greek term for authority. I want to hear you say something about normative versus situational texts. So for me, when I'm dealing with this particular passage, I'm going to talk through what passages in the New Testament are normative. That means they apply to all people of all times. This is a covenantal statement versus, hey, and can you grab the manuscripts I left in Troas? Because I really need them. Situational and how we determine between the two.

So I want to hear something about that. I also want to ask the question. With this passage and 1 Corinthians 14, although our complementarian brethren will claim these two passages, they don't obey them because both of them say a woman will be silent, a woman will be quiet. So the most conservative church circles I've been in do not obey that commandment. No women in the choir, no women in the praise group, no women asking for prayer requests, giving testimonies, or teaching Sunday school. So there you go.

Okay. Authentane is the Greek word in 1st Timothy 212. I do not permit a woman to teach. That's a normal word for teach, Didosco. And then nor authentane is the Greek word, sometimes translated to assume authority, like the NIV. Who's responsible for that? This must be Philip Payne.

Is he... If it's still there. She's part of the NIV. She translates it. So you're reading Sandy on some parts, right? Well, committee. It's a committee. Yeah, that might still be Gordon Fein.

Okay. Yeah. Gordon Fein. Exercise authority, assume authority are some of the English translations. So this is probably a lot of you are aware that the Greek word is a very, very unique, rare Greek word. It's not the normal word for authority that you read about in the Bible.

That would be exusia typically. There's other Greek words. And so this is the first time Authentane occurs in the entire Bible. So New Testament, Greek translation of the Old Testament, only place. Not only that, it is very rare even outside the Bible in ancient Greek literature. And we're talking, I don't know how many piles of ancient, just millions and millions and millions of pages. The verb occurs

seven to nine times before, I think, 30080. So it's not just a rare word in the Bible. Some words can be rare in the Bible, but not rare outside the Bible, you know? This is just very unique word. So what I did is I said, well, the best I mean, you're the linguist, so I, the way to understand a word is look at every time it's used.

You don't go, like, he say, well, no, you go to a lexicon, a dictionary. like, well, that's what they're doing. They're just looking at how the words use. Then they say, we think this is what it means, and then you read that definition. So, because we only have seven to ten occurrences, I'm like, well, I'm going to look at every single place this occurs and, yeah, interact with that passage. So long story short, in every single passage that the verb occurs, it's in a context of a master exercising authority over a slave. or somebody of a high social status, low social status. It is kind of tethered to this very hierarchical domineering

Greco-Roman secular kind of authority. The kind of thing that Jesus denounced in Mark 10 when he says, the Gentiles lorded over you, the great ones exercised authority. That's a different word, but it's similar concept. But it will not be this way among you. The greatest will be a servant, so on and so forth. So if in every single case, this word is wrapped up in this hierarchical, secular kind of authority that both Jesus and Paul

said, this is not the way Christian leadership should operate. Then he's not saying, women, you're not allowed to exercise godly, Christ-like authority over other men. Only men can do that. She's saying, you're not allowed to exercise what I would, maybe the best translation, like a dominating kind of authority. So I think based on the linguistic evidence, it's a negative kind of authority he's prohibiting. And then it's like, well, why does he single out the women? Are men allowed to do that? Well, of course not. You know, and he singles out men throughout the pastoral epistles. It just is like, then you kind of, if you open up the historical context, there's a good case

to be made that in Ephesus in the first century, it wouldn't have been abnormal for wealthy women, because Paul's talking about wealthy women, if you go back a few verses, to be the kinds of people in first century Ephesus to be dominating men. If you look at women, it's held an abnormally high number of wealthy civic positions, religious positions connected to the Artemis cult. In Asia Minor as a whole, there was a higher than average average. higher than normal percentage of women who did have a lot more, you know, power and authority, that wasn't normal in other places in the Greco-Roman world.

So linguistically, I think there's a good case we made. Historically, it makes sense. Now, so yeah, so in a sense, I think it's, I would say, if I'm right in that, and people disagree with everything I've said. really if I'm right in that then I think it's a blend of normative and situational it's situational in a sense that Paul does have a certain situation group of women in mind but I do think there's probably normative principles to draw from that if you're in any situation where a you know group of women or in another case a group of men

were prone to kind of dominate the other sex. That is not the way Christian should lead. So I do think there's a normative principle that could be drawn, but I do think Paul organizes his language and argument because he is addressing a particular historical situation. I'm not sure if I covered all of them. The third one was this business about women being silent. And maybe that's more, I mean, that's an overall question.

It's not specific, but... To be fair to complementarians, most of the scholars I read on that passage did not say Paul's talking about absolute silence. They all know that a few verses earlier, a few chapters earlier, Paul said, women are prophesying and praying in front of men. They would say in the context of women,

this is the view of D.A. Carson, Wayne Grudham, I think Tom Shriner, that Paul's addressing women who were judging the prophecies of male prophets. Oh, so you're in First Corinthians 14. 14. 14, yeah. But we have, they are to remain silent here. Oh, right, right, right, yeah. I believe that the, I would have to look at the Greek, but is that the same word that's used early?

in that chapter where it says we are to live a quiet life. It's like a quiet demeanor. It's not, don't open your mouth. And again, I don't think that's debated. That's just kind of what the word means. Like he says, yeah, live a godly and quiet life. And I think it's First Timothy 2, too. In fact, check me on that.

That's the same, it's the same word. So, yeah. So the silent passage is. Yeah, yeah. First, Corinthians is 14. Yeah, most people would say, it's not absolute silence. Most people across the board, whatever your view is,

there's a particular kind of speech Paul is regulating among women. Some complementarian scholars would say it's women judging male profits. I found that to be... So if they want to learn anything, they should learn it from their husbands at home. Right, right, yeah. Yeah, yeah. We can talk about that one during the Q&A.

I don't find that reading compelling. To me, if you just look at the four words in that passage in verses 34 to 35, silence, learn, speak, and there's one other word. I forget what it is. If you just look at how Paul's been using those words all along, it seems, I think, rather clear. We're not supposed to say utterly clear, but it's pretty clear to me if you just look at how he's been using these words all

long that he's addressing disruptive speech, disrupting the church service. And just the few verses earlier, he's like, don't all prophesy it once, you know, do it in an orderly manner. So I don't think, and again, it just so happens that there was an issue with women in that culture. But to say he's given an absolute statement that females are not allowed to judge the prophecy of males, I just didn't, I don't see that in the, in the text. And the spiritual gift of distinguishing spirits or judging prophecies in 1st Corinthians 12 is that gift is made in a context that's gender inclusive.

The spiritual gift of distinguishing the spirit of judging prophecies. So it doesn't make sense that he would now say, well, men have that gift, women don't, if it's judging the prophecies of another man. I don't see that concern in that chapter. And I would argue that passage is a marginal gloss that. should never have found its way into the text. Oh, you do? Yeah, I didn't buy that argument. Gordon Fee does. I know. Okay, I know. Gordon Fee and Philip Payne. But so that we can get to the audience questions, just truly the last questions here. You, I'm interested in the response to your book. You said in the introduction,

I have friends on all sides of this debate, and because they're real friends, I won't lose them if I wind up on the wrong side of the question. So I'm curious, how's the feedback coming and have you found yourselves on the edge of particular tribes because of how the book landed? Yeah, yeah, it's overall, it's been received really well. I mean, of course, there's been, you know, some criticism. People have asked me like, hey, how are you doing with all the criticism? I'm like, this ain't my first rodeo. This is like not nearly to the extent when I told Christians 10 years ago they should love their enemies. That really made people upset and kind of kicked me out of, you know, and then sexuality. So, I mean, it's, yeah, it's, it's not anything,

it's, it's been better received than I was expecting, honestly. Oh, okay. Okay. It's gotten critical reviews from both like Complementarians and also certain kinds, maybe certain kinds of egalitarians have criticized it as well. Some thought I was maybe too nice to complementarians or I didn't, you know, I didn't call them to repent. And I don't, that's just not what biblical scholars. I don't know, do you. Calling people to repent. Yeah, if they don't land on.

I don't do that off. I mean, I will do it if somebody's like living in sin and they would say, exactly. And I just, I think exegetically, I would say this is, this is a complex issue. There's been, you know, one strength to the commentarian views. is there's the weight of church history, which isn't as uniform as people think. I've been looking into that. Not as uniform.

But, you know, a kind of, it wasn't called commentarian, but like male only, you know, bishops and, you know, was prevalent in most circles in the church. So. And I'm thinking specifically of some of the folks that you're naming in the book. So your background with John MacArthur,

John Piper, Wayne Grudum, Tom Schroen, Tom Shriner gospel coalition. Yeah, no, I haven't swam in those circles in years. Again, when I wrote a book on nonviolence, I was kind of ex-out of that community. And then when I started saying, like, marriages between a man and woman, but we should love LGBT people.

That second part was troublesome for some people. So I haven't swam in those. I mean, Don McArthur has no clue who I am. I met John Piper once, like 20 years ago. You probably was any rumor. Tom Shriner is the one that I would still. I, yeah, he wrote a very critical review. I don't take it personally, though.

He's still, like I love Tom. He's an amazing man of God and loves his family, loves his wife, and is a model Christian. I disagree with his interpretation on this issue. But, yeah. So, no, I haven't lost any friends. But I've been swimming in both circles for a long time. I preach at egalitarian churches,

preach at Comptarian churches I have for the decade. So, yeah. So with that conclusion, got a bunch of women sitting in front of you and a bunch that are listening that you can't see, with this conclusion that you've come to, especially in its difference from your upbringing, if you had a pastoral word, and I know you've said before, this is not a pastoral project, but how can you do Bible without bumping into, what would that word be? What would that word be? Oh, man.

I'm hesitant because I don't want to pretend like because I feel like I've got a decent grasp what the Bible says, that I immediately have all this pastoral wisdom. There's many people who have been in this conversation for decades, and they've gained pastoral wisdom through experience and all, you know, listening to the spirit and stuff. And I'm an infant in the kind of like, okay, now here's what the, Bible says, okay, now, now what? Because of my conclusion, obviously I'd say, I think you're, if you are gifted and called to leadership, and that's been confirmed by godly people around you, then go for it.

You know, I would still, like, I would want anybody to really, yeah, search the scriptures, to see, like, are my desires, my calling, does it align with Scripture, you know? If you're a woman called to leadership, then I think it does. But I would want you, I would want, I would want you to have that conviction as well. I, my heart goes out,

and this is where I'm learning. Talking to you and talking to Lynn, talking to others, It is, and this is where I want you to speak. It is not easy being a female leader in evangelical spaces. I don't care if they're egalitarian. There's plenty of male domination and misogyny and chauvinism in egalitarian circles. Every single female pastor I talk to in egalitarian circles say, oh, yes, we have not arrived.

There are layers and layers and layers of challenge. unique challenges that you will experience as a woman. And so I think it's going to take a certain kind, a special kind of resilience that women have learned by being a woman in the world. And I've learned that living with my wife and three daughters. So yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that it has that it is kind of extra. There's layers of difficulty you will encounter that

that men might not encounter. Men will encounter their own difficulties and stuff, but not there's unique difficulties that we encounter as, or we are just difficulties men encounter as leaders, not because of our sex that you probably will encounter.

Can you, is that, do you want to affirm that or speaking to that? Yeah, we've, and we've had this conversation in different settings before. I think for anyone who desires to live godly in Christ Jesus, they will be persecuted. I think that being a Christian is hard and it's supposed to be hard. I think being a Christian leader is harder and it's supposed to be harder.

And I consider it the most profound privilege of my life that I get to be one. So the fact that there are barriers, the fact that people, I walk in the room and people don't go, oh, Christian leader, instead they go, oh, girl, you're right, resilience, tenacity, but it's not easy for anyone. And if we're going to do it right, that's probably the bottom line. And I think, and that would be what I'd want to emphasize. If we want to lead well, if we want to lead with integrity, if we want to actually put his kingdom first, not mine, his reputation, his fame first,

regardless of your gender, you're going to struggle. And if you know that you actually are putting the kingdom first, and so you can, you know he's got your back, he's right here. You're going to make it. I do want to say this one more, and then we kind of get through the questions, but a female call to leadership, I want to go beyond, too, saying like,

your femaleness is not a, good news, it's not a hindrance. That's not, that's kind of patronize it. Like, that's, I think, I would say, again, people here don't agree, and you're totally welcome to stay for the rest of the conference. You don't need to agree with what I'm going to say. But I think your femalness, if you are called and gifted for leadership, okay, I don't want to assume just because you're a woman who thinks you are that you are, okay? Being a woman is not like an added, it's not an intrinsic qualification.

Oh, because I'm a woman, I'm there for, you know. But your femalness isn't just a hindrance. Like your femalness brings a necessary vital. place to leadership in the church that cannot be filled by a man in the same way that a single-parent household. I was raised in a single-parent household. My mom did an amazing job, but oh, man, I missed out having one biological sex as a parent. And I think the church needs a dual-parent household. I think that is the best for the church because women do bring a uniqueness as women to the table of leadership. We've got to get the questions.

Actually, that was one of the quotes. Sorry, I can't let it go. Grudem and Shriner, women are more relational and nurturing, and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity. God gave men in general a disposition that is better suited to teaching and governing in the church, a disposition that inclines more to rational, logical analysis of doctrine.

and God gave women in general a disposition that inclines more toward a relational nurturing emphasis that places a higher value on unity and community in the church. And therefore... Right. Women shouldn't be a leader. Who would like a pastor whose only gift is rational logical analysis of doctrine? Raise your hand. Who would like a pastor whose only gift

is valuing unity and community. Raise your hand. And I don't want either, I mean, I don't want either of those pastors. I want both gifts. And I think the kingdom of God wants both gifts. And I think actually that quotation shows a view of past, it exposes a view of pastoral ministry.

I was pretty jarred when I came across that statement, but it was kind of low-hanging fruit. Yeah, yeah. So I grabbed it.