วีดีโอ

This is an excellent and informative video. There are some people that interpret the phrase "husband of one wife" to mean that pastors have to be married and pastors have to be men. There are some people that think that when the Bible says that pastors need to manage their household well that it means that pastors are required to have kids. I believe there's nothing wrong with single people, unmarried people, etc being pastors. I believe there's nothing wrong with people who don't have kids being pastors. When the Bible says pastors need to be "the husband of one wife", it's not saying that they have to be married; it's saying they need to be people who don't struggle with adultery, who aren't players, who aren't womanizers, etc. The Greek word for "husband of one wife" in 1 Timothy 3 is mias gunaikos aner, which means one woman man, someone who doesn't struggle with adultery, etc. The reason why it's written as "husband of one wife" in 1 Timothy 3 is because Paul is assuming that the pastor is a married man because during that time period, most adults were married, being single wasn't common during that time period, most pastors during that time period were married men; etc; not because marriage is a requirement for being a pastor. When the Bible says in 1 Timothy 3 how pastors need to manage their household well, it's not saying that pastors are required to have kids. It's saying how pastors are required to be good parents if they have kids. Pastors aren't required to have kids, but they are required to be good parents if they have kids. The reason why it's written in 1 Timothy 3 as "must manage their household well" is because Paul is assuming that they have kids because during that time period, most adults had kids, not having kids was rare during that time period, etc; not because having kids is a requirement for being a pastor. Being a good parent if you have kids is very important in being a pastor because when someone is a bad parent, it damages their role model status in regards to leading a church. No one is perfect, everyone sins, everyone has weaknesses in life, etc, but when someone has weaknesses in the area of being a bad parent, they're not fit to be a pastor of a church. Some people use the "husband of one wife" argument to prove it's a sin for women to be pastors since some people think if the word husband is used, it means pastors have to be men since husband implies being a man. I don't think "husband of one wife" is a good argument to use to prove women can't be pastors because the phrase "husband of one wife" isn't meant to be taken literally. The Greek word for "husband of one wife" means one woman man, someone who doesn't struggle with adultery, someone who isn't a player, etc. When the Bible says pastors need to be the "husband of one wife", it means they need to be people that don't struggle with adultery. Some people think that since the word "He" is used a lot in 1 Timothy 3 to describe qualifications of being a pastor, he means that women can't be pastors. 1 Timothy 3 says "he must not be quarrelsome, he must be the husband of one wife, he must be trustworthy", etc. The thing is all throughout the Bible when the word "He" "Men", etc is used, the situation applies to both men and women. When Matthew 10:37 says that "He that loveth a father or mother more than me is not worthy of me", the situation applies to both men and women. Proverbs 22:6 says "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from me". Even though the word "He" is used in Proverbs 22:6, the situation applies to both men and women. When Ephesians 4:8 says "God gave gifts to all men", the situation applies to both men and women even though the word men is used. When Matthew 5:28 says "Whosoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart", the situation applies to both men and women, the situation applies to men lusting after women, the situation applies to women lusting after men, etc. The qualifications for being a pastor according to the Bible are being able to teach the Bible to people in a way they can understand, being able to lead a church effectively, being spiritually mature (a strong Christian), having good character, and being a good role model. Keep up the great work with your videos. Keep up the great work living for the Lord. I wish you the best.

😊

Was this ever released as a podcast? I never saw it come through.

This is game-changing for understanding 1 Tim and other texts around Ephesus.

❤

Traduzir pra português

Great interview! Thank you Nijay!

👍

👍

Shame on us? Jews think Jesus is boiling in a pile of poop. Shame on you.

I love that modern day Jews call any negative info about them anti-Semitic.

It's a man made story.

Outstanding work - this is not hidden, it's right there in the open for us to see. We have to be taught away from this in the text.

Great insights! Thank you!

Just in case I forget to tell you tomorrow after I watch this--your book on this was just amazing!!!!

I'm from Brazil.Thanks for teach.How understand the context help.

This kind of historical insight has really illuminated my scripture reading. Thank you for sharing!

We desperately need an updated romans commentary by N. T. Wright, does anyone know if he is working on one i would pre order it right now

Do I have to purchase the Bible in Greek? Or does Accordance 14 version come with it? I can't find it.

Love it!

Thanks for the info

Thanks brothers in Christ

Dr Wright's answer about how to deal with questions that bother you - park them and pray them - is fascinating because when I couldn't get my head around what he was saying about the Cross (to which Romans 8 is actually the key, in the context set by Romans 7), I eventually prayed that I would accept and park the question, expecting it to be a long time if ever before I was able to answer it, only to find that I 'got it' only a few weeks later - perhaps crucially, while no longer trying and worrying about it. A reflection regularly used by the Northumbria Community in their daily prayers - which contains the phrase 'live the question and one day, unexpected, you may find you are living the answer' was a key message through the Spirit to me on this.

Smell the truth or perish by their lie.

@21:13. I'm thinking that the 'platonization' of eschatology; which NT often mentions, has its source in the equally common, but far more parlous 'platonization' of creation. I think he's on the money regarding 'heaven' in much of church practice and popular discourse; I'm happy to say that I remember from my teenage years a vague belief in the new creation. I think the Apostles creed might have had a part to play in that. The church has avoided the concrete, grounded content of the scripture by madly platonizing the creation. God has been made almost a deist caricature. Yet the description of creation in Genesis 1 is from the get go the antidote to deism and the platonized creation. Tom talks about God's domain (heaven) and our domain (earth) coming together, but he seems to slip over the fact that the great initial conjunction of heaven and earth is in the creation. Not a platonic or figurative creation, but a real concrete creation that God both overshadows and inter-penetrates, then enters in Christ. This itself underlines and honours God's creation of a material cosmos with earth in it. In fact, we seem to have an almost Gnostic fear of a concrete creation located in history in connection with our history by the work being done by the Word at a tempo marked by the days which mark our lives. Real days. He calibrates them, and uses them in a dependency sequence from the creation of energy (light) onwards. This is perhaps the first move of communion: God shows that he is present and active directly in the world he has made for his creature as the place of communion of they with him and in the concrete terms of the world that he made concretely for that very purpose (concrete as opposed to figurative or conceptual or idealist). The glory of communion of creature and creator comes to its apogee and tragic nadir in Genesis 3:8: God seeking to join communion with his creatures in his image (and thus enabled to commune with propositional content) and finds the opportunity dashed by their rejection of the opportunity. I think this approach to Genesis 1 is not fundamentalist, but the most exciting; spine tinglingly full of joy and the portent of much greater to come. It is consistent with the God who made the material creation to take joy in it and celebrate that by creating in the terms of the creation and by his direct word. Thus, while not fundamentalist, the creation should bear the marks of this creation...as against a deist 'creation' where 'god' is remote, or an evolutionary 'creation' where 'god' is merged into the creation, panentheistically and almost 'paneverytingistly' to use Schaeffer's aptly coined word. Being in his image, we also create by word. Only, as material creatures we use our hands to deliver the idea we have: our word made material while God's word made flesh! Thus the 'days' constitute the frame-of-reference for our concrete congress with God, and his direct (by Christ) participation in his creation. They contextualize all subsequent contact between God and man: the theophanies, the prophets, 'miracles' and the incarnation, in our world marked by a uniformity of natural causes in an **open** system, to again borrow Schaeffer's term.

He sould sell the image of his study as a background for Zoom/Teams users. Could make a mint.

Jesus was born to impersonate his Father having God's Spirit at baptism, Jesus is witness to his Father to suit Deuteronomy 18:18, and God is witness to Jesus the Messiah. Reconciliation with God through faith in Jesus to have access to eternal life in heaven, only from a love of God and his laws, and grace for grace in the obedience of faith.

Romans is meant to rebut hypocrisy in the church, to the hypocrisy of the circumcision whose sin brings them into unbelief in the eyes of God, and the hypocrisy of Gentile converts whose sin is due to false idea that grace is a licence to sin. Paul uses Romans 8 to explain the change of mind required else those baptised will fail, there must be a true love of God which is to be positioned in Christ, and to be in communion with the Holy Ghost as our witness. Romans 8 carries a stark warning to supposed believers of backsliding into sin, to both born again circumcision or Gentiles, as they might be under the statute of the fear of death for sin. Romans 5 to 8 is the solution for sinners as it is baptism into a covenant of promise, and the manner of life expected. I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' and most are found in Romans.

That was a wonderful conversation! Can't wait for the book to come out in my language. I so appreciate all the voices who call out the calvinist interpretation of the text, enough reason for me to instantly subscribe. Thank you guys for having Tom Wright on your show!

Wright is wrong and a heretic.

"A good translation of the Psalms". Suggestions?

"Hiding secret sorrow", so very true. Thank you!

Fantastic program! Thank you! Dr. Wright's passion for sorting out theological issues/puzzles is infectious. Also, your questions were extremely thought provoking.

Good stuff here. Romans is inexhaustible. Note how Paul lures us in with an "us" vs "them" device in Chapter one, "God gave THEM over...", as the set up for the knockout punch of Chapter two: "YOU then are without excuse, since you do the same things." But his theme statement is tucked in there as well: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation, to the Jew first but also to the Greek." And we find this "Jew first but also to the Greek" phrasing echoed a few more times later on. In Chapter 5, he says the same thing, essentially, five times: Just as Adam brought sin, so too Christ brought life. (vv. 15-19) He can be infuriatingly rhetorical, and unclear: "The free gift is not like the transgression," he says before comparing them, noting how they work very much alike. He means that their effects are in opposition, one toward death, the other toward life. Perhaps Paul's Greek was not too good, but this doesn't stop him from rising to rhetorical heights. He is almost always rhetorical, but it seems to be a Judaic, tangential and expansive form of wisdom that he is using, something he might have learned at the feet of Gamaliel, who knows? \

Thank you for the question about what in Roman’s still keeps N.T. Wright up at night (21:51). I love his answer, to put things that do not seem to make sense on a shelf, where it can be seen, and then pray about it, and it may take time, but the answer will come. That is such a healthy perspective. I really love N.T. Wright’s calm assurance, even while acknowledging that other commentators disagree with him.

Wow! So good!

Fantastic discussion, gentlemen!

It's great to see the participation of a Pentecostal theologian (A.J Swoboda) in this podcast.

Good to hear Wright once again speak on Romans 8

Thank you Dr. Swoboda & Dr. Gupta for having this interview with NT Wright! Such a joy listening to 3 amazing pastors & scholars!

I love all the references Prof Wright makes to other works scholars. Like verbal footnotes 😀

Thank you, Nijay, for organizing this discussion.

As an untutored lay person I greatly appreciated 'Jesus among the Gods' to read within conjunction with both Jipp and Simon Gathercole, not to mention Andrei Orlov. Listening to my academic betters critique the work I'm happy to say my comprehension of the contents was good, though far less critical. I would also echo David White's comment about MFB's breezy humor and I laughed out loud several times in the midst of such weighty subject matter. The book is an excellent catalogue and resource to return to, and clearly a thought provoking one as well.

There's no solid proof Phoebe was in leadership. The Greek word is not some special designation for a servant. And concluding that Paul had a real interest in dating protocol in order to say he was not addressing marriage is simply unfathomable. The leader criteria does not mandate various life circumstances that our choices may create (parenting, marriage) but being a man is not a choice. Men must shoulder the burden here and lead faithfully.

Phoebe did not have to meet any of the qualifications of 1Ti 3:8-15 other than those in verse 11. Because she was a woman.

Amazing!! I hope we will see this kind of videos more often.😜

Excellent, excellent, excellent! Wonderful short, but powerful study on the importance of context! I will be sharing this! Thanks Nijay!