I feel as if I have been hit by a train - The Teaching was so profound that I am almost speechless - Must go off and find Ben's books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good stuff! I liked how he pointed out that women's roles in the family are often determined by gender roles (and biology), but women's roles in the church are determined by gifting. I also love how he affirms the single life for the kingdom and points out the church has neglected that role and calling.
The only 'gender' roles are in fact the biology of sex. Women have children, men have sperm. Men are far stronger, on average than women, so the heavy work is rightly theirs. They also run on testosterone when push comes to shove (but this has to be controlled otherwise, trouble). But every married man knows. Back home, the wife is the boss! Their views are far more nuanced then men's typically.
Imagine how much of the Bible has been misinterpreted in the translation to romantic languages and English. There should be studying of hebrew and greek in all churches.
Man, this is the best comment. We 'under expect' of our brethren. For example, I expect every Christian young person to get to 18 and have read the entire Bible; the New Testament twice. For starters! No, we're not serious.
You are more than right. There should be Hebrew New Testament and Old Testament Bibles and we should train our children to read and write Masoretic Hebrew. Muslims do this routinely. We can have our translations but not ignore the Hebrew original
I really liked and enjoyed this. I tend not to be as much of a fundamentalist, and the best I can understand and figure on some of this subject matter is evolution into Christ (either way, we are still "stardust"). Still, I think he brings forth some interesting and even amazing perspectives.
I'm not a fundamentalist either, but we do not 'evolve' into Christ; we are never merged with Christ. We become like him, but we do not become him. Remember, evolution is a materialist philosophy that contains all of reality to the material cosmos. Yet, we know that material cannot explain the formation of information systems (biological information systems) from material sources; nor can it explain how evolution might work in the comparatively short time span of a mere few billion years of accidental atom bumping.
@@dagwould I agree that we cannot "be" Christ or anything like that. I think though that we can grow & or evolve into Christ's Spirit and into wisdom and insight into Christ. Perhaps I should have stated it better. Thanks for the comment.
If you are going to say that in some marriages (only) the husband and wife have been joined "by God" - in others not - you need to be able to say how one knows whether it is God who has joined the couple together.
Great sermon. So if ha Adam is man and only ha Adam get ejecked from the garden if ishah is not included in ha Adam does that mean she does not need sanctification from christ?
That was a very helpful and insightful talk overall. It was a shame that Ben made a slightly insulting joke about John Piper that was not necessary; NT Wright and Piper have publicly disagreed with each other before in a much more complimentary and respectful way than that joke signals. Despite that, I got a lot from this. Thank you for the helpful overview.
Dr.W, Would most likely criticize one of two authors listed in th Danvers Statement. Wayne Grudem and John Piper who are the two most famous proponents of male headship "We are equally endowed. . .but do we all have tge same assignments?" I like that he did not shy away from the problem of Gender dysphoria and unfaithful gender reassignment surgery and the confusion it re-inforces.
I agree with almost everything he preached. Very good presentation overall. However the crux of this issue is still the following: is there ANY distinction between the roles of men and women prescribed by God in the bible? We can worry about the particulars once that has been established, and there are many (and i don't claim to know or comprehend them all). His apparently reactionary response to "patriarchy" (read sinful men) is not adequate to conclude that there are NO differences between the roles of men and women. Frankly it's a hard case to make since the bible is rife with examples which both describe and prescribe differences along gender lines. Please let the bible speak for itself - see 24:14 in the video - likewise we also must choose based on the revealed word of God. Read it for yourself.
I don't get this obsession with different roles for men and women. Why must there be different roles? How about different roles for right-handed people and for left-handed? For white and for black? How about we are all one in Christ Jesus.
It's very simple: When God means for tbere to be role differences beween His creatures, He bakes it in to their physical design. You don't see hawks and salmon and elephants worrying about their "roles"...they just do what they were designed to do. But we humans sometimes think we're smarter than God, and try to create artificial roles for other people, many of which are actually in opposition to their design, or limit their full God-designed functioning! (See slavery, patriarchy (now rebranded complementarianism) and differing role expectations based on caste or class for examples).
Be sure to read it well. And study well the Greek word which is translated authority. And be careful that you don't build a doctrine on a couple of verses which are interpreted without understanding context.
I disagree on one thing: context clues point to Eve knowing God's command. That's clear from the text. Saying that it was probably Adam's responsibility to inform her is patriarchal thinking when the text never says that. Please don't read into the text what isn't there.
@@dagwould The text doesn't say anything about his silence or outspokenness on the matter. It just says he was with her. But they were both equally responsible, Adam wasn't given more responsibility by God.
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. Spoiler alert! This book does not prove that women have ever received what the Catholic Church terms the “ministerial priesthood”. In my opinion, she does prove that the Catholic Church’s current conventional narrative (CCC 1577) about how the apostles only chose men as their ordained collaborators and only had men for liturgical service is false. She proves this in the chapter on women preachers and baptizers. However there is a conspicuous lack of 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) 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. Let the reader be warned! There is a lot of “chaff” in this book where the author completely brakes 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 whatever she likes to 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. It is believable that they could have been the religious leaders for these communities until male presbyters and apostles could arrive who would have been able to confirm the converts and set up local presbyters. It is notable that Kateusz cannot present a scrap of evidence that the female apostles were ordaining presbyters for their communities. Confirming and Ordaining are among the first things that Paul does when he arrives in a community. Here are some other highlights • The book confirms what Hans Urs Von Balthasar theorized about Mary being the greatest theologian. 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, there is no reason to think that a female deacon couldn't co-preside. This is much more consistent with the canonical New Testament than believing that females transubstantiated the Eucharist. 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. I could see that the author probably has multiple PHD's in art history because she spent a lot of time analyzing the symbols inside historical church artworks. Her argument for women priests is basically this. Roman 16: 7 and reliable oral traditions from the 1st and 2nd century agree that women were given the extraordinary title “apostle”. Furthermore, the author's analysis of art history reveals that artwork inside Catholic churches and monasteries depicts women wearing a symbol of priestly ministry. Artwork is clearly very subjective even if you do have multiple degrees in art history. For me the decisive point is this, if author’s argument for women priests were correct her Life of Thecla would have Thecla performing the sacrament of Confirmation (laying on his hands) as well as baptizing. That along with the fact that Paul easily could have included a simple one sentence note about women priests in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 just as he did with women deacons a few sentences later are the two fundamental reasons that I don't believe the author's argument for women priests. That being said I still enjoyed the majority of her book.
Hang on! In the church we do not have 'leaders' we have servants. We are all servants and we serve in different ways, from the humble role of overseer, to the humble, but more visibly immediately imporatnt roles of cleaning the church premises, and making morning tea.
I find this presentation very fruitful for doctrine and interpretation. However, I do have to point out the irony of the degree of authoritative tones in the presenter. Sometimes I get worried that the declarative nature of academic writing can completely hide the humility that clearly exists in the servant of God, Dr. Ben. I don't wish to criticize but rather express my experience of this presentation. It likely says more about me than the clearly brilliant and dedicated, Dr. Ben. Thank you for posting this!
Wow so nice... thanks and also that your comments aren't full of uneducated vicious naysayers who look they've never actually read the bible themselves to try to figure it out on their own and with God as well. And what many don't realize is that you really have to disecct the bible in its original languge and context as well,even culturally. Due to this, the same idea swim through churches and this has marred many a womans destiny... unfortuantely... and sadly actually... especially when so many women support false teachings about women,in ignorance.
Thank you for a tremendous presentation, There is, however, one point made on which I do not agree. It was, I believe, suggested, that Adam's sin was IN NOT ADEQUATELY WARNING Eve of the truth of, and the consequences of, "eating the fruit of that tree". I believe that the sequence of the events point to something else. The sequence is clearly stated to be, 1.the deception of the woman, Eve, 2. the woman disobeying God and eating the fruit of that tree, 3. the woman, Eve, offering it to Adam, and 4. then Adam sinning by eating that fruit. I believe that "the sin of Adam" was his disobedience of God's order NOT to eat that fruit. I believe that the sequence clearly suggests that Adam's sin was not failing to prevent Eve's sin, but deliberately and consciously disobeying God's command NOT TO EAT OF THAT FRUIT. Moreover I believe that, within that sequence, Adam made a clear choice. He CHOSE to follow Eve into that sin. Adam, in fact deliberately CHOSE to turn his face toward the now fallen Eve and TURN HIS BACK ON GOD! Adam chose to follow Eve into sin, and CHOSE NOT TO HONOUR his relationship with his Creator. I am convinced that, as it is a sequence, time is involved, and whether the time between steps 3 and 4 are moments, minutes or moths, THERE WAS TIME EINOGH FOR ADAM TO HAVE MADE THAT CHOICE TO FOLLOW EVE IN REBELLION. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS ADAM'S DISOBEDIENCE OF GOD'S CLEAR COMMAND TO BE THAT SIN PAUL ADDRESSES IN THE NT.
Excellent! Thanks. But when he says 'gender' he means 'sex'. 'Gender' is a confected term to obliterate sex.. . at about 34:30: the 10's prohibition is not on killing, it is on murder.
Patriarchy isn't God's design? Wow, literally "the man is the head of the woman" is the definition of patriarchy. "Dr. Ben." has a PhD in garbage nonsense.
You do not understand the "Lets who God has joined together" That means a marriage for the Lord not a marriage to just anyone because of infatuation regardless of their faith or commitment to the Lord, if someone is God fearing and God loving marries to a similar partner they won't need a divorce they will manage to work out their differences if any, because of their trust in God if one marry out of their own will (you know the free will God has given us that lead us to sin because we think we know better)) without making God the counselor many will find out their marriage was just due to the whisper of the snake. What if you are a Muslim and have 4 wives then convert to Christianity are all your marriages for and from God should you not convert to Christianity because what ever you do your position is untenable.
@@blacksnow129 You're a mess. If you convert, then you'd likely leave the first 3 wives, since marrying someone else is adultery but nullifies the previous marriage. That's not untenable. You're eisegetical remarks about what makes a marriage a real marriage aren't worth responding to. You can marry an unbeliever and it's still a marriage, despite being sinfully entered into. Marriage doesn't have to be God-honoring to be genuine.
The two shall be one flesh! ,Christ,body is the church,hand foot,not gender,? We are all different,but are all of the same body ,which is Christ right??? What does the Bible say about it, that's what really counts, God's word KJV,right?
The Baptists are way to far our on the woman issue one way. The Wesleyans are way to far out the other way. Theres is a genuine tension in Scripture on the subject. The truth is somewhere in the sensible center.
1. There is not one Scripture in the Bible that forbids women from preaching, but on the contrary, there are many verses that encourage both men and women to preach the Gospel. 2. The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons, and He will use any and all who will yield to Him, regardless of race, age, or sex. Galatians 3:28 - "...neither male nor female...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Acts 10:34 - "...God is no respecter of persons...." Moses said in Numbers @, "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His spirit upon them!" The crying need of the hour is for more laborers. It is a trick of the enemy to try to down rate thousands of our faithful laborers just because they were born females. 3. The Great Commission, Mark 16:15, "Preach the Gospel," is to ALL believers, and to all the church of Jesus Christ. The command to "preach the Gospel" is to both male and female. 4. It is an undeniable fact that God has called and anointed thousands of women to preach the Gospel. The Full Gospel organizations teaching, evangelizing, pastoring, and doing mission work with the signs following their ministry. God is using them for the salvation of the lost, deliverance from sin, gifts of the Spirit, and infilling of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says, "Touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm." And may we be reminded of the Scripture in Acts 5:39, "If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." When someone says, "God does not call women to preach," it is like saying that God does not baptize with the Holy Spirit today. We know better, because we have witnessed and experienced it with our own ears and eyes. I would be afraid to condemn women preachers, lest I would be found to be fighting against God, and to be committing the vile sin of attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil. 5. Women preachers are a fulfillment of Bible Prophecy and another sign of Christ's soon return to earth (Joel @; Acts 2:17-18). 6. The Bible declares that women will prophesy: 1 Cor. 11:5, "For every woman that prayeth or prophesieth...." Both the Hebrew (Nebrah), and Greek (Proph) used for prophetess means (female preacher). (See Young's Concordance, Pg. 780.) The word "Prophet" means a public expounder. The word "Prophesy" means to speak forth, or flow forth. The Bible says in 1 Cor. 14:3, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto MEN to edification, and exhortation and comfort." The dictionary says, prophesy is "to speak under divine inspiration...to preach." Therefore we learn from the original translation, from the Bible interpretation, and from the dictionary, that to prophesy means more than to tell the future, but it is to speak publicly about the past, present, or future. It is to preach under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The Old and New Testament prophets and prophetesses were preachers of God's Word. Even if the words prophet and preacher could be separated, how could anyone prophesy to bring exhortation, comfort and edification to the church, if she were forbidden to speak in church and was to keep silent? Would God inspire and anoint someone to do something that was wrong and sinful??? * (There is a difference between a prophet, and the gift of prophecy.) 7. God called and used women preachers in the Old Testament. a. DEBORAH - Judges 4:4-5. Deborah was a Judge for both civil and criminal cases. The children of Israel came to her for judgment. She was the chief ruler of Israel for 40 years, giving orders to the Generals and all the army. She did the work of an evangelist, prophetess, Judge, and a preacher. God gave her authority over the mighty (Judges @). b. MIRIAM - Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1; Micah 6:4. She was a Prophetess and a Song Leader in Israel. c. HULDAH - 2 Kings @. Five men went to Sister Huldah and communed with her. She spoke to a congregation of men concerning the book of the Law. A female preached to a man's congregation, and her message was taken to the nation and produced a revival. d. MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ'S MOTHER - Isaiah 8:3. She was a prophetess. 8. God called and used women preachers in the New Testament. a. The first message of the Resurrection of Christ was spoken by women to a group of men. b. Anna - Luke 2:36-38. She must have prophesied in church, because she did not depart from the temple. c. Phillip had 4 daughters who prophesied. Acts 21:9. d. Priscilla assisted Paul in his revival meeting and even taught Apollos in the way of the Lord more perfectly. e. Phebe - Romans 16:1-2. Paul commended Phebe to the Church at Rome and requested that they assist her in her business. She was one of Paul's assistants in the work of the Lord and delivered the Book of Romans to the people from the hand of Paul. 9. There is no sound reason why a woman or man should not preach the Gospel. There is a desperate need in the church for more workers. Laborers are few, and God will use any and all who will go for Him. Some say God will not use a woman to preach, because "The woman was deceived," but remember Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world." It seems to indicate that Adam was just as guilty as Eve in the fall of man. If anyone should be kept from preaching because of sin, it would be Adam. But God does not forbid anyone from preaching, because of Adam's or Eve's sin. 10. 1 Cor. 14: 34-35 does not say anything about women preachers. If Paul intended this verse as a general rule to bar all women from speaking in church, then they cannot teach Sunday School, testify, pray, prophesy, sing, or even get saved, and this would contradict the rest of the Bible (Acts 2:4; Acts 2:16-18). Paul was rather dealing with a particular problem in the church. Women were not educated as were the men in that day; therefore the women would talk back and forth to their husbands in church and ask questions concerning the sermon. Paul said, "If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." If they want to talk things over let them wait until they get home. This rule is still good for the church today, where people are talking and causing confusion in the church service. They should not speak in church. (Not in the back of the church either before or after services.) If a woman cannot speak in church, then she cannot speak in prayer meeting, young people's service, etc., for who can deny that Sunday School and Prayer meeting, and Youth work are parts of church? Christ's Church is not a building, but rather it is found where two or three are gathered together in His name, whether at a street meeting, in a tent, a home, church, classroom or anywhere else. 11. 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a blanket rule for all women of all churches. If it were, then the women could not speak at all, for the same verse that tells them not to teach also tells them to be silent. If all women had to keep silent in church, then that would be promoting disobedience to God, for they could not prophesy, pray, testify, sing, exhort, do personal work, or even get saved. Whenever an interpretation to a verse contradicts the rest of the teaching of the Bible, we know this interpretation is incorrect, for the Holy Spirit will never contradict His own Word. This is the chief verse that is used to oppose women preaching and yet it says nothing about preaching, nor does it say anything about a public worship or church service. But, on the contrary, this verse is giving instructions to wives as to how they were to conduct themselves in regard to their husband. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:35, "And if they will LEARN anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Now he states in 1 Tim. @ that the woman should learn in silence, and should not usurp authority over the man. Paul is dealing with more of a home problem than a church problem.( My understanding of this is Holy male minister's should be given preference if a chose had to be made between a man and a woman minister) Victor. S Blogger This verse still applies to us today. It is wrong for a woman to usurp authority over her husband (in church, home, or any place else) as was the case in Paul's day. She should not try to teach him or speak words that would cause discord and confusion, but should rather be silent and in subjection to her husband. It is also to be understood that if anyone, whether man or woman, is usurping authority over the God-given leadership of the church, she or he is to be silent, and not to teach, or act in such a way that would create discord in the assembly. 12. Some have used Titus 1:6-7, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children...", but there is a difference between a preacher and a bishop. For I was an Evangelist and now am a Pastor, but I am not a Bishop (Overseer), and most Pastors are not. If God called a single man with no children to be a Bishop, as Paul was, surely this verse is not opposed to it, nor would this scripture oppose a woman Bishop if she was called of God for the work, as was Deborah. What this verse does teach is that a person who is to be a Bishop must not have two living companions, either husbands or wives.
The argument against this teaching is always backed up by scripture, 1 Corinthians 14, 33-40. If you want to ignore the promise at the end of that scripture you can choose to, I choose not to .
The Bible does not contradict itself . Only when understood and interpreted in the culture in which it was written should it then be applied to our culture. Read the historical context of Corinth at the time of Paul. Then you will understand why this instruction was necessary for women in the church of Corinth. Not to be generalized to all women. Read the glowing report by Paul of the women in ministry at Rome. How can you reconcile these very different writings by Paul about women in the church?
Vv. 34-35 directly and explicitly contradict 11:5 of the very same letter, and implicitly contradict the rest of the context of ch. 12-14 as well as the other "gifts" passages in Rom. 12 and Eph. 4, and many other parts of Scripture. IMO, the most likely explanation is that favored by Fee, Payne, and Bartlett: Vv. 34-35 comprise an early scribal margin gloss that got interpolated into the main text. However, I'm more comfortable with the idea proposed by scholars like Kirk MacGregor and Lucy Peppiat: The passage is one of several citation/refutation pairs found in 1 Cor., such that v. 36 is Paul's rebuttal of vv. 34-35.
Here is the Divinely approved Truth especially written for the Elected daughters of Almighty God:. ...... "11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer 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" 1 Timothy 2:10-14 (KJV) That is the TRUTH, many now do not like it, and refue to comply, but there it is. And again we plainly see: "As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are *not allowed to speak*" *[To talk, i.e. UTTER WORDS :- PREACH, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. -Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary] "But must be in *submission, as the Law says." *[To subordinate; reflexive to obey :- be under obedience (obedient), -Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary] "35 If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is *disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." *[A shameful thing, i.e. indecorum :- shame.-Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary] 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, **let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's** command" 1 Corinthians 14:33-37 (ANIV) Anyone in here "spiritually gifted" ? So again that is the TRUTH arrogant rebellious feminists may not like it, but there it is. Any feministic attempt at deviation is against the Truth and the commandment of the Lord.
You just proved his point of taking verses out of context. Now, is it that God restricts the majority of the human race, or is it that you desperately want women to be restricted because it gives you a boost in self-esteem? I always tell women to avoid men who don't approve of women in church leadership because that tells you of how they view women overall.
@@Himmiefan The verses are what Christian women must adhere to, if they refuse, that is their prerogative. But they are not the true "Daughters of Sarah" as they are defying the "Word of God".
There is commentary that Paul quoted that from someone who was claiming that in the church and Paul was arguing against…bc He later notes that we are all equal (both men and women) in Christ. Context is key.
Joel 2:28-29 [28]“And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. [29]Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. 1 Corinthians 11:5 [5]But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...
GOD DID CREAT EVIL Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things
@@dagwould SIR I DID. I DONT KNOW WAT U DONT UNDERSTAND WEN GOD SAID HE CREATED ALLLLLLLLL THINGS. HE ALSO SAID ROMANS 9:11-13 Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ SO GOD DOES HATE. OR ARE U SAYING DONT BELIEVE WAT I READ???
@@nicksanders9148 LAVELL CRAWFORD. WEN HE WAS A CHILD,HIS MOM TOLD HIM NOT TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR NO ONE. WY IN HELL AS A CHILD HE UNDERSTOOD THAT??? EVEN WEN HIS DAD AND GRANDMA CAME TO THE DOOR HE DID WAT HIS MOM TOLD HIM TO DO. AS A CHILD THERE WAS NO CONFUSION AS TO WHO GOT US CHRISTMAS PRESENTS. SO YOUR SAYING WEN U GOT OLD ENOUGH TO STILL WAS TRYING TO TRANSLATE THAT A WHITE MAN INSTEAD OF YOUR PARENTS BOUGHT YOUR PRESENTS???? IF I TELL U I FIX MY CAR,. WATS THERE TO TRANSLATE????
@@dagwould Paul's audience had the same understanding Calvinists do. That's why he asked, "How then does God find fault?" Jesus said you cannot believe if you're not His sheep, and if you are His sheep, you will believe and will be raised. But I guess only a Stoic has the common sense to understand words at a basic level like that.
Isaiah 48:11 (NET) - 11 For my sake alone I will act, for how can I allow my name to be defiled? I will not share my glory with anyone else! Does God share his glory with anyone else? No. Ben Witherington got a few good laughs in at John Piper's expense, but he didn't teach the truth of God's word.
What? Elders were NOT Pastors. The terms are correlated but not exactly. There was a ranking of Clergy in the Early Church Missionary Clergy 1. Apostle 2. Prophet/Prophetess 3. Evangelist 4. Pastor 5. Rabbi 6. Disciple Local Clergy 7. Presbyter/Presbyteress 8. Deacon/Deaconess Consecrated Lay Ministers 9. Reader Laity 10. Catechumen So we are pushing Elders and Pastors together where they are not. In modern Christianity Apostle to Rabbi was collapsed into the Diaconate and Presbyterate. Thus Bishop is the Apostle but Parish Priest though Presbyter is a Bishop too though not an Apostle. This is how you came to think Pastor means Elder and Presbyter. You are confusing as Presbyterians the office of Presbyter in the Early Church with same in the Patristic Church
Does your Church allow women to be Pastors, teach both men and women in a Church setting, practicing homosexual as Pastors, you get the drift. Do you go on stage with women pastors allowing them to speak in your church. A Pastor named John MacArthur is one you might benefit from listening too, he is hard core but speaks the truth. 💡777🎸
Tim, I stopped jumping years ago, if God wanted women or any person practicing sins in the pulpit He would have spoke it and had a Discipline write that down. Look at the out of order churches that claim to be lead by God, more like they are being lead by Satan. It's your salvation if you choose wrong. Enough said, latter. 💡777🎸
In Puerto Rico, there are no gender rules in our churches even among the most conservative. We recognized long ago that we are all equal in Christ (as Paul notes) and that the Spirit determines who receives which gifts. What God determines, we shouldn’t challenge or limit but support. I have have seen and worked with various women pastors throughout my life. My mom’s first pastor was a female who grew a church to 300 members and led her to meet my father who became a pastor. They were in ministry for 35 yrs. When I see churches bend towards LGBT issues, I’ve seen how that sin leads denominations and churches to die out. In contrast, I’ve seen God protect and support women pastors multiple times in their ministry. If it is so sinful for a woman to serve in such capacity, their ministry wouldn’t flourish. I am really sorry you Americans are like the Pharisees, completely blind and misinterpreting text. I pray one day your eyes can be opened and we can all serve God with the same joy.
@morganbellamy9153 you have never read the Hebrew and Greek originals. If you had you would understand why the Roman Catholics have unordained female clergy meaning they can minister as Bishops(Abbesses and Prioresses), Presbyters (Nuns) and Deacons (Sisters) but not perform sacraments. Complementarian Protestants insistence on maintenance of a Roman Catholic Church discipline is inconsistent as they will readily agree that celibacy for clergy is not important but against clear examples in Scripture of female clergy they will fight tooth and nail with poorly interpreted verses
@@amaledward2147 And yet Adam with far less pressure and far less luring fell for the "BA" of someone "not terribly important". Very revealing... especially about the person making the quotes. What an upbringing to expose to the world.
I feel as if I have been hit by a train - The Teaching was so profound that I am almost speechless - Must go off and find Ben's books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brought me to tears! God bless this man.
Wow. I've been very much appreciating Ben Witherington's work.
Thank you for this.
This is BRILLIANT scholarship. Thank you.
Oh my gosh and you even ended with Joni! Thanks, Ben. The church still has its knee on our necks but messages like this give me hope.
I love this so much, so grateful for this.
Someone at CBE should consider creating a visually engaging thumbnail image for this video so that more people will see it and consider clicking.
Good stuff! I liked how he pointed out that women's roles in the family are often determined by gender roles (and biology), but women's roles in the church are determined by gifting.
I also love how he affirms the single life for the kingdom and points out the church has neglected that role and calling.
The only 'gender' roles are in fact the biology of sex. Women have children, men have sperm. Men are far stronger, on average than women, so the heavy work is rightly theirs. They also run on testosterone when push comes to shove (but this has to be controlled otherwise, trouble). But every married man knows. Back home, the wife is the boss! Their views are far more nuanced then men's typically.
Powerful teaching. Dr Witherington.
Very much appreciated. Thank you
Imagine how much of the Bible has been misinterpreted in the translation to romantic languages and English. There should be studying of hebrew and greek in all churches.
Man, this is the best comment. We 'under expect' of our brethren. For example, I expect every Christian young person to get to 18 and have read the entire Bible; the New Testament twice. For starters! No, we're not serious.
You are more than right. There should be Hebrew New Testament and Old Testament Bibles and we should train our children to read and write Masoretic Hebrew.
Muslims do this routinely. We can have our translations but not ignore the Hebrew original
@@dagwould read 1corinthians chapter 11, and 1Timothy chapter 2
@@hesedagape6122 read 1Timothy chapter 2 and 1 Corinthians chapter 11
Yes agreed!!
Thank 😊 for explaining the word
Simple. I pray and read my Bible. I listen to sermons on-line. Love God. Love others.
Guys we have to read 1Corinthians chapter 11
Especially since it affirms that the woman has authority over her own head.
Good presentation so far.
I really liked and enjoyed this. I tend not to be as much of a fundamentalist, and the best I can understand and figure on some of this subject matter is evolution into Christ (either way, we are still "stardust"). Still, I think he brings forth some interesting and even amazing perspectives.
I'm not a fundamentalist either, but we do not 'evolve' into Christ; we are never merged with Christ. We become like him, but we do not become him. Remember, evolution is a materialist philosophy that contains all of reality to the material cosmos. Yet, we know that material cannot explain the formation of information systems (biological information systems) from material sources; nor can it explain how evolution might work in the comparatively short time span of a mere few billion years of accidental atom bumping.
@@dagwould I agree that we cannot "be" Christ or anything like that. I think though that we can grow & or evolve into Christ's Spirit and into wisdom and insight into Christ. Perhaps I should have stated it better. Thanks for the comment.
where does he write about this for a popular audience?
If you are going to say that in some marriages (only) the husband and wife have been joined "by God" - in others not - you need to be able to say how one knows whether it is God who has joined the couple together.
Great sermon. So if ha Adam is man and only ha Adam get ejecked from the garden if ishah is not included in ha Adam does that mean she does not need sanctification from christ?
That was a very helpful and insightful talk overall. It was a shame that Ben made a slightly insulting joke about John Piper that was not necessary; NT Wright and Piper have publicly disagreed with each other before in a much more complimentary and respectful way than that joke signals. Despite that, I got a lot from this. Thank you for the helpful overview.
Dr.W,
Would most likely criticize one of two authors listed in th Danvers Statement. Wayne Grudem and John Piper who are the two most famous proponents of male headship "We are equally endowed. . .but do we all have tge same assignments?" I like that he did not shy away from the problem of Gender dysphoria and unfaithful gender reassignment surgery and the confusion it re-inforces.
Wonderful 👏 👏
1 Timothy 2: 15 - 46:44
thats kinda what they are talking about, dont you care at all?
I agree with almost everything he preached. Very good presentation overall. However the crux of this issue is still the following: is there ANY distinction between the roles of men and women prescribed by God in the bible? We can worry about the particulars once that has been established, and there are many (and i don't claim to know or comprehend them all). His apparently reactionary response to "patriarchy" (read sinful men) is not adequate to conclude that there are NO differences between the roles of men and women. Frankly it's a hard case to make since the bible is rife with examples which both describe and prescribe differences along gender lines. Please let the bible speak for itself - see 24:14 in the video - likewise we also must choose based on the revealed word of God. Read it for yourself.
I don't get this obsession with different roles for men and women. Why must there be different roles? How about different roles for right-handed people and for left-handed? For white and for black? How about we are all one in Christ Jesus.
@@Himmiefan itsweird
It's very simple: When God means for tbere to be role differences beween His creatures, He bakes it in to their physical design. You don't see hawks and salmon and elephants worrying about their "roles"...they just do what they were designed to do. But we humans sometimes think we're smarter than God, and try to create artificial roles for other people, many of which are actually in opposition to their design, or limit their full God-designed functioning! (See slavery, patriarchy (now rebranded complementarianism) and differing role expectations based on caste or class for examples).
Amen! ❤
Guys we have to read 1Timothy chapter 2 verses 8 to 15
Be sure to read it well. And study well the Greek word which is translated authority. And be careful that you don't build a doctrine on a couple of verses which are interpreted without understanding context.
@@fromthewrath2come Exactly!
Ezer Kenegdo
I disagree on one thing: context clues point to Eve knowing God's command. That's clear from the text. Saying that it was probably Adam's responsibility to inform her is patriarchal thinking when the text never says that. Please don't read into the text what isn't there.
I understand your point, but Adam remained a spectator. He maybe should have spoken up.
@@dagwould The text doesn't say anything about his silence or outspokenness on the matter. It just says he was with her. But they were both equally responsible, Adam wasn't given more responsibility by God.
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.
Spoiler alert! This book does not prove that women have ever received what the Catholic Church terms the “ministerial priesthood”. In my opinion, she does prove that the Catholic Church’s current conventional narrative (CCC 1577) about how the apostles only chose men as their ordained collaborators and only had men for liturgical service is false. She proves this in the chapter on women preachers and baptizers. However there is a conspicuous lack of 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)
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.
Let the reader be warned! There is a lot of “chaff” in this book where the author completely brakes 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 whatever she likes to 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. It is believable that they could have been the religious leaders for these communities until male presbyters and apostles could arrive who would have been able to confirm the converts and set up local presbyters. It is notable that Kateusz cannot present a scrap of evidence that the female apostles were ordaining presbyters for their communities. Confirming and Ordaining are among the first things that Paul does when he arrives in a community.
Here are some other highlights
• The book confirms what Hans Urs Von Balthasar theorized about Mary being the greatest theologian. 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, there is no reason to think that a female deacon couldn't co-preside. This is much more consistent with the canonical New Testament than believing that females transubstantiated the Eucharist. 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.
I could see that the author probably has multiple PHD's in art history because she spent a lot of time analyzing the symbols inside historical church artworks. Her argument for women priests is basically this. Roman 16: 7 and reliable oral traditions from the 1st and 2nd century agree that women were given the extraordinary title “apostle”. Furthermore, the author's analysis of art history reveals that artwork inside Catholic churches and monasteries depicts women wearing a symbol of priestly ministry.
Artwork is clearly very subjective even if you do have multiple degrees in art history. For me the decisive point is this, if author’s argument for women priests were correct her Life of Thecla would have Thecla performing the sacrament of Confirmation (laying on his hands) as well as baptizing. That along with the fact that Paul easily could have included a simple one sentence note about women priests in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 just as he did with women deacons a few sentences later are the two fundamental reasons that I don't believe the author's argument for women priests. That being said I still enjoyed the majority of her book.
Hang on! In the church we do not have 'leaders' we have servants. We are all servants and we serve in different ways, from the humble role of overseer, to the humble, but more visibly immediately imporatnt roles of cleaning the church premises, and making morning tea.
Read the Bible for yourselves and ask the Lord God to open your heart....
I find this presentation very fruitful for doctrine and interpretation. However, I do have to point out the irony of the degree of authoritative tones in the presenter. Sometimes I get worried that the declarative nature of academic writing can completely hide the humility that clearly exists in the servant of God, Dr. Ben. I don't wish to criticize but rather express my experience of this presentation. It likely says more about me than the clearly brilliant and dedicated, Dr. Ben. Thank you for posting this!
Wow so nice... thanks and also that your comments aren't full of uneducated vicious naysayers who look they've never actually read the bible themselves to try to figure it out on their own and with God as well. And what many don't realize is that you really have to disecct the bible in its original languge and context as well,even culturally. Due to this, the same idea swim through churches and this has marred many a womans destiny... unfortuantely... and sadly actually... especially when so many women support false teachings about women,in ignorance.
Thank you for a tremendous presentation, There is, however, one point made on which I do not agree. It was, I believe, suggested, that Adam's sin was IN NOT ADEQUATELY WARNING Eve of the truth of, and the consequences of, "eating the fruit of that tree". I believe that the sequence of the events point to something else. The sequence is clearly stated to be, 1.the deception of the woman, Eve, 2. the woman disobeying God and eating the fruit of that tree, 3. the woman, Eve, offering it to Adam, and 4. then Adam sinning by eating that fruit. I believe that "the sin of Adam" was his disobedience of God's order NOT to eat that fruit. I believe that the sequence clearly suggests that Adam's sin was not failing to prevent Eve's sin, but deliberately and consciously disobeying God's command NOT TO EAT OF THAT FRUIT. Moreover I believe that, within that sequence, Adam made a clear choice. He CHOSE to follow Eve into that sin. Adam, in fact deliberately CHOSE to turn his face toward the now fallen Eve and TURN HIS BACK ON GOD! Adam chose to follow Eve into sin, and CHOSE NOT TO HONOUR his relationship with his Creator. I am convinced that, as it is a sequence, time is involved, and whether the time between steps 3 and 4 are moments, minutes or moths, THERE WAS TIME EINOGH FOR ADAM TO HAVE MADE THAT CHOICE TO FOLLOW EVE IN REBELLION. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS ADAM'S DISOBEDIENCE OF GOD'S CLEAR COMMAND TO BE THAT SIN PAUL ADDRESSES IN THE NT.
Excellent! Thanks. But when he says 'gender' he means 'sex'. 'Gender' is a confected term to obliterate sex..
.
at about 34:30: the 10's prohibition is not on killing, it is on murder.
Irrespective of the outcome, It was still a marriage, they gave their vows before God and the church witnesses.
Hi
Seems the nod to patriarchy is a means of the woman protecting herself from becoming the football in the game.
Did Jesus Christ have an Apostle woman?
Wow, saying God didn't join people together because you don't think it was a good idea? Eisegetical liberalism, through and through.
Patriarchy isn't God's design? Wow, literally "the man is the head of the woman" is the definition of patriarchy. "Dr. Ben." has a PhD in garbage nonsense.
@@makobean thats also a misunderstanding, it means that the women came from the man, he was only trying to explain that to them
You do not understand the "Lets who God has joined together" That means a marriage for the Lord not a marriage to just anyone because of infatuation regardless of their faith or commitment to the Lord, if someone is God fearing and God loving marries to a similar partner they won't need a divorce they will manage to work out their differences if any, because of their trust in God if one marry out of their own will (you know the free will God has given us that lead us to sin because we think we know better)) without making God the counselor many will find out their marriage was just due to the whisper of the snake. What if you are a Muslim and have 4 wives then convert to Christianity are all your marriages for and from God should you not convert to Christianity because what ever you do your position is untenable.
@@blacksnow129 You're a mess.
If you convert, then you'd likely leave the first 3 wives, since marrying someone else is adultery but nullifies the previous marriage. That's not untenable.
You're eisegetical remarks about what makes a marriage a real marriage aren't worth responding to. You can marry an unbeliever and it's still a marriage, despite being sinfully entered into. Marriage doesn't have to be God-honoring to be genuine.
The two shall be one flesh! ,Christ,body is the church,hand foot,not gender,? We are all different,but are all of the same body ,which is Christ right??? What does the Bible say about it, that's what really counts, God's word KJV,right?
The Baptists are way to far our on the woman issue one way. The Wesleyans are way to far out the other way. Theres is a genuine tension in Scripture on the subject. The truth is somewhere in the sensible center.
1. There is not one Scripture in the Bible that forbids women from preaching, but on the contrary, there are many verses that encourage both men and women to preach the Gospel.
2. The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons, and He will use any and all who will yield to Him, regardless of race, age, or sex.
Galatians 3:28 - "...neither male nor female...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Acts 10:34 - "...God is no respecter of persons...."
Moses said in Numbers @, "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His spirit upon them!"
The crying need of the hour is for more laborers. It is a trick of the enemy to try to down rate thousands of our faithful laborers just because they were born females.
3. The Great Commission, Mark 16:15, "Preach the Gospel," is to ALL believers, and to all the church of Jesus Christ. The command to "preach the Gospel" is to both male and female.
4. It is an undeniable fact that God has called and anointed thousands of women to preach the Gospel. The Full Gospel organizations
teaching, evangelizing, pastoring, and doing mission work with the signs following their ministry. God is using them for the salvation of the lost, deliverance from sin, gifts of the Spirit, and infilling of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible says, "Touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm." And may we be reminded of the Scripture in Acts 5:39, "If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."
When someone says, "God does not call women to preach," it is like saying that God does not baptize with the Holy Spirit today. We know better, because we have witnessed and experienced it with our own ears and eyes.
I would be afraid to condemn women preachers, lest I would be found to be fighting against God, and to be committing the vile sin of attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil.
5. Women preachers are a fulfillment of Bible Prophecy and another sign of Christ's soon return to earth (Joel @; Acts 2:17-18).
6. The Bible declares that women will prophesy: 1 Cor. 11:5, "For every woman that prayeth or prophesieth...."
Both the Hebrew (Nebrah), and Greek (Proph) used for prophetess means (female preacher). (See Young's Concordance, Pg. 780.)
The word "Prophet" means a public expounder.
The word "Prophesy" means to speak forth, or flow forth. The Bible says in 1 Cor. 14:3, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto MEN to edification, and exhortation and comfort."
The dictionary says, prophesy is "to speak under divine inspiration...to preach."
Therefore we learn from the original translation, from the Bible interpretation, and from the dictionary, that to prophesy means more than to tell the future, but it is to speak publicly about the past, present, or future. It is to preach under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
The Old and New Testament prophets and prophetesses were preachers of God's Word.
Even if the words prophet and preacher could be separated, how could anyone prophesy to bring exhortation, comfort and edification to the church, if she were forbidden to speak in church and was to keep silent?
Would God inspire and anoint someone to do something that was wrong and sinful???
* (There is a difference between a prophet, and the gift of prophecy.)
7. God called and used women preachers in the Old Testament.
a. DEBORAH - Judges 4:4-5. Deborah was a Judge for both civil and criminal cases. The children of Israel came to her for judgment. She was the chief ruler of Israel for 40 years, giving orders to the Generals and all the army. She did the work of an evangelist, prophetess, Judge, and a preacher. God gave her authority over the mighty (Judges @).
b. MIRIAM - Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1; Micah 6:4. She was a Prophetess and a Song Leader in Israel.
c. HULDAH - 2 Kings @. Five men went to Sister Huldah and communed with her. She spoke to a congregation of men concerning the book of the Law. A female preached to a man's congregation, and her message was taken to the nation and produced a revival.
d. MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ'S MOTHER - Isaiah 8:3. She was a prophetess.
8. God called and used women preachers in the New Testament.
a. The first message of the Resurrection of Christ was spoken by women to a group of men.
b. Anna - Luke 2:36-38. She must have prophesied in church, because she did not depart from the temple.
c. Phillip had 4 daughters who prophesied. Acts 21:9.
d. Priscilla assisted Paul in his revival meeting and even taught Apollos in the way of the Lord more perfectly.
e. Phebe - Romans 16:1-2. Paul commended Phebe to the Church at Rome and requested that they assist her in her business. She was one of Paul's assistants in the work of the Lord and delivered the Book of Romans to the people from the hand of Paul.
9. There is no sound reason why a woman or man should not preach the Gospel. There is a desperate need in the church for more workers. Laborers are few, and God will use any and all who will go for Him. Some say God will not use a woman to preach, because "The woman was deceived," but remember Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world." It seems to indicate that Adam was just as guilty as Eve in the fall of man. If anyone should be kept from preaching because of sin, it would be Adam. But God does not forbid anyone from preaching, because of Adam's or Eve's sin.
10. 1 Cor. 14: 34-35 does not say anything about women preachers. If Paul intended this verse as a general rule to bar all women from speaking in church, then they cannot teach Sunday School, testify, pray, prophesy, sing, or even get saved, and this would contradict the rest of the Bible (Acts 2:4; Acts 2:16-18).
Paul was rather dealing with a particular problem in the church. Women were not educated as were the men in that day; therefore the women would talk back and forth to their husbands in church and ask questions concerning the sermon. Paul said, "If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." If they want to talk things over let them wait until they get home. This rule is still good for the church today, where people are talking and causing confusion in the church service. They should not speak in church. (Not in the back of the church either before or after services.)
If a woman cannot speak in church, then she cannot speak in prayer meeting, young people's service, etc., for who can deny that Sunday School and Prayer meeting, and Youth work are parts of church? Christ's Church is not a building, but rather it is found where two or three are gathered together in His name, whether at a street meeting, in a tent, a home, church, classroom or anywhere else.
11. 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a blanket rule for all women of all churches. If it were, then the women could not speak at all, for the same verse that tells them not to teach also tells them to be silent.
If all women had to keep silent in church, then that would be promoting disobedience to God, for they could not prophesy, pray, testify, sing, exhort, do personal work, or even get saved.
Whenever an interpretation to a verse contradicts the rest of the teaching of the Bible, we know this interpretation is incorrect, for the Holy Spirit will never contradict His own Word.
This is the chief verse that is used to oppose women preaching and yet it says nothing about preaching, nor does it say anything about a public worship or church service. But, on the contrary, this verse is giving instructions to wives as to how they were to conduct themselves in regard to their husband. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:35, "And if they will LEARN anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Now he states in 1 Tim. @ that the woman should learn in silence, and should not usurp authority over the man. Paul is dealing with more of a home problem than a church problem.( My understanding of this is Holy male minister's should be given preference if a chose had to be made between a man and a woman minister) Victor. S Blogger
This verse still applies to us today. It is wrong for a woman to usurp authority over her husband (in church, home, or any place else) as was the case in Paul's day. She should not try to teach him or speak words that would cause discord and confusion, but should rather be silent and in subjection to her husband.
It is also to be understood that if anyone, whether man or woman, is usurping authority over the God-given leadership of the church, she or he is to be silent, and not to teach, or act in such a way that would create discord in the assembly.
12. Some have used Titus 1:6-7, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children...", but there is a difference between a preacher and a bishop. For I was an Evangelist and now am a Pastor, but I am not a Bishop (Overseer), and most Pastors are not.
If God called a single man with no children to be a Bishop, as Paul was, surely this verse is not opposed to it, nor would this scripture oppose a woman Bishop if she was called of God for the work, as was Deborah.
What this verse does teach is that a person who is to be a Bishop must not have two living companions, either husbands or wives.
Amen.
Thank u for posting all of this. Very informative.
The argument against this teaching is always backed up by scripture, 1 Corinthians 14, 33-40. If you want to ignore the promise at the end of that scripture you can choose to, I choose not to .
The Bible does not contradict itself . Only when understood and interpreted in the culture in which it was written should it then be applied to our culture.
Read the historical context of Corinth at the time of Paul. Then you will understand why this instruction was necessary for women in the church of Corinth.
Not to be generalized to all women.
Read the glowing report by Paul of the women in ministry at Rome.
How can you reconcile these very different writings by Paul about women in the church?
Vv. 34-35 directly and explicitly contradict 11:5 of the very same letter, and implicitly contradict the rest of the context of ch. 12-14 as well as the other "gifts" passages in Rom. 12 and Eph. 4, and many other parts of Scripture.
IMO, the most likely explanation is that favored by Fee, Payne, and Bartlett: Vv. 34-35 comprise an early scribal margin gloss that got interpolated into the main text.
However, I'm more comfortable with the idea proposed by scholars like Kirk MacGregor and Lucy Peppiat: The passage is one of several citation/refutation pairs found in 1 Cor., such that v. 36 is Paul's rebuttal of vv. 34-35.
Here is the Divinely approved Truth especially written for the Elected
daughters of Almighty God:. ......
"11 Let the woman learn in silence with
all subjection.
12 But I suffer 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"
1 Timothy 2:10-14 (KJV)
That is the TRUTH, many now do not like it, and refue to comply, but there it is.
And again we plainly see:
"As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in
the churches.
They are *not allowed to speak*"
*[To talk, i.e. UTTER WORDS :- PREACH, say, speak (after), talk, tell,
utter. -Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary]
"But must be in *submission, as the Law says."
*[To subordinate; reflexive to obey :- be under obedience
(obedient), -Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary]
"35 If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is *disgraceful for a woman to speak in the
church."
*[A shameful thing, i.e. indecorum :- shame.-Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew
Dictionary]
36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has
reached?
37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, **let him
acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's** command"
1 Corinthians 14:33-37 (ANIV)
Anyone in here "spiritually gifted" ?
So
again that is the TRUTH arrogant rebellious feminists may not like it,
but there it is. Any feministic attempt at deviation is against the
Truth and the commandment of the Lord.
You just proved his point of taking verses out of context. Now, is it that God restricts the majority of the human race, or is it that you desperately want women to be restricted because it gives you a boost in self-esteem? I always tell women to avoid men who don't approve of women in church leadership because that tells you of how they view women overall.
@@Himmiefan
The verses are what Christian women must adhere to, if they refuse, that is their prerogative. But they are not the true "Daughters of Sarah" as they are defying the "Word of God".
There is commentary that Paul quoted that from someone who was claiming that in the church and Paul was arguing against…bc He later notes that we are all equal (both men and women) in Christ. Context is key.
Joel 2:28-29
[28]“And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
[29]Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
1 Corinthians 11:5
[5]But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...
It seems like a false dichotomy between "God's marriage" and "man's marriage"
Being arrogant about it doesn't make it so.
GOD DID CREAT EVIL
Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things
OK, now read the whole chapter.
@@dagwould
SIR I DID. I DONT KNOW WAT U DONT UNDERSTAND WEN GOD SAID HE CREATED ALLLLLLLLL
THINGS.
HE ALSO SAID ROMANS 9:11-13
Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’
SO GOD DOES HATE. OR ARE U SAYING DONT BELIEVE WAT I READ???
@@darrenandderrikaross628 heard that may be a mistranslation
@@nicksanders9148
LAVELL CRAWFORD. WEN HE WAS A CHILD,HIS MOM TOLD HIM NOT TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR NO ONE. WY IN HELL AS A CHILD HE UNDERSTOOD THAT??? EVEN WEN HIS DAD AND GRANDMA CAME TO THE DOOR HE DID WAT HIS MOM TOLD HIM TO DO.
AS A CHILD THERE WAS NO CONFUSION AS TO WHO GOT US CHRISTMAS PRESENTS. SO YOUR SAYING WEN U GOT OLD ENOUGH TO STILL WAS TRYING TO TRANSLATE THAT A WHITE MAN INSTEAD OF YOUR PARENTS BOUGHT YOUR PRESENTS????
IF I TELL U I FIX MY CAR,. WATS THERE TO TRANSLATE????
@@nicksanders9148
HE DID NOT SAY HE CREATED SOME THINGS SIR. HE SAID HE CREATED ALLLLL THINGS.
This is one of the most arrogant, least scholarly takes I've ever heard.
No wonder a bunch of Piper-hating millennials applauded him.
Au contraire. It is Calvinism that imports pagan ideas into the church: it is a Stoic's reading of Paul, not a Hebrew reading.
@@dagwould Paul's audience had the same understanding Calvinists do. That's why he asked, "How then does God find fault?" Jesus said you cannot believe if you're not His sheep, and if you are His sheep, you will believe and will be raised. But I guess only a Stoic has the common sense to understand words at a basic level like that.
Please provide scholarly evidence to the contrary instead of your biased opinion. We are all ears.
@@StandUp777 Why? You didn't demand that of this schmuck, so why should I provide it?
Isaiah 48:11 (NET) - 11 For my sake alone I will act, for how can I allow my name to be defiled? I will not share my glory with anyone else!
Does God share his glory with anyone else? No.
Ben Witherington got a few good laughs in at John Piper's expense, but he didn't teach the truth of God's word.
The Jews in Jerusalem gave the gentiles,only 4 commands to keep,and we're not under law but under grace,right???
Mabe women can preach but cannot be pastors the bible says a pastor must be the husband of one wife
That is applied to polygamy. Women did not have multiple husbands.
@@garysweeten5196 Exactly right.
What? Elders were NOT Pastors. The terms are correlated but not exactly.
There was a ranking of Clergy in the Early Church
Missionary Clergy
1. Apostle
2. Prophet/Prophetess
3. Evangelist
4. Pastor
5. Rabbi
6. Disciple
Local Clergy
7. Presbyter/Presbyteress
8. Deacon/Deaconess
Consecrated Lay Ministers
9. Reader
Laity
10. Catechumen
So we are pushing
Elders and Pastors together where they are not.
In modern Christianity
Apostle to Rabbi was collapsed into the Diaconate and Presbyterate.
Thus Bishop is the Apostle but Parish Priest though Presbyter is a Bishop too though not an Apostle. This is how you came to think Pastor means Elder and Presbyter.
You are confusing as Presbyterians the office of Presbyter in the Early Church with same in the Patristic Church
Pastor is not in the Bible. Elders and deacons are not pastors, and scripture lays out female examples of both.
Does your Church allow women to be Pastors, teach both men and women in a Church setting, practicing homosexual as Pastors, you get the drift.
Do you go on stage with women pastors allowing them to speak in your church.
A Pastor named John MacArthur is one you might benefit from listening too, he is hard core but speaks the truth.
💡777🎸
You’re jumping to conclusions. The issue of women in ministry has nothing to do with homosexuals in ministry.
Tim,
I stopped jumping years ago, if God wanted women or any person practicing sins in the pulpit He would have spoke it and had a Discipline write that down.
Look at the out of order churches that claim to be lead by God, more like they are being lead by Satan.
It's your salvation if you choose wrong. Enough said, latter.
💡777🎸
In Puerto Rico, there are no gender rules in our churches even among the most conservative. We recognized long ago that we are all equal in Christ (as Paul notes) and that the Spirit determines who receives which gifts. What God determines, we shouldn’t challenge or limit but support. I have have seen and worked with various women pastors throughout my life. My mom’s first pastor was a female who grew a church to 300 members and led her to meet my father who became a pastor. They were in ministry for 35 yrs. When I see churches bend towards LGBT issues, I’ve seen how that sin leads denominations and churches to die out. In contrast, I’ve seen God protect and support women pastors multiple times in their ministry. If it is so sinful for a woman to serve in such capacity, their ministry wouldn’t flourish. I am really sorry you Americans are like the Pharisees, completely blind and misinterpreting text. I pray one day your eyes can be opened and we can all serve God with the same joy.
@morganbellamy9153 you have never read the Hebrew and Greek originals. If you had you would understand why the Roman Catholics have unordained female clergy meaning they can minister as Bishops(Abbesses and Prioresses), Presbyters (Nuns) and Deacons (Sisters) but not perform sacraments. Complementarian
Protestants insistence on maintenance of a Roman Catholic Church discipline is inconsistent as they will readily agree that celibacy for clergy is not important but against clear examples in Scripture of female clergy they will fight tooth and nail with poorly interpreted verses
Pastor is not in the Bible anywhere. John McCarthur is under fire for misogynistic church abuse. That's just for starters.
Actually Women are not terribly important
Says Satan. That's why he lured her.
@@Bible33AD He was successful tho, He knew Adam wouldn’t buy his BA
@@amaledward2147 And yet Adam with far less pressure and far less luring fell for the "BA" of someone "not terribly important". Very revealing... especially about the person making the quotes. What an upbringing to expose to the world.
@@amaledward2147 God loves women, that seems important to me
@@nicksanders9148 The First Women Moment was Eve. Everything else was Women Moment. Even Jesus was like, Nah i aint picking Women