Is it possible you love is that he’s telling you what you want to hear? If he spoke how he spoke and said woman aren’t called to leadership in church, do you think you would have commented anything positive toward him?
It’s unfortunate that he can’t interpret this scripture, but we’ll have to leave him in his ignorance. “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:12 KJV
Indeed, but does not quite speak about the women as the scriptures. He is driving the idea towards to what he wants to be the truth. I have quite a few points which he has to review. He omitted the opposite side of view on certain references. Trying to be fair and equal on sexes makes all, think of sexes as two of the same kind instead of understanding things as they are, and the affirmation of this goal, effects our free and unbiased minds.
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης Read "The handmaidens conspiracy" by Donna Howell. It addresses just about everything in scripture that has to deal with women in the church. Definitely worth the read for those who are not too prideful and not willing to educate themselves on different view points. Whatever "side" you are on, it's best to know both sides very well.
@@spencers6263 I will, and I will keep reading all which is possible to be writing something worthy of reading, Nevertheless, Paul's writing is not well approched by this in other respects great scholar. It is obvious to be avoiding the text and to be giving an answer on a part of it, as if he as never read it. You know that we people of litterature and gnosis, are not trustworthy just because we know much. And the sad fact is that people listen and follow. Well both are to blame, the listeners and the speakers and regarding this speach, yes it is not clean. I think we all can understand to what I m refering to, in respect of the text. It's a no way out when it comes to explaining the whole text, and Tom Wright should feel exposed. But since he is happy with the audience supporting him, seems not to care about the rest who do not, not because we don't like him, but because we know the scriptures.
Thank you for explaining the meaning of how life was lived in those times so that we can understand our importance in the past, present & future. Have a God Bless day.
Amen! Much of what N.T. Wright speaks about was known in the scholarly community for many centuries and even among mainstream Christianity. He's just a good teacher and P.R. professional in some ways regarding it!
I recommend Mike Wingers series about Women in Ministry for those interested in hearing more. He did months of research and has a playlist hours long going through the Bible and both complementation and egalitarian arguments.
I will go and listen to Mr. Wingers, because what I have experienced with N.T. Wright and Mike Heiser, two schoolars is that they try to rush the topic of women in leadership and instead or face the key passages with time and honesty they waste time going to the edges of the pie, Dr. Carmen Joy Imes made a good poing with Genesis 1-3 and the place of women in Gods Creation before and after the falling, and how man and woman both were call to organize, profit and taking care of earth and living things but non one has face 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians and Paul command in Gods name to Women in ALL churches to learn in silet and to not be on authority over men. But thank you for the advice to listen to Wingers.
@@lifeasgracefaith8712 he doesn't bring in much historical context. He stays on the text but doesn't account for the social-historical context. For example, NT Wright says that the those who carried the letters were in charge of reading and explaining the letters (he's a credible source), but Mike strictly sticks to the text and rejects that idea bc the scriptures don't allude to the possibility of the carrier being in charge of reading and explaining the letter. Yet, Wright is a theologian AND church historian. I hope all of that made sense lol ♥️
@@fearfullywoven Yeah fair enough. I was actually wondering about that and trying to remember if he addressed that. Thank you for sharing. Are there other sources you'd recommend regarding the reading and teaching of the letters?
I would live to meet this man. My one professor got his doctorate under N. T. Wright. I would live to do likewise, but by the time I can start working on my thesis, he will probably be retiring.
Having been a guest at an Orthodox Jewish Sabbath service in the 1980s I can confirm the tendency for the women, seated in the gallery upstairs, to become louder and louder as the service progressed. Every so often, the Rabbi would call for quiet. Afterwards I asked my fiancee, who was seated with the women, what all the chatter was about and she told me it was just general gossip, who was wearing a nice suit etc. etc. I've long thought, as a result of that experience, that Paul was referring to just such a situation in 1 Corinthians 14:34 .
These women must have the Holy Spirit, or knowledge of the Word of God. This is evidence that Paul was speaking of Gentile women who were not educated in God's Word. He was, after all, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Perhaps he was saying, "I don't want YOUR women to teach." They were unlearned and unqualified.
Indeed, but does not quite speak about the women as the scriptures. He is driving the idea towards to what he wants to be the truth. I have quite a few points which he has to review. He omitted the opposite side of view on certain references. Trying to be fair and equal on sexes makes all, think of sexes as two of the same kind instead of understanding things as they are, and the affirmation of the goal, effects our free and unbiased minds.
Throughout the world women are suppressed. Since it is so endemic to humanity, perhaps it really is part of the Genesis 3 curse. Many men get confused and think that women were created as their servants as part of the plan of God, rather than a result of the curse of sin. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil and to break the curse. When we do "on earth as it is in heaven" should we not struggle against the curse on women as well as that on men/ground?
@@christianfrommuslim Were Adam and Eve cursed due to the fall? First what, SPECIFICALLY, was cursed is what is important to know. The serpent was cursed. The 'ground' was cursed. __________________________________________ Then the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all the livestock,... -excerpt Genesis 3 __________________________________________ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you;... -excerpt Genesis 3 _________________________________________ The curse on the ground was prophesied to be lifted by Lamech. Now Lamech lived 182 years, and fathered a son. And he named him Noah, saying, “This one will give us comfort from our work and from the hard labor of our hands caused by the ground which the Lord has cursed.” -excerpt Genesis 5 Noah name meaning = rest Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took some of every kind of clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. -excerpt Genesis 8 Was Adam cursed? NO Was Eve cursed? NO _______________________________ To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall deliver children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” So women now experience great pain in childbirth, yet there are more people on earth now than have ever been in the earth's history. In the natural view of things, the strong dominate the weak. Strong animals over the weaker. Strong countries over the weaker. The physically stronger gender over the weaker gender. There is a natural tendency for men to want/need to rule over women, even though both genders are equal before God. Regardless, neither men nor women are cursed. Genesis 5, which comes after the fall of mankind (in Genesis 3) says this below: This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created. In Genesis 1 below we read this: So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Obviously, the earth has more people than ever in its history. Obviously, the earth is subdued. Trees cut. Rivers dammed. Gold and oil extracted, etc. __________________________________________________ CONCLUSION Natural tendencies changed regarding men and women after the fall. Natural physical changes also. Women were not cursed. Men were not cursed. Men and women are still blessed.
It's annoying how people use one section of scripture to justify some type of prohibition and don't use the context of the whole New Testament and New Covenant.
Agreed - clearly women did speak in church, including praying and prophesying (a greater spiritual gift and used for edification of the church). Likewise, many drop cherry-picked English verses as self-evident without going to the original language. But scripture cannot be contrary to scripture. It must have internal consistency.
@Reji Paul LOL - you've got some errors in your citations. So how about this from 1 Corinthians 14: "26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up."
@@gordonreed2736 I have no idea what you read so I cannot respond to anything specific. However, I can say that Paul's teaching is about ORDER in worship - it is an expectation that all men and women are silent and listen/learn in quietude, without anger, when someone else is speaking. It was a common practice for believers to speak and offer hymns of praise etc, but there was a problem with the church with disorder and with people turning service in orgies like the pagan cults, which Paul had to correct. That Paul gave instructions on women praying and prophesying completely undermines the claim women must never speak. Scripture cannot be contrary to scripture. Prophesying is a spiritual gift meant to edify (teach) and encourage fellow believers (see 1 Corinthians 12 - adelphoi is inclusive of women). And we see that Philip the evangelist had several daughters who were prophetesses, case in point (Acts 21:9).
@@edbenjamin5136 agree for the most part. But it seems in the instructional part of the meeting men only were to teach. 1 and II Tim. give instructions for elders...males. We can also check the synagogue rules of the day of which order was borrowed by Paul. Great response Ed. 👌
Notice how the complementarians in the comment section are either literally condemning N.T. Weight to hell (as if they had the right to do that), mocking him, stating that he's wrong without any rebuttal, or literally repeating the exact same argument over and over again as if Wright didnt address it in the video? That's complementarianism for you.
There are something's worth repeating. If someone is making a argument based on scripture, they should have scripture to back up what their saying. No one has been able to point to any scripture that calls those women (apostles) who first told the men (disciples) about Jesus rising from the dead. To push this idea without any biblical support is wrong. If you have a scripture that validates what N.T. Wright is saying please share it. Otherwise one would have to ask why are you trying to support an idea that you can't back up with scripture?
@qde2130, So you’re pitching a fit about women being in certain roles in ministry, yet you don’t even understand what you’re talking about. Typical. Do you know what “apostle” means? It means, “one who is sent out”. Do you know the account of the resurrection? The women went to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body. When they arrived, the stone was rolled away. Then an Angel told the women, “go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” God chose the women, (whose testimony meant nothing to men), to have the privilege of being the first of His followers to witness His resurrection, and then the women were sent out to tell the other disciples the good news about Jesus’ resurrection. (A disciple is simply a follower who receives instruction and spreads the teachings of another). That means, the women were the first apostles and disciples of the resurrection of Christ. So there you have it, the women at the tomb absolutely were apostles and disciples. If you still can’t accept it, then I don’t know what to tell you, other than, “there’s none so blind as those who will not see”.
23:30 I am from Malaysia, the long houses are normally found in East Malaysia (not West Malaysia), but he is (W)right, the whole family sleeps together in long houses in some cultures of Malaysia.
11:05 But in KJV and NASB - these translations do in fact say "neither" and does not say "no" male or female. Please tell us what the original text said and how these Bible translations got it wrong.
I love it when the keyboard Christians get so fired up... exactly what Christ taught. Please, all of you, leave links and direct us to your many theology books and publications. I’d love to read all of your many highly respected works. 😁 Show some respect.
I have been studying this passage, and similar passages/verses, for a while now and am currently writing a paper about it in order for my Theology and Religious Studies professors to review my claims and evidence surrounding a more accurate way of interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Bishop Wright and his work on this subject have been immensely helpful in this pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and I feel like viewing those verses, as well as the entire letter, in that historical and nuanced context makes those verses much more understandable. I wish more people knew about this so that the vitriol and push-back against female pastors could one day become obsolete, and so we could practice our faith more correctly according to scripture within ministries especially. I'm saddened to see far too often those who are against female pastors use 1 Timothy 2:12 to justify their arguments when they are in fact completely ignoring the context behind it. Hopefully, we will come to better understand this verse as a whole universal Christian community, but I am grateful for the efforts that have already been made. I love God, His Word, and His universal family, and I pray for the day we as His children become more harmonious alongside each other. God Bless.
Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases. Read time: 12 minutes, free, postable __________________________________________________ Jesus approved of a woman to be a Judge over Israel in the Old Covenant, with the authority to judge homicide cases. To believe that Jesus would strongly disapprove of a woman being an elder in the New Covenant, makes no sense whatsoever. This is all Paul. Paul gave himself the title of 'father', since he couldn't meet the qualifications of elder that he himself put forward. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers... -excerpt 1 Corinthians 4 KJV -words of Paul If one supports the qualifications of elder, as put forward by Paul, one MUST also accept that the title/position of 'father' is valid and proper in Christianity. Since this is also one of Paul's teachings. But the title of 'father' was expressly forbidden by Jesus. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven. -excerpt Matthew 23 -words of Jesus
@@peachy_talisman (N.N. personal note) Thanks. I've looked at several of Paul's teachings. He doesn't come out well. He contradicts himself, etc. So the essay can be pasted up on Deborah should you wish a study. Also, my look at some of what Paul wrote. No reply needed, if you're busy.
Suddenly today it occurred to me that the general tone of comments on this talk , but more on others re same topic-- hv a "virtue signalling " about them-- as tho the writer is trying to sound as tho he/she will brook no argument-- this is what God says& that's it. I will never believe God thinks half the population (women) are inferior.✝️🇭🇲✝️
I see so many men say women shouldn’t preach and that it’s in the Bible. But when you know you where called by God have a strong relationship with God. When God won’t leave you alone about preaching his word. You have no choice but to do so. It’s not a choice it’s a calling. This thought of women not being able to preach is on the same lines of Men just wanting to feel like they have power. I wanna see you win that war against God on who He can call and can’t. Pure ignorance is what you call it. Jesus had women with him all the time helping in the ministry and it wasn’t for cooking and cleaning.
As touching the subject of Women Preachers, this has been a lie told in the land for many years, that God has called and sent Women to Preach! There's hundreds on hundreds of so-called women preachers, and all of them have the same lying mouth, that God sent them to preach. God never called or sent Women to Preach! You may wonder why I say that? Because there's no bible that says he did! Understand this, and get this well, there's no place in the bible where women did any preaching! Nowhere! The bible condemns women trying to preach and having authority over the man. Now let us go to the Bible, and whatever the bible says, that's what we're going to take. Reader anytime you read the truth in the bible and still don't believe it, then you are a plain hypocrite! Women and weak men try to justify themselves in the scriptures, but all have failed. One scripture they use is Numbers 22:27 - 28, "And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, SHE fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, what have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?" Out of ignorance, and the scripture says be not ignorant, they emphasize the fact that it was a female animal. Just because it spoke to Balaam they say that gives them the right to preach, because the women preachers compare themselves to a dumb ass or (donkey). Get this women preachers, you've over looked what kind of voice came out of the dumb ass. Notice II Peter 2:15 - 16, "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Boser, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity; the DUMB ASS SPEAKING WITH MAN'S VOICE forbad the madness of the prophet." As you can see the dumb ass spoke with man's voice, so you can't go to Numbers to justify yourself women preachers. The so-called women preachers also speak of Deborah because she judged Israel. That's true but the bible didn't say she preached! Deborah was a prophetess and the fools and slow of heart try to put that in with Joel 2:28, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pur out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions." Not knowing the scriptures nor the Power of God, they say prophesying is preaching. Prophesying is NOT preaching, but it's the foretelling of an event that is going to come. It's given to women to prophesy, but not to preach! St. Mark 16:9 - 10, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appreared first to May Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept." The false churches and Devil built organizations love to tell a lie on this scripture by saying Mary preached the first message. You told a lie and everyone that believes that, believes a lie, because the bible didn't say she preached the first anything! You can always get a heathen to lie on God and his word! Another scripture they always lie on Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." From this scripture, the lie they tell is God will use women just like he'll use a man. The bible never made no such statement, so that's another lie. Galatians 3:28 is showing that God has no respect of persons regarding salvation. The scripture say "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in EVERY NATION he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 10:34 - 35, It says again, "For ye are ALL THE CHILDREN of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26. Galatians 3:28 didn't have a thing to do with letting a woman preach The Gospel of Jesus Christ. When you're blind and deceived of the Devil, you'll believe every lie and damnable doctrine that comes along. Philippians 4:3, "And I entreat thee also true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the Book of Life." When the Apostle Paul said, "Help those women which laboured with me in the gospel", right then, that old carnal mind will say he had women helping him preach, and of course that's not the truth. You didn't read about no woman helping Paul preach anything at any time. The Apostle Paul declared, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you then that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1: 8 - 9. The Apostles forbid us to bring another Gospel that differs from what they preach. If they didn't allow women to preach then, nobody is justified in having them now! Notice Ecclesiastes 7:27 - 28, "Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: ONE MAN AMONG A THOUSAND HAVE I FOUND; but a WOMAN among all those have I NOT FOUND." King Solomon didn't find none in his day! Isaiah 3:12, " As for my people, children are their oppressors, and WOMEN RULE OVER THEM. O my people, they which LEAD THEE CAUSE THEE TO ERR, AND DESTROY THE WAY OF THY PATHS." Reader, do you see what Isaiah is saying? He spoke plain here, that if a woman leads you she will cause you to err, and you'll be destroyed! Despite what the Bible says, you still have foolish, hell bound, weak, ungodly men ordaining women for Bishops, Elders, Pastors and Deaconess. You have women standing head of churches, leading men and women to Hell fire and destruction. Isaiah 9:16 - 17, "For the LEADERS, of this people cause them to ERR, and they that are LED of them are DESTROYED. Therefore, the LORD SHALL HAVE NO JOY IN THEIR YOUNG MEN neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: For everyone is an HYPOCRITE and are EVIL DOER, and every mouth speaketh FOLLY. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." Everyone that sits under women preachers are hypocrites and evil-doers according to what the word of God says! Some are fool enough to call themselves BISHOP! How wicked, and blinded by the hands of the Devil. The Bible says in I Timothy 3:1 - 2, "This is a true saying, (This lets us know, any other saying apart from this true saying is a lie!). If a MAN desire the office of a Bishop, HE (Not She) desireth a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one wife, (It didn't say the wife of one husband!) vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach." Listen to what Paul said, "Let your women keep SILENCE IN THE CHURCHES: For it is NOT PERMITTED unto them to SPEAK; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, LET THEM ASK THEIR HUSBANDS AT HOME: For it is a SHAME FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH." I Corinthians 14: 34 - 35. You find so-called women preachers going contrary to the bible, and having speaking appointments. Even though the bible says for them to be silent in the churches, and if they want to know anything ask their husbands at home, they willingly ignore The Bible and still insist on standing before the church and tell their husbands and everyone else what to do. You've got to be a hypocrite to ignore the Bible! I Timothy 2: 11 - 14, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. for Adam was first formed, then Eve. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." As you can plainly see, the scriptures are against women preachers. The bible only allows the aged women to teach the younger women according to Titus 2: 3 - 4 - 5, "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (Now the bible is going to outline what the woman is to teach, and she's not to go no further.), that they may teach the YOUNG WOMEN to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be descreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. When women follow that, then they are in keeping with what the Word of God says. "Let all things be done decently and in order." I Corinthians 14:40. In my conclusion Brothers and Sisters, you don't have Women Apostles, or Women Bishops or Elders or Pastors or Evangelists or Deaconesses in the Bible! It's of the Devil and out of the Pit of Hell! All churches that have women preachers or believe in Women Preachers, you don't believe the bible and your worship is in VAIN. My advice to you reader is come out of every church that have women preachers, and walk in the truth. Revelations 2:20, "Notwithstanding I have a few things AGAINST THEE, Because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which called herself a prophetess, to TEACH and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed with idols." I'm willing to answer all criticism and let the world know by the ETERNAL LIVING WORD OF GOD, that these sayings are FAITHFUL AND TRUE.
@@houseofyahweh3785 oh I see what happend, it sounded as If I was agreeing with the man on the video. sorry brother I was talking about you when I said this man. God bless.
Tom is good at helping us get into the minds of the readers to which the apostles write. We read too often as though we were the ones written to; while what we have is the scriptures in their context to seek to understand what they meant to their readers then. BTW, its 'sexes' not 'genders'.
I have just finished reading Mary and Early Christian Women: Hidden Leadership. The fundamental message that God allows women to be religious leaders who preach and give direction to men is true and deeply needed now in the Catholic/Christian faith. I wrote this review from the idea of writing a letter to the author. The best part of this book comes when the author’s (Ally Kateusz) hard work and courage reveal the long “hidden” stories of Christianity’s early female apostles (Romans 16:7) and deacons (Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11). However, I would warn the author (and the readers) to have more faith in the actual Bible and to be more careful to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” (Matthew 13:24-32 and Luke 3:17) in terms of the extra-biblical sources. In my opinion, she does prove that the Catholic Church’s current conventional narrative building on the idea that women were somehow never authoritative leaders and were not picked for official leadership and preaching in the early Pauline church is false. She proves this in the chapter on women preachers and baptizers. To be fair there are some excellent novels and histories (2nd century) based on earlier oral traditions that were written down by early Christians. Unfortunately, later church authorities downgraded women's leadership and these true stories that were handed down from generation to generation were censored or destroyed. Kateusz tries to undo that damage. One of the gems of this book comes when Kateusz proves that honoring Mary as the mother of God (Theotokos) was universal among Christians before the Council of Ephesus. However the language and imagery used for Sacramental ministry in the ancient biographies of women apostles was somewhat different and it's hard to decisively judge if there is enough narrative evidence that the women apostles Nino, Thecla, and Irene ever conferred the sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8: 14-17 and Acts 19:1-7) or Order (Acts 6:-1-7, Acts 13: 1-3) Let the reader be warned! There is a lot of “chaff” in this book where the author completely breaks with the actual Bible and the Catholic faith. Here is the case in point, Kateusz claims that Mary offers herself along with Christ at the Last Supper. Obviously, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could not have forgotten that. If what Kateusz puts forward is true, then all she has done is call the reliability of the canonical Gospels into doubt. So, at that point she is basically adding two or subtracting from “public revelation” which is definitely a big problem incompatible with the Catholic religion. Second, she wants to throw 1 Timothy out of the Bible because she claims that it can't be reconciled with her thesis. The third instance of chaff in her book comes when she unfortunately sites doctrinally unreliable texts like the Acts of Phillip alongside good doctrinally sound texts like the Life of Thecla. Here is some of the good “wheat” that is on display in Kateusz’s book. Kateusz argues persuasively that the Six Books written down in the 2nd century are based on older Apostolic oral traditions about Mary the Mother of God. The Six Books were read in Christian churches and are probably the most reliable extra biblical sources that the author analyzes. She looks for common events in Mary's life and ministry that are present in this source and the Dormition narratives of Mary’s death, as well as The Life of the Virgin associated with Maximus the Confessor, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of Bartholomew. The chapter on women preachers and baptizers proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the women deacons from Roman 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:11 were commissioned to preach, baptize, and oversee new Church communities in mission territory. This part of her thesis is both revolutionary and believable. Here are some other highlights • The book confirms what Hans Urs Von Balthasar theorized about Mary being the greatest theologian. Dr. Kateusz shows that early Christian oral tradition describes Mary sending out a group of (male and female) missionaries from Jerusalem, supervising their preaching, and giving them further instruction. • Many early Christians believed that Mary's religious leadership was fully equivalent to the male apostle’s “high priesthood”. This is demonstrated by how the Protoevangelium of James has Mary twice entering the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple and by Romans 16:7. The Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James is always going to be a good witness to the Marian beliefs of Christians that lived in the first centuries however there are serious doubts about its historical reliability. • Early traditions have Mary offering her prayers along with liturgical incense in an action that was later restricted to Ministerial Priests. • The Life of the Virgin is part “wheat” and part “chaff”. It has some value in bringing out Mary's leadership in the early community. However, the author’s contention that Mary offered herself as priest and victim along with Christ at the Last Supper borders on blasphemy. Once again this isn't about being for or against patriarchal Catholicism this is just about being consistent in Catholicism’s understanding of the canonical Gospels. You simply cannot add Mary co- presiding at the Last Supper and still cite the canonical Bible as an infallible witness to Jesus’s life and ministry. • Kateusz relies on early Christian catechisms like the (Didascalia Apostolorum) and written collections of oral tradition to conclude that it was common in the early church to have two presiders at the Eucharist one male and one female (father and mother). She thinks that this demonstrates that women were ministerial priests. However, the lack of information from a first-hand written account makes it very difficult to tell whether or not the female minister is a Deacon or a Priest. Remember other than consecrating the Eucharist deacons (in the 1st century) basically could do everything presbyters did in the early Church. That is why St. John Chrysostom expressed confusion about whether he was in fact reading about the deacons (and not presbyters) in Acts chapter 6. They seemed to him to be demonstrating the managerial, pastoral, and other non-sacramental responsibilities that were only given to presbyters in St. John Chrysostom’s time. One of the highlights of this book is learning how early Christian writing and art proves how Jesus and Mary are inseparable. It proves that doctrinally orthodox Christians venerated and prayed to Mary in the 2nd and 3rd centuries without any doctrinal guidance from the Church. Another joy is learning about how central Mary’s leadership was in the founding of Christianity.
Thanks for sharing. Will put this on my list of resources to read and also to share that & NT Wrights’ TH-cam videos on women in positions of authority.
@@nicksanders9148 Of course he's been wrong he's a fallible human. But his evidence on this subject is spot on. Now the claim of stuck up is just adhomnium and is a personal opinion. Trust me I have teachers I don't agree with everything they teach but the old saying goes eat the meat throw out the bones. But could I ask a favor what points do you feel him to be in error on.
Read Roman 16. In this message you see Paul giving the letter to female deacon church owner Phoebe. God calls who he wants. Men of God or not if God can say and do things they find right even if God wouldn’t. Who Jesus showed himself first when he rise from the dead? Mary Magdalene and her sister (NT) and Jesus said to her “ Go and tell my disciple that I live”!!!!!! A message of preaching the good news of the Gospel to women first. Just like the Samaritan women by the well. She was the first preacher in that town as sent my Jesus himself!!!!!! I follow Jesus Christ not peter, matthew, Paul, Moses, David...men, flesh, weak and men whom each failed Jesus while serving Him so capable if making mistakes. But yes still children if God just like you and me.
@@evangelistnicolegarcia517 Even if you'd like to argue your point, I would suggest not pitting Jesus's teachings against those of the writers of the NT. The NT is completely inspired by God. There's a lot of good research out there to help you make your argument.
Though I have heard of NT Wright, I haven't ever actually heard any of his lectures or read any of his books. I found him quite enjoyable to listen to, so will have to look for more. I cannot believe that I had not ever noticed the incorrect wording (in the KJV) of Gal 3:28. Such an excellent point, along with many of the other points he made. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Wright is considered an expert on Paul. So I wonder if he has ever (since 2004) considered how Paul used Adam and Eve as figures for Christ and the Church, especially as it relates to this argument over whether or not Paul condemned women in ministry. The Lord pointed things out to me more than a decade ago that put all of those, supposed, proof-text passages against women in the ministry into a whole new light. He pointed out that when it comes to Christ and the church, the "man" is Christ, and we (both male and female) make up "the women" (Eve). I believe this is why Paul refers back to Adam and Eve in 1Tim 2. It's not about gender differences at all. It's a figure. Jesus himself likened his MALE disciples to "a woman" whose hour was come "to be delivered of the child." Would this not relate to Paul's assertion that "the woman" (Eve) "shall be saved in childbearing"? Paul used Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a figure for the church in a very similar way, as it relates to "Christ in you, the hope of glory." We all received "the adoption of sons," bearing the name of Jesus Christ, who is "the Head of the body" and "the only begotten Son" of God. We see similar language to Paul's in the OT. Paul spoke of those who were "babes in Christ," or "children in understanding." He spoke of "silly women" who were being led astray because they were "ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." We have no problem at all understanding that Paul is not speaking of literal "babies" or "children," so why do we insist that Paul must be speaking about literal "women"? An OT passage that also used as a proof-text against women in the ministry is Isa 3:12: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. " But just a few verses before we read: (Isa 3:4) "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. " Is Isaiah talking about literal babies, children and women? I don't believe so. And I don't believe Paul was either. I don't believe he was understood that way by those who understood how he used "Adam and Eve" to teach about "Christ and the church." In 1 Cor 11 (another misunderstood and misused passage, imo), Paul speaks in the singular - THE man and THE woman. And he begins with "the head of every man is Christ," not with women, then men, then Christ, then God, as one might expect if he were truly speaking of a hierarchical structure the way many seem to believe he was. Jeremiah wrote: "Ask ye now, and see WHETHER A MAN DOTH TRAVAIL WITH CHILD? wherefore do I SEE EVERY MAN WITH HIS HANDS ON HIS LOINS, AS A WOMAN IN TRAVAIL, and all faces are turned into paleness? Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him: But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them." (Jer 30:6-9) Paul spoke of his own "travail in birth," one he said he went through "again" with those he referred to as "my little children." Paul said he was once "a child" but became "a man." Was that not the "travail" to which he referred? A travail that "a woman" goes through, through which "she shall be saved" BY BEING "delivered of the child,... that A MAN is born into the world"? No, Paul was not some misogynistic creep that we shouldn't be listening to, as some non-Christians might argue. Nor was he condemning of women in the ministry, as some believers will argue. His words must be rightly divided, and understood within the context of scripture the message of "Christ in you, the hope of glory." We must hear what THE SPIRIT is saying to the churches. And that, oftentimes, requires us to go much deeper than "the letter" alone will allow us to go.
@@dewalphneal2811 Paul said we look not at the things which are seen (they being temporal) but at the things that are now seen (which are eternal). How do you believe we do that? What do you believe is the purpose of the "types" and "shadows" contained in scripture, if not to reveal deeper spiritual truths? What errors do you see in my post? Did Paul not use Adam and Eve as figures for Christ and the church? Did he not use Mary as a figure for the Church, as well? Did Jesus not liken his disciples, all male, to a woman, whose hour was come to be delivered of a child? Did Paul not speak of travailing in birth himself? Does the OT not speak of a man travailing in birth, even every man with his hands in his loins, etc? Why do you believe those things are written that way?
Chrissiela 1Ti 5:14 "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan."] There is much that could be said, however unless I took the time and energy it would require, I'm afraid it would be inappropriate for me to address this with you. I will say this; "types and shadows pointed to Christ and the Kingdom of God which only in part is yet to be fulfilled. Even so, it is quite literal. John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
@@dewalphneal2811 I'm not sure what a passage about young widows, ripped out of its context, has to do with the way Paul used Adam and Eve or why Jesus likened His male disciples to a woman, or anything else i said. Nor do I understand why you believe it would be "inappropriate" for you to answer my questions or, God forbid, actually point out whatever "error" it is you saw in my post. And not just point it out, but explain why it's an error without getting into a game of my verse trumps your verse. I guess, to some, being "a man" has its privileges. But one day you might figure out that when it comes to Christ and the church you are actually part of "Eve," the woman! So be forewarned, childbearing can be very painful! DEEP BREATHS! ;)
So difficult to overcome the prejudice against women created by Augustine by his erroneous Sethite view of scripture. Thank you N T Wright for your attempts at correcting this error.
Biblical narratives about men and women are not the same as biblical commands about men and women. Paul commends the works of Phoebe. We are all God's workmanship in Christ created "for good works (Eph 2:10)." Paul says in Titus 2:4-5, that the older women are to train the younger women in Godly behavior. Proverbs tells sons to not forsake their mothers teaching. Paul, who wrote "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28)", is the same Paul who wrote "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12)." Either Paul contradicts himself, which means he destroys his apostolic authority, or someone is misinterpreting the the teaching of scripture. Either mankind is constrained by the scripture or scripture is constrained by mankind.
The Scripture(Rom 16:1) you're referring to said "Phebe our sister" , not phebe our pastor, not phebe our prophetess, not phebe our deacon. But phebe our sister. Teach the truth, the word is truth. Dont change it. It is what it is. It means what it said. if it doesn't suit your beliefs, then change what you believe to suit it. Paul spoke by the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Spirit can not make a mistake, why would God say through him, "i suffer not a women to teach not to be an overseer over the men", then the next day, turn around and say, "I'm sending phebe up to the church of Rome to give a sermon". A sermon is speaking. Women can't give sermons, she can speak... in the church. It never said nothing about speaking outside the church, but it said she cant speak inside of the church. The word calls for her complete obedience in this matter. Not rebellion. It's not that she can't do it, it's that she shouldn't do it. I'm sure women or just as cappable of speaking scriptures in the pulpit, but God said she cant give a sermon, she cant speak... in the church, and not one church, but all the churches, he said. All. "1Corinthians 14:33 (kjv) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as 👉in all👈 churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is 👉not permitted👈 unto them 👉to speak👈; but they are 👉commanded👈 to be under obedience, as also saith the law." And the law doesn't permit a women to be a preist, and the priestly ministry was given over to a pastoral ministry when Jesus came. Also in Gen 3:16. GOD Put the man to be the overseer of the Women. Which is a type and shadow of Christ being the head and his elected church. So how can a woman get up on the pulpit and claim(usurp) authority over a congregation full of men?. That's against God's divine plan. I may not like it. But i must believe it. "1Timothy 2:12(kjv) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” If a aged women wants to teach, she can teach younger women(Titus 2:3,4), not men, that's biblical, and not from the pulpit either. Because she cant speak(give a sermon) inside the church. 1 Corinthians14:35 (kjv) ... for it is a shame for women to speak 👉in👈 the church.” God thinks it's shamful. There must be a reason. I may not know or understand completely why, but i trust Him. You should to. God's word is infallible and it is always right, regardless of if we agree with it or not. Dont let satan cause you to believe a lie (2Thess2:11 - 2Chron18:21)
Romans 16: 1 Phoebe our sister and being a servant, ( diakonon ) strongs concordance G 1249 meaning a deacon / servant / minister. The word in this verse is a noun, accusative, singular, feminine. The exact same word in Philippians 1: 1 as in Bishops and deacons but is a masculine form. There are 31 forms of this same word in the New Testament.
@@MattKingsley-zy7dn i haven't look at the different expressive words of the original greek text, but ive looked at those new age greek app text codes, that you're refering to. But i wouldn't put my faith in trying to figure that out, I'd depend on revelation from God Almighty. Because the word doesnt contradictic itself, we just lack the understanding in some areas. And Paul could not contradict himself nor the law, And the law does not permit women to preach 👉in👈 the churches. Im begging you brother, Please dont disgrace poor and godly Phebe's character, by telling anyone that she was a women preacher, because she wasnt. She was obedient to the word and the vocation in which she was called.
@@biblicalanswers1019 Nothing at all new age about James Strong's concordance. He was a professor of exegetical theology studies and published his concordance in 1890. I have a hard book copy since before the internet was invented. You said that the bible does not call Phoebe a deaconess, in fact the earliest manuscripts call her a deaconess and Paul wrote it. However you did say that you have NOT looked into this. 2 Timothy 2: 15 " Study to show thyself approved to God, a worker unashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Phoebe is now enjoying her rewards in the Kingdom of Heaven.
@@MattKingsley-zy7dn hey john, i hope ur having a blessed day in readying God's word of truth. Which I'd like to think that you believe n love it as much as it do. So im not going to argue with a brother about theology or concordances etc. Just to tell you dat Gods word said women should not give a sermon(speack) in the church and hope that you believe it. And yes, God indeed has blessed our sister and faithful servant Phebe, as she was obedient to the word.
He says ...I assume that tells us smt as well, about the age of the beloved disciple, what was he doing on the cross 26:10... I just don't understand the implication of the age and the cross, Anyone who knows?
@@KenjiNitta It is obvious N.T.Wrighr to be avoiding the text and to be giving an answer on a part of it, as if he as never read it. You know that we people of litterature and gnosis, are not trustworthy just because we know much. And the sad fact is that people listen and follow. Well both are to blame, the listeners and the speakers and regarding this speach, yes it is not clean. I think we all can understand to what I m refering to, in respect of the text. It's a no way out when it comes to explaining the whole text, and Tom Wright should feel exposed. But since he is happy with the audience supporting him, seems not to care about the rest who do not, not because we don't like him, but because we know the scriptures. In case you can't remember 1Tim2,12 a woman is not to usurp authority over man but to be silent
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης Oh my, what of Deborah? Judges 4 & 5? How do you get around that? Two whole chapters are devoted to her, and yet you contend that women are to have to no leadership role in the church? She was the undisputed leader of Israel, undisputed prophet. All came to her for God's judgment under HIs law. She is the ONLY Judge who presided over 40 years of peace after settling a war with minimal bloodshed. All others brought great bloodshed. How do you reconcile her role with your view of Paul's limited writings?
I have really enjoyed this teaching as it makes sense and it expands what I already thought. I have however in my life, experienced less than women being able to express their gifts and study unless it came with heaps of mockery and in the men then saying the women should be silent. As is done in politics, especially when they are obnoxiously and evilly wrong, they double down. So the state of complaining that the male domination is not biblical, and belittling of women, that you basically are told see, Paul says “you are not to speak”, and then worse, “what kind of a Christian are you?”, and worse yet now declaring: “You are not Christian at all!” They are comfortable with the status quo and that some women want to be able to share what wisdom they’ve found, brings out the left-foot of fellowship. So it is a delight that I can have a more full understanding of the text and to do so without seeing Paul as a man of his time, one who didn’t like women, very much at all.
(I haven't watched this video.) Men and women are spiritually equal. God settled this matter with Deborah at about 1100 B.C. If you want a study, I can paste up my essay on her.
@@courag1 Essay on Deborah, the Judge and prophetess. (Revised May 2023) Before Paul we have her story. We don't know what Paul would have said about her. We have to read about her first and then try to understand Paul (if possible). This is what the people at the beginning of Christianity had to do. They knew the story of Deborah already. Deborah is either a meaningless exception or an important precedent, in the debate of whether men and women are spiritually equal. Before beginning, it should be noted that there is no scripture stating clearly or even hinting at, that Deborah was God's second choice. There was no man that rejected the call to be Judge, requiring a woman to take that place. ************************************************************* INTRODUCTION: Before God was rejected by Israel for the rulership of men, that is, kings, there were different 'seasons' so to speak. One of those seasons was the time of the Judges. ...but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-in that they have abandoned Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you as well. -excerpt 1 Samuel 8 A Judge at this time, was VERY different from a judge in our time. The Judge was over the nation of Israel. But not as a man, as King, or as a woman, as Queen, because God was not rejected as King as yet. God ruled Israel through the Judges. Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars? -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV Major modern English translations like the NASB use the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people... [PASTOR - Origin: late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French pastour, from Latin pastor ‘shepherd’.] In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation Also: Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning, and since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel. -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verses 9 and 10 KJV -God speaking to Nathan the prophet Finally: All the Judges were men, except one. Deborah. She was married, but her husband was not a Judge. HER JUDGING AUTHORITY here: Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment. -excerpt Judges 4 Deborah judged men and had the authority to execute, as some sins in the Old Covenant, such as murder, demanded the death penalty as the punishment. There was no appeal to Deborah's (a Judge's) verdict: ... you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. If a man rejected Deborah's decision, the penalty was execution: But the person who acts insolently by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that person shall die;... She used the Law, therefore scripture, when judging and instructing: In accordance with the terms of the law about which they instruct you... She had the same authority as a Levitical priest: So you shall come to the Levitical priests or the judge... Also of note, she judged the hardest cases in the nation. “If a case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, that are cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. So you shall come to the Levitical priests or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict. Then you shall act in accordance with the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the Lord chooses; and you shall be careful to act in accordance with everything that they instruct you to do. In accordance with the terms of the law about which they instruct you, and in accordance with the verdict which they tell you, you shall act; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. But the person who acts insolently by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that person shall die; so you shall eliminate the evil from Israel. -excerpt Deuteronomy 17 ******************************** THE REASON GOD SENT HER here: ...the Lord was moved to pity... And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them. -excerpt Judges 2 The sending of a Judge meant God was showing mercy to His people. It wasn't a judgment against them. Since Deborah was a woman, this scripture is sometimes used in error to describe her, in our time: My people! Their oppressors treat them violently, And women rule over them. My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. -excerpt Isaiah 3 They are taking the prophetess Deborah and comparing her to Jezebel who murdered prophets. Has it not been reported to my master what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord, that I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord... -excerpt 1 Kings 18 When a Judge died, THEN people were led astray. But it came about, when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their obstinate ways. -excerpt Judges 2 THE AUTHORITY SHE HAD OVER THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY here: Now she sent word and summoned Barak... She gave the order for the battle to begin that Israel won. Then Deborah said to Barak, “Arise! For this is the day on which the Lord has handed Sisera over to you... Before the battle began she prophesied that a woman would kill Sisera (the enemy commander). This happened, as Jael, a woman not part of the battle, killed Sisera. She said, “I will certainly go with you; however, the fame shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” And: But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died. And behold, while Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael came out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” So he entered with her, and behold, Sisera was lying dead with the tent peg in his temple. So what were the results of this battle? And the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword before Barak; and Sisera got down from his chariot and fled on foot. But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not even one was left. Also: So God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan on that day before the sons of Israel. And the hand of the sons of Israel pressed harder and harder upon Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had eliminated Jabin the king of Canaan. -excerpts Judges 4 In Judges 5, most of the chapter is Deborah and Barak singing praises to God. The song lyrics are there. Final sentence of Judges 5: And the land was at rest for forty years. Obviously a great outcome. EXPLANATION OF GOD USING DEBORAH here: Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth... Prophets and prophetesses are anointed with the Holy Spirit as we know. The explanation of God using Deborah to judge men and being over the army is here: An anointing of the Holy Spirit is the anointing of a powerful masculine being. That anointing eclipses gender. FINAL THOUGHTS here: A woman anointed with the Holy Spirit can serve in any capacity in our time. Whatever valid title/position there is. To oppose this, is to oppose the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that was upon Deborah the prophetess and Judge. Deborah, the woman that "saved them from the hand of their enemies" by God's will.
What about Isaiah 3:11-12? "Woe to the wicked; disaster is upon them! For they will be repaid with what their hands have done. Youths oppress My people, and women rule over them. O My people, your guides mislead you; they turn you from your paths." This is quite clearly a condemnation of having women rule over men. NT Wright is, of course, correct that women should be allowed to do good works, and clearly in the New Testament women were teaching, prophesying, and serving as deacons, as well as doing all the good works which are discussed by Wright and which women have historically done. However, the Episcopate is a position not only of service, but authority, and the Priesthood is an extension and representation of the Episcopate in the parish. And it appears that the position of authority is forbidden to women, just as the action of childbearing is forbidden to men, hence their juxtaposition in 1 Timothy 1:9-15. To say that women ought to be allowed to study and to serve are entirely apt. To say that they ought to have authority of the Pastoral or Episcopal variety is certainly unbiblical, and does not exist in the tradition. Moreover, what is desired by many of these activists have little to do with what Wright is suggesting. It is precisely the Diana-esque inversion, which Paul guards against in Ephesus, that most of these activists are after. The notion that equality of role is even in the offering is a fundamental misunderstanding of who and what the left is.
Not even remotely clear that the word "women" is not actually "creditors"... "A third possible interpretation, which is favoured by some scholars, is that the word for “women” was not originally part of Isaiah 3:12, the original word being “creditors”. (There is also some doubt about the word “children” in 3:12.) The Hebrew word for women in Isaiah 3:12 is nashim (נשים). With identical consonants, but different vowel points, the word can be noshim (נשים), which means “creditors”. The Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 3:12 has nosim (“creditors”). Accordingly, the New English Bible (NEB) translates the pertinent phrase as “the usurers lord it over them”.[3] The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek centuries before the Masoretes added their system of vowel points to the Hebrew text. The Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 3:12a (translated into English) reads: “O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you.” The idea of being extorted by creditors fits with the overall context of Isaiah chapter 3, especially verses 5-7, but so does the idea of inappropriate men and women being leaders. Whatever the original word may have been, it is clear that God was saying that Judah would be led, or bullied, by incompetent leaders. Here are two English translations of Isaiah which favour different sources. My people-children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths. (NRSV) Oppressors treat my people cruelly; creditors rule over them. My people’s leaders mislead them; they give you confusing directions. (NET)[4]"
Even granting that it is "women" in the ancient Hebrew, considering the fact that in practically every culture on earth, every day, "women" or some similar reference is used derogatorily, typically directed at men, to refer to some form of "incompetence", it seems extremely likely that that is what is being done here as well. Consider also that women had exponentially fewer opportunities in the ancient world to become pragmatically competent in any field, much less the leadership of a nation (though some were-see below). It would have been an easily understandable gesture for Isaiah to use to communicate his point, not necessarily because women are ultimately speaking incompetent, and not necessarily because women are ultimately unfit for leadership, but because they would have largely if not almost entirely been unfit for such positions, culturally-the same way that a wild horse may be unfit for riding...doesn't mean its unridable, untamable, unteachable by any stretch of the imagination... "A second possible interpretation of Isaiah 3:12, favoured by many scholars, is that metaphors are used in this verse. In this interpretation “children” and “women” are used as metaphors which signify that the leaders will be childish (i.e. inexperienced, capricious, or foolish) and effeminate (i.e. cowardly and ineffective) (cf. Isa. 3:4). In a note in the Geneva Bible (1599), Theodore Beza describes these leaders as “manifest tokens of [God’s] wrath, because they would be fools and effeminate.”[2] Just as it is still the case now, it was an insult in ancient times to call a grown man a “child”. To call a man a “woman” was also, unfortunately, a common insult. One example of this insult is given by the historian Herodotus where he records Xerxes, king of Persia, as saying: “My men have become women, and my women men.” (Histories 8.88.3) Interestingly, both Vashti and Esther risked their lives by standing up for their principles and defying the king’s request and ruling (Esth. 1:12; 4:16 cf. 5:2). But Xerxes’ words here are about his own men who floundered, and about Queen Artemisia I of Caria. Xerxes had a tremendous regard for Artemisia who was his ally, and who had personally and valiantly led her navy in the battle at Salamis (480 BC). Thus Xerxes refers to her as a “man”. The Greek word for courage, andreia, which is used for both valiant men and women in Greek literature and in the Bible, comes from the Greek word for “man” (e.g., Prov. 12:4; 31:10; cf. 1 Cor. 16:13). In Isaiah 3:12a, it is not clear who, specifically, the inept leaders of Judah are, or will be. But they are certainly being belittled and disparaged in this interpretation of the text."
N.T Wright is wrong on this issue. The Scripture is clear throughout about its own context (Like in 1 Timothy 2 it is explained that the reason is that Adam was formed first, not cultural context or disruptive services). This is the problem with idolizing teachers rather than allowing the Bible to say what it says.
As a Christian for over sixty years and belonging to a Denomination that espoused the principle of sola scriptura , but they along with every Denomination in Christendom selected certain scriptures to erect their particular denomination and as a result built a church based on the biased beliefs Their is only one foundation Stone that authentic Christianity is based upon, and its not the teachings of the so called Church Fathers, whither ancient or modern, but the teachings of God manifest in the Flesh of Jesus of Nazareth , who said three times, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away" and every false doctrine in Christendom is a deviation from He eternal doctrine. Do not listen to any man unless the confirm what He has taught, and my authority for stating this is Hebrews chapter 2v3, the Words of Eternal Salvation Spoken by the Son , who God says , Thy Throne of God is forever and ever, and these words are written in Red in many bibles
St John the Divine in his Gospel account makes it clear that much more than 4 books were written about Jesus. Do we have all of them? Sola Scriptura says that in Theological discourse the Canon of Scripture is the final authority in determining God's will. It does not say only the Bible can give us information on Early Christians or Jews
Paul explained that man and woman are equal in Christ. So now we are stuck with the section where Paul seems to forbid woman to speak, teach etc. Read that section carefully is says: "as it is written according to the law". How on earth Paul refers here to the law, when he knows that the law is rendered useless now that Christ has come to restore us back to the innocent divine power and lovelife of Jesus? The law has been fullfilled. Love defines our actions. It is common knowledge that ancient churchfathers of a "certain denomination" had their hand in selecting biblebooks and adding/changing original text. Could it be....? Follow the Spirit on this one. In Gen it says "God made man, man and woman God made them". Would you not rather have a wonderworking, by Holy Spirit transformed, woman of God behind the pulpit, who knows what she is talking about, then a mere man with puffed up bible knowledge? For instance. We were in Africa bringing the Gospel. My wife and i split up. Walking through a village preaching, teaching, praying for the sick, walking in love. Everybody i prayed for got healed. Everybody my wife prayed for got healed. Male-female "differences" cease to exist in Christ.
You or your wife praying and people getting healed is a different issue. What Paul strictly prohibits for women is the office of priest / bishop which involves Authoritative teaching and exercising AUTHORITY over the ENTIRE church congregation ( consisting of both men and women).
As Husband / Father is the Head of the family, Paul says that office of the priest/ pastor/overseer, should be adorned by qualified fatherly MEN only as church too is an EXTENDED FAMILY. This office involves the Shepherding/ Governing / Ruling and Authoritative teaching ROLE. over the ENTIRE Church congregation ( consisting of both men and women).
St. Paul's statement in Galatians 3:27-29 that gender, racial, sexual and social distinctions are of no account where the question of salvation is concerned, does not mean that they have been abolished........ ..............as should be glaringly obvious from his Divinely approved instructions about the roles of husbands and wives, the deportment of men and women in the churches assemblies, along with the instructions of slaves to respect and obey their masters. See also th-cam.com/video/S7CHRQbskw4/w-d-xo.html
Shalom, brother in our Messiah! Please know I come from love, not condemnation. The LORD is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, yes? Man made the Bible into two books, though it is one. The initial laws apply and not been done away with. YAHSHUA, defined as GOD saves, the one referred to as Jesus, practiced all of the commands of OUR HEAVENLY FATHER according to scripture. The Torah is a guide, not laws, of what The Almighty expects then now and always. HE never ever ever nulled them. Thats why Jesus continued to practice all of our LORD'S dictums. If you're thinking of Peter and his dreams, continue down and you will see Peter is given understand by YHWH, that its meaning was not about food, but about people. Please notewhen Peter ate with the Gentiles he was reprimanded by fellow believers. GOD was showing Peter that all children were HIS. Not about food, or it would have been repeated and YAHSHUA would not have been devoted to HIS FATHER'S teachings. Easter and Christmas are two traditions added by men. GOD said no to the traditions of men. Given the origins of the two, you should be horrified if you practice them. We are to follow ALL of HIS COMMANDMENTS! Saturday is the Sabbath. The Catholic church said they had authority over scripture, during tbe Council of Nicea and changed this unchanging Holy day to Sun-day. The Catholic church integrated so many disgusting, immoral and blasphemous pagan celebrations and just doctored them up. Repent and and save your family from damnation. Our Precious Perfect in all HIS ways Father said my people arw destroyed through ignorance.
women's teaching, leadership, preaching etc is all fine and should be uncontroversial. But can they act in persona Christi and allow the sacraments to work? Do they break Apostolic Succession? Is it right for a given jurisdiction of Bishops to make this decision independently of the wider Church?
True. Apostles ( Core LEADERSHIP group) (The twelve) were all men. The biblical basis for not ordaining women as priests/Bishops is that WORD OF GOD does not allow a woman to TEACH or to take AUTHORITY over a man because of the ORDER IN CREATION.(see First Timothy 2 verses 11 to 14 ). It is contextually clear that these scripture verses stand as a prelude to the qualifications required of a priest / Bishop in First Timothy 3 verses 1 to 7 . From the scriptures we see that it is the DUTY of the presbyter/priest/bishop to TEACH the ENTIRE church congregation ( consisting of both men and women) and also to Shepherd/Govern/Rule the ENTIRE church congregation.( See First Timothy 5 verse 17 , and 3 verse 2, and 3 verse 5 ). Therefore, this office is one that involves TEACHING and exercising AUTHORITY over the ENTIRE church congregation. Hence it is very clear that women cannot be appointed to the office of priest /bishop. In consonance with the above, it is also crystal clear from the Bible ( Read Ephesians 5 verses 22 to 24 and First Corinthians 11 verses 3, 7 to 10 ) that the HEAD of the family is Husband/Father and not the wife. The clear implication is that only qualified FATHERLY MEN should LEAD the entire church congregation as priests / Bishops as church is an EXTENDED FAMILY ( Portrayed as HOUSEHOLD of God) ( See First Timothy 3 verse 15). How can we therefore disobey these Apostolic injunctions given once for all to the church ??. These instructions are definitely not some sort of mere temporary guidelines which we may choose to reject at our own discretion . Also, it is absolutely in no way dependent on women's education, status, or passage of time. WORD OF GOD strictly holds it on God's DESIGN for man and woman ensuing out of God's order in creation and headship of man in the family. ( Husband Wife relationship is analogous to Christ Church relationship as seen in Ephesians 5 verses 22 to 24.). If wives could be head of the family, as feminists think, it is akin to saying that church could have Lordship over Christ. But it is thoroughly heretical and total absurdity to teach that church can have Lordship over Christ .
@@koshyisaacpanicker6796 I see this argument about 1 corinthians in different parts of this book. The church and Christ is a metaphor and mystery. But many forget that Paul later says that Jesus submitted himself to death for the church, he came to serve not be served, that is the point of this, love is submission to one another as all Christians are supposed to do regardless of gender. The word Arche and Kephale are different and context is important. Forr instance in one of the 1 corinthians chapters Arche is used. If this word meant it headship (when talking about head coverings and men coming before women), it implies Jesus is less than the Father, which is a theological impossibility. Othersise there is no point to the tradition of the Nicene creed or the arguments against Arianism which claimed that Jesus was under/less and somehow different than the Father. But Nicene creed clarifies that the Father and Son are of same substance (Homousious). Origin makes more sense because Paul is combatting the false religion of the area that found its way into the this church (which is the whole purpose of the book) that says that men originated from women. Even later in the next chapter it says that women should prophesy with their heads covered (prophesying is proclaiming the word of God in public) which makes sense because women had to have their heads covered in front of men in public, not in front of other women as it was a honor and shame culture and it had sexual connotations regarding prostitution. This word "shameful" is used about women "uttering" later in the book, this same false religion required women to scream out loudly and in an orgasmic manner and that is why Paul said for women to keep quiet and to also follow the local since law had prohibited women to worship in this manner (they were immitating the other religion) and thus that is why Paul differentiated this screaming out from "glossalalia" which is speaking in tongues. A more cohesive theology regarding women shows that the kingdom of God does not differentiate men from women, but culture does (all of the prohibitions to women had cultural reasons). The 5 offices all preach and teach, how are all gifts for men? In Acts Philip's 4 had prophet daughters prophesying in public as Luke described. Prophets have more spiritual authority/higher calling than pastors. (First apostles, then prophets, evangelists, elders or pastors and last teachers). It is very simple and people like to complicate it . Both men and women are supposed to refrain from sinning. Give me one other prohibition besides not sinning that men have. If you cannot give not even one, then what you are implying is that Jesus died to give only men freedom and his sacrifice did not afford freedom for women. Anything else besides not sinning is just works, you are asking women to live under the law instead of the new dispensation of grace.
Origin is the right meaning in the scriptures previously discussed, because like Jesus came to us from and begotten by the Father (not born or created) is the same as saying woman was taken out of man but are of the same substance. She is not born of man. Therefore they are equally both originated from God as the last sentence of that paragraph states. What I am saying is "arche" has this meaning of origin and it makes sense theologically, if it was authority or rulership, it would imply Jesus is less than the Father, a theological impossibility.
I only watched about half of this video and I do plan on watching the rest but these are the things I noticed. Calling women apostles who were never know as such in the Bible (those who tell the men about the resurrection). Mentioning the woman who anointed Jesus as doing a quasi priestly action (no woman was ever a priest). When Mary is at the Lord's feet we see clearly from the text why Martha is upset (emphasis is being placed more on the social rules that are being broken). Also are we to deny what is written in 1Timothy 3:12 in light of the comments about Phebe. So far this video does not point to sound biblical teaching.
Well after watching the rest of the video my thoughts are harsh. This video cast a lot of doubt on what is already written scripturally on this topic in order to promote a none biblical ideology. 1Corinthians12: gives a beautiful description of the body of Christ and our need for one another.
Q DE we are all priests according to the order of Melchezidek. And it was a women who was the first one who spoke of the ressurection to any one ever. Sounds like you areca litgle muxed up. How about everyone just love and serve one another- God is your judge and his. You are not his judge. God says Love is everything.
K Happy, love needs to be based on the truth of God's word. When anyone deviates from that you can begin to embrace false teachings. Which the Bible warns us about. You need to read again about who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Your statement is incorrect.
You're choosing to read the Bible and say it's unbiblical without understanding the context. The actions those women took and how society would've taken such fit into the first century Second Temple Judaism context Jesus must be studied from.
@@qde2130 You are right. N.T Wright is being idolized yet on this issue he teaches with pervasive error. It's very disappointing. Casts into doubt any of his material I was going to study as I am not interested in hearing a watered-down scholastic mutilation of the Scripture. It is disturbing how difficult it is to find a teacher that thoroughly preaches sound doctrine.
Read "The handmaidens conspiracy" by Donna Howell. It addresses just about everything in scripture that has to deal with women in the church. Definitely worth the read for those who are not too prideful and not willing to educate themselves on different view points. Whatever "side" you are on, it's best to know both sides very well.
@@spencers6263 ok no problem, I may be one though. I want to state that I don't think the book will add anything I can't see written. I ve done my studying on the specific issue. I m not ve been studying and preaching God's word for 29 years, and but I m always ready to reject my knowledge before my Lord who is the truth
Sir, thank you so much. How many women have usurped their calling in this life relegated to baby machines etc with no purpose, calling or vision due to these falacies and misinterpretations and lack of context. One needs to see the context behind things culturally as well. Those who do not reduce scriptures to a religious heresy even. And worse do they even consider who Jesus is or what he thinks? The bible states isn't my word like a hammer? Well,it divides and shows the hearts of mans...some of it is quite ugly in how many have viewed scriptures of women...if any scripture doesn't reflect who Jesus was and came to do it is being read wrong...and it always reveals some wrong belief about some group...Jesus said you will know mine by their love...he said those who hate are not mine...he came to bring unity, not division....or hatred against any group,incl.women...he said all are equal in Christ in the new testament. Not only this not all ladies want to marry... Jesus is our husbands! And his bride is the church! His bride is his 'helper' thus all his bride, his church, helps Jesus in the kingdom of God to reach lost souls... I feel sad for ladies who didn't do anything..maybe when he asks her she say I didn't know? then maybe he will say go away i never knew you? or you never knew me if you didn't follow me to do the work of the kingdom works? this is false teaching.... we are all the bride
False. Wright is even aware he is marrying his interpretation with a hostile culture, by constantly caveating that there might be people saying he is doing just that. He knows his role is to shape the Anglican church according to modern sentiments, and he isn't prepared to be like the conservative evangelicals who receive open persecution for taking a firm stand from people who claim to be their brethren!. Time is already showing Wright to be wrong, and fewer and fewer men shall be found in the pews and in the pulpits: the fastest growing demographic of people training for the ministry is women, with men utterly uninterested in constantly talking about feminism and interpreting the Bible with some many hermeneutical jangles! Anti-complementarianism is the fashion of the day in the West (not the rest of the world thank God) and I only wish anti-complementarians would come clean and say that they are opposed to and want to rid Christianity of male headship and governorship. The lack of honesty from those claiming to be in the truth is a strange phenomenon. You will be resisted. You will be rebuked, whether you like it or not. You will be opposed. Majority opinion settles nothing in the courts of eternal truth.
Taken out of context. For every issue, you must look at the Bible overall and not just quote select verses. If you cherry-pick these verses, then slavery should be allowed since there's Eph 6:5 ("Slaves obey your masters"), and no where does the Bible prohibit slavery.
@@Himmiefan ...........Slavery has never been a sin, whether the Jews bought them with God's consent, or when Christians owned them. Christian slaves owners were never commanded to release their slaves. In fact the slaves were instructed to work even harder if their master happened to be a brother in Christ. "5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with proper respect. Be as sincere as you are when you obey Christ. 6 Don't obey them only while you're being watched, as if you merely wanted to please people. But obey like slaves who belong to Christ, who have a deep desire to do what God wants them to do. 7 Serve eagerly as if you were serving your heavenly master and not merely serving human masters. 8 You know that your heavenly master will reward all of us for whatever good we do, whether we're slaves or free people." Ephesians 6:5-8 (GW)
@Himmiefan no it isnt taken out of context. At some point you have to admit when you are making context up. Also, slavery is not a sin, however ill advised.
You have to remember that this Bishop is a Church of England person. The agenda of this Church is a one which is determined to push women as far forward as they can.
This is not the case, if you were familiar with NT Wright’s work, you would know that he is not advocating that the Word be challenged or twisted. He has spoken over and over again on the very issue of how damaging it is when a people try to change the definition of a word to meet their beliefs.
Oh but I am very familiar with his work. He lectured at Durham University in 1994 when I was studying there. I am not calling his writing into dispute (or most of it )I am saying that the role of women in the Church now has gone beyond the Word go God. The C of E has in effect changed the DNA of what ministry really is. In the age of ‘Me Too’ we are getting deeper into the Apostasy of the End Times. Loosing focus on what it is to be a follower of the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus.
The use of head in 1 Cor is not source like a river but headship. If u say its source you have to then apply the same meaning to the relationship between God and Christ. Women coming from men clearly implies one existed before the other. How can we say Jesus us eternal when we say his origin is God? That destroys the externality of Christ. However a reading of headship fits better and its consistent with the rest of biblical witness
If it was headship, it implies Jesus is less than the Father, which is a theological impossibility. Othersise there is no point to the tradition of the Nicene creed or the arguments against Arianism which claimed that Jesus was under/less and somehow different than the Father. But Nicene creed clarifies that the Father and Son are of same substance (Homousious). Origin makes more sense because Paul is combatting the false religion of the area that found its way into the this church (which is the whole purpose of the book) that says that men originated from women. Even later in the next chapter it says that women should prophesy with their heads covered (prophesying is proclaiming the word of God in public) which makes sense because women had to have their heads covered in front of men in public, not in front of other women as it was a honor and shame culture and it had sexual connotations regarding prostitution. This word "shameful" is used about women "uttering" later in the book, this same false religion required women to scream out loudly and in an orgasmic manner and that is why Paul said for women to keep quiet and to also follow the local since law had prohibited women to worship in this manner (they were immitating the other religion) and thus that is why Paul differentiated this screaming out from "glossalalia" which is speaking in tongues. A more cohesive theology regarding women shows that the kingdom of God does not differentiate men from women, but culture does (all of the prohibitions to women had cultural reasons). The 5 offices all preach and teach, how are all gifts for men? In Acts Philip's 4 had prophet daughters prophesying in public as Luke described. Prophets have more spiritual authority/higher calling than pastors. (First apostles, then prophets, evangelists, elders or pastors and last teachers). It is very simple and people like to complicate it . Both men and women are supposed to refrain from sinning. Give me one other prohibition besides not sinning that men have. If you cannot give not even one, then what you are implying is that Jesus died to give only men freedom and his sacrifice did not afford freedom for women. Anything else besides not sinning is just works, you are asking women to live under the law instead of the new dispensation of grace.
Origin has to do with the Father sending/begotten Jesus (which is not creating, being born from). Coming from the Father. As woman was not born of man but she was formed out of man. They (man and woman) are of the same substance and therefore equally originated from God as the last sentence in that paragraph states.
From what headship implies in how you interpret Paul's writings, it would then be implying that man have the same level of authority over women that God has over all of creation. Would that not be blasphemously implying that all men, including Adam, are in turn Gods over women? Just a reminder, women came from men in the creation story either from his rib according to most translations, or as the actual physical half of him according to the original Hebrew text of Genesis, but Adam was not the one who did any of that; it was God. God made woman just as much as He made men; just because Adam was created first does not mean that he in turn made women, God did. Reading the word Ephesians 5:23 uses as "source" and not "authority" or "headship" makes more sense and avoids blasphemy or logical fallacies.
@peachy_talisman in 1 Cor 11 the woman from the man is source and based on this, the woman is derived from the man as one begets a child. Hence by this, the man created 1st and from whom the woman comes, is head over the woman as one with authority over her. This is also just like God and Christ. For Christ being the eternal begotten son of God, says He is not greater than the father just as a son who owes his being from a father and comes from him is not greater than the father. Thus, Christ is under the authority of the father though he is the eternal begotten God in his likeness. Hence the woman being the glory of the man and derived from him, is not greater than the man. She is therefore to be under the authority of the man. This reality of a woman under the headship of a man, is what nature shows even by her hair of the woman, Hence woman is to be in submission to the man in marriage, church, the government as the law and NT teaches
A very good speaker. Brilliant mind. However, in the end I thought he skipped over the key point of what the apostle was teaching, which is rooted in Genesis prior to sin entering the world through human rebellion. That would be precisely why Paul wrote these things. So that we would have to read them through the lens of Christological forgiveness and reconciliation to the created good order. This includes authority and so also the submission which both come under and out of God, who is love. A lot to do about nothing. God doesn’t want clever people. He wants faithful ones.
Paul could have shut down all debates about these topics by simply using two different words. Male - greek is 'arsen' strong's concordance G 730 or Female - greek 'thelu' strong's G 2338 Simply just replace 1 Timothy 2:12 with 'A woman, ( 'gyne' stong's G 1135 ) is not to be teaching a man ( andre strong's G 435), ' with 'A female G 2338 is not to be teaching a male g 730.'
I respect Pastor Jennings... but i do not agree with all that he says.... Joel 2:28-29: 28: It shall come to pass afterward (last days) that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. Jennings know of these Scriptures.... 1 Cor 14:34-35: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (Where in the Law does it say that women are to be silent in the church? (True the women is to be in obedient to her husband. This has to do with house, and relationship of married couples... but has nothing to do with Church. And, IF Paul is speaking of women not to SPEAK in church... then not to speak means not to SAY NOTHING IN CHURCH. It means she cannot open her mouth to sing, give announcement, greet others. Speaking is talking. And says, if the woman learn anything, her husband is to teach her. Well, what if she does not have a husband. Is she to be ignorant of our soul-saving-Bible? 1st. Cor 14:34-35 is misinterpreted by some preachers.) 1 Cor 14:36-38: 36: (preachers ignore this continuation of this passage of Scripture.) Vs. 36: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. (Seems like Paul is reprimanding the Corinthian church... and asking them a question. Additionally, seems like Paul is telling us whose commands these are in 1st. Corinthians.) 1st. Tim 2:12-14: But I suffer (I... I, Paul do not allow. I, not God) not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. The transgression in the Garden of Eden has nothing to do with women speaking in church. Peace)
Paul wrote many things. Even that he was a 'father'. Be careful of the teachings of Paul. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers... -excerpt 1 Corinthians 4 KJV -words of Paul If one supports the qualifications of elder, as put forward by Paul, one MUST also accept that the title/position of 'father' is valid and proper in Christianity. Since this is also one of Paul's teachings. But the title of 'father' was expressly forbidden by Jesus. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven. -excerpt Matthew 23 -words of Jesus
@@KevynHarris Paul's teachings are all over the place on multiple subjects. He contradicts himself and Jesus. Be careful of what Paul wrote. ___________________________________________________ Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases. If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false.
For believers, the church has been overtaken oftentimes by masculine views centering around the idea women need men or should even rely on a spiritual leader who can manipulate or control them is at worst a sexist view and at best an unrealistic and idealistic romantic view. Thankfully, most Christians and churches are moving forward from this idea but the problem is that we're getting all sorts of different (and even radical) worldviews to fill some supposed answer to women's roles. Traditional roles and arguments really collapse on their own. How would a woman know whether a man in her life is being manipulative or promoting true Christian principles unless she knew for herself what great Christian principles are about? And if she had known and made decision for herself, then you don't need a man really to accompany such decision.
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. 1 Timothy 2: 11-12
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 cor 2: 14
I love Wright, but I'm confused. About the Timothy passage, he seems to be contradicting himself. Women shouldn't be stereotyped as only caring about appearance, shallow and ignorant, yet he also says Paul was warning against the Ephesian worship of Diana and women's running the show and men dismissed. These seem contradictory to me.
No contradiction there. At Ephesis the women ran the show principally bec the principal deity was female - Diana. Can't have men doing for this female marble statue - the dressing, cleaning, feeding, presenting the offerings or doing whatever they do to deities. So they had a team of priestesses only to minister to Diana. Paul was therefore saying to the embryonic church there pls dont be pressured by the local community to do the same. We as followers of Christ do things differently but that does not mean the men muscle the women out and herd them into a corner to sit quietly just watching and denying them a right to participate in church life.
@Pristine Detailing that this is not only a gender debate, its a debate about the faithfulness of the bible as God's word... (vs what you seem to think, that its just the writing of men and not inspired by the Holy Spirit)
@@suseelaselvaretnam8704Please see what Paul says. Paul says that he does not allow A WOMAN to teach or take authority over a man as Adam was created first, then Eve . It does not need any deep thinking to understand that what happened at creation ( Adam was created first, then Eve) is uniformly applicable for ALL WOMEN for all time. It is so because Paul was basing his teaching on a perennial reality ( order of creation) which can never be changed . Paul is telling about the headship of man over woman by virtue of natural order of creation. Paul was pointing out this permanent TRUTH of God's design for man and woman by virtue of the order of creation . It is perfectly clear and evident that this CREATION TRUTH is applicable not only for women at Ephesus but also for ALL WOMEN by virtue of the creation order. Please do not be misled by the wrong/ false impressions the speaker is conveying to his hearers.
A friend of mine, in her early 20s, who became a believer after highschool, has chosen to worship at a church where women always wear hats and skirts/dresses. \_(o. o)_/ She has chosen this for herself; it still happens.
Dear Anime , i gave up wearing dresses ten years ago because my legs look so bad. I'm now 74 and no longer care. Its been so hot the last two years i am wearing them again. But whatever i wear i always dress well for church . I reason that if i were going out with my husband or friend i would like to dress well. As the Lord is now my husband , brother , friend Father i want to dress well for Him. Glory to His Name. God bless. K
@@AnimeCanuck Interesting. Women who wear skirts have their genitals most accessible for sex. Isn't that true? Sexual purity is not exactly the purview of the world.
NT Wright is a classic case of why ability to speak is not the most important factor! Social and cultural context will finally drive a nail which provides the final push to get to the answer they want! 😊
All of this extrapolation on pretty much everything other than the very clear language of Paul concerning the role of women in pastoral duties. Not only that, but seems to gloss over with a vast multitude of words the very clear and concise teaching of Scripture itself. It just rubs me as if you don’t like the CLEAR language of the Apostle Paul you can just stretch out endless extrapolations of vague inconsistencies to try and paint a preferential picture that is anything but clear.
The Judges were pastors/shepherds. That included Deborah. A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases. Refusal to accept a Judge's verdict on any matter, resulted in execution, according to Deuteronomy. If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false.
Were you not listening? Did you miss the entire point? He quoted scripture many times and also gave examples of how our English translation may misrepresent the true meaning.
The women were to cover their hair because of the Fallen Angels and the ideas they had about women s hair. See Gen 6- and see what Dr. Michael Hauser wrote about the Fallen Angels in his disertation.
Fallen angels are nowhere in context. Paul tells about angels of God viewing to see that ORDER IN CREATION is acknowledged by women -. HEAD of the woman is man . Veil is an external symbol of authority that a godly woman wears in acknowledgement of the authority of man over her by virtue of God's order in creation.
I have always considered Wright as a well-learned man with much to say, yet his words ought to be carefully taken, as he is mistaken on some points. As my own mentor says, "eat the meat, leave the bones." Yet this video was a poor handling of the subject in my view. Counterpoints could be made to each of his sentences.
I don’t consider myself to be an intellectual of the knowledge of this world but when it comes to God’s word I’m strong. This man words are not of God!! This is nothing more than a fancy speech.
Does the Bible support the idea that women can be pastors and elders? No, it does not. According to Scripture women are not to be pastors and elders. Let's take a look. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterward, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.1 This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let's take a look. 1 Timothy 2:12-14, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Timothy 3:15, "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man (1 Timothy 2:12) in the church context, "the household of God," (1 Timothy 3:15). This verse is not about political, social, or economic aspects of the secular realm. It is not about a "patriarchal society" at the time of Paul. This is the instruction to the household of God and anchors its teaching on the doctrinal truth that Adam was created first. When we look further at Paul's teachings, we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), who manages his household well, and has a good reputation (1 Timothy 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity" (1 Timothy 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer.' The Greek for "husband of one wife" is found in these verses 1 Timothy 3:2, "andra mias gunaikos"; andra = man/husband; mias = of one; gynaikos = woman/wife 1 Timothy 3:12, "andres mias gynaikos"; andres = men/husbands; mias = of one; gynaikos = woman/wife Titus 1:6, "aner mias gunaikos"; aner = man/husband; mias = of one; gynaikos = woman/wife In other words, each is saying a "man of one woman," or a "one woman man." Notice that the biblical instruction is that the elders, bishops, overseers must be men. 'Andra,' 'andres' and 'aner' all are cognates of the same word in Greek meaning man, husband. In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male2. He is the husband of one wife ('aner mias gunaikas,' 'man of one woman'), responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict," (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things," (1 Timothy 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Timothy 2:12-14). This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel. Being a Pastor or Elder is to be in Authority God is a God of order and balance. He has established order within the family (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21) and the church (1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9). Even within the Trinity, there is an order, a hierarchy. The Father sent the Son (John 6:38), and both the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26).3 Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 6:38). It is clear that God is a God of order and structure. This applies in the Christian church as well. In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 when speaking of authority. Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority. Therefore, within the church, for a woman to be a pastor or elder, she would be in authority over men in the church which contradicts what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. What about Deborah? In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel and had authority over men. This is true, but the Old Testament judge was not a New Testament elder. The contexts are different. Paul's instruction is to the New Testament church, not Old Testament judges. Also, Deborah was a judge, she wasn't a pastor or elder in a church. What About Galatians 3:28? Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors. Unfortunately, those who use this verse this way have failed to read the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise," (v. 29).4 The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are - Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way - by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female. This verse is not talking about church structure or offices therein. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." Therefore, it cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2-3 and Titus 1. But Doesn't This Teaching Belittle Women? Male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not. Women are of great value in the church and need to be used more and more according to the gifts given them. But it must be according to scripture. Does the wife's submission to the husband mean that she is less than the husband, less important, or belittled? Again, not at all. Not having a place of leadership in the church does not mean a woman is less of a person, less important to God, or inferior. All are equal before God whether it be Jew, Gentile, free, slave, male, or female. But in the church, God has set up an order the same way he set one up in the family. It is not an issue of being belittled. It is an issue of being faithful to God's word and those who are not, belittled the word of God. What About Women Who Say They are Called By God to Be Pastors? There are women pastors in the world who love their congregations and have said that they are called by God to be pastors. Of course, I cannot agree with this considering the previous analysis of the biblical position. God would not act in a manner to contradict his word. Instead, they have usurped the position of men and gone against scriptural revelation. Additionally, those who state that they are called by God because of the great job they are doing and the gifting they have received, are basing their theology upon experience and not scripture. This is, unfortunately, a common occurrence in the Christian church today where experience, desires, and wants are often placed above Scripture.
I'm not decided on the issue, but it is important to remember that Paul is writing a letter to a community that used to have a female led sect. In that context, women not being allowed to have authority over men, might simply mean that they in particular could easily have assumed that women need to be in charge, and Paul is saying that women, like all, should study quietly, be respectful, and not assume they can be leaders simply because they are women. It is much later that this letter is canonized. Paul would probably not expect it to even be circulated to other congregations. It is our responsibility to read it within the original context.
@@MortenBendiksen Paul does clearly state that what he is writing is a principal for the church, Not just some cultural issue to be dealt with. (1Tim3:14I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, 15if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth)
I saw numerous logical fallacies and inconsistencies in your "essay," too many to count. Your statements have already been debunked numerous times already. I also noticed that he literally went over these passages in thevideo, but all you did was repeat the complementar I an argument. It was all addressed in the video.
If husbands loved their wives like Christ loves the Church, they would interpret the scriptures properly. Women have no problem serving a husband that loves them like they are supposed to. Each person, male or female, is responsible for how they treat each other.
You cant get around 1 Tim 2, because the following reason given for the exhortation is the creation and speaks loud about authority and leadership being given to men. So there u have it.
Read "The handmaidens conspiracy" by Donna Howell. It addresses just about everything in scripture that has to deal with women in the church. Definitely worth the read for those who are not too prideful and not willing to educate themselves on different view points. Whatever "side" you are on, it's best to know both sides very well.
How do you get around Judges Chapters 4 & 5, which are devoted to the Judge Deborah? Deborah is described as the leader of Israel, Judge and Prophet. While English translations call her "the wife of Lappidoth", but the Hebrew actually says "woman of fire", denoting the anointing of the Holy Spirit. She might not have been married at all, as the text doesn't say. "She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the Israelites came up to her for judgment", says verse 5. She summoned the Israelite general Barak and he obliged to come to her. She commanded him, and when he gave her back-talk, she retorted that the victory would be taken away from him and given to a woman (which then occurred when Jael killed Sisera with supernatural upper body strength that is quite remarkable). Barak became quite submissive to Deborah after that, and in Chapter 5 he and Deborah sang praises to God together in the Song of Deborah. At the end of Chapter 5 we are told that Deborah went on to preside over 40 years of peace in Israel. She was, in fact, the only Judge to do so. How do you get around that?
@@darlameeks We dont get around it we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New, and in the Churches women are commanded to keep silent, nor usurp authority over the man. The entire book of Judges hangs on these fe words every man did what was right in his own eyes. Deborah being over Israel was a sign of disorder and shame on Israel's part, just because She was capable did not make it right.
@@darlameeks paul knew the book of Judges certainly. However in 1 Cor 14:34, he says his prohibition to women not speaking ie teaching and preaching in the gathered congregation is also according to the law. So clearly he didnt see Deborah's leadership as the norm. It was clearly a judgment against the men for their failure. Judges 5 shows that the men were fearful and thus God used both Deborah and Jael to bring deliverance to Israel. It says he chooses the weak to do his works. But it doesnt set a president, else in Isa 3:4, women having rule in Israel will not be seen as a judgment of the nation.
@@martin.asare33 God bless you for your response. Are you aware that the church in America is made up of 69% female and only 31% male? Why is this, do you think? In my own experience, I have observed that many women attend church alone while their husbands stay at home. I was one of those women. Many women pray and pray, with their husbands only coming to Christ after many years of prayer (my Aunt experienced this). Many young men only attend church after they have married & had children, in my experience. As for St. Paul, I very much honor him as an apostle, but he himself admitted that he was sometimes speaking from his own opinion and not from the Lord. (1 Cor. 7:25, 1 Cor. 7:40, 2 Cor: 8: 10). Be careful of Paul worship! He warned against it! (1 Cor. 1:12-13). The early church could be subject to the cult of personality, as we are now. Perhaps he responded in anger in Timothy, momentarily forgetting Deborah? Or perhaps his calling specifically as an Apostle to the Gentiles is the answer. Gentile women were perhaps not well versed in the Scriptures as a Jewish woman would be, and not ready to speak from the Scriptures? Perhaps these ignorant, gentile women spoke out of turn? Men have unfortunately responded to these passages with pride. Are men so prideful that they can't take instruction from women? By the way, my male pastor asked me to teach a mixed adult Sunday School, filled with both women and men. This is because he humbly recognized in me the gift of teaching, given by God. In order to believe as you do, you must cast aside the substantial Word of God regarding Deborah, must you not? Two whole chapters of Judges?
He fail to debunk the biblical traditional stand of the roll of women in ministry. There is not one compelling argument and I am looking with the desire to find it. "Sorry is to late, i will be brief" Give people the bible arguments that stands in favor, what he did make me think of woman a brave and hardworking but not as ministers.
(I didn't watch the video.) Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. A Judge was a pastor. Deborah was a Judge. If you want a study, I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Else I can answer questions about what a Judge was at that time period, and what Deborah did.
@@8784-l3b ok give me the link, now you sure has knowledge of the complementarian stand about the passages on 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, there is not qualifications for a judge as far as I know.
@@agustintadeo I'll paste up the essay. The point of the essay is to show that men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. There was no gender qualification to be a Judge over Israel. No New Testament scriptures are referenced. Why not????? The reason is that we know that God made a woman a Judge. This was His will. It's history. Any doctrine that goes against what God did must be a false doctrine. So two things are needed. One needs to understand what a Judge was at this time period AND that a woman, Deborah, was a Judge. The word 'Judge' in the Book of Judges does NOT translate to modern English.
@@agustintadeo Essay on Deborah, the Judge and prophetess. (Revised May 2023) Before Paul we have her story. We don't know what Paul would have said about her. We have to read about her first and then try to understand Paul (if possible). This is what the people at the beginning of Christianity had to do. They knew the story of Deborah already. Deborah is either a meaningless exception or an important precedent, in the debate of whether men and women are spiritually equal. Before beginning, it should be noted that there is no scripture stating clearly or even hinting at, that Deborah was God's second choice. There was no man that rejected the call to be Judge, requiring a woman to take that place. ************************************************************* INTRODUCTION: Before God was rejected by Israel for the rulership of men, that is, kings, there were different 'seasons' so to speak. One of those seasons was the time of the Judges. ...but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-in that they have abandoned Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you as well. -excerpt 1 Samuel 8 A Judge at this time, was VERY different from a judge in our time. The Judge was over the nation of Israel. But not as a man, as King, or as a woman, as Queen, because God was not rejected as King as yet. God ruled Israel through the Judges. Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars? -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV Major modern English translations like the NASB use the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people... [PASTOR - Origin: late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French pastour, from Latin pastor ‘shepherd’.] In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation Also: Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning, and since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel. -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verses 9 and 10 KJV -God speaking to Nathan the prophet Finally: All the Judges were men, except one. Deborah. She was married, but her husband was not a Judge. HER JUDGING AUTHORITY here: Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment. -excerpt Judges 4 Deborah judged men and had the authority to execute, as some sins in the Old Covenant, such as murder, demanded the death penalty as the punishment. There was no appeal to Deborah's (a Judge's) verdict: ... you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. If a man rejected Deborah's decision, the penalty was execution: But the person who acts insolently by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that person shall die;... She used the Law, therefore scripture, when judging and instructing: In accordance with the terms of the law about which they instruct you... She had the same authority as a Levitical priest: So you shall come to the Levitical priests or the judge... Also of note, she judged the hardest cases in the nation. “If a case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, that are cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. So you shall come to the Levitical priests or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict. Then you shall act in accordance with the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the Lord chooses; and you shall be careful to act in accordance with everything that they instruct you to do. In accordance with the terms of the law about which they instruct you, and in accordance with the verdict which they tell you, you shall act; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. But the person who acts insolently by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that person shall die; so you shall eliminate the evil from Israel. -excerpt Deuteronomy 17 ******************************** THE REASON GOD SENT HER here: ...the Lord was moved to pity... And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them. -excerpt Judges 2 The sending of a Judge meant God was showing mercy to His people. It wasn't a judgment against them. Since Deborah was a woman, this scripture is sometimes used in error to describe her, in our time: My people! Their oppressors treat them violently, And women rule over them. My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. -excerpt Isaiah 3 They are taking the prophetess Deborah and comparing her to Jezebel who murdered prophets. Has it not been reported to my master what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord, that I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord... -excerpt 1 Kings 18 When a Judge died, THEN people were led astray. But it came about, when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their obstinate ways. -excerpt Judges 2 THE AUTHORITY SHE HAD OVER THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY here: Now she sent word and summoned Barak... She gave the order for the battle to begin that Israel won. Then Deborah said to Barak, “Arise! For this is the day on which the Lord has handed Sisera over to you... Before the battle began she prophesied that a woman would kill Sisera (the enemy commander). This happened, as Jael, a woman not part of the battle, killed Sisera. She said, “I will certainly go with you; however, the fame shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” And: But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died. And behold, while Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael came out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” So he entered with her, and behold, Sisera was lying dead with the tent peg in his temple. So what were the results of this battle? And the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword before Barak; and Sisera got down from his chariot and fled on foot. But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not even one was left. Also: So God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan on that day before the sons of Israel. And the hand of the sons of Israel pressed harder and harder upon Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had eliminated Jabin the king of Canaan. -excerpts Judges 4 In Judges 5, most of the chapter is Deborah and Barak singing praises to God. The song lyrics are there. Final sentence of Judges 5: And the land was at rest for forty years. Obviously a great outcome. EXPLANATION OF GOD USING DEBORAH here: Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth... Prophets and prophetesses are anointed with the Holy Spirit as we know. The explanation of God using Deborah to judge men and being over the army is here: An anointing of the Holy Spirit is the anointing of a powerful masculine being. That anointing eclipses gender. FINAL THOUGHTS here: A woman anointed with the Holy Spirit can serve in any capacity in our time. Whatever valid title/position there is. To oppose this, is to oppose the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that was upon Deborah the prophetess and Judge. Deborah, the woman that "saved them from the hand of their enemies" by God's will.
Let's look at what the Bible says. 1 Tim. 2:12-14, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Tim. 5:17, "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching." Titus 1:5-9, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." We can see that Paul did not allow women to teach or exercise authority over a man; elders preached, and they were to be the husband of one wife. This is what it says, so shouldn't we believe it? Husband of one wife The term "husband of one wife" needs to be examined. Literally, the Greek says "a man of one woman." Does this mean that if a man is not married, then he is not qualified to be an elder? The historical context of Paul's writing was that people got married very early. Marriage was a natural and normal condition of life, and it was assumed that people were married by an early age--often in their mid to late teens. Also, polygamy was a common practice then. It is in this context that Paul is speaking, and he says that the elders are to be the husband of one wife. Why? Because Adam had one wife, Eve. That is the pattern that God set up, and that is the pattern that needs to be followed. So, what happens if an elder's wife dies? Is he suddenly disqualified from being an elder? It would not seem so. Instead, what Paul is getting at is that the elder, who is naturally assumed to be male, is to be the husband of one wife. That is, he's not to be a polygamist. But, some will say that since it is okay for an elder to be single, then the literal requirement of being a husband of one wife is not an absolute requirement. But, as is stated above, the context is dealing with the plurality of wives issue, and the natural requirement is monogamy. Furthermore, the text of Titus 1:5-9, which continues on the requirements of being an elder, also says he is to not be self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not argumentative, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, etc. If the elder isn't to be monogamous, then is he also dismissed from these requirements as well? Of course not.
Except Paul did allow women to teach men. They were encouraged to do so, by name, in virtually every letter he wrote. At most, the directives you quote were culturally specific.
Jesus didn't call his disciples as Apostles, that title was given to them by others, except in case of Paul who conferred that on himself. The societal norms in those days bypassed Mary as an Apostle but the fact remains that she was the one who brought the greatest Gospel of the times to other disciples, that of the ressurection of Christ. That literally makes her the Apostle to the Apostles. Jesus himself endorsed her choice as the right one and though he did not send her away to preach, she served the living alter till the very end, even when all the so called Apostles had fled for their life. All scriptures, all prophets, all laws find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ and may you like it or not, you will not deny what God chose, the cast away stone which the builders refused is to become the head stone of the corner.
@Reji Paul So yes, you have a verse by Luke where he tells that Jesus called them 'Apostle'. Note this is a third person reference and not a direct quote. You also accepted that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene as per the verses. Though there are other verses too. So which is true. Rest all the verses are from Paul, it is him that tries to place women as something inferior. Do you really think God discriminates on basis of sex. That's just petty. I know roles of gender has been assigned by God but i don't think he discriminates based on those. “but few things are needed-or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” - Luke 10:42. And no, one does not rebel against God by trying to understand and correct beliefs accordingly. That is why Christianity does not have hadits, By one fell swoop yoi discarded half of churches on thos planet.
@Reji Paul Jews first becoz the ill need doctor. “On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” - Matt 12-13 Did Mary eat with Jesus, maybe not, maybe she did, we do not know. But God in his infinite wisdom chose her to be the apostle to the apostles.She was with him till the very end and i have no doubt that she was rewarded for it. There is a greater word of God than Bible, it is Jesus Christ himself and unless he guides you, your study is fruitless. “This is why I speak to the crowds in parables: although they see, they don’t really see; and although they hear, they“ - Matt 13:13 It isn't that easy that you read, yoi collate and you get the keys to heaven. God sees inside you and he knows you to the last atom in your body. Whatever i say is born not out of study but the belief that God provides the answers. “ Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.“ - Luke 6:26
@Reji Paul First of all, Bible is not a Heavenly Book, it was compiled by the efforts of a pagan king when two sects of quarraling Christians came to him and to his astonishment he found that they had nothing in writing, so he funded approx 3000 elders for 5 years or so to compile the book from contemprory literature. I do however believe that it was written by divine inspiration, but it does not work the way most people percieve. It hastens virtue signallers to their doom, there's nothing in there with to protect yourself with once you are on the path and God ofcourse, knowing you does not save you. There's a whole trajectory of verses that virtue signalling Christians do not want to own up, like Luke 19:27, Luke 22:38, John 2:15, Mark 13:2, Mark 11:14, Luke 14:31, Luke 14:23 and in it lies the sieve that seperates believers from virtue signallers. Fact is Christianity was spread through sword and small tiny nations that did it became big empires. This was the Holy Spirit's work and not of the desert people who cried “Rabbi, Rabbi, me too“. “I am God, the only God there is. Besides me there are no real gods. I'm the one who armed you for this work, though you don't even know me“ - Isaiah 45:5
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. -excerpt 1 Peter 2
God created both man and woman co-heirs of the earth. Both are to rule and subdue it but not rule over each other. It is man, now that he has become a sinners, who decides to rule over women. Man who creates these traditional roles that are not God's will. It is predominant in the middle East even today. Jewish tradition forbade women to learn. They decided the roles of men and women and if a woman was to learn anything she can "ask her husband". Jesus says "No". This is why we have the story of Mary and Martha. Jesus and the rest of the men show up to the house and Martha follows tradition but Mary sits at the feet of Jesus with the men acting as if she were a man (gasp). It's ok if you want to serve others out of love but forget tradition. Women are equal to men. You can't teach if you don't learn. Why do you think they wanted to keep slaves ignorant? Why was there a "dark ages"? It's about control. The disgusting thing is when they pretend "it's for your own good".
A prerequisite of progressing in the Church of England is to have extremely liberal views of biblical teaching. The Church of England FOLLOWS THE WORLD when it should be leading it. The Church should be LIGHT, but the C of E prefers to follow secular darkness.
Your understanding of extremely liberal is highly questionable, arguably ridiculous. I do not think that there is much evidence for saying that the two present archbishops hold extremely liberal views of biblical teaching. Have you met many or any theologians who claim that they hold extremely liberal views? There are theologians who regard liberals as dinosaurs.
"The best cure for christianity is reading the bible" , (Mark Twain) "The bible has driven reason from the minds of millions,It has made credulity the greatest of virtues,and investigation the greatest of crimes,The instant we admit that a book is too sacred to be doubted or even reasoned about.we are mental serfs," How long will mankind worship a book?How long will it grovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the barbaric past" , (Robert Ingersoll) Most of what discredits christianity comes from within christianity,You don't have to go outside of religion to tear it apart." (Dan Barker) The Bible writers >"Some of them,as it were in a drunken state producing self induced visions, remodel their gospel from its first written form,and reform it so that they may be able to refute the objections brought against it". ( Roman philosopher Celsus ) 1 timothy 2:11-12. A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. -------------------------- Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he overpowers her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives. ---------------------------- leviticus 21:9. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 cor 2: 14
Not every eyewitness of the Resurrected Jesus is an apostle. If that was the case, then the 500 which paul mentions as being eyewitness were also apostles. So it's wrong to say mary is an apostle the apostles. It demands commissioning , and spiritual gifts to be an apostle.
Paul mentioned Junia, a woman, as an Apostle. Why not Mary? Also note that the male Apostles were not without conflict. Paul rebuked Peter, who was the rock upon which the Church is built. Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom by Christ Himself, while Paul never actually walked with Jesus. Why is Paul given so much play over Peter? How does Paul have so much cheek as to rebuke Peter, the first among Apostles?
@@darlameeks paul never said Junia was an apostle, his statement is Junia is highly regarded among the apostles. This means Junia was a person of high reputation by the apostles. It doesnt simply he was an apostle. Besides, Many scholars have concluded Junia was a male and not a female so I wouldnt even make a case with that. Again there is nothing like a super apostle, they all were on the same footing. Peter was acting contrary to the gospel he preached and needed to be corrected. All apostles have the same rank in the church and Peter was merely a leader of the group not to say he was like a super apostle with special honor vs the others. Pail said he was no way inferior to Peter himself as an apostle and the original 12 ( the super apostles)1 Cor 9:1-6, 2 Cor 11:5, 12:12. Your tendency to slight paul as an apostle is the same thing that he faced in his days, a thing he defended against. So ask yourself on whose side are u on? Again apostles were not perfect men in their conduct, but in their writings they were inspired so they are the very infallible and inerrant word of God .enough said!
I definitely think he's pulling at strings here regarding the no male or female sentence. If we are to take it literally then yes I can see the no male or female, as that's what the Greek says, however for sentence structure and understanding the translation it would still be familiar or similar to say that neither male nor female, As it would still fit in with the idiom. Plus most translations write like this, signifying that it's mostly pulling at straws and is pretty much saying the same thing in two different ways. But I'm only in the first third of the video, so I might add or change this comment after listening to the last part. Plus his way of connecting it back to Genesis feels a bit odd. Again, semantics or pulling at strings. Another example he uses is how some of the women wouldn't be understand what was going on during the service and then so they would be talking among themselves, to me this doesn't seem fitting, as he's applying a more modern day cultural aspect of women who wouldn't have completely understood due to language differences, to a time when the women in the church would have likely spoken the same language that their husbands would have spoken in that time.
Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, writing perhaps just prior to Chrysostom’s comments on Rom 16:7, includes a reference to Iounian in his Index of Disciples: “Junias(masculine), of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria. But this does not matter that much as N.T Write tries to hide as a true egalitarian what Paul really says in his references, and that is bad, really bad.
@@tonyoliver2750 no, I just say that Tom Wright hides these information, while emphasising on his goal and opinion. He avoids explaining what Paul says about the women in the church. The verses alone define women participation leaving us no room to say what Tom says. On the other hand, I do tend to accept Junia as a woman apostle. Why not? Who says that an apostle, which means missionary can not be but men? But what certainly is a must for us, is not only to catch the verses clear meanings (Tom doesn't) but understand the freedom which filled the real first church manners, away from titles, which the Anglicans by the way have abilished.
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης Well if you think Epiphanius was wrong about the gender of Prisca and you also think Junia was a woman, what was the point of your reference to Epiphanius in the first place? And what do you mean when you say Anglicans have abolished titles?
@@tonyoliver2750 I m writting about the ways that the theme is presented by this man. Excellent speaker, but trying to disprove the normal ways to understand the woman in church and Paul's writtings. While he presents every possible clue, this is done only when this suits his presentation. He really presented a different Paul, he has hidden the true meaning of Paul's speakings on women in the church, and caught the chance to refer to Junia, which does not necessarily affect Paul teachings, which is also not quite certain of the gender, and avoids referring to the rest. Agreeing or not whether Junia is a female, or Epiphanius was right, is not the point. The point is clear through Paul's teaching and I feel disturbed cause the speaker speaks not the truth about it.
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης I see, but I really do not agree with you. Neither does NT Wright who is an honest man and a great New Testement scholar. But just because we disagree with each other does not mean that either NT Wright or I are lying.
Job 34:3 For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat. Some things in here that make you go hmm. Note time mark from around 20:00-38:12 I largely disagree with Wrights exhortation. I especially disagree, as he implies, that Mary sought the position of a Rabbi, especially since it was Jesus himself who said call no man Rabbi;. Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. I'm thinking maybe this guy needs to go and sit at Jesus' feet. But wait there's more...
This is the story of Mary of Bethany told in all four gospels. She sat at the feet of Jesus and listened to His stories (Luke 10:39); students studying to be disciples did this as well. The disciples sat next to Him not on the floor.
@@cbdw7143 true, this is also Mary who when Jesus was on his way to raise Lazarus from the dead...sat in the house, it was Martha that went to greet him. We must not assume that the word of God is only for teachers, it is actually much more for those who would (learn) the purposes of God. The word of God is for everyone. Blessings!
By the way, we should also recognize that Jesus was not bound by the traditions of man. They called him Rabbi, when he was actually the Creator manifested in the flesh to reveal the love of God, and he loves men and women equally. But he has also designated their respective individual rolls for his own purposes.
This is quite an old video but i listened through it nonetheless. Couldn't help perusing through the comments in this section and i felt to leave mine here too. Foremost whatever this speaker is trying to say cannot at all be qualified with scripture, i guess the fact that he is a scholar and have read and researched widely makes him want to force his scholastic interpretation of biblical truths on the laity, that is why many seem to agree with him but thankfully some, even me, strongly disapprove with his statements. Trying to counter his narrative with scripture is work in futility for we would expect these kind of people to always find an interpretation of the said verse, They are intelligent and articulate hence you might never convince them, they are so far into the rabbit hole, of personal convictions outside the right light of the truth, that it takes only God to turn them around. So what's my point?: My personal Mantra in relation to scripture is "THE WORD MUST BE RECEIVED AS IS. INTERPRETATION IS NO LONGER REQUIRED" as it is clear in the following scripture (REV.22:18-19, JOHN 1:14, DEUT.29:29, HEB. 1:1-3, 1PETER 1:19-21) To those who support these unbiblical views here is what i need you to understand. The church of England was among the first 'Evangelical" denomination to ordain gay bishops, approving what scripture expressly say is an abomination before the LORD of all the earth. So my friends do not wonder what background of belief and scriptural adherence he is from, he cant help but twist and distort scripture to fit his reason and skewed world view and that of his immediate institution. You can listen to what he says on the issue of gay marriage here=> th-cam.com/video/YpQHGPGejKs/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SteveYamaguchi I apologize if my statements seem intolerant, but what needs must be said and done and i support any Christian who firmly rebukes such runaway apostasy even as the scripture commands(GALATIAN 1:6-9). Shalom
So scripturally educational and chock full of history, common sense, and GRACE!! Love his personality and intelligence.
Is it possible you love is that he’s telling you what you want to hear? If he spoke how he spoke and said woman aren’t called to leadership in church, do you think you would have commented anything positive toward him?
It’s unfortunate that he can’t interpret this scripture, but we’ll have to leave him in his ignorance.
“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”
Isaiah 3:12 KJV
@Reji Paul did you even watch the video complainer!
@@jayson3843 another patriarchal type who can’t see his nose for his ego
I'm grateful for this clarification of the context from which much of the scriptures have been written!
Indeed, but does not quite speak about the women as the scriptures. He is driving the idea towards to what he wants to be the truth. I have quite a few points which he has to review. He omitted the opposite side of view on certain references. Trying to be fair and equal on sexes makes all, think of sexes as two of the same kind instead of understanding things as they are, and the affirmation of this goal, effects our free and unbiased minds.
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης Read "The handmaidens conspiracy" by Donna Howell. It addresses just about everything in scripture that has to deal with women in the church. Definitely worth the read for those who are not too prideful and not willing to educate themselves on different view points. Whatever "side" you are on, it's best to know both sides very well.
@@spencers6263 I will, and I will keep reading all which is possible to be writing something worthy of reading, Nevertheless, Paul's writing is not well approched by this in other respects great scholar.
It is obvious to be avoiding the text and to be giving an answer on a part of it, as if he as never read it.
You know that we people of litterature and gnosis, are not trustworthy just because we know much. And the sad fact is that people listen and follow. Well both are to blame, the listeners and the speakers and regarding this speach, yes it is not clean.
I think we all can understand to what I m refering to, in respect of the text. It's a no way out when it comes to explaining the whole text, and Tom Wright should feel exposed. But since he is happy with the audience supporting him, seems not to care about the rest who do not, not because we don't like him, but because we know the scriptures.
I'm subscribing right now. I asked God for help to know Christianity is the place I belong to, and this HELPS inmensely
Such a delight to listen to. I shall be following his other expositions.
Thank you for explaining the meaning of how life was lived in those times so that we can understand our importance in the past, present & future.
Have a God Bless day.
I wish I could be this guy for 5 mins for my exam...
😂 you'd probably fail. THEOLOGY is so arbitrarily examined!
@@veritasquidestveritas theology is NOT an arbitrary subject, neither it is philosophy.
Very good synopsis of these passages and the context that goes with them.
He is such a good communicator!
Amen! Much of what N.T. Wright speaks about was known in the scholarly community for many centuries and even among mainstream Christianity. He's just a good teacher and P.R. professional in some ways regarding it!
I recommend Mike Wingers series about Women in Ministry for those interested in hearing more. He did months of research and has a playlist hours long going through the Bible and both complementation and egalitarian arguments.
I will go and listen to Mr. Wingers, because what I have experienced with N.T. Wright and Mike Heiser, two schoolars is that they try to rush the topic of women in leadership and instead or face the key passages with time and honesty they waste time going to the edges of the pie, Dr. Carmen Joy Imes made a good poing with Genesis 1-3 and the place of women in Gods Creation before and after the falling, and how man and woman both were call to organize, profit and taking care of earth and living things but non one has face 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians and Paul command in Gods name to Women in ALL churches to learn in silet and to not be on authority over men. But thank you for the advice to listen to Wingers.
It was very good! But I did notice that Mike doesn't reference much of biblical history.
@@fearfullywoven What do you mean by Biblical history? Extra Biblical sources or would you have liked to hear more on the Old Testament?
@@lifeasgracefaith8712 he doesn't bring in much historical context. He stays on the text but doesn't account for the social-historical context. For example, NT Wright says that the those who carried the letters were in charge of reading and explaining the letters (he's a credible source), but Mike strictly sticks to the text and rejects that idea bc the scriptures don't allude to the possibility of the carrier being in charge of reading and explaining the letter. Yet, Wright is a theologian AND church historian. I hope all of that made sense lol ♥️
@@fearfullywoven Yeah fair enough. I was actually wondering about that and trying to remember if he addressed that. Thank you for sharing. Are there other sources you'd recommend regarding the reading and teaching of the letters?
I would live to meet this man. My one professor got his doctorate under N. T. Wright. I would live to do likewise, but by the time I can start working on my thesis, he will probably be retiring.
Your English is too poor to write a youtube comment correctly, let alone a thesis.
Fuck off. You must be so perfect to never make a typing mistake on a phone keyboard. Fucking bastard keep your thoughts to yourself. My GPA is 3.8
@@andrewmartin6445 What the hell is wrong with you?
Wonderful exposition and beautiful insights on difficult texts on women's role in church.
He is so enjoyable to listen to.
Nope
Amen
Having been a guest at an Orthodox Jewish Sabbath service in the 1980s I can confirm the tendency for the women, seated in the gallery upstairs, to become louder and louder as the service progressed. Every so often, the Rabbi would call for quiet. Afterwards I asked my fiancee, who was seated with the women, what all the chatter was about and she told me it was just general gossip, who was wearing a nice suit etc. etc. I've long thought, as a result of that experience, that Paul was referring to just such a situation in 1 Corinthians 14:34 .
Christian women keep quiet and attentive.
These women must have the Holy Spirit, or knowledge of the Word of God. This is evidence that Paul was speaking of Gentile women who were not educated in God's Word. He was, after all, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Perhaps he was saying, "I don't want YOUR women to teach." They were unlearned and unqualified.
@@rosewhite--- If a Christian woman, versed in the Scriptures, keeps silent...then she is unfaithful to the One who has taught her.
Such a learned man. Glad he took the time to do this. We can all learn from intelligent discourse like this!
Indeed, but does not quite speak about the women as the scriptures. He is driving the idea towards to what he wants to be the truth. I have quite a few points which he has to review. He omitted the opposite side of view on certain references. Trying to be fair and equal on sexes makes all, think of sexes as two of the same kind instead of understanding things as they are, and the affirmation of the goal, effects our free and unbiased minds.
Full of misinterpretations !! What kind of learning is that ?
Thank you so much, bishop, for this insightful commentary.
Throughout the world women are suppressed. Since it is so endemic to humanity, perhaps it really is part of the Genesis 3 curse. Many men get confused and think that women were created as their servants as part of the plan of God, rather than a result of the curse of sin.
Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil and to break the curse. When we do "on earth as it is in heaven" should we not struggle against the curse on women as well as that on men/ground?
@@christianfrommuslim
Were Adam and Eve cursed due to the fall?
First what, SPECIFICALLY, was cursed is what is important to know.
The serpent was cursed.
The 'ground' was cursed.
__________________________________________
Then the Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all the livestock,...
-excerpt Genesis 3
__________________________________________
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying,
‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;...
-excerpt Genesis 3
_________________________________________
The curse on the ground was prophesied to be lifted
by Lamech.
Now Lamech lived 182 years, and fathered a son. And he named him Noah, saying, “This one will give us comfort from our work and from the hard labor of our hands caused by the ground which the Lord has cursed.”
-excerpt Genesis 5
Noah name meaning = rest
Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took some of every kind of clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
-excerpt Genesis 8
Was Adam cursed? NO
Was Eve cursed? NO
_______________________________
To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you shall deliver children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
So women now experience great pain in childbirth,
yet there are more people on earth now than have ever
been in the earth's history.
In the natural view of things, the strong dominate the
weak. Strong animals over the weaker. Strong countries
over the weaker. The physically stronger gender over the
weaker gender. There is a natural tendency for men to
want/need to rule over women, even though both genders
are equal before God.
Regardless, neither men nor women are cursed.
Genesis 5, which comes after the fall of mankind (in
Genesis 3) says this below:
This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created.
In Genesis 1 below we read this:
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Obviously, the earth has more people than ever in its history.
Obviously, the earth is subdued. Trees cut. Rivers dammed.
Gold and oil extracted, etc.
__________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
Natural tendencies changed regarding men and
women after the fall. Natural physical changes also.
Women were not cursed.
Men were not cursed.
Men and women are still blessed.
It's annoying how people use one section of scripture to justify some type of prohibition and don't use the context of the whole New Testament and New Covenant.
Agreed - clearly women did speak in church, including praying and prophesying (a greater spiritual gift and used for edification of the church). Likewise, many drop cherry-picked English verses as self-evident without going to the original language. But scripture cannot be contrary to scripture. It must have internal consistency.
@Reji Paul LOL - you've got some errors in your citations. So how about this from 1 Corinthians 14: "26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up."
@@edbenjamin5136 ok I read the original so tell me how it differs in English. New perspective of Paul. N.T. Wrong
@@gordonreed2736 I have no idea what you read so I cannot respond to anything specific. However, I can say that Paul's teaching is about ORDER in worship - it is an expectation that all men and women are silent and listen/learn in quietude, without anger, when someone else is speaking. It was a common practice for believers to speak and offer hymns of praise etc, but there was a problem with the church with disorder and with people turning service in orgies like the pagan cults, which Paul had to correct. That Paul gave instructions on women praying and prophesying completely undermines the claim women must never speak. Scripture cannot be contrary to scripture. Prophesying is a spiritual gift meant to edify (teach) and encourage fellow believers (see 1 Corinthians 12 - adelphoi is inclusive of women). And we see that Philip the evangelist had several daughters who were prophetesses, case in point (Acts 21:9).
@@edbenjamin5136 agree for the most part. But it seems in the instructional part of the meeting men only were to teach. 1 and II Tim. give instructions for elders...males. We can also check the synagogue rules of the day of which order was borrowed by Paul. Great response Ed. 👌
Notice how the complementarians in the comment section are either literally condemning N.T. Weight to hell (as if they had the right to do that), mocking him, stating that he's wrong without any rebuttal, or literally repeating the exact same argument over and over again as if Wright didnt address it in the video? That's complementarianism for you.
There are something's worth repeating. If someone is making a argument based on scripture, they should have scripture to back up what their saying. No one has been able to point to any scripture that calls those women (apostles) who first told the men (disciples) about Jesus rising from the dead. To push this idea without any biblical support is wrong. If you have a scripture that validates what N.T. Wright is saying please share it. Otherwise one would have to ask why are you trying to support an idea that you can't back up with scripture?
@@qde2130 Romans 16
Like 10
John 20 vs11-17 (Mary-Magdalene) Matthew 28 vs 9-10 (the other Mary and Salome) and Mark 16 vs 1 @@qde2130
@qde2130, So you’re pitching a fit about women being in certain roles in ministry, yet you don’t even understand what you’re talking about.
Typical.
Do you know what “apostle” means?
It means, “one who is sent out”.
Do you know the account of the resurrection?
The women went to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body. When they arrived, the stone was rolled away. Then an Angel told the women, “go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
God chose the women, (whose testimony meant nothing to men), to have the privilege of being the first of His followers to witness His resurrection, and then the women were sent out to tell the other disciples the good news about Jesus’ resurrection. (A disciple is simply a follower who receives instruction and spreads the teachings of another).
That means, the women were the first apostles and disciples of the resurrection of Christ.
So there you have it, the women at the tomb absolutely were apostles and disciples.
If you still can’t accept it, then I don’t know what to tell you, other than, “there’s none so blind as those who will not see”.
Love it. 😍😍 What a gentle, fair, Biblically grounded and respectful man.
Watch video about John MacArthur rebuking N. T. Wright. It will blow you away. Let me know what you think please.
Are you implying that God is not respectful because he told women to silence themselves in church? Smh very dangerous
@@Qui_Gon_Jinn_76 I disagree with MacArthur he is Calvinist so he’s not committed to proper exegesis but simply seeing his Calvinism in the text.
@Chilling I disagree with Calvinism however John MacArthur is a true man of God, period.
@@ItsAllLuv quiet now
23:30 I am from Malaysia, the long houses are normally found in East Malaysia (not West Malaysia), but he is (W)right, the whole family sleeps together in long houses in some cultures of Malaysia.
Did anyone catch the works he suggested studying on 1 Corinthians?
11:05 But in KJV and NASB - these translations do in fact say "neither" and does not say "no" male or female. Please tell us what the original text said and how these Bible translations got it wrong.
Also it has 'no male and female'. The word and in greek is 'kai'.
KJV is infamously inconsistent and incorrect about scripture translations. I would advise reading ISV at the very least. God bless.
This is outstanding!
I love it when the keyboard Christians get so fired up... exactly what Christ taught. Please, all of you, leave links and direct us to your many theology books and publications. I’d love to read all of your many highly respected works. 😁
Show some respect.
Would I have permission to repost clips of this video to lead people to watch the full video on social media?
Brilliant!
I have been studying this passage, and similar passages/verses, for a while now and am currently writing a paper about it in order for my Theology and Religious Studies professors to review my claims and evidence surrounding a more accurate way of interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Bishop Wright and his work on this subject have been immensely helpful in this pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and I feel like viewing those verses, as well as the entire letter, in that historical and nuanced context makes those verses much more understandable. I wish more people knew about this so that the vitriol and push-back against female pastors could one day become obsolete, and so we could practice our faith more correctly according to scripture within ministries especially. I'm saddened to see far too often those who are against female pastors use 1 Timothy 2:12 to justify their arguments when they are in fact completely ignoring the context behind it. Hopefully, we will come to better understand this verse as a whole universal Christian community, but I am grateful for the efforts that have already been made. I love God, His Word, and His universal family, and I pray for the day we as His children become more harmonious alongside each other. God Bless.
Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman
can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God.
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin.
A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
Read time: 12 minutes, free, postable
__________________________________________________
Jesus approved of a woman to be a Judge over Israel in the Old Covenant,
with the authority to judge homicide cases. To believe that Jesus would
strongly disapprove of a woman being an elder in the New Covenant,
makes no sense whatsoever. This is all Paul.
Paul gave himself the title of 'father', since he couldn't meet the qualifications
of elder that he himself put forward.
For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers...
-excerpt 1 Corinthians 4 KJV
-words of Paul
If one supports the qualifications of elder, as put forward by Paul, one
MUST also accept that the title/position of 'father' is valid and proper in
Christianity. Since this is also one of Paul's teachings.
But the title of 'father' was expressly forbidden by Jesus.
And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
-excerpt Matthew 23
-words of Jesus
@@8784-l3b Great comment and work. I appreciate you commenting this.
@@peachy_talisman
(N.N. personal note)
Thanks. I've looked at several of Paul's teachings. He doesn't
come out well. He contradicts himself, etc.
So the essay can be pasted up on Deborah should you
wish a study. Also, my look at some of what Paul wrote.
No reply needed, if you're busy.
Suddenly today it occurred to me that the general tone of comments on this talk , but more on others re same topic-- hv a "virtue signalling
" about them-- as tho the writer is trying to sound as tho he/she will brook no argument-- this is what God says& that's it. I will never believe God thinks half the population (women) are inferior.✝️🇭🇲✝️
This guy is growing on me. Though I do have to wonder just when N.T. Wright found Jesus and women became human.
What did Lord Jesus forbid: woman not to distub the service? Highly doubtful?
I see so many men say women shouldn’t preach and that it’s in the Bible. But when you know you where called by God have a strong relationship with God. When God won’t leave you alone about preaching his word. You have no choice but to do so. It’s not a choice it’s a calling. This thought of women not being able to preach is on the same lines of Men just wanting to feel like they have power. I wanna see you win that war against God on who He can call and can’t. Pure ignorance is what you call it. Jesus had women with him all the time helping in the ministry and it wasn’t for cooking and cleaning.
As touching the subject of Women Preachers, this has been a lie told in the land for many years, that God has called and sent Women to Preach! There's hundreds on hundreds of so-called women preachers, and all of them have the same lying mouth, that God sent them to preach. God never called or sent Women to Preach!
You may wonder why I say that? Because there's no bible that says he did! Understand this, and get this well, there's no place in the bible where women did any preaching! Nowhere! The bible condemns women trying to preach and having authority over the man.
Now let us go to the Bible, and whatever the bible says, that's what we're going to take. Reader anytime you read the truth in the bible and still don't believe it, then you are a plain hypocrite! Women and weak men try to justify themselves in the scriptures, but all have failed. One scripture they use is Numbers 22:27 - 28, "And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, SHE fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, what have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?" Out of ignorance, and the scripture says be not ignorant, they emphasize the fact that it was a female animal. Just because it spoke to Balaam they say that gives them the right to preach, because the women preachers compare themselves to a dumb ass or (donkey).
Get this women preachers, you've over looked what kind of voice came out of the dumb ass. Notice II Peter 2:15 - 16, "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Boser, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity; the DUMB ASS SPEAKING WITH MAN'S VOICE forbad the madness of the prophet." As you can see the dumb ass spoke with man's voice, so you can't go to Numbers to justify yourself women preachers.
The so-called women preachers also speak of Deborah because she judged Israel. That's true but the bible didn't say she preached! Deborah was a prophetess and the fools and slow of heart try to put that in with Joel 2:28, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pur out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions." Not knowing the scriptures nor the Power of God, they say prophesying is preaching. Prophesying is NOT preaching, but it's the foretelling of an event that is going to come. It's given to women to prophesy, but not to preach! St. Mark 16:9 - 10, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appreared first to May Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept." The false churches and Devil built organizations love to tell a lie on this scripture by saying Mary preached the first message. You told a lie and everyone that believes that, believes a lie, because the bible didn't say she preached the first anything! You can always get a heathen to lie on God and his word!
Another scripture they always lie on Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." From this scripture, the lie they tell is God will use women just like he'll use a man. The bible never made no such statement, so that's another lie. Galatians 3:28 is showing that God has no respect of persons regarding salvation. The scripture say "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in EVERY NATION he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 10:34 - 35, It says again, "For ye are ALL THE CHILDREN of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26. Galatians 3:28 didn't have a thing to do with letting a woman preach The Gospel of Jesus Christ. When you're blind and deceived of the Devil, you'll believe every lie and damnable doctrine that comes along. Philippians 4:3, "And I entreat thee also true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the Book of Life." When the Apostle Paul said, "Help those women which laboured with me in the gospel", right then, that old carnal mind will say he had women helping him preach, and of course that's not the truth. You didn't read about no woman helping Paul preach anything at any time.
The Apostle Paul declared, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you then that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1: 8 - 9. The Apostles forbid us to bring another Gospel that differs from what they preach. If they didn't allow women to preach then, nobody is justified in having them now! Notice Ecclesiastes 7:27 - 28, "Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: ONE MAN AMONG A THOUSAND HAVE I FOUND; but a WOMAN among all those have I NOT FOUND." King Solomon didn't find none in his day! Isaiah 3:12, " As for my people, children are their oppressors, and WOMEN RULE OVER THEM. O my people, they which LEAD THEE CAUSE THEE TO ERR, AND DESTROY THE WAY OF THY PATHS."
Reader, do you see what Isaiah is saying? He spoke plain here, that if a woman leads you she will cause you to err, and you'll be destroyed! Despite what the Bible says, you still have foolish, hell bound, weak, ungodly men ordaining women for Bishops, Elders, Pastors and Deaconess. You have women standing head of churches, leading men and women to Hell fire and destruction. Isaiah 9:16 - 17, "For the LEADERS, of this people cause them to ERR, and they that are LED of them are DESTROYED. Therefore, the LORD SHALL HAVE NO JOY IN THEIR YOUNG MEN neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: For everyone is an HYPOCRITE and are EVIL DOER, and every mouth speaketh FOLLY. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." Everyone that sits under women preachers are hypocrites and evil-doers according to what the word of God says!
Some are fool enough to call themselves BISHOP! How wicked, and blinded by the hands of the Devil. The Bible says in I Timothy 3:1 - 2, "This is a true saying, (This lets us know, any other saying apart from this true saying is a lie!). If a MAN desire the office of a Bishop, HE (Not She) desireth a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one wife, (It didn't say the wife of one husband!) vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach." Listen to what Paul said, "Let your women keep SILENCE IN THE CHURCHES: For it is NOT PERMITTED unto them to SPEAK; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, LET THEM ASK THEIR HUSBANDS AT HOME: For it is a SHAME FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH." I Corinthians 14: 34 - 35.
You find so-called women preachers going contrary to the bible, and having speaking appointments. Even though the bible says for them to be silent in the churches, and if they want to know anything ask their husbands at home, they willingly ignore The Bible and still insist on standing before the church and tell their husbands and everyone else what to do. You've got to be a hypocrite to ignore the Bible! I Timothy 2: 11 - 14, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. for Adam was first formed, then Eve. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." As you can plainly see, the scriptures are against women preachers. The bible only allows the aged women to teach the younger women according to Titus 2: 3 - 4 - 5, "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (Now the bible is going to outline what the woman is to teach, and she's not to go no further.), that they may teach the YOUNG WOMEN to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be descreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. When women follow that, then they are in keeping with what the Word of God says. "Let all things be done decently and in order." I Corinthians 14:40.
In my conclusion Brothers and Sisters, you don't have Women Apostles, or Women Bishops or Elders or Pastors or Evangelists or Deaconesses in the Bible! It's of the Devil and out of the Pit of Hell! All churches that have women preachers or believe in Women Preachers, you don't believe the bible and your worship is in VAIN. My advice to you reader is come out of every church that have women preachers, and walk in the truth.
Revelations 2:20, "Notwithstanding I have a few things AGAINST THEE, Because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which called herself a prophetess, to TEACH and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed with idols."
I'm willing to answer all criticism and let the world know by the ETERNAL LIVING WORD OF GOD, that these sayings are FAITHFUL AND TRUE.
@@houseofyahweh3785 this man has knowledge of the word, God bless you
@@diegoad197 no he don’t he’s forming his own doctrine. He’s a liar period.
@@houseofyahweh3785 oh I see what happend, it sounded as If I was agreeing with the man on the video. sorry brother I was talking about you when I said this man.
God bless.
@@diegoad197 oh okay 👍
Are we going with the scriptures ,words that are spoken by God through the profits or by man ?
Why not include 1corinthian 14:37 ?
Thank you for your clear explanation about women's service in the Church.
Tom is good at helping us get into the minds of the readers to which the apostles write. We read too often as though we were the ones written to; while what we have is the scriptures in their context to seek to understand what they meant to their readers then. BTW, its 'sexes' not 'genders'.
I have just finished reading Mary and Early Christian Women: Hidden Leadership. The fundamental message that God allows women to be religious leaders who preach and give direction to men is true and deeply needed now in the Catholic/Christian faith. I wrote this review from the idea of writing a letter to the author. The best part of this book comes when the author’s (Ally Kateusz) hard work and courage reveal the long “hidden” stories of Christianity’s early female apostles (Romans 16:7) and deacons (Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11). However, I would warn the author (and the readers) to have more faith in the actual Bible and to be more careful to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” (Matthew 13:24-32 and Luke 3:17) in terms of the extra-biblical sources.
In my opinion, she does prove that the Catholic Church’s current conventional narrative building on the idea that women were somehow never authoritative leaders and were not picked for official leadership and preaching in the early Pauline church is false. She proves this in the chapter on women preachers and baptizers.
To be fair there are some excellent novels and histories (2nd century) based on earlier oral traditions that were written down by early Christians. Unfortunately, later church authorities downgraded women's leadership and these true stories that were handed down from generation to generation were censored or destroyed. Kateusz tries to undo that damage. One of the gems of this book comes when Kateusz proves that honoring Mary as the mother of God (Theotokos) was universal among Christians before the Council of Ephesus.
However the language and imagery used for Sacramental ministry in the ancient biographies of women apostles was somewhat different and it's hard to decisively judge if there is enough narrative evidence that the women apostles Nino, Thecla, and Irene ever conferred the sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8: 14-17 and Acts 19:1-7) or Order (Acts 6:-1-7, Acts 13: 1-3)
Let the reader be warned! There is a lot of “chaff” in this book where the author completely breaks with the actual Bible and the Catholic faith.
Here is the case in point, Kateusz claims that Mary offers herself along with Christ at the Last Supper. Obviously, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could not have forgotten that. If what Kateusz puts forward is true, then all she has done is call the reliability of the canonical Gospels into doubt. So, at that point she is basically adding two or subtracting from “public revelation” which is definitely a big problem incompatible with the Catholic religion. Second, she wants to throw 1 Timothy out of the Bible because she claims that it can't be reconciled with her thesis. The third instance of chaff in her book comes when she unfortunately sites doctrinally unreliable texts like the Acts of Phillip alongside good doctrinally sound texts like the Life of Thecla.
Here is some of the good “wheat” that is on display in Kateusz’s book. Kateusz argues persuasively that the Six Books written down in the 2nd century are based on older Apostolic oral traditions about Mary the Mother of God. The Six Books were read in Christian churches and are probably the most reliable extra biblical sources that the author analyzes. She looks for common events in Mary's life and ministry that are present in this source and the Dormition narratives of Mary’s death, as well as The Life of the Virgin associated with Maximus the Confessor, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of Bartholomew.
The chapter on women preachers and baptizers proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the women deacons from Roman 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:11 were commissioned to preach, baptize, and oversee new Church communities in mission territory. This part of her thesis is both revolutionary and believable.
Here are some other highlights
• The book confirms what Hans Urs Von Balthasar theorized about Mary being the greatest theologian. Dr. Kateusz shows that early Christian oral tradition describes Mary sending out a group of (male and female) missionaries from Jerusalem, supervising their preaching, and giving them further instruction.
• Many early Christians believed that Mary's religious leadership was fully equivalent to the male apostle’s “high priesthood”. This is demonstrated by how the Protoevangelium of James has Mary twice entering the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple and by Romans 16:7. The Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James is always going to be a good witness to the Marian beliefs of Christians that lived in the first centuries however there are serious doubts about its historical reliability.
• Early traditions have Mary offering her prayers along with liturgical incense in an action that was later restricted to Ministerial Priests.
• The Life of the Virgin is part “wheat” and part “chaff”. It has some value in bringing out Mary's leadership in the early community. However, the author’s contention that Mary offered herself as priest and victim along with Christ at the Last Supper borders on blasphemy. Once again this isn't about being for or against patriarchal Catholicism this is just about being consistent in Catholicism’s understanding of the canonical Gospels. You simply cannot add Mary co- presiding at the Last Supper and still cite the canonical Bible as an infallible witness to Jesus’s life and ministry.
• Kateusz relies on early Christian catechisms like the (Didascalia Apostolorum) and written collections of oral tradition to conclude that it was common in the early church to have two presiders at the Eucharist one male and one female (father and mother). She thinks that this demonstrates that women were ministerial priests. However, the lack of information from a first-hand written account makes it very difficult to tell whether or not the female minister is a Deacon or a Priest. Remember other than consecrating the Eucharist deacons (in the 1st century) basically could do everything presbyters did in the early Church. That is why St. John Chrysostom expressed confusion about whether he was in fact reading about the deacons (and not presbyters) in Acts chapter 6. They seemed to him to be demonstrating the managerial, pastoral, and other non-sacramental responsibilities that were only given to presbyters in St. John Chrysostom’s time.
One of the highlights of this book is learning how early Christian writing and art proves how Jesus and Mary are inseparable. It proves that doctrinally orthodox Christians venerated and prayed to Mary in the 2nd and 3rd centuries without any doctrinal guidance from the Church. Another joy is learning about how central Mary’s leadership was in the founding of Christianity.
Thanks for sharing. Will put this on my list of resources to read and also to share that & NT Wrights’ TH-cam videos on women in positions of authority.
@@michaelbrickley2443
Please go watch Mike Winger wemon in ministry he deals with both sides and gives a fair evaluation it is a 7 part series
@@collectibles4u he is a Calvary Chapel guy and by and large many are young earth creationists. I respect his teaching but not on that subject
@@collectibles4u mike winger seems a bit stuck up and has been wrong about things in the past!
@@nicksanders9148
Of course he's been wrong he's a fallible human. But his evidence on this subject is spot on. Now the claim of stuck up is just adhomnium and is a personal opinion. Trust me I have teachers I don't agree with everything they teach but the old saying goes eat the meat throw out the bones. But could I ask a favor what points do you feel him to be in error on.
1 Cor 14: 34-36 -- 28:00
1 Cor 11: 3-10 -- 31:35
1 Tim 2 -- 44:24
Read Roman 16. In this message you see Paul giving the letter to female deacon church owner Phoebe. God calls who he wants. Men of God or not if God can say and do things they find right even if God wouldn’t. Who Jesus showed himself first when he rise from the dead? Mary Magdalene and her sister (NT) and Jesus said to her “ Go and tell my disciple that I live”!!!!!! A message of preaching the good news of the Gospel to women first. Just like the Samaritan women by the well. She was the first preacher in that town as sent my Jesus himself!!!!!! I follow Jesus Christ not peter, matthew, Paul, Moses, David...men, flesh, weak and men whom each failed Jesus while serving Him so capable if making mistakes. But yes still children if God just like you and me.
@@evangelistnicolegarcia517 Even if you'd like to argue your point, I would suggest not pitting Jesus's teachings against those of the writers of the NT. The NT is completely inspired by God. There's a lot of good research out there to help you make your argument.
Explanation
The mental gymnastics this man is going through here to redefine what the Word says is amazing....
Though I have heard of NT Wright, I haven't ever actually heard any of his lectures or read any of his books. I found him quite enjoyable to listen to, so will have to look for more. I cannot believe that I had not ever noticed the incorrect wording (in the KJV) of Gal 3:28. Such an excellent point, along with many of the other points he made. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Wright is considered an expert on Paul. So I wonder if he has ever (since 2004) considered how Paul used Adam and Eve as figures for Christ and the Church, especially as it relates to this argument over whether or not Paul condemned women in ministry. The Lord pointed things out to me more than a decade ago that put all of those, supposed, proof-text passages against women in the ministry into a whole new light. He pointed out that when it comes to Christ and the church, the "man" is Christ, and we (both male and female) make up "the women" (Eve). I believe this is why Paul refers back to Adam and Eve in 1Tim 2. It's not about gender differences at all. It's a figure. Jesus himself likened his MALE disciples to "a woman" whose hour was come "to be delivered of the child." Would this not relate to Paul's assertion that "the woman" (Eve) "shall be saved in childbearing"? Paul used Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a figure for the church in a very similar way, as it relates to "Christ in you, the hope of glory." We all received "the adoption of sons," bearing the name of Jesus Christ, who is "the Head of the body" and "the only begotten Son" of God. We see similar language to Paul's in the OT. Paul spoke of those who were "babes in Christ," or "children in understanding." He spoke of "silly women" who were being led astray because they were "ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." We have no problem at all understanding that Paul is not speaking of literal "babies" or "children," so why do we insist that Paul must be speaking about literal "women"? An OT passage that also used as a proof-text against women in the ministry is Isa 3:12: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
" But just a few verses before we read: (Isa 3:4) "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
" Is Isaiah talking about literal babies, children and women? I don't believe so. And I don't believe Paul was either. I don't believe he was understood that way by those who understood how he used "Adam and Eve" to teach about "Christ and the church." In 1 Cor 11 (another misunderstood and misused passage, imo), Paul speaks in the singular - THE man and THE woman. And he begins with "the head of every man is Christ," not with women, then men, then Christ, then God, as one might expect if he were truly speaking of a hierarchical structure the way many seem to believe he was. Jeremiah wrote: "Ask ye now, and see WHETHER A MAN DOTH TRAVAIL WITH CHILD? wherefore do I SEE EVERY MAN WITH HIS HANDS ON HIS LOINS, AS A WOMAN IN TRAVAIL, and all faces are turned into paleness? Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him: But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them."
(Jer 30:6-9) Paul spoke of his own "travail in birth," one he said he went through "again" with those he referred to as "my little children." Paul said he was once "a child" but became "a man." Was that not the "travail" to which he referred? A travail that "a woman" goes through, through which "she shall be saved" BY BEING "delivered of the child,... that A MAN is born into the world"? No, Paul was not some misogynistic creep that we shouldn't be listening to, as some non-Christians might argue. Nor was he condemning of women in the ministry, as some believers will argue. His words must be rightly divided, and understood within the context of scripture the message of "Christ in you, the hope of glory." We must hear what THE SPIRIT is saying to the churches. And that, oftentimes, requires us to go much deeper than "the letter" alone will allow us to go.
Wow great points. Thanks for sharing.
Chrissiela you are over spiritualizing the scripture, this leads to error.
@@dewalphneal2811 Paul said we look not at the things which are seen (they being temporal) but at the things that are now seen (which are eternal). How do you believe we do that? What do you believe is the purpose of the "types" and "shadows" contained in scripture, if not to reveal deeper spiritual truths? What errors do you see in my post? Did Paul not use Adam and Eve as figures for Christ and the church? Did he not use Mary as a figure for the Church, as well? Did Jesus not liken his disciples, all male, to a woman, whose hour was come to be delivered of a child? Did Paul not speak of travailing in birth himself? Does the OT not speak of a man travailing in birth, even every man with his hands in his loins, etc? Why do you believe those things are written that way?
Chrissiela 1Ti 5:14 "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan."]
There is much that could be said, however unless I took the time and energy it would require, I'm afraid it would be inappropriate for me to address this with you. I will say this; "types and shadows pointed to Christ and the Kingdom of God which only in part is yet to be fulfilled. Even so, it is quite literal.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
@@dewalphneal2811 I'm not sure what a passage about young widows, ripped out of its context, has to do with the way Paul used Adam and Eve or why Jesus likened His male disciples to a woman, or anything else i said. Nor do I understand why you believe it would be "inappropriate" for you to answer my questions or, God forbid, actually point out whatever "error" it is you saw in my post. And not just point it out, but explain why it's an error without getting into a game of my verse trumps your verse. I guess, to some, being "a man" has its privileges. But one day you might figure out that when it comes to Christ and the church you are actually part of "Eve," the woman! So be forewarned, childbearing can be very painful! DEEP BREATHS! ;)
When reading the Bible, it is always important to remember we are reading a translation.
Yes!!
@@peachy_talisman I'm glad you see my point.
I love the audience....very intelligent
I know, right? They don't miss a beat with each joke delivered.
So difficult to overcome the prejudice against women created by Augustine by his erroneous Sethite view of scripture.
Thank you N T Wright for your attempts at correcting this error.
Biblical narratives about men and women are not the same as biblical commands about men and women. Paul commends the works of Phoebe. We are all God's workmanship in Christ created "for good works (Eph 2:10)." Paul says in Titus 2:4-5, that the older women are to train the younger women in Godly behavior. Proverbs tells sons to not forsake their mothers teaching. Paul, who wrote "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28)", is the same Paul who wrote "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12)." Either Paul contradicts himself, which means he destroys his apostolic authority, or someone is misinterpreting the the teaching of scripture. Either mankind is constrained by the scripture or scripture is constrained by mankind.
This is Truth. Amen
Please dont be sorry for being thorough. You are an excellent speaker. K
The Scripture(Rom 16:1) you're referring to said "Phebe our sister" , not phebe our pastor, not phebe our prophetess, not phebe our deacon. But phebe our sister. Teach the truth, the word is truth. Dont change it. It is what it is. It means what it said. if it doesn't suit your beliefs, then change what you believe to suit it. Paul spoke by the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Spirit can not make a mistake, why would God say through him, "i suffer not a women to teach not to be an overseer over the men", then the next day, turn around and say, "I'm sending phebe up to the church of Rome to give a sermon". A sermon is speaking. Women can't give sermons, she can speak... in the church. It never said nothing about speaking outside the church, but it said she cant speak inside of the church. The word calls for her complete obedience in this matter. Not rebellion. It's not that she can't do it, it's that she shouldn't do it. I'm sure women or just as cappable of speaking scriptures in the pulpit, but God said she cant give a sermon, she cant speak... in the church, and not one church, but all the churches, he said. All.
"1Corinthians 14:33 (kjv) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as 👉in all👈 churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is 👉not permitted👈 unto them 👉to speak👈; but they are 👉commanded👈 to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
And the law doesn't permit a women to be a preist, and the priestly ministry was given over to a pastoral ministry when Jesus came. Also in Gen 3:16. GOD Put the man to be the overseer of the Women. Which is a type and shadow of Christ being the head and his elected church. So how can a woman get up on the pulpit and claim(usurp) authority over a congregation full of men?. That's against God's divine plan. I may not like it. But i must believe it. "1Timothy 2:12(kjv) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
If a aged women wants to teach, she can teach younger women(Titus 2:3,4), not men, that's biblical, and not from the pulpit either. Because she cant speak(give a sermon) inside the church. 1 Corinthians14:35 (kjv) ... for it is a shame for women to speak 👉in👈 the church.”
God thinks it's shamful. There must be a reason. I may not know or understand completely why, but i trust Him. You should to.
God's word is infallible and it is always right, regardless of if we agree with it or not. Dont let satan cause you to believe a lie (2Thess2:11 - 2Chron18:21)
Romans 16: 1 Phoebe our sister and being a servant, ( diakonon ) strongs concordance G 1249 meaning a deacon / servant / minister. The word in this verse is a noun, accusative, singular, feminine.
The exact same word in Philippians 1: 1 as in Bishops and deacons but is a masculine form. There are 31 forms of this same word in the New Testament.
@@MattKingsley-zy7dn i haven't look at the different expressive words of the original greek text, but ive looked at those new age greek app text codes, that you're refering to. But i wouldn't put my faith in trying to figure that out, I'd depend on revelation from God Almighty. Because the word doesnt contradictic itself, we just lack the understanding in some areas. And Paul could not contradict himself nor the law, And the law does not permit women to preach 👉in👈 the churches. Im begging you brother, Please dont disgrace poor and godly Phebe's character, by telling anyone that she was a women preacher, because she wasnt. She was obedient to the word and the vocation in which she was called.
@@biblicalanswers1019 Nothing at all new age about James Strong's concordance. He was a professor of exegetical theology studies and published his concordance in 1890. I have a hard book copy since before the internet was invented.
You said that the bible does not call Phoebe a deaconess, in fact the earliest manuscripts call her a deaconess and Paul wrote it. However you did say that you have NOT looked into this.
2 Timothy 2: 15 " Study to show thyself approved to God, a worker unashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Phoebe is now enjoying her rewards in the Kingdom of Heaven.
@@MattKingsley-zy7dn hey john, i hope ur having a blessed day in readying God's word of truth. Which I'd like to think that you believe n love it as much as it do. So im not going to argue with a brother about theology or concordances etc. Just to tell you dat Gods word said women should not give a sermon(speack) in the church and hope that you believe it. And yes, God indeed has blessed our sister and faithful servant Phebe, as she was obedient to the word.
He says ...I assume that tells us smt as well, about the age of the beloved disciple, what was he doing on the cross 26:10... I just don't understand the implication of the age and the cross, Anyone who knows?
Μάριος Λοϊζίδης I believe he’s thinking the Beloved Disciple was quite young-more a boy than a man-and therefore he wasn’t viewed as a threat.
@@KenjiNitta It is obvious N.T.Wrighr to be avoiding the text and to be giving an answer on a part of it, as if he as never read it.
You know that we people of litterature and gnosis, are not trustworthy just because we know much. And the sad fact is that people listen and follow. Well both are to blame, the listeners and the speakers and regarding this speach, yes it is not clean.
I think we all can understand to what I m refering to, in respect of the text. It's a no way out when it comes to explaining the whole text, and Tom Wright should feel exposed. But since he is happy with the audience supporting him, seems not to care about the rest who do not, not because we don't like him, but because we know the scriptures. In case you can't remember 1Tim2,12 a woman is not to usurp authority over man but to be silent
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης Oh my, what of Deborah? Judges 4 & 5? How do you get around that? Two whole chapters are devoted to her, and yet you contend that women are to have to no leadership role in the church? She was the undisputed leader of Israel, undisputed prophet. All came to her for God's judgment under HIs law. She is the ONLY Judge who presided over 40 years of peace after settling a war with minimal bloodshed. All others brought great bloodshed. How do you reconcile her role with your view of Paul's limited writings?
I have really enjoyed this teaching as it makes sense and it expands what I already thought. I have however in my life, experienced less than women being able to express their gifts and study unless it came with heaps of mockery and in the men then saying the women should be silent. As is done in politics, especially when they are obnoxiously and evilly wrong, they double down. So the state of complaining that the male domination is not biblical, and belittling of women, that you basically are told see, Paul says “you are not to speak”, and then worse, “what kind of a Christian are you?”, and worse yet now declaring: “You are not Christian at all!”
They are comfortable with the status quo and that some women want to be able to share what wisdom they’ve found, brings out the left-foot of fellowship.
So it is a delight that I can have a more full understanding of the text and to do so without seeing Paul as a man of his time, one who didn’t like women, very much at all.
(I haven't watched this video.)
Men and women are spiritually equal. God settled
this matter with Deborah at about 1100 B.C. If you
want a study, I can paste up my essay on her.
@@8784-l3b I thank you for posting and I would be most appreciative to read the study you referred to.
@@courag1
Essay on Deborah, the Judge and prophetess. (Revised May 2023)
Before Paul we have her story. We don't know what Paul would have
said about her. We have to read about her first and then try to understand
Paul (if possible).
This is what the people at the beginning of Christianity had to do.
They knew the story of Deborah already.
Deborah is either a meaningless exception or an important precedent,
in the debate of whether men and women are spiritually equal.
Before beginning, it should be noted that there is no
scripture stating clearly or even hinting at,
that Deborah was God's second choice. There was no man
that rejected the call to be Judge, requiring a woman to
take that place.
*************************************************************
INTRODUCTION:
Before God was rejected by Israel for the rulership of men, that is, kings,
there were different 'seasons' so to speak. One of those seasons
was the time of the Judges.
...but they have rejected Me from being King over them.
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-in that they have abandoned Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you as well.
-excerpt 1 Samuel 8
A Judge at this time, was VERY different from a judge in our time.
The Judge was over the nation of Israel. But not as a man, as
King, or as a woman, as Queen, because God was not rejected as King as yet.
God ruled Israel through the Judges.
Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV
Major modern English translations like the NASB use
the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people...
[PASTOR - Origin: late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French pastour,
from Latin pastor ‘shepherd’.]
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
Also:
Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning, and since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel.
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verses 9 and 10 KJV -God speaking to Nathan the prophet
Finally:
All the Judges were men, except one. Deborah.
She was married, but her husband was not a Judge.
HER JUDGING AUTHORITY here:
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment.
-excerpt Judges 4
Deborah judged men and had the authority to execute, as
some sins in the Old Covenant, such as murder, demanded the death penalty
as the punishment.
There was no appeal to Deborah's (a Judge's) verdict:
... you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left.
If a man rejected Deborah's decision, the penalty was execution:
But the person who acts insolently by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that person shall die;...
She used the Law, therefore scripture, when judging and instructing:
In accordance with the terms of the law about which they instruct you...
She had the same authority as a Levitical priest:
So you shall come to the Levitical priests or the judge...
Also of note, she judged the hardest cases in the nation.
“If a case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, that are cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. So you shall come to the Levitical priests or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict. Then you shall act in accordance with the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the Lord chooses; and you shall be careful to act in accordance with everything that they instruct you to do. In accordance with the terms of the law about which they instruct you, and in accordance with the verdict which they tell you, you shall act; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. But the person who acts insolently by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that person shall die; so you shall eliminate the evil from Israel.
-excerpt Deuteronomy 17
********************************
THE REASON GOD SENT HER here:
...the Lord was moved to pity...
And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them.
-excerpt Judges 2
The sending of a Judge meant God was showing mercy to His people.
It wasn't a judgment against them.
Since Deborah was a woman, this scripture is sometimes used
in error to describe her, in our time:
My people! Their oppressors treat them violently,
And women rule over them.
My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths.
-excerpt Isaiah 3
They are taking the prophetess Deborah and comparing her to
Jezebel who murdered prophets.
Has it not been reported to my master what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord, that I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord...
-excerpt 1 Kings 18
When a Judge died, THEN people were led astray.
But it came about, when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their obstinate ways.
-excerpt Judges 2
THE AUTHORITY SHE HAD OVER THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY here:
Now she sent word and summoned Barak...
She gave the order for the battle to begin that Israel won.
Then Deborah said to Barak, “Arise! For this is the day on which the Lord has handed Sisera over to you...
Before the battle began she prophesied that a woman
would kill Sisera (the enemy commander). This happened,
as Jael, a woman not part of the battle, killed Sisera.
She said, “I will certainly go with you; however, the fame shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”
And:
But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died. And behold, while Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael came out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” So he entered with her, and behold, Sisera was lying dead with the tent peg in his temple.
So what were the results of this battle?
And the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword before Barak; and Sisera got down from his chariot and fled on foot. But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not even one was left.
Also:
So God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan on that day before the sons of Israel. And the hand of the sons of Israel pressed harder and harder upon Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had eliminated Jabin the king of Canaan.
-excerpts Judges 4
In Judges 5, most of the chapter is Deborah and Barak
singing praises to God. The song lyrics are there.
Final sentence of Judges 5:
And the land was at rest for forty years.
Obviously a great outcome.
EXPLANATION OF GOD USING DEBORAH here:
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth...
Prophets and prophetesses are anointed with the
Holy Spirit as we know.
The explanation of God using Deborah to judge men
and being over the army is here:
An anointing of the Holy Spirit is the anointing of a powerful masculine being. That anointing eclipses gender.
FINAL THOUGHTS here:
A woman anointed with the Holy Spirit can serve in any capacity
in our time. Whatever valid title/position there is.
To oppose this, is to oppose the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit
that was upon Deborah the prophetess and Judge. Deborah, the
woman that "saved them from the hand of their enemies" by
God's will.
Thank ya
What about Isaiah 3:11-12?
"Woe to the wicked; disaster is upon them! For they will be repaid with what their hands have done. Youths oppress My people, and women rule over them. O My people, your guides mislead you; they turn you from your paths."
This is quite clearly a condemnation of having women rule over men. NT Wright is, of course, correct that women should be allowed to do good works, and clearly in the New Testament women were teaching, prophesying, and serving as deacons, as well as doing all the good works which are discussed by Wright and which women have historically done. However, the Episcopate is a position not only of service, but authority, and the Priesthood is an extension and representation of the Episcopate in the parish. And it appears that the position of authority is forbidden to women, just as the action of childbearing is forbidden to men, hence their juxtaposition in 1 Timothy 1:9-15. To say that women ought to be allowed to study and to serve are entirely apt. To say that they ought to have authority of the Pastoral or Episcopal variety is certainly unbiblical, and does not exist in the tradition.
Moreover, what is desired by many of these activists have little to do with what Wright is suggesting. It is precisely the Diana-esque inversion, which Paul guards against in Ephesus, that most of these activists are after. The notion that equality of role is even in the offering is a fundamental misunderstanding of who and what the left is.
Not even remotely clear that the word "women" is not actually "creditors"...
"A third possible interpretation, which is favoured by some scholars, is that the word for “women” was not originally part of Isaiah 3:12, the original word being “creditors”. (There is also some doubt about the word “children” in 3:12.) The Hebrew word for women in Isaiah 3:12 is nashim (נשים). With identical consonants, but different vowel points, the word can be noshim (נשים), which means “creditors”. The Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 3:12 has nosim (“creditors”). Accordingly, the New English Bible (NEB) translates the pertinent phrase as “the usurers lord it over them”.[3]
The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek centuries before the Masoretes added their system of vowel points to the Hebrew text. The Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 3:12a (translated into English) reads: “O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you.” The idea of being extorted by creditors fits with the overall context of Isaiah chapter 3, especially verses 5-7, but so does the idea of inappropriate men and women being leaders. Whatever the original word may have been, it is clear that God was saying that Judah would be led, or bullied, by incompetent leaders.
Here are two English translations of Isaiah which favour different sources.
My people-children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you,
and confuse the course of your paths. (NRSV)
Oppressors treat my people cruelly;
creditors rule over them.
My people’s leaders mislead them;
they give you confusing directions. (NET)[4]"
Even granting that it is "women" in the ancient Hebrew, considering the fact that in practically every culture on earth, every day, "women" or some similar reference is used derogatorily, typically directed at men, to refer to some form of "incompetence", it seems extremely likely that that is what is being done here as well. Consider also that women had exponentially fewer opportunities in the ancient world to become pragmatically competent in any field, much less the leadership of a nation (though some were-see below). It would have been an easily understandable gesture for Isaiah to use to communicate his point, not necessarily because women are ultimately speaking incompetent, and not necessarily because women are ultimately unfit for leadership, but because they would have largely if not almost entirely been unfit for such positions, culturally-the same way that a wild horse may be unfit for riding...doesn't mean its unridable, untamable, unteachable by any stretch of the imagination...
"A second possible interpretation of Isaiah 3:12, favoured by many scholars, is that metaphors are used in this verse. In this interpretation “children” and “women” are used as metaphors which signify that the leaders will be childish (i.e. inexperienced, capricious, or foolish) and effeminate (i.e. cowardly and ineffective) (cf. Isa. 3:4). In a note in the Geneva Bible (1599), Theodore Beza describes these leaders as “manifest tokens of [God’s] wrath, because they would be fools and effeminate.”[2]
Just as it is still the case now, it was an insult in ancient times to call a grown man a “child”. To call a man a “woman” was also, unfortunately, a common insult. One example of this insult is given by the historian Herodotus where he records Xerxes, king of Persia, as saying: “My men have become women, and my women men.” (Histories 8.88.3) Interestingly, both Vashti and Esther risked their lives by standing up for their principles and defying the king’s request and ruling (Esth. 1:12; 4:16 cf. 5:2). But Xerxes’ words here are about his own men who floundered, and about Queen Artemisia I of Caria. Xerxes had a tremendous regard for Artemisia who was his ally, and who had personally and valiantly led her navy in the battle at Salamis (480 BC). Thus Xerxes refers to her as a “man”. The Greek word for courage, andreia, which is used for both valiant men and women in Greek literature and in the Bible, comes from the Greek word for “man” (e.g., Prov. 12:4; 31:10; cf. 1 Cor. 16:13).
In Isaiah 3:12a, it is not clear who, specifically, the inept leaders of Judah are, or will be. But they are certainly being belittled and disparaged in this interpretation of the text."
N.T Wright is wrong on this issue. The Scripture is clear throughout about its own context (Like in 1 Timothy 2 it is explained that the reason is that Adam was formed first, not cultural context or disruptive services). This is the problem with idolizing teachers rather than allowing the Bible to say what it says.
@@AlecEagon thank you for sharing your research. In both comments.
@@Soh-Crates Of course!
As a Christian for over sixty years and belonging to a Denomination that espoused the principle of sola scriptura , but they along with every Denomination in Christendom selected certain scriptures to erect their particular denomination and as a result built a church based on the biased beliefs
Their is only one foundation Stone that authentic Christianity is based upon, and its not the teachings of the so called Church Fathers, whither ancient or modern, but the teachings of God manifest in the Flesh of Jesus of Nazareth , who said three times, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away" and every false doctrine in Christendom is a deviation from He eternal doctrine.
Do not listen to any man unless the confirm what He has taught, and my authority for stating this is Hebrews chapter 2v3, the Words of Eternal Salvation Spoken by the Son , who God says , Thy Throne of God is forever and ever, and these words are written in Red in many bibles
St John the Divine in his Gospel account makes it clear that much more than 4 books were written about Jesus. Do we have all of them? Sola Scriptura says that in Theological discourse the Canon of Scripture is the final authority in determining God's will.
It does not say only the Bible can give us information on Early Christians or Jews
Paul explained that man and woman are equal in Christ.
So now we are stuck with the section where Paul seems to forbid woman to speak, teach etc.
Read that section carefully is says: "as it is written according to the law". How on earth Paul refers here to the law, when he knows that the law is rendered useless now that Christ has come to restore us back to the innocent divine power and lovelife of Jesus?
The law has been fullfilled. Love defines our actions.
It is common knowledge that ancient churchfathers of a "certain denomination" had their hand in selecting biblebooks and adding/changing original text. Could it be....?
Follow the Spirit on this one. In Gen it says "God made man, man and woman God made them".
Would you not rather have a wonderworking, by Holy Spirit transformed, woman of God behind the pulpit, who knows what she is talking about, then a mere man with puffed up bible knowledge?
For instance. We were in Africa bringing the Gospel. My wife and i split up. Walking through a village preaching, teaching, praying for the sick, walking in love. Everybody i prayed for got healed. Everybody my wife prayed for got healed.
Male-female "differences" cease to exist in Christ.
You or your wife praying and people getting healed is a different issue. What Paul strictly prohibits for women is the office of priest / bishop which involves Authoritative teaching and exercising AUTHORITY over the ENTIRE church congregation ( consisting of both men and women).
As Husband / Father is the Head of the family, Paul says that office of the priest/ pastor/overseer, should be adorned by qualified fatherly MEN only as church too is an EXTENDED FAMILY. This office involves the Shepherding/ Governing / Ruling and Authoritative teaching ROLE. over the ENTIRE Church congregation ( consisting of both men and women).
St. Paul's statement in
Galatians 3:27-29 that gender, racial, sexual and social distinctions are of no
account where the question of salvation is concerned, does not mean
that they have been abolished........
..............as should be glaringly obvious from his Divinely approved
instructions about the roles of husbands and wives,
the deportment of men and women in the churches assemblies,
along with the instructions of slaves to respect and obey their masters.
See also
th-cam.com/video/S7CHRQbskw4/w-d-xo.html
Wow we need you to come to Nicaragua. We have all kinds of people to be healed. Since everyone you both prayed was healed.
Shalom, brother in our Messiah! Please know I come from love, not condemnation. The LORD is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, yes? Man made the Bible into two books, though it is one. The initial laws apply and not been done away with. YAHSHUA, defined as GOD saves, the one referred to as Jesus, practiced all of the commands of OUR HEAVENLY FATHER according to scripture. The Torah is a guide, not laws, of what The Almighty expects then now and always. HE never ever ever nulled them. Thats why Jesus continued to practice all of our LORD'S dictums. If you're thinking of Peter and his dreams, continue down and you will see Peter is given understand by YHWH, that its meaning was not about food, but about people. Please notewhen Peter ate with the Gentiles he was reprimanded by fellow believers. GOD was showing Peter that all children were HIS. Not about food, or it would have been repeated and YAHSHUA would not have been devoted to HIS FATHER'S teachings. Easter and Christmas are two traditions added by men. GOD said no to the traditions of men. Given the origins of the two, you should be horrified if you practice them.
We are to follow ALL of HIS COMMANDMENTS! Saturday is the Sabbath. The Catholic church said they had authority over
scripture, during tbe Council of Nicea and changed this unchanging Holy day to Sun-day. The Catholic church integrated so many disgusting, immoral and blasphemous pagan celebrations and just doctored them up. Repent and and save your family from damnation. Our Precious Perfect in all HIS ways Father said my people arw destroyed through ignorance.
women's teaching, leadership, preaching etc is all fine and should be uncontroversial. But can they act in persona Christi and allow the sacraments to work? Do they break Apostolic Succession? Is it right for a given jurisdiction of Bishops to make this decision independently of the wider Church?
True. Apostles ( Core LEADERSHIP group) (The twelve) were all men.
The biblical basis for not ordaining women as priests/Bishops is that WORD OF GOD does not allow a woman to TEACH or to take AUTHORITY over a man because of the ORDER IN CREATION.(see First Timothy 2 verses 11 to 14 ). It is contextually clear that these scripture verses stand as a prelude to the qualifications required of a priest / Bishop in First Timothy 3 verses 1 to 7 .
From the scriptures we see that it is the DUTY of the presbyter/priest/bishop to TEACH the ENTIRE church congregation ( consisting of both men and women) and also to Shepherd/Govern/Rule the ENTIRE church congregation.( See First Timothy 5 verse 17 , and 3 verse 2, and 3 verse 5 ). Therefore, this office is one that involves TEACHING and exercising AUTHORITY over the ENTIRE church congregation. Hence it is very clear that women cannot be appointed to the office of priest /bishop.
In consonance with the above, it is also crystal clear from the Bible ( Read Ephesians 5 verses 22 to 24 and First Corinthians 11 verses 3, 7 to 10 ) that the HEAD of the family is Husband/Father and not the wife. The clear implication is that only qualified FATHERLY MEN should LEAD the entire church congregation as priests / Bishops as church is an EXTENDED FAMILY ( Portrayed as HOUSEHOLD of God) ( See First Timothy 3 verse 15).
How can we therefore disobey these Apostolic injunctions given once for all to the church ??. These instructions are definitely not some sort of mere temporary guidelines which we may choose to reject at our own discretion .
Also, it is absolutely in no way dependent on women's education, status, or passage of time. WORD OF GOD strictly holds it on God's DESIGN for man and woman ensuing out of God's order in creation and headship of man in the family. ( Husband Wife relationship is analogous to Christ Church relationship as seen in Ephesians 5 verses 22 to 24.).
If wives could be head of the family, as feminists think, it is akin to saying that church could have Lordship over Christ. But it is thoroughly heretical and total absurdity to teach that church can have Lordship over Christ .
👎
@@koshyisaacpanicker6796 I see this argument about 1 corinthians in different parts of this book. The church and Christ is a metaphor and mystery. But many forget that Paul later says that Jesus submitted himself to death for the church, he came to serve not be served, that is the point of this, love is submission to one another as all Christians are supposed to do regardless of gender. The word Arche and Kephale are different and context is important. Forr instance in one of the 1 corinthians chapters Arche is used. If this word meant it headship (when talking about head coverings and men coming before women), it implies Jesus is less than the Father, which is a theological impossibility. Othersise there is no point to the tradition of the Nicene creed or the arguments against Arianism which claimed that Jesus was under/less and somehow different than the Father. But Nicene creed clarifies that the Father and Son are of same substance (Homousious). Origin makes more sense because Paul is combatting the false religion of the area that found its way into the this church (which is the whole purpose of the book) that says that men originated from women. Even later in the next chapter it says that women should prophesy with their heads covered (prophesying is proclaiming the word of God in public) which makes sense because women had to have their heads covered in front of men in public, not in front of other women as it was a honor and shame culture and it had sexual connotations regarding prostitution. This word "shameful" is used about women "uttering" later in the book, this same false religion required women to scream out loudly and in an orgasmic manner and that is why Paul said for women to keep quiet and to also follow the local since law had prohibited women to worship in this manner (they were immitating the other religion) and thus that is why Paul differentiated this screaming out from "glossalalia" which is speaking in tongues. A more cohesive theology regarding women shows that the kingdom of God does not differentiate men from women, but culture does (all of the prohibitions to women had cultural reasons). The 5 offices all preach and teach, how are all gifts for men? In Acts Philip's 4 had prophet daughters prophesying in public as Luke described. Prophets have more spiritual authority/higher calling than pastors. (First apostles, then prophets, evangelists, elders or pastors and last teachers). It is very simple and people like to complicate it . Both men and women are supposed to refrain from sinning. Give me one other prohibition besides not sinning that men have. If you cannot give not even one, then what you are implying is that Jesus died to give only men freedom and his sacrifice did not afford freedom for women. Anything else besides not sinning is just works, you are asking women to live under the law instead of the new dispensation of grace.
Origin is the right meaning in the scriptures previously discussed, because like Jesus came to us from and begotten by the Father (not born or created) is the same as saying woman was taken out of man but are of the same substance. She is not born of man. Therefore they are equally both originated from God as the last sentence of that paragraph states. What I am saying is "arche" has this meaning of origin and it makes sense theologically, if it was authority or rulership, it would imply Jesus is less than the Father, a theological impossibility.
@@pnoidpatty The bigger the lie, the bigger the explanation. On the on other hand, the truth can be spoken concisely..Dead giveaway
Anyone ever heard of a "responsa"?
Genius.
I only watched about half of this video and I do plan on watching the rest but these are the things I noticed. Calling women apostles who were never know as such in the Bible (those who tell the men about the resurrection). Mentioning the woman who anointed Jesus as doing a quasi priestly action (no woman was ever a priest). When Mary is at the Lord's feet we see clearly from the text why Martha is upset (emphasis is being placed more on the social rules that are being broken). Also are we to deny what is written in 1Timothy 3:12 in light of the comments about Phebe. So far this video does not point to sound biblical teaching.
Well after watching the rest of the video my thoughts are harsh. This video cast a lot of doubt on what is already written scripturally on this topic in order to promote a none biblical ideology. 1Corinthians12: gives a beautiful description of the body of Christ and our need for one another.
Q DE we are all priests according to the order of Melchezidek. And it was a women who was the first one who spoke of the ressurection to any one ever. Sounds like you areca litgle muxed up. How about everyone just love and serve one another- God is your judge and his. You are not his judge. God says Love is everything.
K Happy, love needs to be based on the truth of God's word. When anyone deviates from that you can begin to embrace false teachings. Which the Bible warns us about. You need to read again about who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Your statement is incorrect.
You're choosing to read the Bible and say it's unbiblical without understanding the context. The actions those women took and how society would've taken such fit into the first century Second Temple Judaism context Jesus must be studied from.
@@qde2130 You are right. N.T Wright is being idolized yet on this issue he teaches with pervasive error. It's very disappointing. Casts into doubt any of his material I was going to study as I am not interested in hearing a watered-down scholastic mutilation of the Scripture. It is disturbing how difficult it is to find a teacher that thoroughly preaches sound doctrine.
Read "The handmaidens conspiracy" by Donna Howell. It addresses just about everything in scripture that has to deal with women in the church. Definitely worth the read for those who are not too prideful and not willing to educate themselves on different view points. Whatever "side" you are on, it's best to know both sides very well.
As I said, I m open to all, not just that. Thanks, I ll try to acquire the book
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης just to be clear. I was not calling you prideful or anything of the sort.
@@spencers6263 ok no problem, I may be one though. I want to state that I don't think the book will add anything I can't see written. I ve done my studying on the specific issue. I m not ve been studying and preaching God's word for 29 years, and but I m always ready to reject my knowledge before my Lord who is the truth
Sir, thank you so much. How many women have usurped their calling in this life relegated to baby machines etc with no purpose, calling or vision due to these falacies and misinterpretations and lack of context. One needs to see the context behind things culturally as well. Those who do not reduce scriptures to a religious heresy even. And worse do they even consider who Jesus is or what he thinks? The bible states isn't my word like a hammer? Well,it divides and shows the hearts of mans...some of it is quite ugly in how many have viewed scriptures of women...if any scripture doesn't reflect who Jesus was and came to do it is being read wrong...and it always reveals some wrong belief about some group...Jesus said you will know mine by their love...he said those who hate are not mine...he came to bring unity, not division....or hatred against any group,incl.women...he said all are equal in Christ in the new testament. Not only this not all ladies want to marry... Jesus is our husbands! And his bride is the church! His bride is his 'helper' thus all his bride, his church, helps Jesus in the kingdom of God to reach lost souls... I feel sad for ladies who didn't do anything..maybe when he asks her she say I didn't know? then maybe he will say go away i never knew you? or you never knew me if you didn't follow me to do the work of the kingdom works? this is false teaching.... we are all the bride
False. Wright is even aware he is marrying his interpretation with a hostile culture, by constantly caveating that there might be people saying he is doing just that. He knows his role is to shape the Anglican church according to modern sentiments, and he isn't prepared to be like the conservative evangelicals who receive open persecution for taking a firm stand from people who claim to be their brethren!. Time is already showing Wright to be wrong, and fewer and fewer men shall be found in the pews and in the pulpits: the fastest growing demographic of people training for the ministry is women, with men utterly uninterested in constantly talking about feminism and interpreting the Bible with some many hermeneutical jangles!
Anti-complementarianism is the fashion of the day in the West (not the rest of the world thank God) and I only wish anti-complementarians would come clean and say that they are opposed to and want to rid Christianity of male headship and governorship. The lack of honesty from those claiming to be in the truth is a strange phenomenon.
You will be resisted. You will be rebuked, whether you like it or not. You will be opposed. Majority opinion settles nothing in the courts of eternal truth.
But i suffer not a woman to teach.nor to usurp authority over the man.but to be in silence.1tim. 2:12.
Taken out of context. For every issue, you must look at the Bible overall and not just quote select verses. If you cherry-pick these verses, then slavery should be allowed since there's Eph 6:5 ("Slaves obey your masters"), and no where does the Bible prohibit slavery.
@@Himmiefan ...........Slavery has never been a sin, whether the Jews bought them with God's consent, or when Christians owned them.
Christian slaves owners were never commanded to release their slaves. In fact the slaves were instructed to work even harder if their master happened to be a brother in Christ.
"5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with proper respect. Be as sincere as you are when you obey Christ.
6 Don't obey them only while you're being watched, as if you merely wanted to please people.
But obey like slaves who belong to Christ, who have a deep desire to do what God wants them to do.
7 Serve eagerly as if you were serving your heavenly master and not merely serving human masters.
8 You know that your heavenly master will reward all of us for whatever good we do, whether we're slaves or free people."
Ephesians 6:5-8 (GW)
@@Himmiefan the context is literally in support. Check from vs 13 down
@Himmiefan no it isnt taken out of context. At some point you have to admit when you are making context up.
Also, slavery is not a sin, however ill advised.
His reasoning on Timothy is the most contorted mental gymnastics I've ever read.
You have to remember that this Bishop is a Church of England person. The agenda of this Church is a one which is determined to push women as far forward as they can.
Which is excellent
Would you rather we push God's precious creation back?
This is not the case, if you were familiar with NT Wright’s work, you would know that he is not advocating that the Word be challenged or twisted. He has spoken over and over again on the very issue of how damaging it is when a people try to change the definition of a word to meet their beliefs.
Oh but I am very familiar with his work. He lectured at Durham University in 1994 when I was studying there. I am not calling his writing into dispute (or most of it )I am saying that the role of women in the Church now has gone beyond the Word go God. The C of E has in effect changed the DNA of what ministry really is. In the age of ‘Me Too’ we are getting deeper into the Apostasy of the End Times. Loosing focus on what it is to be a follower of the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus.
Kenneth Wakefield ok, you lost me with the "C of E" please explain.
The use of head in 1 Cor is not source like a river but headship. If u say its source you have to then apply the same meaning to the relationship between God and Christ. Women coming from men clearly implies one existed before the other. How can we say Jesus us eternal when we say his origin is God? That destroys the externality of Christ. However a reading of headship fits better and its consistent with the rest of biblical witness
If it was headship, it implies Jesus is less than the Father, which is a theological impossibility. Othersise there is no point to the tradition of the Nicene creed or the arguments against Arianism which claimed that Jesus was under/less and somehow different than the Father. But Nicene creed clarifies that the Father and Son are of same substance (Homousious). Origin makes more sense because Paul is combatting the false religion of the area that found its way into the this church (which is the whole purpose of the book) that says that men originated from women. Even later in the next chapter it says that women should prophesy with their heads covered (prophesying is proclaiming the word of God in public) which makes sense because women had to have their heads covered in front of men in public, not in front of other women as it was a honor and shame culture and it had sexual connotations regarding prostitution. This word "shameful" is used about women "uttering" later in the book, this same false religion required women to scream out loudly and in an orgasmic manner and that is why Paul said for women to keep quiet and to also follow the local since law had prohibited women to worship in this manner (they were immitating the other religion) and thus that is why Paul differentiated this screaming out from "glossalalia" which is speaking in tongues. A more cohesive theology regarding women shows that the kingdom of God does not differentiate men from women, but culture does (all of the prohibitions to women had cultural reasons). The 5 offices all preach and teach, how are all gifts for men? In Acts Philip's 4 had prophet daughters prophesying in public as Luke described. Prophets have more spiritual authority/higher calling than pastors. (First apostles, then prophets, evangelists, elders or pastors and last teachers). It is very simple and people like to complicate it . Both men and women are supposed to refrain from sinning. Give me one other prohibition besides not sinning that men have. If you cannot give not even one, then what you are implying is that Jesus died to give only men freedom and his sacrifice did not afford freedom for women. Anything else besides not sinning is just works, you are asking women to live under the law instead of the new dispensation of grace.
Origin has to do with the Father sending/begotten Jesus (which is not creating, being born from). Coming from the Father. As woman was not born of man but she was formed out of man. They (man and woman) are of the same substance and therefore equally originated from God as the last sentence in that paragraph states.
From what headship implies in how you interpret Paul's writings, it would then be implying that man have the same level of authority over women that God has over all of creation. Would that not be blasphemously implying that all men, including Adam, are in turn Gods over women? Just a reminder, women came from men in the creation story either from his rib according to most translations, or as the actual physical half of him according to the original Hebrew text of Genesis, but Adam was not the one who did any of that; it was God. God made woman just as much as He made men; just because Adam was created first does not mean that he in turn made women, God did. Reading the word Ephesians 5:23 uses as "source" and not "authority" or "headship" makes more sense and avoids blasphemy or logical fallacies.
@peachy_talisman in 1 Cor 11 the woman from the man is source and based on this, the woman is derived from the man as one begets a child. Hence by this, the man created 1st and from whom the woman comes, is head over the woman as one with authority over her. This is also just like God and Christ. For Christ being the eternal begotten son of God, says He is not greater than the father just as a son who owes his being from a father and comes from him is not greater than the father. Thus, Christ is under the authority of the father though he is the eternal begotten God in his likeness. Hence the woman being the glory of the man and derived from him, is not greater than the man. She is therefore to be under the authority of the man. This reality of a woman under the headship of a man, is what nature shows even by her hair of the woman, Hence woman is to be in submission to the man in marriage, church, the government as the law and NT teaches
A very good speaker. Brilliant mind. However, in the end I thought he skipped over the key point of what the apostle was teaching, which is rooted in Genesis prior to sin entering the world through human rebellion. That would be precisely why Paul wrote these things. So that we would have to read them through the lens of Christological forgiveness and reconciliation to the created good order. This includes authority and so also the submission which both come under and out of God, who is love. A lot to do about nothing. God doesn’t want clever people. He wants faithful ones.
Couldn't agree more
Paul could have shut down all debates about these topics by simply using two different words.
Male - greek is 'arsen' strong's concordance G 730
or
Female - greek 'thelu' strong's G 2338
Simply just replace 1 Timothy 2:12 with
'A woman, ( 'gyne' stong's G 1135 ) is not to be teaching a man ( andre strong's G 435), '
with
'A female G 2338 is not to be teaching a male g 730.'
I respect Pastor Jennings... but i do not agree with all that he says.... Joel 2:28-29: 28: It shall come to pass afterward (last days) that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. Jennings know of these Scriptures.... 1 Cor 14:34-35: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (Where in the Law does it say that women are to be silent in the church? (True the women is to be in obedient to her husband. This has to do with house, and relationship of married couples... but has nothing to do with Church. And, IF Paul is speaking of women not to SPEAK in church... then not to speak means not to SAY NOTHING IN CHURCH. It means she cannot open her mouth to sing, give announcement, greet others. Speaking is talking. And says, if the woman learn anything, her husband is to teach her. Well, what if she does not have a husband. Is she to be ignorant of our soul-saving-Bible? 1st. Cor 14:34-35 is misinterpreted by some preachers.) 1 Cor 14:36-38: 36: (preachers ignore this continuation of this passage of Scripture.) Vs. 36: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. (Seems like Paul is reprimanding the Corinthian church... and asking them a question. Additionally, seems like Paul is telling us whose commands these are in 1st. Corinthians.)
1st. Tim 2:12-14: But I suffer (I... I, Paul do not allow. I, not God) not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. The transgression in the Garden of Eden has nothing to do with women speaking in church. Peace)
Paul was forbidding something. If it was not women in a teaching and authority position in relation to men, what was it?
Paul wrote many things. Even that he was a 'father'.
Be careful of the teachings of Paul.
For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers...
-excerpt 1 Corinthians 4 KJV
-words of Paul
If one supports the qualifications of elder, as put forward by Paul, one
MUST also accept that the title/position of 'father' is valid and proper in
Christianity. Since this is also one of Paul's teachings.
But the title of 'father' was expressly forbidden by Jesus.
And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
-excerpt Matthew 23
-words of Jesus
@@8784-l3b Last time I checked, it is the Canon of Scripture, whoever was used in the Grace of God to write it.
@@KevynHarris
Paul's teachings are all over the place on multiple
subjects. He contradicts himself and Jesus.
Be careful of what Paul wrote.
___________________________________________________
Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman
can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God.
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed.
A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false.
For believers, the church has been overtaken oftentimes by masculine views centering around the idea women need men or should even rely on a spiritual leader who can manipulate or control them is at worst a sexist view and at best an unrealistic and idealistic romantic view. Thankfully, most Christians and churches are moving forward from this idea but the problem is that we're getting all sorts of different (and even radical) worldviews to fill some supposed answer to women's roles. Traditional roles and arguments really collapse on their own. How would a woman know whether a man in her life is being manipulative or promoting true Christian principles unless she knew for herself what great Christian principles are about? And if she had known and made decision for herself, then you don't need a man really to accompany such decision.
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. 1 Timothy 2: 11-12
Matthew 18 equality
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 cor 2: 14
Passive aggressive much?
Which could be why people can't accept this teacher's message.
I love Wright, but I'm confused. About the Timothy passage, he seems to be contradicting himself. Women shouldn't be stereotyped as only caring about appearance, shallow and ignorant, yet he also says Paul was warning against the Ephesian worship of Diana and women's running the show and men dismissed. These seem contradictory to me.
No contradiction there. At Ephesis the women ran the show principally bec the principal deity was female - Diana. Can't have men doing for this female marble statue - the dressing, cleaning, feeding, presenting the offerings or doing whatever they do to deities. So they had a team of priestesses only to minister to Diana. Paul was therefore saying to the embryonic church there pls dont be pressured by the local community to do the same. We as followers of Christ do things differently but that does not mean the men muscle the women out and herd them into a corner to sit quietly just watching and denying them a right to participate in church life.
@Pristine Detailing And that reply is cautionary in itself...
@Pristine Detailing that this is not only a gender debate, its a debate about the faithfulness of the bible as God's word... (vs what you seem to think, that its just the writing of men and not inspired by the Holy Spirit)
@@suseelaselvaretnam8704Please see what Paul says. Paul says that he does not allow A WOMAN to teach or take authority over a man as Adam was created first, then Eve .
It does not need any deep thinking to understand that what happened at creation ( Adam was created first, then Eve) is uniformly applicable for ALL WOMEN for all time. It is so because Paul was basing his teaching on a perennial reality ( order of creation) which can never be changed . Paul is telling about the headship of man over woman by virtue of natural order of creation. Paul was pointing out this permanent TRUTH of God's design for man and woman by virtue of the order of creation .
It is perfectly clear and evident that this CREATION TRUTH is applicable not only for women at Ephesus but also for ALL WOMEN by virtue of the creation order.
Please do not be misled by the wrong/ false impressions the speaker is conveying to his hearers.
@Pristine Detailing
Men take leadership everywhere. That is because of the created order and that is perfectly natural.
No use whining about it .
All women wore hats in church when was young ! Even up until thirty years ago some women wore hats to church. K
A friend of mine, in her early 20s, who became a believer after highschool, has chosen to worship at a church where women always wear hats and skirts/dresses. \_(o. o)_/ She has chosen this for herself; it still happens.
Dear Anime , i gave up wearing dresses ten years ago because my legs look so bad. I'm now 74 and no longer care. Its been so hot the last two years i am wearing them again. But whatever i wear i always dress well for church . I reason that if i were going out with my husband or friend i would like to dress well. As the Lord is now my husband , brother , friend Father i want to dress well for Him. Glory to His Name. God bless. K
@@AnimeCanuck Interesting. Women who wear skirts have their genitals most accessible for sex. Isn't that true? Sexual purity is not exactly the purview of the world.
@@darlameeks The skirt is made for easy access -- which might be why many men much prefer seeing women in skirts.
So why can't women talk in church? Find out here...th-cam.com/video/RHnhltXdYmA/w-d-xo.html
NT Wright is a classic case of why ability to speak is not the most important factor! Social and cultural context will finally drive a nail which provides the final push to get to the answer they want! 😊
All of this extrapolation on pretty much everything other than the very clear language of Paul concerning the role of women in pastoral duties. Not only that, but seems to gloss over with a vast multitude of words the very clear and concise teaching of Scripture itself. It just rubs me as if you don’t like the CLEAR language of the Apostle Paul you can just stretch out endless extrapolations of vague inconsistencies to try and paint a preferential picture that is anything but clear.
The Judges were pastors/shepherds. That included Deborah.
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed.
A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
Refusal to accept a Judge's verdict on any matter,
resulted in execution, according to Deuteronomy.
If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false.
I haven’t heard him quote scripture!
chanie hussen well he says Paul says in Corinthians this and that but I haven’t heard chapter & verse?well maybe I should listen again!
Were you not listening? Did you miss the entire point? He quoted scripture many times and also gave examples of how our English translation may misrepresent the true meaning.
1,000 liker!
The women were to cover their hair because of the Fallen Angels and the ideas they had about women s hair. See Gen 6- and see what Dr. Michael Hauser wrote about the Fallen Angels in his disertation.
Where does the passage ever say "fallen" angels?
Fallen angels are nowhere in context. Paul tells about angels of God viewing to see that ORDER IN CREATION is acknowledged by women -. HEAD of the woman is man .
Veil is an external symbol of authority that a godly woman wears in acknowledgement of the authority of man over her by virtue of God's order in creation.
I have always considered Wright as a well-learned man with much to say, yet his words ought to be carefully taken, as he is mistaken on some points. As my own mentor says, "eat the meat, leave the bones." Yet this video was a poor handling of the subject in my view. Counterpoints could be made to each of his sentences.
I don’t consider myself to be an intellectual of the knowledge of this world but when it comes to God’s word I’m strong. This man words are not of God!! This is nothing more than a fancy speech.
Does the Bible support the idea that women can be pastors and elders? No, it does not. According to Scripture women are not to be pastors and elders. Let's take a look.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterward, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.1 This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let's take a look.
1 Timothy 2:12-14, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression."
1 Timothy 3:15, "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man (1 Timothy 2:12) in the church context, "the household of God," (1 Timothy 3:15). This verse is not about political, social, or economic aspects of the secular realm. It is not about a "patriarchal society" at the time of Paul. This is the instruction to the household of God and anchors its teaching on the doctrinal truth that Adam was created first.
When we look further at Paul's teachings, we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), who manages his household well, and has a good reputation (1 Timothy 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity" (1 Timothy 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer.'
The Greek for "husband of one wife" is found in these verses
1 Timothy 3:2, "andra mias gunaikos"; andra = man/husband; mias = of one; gynaikos = woman/wife
1 Timothy 3:12, "andres mias gynaikos"; andres = men/husbands; mias = of one; gynaikos = woman/wife
Titus 1:6, "aner mias gunaikos"; aner = man/husband; mias = of one; gynaikos = woman/wife
In other words, each is saying a "man of one woman," or a "one woman man." Notice that the biblical instruction is that the elders, bishops, overseers must be men. 'Andra,' 'andres' and 'aner' all are cognates of the same word in Greek meaning man, husband. In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male2. He is the husband of one wife ('aner mias gunaikas,' 'man of one woman'), responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict," (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things," (1 Timothy 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Timothy 2:12-14). This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Being a Pastor or Elder is to be in Authority
God is a God of order and balance. He has established order within the family (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21) and the church (1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9). Even within the Trinity, there is an order, a hierarchy. The Father sent the Son (John 6:38), and both the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26).3 Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 6:38). It is clear that God is a God of order and structure. This applies in the Christian church as well.
In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 when speaking of authority. Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority. Therefore, within the church, for a woman to be a pastor or elder, she would be in authority over men in the church which contradicts what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:11-14.
What about Deborah?
In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel and had authority over men. This is true, but the Old Testament judge was not a New Testament elder. The contexts are different. Paul's instruction is to the New Testament church, not Old Testament judges. Also, Deborah was a judge, she wasn't a pastor or elder in a church.
What About Galatians 3:28?
Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.
Unfortunately, those who use this verse this way have failed to read the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise," (v. 29).4 The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are - Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way - by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.
This verse is not talking about church structure or offices therein. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." Therefore, it cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2-3 and Titus 1.
But Doesn't This Teaching Belittle Women?
Male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not. Women are of great value in the church and need to be used more and more according to the gifts given them. But it must be according to scripture.
Does the wife's submission to the husband mean that she is less than the husband, less important, or belittled? Again, not at all. Not having a place of leadership in the church does not mean a woman is less of a person, less important to God, or inferior. All are equal before God whether it be Jew, Gentile, free, slave, male, or female. But in the church, God has set up an order the same way he set one up in the family. It is not an issue of being belittled. It is an issue of being faithful to God's word and those who are not, belittled the word of God.
What About Women Who Say They are Called By God to Be Pastors?
There are women pastors in the world who love their congregations and have said that they are called by God to be pastors. Of course, I cannot agree with this considering the previous analysis of the biblical position. God would not act in a manner to contradict his word. Instead, they have usurped the position of men and gone against scriptural revelation. Additionally, those who state that they are called by God because of the great job they are doing and the gifting they have received, are basing their theology upon experience and not scripture. This is, unfortunately, a common occurrence in the Christian church today where experience, desires, and wants are often placed above Scripture.
I'm not decided on the issue, but it is important to remember that Paul is writing a letter to a community that used to have a female led sect. In that context, women not being allowed to have authority over men, might simply mean that they in particular could easily have assumed that women need to be in charge, and Paul is saying that women, like all, should study quietly, be respectful, and not assume they can be leaders simply because they are women. It is much later that this letter is canonized. Paul would probably not expect it to even be circulated to other congregations. It is our responsibility to read it within the original context.
@@MortenBendiksen Paul does clearly state that what he is writing is a principal for the church, Not just some cultural issue to be dealt with. (1Tim3:14I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that,
15if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth)
CB, your sexism disgusts me!!!
I saw numerous logical fallacies and inconsistencies in your "essay," too many to count. Your statements have already been debunked numerous times already. I also noticed that he literally went over these passages in thevideo, but all you did was repeat the complementar I an argument. It was all addressed in the video.
Also mathematical errors concerning the Greek you made. Again, all of this has been debunked.
If it is so great, why you anglicans now have gafcon split?e
If husbands loved their wives like Christ loves the Church, they would interpret the scriptures properly. Women have no problem serving a husband that loves them like they are supposed to. Each person, male or female, is responsible for how they treat each other.
'evil makes you boring'..spot on ..look at Bill Gates.
yes evil is boring
You cant get around 1 Tim 2, because the following reason given for the exhortation is the creation and speaks loud about authority and leadership being given to men. So there u have it.
Read "The handmaidens conspiracy" by Donna Howell. It addresses just about everything in scripture that has to deal with women in the church. Definitely worth the read for those who are not too prideful and not willing to educate themselves on different view points. Whatever "side" you are on, it's best to know both sides very well.
How do you get around Judges Chapters 4 & 5, which are devoted to the Judge Deborah? Deborah is described as the leader of Israel, Judge and Prophet. While English translations call her "the wife of Lappidoth", but the Hebrew actually says "woman of fire", denoting the anointing of the Holy Spirit. She might not have been married at all, as the text doesn't say. "She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the Israelites came up to her for judgment", says verse 5. She summoned the Israelite general Barak and he obliged to come to her. She commanded him, and when he gave her back-talk, she retorted that the victory would be taken away from him and given to a woman (which then occurred when Jael killed Sisera with supernatural upper body strength that is quite remarkable). Barak became quite submissive to Deborah after that, and in Chapter 5 he and Deborah sang praises to God together in the Song of Deborah. At the end of Chapter 5 we are told that Deborah went on to preside over 40 years of peace in Israel. She was, in fact, the only Judge to do so. How do you get around that?
@@darlameeks We dont get around it we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New, and in the Churches women are commanded to keep silent, nor usurp authority over the man. The entire book of Judges hangs on these fe words every man did what was right in his own eyes. Deborah being over Israel was a sign of disorder and shame on Israel's part, just because She was capable did not make it right.
@@darlameeks paul knew the book of Judges certainly. However in 1 Cor 14:34, he says his prohibition to women not speaking ie teaching and preaching in the gathered congregation is also according to the law. So clearly he didnt see Deborah's leadership as the norm. It was clearly a judgment against the men for their failure. Judges 5 shows that the men were fearful and thus God used both Deborah and Jael to bring deliverance to Israel. It says he chooses the weak to do his works. But it doesnt set a president, else in Isa 3:4, women having rule in Israel will not be seen as a judgment of the nation.
@@martin.asare33 God bless you for your response. Are you aware that the church in America is made up of 69% female and only 31% male? Why is this, do you think? In my own experience, I have observed that many women attend church alone while their husbands stay at home. I was one of those women. Many women pray and pray, with their husbands only coming to Christ after many years of prayer (my Aunt experienced this). Many young men only attend church after they have married & had children, in my experience. As for St. Paul, I very much honor him as an apostle, but he himself admitted that he was sometimes speaking from his own opinion and not from the Lord. (1 Cor. 7:25, 1 Cor. 7:40, 2 Cor: 8: 10). Be careful of Paul worship! He warned against it! (1 Cor. 1:12-13). The early church could be subject to the cult of personality, as we are now. Perhaps he responded in anger in Timothy, momentarily forgetting Deborah? Or perhaps his calling specifically as an Apostle to the Gentiles is the answer. Gentile women were perhaps not well versed in the Scriptures as a Jewish woman would be, and not ready to speak from the Scriptures? Perhaps these ignorant, gentile women spoke out of turn? Men have unfortunately responded to these passages with pride. Are men so prideful that they can't take instruction from women? By the way, my male pastor asked me to teach a mixed adult Sunday School, filled with both women and men. This is because he humbly recognized in me the gift of teaching, given by God. In order to believe as you do, you must cast aside the substantial Word of God regarding Deborah, must you not? Two whole chapters of Judges?
9:10
26:55
27:53
29:18
He fail to debunk the biblical traditional stand of the roll of women in ministry. There is not one compelling argument and I am looking with the desire to find it. "Sorry is to late, i will be brief" Give people the bible arguments that stands in favor, what he did make me think of woman a brave and hardworking but not as ministers.
(I didn't watch the video.)
Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually.
A Judge was a pastor. Deborah was a Judge.
If you want a study, I suggest my short and free
essay on Deborah. Else I can answer questions
about what a Judge was at that time period, and
what Deborah did.
@@8784-l3b ok give me the link, now you sure has knowledge of the complementarian stand about the passages on 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, there is not qualifications for a judge as far as I know.
@@agustintadeo I'll paste up the essay. The point of the
essay is to show that men and women are perfectly
equal spiritually. There was no gender qualification to
be a Judge over Israel.
No New Testament scriptures are referenced. Why not?????
The reason is that we know that God made a woman a Judge.
This was His will. It's history. Any doctrine that goes against
what God did must be a false doctrine.
So two things are needed. One needs to understand what a
Judge was at this time period AND that a woman, Deborah,
was a Judge. The word 'Judge' in the Book of Judges does
NOT translate to modern English.
@@agustintadeo
Essay on Deborah, the Judge and prophetess. (Revised May 2023)
Before Paul we have her story. We don't know what Paul would have
said about her. We have to read about her first and then try to understand
Paul (if possible).
This is what the people at the beginning of Christianity had to do.
They knew the story of Deborah already.
Deborah is either a meaningless exception or an important precedent,
in the debate of whether men and women are spiritually equal.
Before beginning, it should be noted that there is no
scripture stating clearly or even hinting at,
that Deborah was God's second choice. There was no man
that rejected the call to be Judge, requiring a woman to
take that place.
*************************************************************
INTRODUCTION:
Before God was rejected by Israel for the rulership of men, that is, kings,
there were different 'seasons' so to speak. One of those seasons
was the time of the Judges.
...but they have rejected Me from being King over them.
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-in that they have abandoned Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you as well.
-excerpt 1 Samuel 8
A Judge at this time, was VERY different from a judge in our time.
The Judge was over the nation of Israel. But not as a man, as
King, or as a woman, as Queen, because God was not rejected as King as yet.
God ruled Israel through the Judges.
Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV
Major modern English translations like the NASB use
the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people...
[PASTOR - Origin: late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French pastour,
from Latin pastor ‘shepherd’.]
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
Also:
Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning, and since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel.
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verses 9 and 10 KJV -God speaking to Nathan the prophet
Finally:
All the Judges were men, except one. Deborah.
She was married, but her husband was not a Judge.
HER JUDGING AUTHORITY here:
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment.
-excerpt Judges 4
Deborah judged men and had the authority to execute, as
some sins in the Old Covenant, such as murder, demanded the death penalty
as the punishment.
There was no appeal to Deborah's (a Judge's) verdict:
... you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left.
If a man rejected Deborah's decision, the penalty was execution:
But the person who acts insolently by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that person shall die;...
She used the Law, therefore scripture, when judging and instructing:
In accordance with the terms of the law about which they instruct you...
She had the same authority as a Levitical priest:
So you shall come to the Levitical priests or the judge...
Also of note, she judged the hardest cases in the nation.
“If a case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, that are cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. So you shall come to the Levitical priests or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict. Then you shall act in accordance with the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the Lord chooses; and you shall be careful to act in accordance with everything that they instruct you to do. In accordance with the terms of the law about which they instruct you, and in accordance with the verdict which they tell you, you shall act; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. But the person who acts insolently by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that person shall die; so you shall eliminate the evil from Israel.
-excerpt Deuteronomy 17
********************************
THE REASON GOD SENT HER here:
...the Lord was moved to pity...
And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them.
-excerpt Judges 2
The sending of a Judge meant God was showing mercy to His people.
It wasn't a judgment against them.
Since Deborah was a woman, this scripture is sometimes used
in error to describe her, in our time:
My people! Their oppressors treat them violently,
And women rule over them.
My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths.
-excerpt Isaiah 3
They are taking the prophetess Deborah and comparing her to
Jezebel who murdered prophets.
Has it not been reported to my master what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord, that I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord...
-excerpt 1 Kings 18
When a Judge died, THEN people were led astray.
But it came about, when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their obstinate ways.
-excerpt Judges 2
THE AUTHORITY SHE HAD OVER THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY here:
Now she sent word and summoned Barak...
She gave the order for the battle to begin that Israel won.
Then Deborah said to Barak, “Arise! For this is the day on which the Lord has handed Sisera over to you...
Before the battle began she prophesied that a woman
would kill Sisera (the enemy commander). This happened,
as Jael, a woman not part of the battle, killed Sisera.
She said, “I will certainly go with you; however, the fame shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”
And:
But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died. And behold, while Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael came out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” So he entered with her, and behold, Sisera was lying dead with the tent peg in his temple.
So what were the results of this battle?
And the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword before Barak; and Sisera got down from his chariot and fled on foot. But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not even one was left.
Also:
So God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan on that day before the sons of Israel. And the hand of the sons of Israel pressed harder and harder upon Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had eliminated Jabin the king of Canaan.
-excerpts Judges 4
In Judges 5, most of the chapter is Deborah and Barak
singing praises to God. The song lyrics are there.
Final sentence of Judges 5:
And the land was at rest for forty years.
Obviously a great outcome.
EXPLANATION OF GOD USING DEBORAH here:
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth...
Prophets and prophetesses are anointed with the
Holy Spirit as we know.
The explanation of God using Deborah to judge men
and being over the army is here:
An anointing of the Holy Spirit is the anointing of a powerful masculine being. That anointing eclipses gender.
FINAL THOUGHTS here:
A woman anointed with the Holy Spirit can serve in any capacity
in our time. Whatever valid title/position there is.
To oppose this, is to oppose the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit
that was upon Deborah the prophetess and Judge. Deborah, the
woman that "saved them from the hand of their enemies" by
God's will.
Let's look at what the Bible says.
1 Tim. 2:12-14, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression."
1 Tim. 5:17, "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching."
Titus 1:5-9, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict."
We can see that Paul did not allow women to teach or exercise authority over a man; elders preached, and they were to be the husband of one wife. This is what it says, so shouldn't we believe it?
Husband of one wife
The term "husband of one wife" needs to be examined. Literally, the Greek says "a man of one woman." Does this mean that if a man is not married, then he is not qualified to be an elder? The historical context of Paul's writing was that people got married very early. Marriage was a natural and normal condition of life, and it was assumed that people were married by an early age--often in their mid to late teens. Also, polygamy was a common practice then. It is in this context that Paul is speaking, and he says that the elders are to be the husband of one wife. Why? Because Adam had one wife, Eve. That is the pattern that God set up, and that is the pattern that needs to be followed.
So, what happens if an elder's wife dies? Is he suddenly disqualified from being an elder? It would not seem so. Instead, what Paul is getting at is that the elder, who is naturally assumed to be male, is to be the husband of one wife. That is, he's not to be a polygamist.
But, some will say that since it is okay for an elder to be single, then the literal requirement of being a husband of one wife is not an absolute requirement. But, as is stated above, the context is dealing with the plurality of wives issue, and the natural requirement is monogamy. Furthermore, the text of Titus 1:5-9, which continues on the requirements of being an elder, also says he is to not be self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not argumentative, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, etc. If the elder isn't to be monogamous, then is he also dismissed from these requirements as well? Of course not.
Except Paul did allow women to teach men. They were encouraged to do so, by name, in virtually every letter he wrote. At most, the directives you quote were culturally specific.
"I do not permit." Does he ever say God forbids this? Just curious, does Paul ever say that God does not want women to fulfill such roles?
biscuitdave Can you give specific references?
You literally just repeated your argument, as if you totally ignored Wright's addressing of these verses in the video.
> Let's look at the context
> Only looks at the context as it relates to men
Jesus didn't call his disciples as Apostles, that title was given to them by others, except in case of Paul who conferred that on himself.
The societal norms in those days bypassed Mary as an Apostle but the fact remains that she was the one who brought the greatest Gospel of the times to other disciples, that of the ressurection of Christ. That literally makes her the Apostle to the Apostles.
Jesus himself endorsed her choice as the right one and though he did not send her away to preach, she served the living alter till the very end, even when all the so called Apostles had fled for their life.
All scriptures, all prophets, all laws find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ and may you like it or not, you will not deny what God chose, the cast away stone which the builders refused is to become the head stone of the corner.
@Reji Paul So yes, you have a verse by Luke where he tells that Jesus called them 'Apostle'. Note this is a third person reference and not a direct quote.
You also accepted that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene as per the verses. Though there are other verses too. So which is true.
Rest all the verses are from Paul, it is him that tries to place women as something inferior. Do you really think God discriminates on basis of sex. That's just petty. I know roles of gender has been assigned by God but i don't think he discriminates based on those.
“but few things are needed-or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” - Luke 10:42.
And no, one does not rebel against God by trying to understand and correct beliefs accordingly.
That is why Christianity does not have hadits, By one fell swoop yoi discarded half of churches on thos planet.
@Reji Paul Jews first becoz the ill need doctor.
“On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’
For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
- Matt 12-13
Did Mary eat with Jesus, maybe not, maybe she did, we do not know. But God in his infinite wisdom chose her to be the apostle to the apostles.She was with him till the very end and i have no doubt that she was rewarded for it.
There is a greater word of God than Bible, it is Jesus Christ himself and unless he guides you, your study is fruitless.
“This is why I speak to the crowds in parables: although they see, they don’t really see; and although they hear, they“ - Matt 13:13
It isn't that easy that you read, yoi collate and you get the keys to heaven. God sees inside you and he knows you to the last atom in your body.
Whatever i say is born not out of study but the belief that God provides the answers.
“
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.“
- Luke 6:26
@Reji Paul First of all, Bible is not a Heavenly Book, it was compiled by the efforts of a pagan king when two sects of quarraling Christians came to him and to his astonishment he found that they had nothing in writing, so he funded approx 3000 elders for 5 years or so to compile the book from contemprory literature.
I do however believe that it was written by divine inspiration, but it does not work the way most people percieve. It hastens virtue signallers to their doom, there's nothing in there with to protect yourself with once you are on the path and God ofcourse, knowing you does not save you.
There's a whole trajectory of verses that virtue signalling Christians do not want to own up, like Luke 19:27, Luke 22:38, John 2:15, Mark 13:2, Mark 11:14, Luke 14:31, Luke 14:23 and in it lies the sieve that seperates believers from virtue signallers.
Fact is Christianity was spread through sword and small tiny nations that did it became big empires. This was the Holy Spirit's work and not of the desert people who cried “Rabbi, Rabbi, me too“.
“I am God, the only God there is. Besides me there are no real gods. I'm the one who armed you for this work, though you don't even know me“ - Isaiah 45:5
These men are just mad because Jesus likes women better.
Is there a time in the Bible when a woman performs a blood sacrifice? Burns up the fat and blood on an altar?
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
-excerpt 1 Peter 2
Wrght, please read the scrpture to support what you are saying.
God created both man and woman co-heirs of the earth. Both are to rule and subdue it but not rule over each other. It is man, now that he has become a sinners, who decides to rule over women. Man who creates these traditional roles that are not God's will. It is predominant in the middle East even today. Jewish tradition forbade women to learn. They decided the roles of men and women and if a woman was to learn anything she can "ask her husband". Jesus says "No". This is why we have the story of Mary and Martha. Jesus and the rest of the men show up to the house and Martha follows tradition but Mary sits at the feet of Jesus with the men acting as if she were a man (gasp). It's ok if you want to serve others out of love but forget tradition. Women are equal to men. You can't teach if you don't learn. Why do you think they wanted to keep slaves ignorant? Why was there a "dark ages"? It's about control. The disgusting thing is when they pretend "it's for your own good".
Why does the speaker not quote the relevant Bible verses?
Who is actually the One being kept in silence?
U.
A prerequisite of progressing in the Church of England is to have extremely liberal views of biblical teaching. The Church of England FOLLOWS THE WORLD when it should be leading it. The Church should be LIGHT, but the C of E prefers to follow secular darkness.
Your understanding of extremely liberal is highly questionable, arguably ridiculous. I do not think that there is much evidence for saying that the two present archbishops hold extremely liberal views of biblical teaching. Have you met many or any theologians who claim that they hold extremely liberal views? There are theologians who regard liberals as dinosaurs.
"The best cure for christianity is reading the bible"
, (Mark Twain)
"The bible has driven reason from the minds of millions,It has made credulity the greatest of virtues,and investigation the greatest of crimes,The instant we admit that a book is too sacred to be doubted or even reasoned about.we are mental serfs,"
How long will mankind worship a book?How long will it grovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the barbaric past" , (Robert Ingersoll)
Most of what discredits christianity comes from within christianity,You don't have to go outside of religion to tear it apart." (Dan Barker)
The Bible writers >"Some of them,as it were in a drunken state producing self induced visions, remodel their gospel from its first written form,and reform it so that they may be able to refute the objections brought against it". ( Roman philosopher Celsus )
1 timothy 2:11-12. A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.
--------------------------
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he overpowers her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives.
----------------------------
leviticus 21:9. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1 cor 2: 14
Just plopping verses down without any study does not make one wise. It merely shows laziness.
John 3:8 l
Not every eyewitness of the Resurrected Jesus is an apostle. If that was the case, then the 500 which paul mentions as being eyewitness were also apostles. So it's wrong to say mary is an apostle the apostles. It demands commissioning , and spiritual gifts to be an apostle.
Paul mentioned Junia, a woman, as an Apostle. Why not Mary? Also note that the male Apostles were not without conflict. Paul rebuked Peter, who was the rock upon which the Church is built. Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom by Christ Himself, while Paul never actually walked with Jesus. Why is Paul given so much play over Peter? How does Paul have so much cheek as to rebuke Peter, the first among Apostles?
@@darlameeks paul never said Junia was an apostle, his statement is Junia is highly regarded among the apostles. This means Junia was a person of high reputation by the apostles. It doesnt simply he was an apostle. Besides, Many scholars have concluded Junia was a male and not a female so I wouldnt even make a case with that.
Again there is nothing like a super apostle, they all were on the same footing. Peter was acting contrary to the gospel he preached and needed to be corrected. All apostles have the same rank in the church and Peter was merely a leader of the group not to say he was like a super apostle with special honor vs the others. Pail said he was no way inferior to Peter himself as an apostle and the original 12 ( the super apostles)1 Cor 9:1-6, 2 Cor 11:5, 12:12. Your tendency to slight paul as an apostle is the same thing that he faced in his days, a thing he defended against. So ask yourself on whose side are u on? Again apostles were not perfect men in their conduct, but in their writings they were inspired so they are the very infallible and inerrant word of God .enough said!
@@martin.asare33 Not the most accepted interpretation among scholars, but I guess this makes you feel better. Thanks for sharing.
outlawbiblestudent.org/did-a-woman-write-the-book-of-hebrews-a-study-of-priscilla/
I definitely think he's pulling at strings here regarding the no male or female sentence. If we are to take it literally then yes I can see the no male or female, as that's what the Greek says, however for sentence structure and understanding the translation it would still be familiar or similar to say that neither male nor female, As it would still fit in with the idiom. Plus most translations write like this, signifying that it's mostly pulling at straws and is pretty much saying the same thing in two different ways. But I'm only in the first third of the video, so I might add or change this comment after listening to the last part. Plus his way of connecting it back to Genesis feels a bit odd. Again, semantics or pulling at strings.
Another example he uses is how some of the women wouldn't be understand what was going on during the service and then so they would be talking among themselves, to me this doesn't seem fitting, as he's applying a more modern day cultural aspect of women who wouldn't have completely understood due to language differences, to a time when the women in the church would have likely spoken the same language that their husbands would have spoken in that time.
(I haven't watched the video.)
All this really goes back to Deborah. I suggest my short free
informal essay on her. Postable here
Jews and gentiles were under different hope,Jews under law,Greeks under grace,Jews,gave gentiles 4rules only,right???
Galations 3: 28
Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, writing perhaps just prior to Chrysostom’s comments on Rom 16:7, includes a reference to Iounian in his Index of Disciples: “Junias(masculine), of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria. But this does not matter that much as N.T Write tries to hide as a true egalitarian what Paul really says in his references, and that is bad, really bad.
So do you think Epiphanius was right about the gender of Prisca?
@@tonyoliver2750 no, I just say that Tom Wright hides these information, while emphasising on his goal and opinion. He avoids explaining what Paul says about the women in the church. The verses alone define women participation leaving us no room to say what Tom says.
On the other hand, I do tend to accept Junia as a woman apostle. Why not? Who says that an apostle, which means missionary can not be but men? But what certainly is a must for us, is not only to catch the verses clear meanings (Tom doesn't) but understand the freedom which filled the real first church manners, away from titles, which the Anglicans by the way have abilished.
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης Well if you think Epiphanius was wrong about the gender of Prisca and you also think Junia was a woman, what was the point of your reference to Epiphanius in the first place? And what do you mean when you say Anglicans have abolished titles?
@@tonyoliver2750 I m writting about the ways that the theme is presented by this man. Excellent speaker, but trying to disprove the normal ways to understand the woman in church and Paul's writtings. While he presents every possible clue, this is done only when this suits his presentation.
He really presented a different Paul, he has hidden the true meaning of Paul's speakings on women in the church, and caught the chance to refer to Junia, which does not necessarily affect Paul teachings, which is also not quite certain of the gender, and avoids referring to the rest.
Agreeing or not whether Junia is a female, or Epiphanius was right, is not the point. The point is clear through Paul's teaching and I feel disturbed cause the speaker speaks not the truth about it.
@@ΜάριοςΛοϊζίδης I see, but I really do not agree with you. Neither does NT Wright who is an honest man and a great New Testement scholar. But just because we disagree with each other does not mean that either NT Wright or I are lying.
A very slippery slope you are trying to traverse.
Watch around 47 minutes how Wright skates around 1 Timothy 2 by reference to popular stereotypes. Oh dear!
Job 34:3 For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.
Some things in here that make you go hmm. Note time mark from around 20:00-38:12
I largely disagree with Wrights exhortation. I especially disagree, as he implies, that Mary sought the position of a Rabbi, especially since it was Jesus himself who said call no man Rabbi;. Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
I'm thinking maybe this guy needs to go and sit at Jesus' feet. But wait there's more...
This is the story of Mary of Bethany told in all four gospels. She sat at the feet of Jesus and listened to His stories (Luke 10:39); students studying to be disciples did this as well. The disciples sat next to Him not on the floor.
@@cbdw7143 true, this is also Mary who when Jesus was on his way to raise Lazarus from the dead...sat in the house, it was Martha that went to greet him. We must not assume that the word of God is only for teachers, it is actually much more for those who would (learn) the purposes of God. The word of God is for everyone. Blessings!
By the way, we should also recognize that Jesus was not bound by the traditions of man. They called him Rabbi, when he was actually the Creator manifested in the flesh to reveal the love of God, and he loves men and women equally. But he has also designated their respective individual rolls for his own purposes.
This is quite an old video but i listened through it nonetheless. Couldn't help perusing through the comments in this section and i felt to leave mine here too. Foremost whatever this speaker is trying to say cannot at all be qualified with scripture, i guess the fact that he is a scholar and have read and researched widely makes him want to force his scholastic interpretation of biblical truths on the laity, that is why many seem to agree with him but thankfully some, even me, strongly disapprove with his statements. Trying to counter his narrative with scripture is work in futility for we would expect these kind of people to always find an interpretation of the said verse, They are intelligent and articulate hence you might never convince them, they are so far into the rabbit hole, of personal convictions outside the right light of the truth, that it takes only God to turn them around. So what's my point?: My personal Mantra in relation to scripture is "THE WORD MUST BE RECEIVED AS IS. INTERPRETATION IS NO LONGER REQUIRED" as it is clear in the following scripture (REV.22:18-19, JOHN 1:14, DEUT.29:29, HEB. 1:1-3, 1PETER 1:19-21)
To those who support these unbiblical views here is what i need you to understand. The church of England was among the first 'Evangelical" denomination to ordain gay bishops, approving what scripture expressly say is an abomination before the LORD of all the earth. So my friends do not wonder what background of belief and scriptural adherence he is from, he cant help but twist and distort scripture to fit his reason and skewed world view and that of his immediate institution. You can listen to what he says on the issue of gay marriage here=> th-cam.com/video/YpQHGPGejKs/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SteveYamaguchi
I apologize if my statements seem intolerant, but what needs must be said and done and i support any Christian who firmly rebukes such runaway apostasy even as the scripture commands(GALATIAN 1:6-9). Shalom
You know satan only appears 3times in scripture, once to tempt jesus, once to accuse job, and once to deceive eve. he must really hate women
The serpent tempted Eve. The serpent is not specified as Satan. It could be that the serpent was just a serpent.