Can you elaborate on how you determined that Adam was deceived when the Apostle Paul is saying he was not? Genesis chapter 3 seems to indicate that only the woman was deceived (verse 13). Nothing else in the chapter indicates that Adam was deceived. His part seemed to be a conscious decision made when Eve gave him some of the fruit to eat. Furthermore, the charge God makes to Adam in verse 17 of the same chapter is "Because you listened to your wife and ate..." Are you suggesting the apostle Paul meant to say Adam was not deceived in the same way Eve was? Because again, he seems pretty clear that "Adam was not deceived..." It was a willful decision to take the fruit his wife gave him and eat of it knowing full well God commanded him not to. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position. Also, I'm really enjoying your book "15 NT Word of Life."
In 1 Tim 2:9, Paul talks about how women are to dress and adorn their hair. Do you think he brings this up because: 1. Did priestess of Artemis ware braided hair, pearls, and gold jewelry as a form of piety (and is Paul pushing against this?) 2. Do you think Paul is wanting wealthier Christian women to not flaunt their wealth? 3. Do you think he’s pushing against the new Roman women movement? 4. Or is there another option?
So the ALPHA AND OMEGA needs you to clarify what HE had written in the Bible. Let GOD be true and every man a liar! GOD IS NOT A MAN that he should lie! HIS WORD means what it says and says what it means and please repent from being so presumptuous to try to say what GOD really meant! Remember THE Spirit of God was working in the authors of the books of the Bible! I’m more than sure THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER knew exactly what HE meant and had it written. Your interpretation is not needed.
Nijay, I always appreciate your teaching and just finished your fine book “15 NT words of Life.” But on this topic I believe you are doing what I see most egalitarians doing, trying to make the text not say what it is actually saying with a lot of exegetical gymnastics. That might sound harsh but so many arguments here just don’t stand up to scrutiny. I have only found R. T. France’s little book to be exegetical honest from an egalitarian position. The text is quite clear. I would recommend Mike Winger’s videos on exposing many of the weaknesses of the egalitarian position and the sloppy exegesis that is occurring among Egalitarian scholars. He gives many good examples. My biggest concern is that egalitarian scholars are modeling for the church how to make the text not say what it is actually saying. This is contrary to our common goal of upholding the Scriptures.
Nijay, I always appreciate your teaching and just finished your fine book “15 NT words of Life.” But on this topic I believe you are doing what I see most egalitarians doing, trying to make the text not say what it is actually saying with a lot of exegetical gymnastics. That might sound harsh but so many arguments here just don’t stand up to scrutiny. I have only found R. T. France’s little book to be exegetical honest from an egalitarian position. The text is quite clear. I would recommend Mike Winger’s videos on exposing many of the weaknesses of the egalitarian position and the sloppy exegesis that is occurring among Egalitarian scholars. He gives many good examples. My biggest concern is that egalitarian scholars are modeling for the church how to make the text not say what it is actually saying. This is contrary to our common goal of upholding the Scriptures.
I just finished lecturing again on this yesterday - the AUTHENTEO mystery is actually real and no one has settled the matter. We simply cannot continue to claim this text is "clear" when no legitimate scholar can explain why Paul uses this verb. My book Tell Her Story has a long chapter on this text and the many exegetical conundrums. And as with all things, this text has to be read alongside Romans 16, Phil 4, and the many other places where Paul affirms his female colleagues.
No doubt that Paul and Jesus affirm the value of women in ministry. There are no complimentarians who would deny this. But that proves nothing regarding whether Paul restricted women from functioning in the role of teacher men in the church context. I think it may be an exaggerated claim that we have absolutely no idea what authenteo means. We know it has something to do with authority. This claim is similar to what revisionist claim about arsenokotai in 1 Cor 6:9. Even if there is some lack of clarity with authenteo there is great clarity in that text does say, I do not permit a woman to teach, she is to remain quiet and v. 11 “ a woman show learn in quietness and full submission. Surely these phrase inform our understanding of authenteo. To claim that we have absolutely no idea on the meaning of authenteo is to reduce a words meaning to lexical definitions and ignore the context.
@@rapfpl "something to do with authority" isn't much of a hook to hang your hat on when it comes to barring women from teaching with authority in the church. Look at the KJV. I doubt the KJV suffered from exegetical bias the way you are accusing me. I don't think we will solve this on TH-cam, there are loads of good exegetes on both sides. I hope you are more careful in the future not to accuse me or anyone of "gymnastics." My work goes through very rigorous peer review, and I feel a calling and conviction to argue competently, faithfully, and responsibly. Disagreement is fine, let's focus on arguments, not labels.
Nijay, forgive me for the offense. I do have high regard for your scholarship from which I have personally benefited. My accusation is against the entire egalitarian movement. I do see a great deal of exegetical gymnastics which Mike Winger has clearly laid out. I can only hope this will causes both sides to be careful with the text. I don’t want to engage in ad hominem arguments and I certainly can be guilty of that. All I can ask is that you allow the immediate context of vv 11-12 to inform the meaning of authenteo. I am grateful that a scholar of your caliber would take the time to engage me on this topic. Yes, I agree we won’t solve this on TH-cam but I did enjoy listening to this video (carefully listened twice and will do so a few more time). I will commit today to pray that our Lord Jesus Christ will use you mightily to inspire his church to love, truth and obedience.
You are a fine teacher, appreciate these TH-cam classes. Great blog, too.
Great work 👍
Can you elaborate on how you determined that Adam was deceived when the Apostle Paul is saying he was not? Genesis chapter 3 seems to indicate that only the woman was deceived (verse 13). Nothing else in the chapter indicates that Adam was deceived. His part seemed to be a conscious decision made when Eve gave him some of the fruit to eat. Furthermore, the charge God makes to Adam in verse 17 of the same chapter is "Because you listened to your wife and ate..." Are you suggesting the apostle Paul meant to say Adam was not deceived in the same way Eve was? Because again, he seems pretty clear that "Adam was not deceived..." It was a willful decision to take the fruit his wife gave him and eat of it knowing full well God commanded him not to.
I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position.
Also, I'm really enjoying your book "15 NT Word of Life."
In 1 Tim 2:9, Paul talks about how women are to dress and adorn their hair. Do you think he brings this up because:
1. Did priestess of Artemis ware braided hair, pearls, and gold jewelry as a form of piety (and is Paul pushing against this?)
2. Do you think Paul is wanting wealthier Christian women to not flaunt their wealth?
3. Do you think he’s pushing against the new Roman women movement?
4. Or is there another option?
Valuable teaching
Do more video on this topic😊
Excellent!!!
Keep teaching
From a Caribbean. church planter
Please check out Mike Winger.
Mike invited me as a guest on his show because he considers me an expert Bible interpreter and translator. You can look me up on his show
So the ALPHA AND OMEGA needs you to clarify what HE had written in the Bible. Let GOD be true and every man a liar! GOD IS NOT A MAN that he should lie! HIS WORD means what it says and says what it means and please repent from being so presumptuous to try to say what GOD really meant! Remember THE Spirit of God was working in the authors of the books of the Bible! I’m more than sure THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER knew exactly what HE meant and had it written. Your interpretation is not needed.
Nijay, I always appreciate your teaching and just finished your fine book “15 NT words of Life.” But on this topic I believe you are doing what I see most egalitarians doing, trying to make the text not say what it is actually saying with a lot of exegetical gymnastics. That might sound harsh but so many arguments here just don’t stand up to scrutiny. I have only found R. T. France’s little book to be exegetical honest from an egalitarian position. The text is quite clear. I would recommend Mike Winger’s videos on exposing many of the weaknesses of the egalitarian position and the sloppy exegesis that is occurring among Egalitarian scholars. He gives many good examples. My biggest concern is that egalitarian scholars are modeling for the church how to make the text not say what it is actually saying. This is contrary to our common goal of upholding the Scriptures.
Sorry,I disagree .
Nijay, I always appreciate your teaching and just finished your fine book “15 NT words of Life.” But on this topic I believe you are doing what I see most egalitarians doing, trying to make the text not say what it is actually saying with a lot of exegetical gymnastics. That might sound harsh but so many arguments here just don’t stand up to scrutiny. I have only found R. T. France’s little book to be exegetical honest from an egalitarian position. The text is quite clear. I would recommend Mike Winger’s videos on exposing many of the weaknesses of the egalitarian position and the sloppy exegesis that is occurring among Egalitarian scholars. He gives many good examples. My biggest concern is that egalitarian scholars are modeling for the church how to make the text not say what it is actually saying. This is contrary to our common goal of upholding the Scriptures.
I just finished lecturing again on this yesterday - the AUTHENTEO mystery is actually real and no one has settled the matter. We simply cannot continue to claim this text is "clear" when no legitimate scholar can explain why Paul uses this verb. My book Tell Her Story has a long chapter on this text and the many exegetical conundrums. And as with all things, this text has to be read alongside Romans 16, Phil 4, and the many other places where Paul affirms his female colleagues.
No doubt that Paul and Jesus affirm the value of women in ministry. There are no complimentarians who would deny this. But that proves nothing regarding whether Paul restricted women from functioning in the role of teacher men in the church context. I think it may be an exaggerated claim that we have absolutely no idea what authenteo means. We know it has something to do with authority. This claim is similar to what revisionist claim about arsenokotai in 1 Cor 6:9. Even if there is some lack of clarity with authenteo there is great clarity in that text does say, I do not permit a woman to teach, she is to remain quiet and v. 11 “ a woman show learn in quietness and full submission. Surely these phrase inform our understanding of authenteo. To claim that we have absolutely no idea on the meaning of authenteo is to reduce a words meaning to lexical definitions and ignore the context.
@@rapfpl "something to do with authority" isn't much of a hook to hang your hat on when it comes to barring women from teaching with authority in the church. Look at the KJV. I doubt the KJV suffered from exegetical bias the way you are accusing me. I don't think we will solve this on TH-cam, there are loads of good exegetes on both sides. I hope you are more careful in the future not to accuse me or anyone of "gymnastics." My work goes through very rigorous peer review, and I feel a calling and conviction to argue competently, faithfully, and responsibly. Disagreement is fine, let's focus on arguments, not labels.
Nijay, forgive me for the offense. I do have high regard for your scholarship from which I have personally benefited. My accusation is against the entire egalitarian movement. I do see a great deal of exegetical gymnastics which Mike Winger has clearly laid out. I can only hope this will causes both sides to be careful with the text. I don’t want to engage in ad hominem arguments and I certainly can be guilty of that. All I can ask is that you allow the immediate context of vv 11-12 to inform the meaning of authenteo. I am grateful that a scholar of your caliber would take the time to engage me on this topic. Yes, I agree we won’t solve this on TH-cam but I did enjoy listening to this video (carefully listened twice and will do so a few more time). I will commit today to pray that our Lord Jesus Christ will use you mightily to inspire his church to love, truth and obedience.