Egalitarians Need Better Arguments (Pt 3): Lies, Damned Lies, and Word Studies

Introduction

Mark Twain attributed the saying “lies, damned lies, and statistics” to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli never actually said it, which might mean that Twain himself concocted the phrase and borrowed Disraeli’s authority for some needed gravitas. The sense, whoever came up with it, is abundantly clear. People can use the evidence of “statistics” to back up almost any point because statistics are one thread in a whole cloth. In other words, statistics are singular data points, not a whole tapestry. They can be useful, but they can also be presented in ways that distort the nature of the whole.

I want to argue that something similar is happening in Preston Sprinkle’s From Genesis to Junia, particularly when he uses word studies. Now, I have already written on my disagreements with my esteemed interlocutor, including critiques of his canonical methodology and logical fallacies and theological inconsistency. Today, I want to talk about how Sprinkle talks about the nitty-gritty of words in the Bible. I am not anti-word-studies; they are a necessary tool in the toolbox of any good exegete. I am just against using them in misleading ways.

Grounding the Argument

For the record, not every instance of word studies in the book is bad. For example, Sprinkle correctly notes that every use of the word kephalē (κεφαλή) in relational terms is authoritative (182–185). So sometimes Sprinkle’s word studies are justifiable. But sometimes they are bad, egregiously bad. It’s these that I want to address in the rest of this article. So let’s look at some of the bad word studies (although not all).

Prophecy

I think Sprinkle is probably right that the strongest argument for egalitarianism is that there were female prophets in the early church (Luke 2:36–38; Acts 21:9; 1 Cor 11:4–5). It’s worth noting that there are exactly three NT verses which refer to this (unless you count Rev 2:20 where Jezebel calls herself a prophetess; I don’t think Sprinkle brings that up for some reason), and I am not persuaded that 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 is prescriptive rather than descriptive (something Sprinkle does not address). Likewise, there is reference to the prophecy from Joel 2:28–32 that women would prophecy (Acts 2:17–18). Sprinkle’s main flaw is that he reasons from the fact that there were women who prophesied, though noting that not all prophesy was the same, to attribute authoritative prophecy to women in the church. Therefore, women pastors. The problem? Many of the texts he uses to justify this interpretation actually refer to the OT canon. In fact, the roots related to the noun prophet are used some 197 times in the NT, and they refer to the OT texts and canon 88 times. Whatever else the role of female prophets may or may not have been in the early church, they were not this. But it is texts like Ephesians 2:20, 3:5, 4:11 which Sprinkle uses to argue that female prophets were part of the foundation of the church, though they clearly are referring to the OT texts. Now, I believe that Hebrews 2:1–4 implies that the miraculous “sign gifts” had already begun to cease by the end of the apostolic age. But, regardless, the female prophets in the early church, interesting as they may have been, are nowhere shown to have been preaching authoritatively in the local church. In fact, in one of the passages that does refer to them (1 Cor 11:4–5), takes place in a broader passage indicating that women are under the authority of their husbands (1 Cor 11:1–12).

Submission
Sprinkle begins his discussion of “submission” with a claim that Paul begins his discussion of Ephesians 5:21–31 (185–191) by claiming, “Paul leads into his household code with as statement about mutual submission…”. Sprinkle takes this to mean that Paul’s instructions to husbands and wives in Ephesians 5:22–31 is one of mutual submission. He uses this statement to assert that even though Ephesians 5:22–31 looks like it is telling wives to submit, really Paul is demanding mutual submission of husbands and wives to one another, so this is just a matter of “semantics.”

I need to be frank. In this section, Sprinkle is either sloppy in his thinking or disingenuous. I want to believe the former, but, again, lies and damn lies. First, Paul actually begins his household codes with a statement about worship in Ephesians 5:18–21. This is the context about Paul’s infamous statement “submitting to one another out of reverence” (5:21). This participial phrase is grammatically dependent on “be filled with the Spirit” (5:18). If this were not the case, the verb would be grammatically independent, and there are no other parallels I know of when a participle functions independently as an imperative. If Sprinkle thinks that this verb is part of the household codes, then he should admit that the whole section is part of Paul’s household code in Ephesians 5:18–6:10, which is exactly how Paul introduces the parallel section in Colossians (Col 3:12–17). But then Paul’s statement in Ephesians 5:21 about “submitting to one another” is not actually part of Paul’s instructions to husbands and wives.

Even if 5:21 is the sentence that functions as a topical introduction to Paul’s household instructions in general as Sprinkle appears to believe (it’s not), that would still be problematic for his interpretation, because it would imply the following relationships were mutually submissive: between the church and Christ submit to one another rather than churches submitting to Christ (5:22–31), parents and children submit to one another rather than children submitting to parents (6:1–4), and slaves and masters submit to each other rather than slaves submitting to parents (6:5–9). But, in each case (5:24, 6:1, 6:5), it is very clear there is a relationship of submission or obedience; even Jesus was submissive to his earthly parents (Luke 2:51).

But even if Sprinkle was right about Eph 5:21 (he’s not), Scripture instructs women to be submissive to their husbands (Eph 5:24; Col 3:18; 1 Tim 2:11; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1, 5). None of this is to give license to husbands to be abusive and overweening in their authority. Authority is given for the sake of service and sacrifice, as is clear from Eph 5:22–31. It also is a kind of authority which involves humility and sacrifice like Christ. So I do not mean to say women should just shut up and get in the kitchen. I do mean to say, however, Scripture is abundantly clear on this matter, even if Ephesians 5:21–32 was as unclear as Sprinkle thinks it is (it’s not).

Again, Sprinkle brushes by all this. He asserts the unlikeliest of interpretations as if it was the obvious truth. But this is so exegetically and logically flawed, it is hard to take it seriously.

In the Lord

This is not technically a “word study” but it is worth putting in this piece. Sprinkle believes that the phrase “in the Lord” (1 Cor 11:11) refers to the inbreaking of new creation realities, so that while Paul seems to draw on the old creation order in Genesis 2:23, really in the new creation, Paul is reorienting relationships, so that even the fact that woman is the head of woman in the old creation, in new creation realities this is not so (p. 193–217, esp 210–213). What the phrase “in the Lord” actually indicates is actually Union with Christ. Constantine Campbell has done the most exhaustive study of language related to union with Christ in Paul’s letters, and “in the Lord” functions in the same way as “in Christ.” This is a bit more expansive than saying “new creation” realities. In 1 Corinthians the identical phrase tends to refer mostly to Christian identity and relationships (1 Cor 1:31; 4:17; 7:22, 39; 9:1–2; 15:58; 16:19). Particularly important is 1 Corinthians 7:39, which refers to two people marrying “in the Lord,” or, as Christians.

It is indeed interesting that Paul invokes union with Christ here. This does not mean, however, that Paul intends to subvert his previous statement that man is the head of woman (11:3), which even Sprinkle admits refers to authority. Paul is indeed intending to moderate a misogynistic and chauvinistic reading of 1 Corinthians 11, but to say that he is disrupting the creation order in Genesis 1–3 with this statement simply does not follow. What we actually see from the similar verse 1 Corinthians 7:39 is Paul’s concern that Christians only marry other Christians. In other words, there is something important about the way Christians think about marriage that demands they only marry one another. Something of that “something” is taught in 1 Corinthians 11:12. My point is that Sprinkle’s reading pushes the text much further than it intends to go, and in doing so verges on making Paul contradict himself.

But, what is truly problematic about Sprinkle’s reading is implications for how Christians should relate to culture in general. Sprinkle’s reading implies that “thoughtful missionaries” (212) should allow certain things about culture to continue existing even if they contradict Christianity’s teachings. This reductive view of Paul is disastrous practically speaking. When Paul refers, for example, to the “goodness and severity of God” (Rom 11:22), Paul does what the philosopher Christopher Watkins calls “diagonalizing” an essential insight of a culture with its opposite construct and shows how they are both true. Roman culture believed in the importance of severity; rules need to be followed even if it is costly. Paul takes it and ups the ante; God is so severe he would reject his covenant people if they stopped believing in him. But he is also good, good enough to forgive them and regraft them in, something that would have been flabbergasting to Romans. Paul does something similar in 1 Corinthians 11; man is the head of woman (as Paul’s Jewish and Hellenistic interlocutors surely would have agreed), and women should, therefore, submit to their husbands. Nevertheless, man should have appreciation and love for their wives since they came from them. This makes far more sense of the details of the text that Sprinkle’s misreading.

Have Authority

In the feedback on my posts, people kept saying, you have to actually deal with 1 Timothy 2. I agree. At the heart of the disagreement about 1 Timothy 2 is the word “authentein” or “have authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12 where Paul says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority (authentein) over a man, but to remain in quietness.” Now, there is enough controversies about this one verse to keep the paper industry alive (good news Dunder Mifflin!). But honestly, this is a boring debate to me. The reason is that the word just means “have authority.” And even Sprinkle admits that this is the case (242–256). So, in order to spare you the detailed interaction with all these uses, I think we can say it means have authority. The rub is what kind of authority.

Sprinkle characterizes the word (and words related to it) as negative status because it is sometimes used to refer to the relationship between masters and slaves, the superior amongst their guildsmen, social hierarchies, divine hierarchies, and rulers in general. He even relates how the earliest uses of the noun authentes meant a murderer. Citing Mark 10:42–45 as a dismissal of abusive power, Sprinkle goes on to say “Paul’s Greco-Roman world say nothing wrong with this kind of authority. But Paul himself considered this kind of authority wholly unfit for Christian leaders, regardless of sex.”

All someone has to do is look at the immediate context to see how profoundly misleading this is. In the passage preceding ours, 1 Timothy 2:1–7, Paul actually tells Christians to pray for rulers in positions of authority. There is absolutely nothing negative said about “kings and all who are in high positions.” In the section following the one in dispute, 3:1–7, Paul describes the basic authority position in the early church: that of an “overseer” or, as we would call them, a bishop/elder. Paul clearly does not have negative authority in mind. But we could point further to the use of Sprinkle’s “negative” words associated with authentein to prove how bad it is. Sprinkle denounces the one who is the “oikedespotein” (249) but Paul tells young women to be oikodespotein later in 1 Timothy 5:14. Sprinkle complains the word is associated with “despots” or tyrants. He forgets to mention the same word is applied to God and Christ (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim 2:21; 2 Pet 2:1; Jude 4; Rev 6:10); the word is not exclusively negative. Sprinkle even has the temerity to say because the word “lord” (aka, kurios) are associated with authentein, it is a negative word. But this word is used overwhelmingly positively among Christians, particularly to refer to God (cf. Matt 1:24) and Christ (cf. Matt 15:22); Peter even praises Sarah for calling Abraham kurios (1 Pet 3:6).

Conclusion

Sprinkle should know better. The way he uses word studies to assert half-truths, unlikely conclusions, and things that are blatantly untrue are not what we would expect of a Biblical scholar. I am at a loss to explain just how bad this book is. I want to believe the best about Sprinkle, but the only ways he could say the kinds of things he does in this book is if he is unbelievably sloppy in his exegesis or if he is dishonest. I do not know which one is true. I do know it is hard to not see it all as Marxist drivel.

I want to close this series of posts dealing with Preston Sprinkle’s From Genesis to Junia with an appeal to egalitarians. Most of you are faithful disciples of Jesus. You want to know the Word well and be obedient. Perhaps you are a woman who is a gifted teacher of God’s Word (something my paradigm allows for, cf. Tit 2:3). Maybe you even have good-faith reasons for your view. I am not opposed to hearing those out. I think good-faith conversations with those who have the best possible arguments of opposing viewpoints is a good thing. I think you are capable of this.

Here is my appeal: do better than Sprinkle. You need better arguments than he has. His book is fallacious, theologically faulty, and misleading. Because if this is the best you can do, I think your viewpoint has a pretty limited shelf-life.

Egalitarians need better arguments.