I wonder if the descriptive examples of women in presumably teaching roles still retain Paul’s headship guidelines. For example, Prisca did teach Apollos, but with her husband present; we don’t have a record of her pursuing corrective ministry alone, apart from her husband. And perhaps Phoebe can be understood to have presented the Paul’s letter to the church at Rome under his authority and representation. So, we can imagine that he would have taught her (in line with the various “let a woman learn” admonitions), and then she was entrusted to accurately relay what he had taught her on his behalf. (Which is slightly or substantially different than having her interpret and present on her own authority). So, there remains a distinction between the roles of Prisca and Phoebe from say Timothy and Silas. Also, the theory of Paul addressing of pre-gnostic ideas in 1 Tim. 2:13-15 still doesn’t explain or override the distinctions between men and women in verses 8-12, nor the adjectives that only apply to women (I.e. with submissiveness, remain quiet), nor the ordering of Adam and Eve in v.13-14. So, the theory doesn’t seem to supply an egalitarian solution to the details of the text itself.
I am listening from New Zealand and very much appreciate the scholarly respect of the context of The 1st century. I am learning a lot. Thanks Preston, you have wonderful guests. Challenge to our preconceived beliefs is always healthy - truth can take that!
As a scholar/student of Scripture, many years ago, I decided what I think doesn't really matter, but rather what does the text of Scripture really say. It is hard work. I've been working on this topic for a long time now. One thing I've noticed is the egalitarian view, though popular in our current culture, seems to have difficulty presenting any clear teaching of Scripture to support their view. Example, Romans 16:7 on Junia. The passage is not clear by any stretch of the imagination and certainly shouldn't be used as a major argument on the topic. In the interview Dr. Cohick referred to Pricilla coaching Apollos a couple times and again, a one on one conversation with someone doesn't stack up to any solid evidence that a woman can biblically be a lead pastor of a flock. Many of the current popular books presenting this view play fast and loose with Scripture. If this is the best they have, I'm wondering how the view became so popular. Her handling of 1 Timothy 2 also seemed rather forced to me. I recently watched Mike Winger go through every passage of Scripture on the topic and it seemed to be a more natural reading of the texts while highlighting the inconsistencies of this view. I appreciate you wading in to all the things you do, your podcast definitely gives me much food for thought.
The passage is clear. Junia was an apostle (the early church fathers also believed this, it was only contested when later scholars realized Junia was a woman- the male form of the name, Junias, did not exist). I do not think it should be a major support on the topic but what women did and what titles they were given should be considered. Furthermore, we only have a few men listed as elders/pastors. To say it is clear that women could and can not be pastors (especially pastors of other women) is not reasonable. Nowhere does it say women could not pastor other women. Nowhere does it say women cannot be pastors.
It does seem like Dr. Lynn puts a lot of weight on a few descriptive passages/examples in the NT. In contrast, the teaching we see from Paul is prescriptive - specifically in 1 Tim 2 and 3. The last questions also did seem telling. Can complementarianism be patriarchal and harmful? Of course, but this does not rule out that it could be God's desire for how we relate if we properly live it out (Eph 5:25-30, 1 Peter 5:1-5). To insinuate that complementarianism is somehow dangerous seems a little bold in light of how God has in the past chosen leaders for his people. ie. the priesthood for Israel, Jesus' disciples.
Yes, you are correct. The answer to that last question was extremely revealing, and the entire end of this interview descended into mockery of the other view, which Preston is supposed to be objective about. I wonder what the complementarians who took part in this series think about the mockery and answer to that question regarding their interpretation. Everything was revealed right there in the answer to that last question.
misogynistic men do NOT have any authority over women, and they certainly don't have the monopoly on God or females so you all need to stop before the lawsuits are flooding the courthouses because they are coming.
Misogynist man made religions are pagan and it's idolatry. man's attempt at usurping God's authority over women and children so they can stay in power over women and children for profit and power. Men do NOT have the monopoly on God or his word.
5 mins in and the speculation about Junia begins…6 mins in and Euodia & Syntyche are compared to Timothy…7 mins in seeking to introduce the word of a critical approach to the biblical text to young students who are rightly balking at this approach…
The fact that some are appalled by the idea that a woman had the duty to report her husband if he tried to have sex with her during her period, for the sake of the overall holiness of the community, is ridiculous. How can ANYONE even come up with the remark that "what a woman? Reporting the wrongdoing of a man? Impossible! This would mean she has authority over him!". Seriously, how OBSESSED with superiority, power and rulership must a human being be to think "reporting someone's bad/illegal/forbidden/harmful behavior=having authority over". So, what a woman should just watch a man rape her, murder someone, go against God's law, etc. and never report it to protect the believed "authority" over her. What a pathetic thinking, feeling, and viewpoint of the world, and women.
Her explanation of what 1 Tim 2:13-14 was as clear as mud to me. Am I just an idiot? Can someone summarize what she said because it seemed so rambling and hard to follow.
As a woman longing to serve her Savior well and live out a testimony of faith to her children and others, this is an important issue that I've been studying. Understanding the context and culture of the time Paul was writing in and his audience is crucial to proper exegesis of the scripture. I find it very telling that the vast majority of people who take issue with this conversation and those of this topic are MEN. In college, a male was the student leader of our Campus Crusade for Christ/Cru chapter and made some questable decisions, taught things that were a bit off. Then he shared his testimony of how he was walking through the student lounge area and happened across the CCfC table. It was at that point he decided to be a Christian. Bringing my concerns to the leader for our area did nothing. That student leader is no longer living for the Lord and is on his third or fourth marriage. My point in this, the rest of us on the leadership team under him were women who knew the Word far better and were actually Christians. Yet he was a male so could therefore teach. Thank you Preston, for having these conversations.
I mean in reality if you take it they way she speaking the letter should have probably said "A person(not gender specific) should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a person(not gender specific) who is not well educated to teach or to assume authority over anyone; they must be quiet". So the question is why would Paul put woman as the subject of this passage. Because her interpretation seems to remove woman as the subject.
Uhm, maybe because a woman was the cause of trouble at the church at Ephesus? That's like saying "women should not lift their hands during prayer, because Paul wrote that "men should pray everywhere and lift up their holy hands without anger/wrath" in 1 Tim 2:8. Does that men men MUST pray everywhere, on the toilet, in the car, at Walmart and they must lift up their hands while praying, and then women are not allowed to lift up their hands? No, obviously he is addressing specific men who apparently had an issue with anger, while the women didn't have that issue. The same goes for the whole stuff about not wearing expensive garments and gold and pears and fancy, expensive hairdos. Are men suddenly allowed to wear expensive garments, fancy watches and diamond earrings? No, the issue is not that, the issue was that some women at that church went all out with showing their wealth, without concern for the poorer members of the church worship, plus that their focus should be God. And the men were apparently not guilty of that, so he addressed the ones who were, the women. The same goes for the quietness and submission (by the way, quietness translates to inner stillness/tranquility and submission has nothing to do with "men"). And obviously even men should learn with inner stillness and submission to whatever he meant, such as their studies, or sound doctrine, or who knows what. It's not that complicated if you you stop obsessing over "gender roles" or trying to always see if men might not be set above women after all and then look for such interpretations. Much love.
Preston Sprinkle continues to push controversial issues and topics for the express purpose of being controversial and edgy. He gets a kick out of challenging people to question their theology. He has done more damage than good by constantly confusing people and causing Christians to question the long held beliefs that anchor the soul. The subtle erosion of orthodoxy through the methods of Deconstruction and progressive “Christianity” are tearing away the foundation of the true church.
If the "true church" (whatever the heck that means) can be eroded by what Sprinkle says and does, then I'm not sure it deserves to be called true church.
In all of the historic creeds and confessions, there is no mention of whether or not men can be the only ones serving at an ecclesiastical level… so it seems that the Orthodox faith isn’t what you are afraid of being destroyed so much as your interpretations.
Praise God Preston isn’t the head of the “true church.” And praise God, he can’t tear it away!!! And praise God once more that he is in fact building her up by mimicking the humility of Christ in all that he does through this platform. They will know that we are we are Christ’s disciples by the love we have for one another. Thank you Preston for loving well in this regard. Praying for you and your family as you continue to do something that, rather than “tearing away the foundation of the true church,” threatens to tear away the foundation of whole other kingdom. A kingdom that trembles at the expansion of Christ’s Kingdom. Keep it up, brother.
I wonder if the descriptive examples of women in presumably teaching roles still retain Paul’s headship guidelines. For example, Prisca did teach Apollos, but with her husband present; we don’t have a record of her pursuing corrective ministry alone, apart from her husband. And perhaps Phoebe can be understood to have presented the Paul’s letter to the church at Rome under his authority and representation. So, we can imagine that he would have taught her (in line with the various “let a woman learn” admonitions), and then she was entrusted to accurately relay what he had taught her on his behalf. (Which is slightly or substantially different than having her interpret and present on her own authority).
So, there remains a distinction between the roles of Prisca and Phoebe from say Timothy and Silas.
Also, the theory of Paul addressing of pre-gnostic ideas in 1 Tim. 2:13-15 still doesn’t explain or override the distinctions between men and women in verses 8-12, nor the adjectives that only apply to women (I.e. with submissiveness, remain quiet), nor the ordering of Adam and Eve in v.13-14.
So, the theory doesn’t seem to supply an egalitarian solution to the details of the text itself.
I’ve had the privilege of being a student of Dr. Cohick. Her scholarship and teaching are astounding. She’s very gracious.
I am listening from New Zealand and very much appreciate the scholarly respect of the context of The 1st century. I am learning a lot. Thanks Preston, you have wonderful guests. Challenge to our preconceived beliefs is always healthy - truth can take that!
As a scholar/student of Scripture, many years ago, I decided what I think doesn't really matter, but rather what does the text of Scripture really say. It is hard work. I've been working on this topic for a long time now. One thing I've noticed is the egalitarian view, though popular in our current culture, seems to have difficulty presenting any clear teaching of Scripture to support their view. Example, Romans 16:7 on Junia. The passage is not clear by any stretch of the imagination and certainly shouldn't be used as a major argument on the topic. In the interview Dr. Cohick referred to Pricilla coaching Apollos a couple times and again, a one on one conversation with someone doesn't stack up to any solid evidence that a woman can biblically be a lead pastor of a flock. Many of the current popular books presenting this view play fast and loose with Scripture. If this is the best they have, I'm wondering how the view became so popular. Her handling of 1 Timothy 2 also seemed rather forced to me. I recently watched Mike Winger go through every passage of Scripture on the topic and it seemed to be a more natural reading of the texts while highlighting the inconsistencies of this view. I appreciate you wading in to all the things you do, your podcast definitely gives me much food for thought.
The passage is clear. Junia was an apostle (the early church fathers also believed this, it was only contested when later scholars realized Junia was a woman- the male form of the name, Junias, did not exist). I do not think it should be a major support on the topic but what women did and what titles they were given should be considered. Furthermore, we only have a few men listed as elders/pastors. To say it is clear that women could and can not be pastors (especially pastors of other women) is not reasonable. Nowhere does it say women could not pastor other women. Nowhere does it say women cannot be pastors.
I know this is old. I suggest my essay on Deborah.
Reply if desired.
Scott, on Junia read what church fathers who spoke ancient Greek as their mother tongue wrote about her. That ended the debate for me
Scott, your assessment is accurate. Biblical Revelation > Cultural Speculation
@@chrisregas5045 And you can't comprehend that the fact that women can teach and be in authority IS biblical revelation?
this is one of the best 1 timothy 2 exegesis out there
It does seem like Dr. Lynn puts a lot of weight on a few descriptive passages/examples in the NT. In contrast, the teaching we see from Paul is prescriptive - specifically in 1 Tim 2 and 3. The last questions also did seem telling. Can complementarianism be patriarchal and harmful? Of course, but this does not rule out that it could be God's desire for how we relate if we properly live it out (Eph 5:25-30, 1 Peter 5:1-5). To insinuate that complementarianism is somehow dangerous seems a little bold in light of how God has in the past chosen leaders for his people. ie. the priesthood for Israel, Jesus' disciples.
Almost every judge. Almost. See Judges 4,
else my essay on Deborah.
Yes, you are correct. The answer to that last question was extremely revealing, and the entire end of this interview descended into mockery of the other view, which Preston is supposed to be objective about. I wonder what the complementarians who took part in this series think about the mockery and answer to that question regarding their interpretation. Everything was revealed right there in the answer to that last question.
misogynistic men do NOT have any authority over women, and they certainly don't have the monopoly on God or females so you all need to stop before the lawsuits are flooding the courthouses because they are coming.
Misogynist man made religions are pagan and it's idolatry. man's attempt at usurping God's authority over women and children so they can stay in power over women and children for profit and power. Men do NOT have the monopoly on God or his word.
5 mins in and the speculation about Junia begins…6 mins in and Euodia & Syntyche are compared to Timothy…7 mins in seeking to introduce the word of a critical approach to the biblical text to young students who are rightly balking at this approach…
The fact that some are appalled by the idea that a woman had the duty to report her husband if he tried to have sex with her during her period, for the sake of the overall holiness of the community, is ridiculous. How can ANYONE even come up with the remark that "what a woman? Reporting the wrongdoing of a man? Impossible! This would mean she has authority over him!". Seriously, how OBSESSED with superiority, power and rulership must a human being be to think "reporting someone's bad/illegal/forbidden/harmful behavior=having authority over". So, what a woman should just watch a man rape her, murder someone, go against God's law, etc. and never report it to protect the believed "authority" over her. What a pathetic thinking, feeling, and viewpoint of the world, and women.
Helpful
Her explanation of what 1 Tim 2:13-14 was as clear as mud to me. Am I just an idiot? Can someone summarize what she said because it seemed so rambling and hard to follow.
let go of thinking men have a monopoly on God or his word because they don't. Get over yourselves. God is not a misogynists.
@@Cherrylipgloss2025I don’t think that was her exegesis.
As a woman longing to serve her Savior well and live out a testimony of faith to her children and others, this is an important issue that I've been studying. Understanding the context and culture of the time Paul was writing in and his audience is crucial to proper exegesis of the scripture.
I find it very telling that the vast majority of people who take issue with this conversation and those of this topic are MEN.
In college, a male was the student leader of our Campus Crusade for Christ/Cru chapter and made some questable decisions, taught things that were a bit off. Then he shared his testimony of how he was walking through the student lounge area and happened across the CCfC table. It was at that point he decided to be a Christian. Bringing my concerns to the leader for our area did nothing. That student leader is no longer living for the Lord and is on his third or fourth marriage. My point in this, the rest of us on the leadership team under him were women who knew the Word far better and were actually Christians. Yet he was a male so could therefore teach.
Thank you Preston, for having these conversations.
Of course it's mostly MEN that take issue, the natural result of the curse is that women will seek to usurp.
I mean in reality if you take it they way she speaking the letter should have probably said "A person(not gender specific) should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a person(not gender specific) who is not well educated to teach or to assume authority over anyone; they must be quiet". So the question is why would Paul put woman as the subject of this passage. Because her interpretation seems to remove woman as the subject.
Uhm, maybe because a woman was the cause of trouble at the church at Ephesus? That's like saying "women should not lift their hands during prayer, because Paul wrote that "men should pray everywhere and lift up their holy hands without anger/wrath" in 1 Tim 2:8. Does that men men MUST pray everywhere, on the toilet, in the car, at Walmart and they must lift up their hands while praying, and then women are not allowed to lift up their hands? No, obviously he is addressing specific men who apparently had an issue with anger, while the women didn't have that issue. The same goes for the whole stuff about not wearing expensive garments and gold and pears and fancy, expensive hairdos. Are men suddenly allowed to wear expensive garments, fancy watches and diamond earrings? No, the issue is not that, the issue was that some women at that church went all out with showing their wealth, without concern for the poorer members of the church worship, plus that their focus should be God. And the men were apparently not guilty of that, so he addressed the ones who were, the women. The same goes for the quietness and submission (by the way, quietness translates to inner stillness/tranquility and submission has nothing to do with "men"). And obviously even men should learn with inner stillness and submission to whatever he meant, such as their studies, or sound doctrine, or who knows what. It's not that complicated if you you stop obsessing over "gender roles" or trying to always see if men might not be set above women after all and then look for such interpretations. Much love.
that's a mistranslation and that isn't what Paul said. I follow Jesus not men. Jesus should be first not men or any man, only Jesus.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Alot if gladiators were slaves.
Preston Sprinkle continues to push controversial issues and topics for the express purpose of being controversial and edgy. He gets a kick out of challenging people to question their theology.
He has done more damage than good by constantly confusing people and causing Christians to question the long held beliefs that anchor the soul.
The subtle erosion of orthodoxy through the methods of Deconstruction and progressive “Christianity” are tearing away the foundation of the true church.
If the "true church" (whatever the heck that means) can be eroded by what Sprinkle says and does, then I'm not sure it deserves to be called true church.
In all of the historic creeds and confessions, there is no mention of whether or not men can be the only ones serving at an ecclesiastical level… so it seems that the Orthodox faith isn’t what you are afraid of being destroyed so much as your interpretations.
Praise God Preston isn’t the head of the “true church.” And praise God, he can’t tear it away!!! And praise God once more that he is in fact building her up by mimicking the humility of Christ in all that he does through this platform. They will know that we are we are Christ’s disciples by the love we have for one another. Thank you Preston for loving well in this regard. Praying for you and your family as you continue to do something that, rather than “tearing away the foundation of the true church,” threatens to tear away the foundation of whole other kingdom. A kingdom that trembles at the expansion of Christ’s Kingdom. Keep it up, brother.
Misogynists destroyed the entire planet.Please sit down. Sexist males and females are not really Christians.