Zach Garris and Pastor Joel Webbin dissect biblical patriarchy, arguing first-wave feminism rebelled against God's design by seeking sameness rather than equality. They interpret 1 Timothy 2:12-15 as prohibiting women from teaching men due to Eve being deceived first, viewing childbearing not as a work for salvation but as vital evidence of faith. Citing Genesis and Titus 2, they advocate for male headship and household votes, noting Garris lost 40 members in 2019 after preaching these views. Ultimately, the discussion frames modern feminism as a result of neglected domestic mentorship, urging listeners to support "Masculine Christianity" via reviews. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Why Feminism Is Bad00:04:32
All right, listen, guys, I get it.
Many of you are unable to financially support this ministry because you're spending your cash and your lives on raising young children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
Praise God for you and that endeavor.
However, algorithms are a thing.
Shadow banning, sadly, is a thing.
And one major way that you can help to expand the reach and effectiveness of this ministry that doesn't cost you a dime is by spending just a few moments leaving us a five star review.
Also, perhaps even more effective than that, You can share our podcast with a friend.
We hope you'll take the time to do so.
Thank you so much.
God bless.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Yet she will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self control.
In this episode of Theology Applied, I'm privileged to be joined by Zachary Garris.
Who's the author of Biblical Masculinity?
Yes, we are discussing biblical patriarchy.
We are discussing male headship.
We're dealing with some of the most difficult and controversial questions in the Bible.
Are women more easily deceived than men?
Will Christian women be saved in any particular way through childbearing?
This episode is a bit spicy.
It's sure to anger a feminist, so you do us a favor and be sure to share it with one.
Let's tune in now.
Applying God's Word to every aspect of life.
This is Theology Applied.
All right.
Welcome back to another episode of Theology Applied.
I am your host, Pastor Joel Webbin with Right Response Ministries.
And in this episode, I'm privileged to welcome onto the show, for the first time, Zach Garrus.
Zach, thanks for joining us.
Thanks for having me, Joel.
Absolutely.
So tell our listeners what is the book that you recently wrote?
You published with Canon.
I just listened to the Audible version that's on the Canon Plus app.
What's the name of it and why'd you write it?
Well, the book is Masculine Christianity.
It's been out for a little bit, but it just came out on audiobook.
And yeah, Canon has it on the Canon Plus app.
Yeah, the reason I wrote it is I had read a lot of the works out there on feminism, especially egalitarianism within the church.
And I think I was just dissatisfied with a lot of the literature.
I mean, there's some good books that I would recommend.
But I basically tried to write a book that I thought filled the gap and would be a good resource for Christians, pastors, and laymen alike, covering not only feminism, but really digging into the scripture texts on relevant subjects.
Yep.
Yeah, it's needed.
Well, I just about finished listening to the book.
I told you offline before we started recording that I'm listening to it on the Canon Plus app, and it's been.
Really edifying and really helpful.
And one of the things that you draw out in the book is well, I can maybe say it like this.
So there's a meme that I've seen floating around in the Twitterverse that has a picture of Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation.
And there's a scene in that show where he says, I think he's sitting at like a Denny's or something like that, or an IHOP, and he's ordering his breakfast and he says, Bring me all of your eggs.
And the server says, Very good.
And he starts to walk away and he says, Wait, wait, wait.
All right.
Now, I think, he said, You heard me say, Bring me a lot of eggs.
But what I said, Is bring me all of your eggs.
And so the meme is a picture of Ron Swanson, and he says, Feminism is bad.
And he says, now, wait, wait, wait.
I think what you heard is that second and third wave feminism is bad.
But what I said is feminism is bad.
All of it, you know, all of it.
And so, anyway, so all that being said, that's one of the things that you cover in the book that I found insightful.
Tell our listeners a little bit about first wave feminism, how it relates to second wave and third wave, and how those egalitarian, you know, just unbiblical roots were in this movement from the very beginning.
The Problem with Suffrage00:09:09
Yeah, well, it's common for Christians, especially, to say that second wave feminism in the 1960s and 70s was a problem and that that's really the source of feminism today in the church.
But I think that's mistaken, and I think first wave feminism, which began in the mid 1800s, really was.
The basis for second wave feminism.
I don't think you would have had second wave feminism without the first.
There's a connection there, right?
Built off of it.
And I know a lot of people say, well, how can you have a problem with first wave feminism?
It's just, you know, giving women the right to vote and property rights and all these things.
And I think the problem with it was that at its root, first wave feminism was rebellion against male headship.
Yeah.
And splitting the household.
Yeah, I mean, that's the thing is, you know, if you think about a woman having the right to vote, that in and of itself doesn't seem like a problem or a bad thing, but it's the fact that men represented their families, their wives, in the voting booth.
And so that was taken away with women's suffrage.
And so now you have it where women can and often do vote against their husbands.
And I think that's.
That's, of course, a bad thing.
I mean, if you're voting the same way, you could say you're having two votes for the same candidate.
So it's really a philosophical problem in that it's undercutting male headship in the home.
And when you read the advocates of first wave feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton being one of the most prominent, but also the most radical, and you read her words, I mean, she's saying, we want.
Not just the right to vote, but we want something basically akin to no fault divorce.
Right.
And that's long before, you know, it's like 100 years before it actually came out in the United States.
She's saying we want equal rights in the church.
I mean, you know, I have, I include some quotes in the book on this.
And so, yeah, this was not just a limited movement about voting.
First wave feminism was very much wrapped up with.
Really, a revolution, a rebellion against God's design for men and women, in particular the household.
Yeah, definitely.
You know, today, I, you know, so I've said a couple times online that I, you know, would be for repealing the 19th Amendment.
But I think, you know, it's worth clarifying my position.
My wife votes, and she votes because the household vote has been, by I believe, a sinful decision, namely the 19th Amendment.
The household split, household vote has been split.
It's been divided.
And so my wife, she votes with me, alongside me, under my headship, so that we get a full household vote.
Because really, what women's suffrage did is it took my vote and cut it in half.
And so, in the name of, you know, one of the things that, like with young guys, that I'm always trying to, you know, to keep in check is idealism.
You know, just some young guys, they're ideologues, right?
So they hear about something like patriarchy and they read one, you know, article on it and they're like, yeah, I'm patriarchal, you know, and they, and, but they, they're just, they're losers.
Like, and I mean that in the, in the functional sense.
Like, they, they can't, Win, they're not successful, right?
I'm talking about single guys, they can't even get married or have kids, they're you know fluctuating in and out of different careers.
Um, and so they're like, you know, hey, you know, it's not glorifying to God for women to vote.
And I'm saying, hey, I think we should repeal the 19th amendment, that's going to take time to get there, that's the right decision.
But what do Christian women do in the meantime?
Well, I think Christian married women should supplement their husbands so that they get a full household vote, they should submit to their husband, his leadership, and vote alongside him.
So, all that being said, for anybody who's listening and saying, you don't think so, you're saying that Christian women shouldn't vote?
No, I'm saying Christian women should vote alongside with their husbands.
If they're single, they should vote alongside with their pastors, if they are their fathers.
And if they have an estranged relationship with their father, their father's an unbeliever and they're not married, then they should seek counsel from their elders.
And their elders, if they're solid biblical men, should be willing to apply the scripture even to the realm of politics and give counsel about how, you know, which principles to vote.
You can do that without endorsing a candidate, which, even that, I'd be fine with.
But You don't have to say a specific guy.
You can just say, okay, well, theft is sin.
Civil theft is still sin.
So socialism is out.
It's not that hard.
And real quick, you can figure out what to do.
So, anyways, I'm pro Christian women voting in the meantime because I want to win the war.
I don't want to be an ideologue who's just constantly losing everything.
But I do think that in theory, and I think you do too from reading your book, that that was a sinful decision that was usurping a husband's authority.
And it was just against the main principle that we've always believed in our nation, which is.
It's not just a raw democracy.
It's a representative government.
We have a representative republic, a constitutional republic.
And so the idea that we would have legislators who represent us is the same principle as having a husband or a father that represents wives and daughters and sons.
The smallest unit in our nation is not supposed to be individuals, it should be households.
Would you agree with that, Zach?
Anything you would add to that?
Yeah, absolutely.
I think that's right, is God deals with households.
And you see this in Scripture.
He doesn't just deal with individuals.
Obviously, we will be judged before Him as individuals.
Right.
But the concept of the household is all throughout the Bible.
And you see male headship, of course, in the New Testament, Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, other passages.
Also in the Old Testament.
Old covenant comes up some in the book of Numbers, chapter 5, and chapter 30.
There.
And I also argue the creation account, of course.
So that's how God deals with people, and he designed male headship for the good of everyone men and women and children.
And so I think that has to have some application to the civil sphere.
And it used to.
I mean, it used to be treated that way.
I mean, male headship was recognized.
I think, yeah, when you criticize first wave feminism or just universal suffrage in general, you know, it's a very unpopular thing to say.
It's very politically incorrect.
But, you know, I really just have one chapter, the first chapter in the book, on that.
And part of my goal there was to expose people to the truth about first wave feminism.
And I give a lot of quotes from some of these leaders so that you can just read it yourself.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm with you.
I'm not trying to say we should, or that we're even in a position right now to be overly idealistic.
Yeah, we shouldn't be overly idealistic.
As a pastor, I'm not saying to women in my church, hey, you shouldn't vote.
I'm saying you should vote righteously and you should vote in the spirit of voting righteously.
You should be voting in line with your husbands.
But absolutely, yeah, we can't, evangelicals can't afford to cut our vote in half in an ideologue principle.
Evangelicals are already too good at losing.
We don't need any help at losing worse.
But we're just saying, we're speaking in principle of what would be right.
And so we're saying at the national.
So if there was something, for instance, like if I had an opportunity to vote to repeal the 19th Amendment, here's the irony I and my wife would vote for that.
She would.
And not just because I told her to, but she shares that conviction because I've washed her in the word, I've discipled her, I've been leading her.
She trusts me, she trusts the scripture.
So we would both, me and my wife, be voting.
To repeal the 19th Amendment until it's repealed, though, she's going to be voting on every other issue alongside me as I seek to lead us in following the scripture and applying the whole counsel of God to the whole of human life.
So, could you do this for us just so some of our listeners and even me, it's always a helpful refresher?
Beyond Equality to Androgyny00:07:36
What are some of the key distinctions between first wave, second wave, third wave, and I guess now fourth wave, transing kids, whatever we're on now, but particularly first, second, and third wave?
Wave feminism.
What are the key distinctions between what are the differences?
Well, first wave feminism was primarily concerned with legal equality, and the emphasis was on voting.
I mean, there were some other issues that came up, but that was the focus, though there were other things at play that I mentioned.
That was the mid 1800s, and the 19th Amendment, I think it went into effect in 1920.
If I'm not mistaken.
And, you know, so it was another 40 plus years when you have second wave feminism, 1960s and 70s.
And that was really more of a social movement.
And I mean, you had some legal aspects.
I mean, you had the push for the Equal Rights Amendment, which actually failed, but they ended up implementing all of this in the courts anyway.
And, you know, That had to do with, I mean, even getting rid of, well, they ended up getting rid of women's colleges as far as the funding, state funding, because that's not equal.
I mean, so, I mean, there's a lot of details there, but most people know second wave feminism for the social aspect.
It's tied with sexual liberation and the sexual revolution.
And, you know, so you have Gloria Steinem and some of those other leaders.
So this is like the 60s, right?
Yeah, yeah.
And so, the way I really characterize that is they were pushing for men, sorry, women to leave the home.
So, and especially to take on careers like men outside the home.
So, that's how I like to characterize that it's obviously much more radical than first wave feminism, but I would argue the seeds of it were there before.
And so, that's really what we're living with today women having the mindset, That's what they're not valuable, they're not doing something productive in society unless they're out working a job, you know, 40 hours a week.
And that's, I mean, that's contrary to scripture, of course.
And I argue the Bible doesn't prohibit women from working outside the home, but that there is an emphasis on duties that revolve around the home.
And so that if they're doing those, having, you know, they're married, having children, raising their children.
That doesn't really leave a lot of time or energy to work much outside behind.
And I realize this gets into also controversial territory, but I think it's important that we understand the background of feminism that has led to this situation.
And of course, you mentioned third wave feminism.
Yeah, I don't even know what they always call it today, but it keeps getting even more radical.
It's tied with homosexuality.
And, you know, it's kind of, I guess you could say the seeds were there in second wave feminism.
And that if a woman doesn't need a man, or if she can be this independent woman, then if you're really consistent with that, then she's not even going to need a man at all.
And then she's maybe a lesbian or something like that.
So that's where we are now dealing with transgenderism and all that stuff.
Right.
And I think a lot of the homosexuality, all the LGBT jihad craziness has come out of the sameness aspect, the egalitarianism.
It's not just equality, but it's androgyny.
It's.
Its sameness.
And so, like, you know, like the, you know, the push for the pill, you know, the hormonal birth control pill, which has abortive risk involved in it.
And Christians need to be aware of those kinds of things.
But, you know, the push for that was basically if women can't have control, if they don't have complete control over their reproductive process and whether or not they're pregnant and these kinds of things, then they're not equal to men because they're not the same as men, right?
So to be the same as a man.
I have to, you know, a man can't get pregnant.
A man's never, his career is never interrupted for nine months with a pregnancy, you know, and so we'll never really be equal to men unless we're exactly the same as men.
And to be exactly the same as men, that involves everything from, you know, short haircuts and wearing, you know, I mean, you even see like the dress changes with women.
We're not wearing dresses, we're wearing business suits, you know, and so the way we look, the way we dress, all the way down to abortion and the fact that we kill our children, you know, all coming out of this egalitarian, You know, equality, but it's not just equality, it's sameness.
And that's one of the things you did really well, I think, in the book, is just drawing the distinction between there's a distinction between equality of value versus sameness in terms of function and role and hierarchical authority.
Could you talk a little bit about that?
Yeah, I think that's right on what you said regarding equality.
I mean, that's obviously the root word there with egalitarianism.
Is, you know, this really is a philosophy, a worldview that men and women are the same or as similar as possible.
Obviously, they have different sexual organs.
Of course, that's what they've sought to minimize.
So the pill does that, right?
The birth control pill played a huge role.
In second wave feminism, as has abortion, right?
So, if a woman still gets pregnant and she doesn't want a baby, then she seeks to kill it.
Of course, we're still living with those effects today, so this stuff's all with us.
But yeah, so one thing I try to argue is in the book men and women are both made in the image of God, they're two different types of humans.
They both reflect God's glory.
And they are both equal in worth and value.
And they are, I guess we could say near equals.
And spiritually, of course, we're spiritual equals.
I mean, that's what the egalitarians always like to go to Galatians 3 28 29.
It does teach that men and women are, yeah, co heirs in Christ, spiritual equals.
But that does not do away with.
You know, sexual distinctions in this life that God has, and He's designed us differently, but there's different duties, and I even argue, you know, different rank and things, male headship.
And so, yeah, these things have been rejected by modern feminism.
Yeah.
Mutual Submission Explained00:14:59
It's funny, you know, one of the things you covered in the book, and I've done this in some of my preaching on biblical patriarchy and trying to, you know, to raise up a defense against egalitarianism.
But Ephesians, you know, thinking of Ephesians 5.
You know, husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and the wife is called to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
And the egalitarians, you know, are always quick to say, well, let's back up, let's back up.
You know, first we see, you know, mutual submission to one another under Christ.
And it's funny because, you know, we have chapters and verses that are, I'm glad for the numbers in our Bible, you know, breaking it up into chapters and verses.
It makes it incredibly helpful.
And I think, you know, the scholars involved with those kinds of decisions did a fairly good job.
There's some points where I'm like, I wish it just kept going and you didn't break it up right there.
But all that being said, it's very clear that that's the headline.
That's the overarching banner there's going to be this mutual submission to one another under Christ.
And it's not mutual submission, husband and wife.
It's just talking about people, mutually, Christians, brothers and sisters in a much larger dynamic than just a singular household in a marriage between one man and one woman.
It's all of you believers in varying capacities are going to be submitting to one another, deference towards one another.
In your ultimate, as a reflection of your ultimate submission to Christ.
And then he, the way it should be read is, and now let me give you not one, but a few case studies, examples of the principle.
And so this is what it looks like in marriage.
A husband is loving, and, you know, loving his wife as Christ of the church, and the wife is submitting to her husband.
But that, what's funny for the egalitarian is, and I've done this in my counseling before with a few individuals in pastoral counseling, but I've said, you know, I've had a couple unruly wives from time to time, you know, who like, oh, I don't agree with.
You know, submitting to my husband.
I don't think that's what the Bible's saying.
And they'll point to that verse in Ephesians and say, it's mutual submission.
And I'll say, yeah, it's mutual submission, but then it's wives submit to husbands.
And I said, that principle that you're using to override the wife submitting to the husband and just say, well, it's just mutual submission.
You have to do that with all the case studies.
So you have to do that with slave and master.
And in our society, you'd have to do that with employer and employee.
So the employee can just go in there to his boss and he can be, you know, three hours late.
And if the boss tries to correct him, he says, who are you?
You're not in charge.
But more than that, you feminist mom, egalitarian mom, arguing this point, I want to see you submitting to your kids.
I want to see it.
I want to see that mutual because that's the other example.
The case study is husband and wife, and then it's, you know, master slave dynamic, but then it's also parent and child.
Children obey your parents.
But if we say, well, my children are Christian, praise God, you know, they've made a credible profession of faith, they're members in the local church.
This is not just my son or my daughter.
This is my, in the eternal sense, my brother in Christ, my sister in Christ, and they're nine.
And what that means is that we ultimately have to.
Have a democratic vote every time we're trying to make a decision.
I don't really have any more authority in the home than my child does.
Sometimes, you know, I have a bad attitude, and my nine year old sends me to my room, and I just have to go in there.
And you know what I mean?
Like, that's insane.
That's insane.
How do people read the Bible like that?
I don't get it.
Well, I don't understand it either because it's funny.
They make these arguments from Ephesians 5 with one verse.
I think it's.
Verse 19.
Right, that's right.
Yeah, I think so.
Around there, 20.
Mutual submission, submitting to one another.
But they never make these arguments, or I don't think they can, from Colossians 3, which also commands wives to submit to their husbands.
And then it says, Husbands, don't be harsh with your wives.
There's nothing in there about mutual submission.
1 Peter 3.
I mean, 1 Peter 3, right?
You have Sarah calling Abraham Lord, and.
And you are her daughters if you act like her.
So there's really no way around it.
And then, of course, the Old Testament.
I mean, I know the egalitarians argue for equality, like no hierarchy, no authority in the creation story.
But I think they're wrong there, of course.
And I have a couple chapters on that.
But also the book of Numbers.
I mentioned this earlier.
Numbers 5 speaks of a.
You know, it's that weird passage about the husband suspects his wife of adultery, and there's the she drinks the bitter water.
Well, I mention that because twice in there, or maybe three times, it speaks of her being under her husband, which every translation I've looked at says under the authority of her husband.
That's what it's getting at.
And then you have the vows in Numbers chapter 30, where a father can annul.
His daughter's vow, if she's in his household, he hears it.
And the husband can do the same for his wife.
But it doesn't say the wife can do that for the husband.
So you have this all throughout the Bible that the husband is the head of his household.
And yet the egalitarians are going to point to one verse in Ephesians 5 that they think somehow undermines everything else Paul says right after it.
So, as far as how are they doing this?
How are they reading the Bible this way?
Well, they're reading the Bible very poorly and they're forcing their philosophy, their preconceived egalitarian philosophy, on the text.
They're not doing exegesis.
I mean, I know we all come to the Bible with presuppositions and beliefs.
We recognize that, but they're not giving this a fair shot.
They're not actually trying to see what the Bible commands me as a Christian to do.
They're coming in assuming it could not possibly teach hierarchy and male headship.
Well, some of them do think it teaches that and then they reject it, but, you know.
Right.
Now we're going in a different direction.
Right.
Give us a couple.
So you said, you know, you believe, and I agree, but you believe that male headship predated the fall.
It's a prelapsarian reality that before sin entered the world, Adam and Eve, there were only two people.
We didn't get very far before, you know, the covenant of works was broken.
But for that brief moment, as bliss as it may have been with only two people, there was a hierarchy within those two people.
There was male headship that Adam had authority over his wife.
So give us before Genesis 3, give us some.
Well, I mean, you can use Genesis 3, but before sin and the curse, give us some indicators.
What would you use as your biblical support for saying male headship was a thing before sin entered the world?
Yeah, so there is Genesis 3 16, which I think is actually somewhat of a difficult verse, but it deals with this to some extent.
But as far as.
Is that your desire should be for your husband, but he will be.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I kind of have a different take on it, though.
I think it's basically saying that there's going to be abuse of male authority as a result of the fall.
So you would see it as a curse on both sides, right?
That your desire is contrary to your husband.
You're going to have a desire to rule over your sin, to rule over your husband.
I'm going to Genesis 4 with Cain, because it's the same word.
And you did a great job with that in your book.
But it's, it's, it's, so the wife, the curse on her end is she's going to want to rule over her husband.
It's not just like romantic, erotic desire.
Your desire, your sweet romantic desire is going to be for your husband, but that mean old bully is going to dominate you.
That's no, it's, it's, you're going to have a, a, a desire of wanting to master, be master of your husband.
But he who is master over you will rule in a, in a unrighteous, because, because the biblical prescription to men is not that we shouldn't rule, it's that we should rule righteously.
So he's going to at times be totalitarian and rule unrighteously, be harsh, domineering.
But you also, there's going to be something in you and animosity even towards righteous male headship.
Do you see it as on both sides, the curse?
Well, I think I argue in the book that that's certainly one option.
I conclude in that section that, well, there's actually some linguistic study suggesting that the word desire there should be translated devotion.
And so I think if I recall correctly, I argued that it essentially means even though your devotion is to your husband, he's going to abuse authority over you.
Okay.
Because it's in the context of the judgment on the woman.
But what you're saying is also a possibility.
I pretty much.
I just think of it in terms of the Genesis 4, like sin, it desires to have you, right?
Sin is like a lion crouching at your door.
It desires to have you.
And I guess it could be used in two different ways there.
But to me, it doesn't read as clearly as sin is devoted to you.
But it seems like sin wants to get you, it wants to pounce and to.
Yeah, I think that's definitely the meaning in Genesis 4.
You just don't think it's a one to one ratio.
I get it.
Yeah, yeah.
But anyway, I mean, I basically say, look, this is a tough passage.
I try to work my way through it and come to a conclusion there.
And then I say, regardless, though, this stuff on both ends is certainly a part of the fall, right?
I mean, we definitely have what you're saying, whether it's rooted in Genesis 3 16 or not.
It's surely the case that a man.
Is prone to abuse authority and a woman is prone to or inclined to usurp authority.
I mean, we see that play out in the world.
It's not totally.
Oh, yeah.
Of course.
But you want me to go back to.
Yeah.
So give us some other indicators because I'm just, you know, playing the devil's advocate for a moment.
I can hear the contrarian saying, well, I read Genesis 3 16 and I like, oh, Zach, you actually just helped my egalitarian argument out by saying devotion.
You know, Joel was way more patriarchal, you know, but like, So, the sweet woman is simply devoted to her husband, just wants to love him and to serve him.
And the curse is that she's going to be devoted to someone who is not mutually devoted to her.
She's going to be devoted and submitting and serving someone, but he's not going to serve her.
He's instead going to rule.
And you're going to say, well, that's dominate.
It's unrighteous rule.
It's taking rule too far.
And they're going to say, no, the text just says rule.
Rule is bad, Zach.
Rule is bad.
So, thanks, Zach.
You just helped me out with Genesis 3 16.
So, My point is, you know, playing the devil's advocate, you know, steel manning, you know, it's hard to steel man such a bad position as egalitarianism.
But if we can, what are some, you know, before Genesis 3 16, some other indicators of male headship before sin entered?
And I'll just say to preface this, is this is important because, like you said, the egalitarian will say that male headship is introduced in Genesis 3 16.
And therefore, in Christ, it's being overcome, right?
We're overcoming the fallen Christ.
And so, We should be getting back to near equality.
Of course, that doesn't make sense when you take into account the New Testament.
You'd have to go beyond the New Testament instructions for women to submit to.
Well, and that's what they would say, though.
They'd say, well, the New Testament doesn't give direct instructions, explicit instructions to liberate, emancipate slaves.
But the writings of Paul eventually would lead to that outcome and the abolition of slavery, which I tend to agree with.
And so then they would make.
You know, they'd make that similar argument saying, like, so yeah, sure, you know, the New Testament tells slaves to submit to their masters and tells wives to submit to their husbands.
But the underpinnings is that, you know, throughout Christendom, as things unfold and as the gospel drives deeper into, you know, individual hearts and into society, eventually patriarchy would be a dirty relic of the past.
Yeah, it's this trajectory hermeneutic.
Of course, just to strengthen the argument here, we're going to get to Genesis in a second, is the New Testament.
Is, you know, when you, I know you, I think you want to get into 1 Timothy 2 and verse 14.
That'd be great.
Both of those appeal to the law or, you know, Adam being formed first.
So this stuff's always going to the creation.
So that's why this is just that important.
Okay.
So in my book, I think I give 10 arguments for male headship in Genesis 1 and 2.
Wow.
Now, I wouldn't, I can't name them all off the top of my head right now.
I'll try to think of one.
You didn't memorize your own books?
That was good.
Somehow I took some of the arguments you see with Wayne Grudem and some other guys, and I had some of my own and I got to a total of 10.
Okay.
I think I'll list off a couple of them here.
So you do have Adam being formed first, which that's what Paul gets into in 1 Timothy 2.
So I think that matters.
And then, you know, the text says that Eve was created as a helper for him.
Now, egalitarians are quick to point out, well, you know, God is called a helper.
So it doesn't.
The Abbey didn't.
You know, it must be equal.
But, you know, obviously those are different.
You're referring to different beings.
I mean, I think that's one thing I say in the book is obviously God is God, and He's not submitting to Adam or beneath man in rank.
Right.
But we're talking about a created being, and particularly a being created for Adam.
And so she is a helper to Him.
I mean, Paul, of course, reasons this way in 1 Corinthians 11 for woman was made for man, not man for woman.
Adam and the Order of Teaching00:09:34
Right.
I think it's first seven or eight.
I can't remember.
Right.
Yeah.
From man and for man.
Yeah.
So, I mean, in this way, I'm just reasoning like the Apostle Paul.
Right.
So you have that.
You have Adam naming the animals, which I think is, you know, he's exercising authority in some capacity.
He names Eve, right?
He says she'll be named Isha, the woman.
And then he actually names her after the fall.
He names her.
Eve, life giving being.
Can you translate it like a mother of all the living?
Yeah, yeah, I think that's what I would say.
I think the ESV even footnotes it as that.
Okay, so you have that.
You have the fact that Adam was supposed to instruct his wife with the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Because the command is given by God to Adam when Eve has not yet been made.
Yeah, we have there's no evidence that Eve was given this command directly from God.
Gotcha.
It seems that Adam was to instruct her.
So, in that sense, he's her teacher.
Right.
God goes to Adam first.
Now I'm getting to Genesis 3.
But this is still.
With sins.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He goes to Adam first.
And so I think that's pretty important.
Adam, where are you?
Right.
Of course, he blames his wife.
Right.
So, he blames God, really.
Yes, right.
The helper that you gave me wasn't much help.
Yeah.
We could definitely go to Romans 5.
Humans are born in sin, were held accountable by Adam's federal headship.
Adam's, not Eve's.
I mean, the text doesn't talk about Eve.
Right.
It's because Adam sinned.
And specifically, it says by one man's sin, not two.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And so, you know, Jesus is the second and greater Adam.
And so you have that there.
So that's at least a few things.
That's great.
That's really helpful.
I think when you, you know, because egalitarians will argue, you know, they'll respond to each of these.
But when you have the cumulative case, it's really hard to say that there's no male headship in the garden.
Right.
Yeah, no, I think you're right.
And especially when you have apostolic writings.
Afterwards in the New Testament, pulling on the creation, you know, the created order to make an argument for why this hierarchical pattern is going to exist in all places and all times.
Like, Paul doesn't say, well, there's this particular issue going on in Corinth of temple prostitution, which I've, from what I've read on that, there's not enough evidence to even say that that was actually even a thing, you know.
But let's just, you know, let's just, you know, go with it for a second and say there was a unique, you know, element of temple prostitution that was going on in Corinth.
But Paul, that's not his argument.
He doesn't say, well, because Corinth and this place and this time is so lewd, you know, women should cover their heads, you know, or, you know, a wife should submit to her husband.
Like when he makes his argument for male headship, he pins it in the created order before sin ever even entered the world, which makes it timeless, you know.
So it's, yeah, it's just a hard position to defend this whole egalitarianism thing.
But Scott McKnight, he'll keep trying.
Yeah, they don't stop.
They keep writing books.
Yeah, they'll keep trying.
Okay, if you don't mind, you want to go ahead and hop into 1 Timothy 2 a little bit?
Yeah, absolutely.
Let's do that.
Let me read the text real quick.
And I particularly want to hear your thoughts on women being saved through childbearing, which I believe is verse 15.
But I'll start in verse 9.
This is 1 Timothy 2, starting in verse 9.
The Bible says, likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel with modesty and self control, not with Braided hair and gold and or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness with good works.
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, rather, she is to remain quiet.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Yet she will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self control.
Yeah, so I mean, this is one of, if not the central text in debates over gender roles, particularly in the church.
And, you know, Ephesians 5 gets all the attention for the home, but this is the passage we go to.
We're talking about can women be pastors or elders?
Can women preach?
Right?
That's another question.
It's, unfortunately, I think there's some people who would.
Say that a woman can't be a pastor, but she could preach under the authority of the elders.
Yeah, which I mean, this is very narrow complementarianism, if we can even call it that.
I mean, it's anyway.
So, yeah, I think the context here is the public worship assembly based on verse 8, where Paul says, I desire that men should pray, lifting holy hands.
But I wouldn't limit this to.
The public worship assembly.
In other words, I think the principles here apply even to something like Sunday school.
A woman shouldn't teach theology to men in the church.
So that gets into kind of the application of it.
So obviously, yeah, it's calling women in verse 10 to good works.
People focus on verse 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.
But it, you know, even if you said that's just an authoritative teaching and not teaching and exercising authority, which sometimes the egalitarians argue.
I mean, look at what he says.
He says, rather or but, right?
That's an adversity, it's strong, but she is to remain quiet.
I argue in the book that that could also be translated silent.
So the.
Which is explicitly said in 1 Corinthians 14.
Yeah, yeah, and we can get there.
The.
Exact opposite thing, right?
Whatever this is about, teacher and exercise authority, I mean, you have the positive command to be quiet or silent.
And it's, Paul's saying this is, you know, this is tied with good works in verse 10.
And so, you know, egalitarians really need to be careful here because I think they are going, well, I think they're wrong, but if they are wrong here, they're encouraging women.
To do that which is sinful, right?
Instead of encouraging them in good works and pleasing God, they're encouraging them to sin against God and transgress His law.
So, this is a serious thing.
Paul roots the command, it's actually two commands in verse 12.
There's the prohibition, but also the command to be quiet.
He roots it in verse 13, for, or we could say, because Adam is.
Was formed first, then Eve.
So he's rooting it in the very order of creation.
And then there's the second explanation, which is, or basis, is that Adam, verse 14, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Of course, that verse sends people into all sorts of hysteria.
Following at the mouth.
The angry feminist, I could see them following at the mouth.
So yeah, verse 14, I think.
I mean, what seems to me the most obvious reading is not, you know, most people aren't willing to say today, but it seems that Paul is saying that because Eve was deceived and Adam was not, that that's part of the reason that women aren't to teach men.
Now, he doesn't tell us exactly what that means, like why was Eve deceived and why was Adam not deceived, but it seems that he's saying there's something to do with.
The fact that Adam knew exactly what he was doing, right?
He sinned openly.
Whereas Eve actually was deceived by the serpent.
Natural Law Arguments for Men00:04:17
And so there's something about the very being of woman, the way God has made man and woman, that women should not teach.
So that's one thing I argue in the book.
I think even if we look to.
Just the differences.
This is kind of a natural law argument, but if we just look to the very differences in bodies and personality and things like this between men and women, that men are better suited for preaching.
So I actually am willing to go there and say, yeah, I don't think women make us capable preachers, not in the sense that they aren't intellectually or can't be or say good things, but it's just that as far as the commanding voice, The fact that a woman was more easily deceived.
I think there's something there as to the basis as to why God says men are supposed to preach.
Not all men, but some men, and no women are to preach.
Right.
So, yeah, no, Charles Spurgeon would be with you.
You know, if a guy didn't have a, you know, barreled chest, you know, with his school of preachers, he would have sent him away.
So not only would you have to be a man, but you need to be a particular kind of man.
He would take physical stature into consideration.
But you're right.
I mean, that's a historic position.
And I don't mean historic in the sense of that's what people believed a thousand years ago.
I mean, that's what people believed for.
Thousands of years until 15 minutes ago, that women, part of womanly nature, is more easily being deceived.
And again, like you said, it's not even so much, it's not in being more gullible, that doesn't stem from an inferior status in terms of intellect.
It's not that women are intellectually inferior.
I think that's part of the way that God designed women, which.
Reaffirms their call to serve and helpmate and submission is that I like my wife is just naturally more agreeable than I am.
And I think God made her that way.
And you can say, well, that's your wife, but that no, I think women in general are more agreeable than men.
Men are more contrarian.
Men, I think, tend to be more argumentative, they tend to be more aggressive.
They tend, I think that's part of how God made women.
You know, there are always exceptions to the rule.
Like men are physically stronger than women.
Can you find one woman who can out bench one man?
Of course, of course.
But we're speaking in general principles.
Men are physically stronger than women.
And I think that women are more agreeable than men.
And those who aren't are the exception.
And if you say, well, it's a pretty big exception, well, I would say, yeah, it's a pretty big exception because you've been indoctrinating women from the time they were little girls for the last.
You know, seven decades to be contrarian, that they need to be more aggressive, that they need in every magazine and every, you know, TV show and every, you know, so, and yet, even despite all that indoctrination, still to this day, you just go against, you know, it's like Jurassic Park, like every horror movie, basically, the plot is the plot is that you've got all the modern man and their technology, and they're trying to basically go against nature.
And nature always wins.
That's, I mean, pretty much every good horror movie, Jurassic Park, you know, like life will find a way.
You know, like it's like we, you know, it's, it's, we can, we're bigger than nature.
And nature ultimately ends up, you know, eating you and nature wins.
And so it's like, despite all the indoctrination, all the modern feminism philosophies and all these things, like you still wind up with a bunch of women who are now 45 years old and crying because they're like, I wish I had had kids.
And there's regret.
And you just can't undo that.
No matter, I am a woman, hear me roar.
No matter how many feminist seminars you go to, no matter how many Hollywood TV shows you watch, it doesn't matter.
You can't beat nature.
Saved Through Childbearing00:15:51
God designed things in a certain way.
Yeah, I was even thinking of, what is this?
Titus 1, these are requirements for the elders.
And Titus 1 9, and Paul there says that a.
Well, I mean, first off, he says that verse 6 the elder, the same as 1 Timothy 3, an elder must be the man of one woman.
So he should be a man.
And I know they try to argue with people, but I think there's good reasons against that.
But you also have that he's supposed to manage his household well.
That's at least 1 Timothy 3.
It kind of gets it here.
But verse 9 is He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction and sound doctrine, and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Now, obviously, like you said, there's exceptions, but in general, that's something that a man is going to be much better suited for.
You know, to rebuke others in false teaching.
You know, that's not something God is calling women to do in some public position.
So, yeah, so I agree with you.
There's obviously things there as far as God's designed for us.
You wanted to get to verse 15.
Yeah, yeah, if we can.
So, you know, I've heard a lot of different, you know, and I'll throw some out there, but you go ahead and start.
Yet she will be saved through childbearing if they continue with faith and love and holiness with self control.
What do you think?
Yeah, so this is.
It's a tricky verse.
It's hard because if you read it for the first time and you're like, what in the world?
First of all, it says she, which seems to be a reference to the woman prior to the verse.
So, Eve.
But I think it's actually a generic woman.
The woman will be saved through childbearing.
Well, what in the world?
That seems totally against justification by faith alone.
And.
You know, then the follow up if they continue in faith, so then it's in the plural if they continue in faith, right, and love and holiness with self control.
Um, you know, so I think a pretty common position, um, interpretation of this passage, and I get into this in the book, is that it refers to, um, Jesus, right, the Messiah in some capacity.
And you know, I don't think that's the case, I don't take the messianic view, I think that.
Paul is saying he's using the word childbearing as a, what is it, a metonym?
No, metonymy.
Yeah, it's a part, no, synecdoche.
I'm sorry, confusing these literary terms.
Synecdoche, it's a part representing the whole.
So, in other words, childbearing, it's not that a woman is saved by having children, it's that women are saved.
Through faith in Christ, but that faith expresses itself in a woman's proper duties.
And so childbearing stands for womanly behavior.
And I think contextually this makes good sense because Paul had just told women to practice godliness and good works, verse 10.
And then he tells women to be submissive, learn quietly with all submissiveness.
And they're not to teach or exercise authority over men, but remain quiet.
And so Paul is saying, don't act like men, right?
These are tasks for men.
You women aren't to do that as Christians.
But here's what you are to do your womanly duties.
And the most obvious thing there is women have children, right?
They get pregnant and they have babies and nurse them and take care of them.
And so I think Paul is calling women to the duties that God has placed on them.
And that's part of what it means to be a godly woman.
Yep, I completely agree.
I think it's.
I remember when I preached through 1 Timothy, it was 2019.
It may have been 18.
I think it was 2019.
And we had about a third of the church leave during chapter two within about a month.
It might have been two months max, but we had about 40 adults who were members leave the church.
And part of it, you know, in their defense was I was changing my views.
So it wasn't what they signed up for, you know, because I bit off more than I could chew.
I started church planting before I was really ready to plant a church.
You know, the church actually started off originally as a vineyard church, which is egalitarian as well as charismatic.
And, you know, they don't really have a position on soteriology.
And so, anyways, but that was my background.
And then eventually we became Acts 29, and I was kind of soft, complimentarian, you know, and then.
Eventually, you know, I was tired of doing theology a la carte, and so I wanted to be able to affirm a confession of faith.
And so it was somewhere in between the Acts 29 and, you know, in confessional, more 1689 Baptist transition there in 2019.
I was preaching through this, and a lot of people left because I preached exactly what you said.
I, you know, I said, in some sense, it could be, you know, that like, you know, women will be saved through childbearing.
I think John Piper says it like this that it doesn't say they'll be saved by childbearing, but they'll be saved through childbearing.
Childbearing in the same way that you know a ship out at sea isn't saved by a storm, but if the ship is strong and steady and continues, you know, straight ahead, keeping the eye on the horizon, you know, then the ship would be saved through the storm.
So it's not saved by the storm, the storm is the very thing that's threatening it, but it's going to be saved through that storm and childbearing.
And I mean, you know, it, I understand his argument.
He's saying childbearing, you know, even today, but especially in times past, a lot of women died in childbearing.
You know, childbearing was a very dangerous thing.
A lot of children would be lost in childbearing.
I mean, you read some of the Puritans, and it's like they had 10 kids, and nine of them, you know, didn't make it to adulthood, you know, and tragic stories and wives who died in childbearing, all those kinds of things.
And so, you know, Piper's saying, you know, a woman will be saved through childbearing if she keeps her eyes on Christ.
Here's a frightening thing, but God will preserve you through it.
And, you know, that was my prior position.
I liked that position because that position didn't bother anybody.
Nobody was upset by that.
But as I started dealing with the text more and more and thinking of the context, if this was just some random verse, but it's coming on the heels of verse 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
You know what I mean?
It's all about a woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
I do not permit her.
And so it's all these things that a woman shouldn't do.
And I think you mentioned that in your book, Zach, and I thought it was really good.
But it's not coincidental.
It's like, here are things that women can't do.
But here's a really great thing that women can do.
Can do, and it's not some side peripheral thing.
It is a vital thing, the very thing that a woman would be saved by.
It is an eternally weighty, full orbed, massive thing.
So women can't do this thing, and we all kind of know this thing matters preaching the word, leadership, these headships.
But here's this other thing that women can't do that, but they can do this, and this other thing really, really matters.
And again, so women not being saved through childbearing, but actually being saved by childbearing.
And then you have to give the preface and say, but no one is saved man, woman, child, no one's saved by our works.
But it's the same kind of language as we see in the book of James, you know, that faith without works is dead, you know.
And so when, you know, being saved by childbearing, it's as an effect, as an evidence of faith.
And so that's what I ended up preaching.
And I slowed down, instead of just speeding through the text, I slowed down and I did 1 Timothy 2, 9 through 15, four weeks in a row.
So four parts, you know, a whole month.
Just on that, you know, working through and verse 15 got a whole, whole sermon, a 60 minute sermon.
And, um, and it was a great church shrinking strategy.
Uh, really, really did a wonder.
So, anyways, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I look at it as it's not through being saved through the difficult storm of childbearing, but by childbearing.
And that's not to be, you know, a contradiction to being saved by grace alone through faith alone and Christ alone.
But we're saved, you know, women are saved by childbearing in the same way that all of us, um, are saved by works in the sense that, that.
That faith apart from works isn't real faith.
It's a dead faith.
It's an evidence.
Works are the evidence.
So I get in this a little bit in the book is that we're justified by faith alone.
But I do think the reform position is, the biblical position is that genuine faith is necessarily accompanied by good works.
It produces good works.
That's what you're saying with James 2.
And that's going to look a little bit different for men and women.
Obviously, a lot of things should be the same, but we do have different duties that God has placed on us.
And so that means a man should, you know, lead his wife well.
He should be a godly father and godly man.
And a woman should be a godly woman and mother.
And so that includes childbearing.
And of course, what are we seeing people cast off today?
I mean, what is kind of ungodly femininity today, or we can just say ungodliness amongst women, is that they're casting off.
Childbearing, yep, they don't want to have kids, right?
And uh, Paul is giving a warning here, too, you know, so that's a pretty serious thing.
If I think I say in the book, is women aren't, uh, you know, it's not like they're going to be saved just because they have kids, obviously, they're saved by faith in Christ, and that's necessary.
But if a woman rebels against God's design for her as a woman, meaning she actively rejects Having kids, then that should concern her.
That's a sign that she may not have faith.
Absolutely.
Especially if it continues.
It's one thing, you know, in her 20s that she's, you know, but she eventually grows up and repents.
But if a woman claims to be, you know, a follower of Jesus, but over the course of her entire life, I mean, she goes to the grave childless and not because she was barren, but deliberately by choice.
Yeah, that's that.
I mean, and just to make it fair on the other side of, The equation, if a man doesn't do some of his chief callings to protect and to provide, like work, the Bible has a verse about that too, that he's denied the faith and worse than unbelievers.
So it's really not a coincidence.
It really makes a lot of sense when you think if a woman hates childbearing, she may not be saved.
1 Timothy 2, verse 15.
And then Titus says, and if a guy won't provide for the members of his family, especially his own household, his immediate family, Then he's denied the faith and he's worse than an unbeliever.
He may not be saved.
So, it's like it's taking two of those quintessential evidences of obedience, what obedience looks like in a man and what obedience looks like in a woman, and recognizing that obedience it looks different given your station, whether you're a man, whether you're a woman.
But whether it be womanly obedience or masculine obedience, that's in both instances, that's an evidence of the one thing that does save, which is faith.
And faith that has no evidence.
Especially, you know, the claim to have faith that has the absence of evidence and even aggression and aversion towards that evidence over the course of a lifetime.
Yeah, we should assume that that person is not in Christ.
Yeah, I agree.
If I could just add briefly here, I think supporting what we're saying on 1 Timothy 2 15, lest people say, oh, we're just pointing to some obscure verse.
Chapter 5 of the same letter, 1 Timothy 5 14.
Paul says, So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households.
I think that's a different managing than what the husband's supposed to do.
It's a different Greek word.
It's like Proverbs 31.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
And give the adversary no occasion for slander.
So Paul is saying, Hey, if a woman's younger and her husband dies, she should marry.
And he's telling her and have kids, right?
That's part of it.
And then, of course, there's Titus 2.
Where Paul says the older women are to train the younger women, Titus 2 4, to love their husbands and children, to be self controlled, pure, working at home, kind and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
So those are kind of parallel passages in some ways.
But yeah, you got that word working at home.
And I don't know.
I don't know how people try to get around some of these verses.
But keepers at home.
Yeah.
And so working at home, kind and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
I remember.
That hitting me like a ton of bricks, you know, a few years back when I was like, here I am, not wanting in my preaching to say that Christian women should be submissive to their husbands and keepers at home.
And the reason why I'm wanting to pull those biblical, clearly biblical punches, the reason I want to pull those punches is because I don't want the word of God to be reviled.
But the word of God actually says the exact opposite.
So I'm trying to spare God's word the potential of getting attacked.
From feminists and egalitarians by saying what it actually says.
And the irony, the irony, and I remember being so convicted by this, but the irony is God's word actually says that when women actually live according to his standard of actually submitting to their husbands, joyfully submitting to their husbands, and being happy to be keepers at home and forsaking out of the home careers to predominantly focus on childbearing and rearing and all those kinds of things.
The way that the word of God will not be reviled?
And am I either going to trust God's strategy for keeping his word from being reviled or my strategy?
And that was really convicting.
And so, one other thing with Titus, too, I want to just ask you about this, but older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanders or slaves to much wine.
Older Women Training Youths00:06:06
They are to teach what is good.
And so, the way that I read that is they are to teach the good.
And what is the good?
It's training.
And so, the good thing to teach is to train young women all these things.
So, for me, that was another switch where, again, people hated me and left the church and those kinds of things.
But for a while, I realized we had certain women's ministries that really only existed.
They didn't exist because, oh man, the content here is just so awesome, or man, the women just really need this, or we're fulfilling some kind of biblical commandment that must be met.
These women's ministries only existed because we needed a context where women could teach, because women wanted to teach and had some gifting.
And a lot of our women actually didn't want to teach, but we wanted them to teach because we just thought that they should.
Because we're looking at other women in soft complementarian churches and they're teaching.
And so we created a context because we were complementarian.
We weren't patriarchal yet, but we were complementarian.
So we wanted to create some kind of context where women wouldn't be teaching men.
So we needed women only context for women to teach.
But then the problem is that the content, and this was not the women's fault, this was my fault before the Lord brought conviction in some of these areas.
But the content in these women's ministries where women are teaching other women.
Is they're teaching doctrine of God.
They're teaching theology proper.
They're teaching soteriology.
They're teaching the sovereignty of God in all things, His providence.
When the reality is, it's like, but I teach that.
And I teach it to men and women on the Lord's day by expositional preaching through whole books of the Bible, text by text.
The elders do that.
The elders are going to teach theology of God.
And when I really looked at Titus 2, I realized, yeah, older women should teach.
And I think that they should teach younger women.
I think that's organic, one on one, small groups.
But I think also there can be context of larger groups where an older woman is teaching, you know, 20 or even 200 younger women at one time.
But the question is, what are they teaching?
It's not just that an older woman gets to teach doctrine of God and theology proper, but she's teaching younger women specifically how to love their husbands and children and be self controlled, pure, how to work at home, be kind, and submit to their husbands.
Would you agree with that?
So I look at ties too, not just that there is a context for women teaching, namely, Older women teaching younger women, but that Titus 2 is actually also setting the curriculum, as it were, for what those older women should be teaching.
Yeah, I think I agree with you.
I don't think Titus 2 or really anywhere in the Bible forbids women from teaching scripture and theology to other women.
However, I would come back and say the emphasis is on women training younger women in femininity, in godly.
You know, godly womanhood.
So, this is kind of like the issue with women working outside the home.
We got to be careful that we don't bind people's consciences with commands that God has not given or prohibitions He hasn't given.
However, we can still look at scripture and say, well, here's the emphasis, right?
That God has designed women to be homeward oriented, to direct their work towards the home and children.
And so I think, you know, a big problem in the church today is we have all of these Bible studies and women's Bible studies.
And again, I don't think there's a prohibition on women's Bible studies.
However, you know, it's great for women to have women's groups, men's groups, and they pray together, fellowship, all these things.
The primary teaching should come from the elders and the pastor, of course, the Sunday morning, or if you meet evening, you know, Sunday morning.
Teaching, preaching.
However, the church needs mentorship and older men.
I mean, you know, you even have, that speaks of older men, but I just think this is something just hugely lacking in the church today the older men training the younger men, but specifically here, the older women training the younger women.
I think part of the reason we have so much feminism in the church today is maybe our older women aren't following godly femininity.
I don't know.
I'm sure that's the case in some corners.
But they're certainly not training the younger women to do so.
And this shouldn't just have to come from the pulpit.
If the first time a young woman in your church is hearing about submitting to her husband and working at home because her own, if her mother's a Christian or other older women, assuming she's been in the church for a while, if older women haven't taught her this stuff, then those older women are failing at this command Titus 2.
And so I think this is part of the problem in the church.
Of course, there's the cultural pressure, but the church needs to teach these things from the pulpit.
But the older women need to do their job in training the younger women in godly femininity.
Amen.
I completely agree.
Well, hey, we're starting to run out of time.
Are there any final thoughts that you have for us, Zach?
Any extra things that we didn't get to that you want to get out there?
Well, I know the one thing we didn't talk about was 1 Corinthians 14.
Maybe we can save that.
For another day.
Yeah.
I do argue, I'll just say I do argue that it's a parallel passage to 1 Timothy 2.
There's actually a lot of similarities.
Final Thoughts on 1 Corinthians00:03:21
I've written on this topic some, obviously, in the book.
I have a whole chapter on it.
I have some stuff online.
I actually wrote a journal article for Covenant Theological Seminary's journal called Presbyterian with an O.
And yeah, so I argue my view in there, kind of responding to this other article.
But I really do think it's a parallel passage with 1 Timothy 2.
And I think it helps strengthen the reading of both passages because egalitarians tend to try to dismiss it.
And most complementarians say that Paul's only prohibiting the evaluation of prophecy.
And I just think that's totally wrong.
That's a really novel position.
And anyway, so if people are interested in that, they can pick up the book.
Great.
Okay.
Tell our listeners as we go ahead and conclude.
Where can they follow you?
What's the name of the book?
Where can they get the book?
Yeah, so it's Masculine Christianity.
You can get it on, I mean, you can do a Google search for it, different vendors.
Amazon, if you want the audio book, there is the Amazon audio book.
There's also Canon Plus.
So if you have the Canon Plus app, it's on there.
I think they maybe even had it for free, was what I saw.
I don't know if they're still doing that, but you could just go listen to it.
They were promoting things.
Cool.
Yeah, so you can find me on Twitter.
I have a website, knowingscripture.com, if people want to read some of my other stuff.
They can go there.
Great.
All right, Zach, thanks for coming on the show.
God bless, brother.
Yeah, thanks for having me.
God bless you too, Joel.
Can I be frank with you for just a second, right here at the end?
Look, some of you guys, you're financially supporting this ministry, and from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you.
I cannot thank you enough.
However, some of you, you just can't afford it.
In fact, some of you, you shouldn't afford it.
Let's be honest.
I mean, we're living in Joe Biden's ridiculous economy.
Our nation and our totalitarian political elites lost their minds over the last three years due to COVID.
We have written checks that we simply cannot cash.
It doesn't matter if people change the definition of a recession.
We are living in a recession right now, regardless.
Some of you are struggling to afford a carton of eggs at the grocery store.
You cannot support financially this ministry at this time, nor should you, but you could still help us tremendously.
I am asking you, please, if you're willing to do so, take one minute of your time.
Leave us a five star review on your favorite podcast platform iTunes, Spotify, whatever that might be.
This is the way the system works.
We want to be innocent as doves, but shrewd as vipers.
We need to be strategic.
You leave us a five star review.
And our podcast shows up for more people.
And the Word of God and courageous theology applied in practical ways to every realm of life gets out there.