Preston Sprinkle’s new book, From Genesis to Junia, recounts his quest to understand the Bible’s teaching on women in church leadership (spoiler alert: he concludes in favor of egalitarianism). Because of the topic and Sprinkle’s large following, this book has created quite a stir. In fact, it generated over three times the number of pre-sales of any book he has written.
Preston and I are friends (and I was at his launch party for this book), and as with all friendships, there are going to be disagreements from time to time. But let’s start with points of agreement.
Much to Agree With
1. Influential Women in the Old Testament and in Jesus’ Ministry
Sprinkle admirably highlights many of the significant and influential women in the Old Testament and the Gospels. He even reminds us how surprising it is that the first witnesses to the resurrection, the ones who announced it to the apostles, were women such as Mary Magdalene. Women have played powerful roles, even leadership roles, throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels.
2. Influential Women in the Early Church and in Paul’s Ministry
Sprinkle continues his survey of the important roles women play in the Bible by looking at the early church and Paul’s ministry. Paul calls women coworkers, deacons, and patrons. Women serve as hosts to house churches. They played a prominent and important role in the early church.
“Women have played powerful roles, even leadership roles, throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels.”
3. The Meaning of “Head”
Sprinkle’s treatment of the word “head” (kephalē) is helpful. He spent five months reading all the literature on the word and concluded that “kephalē almost always conveys some sense of authority, especially when it refers to a person’s relationship with other people” (pages 177-78). And “when ancient writers use kephalē in a nonliteral way, it almost always conveys some sense of authority, and I think that this is what Paul has in mind here [in Ephesians 5:22-23]” (page 180).
As part of this discussion, he explores the notion that kephalē means “source,” concluding that “not only does it make more lexical sense to interpret kephalē as conveying authority, but it also captures the rhetorical force of what Paul is doing in Ephesians 5:21-33” (page 185). In discussing headship in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Sprinkle notes that even if kephalē means “source” there, “it’s unlikely that it means source and not ‘authority’” (page 213, emphasis original).
4. The Treatment of Ephesians 5:21-33
Sprinkle’s discussion of male and female roles in marriage in Ephesians 5:21-33 notes that, as just discussed, kephalē (“head”) conveys authority—but authority patterned after the self-giving love of Jesus. He also points out that only wives are told to submit in this passage. “From my vantage point, I don’t see Paul directly telling husbands to submit to their wives. And yet he clearly challenges typical hierarchical assumptions about submission and authority, pushing toward a kind of mutuality in marriage that was revolutionary in the first century” (page 188).
“Sprinkle’s treatment of the word “head” (kephalē) is helpful.”
5. Wresting with 1 Corinthians
Sprinkle wrestles helpfully with two difficult passages from 1 Corinthians. First Corinthians 11:2-16 is notoriously hard, including unclear phrases and confusing logical connections. Yet in spite of all the difficulties, one thing is perfectly clear: women prayed and prophesied out loud in church. Sprinkle helpfully wrestles with the ambiguities of this text concluding that “Paul appeals to man’s priority in creation to argue that married women should wear culturally appropriate attire as a sign of their husband’s authority” (page 208).
His treatment of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is on target as well. He shows that this is not a blanket statement but that Paul’s concern in this section of 1 Corinthians is with order in worship. That’s why all three uses in 1 Corinthians of the specific word for “be silent” appear in the very paragraph where verses 34-35 are found. Paul tells tongue-speakers, prophets, and women to be silent. “Paul is commanding women to not interrupt another prophet while he or she is speaking but to submit to the one speaking” (p. 231).
I found myself agreeing with a lot of the biblical conclusions in the first 237 pages of the book, and the book is only 262 pages long. For sure, there were some disagreements as I’ll note below, but through nine chapters, Sprinkle built a case that is consistent with and in many ways supportive of a nuanced complementarian position. Chapter 10, however, is where we significantly diverged.
Before looking at that chapter as well as a few other specific points of disagreement, I first want to consider a few general problems with Sprinkle’s case for egalitarianism.
“I found myself agreeing with a lot of the biblical conclusions in the first 237 pages of the book, and the book is only 262 pages long.”
Some Logical Problems
Defining Leadership as Service
As discussed above, Sprinkle correctly highlights a number of influential women in the Bible, concluding that they were “leaders.” He points out that Jesus redefines leadership in terms of service rather than greatness.
He frames all of this as “our search for women leaders” (page 93). Then he says, “if we take Jesus’ words [about leaders being servants] seriously, then we’re not looking for women who have ascended to the top like some CEO who climbed the corporate ladder. Perhaps we’re not even looking for women with badges and titles, or ones who have been ‘ordained’ to a clear ministry position.” Instead, “we should be looking for a servant with towel in hand” (page 93).
But wait…this language only muddies the waters. The very question being debated is about definite leadership positions. If titles and ordination don’t matter, why are we even discussing this subject? The overarching question he pursues in this book is whether women can occupy certain specific ministry positions that have titles (e.g., elder/overseer, deacon, etc.) and often require some kind of ordination.
Sprinkle seems to imply that since servanthood is at the heart of Jesus’ vision of leadership, then all servants are leaders. I know he knows this isn’t the case, but he makes a handful of statements throughout the book like the one above that suggest if you find a servant, you’ve found a leader. But this is an erroneous understanding of Jesus’ words. The point of Jesus’ teaching is not that the janitor is the one who actually leads the company. His point is that the leader of the company should have the heart that would make him a good janitor. In other words, not every servant is a leader; but every leader must be a servant.
“The very question being debated is about definite leadership positions.”
Jesus knows that there are people in positions of power and leadership, many who even bear titles. He’s not trying to eliminate those positions. He is offering a fresh vision for how the people who occupy those positions posture themselves and behave within those positions.
Women Leaders in the Bible…Therefore?
Related to this, Sprinkle repeatedly mentions that there were women in influential positions all throughout the Bible and describes them as leaders. As noted above, he frames the case he’s making as searching to see if there were women leaders in the Bible. His reasoning seems to be that if we find women acting as leaders, then this proves egalitarianism. So he says things like “if God had commanded that only men can lead, then even one deviation [i.e., one example of a female leader] from his command wouldn’t be just an exception to the rule; it would be immoral” (page 64, italics in the original). Or, “thus far, I think there’s a case for female leaders in the New Testament” (page 117). His thinking appears to be that if women are leaders in any way, then they can be leaders in every way.
But this doesn’t logically follow. Leadership in one position or five positions does not necessitate leadership in every position. We can imagine a large organization with ten different kinds of leadership positions available and nine of them could be occupied by females. But, for whatever reason, one position could only be filled by males. You could identify plenty of female leaders in records about the organization, and yet there’d still be one position that was male only. The presence of some or even many female leaders doesn’t equate to full egalitarianism. In the same way, the presence of some or many female leaders in the Bible doesn’t necessarily lead to egalitarianism as Sprinkle seems to assume.
“The presence of some or many female leaders in the Bible doesn’t necessarily lead to egalitarianism as Sprinkle seems to assume.”
This is also the problem with Sprinkle’s survey of leadership terms in the New Testament. In chapter 4, he spends a lot of time surveying all the different ways the New Testament speaks about leaders (which is actually helpful), and he argues from this data that since these terms are applied to females, then we should conclude that females were leaders in Paul’s ministry. Based on what we’ve said above, I trust you can see the logical problem with this. Just because women, or even men for that matter, were leaders in some capacity doesn’t mean they were or can be leaders in every capacity.
Describing the First-Century World
One final logical problem with Sprinkle’s case is the inconsistency regarding how he presents the nature of the first-century world. Was it male dominated so that giving women status and position was counter cultural? Or did women have significant amounts of influence and power? When making a point about how the original Greco-Roman readers would’ve heard the narratives in the Gospels about the faithfulness of the women disciples in contrast to the faithlessness of male disciples, Sprinkle describes the culture of those original readers as “male dominated…where women were considered less significant, less moral, less wise, and less virtuous than men” (page 84). But when arguing that in a first-century house church the woman of the house would’ve been a de facto leader in the church, he argues that women in Greco-Roman culture had “leadership roles in civic, religious, and even political spheres” (page 110) and contends that they often wielded more power and authority over the management of the household than their husband. A house church was thus a place where the woman was likely in charge (pages 110-11). Sprinkle seems to offer an inconsistent reconstruction of the data, which stacks the deck in favor of egalitarianism.
A Few Points of Disagreement
Here I want to note a handful of points of disagreement from chapters 1-9, even though I noted above how much I found to agree with.
1. The Framing of Women in Jesus’ Ministry
Sprinkle acknowledges that he knows no complementarian who would deny that Jesus valued women and women played a significant role in his ministry. He also admitted that “the evidence for women in leadership can be stretched further than the Gospel writers intended” (page 66). And yet it seems that this is what he did.
He surveys each of the four Gospels, not only highlighting the significance of women in Jesus’ ministry but arguing that women are held up as the model disciples and the men, especially the apostles, are “faithless.” “I’m still struck,” Sprinkle writes, “by the way the Gospel writers contrast the women’s faithfulness with the faithlessness of the Twelve—especially if we assume that the Twelve were being trained to be leaders in the early church” (page 84). Women, not men, are described as servants, and this is the key leadership descriptor for Jesus (page 86). He argues: “Not only do [the apostles] serve as a negative foil for genuine discipleship, but in the Gospels, it’s women more than men who serve as examples of the leadership virtues Jesus talked about” (page 89). He even says that “the Gospels depict the women as exemplary preachers of the divine word to men” because they witnessed and announced the resurrection (page 84).
“He surveys each of the four Gospels not only highlighting the significance of women in Jesus’ ministry but arguing that women are held up as the model disciples and the men, especially the apostles, are ‘faithless.'”
But Sprinkle overplays his hand in this chapter. He magnifies the virtues of women and exaggerates the failures of men, especially the Twelve. Women are said to demonstrate radical obedience to Jesus, once again in contrast to men. Women demonstrate “faithfulness, courage, hope, sacrifice suffering, generosity, hospitality” (page 84), not men. The men are “fragile and faithless” (page 84). But what about Joseph, who courageously took Mary as his wife after a visit from the angel? Or Peter, Andrew, James, and John who left their nets and their father to radically follow and obey Jesus? Or the commendation of Peter for his bold confession of Jesus (Matthew 16:16-18)? Sure, there are plenty of places the Twelve fall short and Jesus corrects them, but there are also plenty of times they model faithfulness too. It’s unnecessary and unpersuasive to overinflate their shortcomings and to over-magnify the women’s virtues.
In the end, the argument of this chapter, that the women should be held up as the main leaders, is unfounded because we know that the Twelve are, in fact, men. They are the ones Jesus has chosen to lead his mission. And although women played influential roles and were often excellent models of discipleship, that did not promote them to every position of leadership, nor does it disqualify the men from their appointed position of leadership. Based on Sprinkle’s logic, it seems like Jesus should’ve chosen twelve women to be apostles rather than twelve men.
But he didn’t.
Which leads to the next point.
2. Twelve Male Apostles
Sprinkle doesn’t dodge this fact, and that’s commendable. He even notes that when the eleven apostles sought a replacement for Judas, they “specified that they needed to choose a replacement from among the ‘men’ (andrōn, Acts 1:21), even though there were many faithful women available” (page 88). This used to be a “slam-dunk argument” for complementarianism in his mind, but now he’s not so sure, though he still thinks “it has some merit” (page 88). I appreciate that Sprinkle doesn’t dismiss this fact on the basis of the culture of the day, since Jesus, countercultural as ever, clearly had women following him around as disciples and part of his entourage.
So why does he no longer think this is a slam-dunk argument? He offers two reasons.
First, the twelve apostle “represent a reconstituted twelve tribes of Israel. Since the twelve tribes derive from twelve male patriarchs (sons of Jacob), the twelve apostles had to be male for the symbolism to work” (page 88, emphasis original). This is actually a fairly established understanding of why Jesus chose twelve apostles. Sprinkle then draws this conclusion: “The sex of the Twelve, then, is irrelevant for the sex of future church leaders of the church” (page 88). The fact that they are males is only part of the analogy with the twelve patriarchs and “is intended to be symbolic of Israel’s past, not determinative of the church’s future” (page 89).
“I appreciate that Sprinkle doesn’t dismiss this fact on the basis of the culture of the day, since Jesus, countercultural as ever, clearly had women following him around as disciples and part of his entourage.”
But this conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. We actually need some reasons for why this doesn’t also look forward to the church’s future. All the argument offers is where the idea of twelve men came from in the past, but it offers no reason for why this is irrelevant to church leadership in the future. It appears that it is very relevant to that question since these twelve men are described as the foundation of the church. It seem to me that this first reason fails to make the case.
Second, Sprinkle argues that in the Gospels, the Twelve “aren’t very good examples of what leadership looks like” (page 89). I’ve already pointed out that I think he overstates this, but even if this were the case, this would in no way dismiss the fact that Jesus chose these twelve men. Whether good leaders or not, Jesus still entrusted the leadership of his enterprise to them.
3. Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia (Romans 16)
Complementarians and egalitarians celebrate the contributions of brave, faithful women like these three. But I want to make a few observations about how these three are used to build a case for egalitarianism.
First, these three clearly were influential and important women in the early church. But as explained above, being a leader in one capacity doesn’t equate to being a leader in every capacity. We can’t conclude from the significant roles these women played that there are no gender-based leadership distinctions in the early church.
So it’s true that Priscilla is called Paul’s coworker in ministry. And she and Aquila hosted churches in their homes. But to refer to her as an “early church leader” (page 137), and by that to mean that she occupied the same role as a male elder, is inaccurate and unpersuasive.
Second, often the case for egalitarianism using these three women entails going beyond what the text actually says, almost like building a 2400-square-foot house on a 100-square-foot foundation. I see some of that here in Sprinkle’s work.
Take Phoebe, for example. Using some historical background, Sprinkle helps us appreciate who this woman might have been as a patron and servant (“deacon”) of the church. It’s possible that she was the person who delivered that letter to the Romans, though the text doesn’t make this explicit. Noting this possibility, however, Sprinkle goes beyond the text to speculate based on what we know about ancient letters that she could’ve read (or performed) the letter to the Romans and explained things as she went. Implication: she was the first person who ever “preached” the book of Romans.
“Sprinkle goes beyond the text to speculate based on what we know about ancient letters.”
But the text says nothing about her role in delivering or reading or explaining the letter and thankfully, Sprinkle acknowledges this, saying he wants to be cautious because these things aren’t certain (page 129). Unfortunately, in his conclusion to the chapter, he states it as a fact saying Paul “entrusts her with carrying and performing his most important letter at the crux of his ministry” (page 149).
Especially since Junia makes the title of Sprinkle’s book, we should say a bit about her. Here’s what Romans 16:7 says about her: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding in the view of the apostles, who also were in Christ before me” (NASB).[1] The fact that she and her husband are referred to as “fellow prisoners” is a key reason she ended up in the title. Sprinkle builds a lot of this phrase and returns to it for persuasive appeal in the conclusion to the book. He describes in detail the horrific conditions of Roman prisons and notes that women in prison often “faced the constant threat of sexual assault and rape” (pages 147-48). Then he adds that “it is remarkable that Junia not only endured such a hellhole but also continued her apostolic duties after she was released” (page 148).
All of this goes beyond what the text actually says. We don’t know what (if any?) apostolic duties Junia had. She may not have even endured the hellhole Sprinkle describes. Paul uses the word “prisoner” to describe himself in Ephesians 3:1 and the exact phrase “fellow prisoner” in Colossians 4:10 to describe Aristarchus, but both of those letters are written while Paul is under house arrest (not a hellhole) as described in Acts 28.
“All of this goes beyond what the text actually says.”
We must guard against building a lot off very little. Often times, the conclusions drawn from the mention of these three woman aren’t supported by what the Bible actually says about them.
While there are few other things I might quibble over from the first nine chapters of the book, the main point of divergence comes in chapter 10. So, let’s turn to what Sprinkle says about 1 Timothy.
1 Timothy 2:8-15
This passage is critical to this debate, and Sprinkle gives considerable attention to it. The key verses are 2:11-12: “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (NASB). And the key phrase is “to teach or to exercise authority over.”
The word translated “exercise authority” is authentein. This is the only use of this verb in the New Testament, and there are few surviving uses outside the New Testament that help us understand how the word was being used at the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy. The question is, does the word refer to having authority in a neutral sense or does it refer to authority in a negative sense, such as using authority in a domineering way?
Sprinkle helpfully includes and briefly reviews all the passages in ancient literature where this word is used so you can read them yourself. He concludes that the word refers to negative, domineering authority, so that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not excluding women from having authority over men in general, only using domineering authority. He also contends that the teaching that is prohibited is negative, domineering teaching (see page 261).
“Does the word refer to having authority in a neutral sense or does it refer to authority in a negative sense, such as using authority in a domineering way?”
But why forbid only the women from exercising domineering authority and domineering teaching? Paul writes that he doesn’t allow a woman… so does he allow a man to teach and exercise authority in a domineering manner? It seems an odd thing to say. I suppose someone might argue that women in the church in Ephesus were the ones with the problem, but this doesn’t fit the context in 1 Timothy. In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul names two men who have been part of the problem in Ephesus, and in 2 Timothy 3:6, written while Timothy is still ministering in Ephesus, Paul describes men who take advantage of weak, vulnerable women. So certainly domineering men are a problem for the church in Ephesus. So why single out only the women and prohibit them from being domineering?
Also, I find Sprinkle’s reasoning for why the verb authentein (“exercise authority”) refers to negative authority unconvincing. He argues that it is negative because it’s used in contexts of social hierarchy, including masters and slaves. So, he contends it refers to a worldly kind of authority where people act like tyrants and lord it over others (page 253) contrary to Jesus’ vision for authority. His argument is not that the context where it is used shows the authority figure acted badly, thus making the word negative; rather, in his mind, it’s the bare fact of hierarchy that makes the kind of authority referred to by the verb negative.[2] His basic argument looks like this:
- The verb is used in hierarchical contexts, including slave masters
- Such hierarchy is negative based on Jesus’ teaching
- Therefore, the verb authentein is negative.
But this seems to misunderstand word meanings as well as Jesus’ teaching about authority.
“This seems to misunderstand word meanings as well as Jesus’ teaching about authority.”
Social hierarchies, including slavery, were simply part of the first-century world of Jesus and Paul. And though their hierarchies were a little more defined than ours today, we still have hierarchies today. It’s simply the way societies are organized and operate. So just because a word is consistently used in a hierarchical context does not make the word inherently negative.
We can see this, for example, with the English word “boss.” It is always used in a hierarchical context in which one person has control over another, including their livelihood. Bosses can even fire you with a simple text message. (That might be bad form, but I know two people who were fired in that very way in the past week.) But we don’t think the word “boss” is always negative. It’s intrinsically hierarchical but not intrinsically negative. We need more information about the boss to determine if it’s positive or negative. Likewise, simply because the word authentein consistently occurs in hierarchical contexts doesn’t make it intrinsically negative.
But what about Jesus’ teaching?
Whether we like it or not, Jesus’ teaching about authority doesn’t mean he views hierarchies as necessarily bad or that he’s seeking to dismantle social hierarchies. In fact, Jesus uses the hierarchies of their day, including slaves and masters, to make both negative and positive points. True, he warns about lording it over people and calls his apostles to not act that way. But he also uses the slave-master hierarchy to teach disciples about faithful service in Luke 17:7-10 and elsewhere. In that teaching, a slave worked all day, came in at night, and had to serve his master dinner…and Jesus uses all that to make a positive point.
“Whether we like it or not, Jesus’ teaching about authority doesn’t mean he views hierarchies as necessarily bad or that he’s seeking to dismantle social hierarchies.”
Jesus’ teaching on authority doesn’t mean that any and all authority within hierarchy is intrinsically bad, so that any time we see the word “authority” in a hierarchical context we can automatically conclude it’s negative.
Paul operates the same way. In 1 Timothy 6:1 (NASB), Paul instructs: “All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.” The word for master here is despotēs, a term Sprinkle says conveys secular not Christian authority (see pages 253-54). And yet Paul expects slaves to regard this master as deserving of “all honor.”
But what if the master is a Christian? Wouldn’t Paul tell them to release their slaves? First Timothy 6:2 continues: “Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brothers or sisters, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved.” Beloved! As a despotēs!
Like Jesus, Paul doesn’t dismantle the hierarchies of the day. Rather, he teaches Christians what it looks to be a good disciple within those hierarchies. Sprinkle’s negative view of authentein largely depends on a denunciation of the hierarchies themselves, which is something we have to impose looking back, not something we see from the biblical writers. So I don’t find Sprinkle’s reason for understanding authentein as a negative kind of authority persuasive.
“Sprinkle’s negative view of authentein largely depends on a denunciation of the hierarchies themselves, which is something we have to impose looking back, not something we see from the biblical writers.”
And if that’s the case, then his main argument for “to teach” being negative fails as well. In fact, as Sprinkle himself admits (page 258), the word translated “to teach” is almost always used as a positive thing in the New Testament. The few times it’s used in a negative context it’s qualified with an explanatory phrase that makes it clear something negative is happening (e.g., see Titus 1:10-11). But there is no such qualifying phrase in 1 Timothy 2:12, so it actually makes more sense to assume it’s positive in this context.[3]
Also, 1 Timothy 2:11 gets only a footnote in this chapter (note 57, page 260), but the verse is actually very relevant to the discussion. Verse 11 is the positive counterpart to verse 12. Paul writes, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness” (NASB). “Quietly” refers to a peaceable spirit and demeanor (not absolute silence, which would contradict what Paul has written elsewhere), and “full submission” speaks of arranging oneself under authority.
So while I appreciated Sprinkle taking the text seriously, I remain unconvinced by his arguments regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
Male Elders
Sprinkle downplays the argument for male-only elders from 1 Timothy 3:1-7. He claims that “most English translations contain male-specific language throughout the passage, but the Greek is not male-specific” (page 279). This is a half-truth that muddies the waters. The traits listed are masculine in Greek, but in Greek a mixed group of men and women can be referred to using masculine-gendered words. So, one could argue as Sprinkle does, that if the group of overseers in 1 Timothy 3 were both male and female, the way Paul writes is what you’d find. At the same time, if the group were all male, Paul would write it the exact same way. So, you need some indicator of whether the group is mixed or male only.
And the fact is, there is an indicator in this passage. When Paul writes that overseers must be “the husband of one wife” (verse 2), he literally says “one-woman man,” using the male-specific word anēr. Therefore, Paul makes it clear that this passage is male specific. This is why every major translation understands it as male-specific and why Sprinkle’s contention that it’s not male-specific turns out to be false.
Sprinkle does address the phrase “one-woman man,” and rightly points out that Paul knows how to say it the other way: “one-man woman” (see 1 Timothy 5:9). He thus acknowledges that the phrase is “gender specific” (page 279). Yet he concludes that this doesn’t require overseers to be male, but it is merely descriptive (not prescriptive). He assumes this was the case because of the culture. “Within Paul’s ancient context, most qualified overseers would have been married men with children. But Paul is not trying to rule out the possibility of women overseers” (page 286).
“When Paul writes that overseers must be “the husband of one wife” (v. 2), he literally says “one-woman man,” using the male-specific word anēr.”
But this is not an argument. It assumes and asserts the conclusion the book is debating, rather than arguing for it. Furthermore, it seems inconsistent with Sprinkle’s argument earlier in the book that women often had more power in the home than men, and thus they would’ve been viewed as leaders (see pages 110-11).
Sprinkle also suggests that being a “one-woman man” seems to indicate marriage and Paul mentions overseers having children. He then reasons that, if we’re not going to require overseers to be married or have kids today, why also require them to be male? But this confuses what is situational (e.g., if he has kids, they must obey him) with what is not (i.e., a person’s gender). I don’t see how the situational conditions of marriage and family (which Paul himself didn’t meet) negate the male-specific language of the passage. By contrast, when discussing deacons immediately after overseers, Paul explicitly includes instructions for males and females, but he doesn’t do that for overseers. It remains completely male-specific. Nothing in the passage indicates that the body of overseers included women.
Sprinkle also claims in various places throughout the book that the host to the house church probably was a de facto elder, so a female host implies a female elder (pages 110-14, cf. pages 104 and 133). But we don’t see de facto, default elders in the churches Paul started. Rather, Paul consistently appointed elders (see Acts 14:23 at the beginning of his ministry and Titus 1:5 near the end).
“We don’t see de facto, default elders in the churches Paul started. Rather, Paul consistently appointed elders.”
Also, I think it’s fair to ask that, if the male specific language of 1 Timothy 3 (as well as Titus 1) doesn’t require male overseers, why did the church for 1900 years understand it as requiring male overseers? There have been debates about many things during church history, but about the topic of male elders (pastors, priests, or whatever title is used), the church spoke with one voice for 1900 years. Whether women could be ordained as overseers didn’t become a pressing question until recently (for more on this question, see “Can Women Serve as Elders in the Church? 5 Questions for Egalitarians”).
Conclusion
Preston Sprinkle is a first-rate scholar who spent over three years digging deeply into this subject. The book reflects his research but it’s clear and accessible to the average reader, something I’ve always appreciated about Preston’s work. I do not find his case for egalitarianism convincing, but I commend Preston for taking this topic seriously and seeking to wrestle with it deeply. I know his deepest goal is for more people to dig into the biblical text on this subject. We share that goal and I hope my review helps you, the reader, in this quest.
[1] There’s lots of debate about what the phrase “in the view of the apostles” means (this translation represents one understanding). Sprinkle wrestles with it and concludes that the other option is best, namely, that these two were deemed “apostles” (though not the Twelve) and had significant ministries of being “sent out” (what “apostle” means). I remain undecided, but note that Paul did refer to people like Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25) and Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:9) as apostles.
[2] There is some debate about the related noun which is sometimes used for explicitly evil persons (e.g., murderous), but that is different from the verb. Sprinkle seems to deal fairly with the question of the noun’s relevance for the understanding the verb.
[3] Paul twice uses a different word—heterodidaskaleō—for negative teaching in 1 Timothy.
One Response
Whittaker has done some valuable work here.
I think we need to concede that a pushback against the historical legacy of abusive misogyny by authors like Preston Sprinkle is needed. But, a weakness in these egalitarian books is the total lack of considering what power Women have. What is it which causes the most powerful rulers in the world to say “I will give you anything you want –up to half my kingdom”? Does the hand that rocks the cradle truly rule the world? There are many abuses of this power in scripture, but they are never discussed.