Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 1
David Bercot argues that Romans 16 is “particularly valuable today” because it shows how deeply Paul “loved and appreciated the sisters who served alongside him,” even though Paul also wrote commands about women being silent and not teaching; what do you think Bercot is asking modern readers to do with that tension, and where do you personally feel resistance to his framing of “God’s order among the sexes” alongside honor and affection?
Another way to ask: Bercot says Romans 16 shows Paul truly loved and honored women who served with him, even though Paul also told women to be silent and not teach. What do you think Bercot wants us to do with that tension, and where do you push back on his idea of “God’s order among the sexes” while still showing honor?

Direct Answer Based on David Bercot’s teaching, he is asking modern readers to hold two things together without canceling either one: Paul “holds firmly to God’s order among the sexes,” yet he also openly honors, values, and loves the women who served in the churches. The transcript doesn’t tell where you personally should feel resistance, but it invites honest self-examination about whether we assume Paul’s restrictions equal disrespect.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says Romans 16 is valuable because it shows “how greatly Paul loved and appreciated the sisters who served alongside him.”
  • He notes Paul’s earlier commands: “Let your women keep silent in the churches,” and later: “I do not permit a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over a man.”
  • He reports modern critics accuse Paul of “hating or not valuing women” based on those passages.
  • He argues Paul “features women prominently” in Romans 16, and “what he says…demonstrates the worth he places on them.”
  • Key summary: Paul “holds firmly to God’s order among the sexes” while he “greatly honors, values, and loves the sisters.”
Discussion Follow-ups Where do you tend to assume that limits on authority automatically mean a lack of dignity or appreciation? What evidence would you accept that someone can uphold an order and still genuinely honor those under it?