The Bible is clear on this subject it's not complex at all. 1st Timothy 2:11 all the way through 1st Timothy 3:2... Mary telling the disciples Christ is risen doesn't conclude women can be pastors. Someone evangelizing doesn't make them a pastor. The woman at the well, TESTIFIED of her encountered of Christ. Giving testimony doesn't make someone a bishop/pastor.. God gave us order and roles. Following God's Word is about obedience. Not about us shaping His Word to our liking.
@@roubad9034 First, you can only make that claim if you've never actually read Paul's writings. In Romans 16 alone Paul commends Phebe who is a Deacon in the church at Cenchrea, a woman named Junia who he says is an apostle, and the husband-wife ministry team of Priscilla and Aquila, specifically listing the woman's name first against the custom of the day. In 1 Corinthians, between chapters 11 and 14, Paul gives a long discourse on proper worship etiquette, and as part of that, he gives guidelines that specifically allow for women to lead in prayer and prophesying.
@@shoptalkconvo-mak1471 The pastors who cite this passage should know Greek well enough to realize that these passages using the masculine nomenclature are not all out condemnation against women as pastors or deacons. In Greek, if one addressed an all female audience, one would use the female gender and if one addressed a wholey male audience, one would use masuline word forms. However, if one addressed a mixed gender audience, the masuline would still be the default. Therefore, Paul isn't necessarily excluding women from ministry by referencing the position with masculine gender pronouns and such. Read all of Paul's works. He declared that in Christ there is no male nor female, slave nor free, Hebrew nor Greek and in his epistles he backs that up by endorsing women in ministry such as Phebe the Deacon, Junia the Apostle and Priscilla of the husband-wife ministry team along with her husband Aquila.
@@roubad9034 And for the record, Paul's epistles carry just as much weight as the four Gospels. They are fully Scripture as Peter noted in the epistles he wrote and as recognized by every branch of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches
Aaah that must be it, we must know Greek? A straight forward reading of the Scriptures would not be sufficient? The Holy Spirit is not sufficient to understand scripture? @@jamesdaniel1376
"And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence." - 1 Timothy 2:12 The Scriptures are quite clear about the role that women play, their essence and their contributions.
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. Complementarianism is a false doctrine that is in opposition to what God actually did. God appointed a woman as a Judge over Israel. There was no gender qualification to be a Judge, in the scriptures.
I don't think NT Wright, reading straight from the Greek text with a wealth of contextual knowledge and years of study in biblical hermeneutics and textual criticism, is quite on the ball with this one. So I've come down here to the comment section, to hear from the monolingual experts with degrees in "Just reading what the KJV says" and [edited] "textbook logical fallacies." Thank goodness you all showed up.
@J L There is 'appealing to authority' and there is 'being able to discern between a qualified expert and idiots with opinions on the internet'. Go ye and learn the difference.
@@jonpool9030 I have. A man who didn't believe women should be ministers made the point that women's higher pitched voices lack the "power" of men's. I've also heard it said that our higher pitched voices are grating and/or boring. We just can't hold interest because of the higher register according to some people and don't sound as pleasant.
I love my mother and father and my siblings. But only my father accepts Christ as his savior. I love my mother and I’d die for her, but it bothers me that as time goes ticking, she’s going on 70 that she isn’t going to accept Christ. And it makes me cry. My mother doesn’t like me, out of all my siblings she didn’t love me that much. She never says I love you but I always say I love you. Because one day she is gonna leave and never come back. it’s one of the things that has hurt me the most. I hope she will love Jesus. She has developed cancer, and in her old age some of my siblings abuse her and guide her down the dark path. Or the wide road. One of my sisters openly hates Christ, and the other is Muslim. She calls me a bigot everytime I mention Christ. I teach their children about Christ though. I hope that I will see them again. I hope they don’t suffer. I would miss my family but I would never go against my lord. I follow Jesus.
@@whospilledmybeans That's a very hard position to be in. It must be awful. I know you know this already; but it bears repeating that we love Jesus BY LOVING those around us, especially those who may well deserve it least. This isn't just my opinion. It's what Jesus Himself told us more than once. It's probably among the most difficult things we're commanded to do as followers. But what an opportunity! Demonstrating this kind of love and forgiveness is what spreads Christianity like a fire. Lecturing the unwilling and implied threats are things that don't work and that we never find Him doing in the Scriptures. It's good for me to remember this. Thanks for posting. I hope things are going better now than when you first shared a year ago.
It is a difficult position women are in. We neither want to tell our Lord, "No, we can not speak the message burning in our hearts" but neither can we say with confidence because of this verse that it is allowed to us to speak it. I dont want to be disobedient to God in either instance. The other question I have is: if women are forbidden to teach or speak in church because they are more susceptible to being deceived then why should they be trusted at all to teach other women and children. Are they only susceptible to being deceived when it comes to teaching grown men?
I think that's a very good question. The deception of Eve keeps being rehashed over and over and over again. So, if we are in Christ, aren't we a new creation in Christ, re-created in Him? Aren't all things passed away and behold all things become new? Isn't the second creation (being born again) higher then the former creation? If then, all these things are true, then Eve's original sin no longer applies because Jesus redeemed us from the original curse of sin that took place in the garden. Any weakness, including Adam's willful proclivity to sin and then blame God for it, has been placed under the blood of Jesus. Interestingly enough, more women seem to have better discernment than many men. I believe this was God's sign of redemption to us. A more important question to ask: a child's most formative and important years are between the ages of 1-8 years old. These are the years where a foundation is laid for the child's intellectual, social, emotional, and physical health. If these years are the most fundamental years in a child's life (boys and girls) and their mothers are expected to teach and train them up in the way in which they're supposed to go, then why would mothers even be allowed to teach their children at such an important juncture in their lives if they can so easily be deceived? Timothy's mother and grandmother taught him the gospel and it never mentions his age at all in reference to it. I think the issue here is pride. It goes back to the originator of pride, Satan. Interestingly enough, pride is on God's list of abominations. Proverbs 6:16. It really has nothing to do with Eve's original sin or being deceived. It's just a convenient excuse to support and validate their views. Job 15:5; 2 Thes. 2:10; 1 John 4:6; Either way, all of us can be deceived. All of us have sinned. And just a side note for some context about leadership and deception: most cult leaders have been men who led many astray. Some of the largest and most damaging and deceived are - David Koresh, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Bhagwah Shree Rajneesh, David Berg, Warren Jeffs, Elbert Eugene, Swami Premananda, Yahweh Ben Yahweh, Ervil Lebaron, Shoko Asahara, Marshal Applewhite, Joseph Di Mambro & Luc Jouret, Moses of Crete, Hassan Al-Sabah, Muhammad Ahmad, Hong Xiuquan, among others. I only found 2 women in all of those extensive lists. I won't even list the countless pastors, preachers, and teachers in the church who have fallen into sin and/or preached and taught heretical doctrine. All of them were & are men. It's very interesting that when men use the "deception" argument, they never ever stop to look at all the men listed above or the countless others who have, in fact, been deceived. All of them were in leadership. They fail, repeatedly, to see the glaring error in their argument or their own hypocrisy. It's blatantly obvious to all except for the blind ones.
34Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.e 36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. 38But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 1 cor14:34ff Paul makes the point that this is the Lord ’s command. Whereas it is also true that Scripture tells us that your sons and daughters shall prophesy. So do women have a place to prophesy? Certainly, but not in the church and that is the Lord’s command. This whole debate about women in office is often looking for reasons why it ought to be so. In my humble opinion, we miss the mark of love and obedience to God by doing so. God commands and we His disciples should simply say, yes Lord! I don't understand but yes lord I love you and so I will strive to obey. I realize this still doesn't resolve the issue. Where exactly do women get to prophesy? Because we know that many women worked alongside Paul in ministry simply read through Romans 16 to see the bigger picture. So Paul is not antiwomen, rather everything must be done decently and in good order. Good order allows women to prophesy anywhere, but not in the church, this is God's will.
@@jenverhelst6477 That's an interesting interpretation of prophecy you take away from these scriptures. Because if you start at the beginning of 1Cor. 14, Paul addressed both men and women on tongues and prophecy. Then he breaks down how each should be done, in an orderly fashion, then he concludes at the end of the chapter at verse 39 - "So, my dear brothers AND sisters, be eager to prophecy, and don't forbid speaking in tongues. And verse 40 - But be sure everything is done properly and in order. This was Paul's final statement in the chapter and the summation of the chapter. You quote vs. 34 about women being silent in the church. What law was Paul referring to in this verse when he says ..."as the law says?" What law is that? I challenge you to study that out. Also, not every woman is married, so why would Paul address only husbands and wives in this particular passage? Why didn't he simply say women? What is the context? Without it, you can't accurately interpret the scriptures. Furthermore, everyone seems to skip over verse 28 - "But if there is no interpreter, HE must keep silent in the church; and let HIM speak to HIMSELF and to God." Verse 31 - "For you can all prophecy in turn so that everyone (all) may be instructed and encouraged." All means all, not just men. Paul's opening statements and closing statements support that, they don't negate women speaking in tongues or prophesying in church gatherings. Paul is explaining how it's to be done. Do your homework and ask the Holy Spirit for revelation knowledge as you study. He's faithful to show you and also show you how much scripture has been interpreted through a carnal lens and religious tradition. To accept that women can't teach and preach the Word because of "deception" is to remain under the original curse of sin, the Adamic curse, and to reject what Jesus died on the Cross to redeem and restore for all, both men and women. The choice is always up to the individual.
Nancy Crews good point. When we read the Bible, we have to look at the context and culture. They also told us women can't vote. Who is to say we can't? If God called you to teach/preach, you should be obedient. Gospel is to be preached to the earth. It is God who calls and equipped. Not men! Don't allow men's opinions to hold you from God's call in your life.
@@ruth9247 God is not unclear in the Bible, Paul aren't against women, he loves women and knows Gods ordering and that women arent made for the leading role. God doesn't contradict himself, you cant be called to teach men as a women because the Bible is Gods word. If a woman feels a calling maybe she is called to lead other women like it is said in the Bible that older women should lead the younger women to be lovers of husband and of children and to submit to their husbands. Eves fault in the fall was that she wanted to rule or make decisions without asking her husband. And Adams sin was that he didn't protect her and he seemed not to take the responsibility and care like men have a big tendency to do. God created Adam first and woman after. Adam didnt take the responsibility to lead and protect and Eve didnt submit to her husband but wanted to rule by herself. I love you and God loves you, the Bible is clear. It is a sin for a woman to revolt against the word of God and it is a sin for a husband to not be or strave tp be more like the ultimate man, Jesus Christ. If you are offended by scripture, the question yourself if you have a wrong view. Dont try to find all sorts of explanations to not follow Gods will revealed in the word. Women are wonderfully made, equal in worth as men. God created two sexes. Man and woman. Why didnt he just create one sex? Because a man and a woman reflects god together in marriage. Like the Christ and his bride. Its a wondeful thing. It is delightful, you are like Christ the husband and bride the woman in marriage. Men and woman are created different, for different roles. No role is more worth than the other. God the son submitted to God the father. Is the Son lesser worth? Nooo!! He is equally worth even if he submits to the Father. It is a wondeful thing how humans are created, so precious and unique and wondeful. God delights in a godly woman who arent afraid of anything and hopes for God. And God is delighted in a man who is a man of God, a man who protects women, and loves like christ loves the church. And takes responsibility and provides. God delights in a godly woman and God delights in a godly man. Equal value, fellow heirs of the kingdom, yet different roles. It is wondeful how God made humans, it is an order that is so precious because it reflects something of God himself. A woman who hopes in God, who is tender, nurturing, loving, submissive, helping and supporting her husband, has her hope in God the almost high, her hope is not in her husband or friends or something else. And a Godly man who is a warrior for Christ, conqueres with his wife. He is responsible, leading his wife and children to love the Lord with all their heart. He is a picture of God the fathers rule to his children, he loves his wife like Chridt loves his church, giving up himself for her, dying on a cross for his bride, providing for his family, a rolemodel for the family when he serves the family like Jesus washed the apostles feet. God is honored and glorified in a Godly man and a Godly woman. God bless you, the Bible is good, God is good, Paul loves women, Peter loves women, Jesus loves women, God loves women. God bless you my brothers and sisters, follow God with your life, repent of your sins ask God to open your heart to the wondeful mystery of manhood and womanhood. 😀
I think that so many Christians miss the fact that women were not even considered able or worthy to learn so the idea that women should learn at all was huge. It blew their views of women and the role of women out of the water. I think one of the greatest dangers with interpreting scripture is that we take it out of its original context. We take 2 or 3 verses and build a teaching that is inconsistent with the cannon of scripture
Titus 2:3-5 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
It's not one or two verses. The entire chapter and the next (1 Timothy 2 and 3) describe the roles of men and women and the qualifications for overseers and deacons in a very specific way. We can pretend it doesn't say what it does, or we can accept it. Being submissive is a choice and it doesn't make you less. Themes of submission are prevalent throughout the canon of scripture. For example, rendering to Caeser what is Caeser's, children obeying their parents; wives submitting to their husbands, and Jesus submitting to the Father. Since Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), submission does not mean unequal.
To every man that is arguing vehemently about women keeping silent in church. I hope that you are bold and active and leading in your church. I hope that you keep the same energy and are aggressively preaching the Gospel and leading to the salvation of many. If you are not, why do you have so much energy to keep fighting over this issue?
Anyone who watched this video CONSCIOUSLY will see the high level of uncertainty in NT's theories. Too uncertain to overrule the written text and, by extension, his 'American' opponents.
@@nobleprince1238 lol. Relax people. The meaning of countless verses are in question. The truth is that there have been numerous verses that have been changed or reinterpreted over the years i.e. slavery, marriage, hitting kids in the face with large stones, the un-bibical tithe that churches abuse their parisheners with. The fact is that pur bible is a book written for people whos cultural norms were based upon their time and not ours. We should start lookimg at it that way
@@tysonvslewis12 Are you familiar with progressive christianity? Is that something you subscribe to? Apologies if I've not addressed your comment directly, I have a feeling some of the ideas you expressed sound rather progressive. I appreciate your perspective, though. God bless you.
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 lol. A different interpretation of a highly interperative book does not mean im making up additional gods. Simply stating that the letters written to the roman and corinthian churches were written for them in their time does not mean im twisting scripture
Imagine Paul standing next to NT and saying "Thank you for providing the full context of what I was saying so people reading from the English Bible can understand what I meant."
Great rebuttal. Just skip making a biblical argument, providing evidence or any of that messy stuff that requires actual knowledge. For the record, N.T. Wright is quite possibly the most knowledgable New Testament scholar alive today. What would your credentials be as a Bible scholar?
The Bible tells men and women EXACTLY what to do and NOT do respectively. The fact that people are determined to add on and take away from the scriptures just shows how hard the enemy is at work and who he's working through.
Maybe. Maybe not. I hope you as a man are leading in your church and teaching and serving. Boldly declaring the good news to all and being an example of a believer
Yes, women should be in ministry. Pastors? There’s no way around the text that the qualifications for pastors are men. We can’t use descriptive texts as a prescription when there are prescriptive texts that go against them.
So beautiful that even though Eve listened to the snake and ate bringing death, that Jesus speaks to women first to spread the word that life has been restored!! Alleluia!
If it was not for a group of FEMALE missionaries from Europe that I met in Las Vegas 14 years ago, I never would have been saved. :) Imagine if they took 1 Timothy 2:12 out of context. :)
@@saxmanjpr5092 This is not about women as evangelizers (everybody should evangelize and bring the good news to other people). This is about women in priesthood, which is incompatible with Christian faith. To anybody align with God and His teachings, this should be obvious. The only ones promoting feminism in Christianity are anti-Christian modernists - both the useful idiots like you and the OP (that aid in pushing this anti-Christ agenda), and the dishonest deceivers like the speaker on the video.
@Pond3r Thiz a pastor IS a teacher. Tell you what, How about you tell you mom to shut up if she wats to teach others and see how fast she slaps you! You people are freaks!
@Gary Richardson That is a bunch of CRAP! You need go back to what you were taught in your 5th grade English class and remind yourself of what the difference between a SINGULAR term and a PLURAL term is. The bible says "A womAn shall not teach..." not "all womEn..." If you were to tell my mother and sister to shut up (and the bible says to treat all womEn as mothers and sisters: 1 Timothy 5:2) I would break your nose. I bet you would do the same thing to me if I were to tell you Mother and even wife to shut up. Also, don't you think Eve learned from her mistake? Use some common sense.
The argument of women being the first to announce Jesus' resurrection is such a lazy and terrible argument for women being church leaders and preachers.
@@ce2161 Because them announcing the resurrection has nothing to do with leading a church or preaching. It simply does not follow logically. It would also place the gospel writers at odds with Paul, who clearly did not allow women to lead churches and preach. And think about it. When the gospel writers record that the women were the first people to announce the resurrection, are they telling us that it means women should lead and preach? Surely not, it doesn't follow. Also, the idea that Phoebe has this sort of authority from Paul to teach because she carried the letter is just unpersuasive speculation.
@@ruicadima2961 What makes women a bad candidate for preaching? Logically, what is so wrong about them preaching? Because all I see is a sexist teaching that would be understandable because the people at that time saw men as superior. And to reverse the question around, what if a woman was the president of the United States? Would you not like her because the Bible said women can lead in church? Or does this teaching only prescribe to women who are Christians?
@@ce2161 It has nothing to do with being a "bad candidate" and neither is it a question of logic. I merely mentioned logic to show how NT Wright's argument is not logical in the sense that his conclusions don't follow from his premises. Here's why I think women can't preach or lead a church: because God says so. And that is enough for me. 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man". (ESV) It has nothing to do with men being superior or women not having competency. It's not a question of ability but a question of God-ordained order. And it can't be something only for the time of Paul or for the city of Ephesus because he grounds what he says in verse 12 by going to creation, which is universal. Why can't women preach or lead a church? Because Adam was created first, he's the head of the family. In a similar fashion, only men are to be leaders and preachers. The position of leadership and authority in the Church is given to men just like the leadership of Adam and Eve was given to Adam, who was created first. Again, nothing to do with ability. All to do with the way God created the world. As for your observation about a woman being president, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'm persuaded that the Bible only forbids a woman from such a position of leadership and authority in the Church. When it comes to the civil government, there's no such restriction as far as I'm aware. As someone who lives in the United Kingdom, I have no problem with the Queen being the Head of State. In fact, I'm extremely grateful for her as she's a Christian. If a woman were to be president of the US and I lived in the US, I would very gladly follow her leadership. When it comes to the Church, as I hopefully demonstrated above, that's a different story.
@@ruicadima2961 Thank you for your comment. This is 100% Biblical. I find that the decay of the church and the family today is two fold: it comes from women who do not adhere to their God given roles, rebelling against God's established order and from men who allow them to do it. These men are abdicating their responsibility (for whatever reasons and the reasons matter not) and it is ruining churches and families. God is a God of order, structure and discipline. We are to obey His commandments. A feminized family goes to ruin. I have seen it in my own family, in the past year and a half, as a result of my father suffering multiple strokes. A family or church headed by a woman is cursed and was never in God's established design. God Word is clear but we often pervert it and distort it to our liking. We will be held to account.
Hi, No. I've checked the Greek concerning 2 Timothy 12 + the 2nd to last verse in this chapter. When Apostle Paul stated "I do not permit a woman to teach or have dominion over a man, this verse is in the singular, while the rest are in the plural. He was talking about a local, not universally. For every scripture, or group of scriptures, there is a chair scripture or one could say a trunk scripture, where lateral branches stem from it. Example: male + female in the body of Christ are priests. When one observes priesthoods be it levitical or pagan ( sorry, I need to bring that one in) they teach + guide the congregation. We, who are followers of Jesus Christ are teachers, preachers + guides for the "new" in the faith, also the weak + unfortunately the disobedient, by pleading + warning them. these are our responsibilities, as well as the elders who were and still should be men + women who are senior citizens.
Debatable that Phoebe held the office of Deacon, Paul simply said that she served. But that's beside the point. An overseer (Pastor, Elder, Bishop, etc) in a church is a role given only to men as directed by the Lord, it has nothing to do with a prophetess or the one Judge who was a woman in the OT. Read your bible and obey Christ, women ministers (oxymoron) are in direct rebellion to our Lord, they must repent of their sin.
Actually witnessing is the center of Jesus message. His first message was Matthew 4:17. That is the center whole Jesus ministries in the entire Bible. When you say witnessing is not preaching, then you wrong. You probably check for your understanding. It doesn’t matter what I say or somebody say but Jesus Christ message and preaching was the center of witnessing people, to get to the promise land Heaven. God bless u in Jesus name
Well, witnessing is preaching?? When Jesus was preaching love , he show it by caring for people Matthew 9:36 and then died for them. This is a witness of love by living it. A word is just a word if you could not back it up by your life. As a Christian follower of Jesus Christ our life is a witness Matthew 5:14. Character is more important. Jesus attract sinners more than any body the reason is he doesn’t see their sin he sees who they are John 3:16. My point is our life is a witness. It is not just a word Galatians 2:11-14. So we preach life with our life not our word. Witnessing is not talk on the street but living it. I am not saying talk on the street is wrong but witnessing is more than that. John 13:31-35. Witnessing is preaching with your life not just words. More blessings
Telling anyone that “Jesus is risen” is not preaching or teaching. It’s just telling a fact. To teach or preach the Word of GOD is to feed the sheep of His pasture, that’s not given to women to do.
@@bwanikajohn7002 You lack understanding of what preaching is. Everyone, who is saved, is to bear witness that Jesus is risen. But not everyone is to preach or teach GOD’s Word. No matter how people try to twist scripture, they will be judged by The Word as it is written. GOD’s Word does not change. Take care
That's true. Those women were given an 'errand', not a mission. It's like telling a child to bear a particular message to some one. However so the women were given this errand to specifically tell only the disciples about Jesus's resurrection but the Mission to spread the gospel among all nations is given to the disciples.
@@robertheintze9413 Christ, who is God, was on earth and selected 12 male apostles. And when Judas failed the two that were put up to take the spot were male. What chance do you think that they all are male? That is 14 males selected in a society that is about 50 percent male and 50 percent female. The chances of that are (1/2)^14 which is 1/16,384. Peter also affirms Paul's writings as being inspired: 2 Peter 3:15-16: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." As far as Deborah is concerned. There are exception to almost everything, and God is the only one that can do the exceptions. We can say that all have died because all have sinned. Yes. But there are exceptions to this rule. Elijah and Enoch.
Christ, who is God, was on earth and selected 12 male apostles. And when Judas failed the two that were put up to take the spot were male. What chance do you think that they all are male? That is 14 males selected in a society that is about 50 percent male and 50 percent female. The chances of that are (1/2)^14 which is 1/16,384. Peter also affirms Paul's writings as being inspired: 2 Peter 3:15-16: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." As far as Deborah is concerned. There are exception to almost everything, and God is the only one that can do the exceptions. We can say that all have died because all have sinned. Yes. But there are exceptions to this rule. Elijah and Enoch.
Our society has been trending more and more towards the exact culture in Ephesus that Paul was speaking into, we have OVER-corrected from being misogynistic to feminist in an unhealthy way. N.T. is I believe comparing apples (women sitting at the feet of Jesus, being active helpful members of the church) to oranges (women being elders/pastors). I think this is a secondary issue, but worth debating.
@@tgthomasgoertzen No that is an incorrect 'straw-man' representation of feminism. Patriarchy IS inequality. It is MEN who have usurped an authority that isn't theirs.
Fluffy Baby Bunny Why must it be termed “feminism”? Why not simply equality. There is no cohesive movement known as “masculinism”, however if patriarchy is an unjust male-centric system, wouldn’t it logically follow that feminism would result in an unjust female-centric system?
@@joellmarlowe8613 OK that's a fair question, but I didn't name it. The definition is there for any dummy to look up though, and there are egalitarians who eschew the term for the reasons you mention, but that doesn't change it's original meaning. Bottom line is we are just arguing about semantics here, and it's not really worth it. I decided some time ago to just embrace the term. It's not my fault if others can't be bothered doing their own research.
@DiscoFalcon he seems to have many dodgy beliefs - often close to the truth but slightly off - maybe to become a Bishop in the C of E that's what it takes. Seems a nice genuine engaging man though.
@DiscoFalcon Just out of curiosity...do the women in your church disobey scripture by wearing jewelry, expensive clothing and stylish hair? "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" - 1 Tim 2:9
I have yet to meet a single Christian who does not demonstrate with their very lives that they cherry pick scripture left and right. Especially the fundamentalists...the more fundamentalist, the more "word gymnastics" they play with scripture.
@DiscoFalcon I am stating my observations, but definitely open to discussion. As a Christian of over 30 years, I'm just saying that my observation is that all Christians pick and choose which verses to emphasize and which to ignore....or twist and contort scriptural passages to force them to fit their particular doctrines or theological positions or lifestyle choices. There are those who deny that they do it, and those who admit that they do it, but without a doubt all Christians do it. I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise but nobody has been able to do so through their life demonstration. Not long ago I had a conversation with a devout evangelical woman who was adamant that scripture forbids women to speak or teach in church. As she was passionately zeroing in on particular verses to prove her point, I couldn't help but to notice that she was wearing lots of jewelry, expensive apparel and a fancy hairdo. When I pointed out to her the scriptural verses which condemn her very Sunday attire, all of a sudden she was explaining away those verses as having been relevant only in their cultural context, lol. She seemed completely unaware of irony of the moment. Then you have the "Bible believing Christians" who flaunt their wealth and possessions. When you point out to them what Jesus said about accumulation of wealth and possessions, they bend over backwards attempting to justify their lifestyle choices & trying their hardest to water-down the words of Christ regarding Mammon sins. And on and on and on.
I greatly respect that NT Wright was reading directly from the Greek. He hits points that most miss when they only read the English translations. Addressing "authentein" is something that is missed and this is too critical of an issue not to apply a careful hermeneutic.
NT Wright is, I fear, being disingenuous with his argument. There are plenty of passages in the New Testament whcih contradict his argument - eg I Cor 14: 33-37; 1 Cor 11, Titus 2: 11-13 & many others. Paul was apparently unaware of NT's "Cultural Revolution," an unfortunate phrase from Communist China. Maybe we should consider why the western churches are unqiquely weak in 2000 years of Gospel history.
@@proudhon100 Hinting, innuendo, and cherry picking do not make a strong hermeneutic. You don't acknowledge the contradictions with scripture in the very texts you indicate, which means you are choosing an interpretive frame out of bias and not analysis.
@@elibennett6168 My interpretive framework is that scripture was inspired by God and therefore by definition does not contradict itself. Men and women however, like to impose their fallen worldviews onto this communication from the Lord.
@@proudhon100 Christianity is not some cult where we just believe what people say without intellect. Rather, those that earnestly search the scriptures to see what pastors or self-professed leaders say is true are especially commended (Acts 17). No point in continuing our discussion since you are not adding anything that hasn't been pored over and found wanting, particularly if you claim an absolutist position that does indeed contradict scripture.
@@elibennett6168 Those who seek novelty in Scripture are pre-disposed to heresy. When you refer to passages of Scripture as being "found wanting" you are making it quite clear that you don't like what God has said.
Yes! It gave me so much joy and hope too. I know so many women who hate Christianity because of sexism in the church. Glad to see some people see us women as equal!
It's a dishonest conversation, missing out all biblical passages to the contrary. St Paul never heard of the cultural revolution. Is your desire to be saved or to be equal to men?
@@proudhon100 both :) Jesus saved me at the age of 16 and I know I am loved by him and equal to boys. He made me in his image just like my brothers in Christ. We are all beautiful equal children of the king.
@@jarastar6499 You are equal in value but the notion that you are equal in all things is simply not true. That was the point behind men claiming to be women competing in women's sports and women rightly complaining about the grossly unfair testosterone advantage. . There is complementarity - which is why God declares same sex intercourse to be an abomination.
@@proudhon100 certainly we are not all equal in physical strength. God has given us each different genetics to make humanity a beautifully diverse species. However we are equal in value and we are equal in intelligence and conscious experience. We think the same and we both have the capacity to experience and worship God the same.
He was using a Greek NT. For me all I heard was a discussion that was loaded with scripture and intelligent forensics which is also a biblical commission
@@lanadelkae351 I don’t disagree I was merely commenting about whether or not he used scripture. But I can tell by your dogmatic reply where are you stand. Someday read behind Jesus when you have time. He just walked around telling stories as well and he often times quoted scripture.
@@lanadelkae351 You do not have permission to teach the men here then Titus 2v4 Then they can urge the younger women(H) to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled(I) and pure, to be busy at home,(J) to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands,(K) so that no one will malign the word of God.(L) *Ignore verse 9 though because slavery is bad*
Well... the reason people focus on those verses is because Paul said something about it. It's not focused on often in church at all. 1 Timothy, considered as Scripture, goes back to Genesis as the explanation for why women can't teach... why? And if it is something that God says, what do we do with it? Paul was actually writing Timothy to give church policy, so it makes sense why we would go back to that in church policy today.
But if Timothy was facing a bunch of cult teachings, Paul would have instructed him on specifically how to do deal with that. I have heard another scholar propose that much if that section was dealing with how to get rid of the Artemis cult influence.
Just one observation. Whether or not Junia (Junias) in Romans 16:7 was a women or man is irrelevant. The majority of translations do not identify Andronicus or Junias as apostles. Rather they are said to be "held in high esteem" (Amplified Bible), "of note among the apostles" (NKJV), or "well known to the apostles" (ESV). I think it is a stretch in light of other passages on the subject, to mine something out of the closing greetings of Romans 16 to make the case that there was a woman apostle in the New Testament Church. That, in my humble opinion is not responsible exegesis of scripture.
Yes, that struck me as well. It's a huge stretch to say that "known to the apostles" means "they are apostles." It's just really kind of crazy to see all of the hoops they jump through to try to reconcile 1 Timothy with what they want to believe. It's not letting Scripture drive your exegesis, therefore it's not an honest exegesis.
I really like NT Wright I just don’t find this particular argument persuasive. I think he is bending over backwards to reinterpret passages that just don’t lead where some would prefer. Men are called to be the priests of their home and community.
@@peggypiercefield5188 Just because you are “closer” to God doesn’t mean your gifts can’t be used elsewhere. And if you were as close to God as you think you were you would know that.
@@Kae879 The same high verbal skills that make a good minister could be used in journalism, law, and politics. But some women hear God calling them. Perhaps divine statements become garbled so they hear "ministry" when the true calling was "journalism," "law," or "politics."
The body of Christ is a Bride. Should the men act like a women/ Bride? Or both men and women should stay in there place? A woman can’t do what a man can. Women must do what they are created to do just like a man. Be fruitful and multiple. Women don’t be FOOLED by Satin. Stay out of that Pulpit Fire.
And yet...thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations, sectarian division and a multitude scriptural disputes among Christians suggest that the Bible is far less "clear" than we Christians like to pretend it is.
And yet...thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations, sectarian division and a multitude scriptural disputes among Christians suggest that the Bible is far less "clear" than we Christians like to pretend it is.
God views you as made of man to be a help meet. Not to teach or have authority. This does not mean you are loved less, but that you have a God given role to fill, as a child bearer, and teacher of women and children. Not a head of the church, teacher, or authority figure ❤️
@@rebelmadesaint3118 this comes across as a misunderstanding of the purpose of women in Genesis 2. A help meet doesn’t mean subservient. God brought forth the animals but none were found to be suitable or to meet his requirements, so God then produced a woman from his side and she did meet the requirements. From his side = as an equal. It was not good for man to be alone - he could not manage without a woman, he needed a helper. We read elsewhere that God is our help in time of trouble - that makes God our help meet.
@@MrSmartowl the “from his side to be equal” argument is based purely in opinion, and isn’t part of scripture. God is not a “help meet” he is our helper in times of turmoil. A woman cannot deliver us from evil. A woman cannot free us from principalities and powers. A woman was made to be subservient to a man, this does not make her less human, but she will not have authority over a man. Period.
His view of you as a woman hasn't changed. If you are a believer and born again you are a child of God. It doesn't change the fact that women are not to teach men!! That is what the bible plainly says.
Sorry, but I will have to disagree with all of this. Seems like a lot of speculating. I believe yes we are to learn and be disciples but to teach men no. Me and my husband study things out together, but I find it weird if I were to go and try to teach another woman's husband.
Actually, it's humility. There is much in the Bible that is still veiled. There is much that we don't have the cultural context or linguistic knowledge to completely discern. He was being humble- he should have mentioned that no one can know for sure.
@@valeriebeverly1107 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:13 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace. Jeremiah 50:6
Men are to lead for women were created to help. But leading doesnt mean puffing yourselves up the contrary leading means to serve, it means sacrificial love as Christ did. As Christ loved and served the Church and gave himself up for her, Christ did not come to be served but to serve so how much more mortal men should do. For Scripture is clear that the ones that oversee over the Church should not control or dominate but serve the people God gave them to oversee, this is clear in matthew 20:25 25But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave- 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Women are to help men in their leading and in everything for thats the reason eve was created. Different duties, same worth. Roman 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. Some other translations say servant we are aware of that and this has been addressed in the thread. So please read the comments rather than accusing people of lying. Still the Bible says "that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the Saints, and help her in whatever she may needs from you, for she has been a Patron of many and of myself as well". Also, Romans 16:3 " my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in the ministry of Christ Jesus. We are to be of one mind, one body, one accord. No man or woman is above or greater than another but Christ our Lord. Does that mean that women can be superior or over men? Of course not but neither are men superior for in Christ its all about humility so no one should boast. For its not superiority but its all about serving God and each other in humility and truth. Glory to God. Praise to you our Christ
Hey sorry servant does not men deacon. Don't forget GOD says " do not add or take away from these Words or the plagues of this book will be added to you". Look it up this guy's is a someone who doesn't know the scriptures.
@@darrialfleming8548 The primal word is to mean the following as the Greek word signifies. [DIAKO (To run on errands; compare (dioko)); an attendant, i.e. (genitive) a waiter (at table or in **other menial** duties);-Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary] Thus the Bible KJV translators use the word servant. Especially as being a deacon was a position for men only....[unless of course, a woman had managed to have transgendered herself.....{;o;}] "12 Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." 1 Timothy 3:11-13 (ASV)
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 keep up the good work. Men seem to think that scripture needs them to interrupt. The Spirit of Truth which Christ has given every man in Him is sufficient.
Two things apply here: Galatians 3:28, and the idea of 'leaders'. There are no leaders in the Christian church. We are all servants. We serve in different ways. We are led by the Spirit and informed by the word of God. We've got to get away from this puffed up worldly idea of 'leaders'. It comes from the arrogant lexicon of business and politics and is as unworthy of the church as Israel wanting to displace God with a mere king who would (and did) introduce corruption into their land. So, we have ministers of various kinds. Some organise, others administer, some teach, others clean the auditorium, some pastor/counsel and pray with others. Some conduct/facilitate/organise/convene study and prayer groups. Others (in the episcopal churches) wear fancy dress for our entertainment. NO ONE IS A LEADER. There are no 'roles' for men and/or women. Sure there are biological functions and their concomitant relationships. But my wife and I don't have 'roles' like we live in a business. We mutually serve and support each other according to our interests and gifts. The head of our house is the Spirit of Truth.
Hmn! God bless you sir. As a complimentarian, I can't agree more. I know according to God's word, me are the head of the home but that's servant leadership where he puts the wife's needs first not boss dictatorship as some cultures assumes it to be or what ' I hear' is obtainable in the so called religion of peace. May the good Lord help us all. Amen
The only problem with your answer is that the Bible time and time again dictates roles for men and women. This doesn't mean one sex is inferior to the other but roles do exist. Now get control of your household, your beta-maleness is spilling all over the place.
Those of you amazing Greek scholars: Could that verse about "she will be saved from the curse through childbirth" have to do with the fact that Jesus was actually birthed through a woman? Was there a shift for women that could have happened there? Just curious what your thought are on this.
The nay-sayers here already know the mind of god. They don't have to think anything through. Don't you know god has revealed the truth to them to the exclusion of the rest of us? That's why they are so certain: no need for honesty then. They can condemn from the comfort of their desk chairs safe in the knowledge that being right is their highest calling.
Ashley Bradshaw, no greek but I have heard and understand that this reference to childbirth is what gives women their high status and which obliterates any potential accusation that women were deceived and were the cause of the fall. Childbirth, gives to women a role only they can perform and the nurturing etc which goes with that role makes them special and unique, not just another man type being. If this were not so, women's status in our society throughout history would be so much more fragile... and yes this is a bit of an obscure line … but think about it, where would women be without childbirth?
@@gtolose special and unique: sure Can bear children: sure However this hardly disqualifies women from serving as leaders and pastors. Moreover women only bear children for a limited number years over their life; in addition some never do, and many never get the choice.
@@fluffybabybunny5822 I am answering the point raised by Paul about childbirth "saving" women, I think it was u who suggested that this may be a reference to the birth of Jesus but I differ and suggest an alternative which seems a better fit in the context. I say this because we have arrived at a place where some r wondering "what use r men" and this has some traction because now men's superior strength is no longer really of any value and women are defended and supported for by the state while pregnant or ill then apart from a minor contribution at conception this does place men into a fairly obsolete position. They r derided and undermined on a fairly regular basis.... and accept it. If men could conceive and have children then what would history of men and women look like - how would women have been treated, can I suggest it would have been extremely difficult for women without this key role. Being childbearer and nurturer, even though weaker in a harsh environment gave women a central and pivotal role in what was essentially a patriarchal society.... But in the last 100 years it is all change both in society and in the church. Your point about specific women not having children, sure of course, not all men are physically stronger than women, but the generalisation is true and ONLY women can have children.
@@gtolose hmm, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, so forgive me if this doesn't address your point. I have heard the argument of course that the 'childbearing ' verse (15, I think) is a reference to the birth of Jesus, but I'm not convinced by that so it wouldn't have been me that said it. I think it's more likely that it was countering a heresy prevailing at the time that Cybele/Artemis would protect women in childbirth, and Paul is saying 'you don't need that goddess's blessing to be kept safe'. In any case this is one of the most debated verses in the NT. Sure we should try to get to the bottom of it, but no one can really say they know exactly what Paul meant (if they do they are just being arrogant and foolish and I've no time for that). I think the interpretation above fits the context best (false teaching is mentioned in many places throughout the epistles to Timothy and is indeed a major theme in those epistles; in Acts we are told of the riots in Ephesus: it's not hard to build a picture of the context from purely Biblical sources, and of course other historical sources affirm that picture). I am puzzled as to why a passage that has roughly seven main interpretations is so narrowly interpreted to the detriment of women. One would think that where such a broad spectrum of views exists - most of them plausible and a couple of them that do not exclude women highly probable, which is the best we are going to get at this point - that the church would err on the side of freedom, not exclusion. I really do not understand how people cannot see this from the rest of the scriptures.
Well, as a starter, look up the relationship between God the Father and God the Son (which is the role model for any authority), and then try to treat women in the same way as God the Father treats God the Son. That is your responsibility. Treating you as God the Son treats God the Father then is the woman's responsibility, but first learn your lesson and don't rub her stuff into her nose all the time. ;-)
They have taken the whole of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation and the pattern expounded again and again. The man has the authority of leadership or headship in the home and the church is described as God's family and the bride of Christ in the NT. How this speaker can from his understanding of a 'few verses' come to the conclusion that this is not an important matter is very worrying. To tamper with the Word of God in such a way leaves the hearer wondering about its authority not just on the matter of men and women and their design but others that don't fit the narrative of our modern culture.
I agree, if you don`t get the Creation right, you will not get most of the Bible right, therefore woman in leadership as the head of man is not correct.
The most logical interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 I have found is thus: Artemis was a huntress goddess. Her statues show her covered with testicles, which she took from the bulls she killed. But there's a twist to the story: she magically turned her male opponents into bulls, and then killed them... and stripped them of their maleness. So, the worship of Artemis actually wove into the female mind the idea of conquering males by any devious means possible. Artemis was also looked to as the protector of women in childbirth. To come under her protection, an expectant mother was required to take part in Artemis temple rituals. Ephesus was devoted so thoroughly to the worship of Artemis that any other religion entering the city had to incorporate the Artemis myth into their teachings. Every religion became an Artemis cult. So, what would a Jewish-Artemis cult teach? They certainly would not teach that Adam was formed first, because that would seem to promote the idea the man was superior! Nor would they teach that Eve was deceived. Because Artemis beliefs said women were spiritually superior. Do you see now how those last 3 verses were simply Paul's rebuttal of Artemis cult teachings? 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. Evidently, a woman had come into the church from the Jewish cult of Artemis, and was -- as she was trained -- trying to usurp male authority! Notice how Paul speaks of "women" in the plural, in verses 9 & 10. And then he switches to speaking of "THE woman" and "A woman" in verses 11 - 15. Greek scholars say this is significant. Paul was no longer talking about all the women in the church. He was talking about ONE woman in particular, who was causing trouble for Timothy. And Paul was simply telling Timothy how to handle her, and how to push back against her false doctrine.
Mary Ellen, very astute observation. Pastor Melissa Scott has a masters in Biblical languages and has had to defend herself being given the pastorate by her late husband. She claimed the same thing. Timothy was more than likely having trouble with a woman trying to dominate him. Shalom
Which Bible verses tell us what women are allowed to do? Or what areas of ministry then are “good enough” for. Perhaps you have my answer. No one else, over many posts and videos has even tried to answer. Will you?
Paul also said married women should cover heads and men should have short hair. Why don't we follow those rules anymore? Also Paul and Peter were both blessed and very wise but had differing views and rules. I try to look directly at words of Jesus and see if and how he spoke on topic or related issues. Unfortunately closest I see if Jesus closing men as 12 leading apostles but included a few Marys in intimate teaching right with apostles so I'm still confused
If you're confused I might be able to help. I post on women's matters and the head covering. (I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary. ___________________________________________________________________ Deborah was a Judge over Israel. There was no gender qualification to be a Judge. I suggest my short essay on her. Or I can reply to questions.
Titus 1:6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, 1 Timothy 3:2 the overseer is to be above reproach, husband of one wide Please explain how a woman can fulfill this qualification if one is being a husband of one wife. Asking out of love not correction.
Well the husband of one wife is pretty clearly about the "one" wife as at that time many men had many wifes. It is clear that it didn't have to be made about women as no women had many husbands at that time. So he didn't want people who had multiple wives to be pastors.
Stryne vanZelk you are saying that verse also means woman can fulfill a pastor role? I don’t understand what you are trying to explain. From what I see “a husband of one wife” I guess a married man.
@@devonhill7394 I'm not sure if these verses talk about a pastoral role in the way we use it. Overall the letters seem to suggest that christian churhes had much much more plural leadership. If you look at 1Cortinthinas 13 the overseer has probably more to do with those who are for for guidance than those who should teach. Regardless of this the point that I was making was not that the paassage says "women can be overseers" but that it is absolutely not concerned about that question. Just as in the english translation you used Paul uses a number word in greek to stress the "one" which is extremly unusual unless you want to make clear that the "one" is the point. This is definetly about a man staying with one woman, being faithful to her not having relationships with more women. Actually other antique texts talking about faithfulness using this expression. This is why the NIV actually has both those passages as "faithful to his wife".
@@dr.timothyfuller8763 "a husband of one wife" is a figure of speech and would better be translated with "monogamous". So single men, single women, or faithful married men or women can be church leaders. For more on this I would recommand this blog post: margmowczko.com/pauls-qualifications-for-church-leaders/
There is no place for a Bible believing Christian in the UK today. Trying to find a church that isn't liberal and doesn't embrace feminist dogma is impossible. Many true believers are turning away from the church to worship alone or online with others like themselves. I pray for a revival that sweeps away sinful teaching such as this.
Very poor from NT Wright. Instead of taking the most obvious meaning of the passages that directly address the issue he raises some flimsy alternative readings and says "If an alternative understanding is possible then these passages should not be normative" Mary of Bethany in training to be a Rabi? Why is it not possible for Jesus to simply teach a woman without projecting her path into "professional" ministry? Very unconvincing.
@@Baseballisbest67 most of the new testament was written in Koine Greek, a language which Jesus spoke and was the lingua franca in the Roman Empire. Almost all scholars agree that Koine is the original language of the New Testament.
I think that the NT would have been as the old written down in Hebrew, then translated later into Greek as more Gentiles were Saved. The Greek was kept and the Hebrew fell into disuse.
1 Timothy 2 vs 12...... Women are not Pastors or Elders. The biblical qualification is being a husband (MAN) of one wife etc. This would Never have been an issue years ago it’s only because we live in a weak age that Hates the Bible. It comes down to a basic fundamental view of the imperative and perfection of scripture! This isn’t men vs women it’s recognising our God given roles and holding firmly to Sola Scriptura!
Gareth Sarjeant With all due respect sir, why on earth would you ask a question like that? If you’re a true believer you are part of Christ’s bride.....?!? He is married to His Church and Paul was given the gift of celibacy..... The same Paul encouraged people to be married and dedicated whole chapters to what that should look like so I don’t understand your question really it makes no sense not biblically anyway? Jesus is the Son of God and Paul was unique, they don’t represent the rest of mankind.
@@1988TheHitman because you said the biblical.qualification for being a leader was "a man of one wife" by which I assumed you meant "husband of one wife" but that perhaps English was your second language so you had chosen slightly incorrect words..
You know where you don't find the idea of 'sola scriptura'? in scriptura... It isn't a biblical concept but 16th century reaction to abuses by the papacy...
@@ryanmorey even churches that claim sola scripture are more like the Anglican church who explicitly talk about a stool with 3 legs, tradition, reason and scripture. In fact some of the churches that are keenest on saying sola scripture have the biggest problem with any interpretations that move away from the interpretations of their favorite reformer(s) (tradition).
Mike Winger has done a great explanation of these arguments. NT makes some assumptions here!!! Although he does sound really wise we have to go through the scriptures and see if they are saying what NT is saying. Not all of his arguments actually hold up!!
This is one of the reasons given for Paul's position on women not teach, nor to usurp authority over the man 1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. So it is obvious that this same reason would apply to all churches. There is a reason the serpent approached Eve to make his argument and not Adam. We were created with different strengths and weaknesses for different roles.
One passage? Did Dr NT Wright know about 1 Corinthians 14: 33 to the end, where Paul says "As in all the churches of the saints the women should be silent in the churches..."!? I see women has a great role in God's kingdom, but Wright did not take serious the text in 1 Tim. 2 (what he just said few times, "I am not sure ..." or "People have different opinions about this...."; rather the only thing he was sure about is his extra-biblical cultural background!)...and he did not go to other places in the Bible where God, though give man and women same honor, assign different rules. Being a Scholar does not mean being right :)
Paul is taking the Corinthians where they are, not where they "should" be.. Corinth was a wild port town in which "proper" women stayed at home, never went to market (slaves did that). Pagans noted the genuine freedom that Christian women were enjoying and "talked" abt that rather than about the Resurrection of Jesus. To move the "conversation" back to Jesus and off women, Paul implements "Household Rules." You will notice in his letter to the Romans that women are actively involved in the church, not silent at all. Moreover, Jesus never treated women as anything other than equal to men.
You need to go back to your 5th grande ENGLISH class and learn the difference between a SINGULAR TERM and a PLURAL TERM son! The bible here says, "a womAn," NOT "all womEn!" This means that only a certain type of womAn can to teach, You know, the type of lady that had to have everything "my way, or the highway" and refused to listen to another point of view, and those that refuse to submit to their husbands and they go behind his back to do what ever they please! If all womEn can not teach, then a mother teaching her son is a SINNER! And take that verse in context! That verse is referring to a time when men and women used to sit on opposite side of the pews and yelled out at their husbands to anger and question, SO Paul was giving a simple instruction of using MANNERS! I bet you anything that if you heard a man in church tell your wife, mother or daughter to shut up, you would be giving that person a black eye!
If women can't teach men why does Acts 18:25-26 say: "25 Apollos had been taught the way of the Lord. He spoke with great power. He taught the truth about Jesus. But he only knew about John’s baptism. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Priscilla and Aquila heard him. So they invited him to their home. There they gave him a better understanding of the way of God." Yes she teaches him with her husband, but she's still teaching a man.
They gave him the gospel. Apollos wasn't a believer since he knew just John's baptism. So she wasn't teaching him anything as a brother in Christ. Women can evangelize, or explain the gospel to both men and women, hence what Priscilla with her husband did to Apollos.
@@tinupeter They didn't give him the gospel. He was a Christian and knew the gospel but they explained to him more in depth God's ways. That's more than giving the gospel message. As an example say the only Christian in a town or city is a woman. Are you telling me God would prefer a person to stay ignorant of His Word than to be instructed by a Christian woman?
@@tinupeter "He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately." He knew the message, he just didn't know everything he should.
Christ constantly shattered the cultural perceptions of the time by surpassing that which was not truly of God's spirit in order to show that what God cares about above all are the hearts of his children-- and all of this sacrifice for relationship with each of us... ❤️
To say that God cannot use women in a pastoral service confines an unlimited God within limits. Additionally, God doesn’t command or direct us without reasons, so it’s important to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance as to what He meant in the inspired Word of God. Scripturally speaking, with regards to women leadership and ordination, and specifically the passage you mentioned in 1 Tim. 2 (that’s often quoted about this topic), I would like to suggest that it is not necessarily transcultural, nor do I think that Paul was trying to create a stumbling block for women’s participation in worship/ministry. Certainly the Christian faith is dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit in us (who are empty vessels ready to be filled by Him), and His gifting according to His mercy and grace. Verses in the Bible such as Acts 2:17-18 (which references Joel 2:28), clearly leaves no one out, and there’s no shortage of verses and examples in the Bible, along with historical and present day accounts of God moving mightily in women, including in the role of teaching. So I can’t see Paul ostracizing women (approximately half the population) from this role as a generally applied directive, but rather a specific instruction for a particular time and context - and I believe the text supports this argument. Many read 1 Tim. 2:11-15 and automatically jump to the negative narrative, and assert that Paul is being misogynistic, when in fact, he is actually trying to protect the women of that time from judgement. I believe that Dickson’s argument of the difference between “teaching” and “preaching” is valid and applicable. We know this when we look at other passages where Paul makes the distinction between Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:28, Rom. 12:4-8, etc.), and as you read his and others’ letters, it is clear that this distinction was understood among 1st Century Christians, and that “teaching” was a higher platform. In James 3:1, James strongly cautions the brethren/believers about not seeking to become “teachers”, because there is a greater judgement for those who teach incorrectly. “Teaching” is meant for those who can correctly read, interpret and explain the Word with authority, whereas “Preaching” is intended for witnessing and sharing the good news after one has been taught. Paul is discouraging women of that time from “teaching”, not “preaching” (and not from prophesying, speaking in tongues, performing miracles or any other gifting/ministry either). It is clear from the passage that women were not in a position to be properly equipped to teach. You need mentorship to become a “teacher”, similar to how Paul studied under Gamaliel, but this was not available to women of that time - only to men - and he didn’t want women to use their new-found freedom to assume the role of teaching without proper training (additionally, considering the very low literacy rates of the time among men, women would be even less privileged to have an education, making matters worse). So given the opportunity, there’s no reason why women can’t teach or be Pastors. Paul uses the illustration from Genesis because God told Adam directly about the forbidden fruit in Genesis 2, prior to Eve being formed. Adam would have shared the knowledge about the forbidden fruit with Eve after she was formed. When Eve was tempted/questioned by the serpent/devil, she was unable to correctly respond/deceived, and eventually sinned, causing judgement on herself and Adam (to be clear, Adam sinned as well, as men are also prone to being deceived and sinning). Paul is basically trying to explain how important it is to have a full understanding and knowledge of the Word, otherwise you will be prone to fail/sin, which the women of that time would have been in a position to do so. Paul ends the passage about women “saved through childbearing”, not in the context that this is their only purpose (as Augustine incorrectly interpreted and asserted), nor that every women who gives birth gets saved and goes to heaven, but rather imploring women of that time that, if they want to do good, then they can carry out a very important role of “teaching” (without facing judgement, and thus “saved”) : which is to raise up Godly children “in faith, love and holiness with propriety”.
Started from a false premise and then just ran from there. Nobody is saying God can't do something. God can do whatever God chooses to do. God hasn't chosen to make preachers and teachers of women for the congregation. We know this because there are none in the NT, neither commended or instructed but precisely the opposite. Your claim that Paul was protecting them because they weren't educated and mentored is an argument from nothing. The elders, preachers and teachers in the NT churches weren't either. God appointed them, the Apostles appointed them. They could, if it was what they intended, appointed and taught them exactly as they did the men. Oddly they didn't do that but didn't permit them. Timothy was instructed by women yet he, and not they, was the appointed preacher and teacher to the congregation. You say God doesn't do things without reason, that's true, but He doesn't have to tell us the reason. You say ask the Holy Spirit. He wrote the scriptures. Read his answers there. I.do not permit.......gives reasons.....liberals make up other reasons and say he didn't mean it.
@@Phill0old Thank you for your response, but it appears that you may have not read or considered the entire content of my post, as you seemed to be focused only on the premise, and did not explain further. Instead, you focused only on vs. 12, claimed that this is God’s direction, and that we shouldn’t question it. Second, you state that “God can do whatever He chooses to” - so if God can speak through a plant/bush to Moses in Exodus 3, and speak through a donkey to Balaam in Num. 22, why do you believe that speaking through a human female, one who is made in God’s image, is off limits, and becomes too much for God? Third, you state that “we know this because there are none (women preachers and teachers) in the NT” - your conclusion completely ignores the NT message and the power of the Holy Spirit: with verses like Acts 2:17 (which is a repeat from Joel 2) makes it clear and spells out that no one is off limits (no limit to sex, age or classes). Forth, your statement regarding women’s education and mentorship is “an argument from nothing” - please read some history of the times in the Roman Empire to find out for yourself. For a woman in those days, teaching was not an option - even outside of a religious context. It doesn’t mean they couldn’t do it, it just wasn’t available to them. Please also keep in mind that the NT captures the very early stages of the Church - even in these early stages, women were being elevated and starting to fill in leadership roles (Phoebe a deacon, Junia, Pricilla, and others who had/led home churches, etc.) which is totally unheard of in that culture. The fact that Paul was even mentioning and giving credit to these women is very unconventional. Fifth, you state that “God doesn’t have to tell us the reason” - to begin with, this isn’t a small detail in the Bible that can be overlooked (such as the sun standing still for Joshua, for example). We’re talking about an impact to half the population. Therefore, if I’m suppose to love God "... with all my mind", and have an answer for those who ask (1 Peter 3:15), then I need to understand why God, according to you, would eliminate half the population, who's made in His image, from preaching and teaching. Additionally, God didn’t say it - Paul said it, to Timothy, and if they understood it, then we can and should understand the context and reason for it. To simply just focus on a verse and limit it to sex, not only is a poor scholarly effort, but it doesn’t explain anything, especially when trying to interpret the remainder of the passage. Sixth, in addition to all this, you only need to search about women missionaries, or the impact of Christian women, and see for yourself what God, through the Holy Spirit has been doing for several hundred years through women. Women who risked their lives, in very hostile and dangerous countries and parts of the world, to teach and preach the gospel. Many of them planted churches, trained male pastors and leaders, and even wrote books. Should they have not carried out the calling of God on their lives? This isn't "liberalism" - this is clearly God working through women in the same capacity as men, to advance His Kingdom, not mine or yours.
@@sjarjoura9188 A great deal of verbage to avoid having to deal with the issue. God has spoken, that's it. You don't have to like it or understand it, you must do as God had said. Almost nobody can preach. Those few that can are all males. For support you have to base your argument on.....not the bible, not the rule of faith for the church. God hasn't called me to be a minister either. No whining, no complaining from me. God's gifts are God's gifts. He gives them where He wills.
So you are saying just because a woman treated as a human by Jesus, that means all the verses that say women should not speak in the church are not true. If you reject one part of the bible you can not accept any of it. What do you say about the curse? It said that women will have to submit to the husband this is not a perfect world but because of our sin, it is necessary.
The word for woman in verses 11 and 12, ‘gyne’, means wife and is the same word used for wife in 1 Timothy 3, ‘the husband of one wife’. The word given for man in verse 12, ‘aner’, means a man, fellow, husband. The connection between wife, ‘gyne’, and husband, as the obvious choice for ‘aner’, is inescapable. For example in Ephesians 5:25 ‘Husbands (aner) love your wives (gyne).’
The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.
Women seeing Jesus first does NOT allow women to be Pastors. The Bible is quite clear on roles in the church. Take what its says not what it does not say. Paul refers to creation in Timothy, not who saw Jesus first.
N.T Wright is highly respected around the world as a New Testament scholar of the Pauline theology, and I have read comments that show narrow-mindedness to someone who knows what he's talking about because the New Testament was written in Greek with an Eastern point of view, not a Western viewpoint. I think it's amusing to see people put Bible verses that he was just explaining in context to say he's wrong but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
@@rachelm9350 I really don't think he is.... 99% of egalitarians arguments either aren't in context or just plan wrong. They use eisegesis instead of exegesis when reading the bible... i.e. they read their personal beliefs into the Bible instead of reading the Bible how it is. They often claim that Debra is an example of a female pastor, but she wasn't, she was a prophetess..... being a prophet is not the same as being a pastor... As well as the "there's no males or females, slaves or free, jew or gentile" argument..... they claim that this means there are no role differences, but this scripture is simply talking about inheritance..... meaning males, females, slaves, free, jews, and gentiles will all inherit the Kingdom of God (as long as they believe Christ is their Lord and Savior). This is a perfect example of using eisegesis instead of exegesis. Scripture is clear that there are role differences between men and women within the church as well as with in a marriage. To claim that it isn't so is just an error.... Have you watched his whole series on it? It's really good, and you will learn alot more about this subject.
@@DrDoerk you just want to refuse to look at the text in context in the original language. It's fine you can be like that. But it's not reading personal beliefs. I've been in both camps and after thoroughly looking into it I am no longer complementarian as it is a false depiction of the text due to it being translated into English and a gross decontextualixation. It is not honest to hold this position. You are looking at one example of Debra. I don't even consider that as part of the argument against complementarianism.
It seems to me he gave the game away when he said that. It’s only three little verses... Same argument the pro LGBT side makes. The bible doesn’t talk about it constantly sooo it must not be an important issue? 🤦🏻
@@justinwright3250 None of those verses support the false doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Yes, "all inspired scripture" is profitable, but understand that nowhere in the Bible does it give us a list of which books or which passages are "inspired." The authors of 2 Tim, 2 Peter & Revelation are absolutely not referring to the 66 books of the Protestant Canon, as no such Canon existed until long after those epistles & Rev was written. So...how do we know which scripture is "inspired"? Through the same Holy Spirit who inspired certain scriptures with profitable words of divine instruction. Through prayer & discernment, the Holy Spirit will reveal to you what is inspired.
"Slaves, obey your masters." Why did so many people work to overthrow slavery instead of insisting slaves become ever more obedient and pleasing to those who owned them?
Perhaps the spirit of the age is finally catching up to what is genuinely in the Bible. Maybe Jesus was the ultimate "progressive" and society is finally catching up.
NT Wright spent a lot of time doing read into the passages. But he’s always played into the hands who those who want Christianity molded into their lives instead of looking at the scriptures and asking God to mold us.
Paul didn't do a good enough job explaining his instruction. And the Bible translators messed up. So we need a Bible scholar to pull from unrelated scripture, ideas from other men and presumptions of history and culture. He did not prove anything but did a good job of creating a sense of doubt. So that those that believe women can preach to men can FEEL validation. And those that believes otherwise to second guess what is clearly written. Not once did he say he consulted the Holy Ghost to get true understanding of the passage. So he is already failed it.
NT Wright is a smart guy. But come on! Complementarians aren't arguing that women don't have any role in ministry. Complementarians aren't arguing that Christ didn't wonderfully highlight the equality and spiritual fullness of women. Complementarians are arguing, from Biblical texts, that the office of elder/overseer/pastor is for men only. And that whole church, agenda-setting preaching is one of the functions of that office. Tom - stop dodging the biblical texts that are actually presented and just picking up on general texts that highlight women being valuable - nobody (except tiny majority, and not from the Bible) is arguing over those.
Steven, I think in regard specifically to women being pastors/elders/overseers as you say, an unmarried woman can be in those positions. When looking 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9, we have to use some rationale as well. First, if someone suggests that only married men can be in these positions, then they are ignorant of the fact that the author, Paul, was not married at the time of the writings. So, would he be disqualified himself? No, he wouldn't. If a man considered for the position is married, THEN let him be a husband of one wife. Second, those Scriptures also bring out that a wife and the children can disqualify a man from becoming an elder or bishop. If they are unruly or live unholy lifestyles, that man cannot be in the position. So, I bring that up to say that the wives are called to basically live up to the same high standards as their husbands. But, to think that only married women could live up to a holy standard is ludicrous. Numbers 30 gives a good backdrop to what Paul possibly might have had in his mind in speaking on marriage when he wrote 1 Timothy 2:12. The husband can disannul a wife's vow in OT times. The wife couldn't do the same for her husband. But, God explicitly says that widows and divorced women had no such barriers on them. Given that the end of 1Timothy 2 refers back to Adam and Eve, who were were husband and wife, I contend that Paul may be thinking from that standpoint that the wife shouldn't be teaching or becoming a rabbi to her own husband even though she can certainly learn. If she is allowed to be like a rabbi to her husband, then that upsets God's order in marriage. Hence, Paul doesn't permit this to happen, I contend, no matter how skilled or how much the wife learns or is even more spiritually mature than her husband. Also, given that we know and understand that when "man" is used in many Scriptures, it is talking about male and female such as 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." Men are not the only new creatures. But, taking a very literalist view on the verse is low interpretation skills. Yet, I am not saying that a woman can be substituted in for the man in those verses. In addition, if 1 Timothy 2:12 is taken to mean no woman, no matter her status, can't usurp authority over any other man, then you have some problems with Deborah and the Proverbs 31-type woman who had her own business and had workers under her. This could applied to mothers with their sons as well, even adult sons. That doesn't quite wash. I think that context makes more sense in talking about a wife usurping authority over her husband. Having said all that, if an unmarried woman meets the high moral standards of the 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 passages, she would not violate them. She would be like Paul by virtue of not being married and having that particular issue.
I totally agree when he said there are people who interpret things based on highly selective portions of scriptures - there are those who specifically look at narratives and give their interpretation and not at the teaching letters in the NT. He clearly demonstrates it.
@@erickanlaebk Thank you. I was baffled by his hypocrisy and the fact that he did not even address the central verses to the argument which in my mind are 1 Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:5-6 (which completely destroys his cultural Ephesus argument) and then he tries to say the whole argument is made out of these three verses which he must know is not the case. I'm sorry but his argument was very loose at best and misleading at worst.
@@rachelm9350 I am familiar with her and if this is your best argument then I stand even more firm in my position. Her arguments for woman pastors do not tackle the most prominent verses against it and she has several questionable teachings. Not to mention her examples that she often uses, woman of the church, were great people no doubt but were not pastors. What’s more likely, approx 2000 year of church history has gotten this teaching wrong or new age feminist of the last few decades are the ones that have polluted the doctrine? I encourage you to not allow others to make the argument for you. Search the scriptures for yourself and pray on what you read. Woman are just as valuable as men but we each play different roles in the home and church. If you have a problem with it take it up with God, don’t fool yourself with earthly justifications.
@@rachelm9350 "If you can take a PhD, multilingual female talking about it..." If you want to win an argument, resorting to petty insults like that doesn't serve you well. It's not intelligent argument and it's not following the commands of Christ.
everyone is to evangelize but men are to be the authority in the church, just as how Adam was the authority over the woman since the beginning of the world
Note that Adam had authority over Eve AFTER the Fall, not before. This is precisely what Wright was saying at the beginning of the video. Christ is restoring the proper role of women as part of the new creation.
@@GuyFaux-iz5itactually she was to be Adam’s helper, she was to help Adam fulfill His God given role. Adam also named His wife before the fall which shows His authority, And when sin entered the world God held Adam the most accountable for through one Man sin entered the world.
I look up 1 for 14: 34ff. Paul asks for acknowledgement that men should recognize that what he is teaching is the Lord's command vs37. Paul treats this as the Lord's will, not just something cultural. Can women share the gospel? Certainly. Do women get to lead in church? Certainly not. This is the Lord's command, and if a command given to the new testament church then it would be valid today as well.
Jade Lee when I looked up 1 Cor14: 34 ff 34Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church. 36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. 38But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Here you have it Jade The Scripture which Paul describes as a command. So either Scripture is our authority or it isn't. I realize that this is counter-cultural but again is Scripture our authority or is the culture we live in our authority? I think scripture is quite clear here. Not did I say that women can't preach or teach. I do however submit that they may not preach in church according to the scripture I quoted. I remind you that Paul refers to this as the Lord's command. Sorry you see it differently
@@jenverhelst6477 The funny thing is this scripture is not even referring to preaching. Not even bringing the original Greek or context into this, the english itself shows this was a matter of disrupting the service. Elsewhere in Corinthians Paul acknowledges both men and women prophesying in the congregation (where he regulates hair styles/attire) and he does not describe this behaviour as sinful. He does not stop women from prophesying in church. The verse you gave, when yanked out context like that implies that ANY sort of speech by a woman in church is shameful. Never mind that Paul silences three different groupsn in this passage (including men) according the problems presented by this single, particular church. I'm afraid you've misunderstood this verse.
Jade Lee when I look at the passage in context, then Paul is speaking about orderly worship and in the immediate context particularly about prophesying which includes preaching if then he states that the Lord’s command is that women are to be silent in the churches I'm going to conclude that women are to be silent. I don't think I took anything out of context. I grant you that taking the context in consideration is important and you opened my eyes further so that I can better defend my reading of Scripture.
@@jenverhelst6477 Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is all about maintaining order and decorum in church gatherings and silencing the disorderly talk from some tongues-speakers, prophets, and women. The same imperative Greek verb for “be silent” is used for each of these three groups of people. ~ A tongues-speaker, male or female, is to be silent (sigaō) and stop speaking in tongues if there is no one to interpret (1 Cor. 14:28). ~ A prophet, male or female, is to be silent (sigaō) and stop prophesying ifsomeone else receives a revelation (1 Cor. 14:30). ~ Women are to be silent (sigaō) and stop asking questions if there is anything they want to learn(manthanō); they should keep their questions for home (1 Cor. 14:34-35). These questions may have been directed to the men and women prophesying: prophecy was so that everyone could learn (manthanō) and be encouraged. See 1 Corinthians 14:31. All these people need to hold their tongues and stop speaking in these situations. But 1 Corinthians 14 is not about silencing tongues-speakers, prophets, or women altogether.
That is GREAT! I missed that. Probably should add it to my short essay on Deborah I wrote a few months ago. ... the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people... But it happened that same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying, “Go and tell David My servant, ‘This is what the Lord says: “You shall not build a house for Me to dwell in; for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up Israel to this day, but I have gone from tent to tent and from one dwelling place to another. 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?’”’ Now, therefore, this is what you shall say... -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17
I will never understand how people can completely ignore scripture regarding this. What I have been told is women used to scream out in church and this is the reason it was said women are to be quiet in churches but how do you ignore 1Timothy 3:1-13and 1Tomothy 2:12?
You should watch other videos where he discusses this, they're very enlightening. You're not going to get his entire argument and biblical evidence for it in a 12 minute video.
Hmmmm a lot of theorising and extrapolating beyond what scripture actually stated. Look at the direct statements in scripture first and foremost. There are enough direct strong statements on the subject and they go a different way. Romans 16 doesn’t state the woman was an apostle but rather that she was known ‘among’ the apostles, which can simply be taken to be saying she was known to and by the apostles. It is not by any means quite what Wright seems to be saying, at least it’s highly arguable. Look at Paul’s many more direct statements on the matter. I find it a bit scary when someone does with scripture what I just heard. Stick closer to the passage and leave out theories.
Some of Pauls direct statements though appear contradictory either with each other or his practice which is why it seems there is something to interpret. For instance he says women should be silent in church but he also says they should cover their heads when they are prophesysing. It's also easy to see Jesus commissioning women to spread a message, e.g. Mary or the Samaritan woman. We could make a distinction between this and preaching but is there such a clear cut distinction between speaking from a pulpit and speaking to people in everyday life.
@@fluffybabybunny5822 ok the distinction between "speaking in church" and speaking in other settings if you either didn't understand or wanted to be pedantic.
@@gareth2736 OK, to be pedantic (again) please let us all know where in scripture there are examples of 'speaking in church' verses 'speaking in other settings' and of course, subsequent instructions for future churches for all time after the immediate mention?
Gareth Sarjeant Just avoid that guy replying to you comment. Oky you’re basically saying, we can’t for sure conclude Women’s role in church because it’s Written from Paul’s perspective which differs from what Jesus himself told women?
Readers of 1 Timothy 2 overlook the fact that Paul gave reasons for the restriction on women's teaching ." Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." His reasons for the restriction are clearly stated in verses 13 and 14. We may not like them, we may disagree with Paul, but his reasons remain and are founded in historical fact
Doesn't work, because of Deborah, who came after Eve. 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 REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
Some of the interpretations that Dr. Wright presents here are quite new to me. The fact that Mary was the first to see the risen Jesus and report it to the Apostles is used as a powerful argument for the authenticity of the Bible. In a male dominated culture if this was a made up story they would never have written that a woman was the first to see Jesus. That being said, I don't see how Mary reporting on an experience she had can be equated with preaching, and by extension being a pastor or holding authority over men. Similarly, I didn't see how Phoebe presenting and reading Paul's letter can be equated with her being a pastor. In my understanding a pastor is someone who shepherds a congregation, so in areas of spirituality has a certain authority over them. I was surprised by Dr. Wright's interpretation of why Paul instructed women to dress modestly. The furtherest thing from my mind was that this was because they would be seen as "the pretty little accessories" of their husbands. I guess that this is because I don't look at women that way. I thought that Paul instructed them to be modest because modesty is a virtue and the opposite of pride, actually humility is the opposite of pride, but humble people dress modestly. Finally, I know a lot of people reading 1 Timothy read it to mean that a women should never have a authority over a man, but I understand this purely in the context of Church and marriage, I do not see what Paul teaches as extending to the occupational or organization context in this instance.
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine and accurate instruction [that challenges them with God’s truth]; but wanting to have their ears tickled [with something pleasing], they will accumulate for themselves [many] teachers [one after another, chosen] to satisfy their own desires and to support the errors they hold,
@@dianashepherd3241 By applying your hermeneutics techniques to the BIble we're left not with the inspired Word of God but with human reasoning,. Deborah and the few others are the exception that confirm the rule. By the way there was never a priestess in the OT, the Lord leaves that clear
@@dianashepherd3241 same principle apllies; they're the exception that confirms the rule. Indeed women are expected to exercise Leadership in the Church, over other women and children. Never over men
You need to go back to your 5th grande ENGLISH class and learn the difference between a SINGULAR TERM and a PLURAL TERM son! The bible here says, "a womAn," NOT "all womEn!" This means that only a certain type of womAn can to teach, You know, the type of lady that had to have everything "my way, or the highway" and refused to listen to another point of view, and those that refuse to submit to their husbands and they go behind his back to do what ever they please! If all womEn can not teach, then a mother teaching her son is a SINNER! And take that verse in context! That verse is referring to a time when men and women used to sit on opposite side of the pews and yelled out at their husbands to anger and question, SO Paul was giving a simple instruction of using MANNERS! I bet you anything that if you heard a man in church tell your wife, mother or daughter to shut up, you would be giving that person a black eye!
@@saxmanjpr5092 The apostle Paul is talking in general terms, not referring to any particular type of woman; He goes further to present two reasons: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner". Adam having seniority over Eve (he was created first) and Eve being deceived by Satan, not Adam. Strong biblical churches respect God's word and submit to Him in obedience, not rebellion.
@@josejimenez4177 That all depends on interpretation. A Baptist preacher once said he had the right to kill me (because I disagreed with himO) AND attempted to do so, AND quoted the bible. "Jesus used a whip in the temple." Well, the cops got a good laugh and still threw that ass hole in the slammer! Your interpretation is wrong son. Western culture has no clue of where the original bible came from. Tell you what. Tell me mother and sister to shut and and watch how fast you end up sinning soprano!
For any ladies watching who have questions, I would recommend God’s Word to Women by Katharine C. Bushnell. I can’t vouch for everything she says, but she makes a very convincing case for the misinterpretation and in some cases longstanding traditional mistranslation of the passages placing restrictions on women. It’s worth a read at least.
2:18 Junia was not an Apostle. She was "known of" by the Apostles. Romans 16:7 ESV Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,
How can reformed teachers hold the position of cessationism but also hold the position of women not being able to teach. I am just asking a question not being presumptuous. How can we believe spiritual gifts were for the establishing of the church and not today. But also believe the early churches function of womens roles are to never change.
@@nobleprince1238 no this comment was made during a time when i lacked knowledge in this area. I see now that womens roles in the church is tied to the time it was established and for the continuation of the church's existence. Whereas spiritual gifts was a tool to advance the church and build the church. I have a different perspective now.
my issue is that, accepting all of this, how radical in regards to women the NT is, it STILL doesn't have Jesus ordaining any women, nor anyone ordaining women
Jesus doesn't "ordain" anybody in the NT; He gives the great commission at the end of Matthew, but that isn't an ordination (He doesn't say "all of you are now priests/deacons/ministers"). Also, in Romans 16:1, Paul talks about "Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae," giving us a clear and unambiguous case in the NT of a woman holding a church office. Wright discusses this in the video.
@@jamesreilly7416 Jesus blows on a specific group of people and says to them "those sins thou shalt forgive shall be forgiven, those sins thou shalt retain shall be retained". He also gives peter and the apostles the keys to the kingdom, to bind and loose
@@jamesreilly7416 women being deacons isn't the issue, it's being priests thats the issue. The 12 apostles are given a hierachy, with Peter serving as a kind of first among equals. Jesus confers the powers of the priesthood onto them, and we know they have sucessors because there are other priests in the nT after Jesus' minstry. Just because Jesus isnt shown as doing something directly doesnt mean He didnt do it, we see Him confer priestly authority onto people, and we see their sucessors. Thats more than enough to make the inference
Grear explanation! We need to go beyond "American" Views on this kind if topic, because as Dr Wright says there is normally a cultural reason for some kind of exégesis
Galatians 1:6-10 ESV "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ."
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, an holy nation, a PECULIAR PEOPLE; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
´´Highly selective view of scripture.´´ Women must keep silent in church. But what about ´´your sons and daughters will prophesy´´? Who is being ´´highly selective´´ now? A woman must not prophecy with her head uncovered. Clearly if she was decently dressed according to the customs of the day, she could pray and prophecy in meetings. So clearly women must sometimes keep silent and sometimes speak out. Who is using a highly selective view of scripture? Strict traditional legalists for nearly 2000 years.
By strict logic Paul does not say women may prophesy with a covered head, only that they may not with an uncovered one. He forbids it absolutely in chapter 14. Beware any man who comes to you with a 'new' interpretation of Scripture.
@@LeoRegum If we truly lived by that logic, then not only would the Reformation never happened, but Christianity wouldn't exist because the Apostles had a "new" interpretation of the Hebrew Bible that pointed to a crucified Messiah instead of a military ruler like King David. In Israel's story over and over and over again they thought one thing but God meant to do something else and we as the church are descendants of Israel. What is true of them is true of us. I pray that Jesus' church has the humility to be discerning about things that may be scary for us to wrestle with.
@@frankm6546 The reformers quote extensively from the Fathers; they were not bringing about novel teachings and stress as much in their writings, if you would read them. The fact that God-appointed Apostles had the authority to bring about revelation is entirely irrelevant unless you claim to be such a one.
@@LeoRegum Before you read my reply I want you to know that I see you as a sibling of mine in Christ, regardless of your denomination or theological stances, as long as you see yourself as a disciple of our Lord Jesus. I won't be replying to more comments, so please have the final say in our discussion. I look forward to learning from you. To address your statement, yes the reformers quoted very extensively from the early church fathers.....to show that the medieval catholic church had strayed from the original teachings of the Gospel so far that the church needed reforming! I've read quite a bit of the ECF, Justin Martyr being a favorite of mine. Instead of taking any interpretation of scripture that is different from yours as a "heretical new teaching", I pray that we can continue to come together and have conversations about what all of these writings mean in the language they were written in (Greek) and in the context they were written in (1st century Jewish thought translated into Greek writing). God bless.
@@DunderMifflin_ThisisPam You don`t know that for sure, I have listened to John many times as well as N.T. Wright. Both of them have strong personal convictions and I`m sure both of us, that is you and I also have. I sit under two Women Pastors in our church and do listen to them but there are challenges....
That is because he was reading from the Greek, and some Greek words held many meanings...so he's just being honest and saying, at this moment, I can't tell you exactly what is being said...I respect the fact that he is honest, and lets us know, he doesn't know, instead of picking a defining word and running with it.
How poor. The fact that women went to the tomb is made an endorsement of church leadership by women. Not one woman was made an elder or apostle. The example of Junia in Romans is also incredibly weak. The manuscript evidence is mixed as to whether it is a woman or a man. And it is far more likely if it is referring to a woman that Paul says she is highly respected by the apostles, not that her and her husband are apostles. The explanation of ITim.2 was simply obfuscation. He seeks to avoid clear exegesis because of some supposedly massive support of women teachers and leaders in the rest of the NT. But they are notable for their absence. The women in Rom16 were serving the church very well, churches were meeting in their homes. But none are elders, pastors, teachers.
Was Adam not created first? Did God not create women to a helper for men? Did Paul not teach in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." The letter in Romans was written to Christians in Rome, not directly to one person. The wording in Romans 16 cannot even begin to be interpreted as being a letter written to Phoebe as it is clearly addressing a group of people and talking about Phoebe, not directly to her. Assuming your historical idea that people will read out the letters that were sent to them is true, Phoebe would never have read that out because it is evident that it wasn't written or addressed precisely to her. This is a very, very loose argument. Also, how is it interesting that churches take three passages and make a whole church policy on it? That has happened with countless church policies- strong and Biblically sound!
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation 2nd Peter 1:20 A deacon is husband of one wife -so don't wrest the scripture. You are either a Bible believer or Bible corrector and this is what is happening here he is using his intelligence to try and undermine simple Bible doctrine
1 Corinthians 14 does not talk about teaching, but rather seems to prohibit women speaking at all in church. However, 3 chapters prior, Paul states that women should cover their heads if they pray or prophecy in church. So obviously Paul does not simply teach that women should remain silent at all times in church, because if that were the case then he would have no reason to discuss what they wear on their heads when doing so.
@@RowanAldridge correct. There are a few interpretations in exactly what Paul is doing/saying here. Each have a certain amount of plausiblity. All we can really know for sure is that he definitely WAS NOT imposing a restriction on women in every circumstance. Otherwise he would have been contradicting himself in many places in his epistles.
1 Timothy 2:12 is talking about husband and wife. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP authority over THE MAN, but to be in silence." The scripture uses the word usurp which means 'take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.' So a women just teaching a man and them willingly listening or the woman got the authoritative role rightfully is not wrong. If anyone usurps authority over anybody they are wrong. Also notice how it say "THE Man" it must be talking about a specific man right? Aka 'husband.' The greek word used here translates to "a woman, specifically a wife." also the greek word used here for permit which Is used in other bible translations is the greek word 'epitrepo' which is a temporary type of permit, if that means anything... the scripture then proceeds to talk about Adam an eve, One man and woman, they were husband and wife. It then talks about child bearing which only happened when a husband and a wife comes together and makes a baby. But a woman being saved through child bearing is not biblically correct and it contradicts the whole New Testament. Which says u r saved through Christ Jesus. But that’s a different topic for a different time.. In conclusion this scripture is talking about the WIVES IN CHURCH who were belittling their husbands taking their HUSBANDS authoritative role in church. 1 corthinains 33:35-36 paul was saying a statement, a tradition, a law people said about women and answered it with a rhetorical/sarcastic like question "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" 1 Corinthians 14:36 KJV not only that, 1 Corinthians 14:34 says: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are Commanded to be Understood Obedience, AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW." Yet we’re aren’t under the law but under grace. Also we arent even sure if this law was a Jewish made law or a law given by God, not that that matters tho. We go by the spirit not the law. Jesus fullfilled the law. if we love one another we fullfilled the law. Reread Galatians, and Romans. if we are of the spirit why does it matter if a woman stays silent in church cuz the law says so? Christians are under grace. so if a woman had to obey the law she has to obey everything That also means the men as well. we should be stoning people right now, not eating pork or shrimp, women shouldnt go out on their period, AND ESPECIALLY WE SHOULDNT BE HAVING CHURCH ON SUNDAY but Saturday. to tell woman now to obey the law when Christians arent under it and nobody else is really obeying everything else in the law is hypocritical. -Check the replied comment to see the few examples of women teaching and having an authoritative role over men in the bible.
Here are some women in the bible who had authority and taught in the old testament and new testament. And also u cant say the women in the old testament doesn't apply to us now, because if that's the case say the same to job, Jacob, Joseph, Isaac..ect or any other person in the old testament. We r supose to learn from the old testament not discard it also we arent under the law they were in. Roman's 15:4. Also u cant say they did that just for Israel. Israel is God chosen people. We as Christian's are God's chosen people, and we as God' people are the church as well as any jew that believes. It's not about the building. The old testament shows if God can do it for those people, then what more can and would he do for us who are in christ jesus. Anyways, also we shouldnt pick and choose who's relevant in the bible theirs a reason why they are in there. OT -Deborah(a judge over Israel, and a woman who lead an army, a prophet. It wasnt really a thing for women to lead an army and it was made known in the judges where it talks about her) -Mariam(lead Israel with with her brothers) -huldah(a prophet) NT - Priscilla (missionary with her husband, she taught Apollos) -phebe( a minister, deacon, servant of the lord) - other women in Paul's ministry -the samaritan woman(she discipled her husbands) - mary magdalene( was a follower of jesus she also was a woman who witness jesus's resurrection, women back then weren't seen as witnesses, so to her to be a witness and tell the 12 disciples has great importance) To say God is against women who teach men and have some type of authority role over them, would be God contradicting himself. Which God cant do. He's not an author of confusion. God is never changing. He's no respecter of person.
So good. The "under the law" thing you mentioned. It proves some grumpy churchfather had its say and added to the Word. God made man according to His own image and likeness. Man AND woman He made them. Same fullness. In Christ differences in man-woman cease to exist. We ALL with unveiled faces reflect His glory and are being changed into His Image from glory to glory by the Spirit who is the Lord. Same fullness. It is common knowledge that the early churchfathers added, manipulated the word of God. So just saying: it is written, without Spirit revelation by Holy Spirit can do a lot of harm. I know woman that preach that are in error, i know man that preach and are a horrible representation of how Christ intented life to be. Truth doesn't change. We are all complete in Christ. Man and woman alike. And grow in to Him in all things. Col 2:9-10. The fullness of deity dwells in Jesus bodily and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM (the last Adam!) who is the head of all principality and power. Because of what God did in Christ you automatically became what you are already. A new creation in Christ. A partaker of the divine nature for free. 2 Pet 1:3-4. We awake by the Spirit to that fact and grow in to Him, the normal divine nature, for free. Because of His great love for us, His creation. 2 Cor 3:18. Out of His fullness we have received. Good news, joy unspeakable. God came, took us in and restored us back to original created value to walk as Jesus. As He is.... so are we. All that is His is ours. The Father in Christ and Christ in us. Seamless oneness. For free. Yay! Thank you Jesus for opening our eyes to the inexpressible riches, the normal divine nature, we have received in You. Women. Preach it, teach it, live it! You are so equally in!!! Let's share the good news.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Here’s why: 825. αὐθεντέω authenteō verb Have or exercise authority over. Grammatical Form: 1. αὐθεντεῖν authentein inf pres act Concordance: 1 to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, 1 Tm 2:12 Word Studies: Classical Greek Authenteō is a word made up from autos, “self,” and entuō or entunō, “to prepare or equip.” The self factor in the meaning is very strong, being enforced not only in autos but also by the nature of the verb entuno. Writers of classical Greek used authenteō to describe murders plotted against one’s own (self) family members for one’s own (self) benefit. Authenteō is evident in the English word authentic. (Related cognates are rendered “original” or something “created” by a person.) Another classical use translates it as “absolute authority.” The verb authenteō is a rare word not attested prior to the First Century B.C., and then only in a couple of papyri. It is not used in either the Septuagint or Josephus, although cognates authentēs and authentia appear in the Septuagint (Wisdom 12:6 and 3 Maccabees 2:29, respectively). New Testament Usage Its sole occurrence in the New Testament is found in 1 Timothy 2:12. An analysis of the modern translations of the New Testament will show some variance in nuance. Essentially three senses are represented: (1) “to usurp authority” (KJV), taking authority not properly delegated; (2) “to domineer” (ASV, NEB), the abuse of properly delegated authority; and (3) “to have authority” of any sort (NIV, RSV). A recent article (1984) by George Knight (“Authenteō in Reference to Women”) thoroughly analyzes the occurrences of authenteō, and shows that in its earliest uses (First Century B.C. to Second Century A.D.) it means simply “to have authority.” “The authority in view in the documents is understood to be a positive concept and is in no way regarded as having any overtones of misuse of position or power, i.e., ‘to domineer’ ” (pp.150-151). Even as late as Sixth Century A.D., this basic sense still predominated. Thus he and others believe that the first and second options above should be rejected in favor of the third. Paul did not permit women in Ephesus to have authority of any sort over men. The problem at Ephesus was that many influential women were being persuaded by false teachers and were “going about from house to house . . . saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:13, NIV). In 2:11 Paul exhorted these women to learn and be in full submission. These two injunctions exactly parallel the prohibitions “to teach” and “to have authority” in verse 12. Thoralf Gilbrant, ed., “825. αὐθεντέω,” in The Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary - Alpha-Gamma, (Springfield, MO: Complete Biblical Library, 1991).
Furthermore how could Paul be referring to a husband and wife relationship when 1 Timothy is not a general epistle (written to the church in general), but a pastoral epistle (written to & for pastors)? Now that is exactly what Paul says in it: “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” I Timothy 3:14-15 NKJV Thus it is clear, the whole purpose for the entire epistle was to instruct Timothy (a young pastor) on how to conduct the church services, i.e., what to allow & what not to allow in the church. (And) In 1 Tim. 2:12, he instructs him not to allow women to teach or “exercise” authority over men. Which is in keeping with God’s natural order of things (1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:3). It’s really that simple!
So many issues in the word of God has a thread from start to finish and this issue of the women is one of those that unfortunately some get to wrapped up in the couple of scriptures that keep women in a box but the overarching thread is missed and NT is very gifted at bringing out some simple common sense to assist in picking up the thread.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 14:34 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. 14:35 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. 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 14:37 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. 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
This is so liberating... for 30years I was in a church that believed that women aren't to be in any seen ministry and the church now, though I'm a 'leader', it seems to be by name only.... I'm so grateful to hear this from a very learned man.
Just because someone says something that you like doesn’t make it true. Be sure to always stick to the Word of GOD. 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 KJVS [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. [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. [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. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 KJVS [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.
"11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess 2:11-13 (ESV)
@@roblane5699 ................"11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess 2:11-13 (ESV)
Nothing and no one should deceive you into disobeying the Commandment of the Lord for woman to be silent in the churches. The Devil and his disciples will try by appealing to your fleshly desires, but you must resist....
Eww, how dare this "Earnest" guy call someone deluded or unrighteous for wanting to obey the Great Commission and save souls. Makes you wonder who is truly being influenced by the devil. I bet he doesn't know Koine Greek (neither did the KJV translators!) but he is stopping his ears to someone who does, just because his fragile ego can't handle what this scholar is saying.
If anyone is interested Mike Winger has the most in depth explanation regarding women in ministry I’ve ever seen. I highly recommend it. He has a massive video series that addresses pretty much all of this.
While he certainly did a fair amount of research, he certainly did not look into the matter as much as he could have. There are numerous scholars that have brought up issues with his points (which he has yet to address), and I myself, a simple laywoman, was able to find a fair amount of research myself that directly contradicts his points. Rather unfortunate considering the wide reach he has.
@@marstothestars33 I recommend commenting on his last video because he’s asked for anything he didn’t consider. I really believe he wants to know the truth and is doing his best to find it. He said he went into his research hopping to becoming egalitarian and was very disappointed in the lack of evidence he found. Have you watched the whole 40 or 50+ hour series? Who would you recommend for more information?
@@GraceandFranz I don't disagree with looking at multiple perspectives on a issue. I think it's very wise. I was just saying that Mike Winger comes up short on various points. I know people hold to his statement that he "researched into the issue hoping to become egalitarian and became complimentarian instead," but when this research ignores lots of sound evidence and scholarly criticism, it becomes a bit of a moot point, especially considering that others have researched the matter as well, some for YEARS, and came to the opposite conclusion. And I have watched the series. I wouldn't be saying this otherwise. My point is simply that watching him as if he's the be-all-end-all on the issue is not very wise considering the holes in his points.
@@GraceandFranz I didn't really come to my conclusion through watching a TH-cam video. It came from reading historical documents, Greek concordances, and scholarly writings on the matter. In this regard NT Wright is right on the mark (at least in reading directly from the Greek). Although this is a rather short video, so it doesn't quite address all the points. If I were to recommend anyone, I would recommend Terran Williams. He is egalitarian, yes. But he approaches the matter respectfully and with regards to the original language used and the historical background behind these passages, not mere emotional or "quota" arguments. He does quite the elaborate breakdown of Mike Winger's videos. After all, critical thinking is not just viewing the perspectives of our own "side."
The Bible is clear on this subject it's not complex at all. 1st Timothy 2:11 all the way through 1st Timothy 3:2... Mary telling the disciples Christ is risen doesn't conclude women can be pastors. Someone evangelizing doesn't make them a pastor. The woman at the well, TESTIFIED of her encountered of Christ. Giving testimony doesn't make someone a bishop/pastor.. God gave us order and roles. Following God's Word is about obedience. Not about us shaping His Word to our liking.
Amen- from a woman. We must follow the commandment about women in the New Testament
@@roubad9034 First, you can only make that claim if you've never actually read Paul's writings. In Romans 16 alone Paul commends Phebe who is a Deacon in the church at Cenchrea, a woman named Junia who he says is an apostle, and the husband-wife ministry team of Priscilla and Aquila, specifically listing the woman's name first against the custom of the day.
In 1 Corinthians, between chapters 11 and 14, Paul gives a long discourse on proper worship etiquette, and as part of that, he gives guidelines that specifically allow for women to lead in prayer and prophesying.
@@shoptalkconvo-mak1471 The pastors who cite this passage should know Greek well enough to realize that these passages using the masculine nomenclature are not all out condemnation against women as pastors or deacons. In Greek, if one addressed an all female audience, one would use the female gender and if one addressed a wholey male audience, one would use masuline word forms. However, if one addressed a mixed gender audience, the masuline would still be the default. Therefore, Paul isn't necessarily excluding women from ministry by referencing the position with masculine gender pronouns and such.
Read all of Paul's works. He declared that in Christ there is no male nor female, slave nor free, Hebrew nor Greek and in his epistles he backs that up by endorsing women in ministry such as Phebe the Deacon, Junia the Apostle and Priscilla of the husband-wife ministry team along with her husband Aquila.
@@roubad9034 And for the record, Paul's epistles carry just as much weight as the four Gospels. They are fully Scripture as Peter noted in the epistles he wrote and as recognized by every branch of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches
Aaah that must be it, we must know Greek? A straight forward reading of the Scriptures would not be sufficient? The Holy Spirit is not sufficient to understand scripture?
@@jamesdaniel1376
"And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence." - 1 Timothy 2:12
The Scriptures are quite clear about the role that women play, their essence and their contributions.
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.
Complementarianism is a false doctrine that is in opposition to what God actually did.
God appointed a woman as a Judge over Israel.
There was no gender qualification to be a Judge, in the scriptures.
@@8784-l3b
Those of the world will shamelessly twist God's word into any shape they like to make it "fit".
A judge is not a pastor. Deborah doing that job was actually a judgement on Israel that no man was found to do that job.
Well said!@@KarinAllison
I don't think NT Wright, reading straight from the Greek text with a wealth of contextual knowledge and years of study in biblical hermeneutics and textual criticism, is quite on the ball with this one. So I've come down here to the comment section, to hear from the monolingual experts with degrees in "Just reading what the KJV says" and [edited] "textbook logical fallacies." Thank goodness you all showed up.
WOW! This guy clears this matter up. You got to watch this! Let me know what you think?
th-cam.com/video/DZsS0DqJ2ZY/w-d-xo.html
@J L I'm not your friend. But thanks for reminding me I'd written this comment nine months ago cause it slaps.
@J L There is 'appealing to authority' and there is 'being able to discern between a qualified expert and idiots with opinions on the internet'. Go ye and learn the difference.
@J L Remind me again how you "prefer a good strawman"
@J L Dude, move on.
Off topic but the older man’s voice has full permission to narrative my life.
@Chezzarai it's the British accent that's bamboozling you
It is a wonderful voice. But that brings up a reason some people oppose women in the ministry: they think female voices just don't sound as good.
@@denisenoe1534 what? Never heard that before
@@jonpool9030 I have. A man who didn't believe women should be ministers made the point that women's higher pitched voices lack the "power" of men's. I've also heard it said that our higher pitched voices are grating and/or boring. We just can't hold interest because of the higher register according to some people and don't sound as pleasant.
@@denisenoe1534 bible doesn't permit women to be preachers and pastors
I love my mother and father and my siblings. But only my father accepts Christ as his savior. I love my mother and I’d die for her, but it bothers me that as time goes ticking, she’s going on 70 that she isn’t going to accept Christ. And it makes me cry.
My mother doesn’t like me, out of all my siblings she didn’t love me that much. She never says I love you but I always say I love you. Because one day she is gonna leave and never come back. it’s one of the things that has hurt me the most. I hope she will love Jesus. She has developed cancer, and in her old age some of my siblings abuse her and guide her down the dark path. Or the wide road. One of my sisters openly hates Christ, and the other is Muslim. She calls me a bigot everytime I mention Christ. I teach their children about Christ though. I hope that I will see them again. I hope they don’t suffer. I would miss my family but I would never go against my lord. I follow Jesus.
Praying for your family.
Prayers
I pray to break the spirit of rejection off of your life in Jesus name!
@@whospilledmybeans That's a very hard position to be in. It must be awful. I know you know this already; but it bears repeating that we love Jesus BY LOVING those around us, especially those who may well deserve it least. This isn't just my opinion. It's what Jesus Himself told us more than once. It's probably among the most difficult things we're commanded to do as followers. But what an opportunity! Demonstrating this kind of love and forgiveness is what spreads Christianity like a fire. Lecturing the unwilling and implied threats are things that don't work and that we never find Him doing in the Scriptures.
It's good for me to remember this. Thanks for posting. I hope things are going better now than when you first shared a year ago.
It is a difficult position women are in. We neither want to tell our Lord, "No, we can not speak the message burning in our hearts" but neither can we say with confidence because of this verse that it is allowed to us to speak it. I dont want to be disobedient to God in either instance. The other question I have is: if women are forbidden to teach or speak in church because they are more susceptible to being deceived then why should they be trusted at all to teach other women and children. Are they only susceptible to being deceived when it comes to teaching grown men?
I think that's a very good question. The deception of Eve keeps being rehashed over and over and over again. So, if we are in Christ, aren't we a new creation in Christ, re-created in Him? Aren't all things passed away and behold all things become new? Isn't the second creation (being born again) higher then the former creation? If then, all these things are true, then Eve's original sin no longer applies because Jesus redeemed us from the original curse of sin that took place in the garden. Any weakness, including Adam's willful proclivity to sin and then blame God for it, has been placed under the blood of Jesus. Interestingly enough, more women seem to have better discernment than many men. I believe this was God's sign of redemption to us.
A more important question to ask: a child's most formative and important years are between the ages of 1-8 years old. These are the years where a foundation is laid for the child's intellectual, social, emotional, and physical health. If these years are the most fundamental years in a child's life (boys and girls) and their mothers are expected to teach and train them up in the way in which they're supposed to go, then why would mothers even be allowed to teach their children at such an important juncture in their lives if they can so easily be deceived? Timothy's mother and grandmother taught him the gospel and it never mentions his age at all in reference to it. I think the issue here is pride. It goes back to the originator of pride, Satan. Interestingly enough, pride is on God's list of abominations. Proverbs 6:16. It really has nothing to do with Eve's original sin or being deceived. It's just a convenient excuse to support and validate their views. Job 15:5; 2 Thes. 2:10; 1 John 4:6; Either way, all of us can be deceived. All of us have sinned. And just a side note for some context about leadership and deception: most cult leaders have been men who led many astray. Some of the largest and most damaging and deceived are - David Koresh, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Bhagwah Shree Rajneesh, David Berg, Warren Jeffs, Elbert Eugene, Swami Premananda, Yahweh Ben Yahweh, Ervil Lebaron, Shoko Asahara, Marshal Applewhite, Joseph Di Mambro & Luc Jouret, Moses of Crete, Hassan Al-Sabah, Muhammad Ahmad, Hong Xiuquan, among others. I only found 2 women in all of those extensive lists. I won't even list the countless pastors, preachers, and teachers in the church who have fallen into sin and/or preached and taught heretical doctrine. All of them were & are men. It's very interesting that when men use the "deception" argument, they never ever stop to look at all the men listed above or the countless others who have, in fact, been deceived. All of them were in leadership. They fail, repeatedly, to see the glaring error in their argument or their own hypocrisy. It's blatantly obvious to all except for the blind ones.
34Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.e
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. 38But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 1 cor14:34ff Paul makes the point that this is the Lord ’s command. Whereas it is also true that Scripture tells us that your sons and daughters shall prophesy. So do women have a place to prophesy? Certainly, but not in the church and that is the Lord’s command. This whole debate about women in office is often looking for reasons why it ought to be so. In my humble opinion, we miss the mark of love and obedience to God by doing so. God commands and we His disciples should simply say, yes Lord! I don't understand but yes lord I love you and so I will strive to obey. I realize this still doesn't resolve the issue. Where exactly do women get to prophesy? Because we know that many women worked alongside Paul in ministry simply read through Romans 16 to see the bigger picture. So Paul is not antiwomen, rather everything must be done decently and in good order. Good order allows women to prophesy anywhere, but not in the church, this is God's will.
@@jenverhelst6477 That's an interesting interpretation of prophecy you take away from these scriptures. Because if you start at the beginning of 1Cor. 14, Paul addressed both men and women on tongues and prophecy. Then he breaks down how each should be done, in an orderly fashion, then he concludes at the end of the chapter at verse 39 - "So, my dear brothers AND sisters, be eager to prophecy, and don't forbid speaking in tongues. And verse 40 - But be sure everything is done properly and in order. This was Paul's final statement in the chapter and the summation of the chapter. You quote vs. 34 about women being silent in the church. What law was Paul referring to in this verse when he says ..."as the law says?" What law is that? I challenge you to study that out. Also, not every woman is married, so why would Paul address only husbands and wives in this particular passage? Why didn't he simply say women? What is the context? Without it, you can't accurately interpret the scriptures.
Furthermore, everyone seems to skip over verse 28 - "But if there is no interpreter, HE must keep silent in the church; and let HIM speak to HIMSELF and to God."
Verse 31 - "For you can all prophecy in turn so that everyone (all) may be instructed and encouraged." All means all, not just men. Paul's opening statements and closing statements support that, they don't negate women speaking in tongues or prophesying in church gatherings. Paul is explaining how it's to be done.
Do your homework and ask the Holy Spirit for revelation knowledge as you study. He's faithful to show you and also show you how much scripture has been interpreted through a carnal lens and religious tradition. To accept that women can't teach and preach the Word because of "deception" is to remain under the original curse of sin, the Adamic curse, and to reject what Jesus died on the Cross to redeem and restore for all, both men and women.
The choice is always up to the individual.
Nancy Crews good point. When we read the Bible, we have to look at the context and culture. They also told us women can't vote. Who is to say we can't? If God called you to teach/preach, you should be obedient. Gospel is to be preached to the earth. It is God who calls and equipped. Not men! Don't allow men's opinions to hold you from God's call in your life.
@@ruth9247 God is not unclear in the Bible, Paul aren't against women, he loves women and knows Gods ordering and that women arent made for the leading role. God doesn't contradict himself, you cant be called to teach men as a women because the Bible is Gods word. If a woman feels a calling maybe she is called to lead other women like it is said in the Bible that older women should lead the younger women to be lovers of husband and of children and to submit to their husbands.
Eves fault in the fall was that she wanted to rule or make decisions without asking her husband. And Adams sin was that he didn't protect her and he seemed not to take the responsibility and care like men have a big tendency to do.
God created Adam first and woman after. Adam didnt take the responsibility to lead and protect and Eve didnt submit to her husband but wanted to rule by herself.
I love you and God loves you, the Bible is clear. It is a sin for a woman to revolt against the word of God and it is a sin for a husband to not be or strave tp be more like the ultimate man, Jesus Christ.
If you are offended by scripture, the question yourself if you have a wrong view. Dont try to find all sorts of explanations to not follow Gods will revealed in the word.
Women are wonderfully made, equal in worth as men. God created two sexes. Man and woman. Why didnt he just create one sex? Because a man and a woman reflects god together in marriage. Like the Christ and his bride. Its a wondeful thing. It is delightful, you are like Christ the husband and bride the woman in marriage. Men and woman are created different, for different roles. No role is more worth than the other.
God the son submitted to God the father. Is the Son lesser worth? Nooo!! He is equally worth even if he submits to the Father.
It is a wondeful thing how humans are created, so precious and unique and wondeful. God delights in a godly woman who arent afraid of anything and hopes for God. And God is delighted in a man who is a man of God, a man who protects women, and loves like christ loves the church. And takes responsibility and provides. God delights in a godly woman and God delights in a godly man. Equal value, fellow heirs of the kingdom, yet different roles.
It is wondeful how God made humans, it is an order that is so precious because it reflects something of God himself.
A woman who hopes in God, who is tender, nurturing, loving, submissive, helping and supporting her husband, has her hope in God the almost high, her hope is not in her husband or friends or something else.
And a Godly man who is a warrior for Christ, conqueres with his wife. He is responsible, leading his wife and children to love the Lord with all their heart. He is a picture of God the fathers rule to his children, he loves his wife like Chridt loves his church, giving up himself for her, dying on a cross for his bride, providing for his family, a rolemodel for the family when he serves the family like Jesus washed the apostles feet.
God is honored and glorified in a Godly man and a Godly woman.
God bless you, the Bible is good, God is good, Paul loves women, Peter loves women, Jesus loves women, God loves women.
God bless you my brothers and sisters, follow God with your life, repent of your sins ask God to open your heart to the wondeful mystery of manhood and womanhood.
😀
Praise God for this man having the humility to speak the truth
What truth?
I want to know
I think this man is misleading, where is the truth?
I think that so many Christians miss the fact that women were not even considered able or worthy to learn so the idea that women should learn at all was huge. It blew their views of women and the role of women out of the water. I think one of the greatest dangers with interpreting scripture is that we take it out of its original context. We take 2 or 3 verses and build a teaching that is inconsistent with the cannon of scripture
This is a sharply acute misunderstanding of the culture. Of course women could learn and more so under Yeshua Messiah.
Titus 2:3-5
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
It's not one or two verses. The entire chapter and the next (1 Timothy 2 and 3) describe the roles of men and women and the qualifications for overseers and deacons in a very specific way. We can pretend it doesn't say what it does, or we can accept it. Being submissive is a choice and it doesn't make you less. Themes of submission are prevalent throughout the canon of scripture. For example, rendering to Caeser what is Caeser's, children obeying their parents; wives submitting to their husbands, and Jesus submitting to the Father. Since Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), submission does not mean unequal.
@@0xTRellyx0 Amen!
@@2Sage-7Poets Amen
To every man that is arguing vehemently about women keeping silent in church. I hope that you are bold and active and leading in your church. I hope that you keep the same energy and are aggressively preaching the Gospel and leading to the salvation of many. If you are not, why do you have so much energy to keep fighting over this issue?
Not every man needs to be a leader. That's how you get chaos.
How is it that this man's "Seems to me..." can overrule the inspired words of God?
Anyone who watched this video CONSCIOUSLY will see the high level of uncertainty in NT's theories. Too uncertain to overrule the written text and, by extension, his 'American' opponents.
@@nobleprince1238 lol. Relax people. The meaning of countless verses are in question. The truth is that there have been numerous verses that have been changed or reinterpreted over the years i.e. slavery, marriage, hitting kids in the face with large stones, the un-bibical tithe that churches abuse their parisheners with. The fact is that pur bible is a book written for people whos cultural norms were based upon their time and not ours. We should start lookimg at it that way
@@tysonvslewis12 Are you familiar with progressive christianity? Is that something you subscribe to? Apologies if I've not addressed your comment directly, I have a feeling some of the ideas you expressed sound rather progressive. I appreciate your perspective, though. God bless you.
"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."....
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 lol. A different interpretation of a highly interperative book does not mean im making up additional gods. Simply stating that the letters written to the roman and corinthian churches were written for them in their time does not mean im twisting scripture
Oh yeah right! Could you imagine wright standing face to face saying to Paul “ I know what you say, but I disagrees with what you mean!”
Imagine Paul standing next to NT and saying "Thank you for providing the full context of what I was saying so people reading from the English Bible can understand what I meant."
Great rebuttal. Just skip making a biblical argument, providing evidence or any of that messy stuff that requires actual knowledge.
For the record, N.T. Wright is quite possibly the most knowledgable New Testament scholar alive today. What would your credentials be as a Bible scholar?
The Bible tells men and women EXACTLY what to do and NOT do respectively. The fact that people are determined to add on and take away from the scriptures just shows how hard the enemy is at work and who he's working through.
And that enemy is YOU.
Maybe. Maybe not. I hope you as a man are leading in your church and teaching and serving. Boldly declaring the good news to all and being an example of a believer
@@simismith9093 I lead myself, thank you.
lol PAUL tells men and women in specific churches not to do...
The church and the world look more and more alike. Bible clear women not allowed to preach.
Yes, women should be in ministry. Pastors? There’s no way around the text that the qualifications for pastors are men. We can’t use descriptive texts as a prescription when there are prescriptive texts that go against them.
Preach!
So beautiful that even though Eve listened to the snake and ate bringing death, that Jesus speaks to women first to spread the word that life has been restored!! Alleluia!
God (Jesus Christ) chose 12 men to carry the apostolic mission, not women.
If it was not for a group of FEMALE missionaries from Europe that I met in Las Vegas 14 years ago, I never would have been saved. :) Imagine if they took 1 Timothy 2:12 out of context. :)
@@saxmanjpr5092 This is not about women as evangelizers (everybody should evangelize and bring the good news to other people). This is about women in priesthood, which is incompatible with Christian faith.
To anybody align with God and His teachings, this should be obvious. The only ones promoting feminism in Christianity are anti-Christian modernists - both the useful idiots like you and the OP (that aid in pushing this anti-Christ agenda), and the dishonest deceivers like the speaker on the video.
@Pond3r Thiz a pastor IS a teacher. Tell you what, How about you tell you mom to shut up if she wats to teach others and see how fast she slaps you! You people are freaks!
@Gary Richardson That is a bunch of CRAP! You need go back to what you were taught in your 5th grade English class and remind yourself of what the difference between a SINGULAR term and a PLURAL term is. The bible says "A womAn shall not teach..." not "all womEn..." If you were to tell my mother and sister to shut up (and the bible says to treat all womEn as mothers and sisters: 1 Timothy 5:2) I would break your nose. I bet you would do the same thing to me if I were to tell you Mother and even wife to shut up. Also, don't you think Eve learned from her mistake? Use some common sense.
The argument of women being the first to announce Jesus' resurrection is such a lazy and terrible argument for women being church leaders and preachers.
Why is that?
@@ce2161 Because them announcing the resurrection has nothing to do with leading a church or preaching. It simply does not follow logically. It would also place the gospel writers at odds with Paul, who clearly did not allow women to lead churches and preach.
And think about it. When the gospel writers record that the women were the first people to announce the resurrection, are they telling us that it means women should lead and preach? Surely not, it doesn't follow.
Also, the idea that Phoebe has this sort of authority from Paul to teach because she carried the letter is just unpersuasive speculation.
@@ruicadima2961 What makes women a bad candidate for preaching? Logically, what is so wrong about them preaching? Because all I see is a sexist teaching that would be understandable because the people at that time saw men as superior. And to reverse the question around, what if a woman was the president of the United States? Would you not like her because the Bible said women can lead in church? Or does this teaching only prescribe to women who are Christians?
@@ce2161 It has nothing to do with being a "bad candidate" and neither is it a question of logic. I merely mentioned logic to show how NT Wright's argument is not logical in the sense that his conclusions don't follow from his premises.
Here's why I think women can't preach or lead a church: because God says so. And that is enough for me. 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man". (ESV) It has nothing to do with men being superior or women not having competency. It's not a question of ability but a question of God-ordained order.
And it can't be something only for the time of Paul or for the city of Ephesus because he grounds what he says in verse 12 by going to creation, which is universal. Why can't women preach or lead a church? Because Adam was created first, he's the head of the family. In a similar fashion, only men are to be leaders and preachers. The position of leadership and authority in the Church is given to men just like the leadership of Adam and Eve was given to Adam, who was created first. Again, nothing to do with ability. All to do with the way God created the world.
As for your observation about a woman being president, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'm persuaded that the Bible only forbids a woman from such a position of leadership and authority in the Church. When it comes to the civil government, there's no such restriction as far as I'm aware. As someone who lives in the United Kingdom, I have no problem with the Queen being the Head of State. In fact, I'm extremely grateful for her as she's a Christian. If a woman were to be president of the US and I lived in the US, I would very gladly follow her leadership. When it comes to the Church, as I hopefully demonstrated above, that's a different story.
@@ruicadima2961 Thank you for your comment. This is 100% Biblical. I find that the decay of the church and the family today is two fold: it comes from women who do not adhere to their God given roles, rebelling against God's established order and from men who allow them to do it. These men are abdicating their responsibility (for whatever reasons and the reasons matter not) and it is ruining churches and families. God is a God of order, structure and discipline. We are to obey His commandments. A feminized family goes to ruin. I have seen it in my own family, in the past year and a half, as a result of my father suffering multiple strokes. A family or church headed by a woman is cursed and was never in God's established design. God Word is clear but we often pervert it and distort it to our liking. We will be held to account.
This Man is interpreting the scriptures in his own "light"
Hi,
No. I've checked the Greek concerning 2 Timothy 12 + the 2nd to last verse in this chapter.
When Apostle Paul stated "I do not permit a woman to teach or have dominion over a man, this verse is in the singular, while the rest are in the plural.
He was talking about a local, not universally.
For every scripture, or group of scriptures, there is a chair scripture or one could say a trunk scripture, where lateral branches stem from it.
Example: male + female in the body of Christ are priests. When one observes priesthoods be it levitical or pagan ( sorry, I need to bring that one in) they teach + guide the congregation.
We, who are followers of Jesus Christ are teachers, preachers + guides for the "new" in the faith, also the weak + unfortunately the disobedient, by pleading + warning them.
these are our responsibilities, as well as the elders who were and still should be men + women who are senior citizens.
Correct
Phoebe was a Deacon. And there were women prophetesses and judges and there were women ministers for sure and the church was told to help them.
Debatable that Phoebe held the office of Deacon, Paul simply said that she served. But that's beside the point. An overseer (Pastor, Elder, Bishop, etc) in a church is a role given only to men as directed by the Lord, it has nothing to do with a prophetess or the one Judge who was a woman in the OT. Read your bible and obey Christ, women ministers (oxymoron) are in direct rebellion to our Lord, they must repent of their sin.
Witnessing is not preaching!
Exactly.
Preaching could be seen as a form of witnessing and vice versa.
Actually witnessing is the center of Jesus message. His first message was Matthew 4:17. That is the center whole Jesus ministries in the entire Bible. When you say witnessing is not preaching, then you wrong. You probably check for your understanding. It doesn’t matter what I say or somebody say but Jesus Christ message and preaching was the center of witnessing people, to get to the promise land Heaven. God bless u in Jesus name
@@berhegbmedia1274 facts. Disciples were called to be witnesses… wouldn’t be very good at that if they didn’t preach
Well, witnessing is preaching?? When Jesus was preaching love , he show it by caring for people Matthew 9:36 and then died for them. This is a witness of love by living it. A word is just a word if you could not back it up by your life. As a Christian follower of Jesus Christ our life is a witness Matthew 5:14. Character is more important. Jesus attract sinners more than any body the reason is he doesn’t see their sin he sees who they are John 3:16. My point is our life is a witness. It is not just a word Galatians 2:11-14. So we preach life with our life not our word. Witnessing is not talk on the street but living it. I am not saying talk on the street is wrong but witnessing is more than that. John 13:31-35. Witnessing is preaching with your life not just words. More blessings
Telling anyone that “Jesus is risen” is not preaching or teaching. It’s just telling a fact. To teach or preach the Word of GOD is to feed the sheep of His pasture, that’s not given to women to do.
That 'Fact' was preaching
@@bwanikajohn7002
You lack understanding of what preaching is. Everyone, who is saved, is to bear witness that Jesus is risen. But not everyone is to preach or teach GOD’s Word.
No matter how people try to twist scripture, they will be judged by The Word as it is written. GOD’s Word does not change.
Take care
PREACH
That's true. Those women were given an 'errand', not a mission. It's like telling a child to bear a particular message to some one. However so the women were given this errand to specifically tell only the disciples about Jesus's resurrection but the Mission to spread the gospel among all nations is given to the disciples.
@@bwanikajohn7002 If you interprete it as so. But would you consider "telling a fact" equivalent to the inspired leadership and authorship of Paul?
It's a disgrace for a woman to preach in church. It's not what I think. It's what the bible says on the women's role in the church.
The Key folks is what does GOD say...NOT what do I want in this situation.
Paul is rendering his OPINION here, not God
@@robertheintze9413which priest in the bible is a woman?
@@norahk6587 None, but Deborah was a prophetess and women should be allowed to give announcements and read a scripture in church.
@@robertheintze9413 Christ, who is God, was on earth and selected 12 male apostles. And when Judas failed the two that were put up to take the spot were male. What chance do you think that they all are male? That is 14 males selected in a society that is about 50 percent male and 50 percent female. The chances of that are (1/2)^14 which is 1/16,384.
Peter also affirms Paul's writings as being inspired: 2 Peter 3:15-16:
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
As far as Deborah is concerned. There are exception to almost everything, and God is the only one that can do the exceptions. We can say that all have died because all have sinned. Yes. But there are exceptions to this rule. Elijah and Enoch.
Christ, who is God, was on earth and selected 12 male apostles. And when Judas failed the two that were put up to take the spot were male. What chance do you think that they all are male? That is 14 males selected in a society that is about 50 percent male and 50 percent female. The chances of that are (1/2)^14 which is 1/16,384.
Peter also affirms Paul's writings as being inspired: 2 Peter 3:15-16:
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
As far as Deborah is concerned. There are exception to almost everything, and God is the only one that can do the exceptions. We can say that all have died because all have sinned. Yes. But there are exceptions to this rule. Elijah and Enoch.
Our society has been trending more and more towards the exact culture in Ephesus that Paul was speaking into, we have OVER-corrected from being misogynistic to feminist in an unhealthy way. N.T. is I believe comparing apples (women sitting at the feet of Jesus, being active helpful members of the church) to oranges (women being elders/pastors). I think this is a secondary issue, but worth debating.
Feminism is the equality of the sexes. Not 'overcorrection'. You're thinking of matriarchy, and there aren't a lot of matriarchal cultures around.
egalitarianism is equal but in application it wants equity, feminism seeks to usurp the patriarchy
@@tgthomasgoertzen No that is an incorrect 'straw-man' representation of feminism. Patriarchy IS inequality. It is MEN who have usurped an authority that isn't theirs.
Fluffy Baby Bunny Why must it be termed “feminism”? Why not simply equality. There is no cohesive movement known as “masculinism”, however if patriarchy is an unjust male-centric system, wouldn’t it logically follow that feminism would result in an unjust female-centric system?
@@joellmarlowe8613 OK that's a fair question, but I didn't name it. The definition is there for any dummy to look up though, and there are egalitarians who eschew the term for the reasons you mention, but that doesn't change it's original meaning. Bottom line is we are just arguing about semantics here, and it's not really worth it. I decided some time ago to just embrace the term. It's not my fault if others can't be bothered doing their own research.
You have to give it to him; I have never seen better word gymnastics
@DiscoFalcon he seems to have many dodgy beliefs - often close to the truth but slightly off - maybe to become a Bishop in the C of E that's what it takes. Seems a nice genuine engaging man though.
@DiscoFalcon Just out of curiosity...do the women in your church disobey scripture by wearing jewelry, expensive clothing and stylish hair?
"I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" - 1 Tim 2:9
I have yet to meet a single Christian who does not demonstrate with their very lives that they cherry pick scripture left and right. Especially the fundamentalists...the more fundamentalist, the more "word gymnastics" they play with scripture.
@DiscoFalcon I am stating my observations, but definitely open to discussion. As a Christian of over 30 years, I'm just saying that my observation is that all Christians pick and choose which verses to emphasize and which to ignore....or twist and contort scriptural passages to force them to fit their particular doctrines or theological positions or lifestyle choices. There are those who deny that they do it, and those who admit that they do it, but without a doubt all Christians do it. I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise but nobody has been able to do so through their life demonstration. Not long ago I had a conversation with a devout evangelical woman who was adamant that scripture forbids women to speak or teach in church. As she was passionately zeroing in on particular verses to prove her point, I couldn't help but to notice that she was wearing lots of jewelry, expensive apparel and a fancy hairdo. When I pointed out to her the scriptural verses which condemn her very Sunday attire, all of a sudden she was explaining away those verses as having been relevant only in their cultural context, lol. She seemed completely unaware of irony of the moment. Then you have the "Bible believing Christians" who flaunt their wealth and possessions. When you point out to them what Jesus said about accumulation of wealth and possessions, they bend over backwards attempting to justify their lifestyle choices & trying their hardest to water-down the words of Christ regarding Mammon sins. And on and on and on.
I greatly respect that NT Wright was reading directly from the Greek. He hits points that most miss when they only read the English translations. Addressing "authentein" is something that is missed and this is too critical of an issue not to apply a careful hermeneutic.
NT Wright is, I fear, being disingenuous with his argument. There are plenty of passages in the New Testament whcih contradict his argument - eg I Cor 14: 33-37; 1 Cor 11, Titus 2: 11-13 & many others. Paul was apparently unaware of NT's "Cultural Revolution," an unfortunate phrase from Communist China. Maybe we should consider why the western churches are unqiquely weak in 2000 years of Gospel history.
@@proudhon100 Hinting, innuendo, and cherry picking do not make a strong hermeneutic. You don't acknowledge the contradictions with scripture in the very texts you indicate, which means you are choosing an interpretive frame out of bias and not analysis.
@@elibennett6168 My interpretive framework is that scripture was inspired by God and therefore by definition does not contradict itself. Men and women however, like to impose their fallen worldviews onto this communication from the Lord.
@@proudhon100 Christianity is not some cult where we just believe what people say without intellect. Rather, those that earnestly search the scriptures to see what pastors or self-professed leaders say is true are especially commended (Acts 17). No point in continuing our discussion since you are not adding anything that hasn't been pored over and found wanting, particularly if you claim an absolutist position that does indeed contradict scripture.
@@elibennett6168 Those who seek novelty in Scripture are pre-disposed to heresy. When you refer to passages of Scripture as being "found wanting" you are making it quite clear that you don't like what God has said.
Finally. An honest conversation about women where we are not told we are accessories to men. Thank you so much for this discussion. It gave me hope.
Yes! It gave me so much joy and hope too. I know so many women who hate Christianity because of sexism in the church. Glad to see some people see us women as equal!
It's a dishonest conversation, missing out all biblical passages to the contrary. St Paul never heard of the cultural revolution. Is your desire to be saved or to be equal to men?
@@proudhon100 both :) Jesus saved me at the age of 16 and I know I am loved by him and equal to boys. He made me in his image just like my brothers in Christ. We are all beautiful equal children of the king.
@@jarastar6499 You are equal in value but the notion that you are equal in all things is simply not true. That was the point behind men claiming to be women competing in women's sports and women rightly complaining about the grossly unfair testosterone advantage. . There is complementarity - which is why God declares same sex intercourse to be an abomination.
@@proudhon100 certainly we are not all equal in physical strength. God has given us each different genetics to make humanity a beautifully diverse species. However we are equal in value and we are equal in intelligence and conscious experience. We think the same and we both have the capacity to experience and worship God the same.
Notice how he didn’t even speak from the Bible he just gives his own ideas
He was using a Greek NT. For me all I heard was a discussion that was loaded with scripture and intelligent forensics which is also a biblical commission
@@dougrea women can’t be pastors period. Argue with God not me
@@lanadelkae351 I don’t disagree I was merely commenting about whether or not he used scripture. But I can tell by your dogmatic reply where are you stand. Someday read behind Jesus when you have time. He just walked around telling stories as well and he often times quoted scripture.
I don’t agree with NT Wright on this issue, but he definitely did use Scripture here.
@@lanadelkae351
You do not have permission to teach the men here then
Titus 2v4 Then they can urge the younger women(H) to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled(I) and pure, to be busy at home,(J) to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands,(K) so that no one will malign the word of God.(L)
*Ignore verse 9 though because slavery is bad*
Well... the reason people focus on those verses is because Paul said something about it. It's not focused on often in church at all. 1 Timothy, considered as Scripture, goes back to Genesis as the explanation for why women can't teach... why? And if it is something that God says, what do we do with it? Paul was actually writing Timothy to give church policy, so it makes sense why we would go back to that in church policy today.
But if Timothy was facing a bunch of cult teachings, Paul would have instructed him on specifically how to do deal with that. I have heard another scholar propose that much if that section was dealing with how to get rid of the Artemis cult influence.
Just one observation. Whether or not Junia (Junias) in Romans 16:7 was a women or man is irrelevant. The majority of translations do not identify Andronicus or Junias as apostles. Rather they are said to be "held in high esteem" (Amplified Bible), "of note among the apostles" (NKJV), or "well known to the apostles" (ESV). I think it is a stretch in light of other passages on the subject, to mine something out of the closing greetings of Romans 16 to make the case that there was a woman apostle in the New Testament Church. That, in my humble opinion is not responsible exegesis of scripture.
Yes, that struck me as well. It's a huge stretch to say that "known to the apostles" means "they are apostles." It's just really kind of crazy to see all of the hoops they jump through to try to reconcile 1 Timothy with what they want to believe. It's not letting Scripture drive your exegesis, therefore it's not an honest exegesis.
The channel 'what your pasor didn't tell you' did a great interview about this with Nick Quient.
I really like NT Wright I just don’t find this particular argument persuasive. I think he is bending over backwards to reinterpret passages that just don’t lead where some would prefer. Men are called to be the priests of their home and community.
I am closer to God than my husband and my pastor. Look up the story of Deborah the prophet and judge of Israel.
@@peggypiercefield5188, could you name any pastor in the bible?
@@peggypiercefield5188 Just because you are “closer” to God doesn’t mean your gifts can’t be used elsewhere. And if you were as close to God as you think you were you would know that.
@@Kae879 The same high verbal skills that make a good minister could be used in journalism, law, and politics. But some women hear God calling them. Perhaps divine statements become garbled so they hear "ministry" when the true calling was "journalism," "law," or "politics."
Period!
God is not the author of confusion.
dont blame God if women are confusing you
I see this quoted on a lot of NT Wright videos.
The body of Christ is a Bride. Should the men act like a women/ Bride? Or both men and women should stay in there place? A woman can’t do what a man can. Women must do what they are created to do just like a man. Be fruitful and multiple. Women don’t be FOOLED by Satin. Stay out of that Pulpit Fire.
And yet...thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations, sectarian division and a multitude scriptural disputes among Christians suggest that the Bible is far less "clear" than we Christians like to pretend it is.
And yet...thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations, sectarian division and a multitude scriptural disputes among Christians suggest that the Bible is far less "clear" than we Christians like to pretend it is.
This teaching makes me want to study the bible for life. I absolutely enjoyed this and it gives me an insight of how God views me as a woman
God views you as made of man to be a help meet. Not to teach or have authority. This does not mean you are loved less, but that you have a God given role to fill, as a child bearer, and teacher of women and children. Not a head of the church, teacher, or authority figure ❤️
@@rebelmadesaint3118 well said!!!
@@rebelmadesaint3118 this comes across as a misunderstanding of the purpose of women in Genesis 2. A help meet doesn’t mean subservient. God brought forth the animals but none were found to be suitable or to meet his requirements, so God then produced a woman from his side and she did meet the requirements. From his side = as an equal. It was not good for man to be alone - he could not manage without a woman, he needed a helper. We read elsewhere that God is our help in time of trouble - that makes God our help meet.
@@MrSmartowl the “from his side to be equal” argument is based purely in opinion, and isn’t part of scripture. God is not a “help meet” he is our helper in times of turmoil. A woman cannot deliver us from evil. A woman cannot free us from principalities and powers. A woman was made to be subservient to a man, this does not make her less human, but she will not have authority over a man. Period.
His view of you as a woman hasn't changed. If you are a believer and born again you are a child of God. It doesn't change the fact that women are not to teach men!! That is what the bible plainly says.
Sorry, but I will have to disagree with all of this. Seems like a lot of speculating. I believe yes we are to learn and be disciples but to teach men no. Me and my husband study things out together, but I find it weird if I were to go and try to teach another woman's husband.
How is that any more weird than your husband teaching another man's wife?
@@axeldaxelMVM because the Bible says that the head of every single woman is the man
At about 9:20 He says, "I really don't know on that", pretty much sums it up! Study to show thyself approved ......II Timothy 2:15
Glad you saw through his huge uncertainties!
😂😂😂😂
Actually, it's humility. There is much in the Bible that is still veiled. There is much that we don't have the cultural context or linguistic knowledge to completely discern. He was being humble- he should have mentioned that no one can know for sure.
@@valeriebeverly1107 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:13
My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace. Jeremiah 50:6
Men are to lead for women were created to help. But leading doesnt mean puffing yourselves up the contrary leading means to serve, it means sacrificial love as Christ did. As Christ loved and served the Church and gave himself up for her, Christ did not come to be served but to serve so how much more mortal men should do. For Scripture is clear that the ones that oversee over the Church should not control or dominate but serve the people God gave them to oversee, this is clear in matthew 20:25
25But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave- 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Women are to help men in their leading and in everything for thats the reason eve was created. Different duties, same worth.
Roman 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. Some other translations say servant we are aware of that and this has been addressed in the thread. So please read the comments rather than accusing people of lying. Still the Bible says "that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the Saints, and help her in whatever she may needs from you, for she has been a Patron of many and of myself as well". Also, Romans 16:3 " my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in the ministry of Christ Jesus. We are to be of one mind, one body, one accord. No man or woman is above or greater than another but Christ our Lord. Does that mean that women can be superior or over men? Of course not but neither are men superior for in Christ its all about humility so no one should boast. For its not superiority but its all about serving God and each other in humility and truth. Glory to God. Praise to you our Christ
◄ Psalm 68:11 ►
New International Version
The Lord announces the word, and the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng:
Hey sorry servant does not men deacon. Don't forget GOD says " do not add or take away from these Words or the plagues of this book will be added to you". Look it up this guy's is a someone who doesn't know the scriptures.
@@darrialfleming8548 this is why the Lord said women needed to keep silent in Church
@@darrialfleming8548 The primal word is to mean the following as the Greek word signifies.
[DIAKO (To run on errands; compare (dioko)); an attendant, i.e. (genitive) a waiter (at table or in **other menial** duties);-Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary]
Thus the Bible KJV translators use the word servant.
Especially as being a deacon was a position for men only....[unless of course, a woman had managed to have transgendered herself.....{;o;}]
"12 Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
1 Timothy 3:11-13 (ASV)
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 keep up the good work. Men seem to think that scripture needs them to interrupt. The Spirit of Truth which Christ has given every man in Him is sufficient.
Two things apply here: Galatians 3:28, and the idea of 'leaders'. There are no leaders in the Christian church. We are all servants. We serve in different ways. We are led by the Spirit and informed by the word of God. We've got to get away from this puffed up worldly idea of 'leaders'. It comes from the arrogant lexicon of business and politics and is as unworthy of the church as Israel wanting to displace God with a mere king who would (and did) introduce corruption into their land.
So, we have ministers of various kinds. Some organise, others administer, some teach, others clean the auditorium, some pastor/counsel and pray with others. Some conduct/facilitate/organise/convene study and prayer groups. Others (in the episcopal churches) wear fancy dress for our entertainment. NO ONE IS A LEADER.
There are no 'roles' for men and/or women. Sure there are biological functions and their concomitant relationships. But my wife and I don't have 'roles' like we live in a business. We mutually serve and support each other according to our interests and gifts. The head of our house is the Spirit of Truth.
Watch wretched
Hmn! God bless you sir. As a complimentarian, I can't agree more. I know according to God's word, me are the head of the home but that's servant leadership where he puts the wife's needs first not boss dictatorship as some cultures assumes it to be or what ' I hear' is obtainable in the so called religion of peace. May the good Lord help us all. Amen
Well said!
The only problem with your answer is that the Bible time and time again dictates roles for men and women. This doesn't mean one sex is inferior to the other but roles do exist. Now get control of your household, your beta-maleness is spilling all over the place.
“He (Adam) jolly well sinned” 😂
I would listen to this guy speak everyday. Very good points being made
Those of you amazing Greek scholars: Could that verse about "she will be saved from the curse through childbirth" have to do with the fact that Jesus was actually birthed through a woman? Was there a shift for women that could have happened there? Just curious what your thought are on this.
The nay-sayers here already know the mind of god. They don't have to think anything through. Don't you know god has revealed the truth to them to the exclusion of the rest of us?
That's why they are so certain: no need for honesty then. They can condemn from the comfort of their desk chairs safe in the knowledge that being right is their highest calling.
Ashley Bradshaw, no greek but I have heard and understand that this reference to childbirth is what gives women their high status and which obliterates any potential accusation that women were deceived and were the cause of the fall. Childbirth, gives to women a role only they can perform and the nurturing etc which goes with that role makes them special and unique, not just another man type being. If this were not so, women's status in our society throughout history would be so much more fragile... and yes this is a bit of an obscure line … but think about it, where would women be without childbirth?
@@gtolose special and unique: sure
Can bear children: sure
However this hardly disqualifies women from serving as leaders and pastors. Moreover women only bear children for a limited number years over their life; in addition some never do, and many never get the choice.
@@fluffybabybunny5822 I am answering the point raised by Paul about childbirth "saving" women, I think it was u who suggested that this may be a reference to the birth of Jesus but I differ and suggest an alternative which seems a better fit in the context.
I say this because we have arrived at a place where some r wondering "what use r men" and this has some traction because now men's superior strength is no longer really of any value and women are defended and supported for by the state while pregnant or ill then apart from a minor contribution at conception this does place men into a fairly obsolete position. They r derided and undermined on a fairly regular basis.... and accept it.
If men could conceive and have children then what would history of men and women look like - how would women have been treated, can I suggest it would have been extremely difficult for women without this key role. Being childbearer and nurturer, even though weaker in a harsh environment gave women a central and pivotal role in what was essentially a patriarchal society.... But in the last 100 years it is all change both in society and in the church. Your point about specific women not having children, sure of course, not all men are physically stronger than women, but the generalisation is true and ONLY women can have children.
@@gtolose hmm, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, so forgive me if this doesn't address your point.
I have heard the argument of course that the 'childbearing ' verse (15, I think) is a reference to the birth of Jesus, but I'm not convinced by that so it wouldn't have been me that said it. I think it's more likely that it was countering a heresy prevailing at the time that Cybele/Artemis would protect women in childbirth, and Paul is saying 'you don't need that goddess's blessing to be kept safe'.
In any case this is one of the most debated verses in the NT. Sure we should try to get to the bottom of it, but no one can really say they know exactly what Paul meant (if they do they are just being arrogant and foolish and I've no time for that). I think the interpretation above fits the context best (false teaching is mentioned in many places throughout the epistles to Timothy and is indeed a major theme in those epistles; in Acts we are told of the riots in Ephesus: it's not hard to build a picture of the context from purely Biblical sources, and of course other historical sources affirm that picture).
I am puzzled as to why a passage that has roughly seven main interpretations is so narrowly interpreted to the detriment of women. One would think that where such a broad spectrum of views exists - most of them plausible and a couple of them that do not exclude women highly probable, which is the best we are going to get at this point - that the church would err on the side of freedom, not exclusion. I really do not understand how people cannot see this from the rest of the scriptures.
Eye opening thank you
I like NT but, his arguments are very unconvincing. Scripture is very clear on the roles of men and women.
Well, as a starter, look up the relationship between God the Father and God the Son (which is the role model for any authority), and then try to treat women in the same way as God the Father treats God the Son. That is your responsibility. Treating you as God the Son treats God the Father then is the woman's responsibility, but first learn your lesson and don't rub her stuff into her nose all the time. ;-)
They have taken the whole of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation and the pattern expounded again and again. The man has the authority of leadership or headship in the home and the church is described as God's family and the bride of Christ in the NT. How this speaker can from his understanding of a 'few verses' come to the conclusion that this is not an important matter is very worrying. To tamper with the Word of God in such a way leaves the hearer wondering about its authority not just on the matter of men and women and their design but others that don't fit the narrative of our modern culture.
I agree, if you don`t get the Creation right, you will not get most of the Bible right, therefore woman in leadership as the head of man is not correct.
The most logical interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 I have found is thus:
Artemis was a huntress goddess. Her statues show her covered with testicles, which she took from the bulls she killed. But there's a twist to the story: she magically turned her male opponents into bulls, and then killed them... and stripped them of their maleness.
So, the worship of Artemis actually wove into the female mind the idea of conquering males by any devious means possible.
Artemis was also looked to as the protector of women in childbirth. To come under her protection, an expectant mother was required to take part in Artemis temple rituals.
Ephesus was devoted so thoroughly to the worship of Artemis that any other religion entering the city had to incorporate the Artemis myth into their teachings. Every religion became an Artemis cult.
So, what would a Jewish-Artemis cult teach? They certainly would not teach that Adam was formed first, because that would seem to promote the idea the man was superior! Nor would they teach that Eve was deceived. Because Artemis beliefs said women were spiritually superior.
Do you see now how those last 3 verses were simply Paul's rebuttal of Artemis cult teachings?
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Evidently, a woman had come into the church from the Jewish cult of Artemis, and was -- as she was trained -- trying to usurp male authority!
Notice how Paul speaks of "women" in the plural, in verses 9 & 10.
And then he switches to speaking of "THE woman" and "A woman" in verses 11 - 15.
Greek scholars say this is significant.
Paul was no longer talking about all the women in the church.
He was talking about ONE woman in particular, who was causing trouble for Timothy.
And Paul was simply telling Timothy how to handle her, and how to push back against her false doctrine.
Mary Ellen, very astute observation. Pastor Melissa Scott has a masters in Biblical languages and has had to defend herself being given the pastorate by her late husband. She claimed the same thing. Timothy was more than likely having trouble with a woman trying to dominate him. Shalom
Mary, what an insight! Thanks for sharing this. This is gold. Thank you very much.
Excelente information! Thank you
So how bout the rest of Timothy ?
@@dahokage1043 what specifically?
Which Bible verse orders female elders and pastors? Asking for the church.
HAHA, not aware of any; tongue in cheek
Which Bible verses tell us what women are allowed to do? Or what areas of ministry then are “good enough” for. Perhaps you have my answer. No one else, over many posts and videos has even tried to answer. Will you?
none "order" women as Elders/pastors. precisely.
Satan is seeking to stir up confusion in the kingdom of God contiually.
Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... th-cam.com/video/GgjaBClU3Pw/w-d-xo.html
Don't give Satan credit for all that goes wrong in a church. The human ingredient is quite capable of doing it without his help
Paul also said married women should cover heads and men should have short hair. Why don't we follow those rules anymore? Also Paul and Peter were both blessed and very wise but had differing views and rules. I try to look directly at words of Jesus and see if and how he spoke on topic or related issues. Unfortunately closest I see if Jesus closing men as 12 leading apostles but included a few Marys in intimate teaching right with apostles so I'm still confused
If you're confused I might be able to help. I post on
women's matters and the head covering.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly
Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians
Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
___________________________________________________________________
Deborah was a Judge over Israel. There was no gender qualification
to be a Judge. I suggest my short essay on her. Or I can reply to questions.
Wrong! Women are not allowed by Scripture to be pastors
Titus 1:6
if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife,
1 Timothy 3:2
the overseer is to be above reproach, husband of one wide
Please explain how a woman can fulfill this qualification if one is being a husband of one wife. Asking out of love not correction.
Well the husband of one wife is pretty clearly about the "one" wife as at that time many men had many wifes. It is clear that it didn't have to be made about women as no women had many husbands at that time. So he didn't want people who had multiple wives to be pastors.
Stryne vanZelk you are saying that verse also means woman can fulfill a pastor role? I don’t understand what you are trying to explain.
From what I see “a husband of one wife” I guess a married man.
@@devonhill7394 I'm not sure if these verses talk about a pastoral role in the way we use it. Overall the letters seem to suggest that christian churhes had much much more plural leadership. If you look at 1Cortinthinas 13 the overseer has probably more to do with those who are for for guidance than those who should teach. Regardless of this the point that I was making was not that the paassage says "women can be overseers" but that it is absolutely not concerned about that question. Just as in the english translation you used Paul uses a number word in greek to stress the "one" which is extremly unusual unless you want to make clear that the "one" is the point. This is definetly about a man staying with one woman, being faithful to her not having relationships with more women. Actually other antique texts talking about faithfulness using this expression. This is why the NIV actually has both those passages as "faithful to his wife".
I am trying to understand that as well. if we use that reading however it would exclude single men as well as married men with no children. right?
@@dr.timothyfuller8763 "a husband of one wife" is a figure of speech and would better be translated with "monogamous". So single men, single women, or faithful married men or women can be church leaders. For more on this I would recommand this blog post: margmowczko.com/pauls-qualifications-for-church-leaders/
There is no place for a Bible believing Christian in the UK today. Trying to find a church that isn't liberal and doesn't embrace feminist dogma is impossible. Many true believers are turning away from the church to worship alone or online with others like themselves. I pray for a revival that sweeps away sinful teaching such as this.
Very poor from NT Wright. Instead of taking the most obvious meaning of the passages that directly address the issue he raises some flimsy alternative readings and says "If an alternative understanding is possible then these passages should not be normative" Mary of Bethany in training to be a Rabi? Why is it not possible for Jesus to simply teach a woman without projecting her path into "professional" ministry? Very unconvincing.
This is very interesting. It is good to see him reading from the original text rather than arguing one of countless translations.
There is no original text that we have.
Trttt
@@Baseballisbest67 most of the new testament was written in Koine Greek, a language which Jesus spoke and was the lingua franca in the Roman Empire. Almost all scholars agree that Koine is the original language of the New Testament.
I think that the NT would have been as the old written down in Hebrew, then translated later into Greek as more Gentiles were Saved.
The Greek was kept and the Hebrew fell into disuse.
@The English Fundamentalist why do you accuse him of being a false teacher?
1 Timothy 2 vs 12...... Women are not Pastors or Elders. The biblical qualification is being a husband (MAN) of one wife etc. This would Never have been an issue years ago it’s only because we live in a weak age that Hates the Bible. It comes down to a basic fundamental view of the imperative and perfection of scripture!
This isn’t men vs women it’s recognising our God given roles and holding firmly to Sola Scriptura!
Paul doesn't seem to have been married, Jesus certainly wasn't. Would they have been disqualified on the basis of not being husbands?
Gareth Sarjeant
With all due respect sir, why on earth would you ask a question like that? If you’re a true believer you are part of Christ’s bride.....?!? He is married to His Church and Paul was given the gift of celibacy..... The same Paul encouraged people to be married and dedicated whole chapters to what that should look like so I don’t understand your question really it makes no sense not biblically anyway?
Jesus is the Son of God and Paul was unique, they don’t represent the rest of mankind.
@@1988TheHitman because you said the biblical.qualification for being a leader was "a man of one wife" by which I assumed you meant "husband of one wife" but that perhaps English was your second language so you had chosen slightly incorrect words..
You know where you don't find the idea of 'sola scriptura'? in scriptura... It isn't a biblical concept but 16th century reaction to abuses by the papacy...
@@ryanmorey even churches that claim sola scripture are more like the Anglican church who explicitly talk about a stool with 3 legs, tradition, reason and scripture. In fact some of the churches that are keenest on saying sola scripture have the biggest problem with any interpretations that move away from the interpretations of their favorite reformer(s) (tradition).
Mike Winger has done a great explanation of these arguments.
NT makes some assumptions here!!! Although he does sound really wise we have to go through the scriptures and see if they are saying what NT is saying. Not all of his arguments actually hold up!!
Acts 17: 11 is a good rule of authority in checking out everyone's message.
@@jjreddog571 Yeah it's ironic that you sent me a single verse because we can't make a decision on one verse we need to keep reading and reading :)
@@stephenthompson9722 Try reading the verse, you apply it to everything you hear from everyone, that is why it is there.
This is one of the reasons given for Paul's position on women not teach, nor to usurp authority over the man 1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. So it is obvious that this same reason would apply to all churches. There is a reason the serpent approached Eve to make his argument and not Adam. We were created with different strengths and weaknesses for different roles.
what is your opinion of women who preach the gospel in third world basement churches under threat of death?
Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional measures.
@@nobleprince1238 Awesome reply
@@nobleprince1238 lol
There is a very huge difference between sharing the gospel to sinners as a witness, and holding the office of a pastor in a congregation of believers
One passage? Did Dr NT Wright know about 1 Corinthians 14: 33 to the end, where Paul says "As in all the churches of the saints the women should be silent in the churches..."!? I see women has a great role in God's kingdom, but Wright did not take serious the text in 1 Tim. 2 (what he just said few times, "I am not sure ..." or "People have different opinions about this...."; rather the only thing he was sure about is his extra-biblical cultural background!)...and he did not go to other places in the Bible where God, though give man and women same honor, assign different rules. Being a Scholar does not mean being right :)
Paul is taking the Corinthians where they are, not where they "should" be.. Corinth was a wild port town in which "proper" women stayed at home, never went to market (slaves did that).
Pagans noted the genuine freedom that Christian women were enjoying and "talked" abt that rather than about the Resurrection of Jesus.
To move the "conversation" back to Jesus and off women, Paul implements "Household Rules."
You will notice in his letter to the Romans that women are actively involved in the church, not silent at all.
Moreover, Jesus never treated women as anything other than equal to men.
I can say the same: being a theologian doesn't mean being always right
You need to go back to your 5th grande ENGLISH class and learn the difference between a SINGULAR TERM and a PLURAL TERM son! The bible here says, "a womAn," NOT "all womEn!" This means that only a certain type of womAn can to teach, You know, the type of lady that had to have everything "my way, or the highway" and refused to listen to another point of view, and those that refuse to submit to their husbands and they go behind his back to do what ever they please! If all womEn can not teach, then a mother teaching her son is a SINNER! And take that verse in context! That verse is referring to a time when men and women used to sit on opposite side of the pews and yelled out at their husbands to anger and question, SO Paul was giving a simple instruction of using MANNERS! I bet you anything that if you heard a man in church tell your wife, mother or daughter to shut up, you would be giving that person a black eye!
If women can't teach men why does Acts 18:25-26 say: "25 Apollos had been taught the way of the Lord. He spoke with great power. He taught the truth about Jesus. But he only knew about John’s baptism. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Priscilla and Aquila heard him. So they invited him to their home. There they gave him a better understanding of the way of God." Yes she teaches him with her husband, but she's still teaching a man.
They gave him the gospel. Apollos wasn't a believer since he knew just John's baptism. So she wasn't teaching him anything as a brother in Christ. Women can evangelize, or explain the gospel to both men and women, hence what Priscilla with her husband did to Apollos.
@@tinupeter They didn't give him the gospel. He was a Christian and knew the gospel but they explained to him more in depth God's ways. That's more than giving the gospel message. As an example say the only Christian in a town or city is a woman. Are you telling me God would prefer a person to stay ignorant of His Word than to be instructed by a Christian woman?
@@tinupeter "He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately." He knew the message, he just didn't know everything he should.
@@micah4460 👏👏👏👏
WOW! This guy clears this matter up. You got to watch this! Let me know what you think?
th-cam.com/video/DZsS0DqJ2ZY/w-d-xo.html
Christ constantly shattered the cultural perceptions of the time by surpassing that which was not truly of God's spirit in order to show that what God cares about above all are the hearts of his children-- and all of this sacrifice for relationship with each of us... ❤️
To say that God cannot use women in a pastoral service confines an unlimited God within limits. Additionally, God doesn’t command or direct us without reasons, so it’s important to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance as to what He meant in the inspired Word of God. Scripturally speaking, with regards to women leadership and ordination, and specifically the passage you mentioned in 1 Tim. 2 (that’s often quoted about this topic), I would like to suggest that it is not necessarily transcultural, nor do I think that Paul was trying to create a stumbling block for women’s participation in worship/ministry. Certainly the Christian faith is dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit in us (who are empty vessels ready to be filled by Him), and His gifting according to His mercy and grace. Verses in the Bible such as Acts 2:17-18 (which references Joel 2:28), clearly leaves no one out, and there’s no shortage of verses and examples in the Bible, along with historical and present day accounts of God moving mightily in women, including in the role of teaching. So I can’t see Paul ostracizing women (approximately half the population) from this role as a generally applied directive, but rather a specific instruction for a particular time and context - and I believe the text supports this argument.
Many read 1 Tim. 2:11-15 and automatically jump to the negative narrative, and assert that Paul is being misogynistic, when in fact, he is actually trying to protect the women of that time from judgement. I believe that Dickson’s argument of the difference between “teaching” and “preaching” is valid and applicable. We know this when we look at other passages where Paul makes the distinction between Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:28, Rom. 12:4-8, etc.), and as you read his and others’ letters, it is clear that this distinction was understood among 1st Century Christians, and that “teaching” was a higher platform. In James 3:1, James strongly cautions the brethren/believers about not seeking to become “teachers”, because there is a greater judgement for those who teach incorrectly. “Teaching” is meant for those who can correctly read, interpret and explain the Word with authority, whereas “Preaching” is intended for witnessing and sharing the good news after one has been taught. Paul is discouraging women of that time from “teaching”, not “preaching” (and not from prophesying, speaking in tongues, performing miracles or any other gifting/ministry either). It is clear from the passage that women were not in a position to be properly equipped to teach. You need mentorship to become a “teacher”, similar to how Paul studied under Gamaliel, but this was not available to women of that time - only to men - and he didn’t want women to use their new-found freedom to assume the role of teaching without proper training (additionally, considering the very low literacy rates of the time among men, women would be even less privileged to have an education, making matters worse). So given the opportunity, there’s no reason why women can’t teach or be Pastors. Paul uses the illustration from Genesis because God told Adam directly about the forbidden fruit in Genesis 2, prior to Eve being formed. Adam would have shared the knowledge about the forbidden fruit with Eve after she was formed. When Eve was tempted/questioned by the serpent/devil, she was unable to correctly respond/deceived, and eventually sinned, causing judgement on herself and Adam (to be clear, Adam sinned as well, as men are also prone to being deceived and sinning). Paul is basically trying to explain how important it is to have a full understanding and knowledge of the Word, otherwise you will be prone to fail/sin, which the women of that time would have been in a position to do so. Paul ends the passage about women “saved through childbearing”, not in the context that this is their only purpose (as Augustine incorrectly interpreted and asserted), nor that every women who gives birth gets saved and goes to heaven, but rather imploring women of that time that, if they want to do good, then they can carry out a very important role of “teaching” (without facing judgement, and thus “saved”) : which is to raise up Godly children “in faith, love and holiness with propriety”.
Started from a false premise and then just ran from there. Nobody is saying God can't do something. God can do whatever God chooses to do.
God hasn't chosen to make preachers and teachers of women for the congregation. We know this because there are none in the NT, neither commended or instructed but precisely the opposite.
Your claim that Paul was protecting them because they weren't educated and mentored is an argument from nothing. The elders, preachers and teachers in the NT churches weren't either. God appointed them, the Apostles appointed them. They could, if it was what they intended, appointed and taught them exactly as they did the men. Oddly they didn't do that but didn't permit them.
Timothy was instructed by women yet he, and not they, was the appointed preacher and teacher to the congregation.
You say God doesn't do things without reason, that's true, but He doesn't have to tell us the reason.
You say ask the Holy Spirit. He wrote the scriptures. Read his answers there.
I.do not permit.......gives reasons.....liberals make up other reasons and say he didn't mean it.
@@Phill0old Thank you for your response, but it appears that you may have not read or considered the entire content of my post, as you seemed to be focused only on the premise, and did not explain further. Instead, you focused only on vs. 12, claimed that this is God’s direction, and that we shouldn’t question it. Second, you state that “God can do whatever He chooses to” - so if God can speak through a plant/bush to Moses in Exodus 3, and speak through a donkey to Balaam in Num. 22, why do you believe that speaking through a human female, one who is made in God’s image, is off limits, and becomes too much for God? Third, you state that “we know this because there are none (women preachers and teachers) in the NT” - your conclusion completely ignores the NT message and the power of the Holy Spirit: with verses like Acts 2:17 (which is a repeat from Joel 2) makes it clear and spells out that no one is off limits (no limit to sex, age or classes). Forth, your statement regarding women’s education and mentorship is “an argument from nothing” - please read some history of the times in the Roman Empire to find out for yourself. For a woman in those days, teaching was not an option - even outside of a religious context. It doesn’t mean they couldn’t do it, it just wasn’t available to them. Please also keep in mind that the NT captures the very early stages of the Church - even in these early stages, women were being elevated and starting to fill in leadership roles (Phoebe a deacon, Junia, Pricilla, and others who had/led home churches, etc.) which is totally unheard of in that culture. The fact that Paul was even mentioning and giving credit to these women is very unconventional. Fifth, you state that “God doesn’t have to tell us the reason” - to begin with, this isn’t a small detail in the Bible that can be overlooked (such as the sun standing still for Joshua, for example). We’re talking about an impact to half the population. Therefore, if I’m suppose to love God "... with all my mind", and have an answer for those who ask (1 Peter 3:15), then I need to understand why God, according to you, would eliminate half the population, who's made in His image, from preaching and teaching. Additionally, God didn’t say it - Paul said it, to Timothy, and if they understood it, then we can and should understand the context and reason for it. To simply just focus on a verse and limit it to sex, not only is a poor scholarly effort, but it doesn’t explain anything, especially when trying to interpret the remainder of the passage. Sixth, in addition to all this, you only need to search about women missionaries, or the impact of Christian women, and see for yourself what God, through the Holy Spirit has been doing for several hundred years through women. Women who risked their lives, in very hostile and dangerous countries and parts of the world, to teach and preach the gospel. Many of them planted churches, trained male pastors and leaders, and even wrote books. Should they have not carried out the calling of God on their lives? This isn't "liberalism" - this is clearly God working through women in the same capacity as men, to advance His Kingdom, not mine or yours.
@@sjarjoura9188 A great deal of verbage to avoid having to deal with the issue. God has spoken, that's it. You don't have to like it or understand it, you must do as God had said. Almost nobody can preach. Those few that can are all males.
For support you have to base your argument on.....not the bible, not the rule of faith for the church.
God hasn't called me to be a minister either. No whining, no complaining from me. God's gifts are God's gifts. He gives them where He wills.
God doesn’t go outside his word for nobody
So you are saying just because a woman treated as a human by Jesus, that means all the verses that say women should not speak in the church are not true. If you reject one part of the bible you can not accept any of it. What do you say about the curse? It said that women will have to submit to the husband this is not a perfect world but because of our sin, it is necessary.
The word for woman in verses 11 and 12, ‘gyne’, means wife and is the same word used for wife in 1 Timothy 3, ‘the husband of one wife’. The word given for man in verse 12, ‘aner’, means a man, fellow, husband. The connection between wife, ‘gyne’, and husband, as the obvious choice for ‘aner’, is inescapable. For example in Ephesians 5:25 ‘Husbands (aner) love your wives (gyne).’
The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.
@@johntrevett2944 That is an astute observation that I and most others miss.
Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... th-cam.com/video/GgjaBClU3Pw/w-d-xo.html
DON'T TRUST THIS NT WRIGHT HE IS HERETIC
Women seeing Jesus first does NOT allow women to be Pastors. The Bible is quite clear on roles in the church. Take what its says not what it does not say. Paul refers to creation in Timothy, not who saw Jesus first.
Nothing stated in any of these comments tells women what their role is in the church. Will you be the one to do this?
N.T Wright is highly respected around the world as a New Testament scholar of the Pauline theology, and I have read comments that show narrow-mindedness to someone who knows what he's talking about because the New Testament was written in Greek with an Eastern point of view, not a Western viewpoint. I think it's amusing to see people put Bible verses that he was just explaining in context to say he's wrong but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
You're right but their opinions don't hold water to his knowledge of Biblical and historical understanding.
You should watch Mike Wingers video series on "Women in ministry".
It'll teach you alot about this subject.
@@DrDoerk Mike is sweet but very wrong on this topic.
@@rachelm9350 I really don't think he is....
99% of egalitarians arguments either aren't in context or just plan wrong.
They use eisegesis instead of exegesis when reading the bible...
i.e. they read their personal beliefs into the Bible instead of reading the Bible how it is.
They often claim that Debra is an example of a female pastor, but she wasn't, she was a prophetess..... being a prophet is not the same as being a pastor...
As well as the "there's no males or females, slaves or free, jew or gentile" argument..... they claim that this means there are no role differences, but this scripture is simply talking about inheritance..... meaning males, females, slaves, free, jews, and gentiles will all inherit the Kingdom of God (as long as they believe Christ is their Lord and Savior). This is a perfect example of using eisegesis instead of exegesis.
Scripture is clear that there are role differences between men and women within the church as well as with in a marriage. To claim that it isn't so is just an error....
Have you watched his whole series on it? It's really good, and you will learn alot more about this subject.
@@DrDoerk you just want to refuse to look at the text in context in the original language. It's fine you can be like that. But it's not reading personal beliefs. I've been in both camps and after thoroughly looking into it I am no longer complementarian as it is a false depiction of the text due to it being translated into English and a gross decontextualixation. It is not honest to hold this position. You are looking at one example of Debra. I don't even consider that as part of the argument against complementarianism.
"why have some people taken 3 verses and made church policy out of it?"
Sola scriptura.
Biblical inerrancy.
The scriptures are sufficient.
It seems to me he gave the game away when he said that. It’s only three little verses... Same argument the pro LGBT side makes. The bible doesn’t talk about it constantly sooo it must not be an important issue? 🤦🏻
Ironically, the doctrines of sola scriptura and biblical inerrancy are themselves both unbiblical.
@@eugenesanders3094 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21… Revelation 22:18-19
@@justinwright3250 None of those verses support the false doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Yes, "all inspired scripture" is profitable, but understand that nowhere in the Bible does it give us a list of which books or which passages are "inspired." The authors of 2 Tim, 2 Peter & Revelation are absolutely not referring to the 66 books of the Protestant Canon, as no such Canon existed until long after those epistles & Rev was written. So...how do we know which scripture is "inspired"? Through the same Holy Spirit who inspired certain scriptures with profitable words of divine instruction. Through prayer & discernment, the Holy Spirit will reveal to you what is inspired.
"Slaves, obey your masters." Why did so many people work to overthrow slavery instead of insisting slaves become ever more obedient and pleasing to those who owned them?
Amazing how so many English Christians change their theology or embrace new teachings to suit the spirit of the age...
Perhaps the spirit of the age is finally catching up to what is genuinely in the Bible. Maybe Jesus was the ultimate "progressive" and society is finally catching up.
@@denisenoe1534 Nah that's not it
God is the same yesterday, today and forever, he is unchanging. The God of the OT Is the same in the NT.
Exactly! That was one problem in the first century. Women were taking over and taking authority, a women's lib of that day.
The Anglican church is the state church of freemasonic Britain.
Enough said.
NT Wright spent a lot of time doing read into the passages. But he’s always played into the hands who those who want Christianity molded into their lives instead of looking at the scriptures and asking God to mold us.
Paul didn't do a good enough job explaining his instruction. And the Bible translators messed up. So we need a Bible scholar to pull from unrelated scripture, ideas from other men and presumptions of history and culture. He did not prove anything but did a good job of creating a sense of doubt. So that those that believe women can preach to men can FEEL validation. And those that believes otherwise to second guess what is clearly written. Not once did he say he consulted the Holy Ghost to get true understanding of the passage. So he is already failed it.
WOW! This guy clears this matter up. You got to watch this! Let me know what you think?
th-cam.com/video/DZsS0DqJ2ZY/w-d-xo.html
💯 agree
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I've never heard God's word being distorted so eloquently, and his voice!
you accuse NT wright?😮
NT Wright is a smart guy. But come on! Complementarians aren't arguing that women don't have any role in ministry. Complementarians aren't arguing that Christ didn't wonderfully highlight the equality and spiritual fullness of women.
Complementarians are arguing, from Biblical texts, that the office of elder/overseer/pastor is for men only. And that whole church, agenda-setting preaching is one of the functions of that office.
Tom - stop dodging the biblical texts that are actually presented and just picking up on general texts that highlight women being valuable - nobody (except tiny majority, and not from the Bible) is arguing over those.
Steven,
I think in regard specifically to women being pastors/elders/overseers as you say, an unmarried woman can be in those positions. When looking 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9, we have to use some rationale as well.
First, if someone suggests that only married men can be in these positions, then they are ignorant of the fact that the author, Paul, was not married at the time of the writings. So, would he be disqualified himself? No, he wouldn't. If a man considered for the position is married, THEN let him be a husband of one wife.
Second, those Scriptures also bring out that a wife and the children can disqualify a man from becoming an elder or bishop. If they are unruly or live unholy lifestyles, that man cannot be in the position. So, I bring that up to say that the wives are called to basically live up to the same high standards as their husbands. But, to think that only married women could live up to a holy standard is ludicrous.
Numbers 30 gives a good backdrop to what Paul possibly might have had in his mind in speaking on marriage when he wrote 1 Timothy 2:12. The husband can disannul a wife's vow in OT times. The wife couldn't do the same for her husband. But, God explicitly says that widows and divorced women had no such barriers on them. Given that the end of 1Timothy 2 refers back to Adam and Eve, who were were husband and wife, I contend that Paul may be thinking from that standpoint that the wife shouldn't be teaching or becoming a rabbi to her own husband even though she can certainly learn. If she is allowed to be like a rabbi to her husband, then that upsets God's order in marriage. Hence, Paul doesn't permit this to happen, I contend, no matter how skilled or how much the wife learns or is even more spiritually mature than her husband.
Also, given that we know and understand that when "man" is used in many Scriptures, it is talking about male and female such as 2 Corinthians 5:17
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." Men are not the only new creatures. But, taking a very literalist view on the verse is low interpretation skills. Yet, I am not saying that a woman can be substituted in for the man in those verses.
In addition, if 1 Timothy 2:12 is taken to mean no woman, no matter her status, can't usurp authority over any other man, then you have some problems with Deborah and the Proverbs 31-type woman who had her own business and had workers under her. This could applied to mothers with their sons as well, even adult sons. That doesn't quite wash. I think that context makes more sense in talking about a wife usurping authority over her husband.
Having said all that, if an unmarried woman meets the high moral standards of the 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 passages, she would not violate them. She would be like Paul by virtue of not being married and having that particular issue.
My question is did phoebe preach or did she delivered the letter from Paul
I totally agree when he said there are people who interpret things based on highly selective portions of scriptures - there are those who specifically look at narratives and give their interpretation and not at the teaching letters in the NT. He clearly demonstrates it.
that is exactly what he has just done with his explanation.
@@erickanlaebk Thank you. I was baffled by his hypocrisy and the fact that he did not even address the central verses to the argument which in my mind are 1 Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:5-6 (which completely destroys his cultural Ephesus argument) and then he tries to say the whole argument is made out of these three verses which he must know is not the case. I'm sorry but his argument was very loose at best and misleading at worst.
@@sharplikecheddar2 look up Melissa Scott discussing this. If you can take a PhD, multilingual female talking about it....
@@rachelm9350 I am familiar with her and if this is your best argument then I stand even more firm in my position. Her arguments for woman pastors do not tackle the most prominent verses against it and she has several questionable teachings. Not to mention her examples that she often uses, woman of the church, were great people no doubt but were not pastors.
What’s more likely, approx 2000 year of church history has gotten this teaching wrong or new age feminist of the last few decades are the ones that have polluted the doctrine?
I encourage you to not allow others to make the argument for you. Search the scriptures for yourself and pray on what you read.
Woman are just as valuable as men but we each play different roles in the home and church. If you have a problem with it take it up with God, don’t fool yourself with earthly justifications.
@@rachelm9350 "If you can take a PhD, multilingual female talking about it..."
If you want to win an argument, resorting to petty insults like that doesn't serve you well. It's not intelligent argument and it's not following the commands of Christ.
Women were the first evangelists! This was a huge revelation for me today, thank you so much!
Indeed, the woman at the well in John 4 predates even the witnesses to the resurrection.
everyone is to evangelize
but men are to be the authority in the church, just as how Adam was the authority over the woman since the beginning of the world
Note that Adam had authority over Eve AFTER the Fall, not before. This is precisely what Wright was saying at the beginning of the video. Christ is restoring the proper role of women as part of the new creation.
@@GuyFaux-iz5itactually she was to be Adam’s helper, she was to help Adam fulfill His God given role. Adam also named His wife before the fall which shows His authority, And when sin entered the world God held Adam the most accountable for through one Man sin entered the world.
I look up 1 for 14: 34ff. Paul asks for acknowledgement that men should recognize that what he is teaching is the Lord's command vs37. Paul treats this as the Lord's will, not just something cultural. Can women share the gospel? Certainly. Do women get to lead in church? Certainly not. This is the Lord's command, and if a command given to the new testament church then it would be valid today as well.
What scripture says women cannot lead in church?
Jade Lee when I looked up 1 Cor14: 34 ff 34Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. 38But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Here you have it Jade The Scripture which Paul describes as a command. So either Scripture is our authority or it isn't. I realize that this is counter-cultural but again is Scripture our authority or is the culture we live in our authority? I think scripture is quite clear here. Not did I say that women can't preach or teach. I do however submit that they may not preach in church according to the scripture I quoted. I remind you that Paul refers to this as the Lord's command. Sorry you see it differently
@@jenverhelst6477 The funny thing is this scripture is not even referring to preaching. Not even bringing the original Greek or context into this, the english itself shows this was a matter of disrupting the service. Elsewhere in Corinthians Paul acknowledges both men and women prophesying in the congregation (where he regulates hair styles/attire) and he does not describe this behaviour as sinful. He does not stop women from prophesying in church. The verse you gave, when yanked out context like that implies that ANY sort of speech by a woman in church is shameful. Never mind that Paul silences three different groupsn in this passage (including men) according the problems presented by this single, particular church. I'm afraid you've misunderstood this verse.
Jade Lee when I look at the passage in context, then Paul is speaking about orderly worship and in the immediate context particularly about prophesying which includes preaching if then he states that the Lord’s command is that women are to be silent in the churches I'm going to conclude that women are to be silent. I don't think I took anything out of context. I grant you that taking the context in consideration is important and you opened my eyes further so that I can better defend my reading of Scripture.
@@jenverhelst6477 Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is all about maintaining order and decorum in church gatherings and silencing the disorderly talk from some tongues-speakers, prophets, and women. The same imperative Greek verb for “be silent” is used for each of these three groups of people.
~ A tongues-speaker, male or female, is to be silent (sigaō) and stop speaking in tongues if there is no one to interpret (1 Cor. 14:28).
~ A prophet, male or female, is to be silent (sigaō) and stop prophesying ifsomeone else receives a revelation (1 Cor. 14:30).
~ Women are to be silent (sigaō) and stop asking questions if there is anything they want to learn(manthanō); they should keep their questions for home (1 Cor. 14:34-35). These questions may have been directed to the men and women prophesying: prophecy was so that everyone could learn (manthanō) and be encouraged. See 1 Corinthians 14:31.
All these people need to hold their tongues and stop speaking in these situations. But 1 Corinthians 14 is not about silencing tongues-speakers, prophets, or women altogether.
If Deborah was a Judge for Israel and God said that the Judges were their shepherds(1 Chron.17:6)........
That is GREAT! I missed that. Probably should
add it to my short essay on Deborah I wrote a few
months ago.
... the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people...
But it happened that same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying, “Go and tell David My servant, ‘This is what the Lord says: “You shall not build a house for Me to dwell in; for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up Israel to this day, but I have gone from tent to tent and from one dwelling place to another. 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?’”’ Now, therefore, this is what you shall say...
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17
I will never understand how people can completely ignore scripture regarding this. What I have been told is women used to scream out in church and this is the reason it was said women are to be quiet in churches but how do you ignore 1Timothy 3:1-13and 1Tomothy 2:12?
You should watch other videos where he discusses this, they're very enlightening. You're not going to get his entire argument and biblical evidence for it in a 12 minute video.
Are we ignoring it? Or are we trying to understand it in light of actual historical cntectvthst May offer us a different perspective!
Be Encouraged!😁
Hmmmm a lot of theorising and extrapolating beyond what scripture actually stated. Look at the direct statements in scripture first and foremost. There are enough direct strong statements on the subject and they go a different way. Romans 16 doesn’t state the woman was an apostle but rather that she was known ‘among’ the apostles, which can simply be taken to be saying she was known to and by the apostles. It is not by any means quite what Wright seems to be saying, at least it’s highly arguable. Look at Paul’s many more direct statements on the matter. I find it a bit scary when someone does with scripture what I just heard. Stick closer to the passage and leave out theories.
Some of Pauls direct statements though appear contradictory either with each other or his practice which is why it seems there is something to interpret. For instance he says women should be silent in church but he also says they should cover their heads when they are prophesysing. It's also easy to see Jesus commissioning women to spread a message, e.g. Mary or the Samaritan woman. We could make a distinction between this and preaching but is there such a clear cut distinction between speaking from a pulpit and speaking to people in everyday life.
@@gareth2736 please explain where a pulpit is mentioned in Scripture?
@@fluffybabybunny5822 ok the distinction between "speaking in church" and speaking in other settings if you either didn't understand or wanted to be pedantic.
@@gareth2736 OK, to be pedantic (again) please let us all know where in scripture there are examples of 'speaking in church' verses 'speaking in other settings' and of course, subsequent instructions for future churches for all time after the immediate mention?
Gareth Sarjeant Just avoid that guy replying to you comment.
Oky you’re basically saying, we can’t for sure conclude Women’s role in church because it’s Written from Paul’s perspective which differs from what Jesus himself told women?
Readers of 1 Timothy 2 overlook the fact that Paul gave reasons for the restriction on women's teaching ." Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
His reasons for the restriction are clearly stated in verses 13 and 14.
We may not like them, we may disagree with Paul, but his reasons remain and are founded in historical fact
Doesn't work, because of Deborah, who came after Eve.
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 REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
Some of the interpretations that Dr. Wright presents here are quite new to me. The fact that Mary was the first to see the risen Jesus and report it to the Apostles is used as a powerful argument for the authenticity of the Bible. In a male dominated culture if this was a made up story they would never have written that a woman was the first to see Jesus. That being said, I don't see how Mary reporting on an experience she had can be equated with preaching, and by extension being a pastor or holding authority over men. Similarly, I didn't see how Phoebe presenting and reading Paul's letter can be equated with her being a pastor. In my understanding a pastor is someone who shepherds a congregation, so in areas of spirituality has a certain authority over them. I was surprised by Dr. Wright's interpretation of why Paul instructed women to dress modestly. The furtherest thing from my mind was that this was because they would be seen as "the pretty little accessories" of their husbands. I guess that this is because I don't look at women that way. I thought that Paul instructed them to be modest because modesty is a virtue and the opposite of pride, actually humility is the opposite of pride, but humble people dress modestly. Finally, I know a lot of people reading 1 Timothy read it to mean that a women should never have a authority over a man, but I understand this purely in the context of Church and marriage, I do not see what Paul teaches as extending to the occupational or organization context in this instance.
No woman shall have authority over me at the point of Doctrine, this is a hill that I`m willing to die on.
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine and accurate instruction [that challenges them with God’s truth]; but wanting to have their ears tickled [with something pleasing], they will accumulate for themselves [many] teachers [one after another, chosen] to satisfy their own desires and to support the errors they hold,
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet." 1 Timothy 2.12
@@dianashepherd3241 By applying your hermeneutics techniques to the BIble we're left not with the inspired Word of God but with human reasoning,. Deborah and the few others are the exception that confirm the rule. By the way there was never a priestess in the OT, the Lord leaves that clear
@@dianashepherd3241 same principle apllies; they're the exception that confirms the rule. Indeed women are expected to exercise Leadership in the Church, over other women and children. Never over men
You need to go back to your 5th grande ENGLISH class and learn the difference between a SINGULAR TERM and a PLURAL TERM son! The bible here says, "a womAn," NOT "all womEn!" This means that only a certain type of womAn can to teach, You know, the type of lady that had to have everything "my way, or the highway" and refused to listen to another point of view, and those that refuse to submit to their husbands and they go behind his back to do what ever they please! If all womEn can not teach, then a mother teaching her son is a SINNER! And take that verse in context! That verse is referring to a time when men and women used to sit on opposite side of the pews and yelled out at their husbands to anger and question, SO Paul was giving a simple instruction of using MANNERS! I bet you anything that if you heard a man in church tell your wife, mother or daughter to shut up, you would be giving that person a black eye!
@@saxmanjpr5092 The apostle Paul is talking in general terms, not referring to any particular type of woman; He goes further to present two reasons: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner". Adam having seniority over Eve (he was created first) and Eve being deceived by Satan, not Adam. Strong biblical churches respect God's word and submit to Him in obedience, not rebellion.
@@josejimenez4177 That all depends on interpretation. A Baptist preacher once said he had the right to kill me (because I disagreed with himO) AND attempted to do so, AND quoted the bible. "Jesus used a whip in the temple." Well, the cops got a good laugh and still threw that ass hole in the slammer! Your interpretation is wrong son. Western culture has no clue of where the original bible came from. Tell you what. Tell me mother and sister to shut and and watch how fast you end up sinning soprano!
For any ladies watching who have questions, I would recommend God’s Word to Women by Katharine C. Bushnell. I can’t vouch for everything she says, but she makes a very convincing case for the misinterpretation and in some cases longstanding traditional mistranslation of the passages placing restrictions on women. It’s worth a read at least.
Katherine and other similar names are my favorite. 🥰 My favorite saint is Catherine of Alexandria.
2:18 Junia was not an Apostle. She was "known of" by the Apostles.
Romans 16:7 ESV
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,
That's a questionable section of the ESV translation, try the NIV
Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... th-cam.com/video/GgjaBClU3Pw/w-d-xo.html
How can reformed teachers hold the position of cessationism but also hold the position of women not being able to teach. I am just asking a question not being presumptuous. How can we believe spiritual gifts were for the establishing of the church and not today. But also believe the early churches function of womens roles are to never change.
Are you implying women's role are irretrievably tied to continuationism?
@@nobleprince1238 no this comment was made during a time when i lacked knowledge in this area. I see now that womens roles in the church is tied to the time it was established and for the continuation of the church's existence. Whereas spiritual gifts was a tool to advance the church and build the church. I have a different perspective now.
my issue is that, accepting all of this, how radical in regards to women the NT is, it STILL doesn't have Jesus ordaining any women, nor anyone ordaining women
Jesus doesn't "ordain" anybody in the NT; He gives the great commission at the end of Matthew, but that isn't an ordination (He doesn't say "all of you are now priests/deacons/ministers"). Also, in Romans 16:1, Paul talks about "Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae," giving us a clear and unambiguous case in the NT of a woman holding a church office. Wright discusses this in the video.
@@jamesreilly7416 Jesus blows on a specific group of people and says to them "those sins thou shalt forgive shall be forgiven, those sins thou shalt retain shall be retained". He also gives peter and the apostles the keys to the kingdom, to bind and loose
@@jamesreilly7416 women being deacons isn't the issue, it's being priests thats the issue. The 12 apostles are given a hierachy, with Peter serving as a kind of first among equals. Jesus confers the powers of the priesthood onto them, and we know they have sucessors because there are other priests in the nT after Jesus' minstry. Just because Jesus isnt shown as doing something directly doesnt mean He didnt do it, we see Him confer priestly authority onto people, and we see their sucessors. Thats more than enough to make the inference
Grear explanation! We need to go beyond "American" Views on this kind if topic, because as Dr Wright says there is normally a cultural reason for some kind of exégesis
Galatians 1:6-10 ESV
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... th-cam.com/video/GgjaBClU3Pw/w-d-xo.html
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, an holy nation, a PECULIAR PEOPLE; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
So? What does being a Holy nation have to do with holding the office of Elder?
@@Brandon.Germany You missed the point entirely. 🙄
´´Highly selective view of scripture.´´ Women must keep silent in church. But what about ´´your sons and daughters will prophesy´´? Who is being ´´highly selective´´ now? A woman must not prophecy with her head uncovered. Clearly if she was decently dressed according to the customs of the day, she could pray and prophecy in meetings. So clearly women must sometimes keep silent and sometimes speak out. Who is using a highly selective view of scripture? Strict traditional legalists for nearly 2000 years.
You are going to hurt some people’s heads here with your logic.
By strict logic Paul does not say women may prophesy with a covered head, only that they may not with an uncovered one. He forbids it absolutely in chapter 14.
Beware any man who comes to you with a 'new' interpretation of Scripture.
@@LeoRegum If we truly lived by that logic, then not only would the Reformation never happened, but Christianity wouldn't exist because the Apostles had a "new" interpretation of the Hebrew Bible that pointed to a crucified Messiah instead of a military ruler like King David.
In Israel's story over and over and over again they thought one thing but God meant to do something else and we as the church are descendants of Israel. What is true of them is true of us. I pray that Jesus' church has the humility to be discerning about things that may be scary for us to wrestle with.
@@frankm6546 The reformers quote extensively from the Fathers; they were not bringing about novel teachings and stress as much in their writings, if you would read them. The fact that God-appointed Apostles had the authority to bring about revelation is entirely irrelevant unless you claim to be such a one.
@@LeoRegum Before you read my reply I want you to know that I see you as a sibling of mine in Christ, regardless of your denomination or theological stances, as long as you see yourself as a disciple of our Lord Jesus. I won't be replying to more comments, so please have the final say in our discussion. I look forward to learning from you.
To address your statement, yes the reformers quoted very extensively from the early church fathers.....to show that the medieval catholic church had strayed from the original teachings of the Gospel so far that the church needed reforming! I've read quite a bit of the ECF, Justin Martyr being a favorite of mine.
Instead of taking any interpretation of scripture that is different from yours as a "heretical new teaching", I pray that we can continue to come together and have conversations about what all of these writings mean in the language they were written in (Greek) and in the context they were written in (1st century Jewish thought translated into Greek writing). God bless.
Yes, oh yes. And they are English! This is balm to my soul.
I'd like to see a debate between N.T. Wright and John MacArthur on this.
That would sure gather my attention....yes that would be Great to see.
John MacArthur is much too arrogant to even condescend to have this conversation, from what I've seen.
@@DunderMifflin_ThisisPam You don`t know that for sure, I have listened to John many times as well as N.T. Wright. Both of them have strong personal convictions and I`m sure both of us, that is you and I also have. I sit under two Women Pastors in our church and do listen to them but there are challenges....
See, I did not even get to the reading part I knew he was speculating. When reading the scripture he said he actually does not know.
That is because he was reading from the Greek, and some Greek words held many meanings...so he's just being honest and saying, at this moment, I can't tell you exactly what is being said...I respect the fact that he is honest, and lets us know, he doesn't know, instead of picking a defining word and running with it.
Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... th-cam.com/video/GgjaBClU3Pw/w-d-xo.html
How poor. The fact that women went to the tomb is made an endorsement of church leadership by women. Not one woman was made an elder or apostle. The example of Junia in Romans is also incredibly weak. The manuscript evidence is mixed as to whether it is a woman or a man. And it is far more likely if it is referring to a woman that Paul says she is highly respected by the apostles, not that her and her husband are apostles. The explanation of ITim.2 was simply obfuscation. He seeks to avoid clear exegesis because of some supposedly massive support of women teachers and leaders in the rest of the NT. But they are notable for their absence. The women in Rom16 were serving the church very well, churches were meeting in their homes. But none are elders, pastors, teachers.
Was Adam not created first? Did God not create women to a helper for men? Did Paul not teach in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." The letter in Romans was written to Christians in Rome, not directly to one person. The wording in Romans 16 cannot even begin to be interpreted as being a letter written to Phoebe as it is clearly addressing a group of people and talking about Phoebe, not directly to her. Assuming your historical idea that people will read out the letters that were sent to them is true, Phoebe would never have read that out because it is evident that it wasn't written or addressed precisely to her. This is a very, very loose argument. Also, how is it interesting that churches take three passages and make a whole church policy on it? That has happened with countless church policies- strong and Biblically sound!
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation 2nd Peter 1:20
A deacon is husband of one wife -so don't wrest the scripture.
You are either a Bible believer or Bible corrector and this is what is happening here he is using his intelligence to try and undermine simple Bible doctrine
Was Paul not clear in 1 Corinthians 14
Yes he was. He was speaking to a specific church about a specific problem that has nothing to do directly with us.
Incorrect, every one of Paul’s epistles is a book of doctrine for the church.
1 Corinthians 14 does not talk about teaching, but rather seems to prohibit women speaking at all in church. However, 3 chapters prior, Paul states that women should cover their heads if they pray or prophecy in church. So obviously Paul does not simply teach that women should remain silent at all times in church, because if that were the case then he would have no reason to discuss what they wear on their heads when doing so.
@@RowanAldridge correct. There are a few interpretations in exactly what Paul is doing/saying here. Each have a certain amount of plausiblity. All we can really know for sure is that he definitely WAS NOT imposing a restriction on women in every circumstance. Otherwise he would have been contradicting himself in many places in his epistles.
@@MikeAndDrewPranks do you always greet your brothers with a holy kiss? I think Paul says that 3 times (at least) .
1 Timothy 2:12 is talking about husband and wife.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP authority over THE MAN, but to be in silence."
The scripture uses the word usurp which means 'take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.' So a women just teaching a man and them willingly listening or the woman got the authoritative role rightfully is not wrong. If anyone usurps authority over anybody they are wrong. Also notice how it say "THE Man" it must be talking about a specific man right? Aka 'husband.' The greek word used here translates to "a woman, specifically a wife." also the greek word used here for permit which Is used in other bible translations is the greek word 'epitrepo' which is a temporary type of permit, if that means anything...
the scripture then proceeds to talk about Adam an eve, One man and woman, they were husband and wife. It then talks about child bearing which only happened when a husband and a wife comes together and makes a baby. But a woman being saved through child bearing is not biblically correct and it contradicts the whole New Testament. Which says u r saved through Christ Jesus. But that’s a different topic for a different time..
In conclusion this scripture is talking about the WIVES IN CHURCH who were belittling their husbands taking their HUSBANDS authoritative role in church.
1 corthinains 33:35-36 paul was saying a statement, a tradition, a law people said about women and answered it with a rhetorical/sarcastic like question
"What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"
1 Corinthians 14:36 KJV
not only that, 1 Corinthians 14:34 says:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are Commanded to be Understood Obedience, AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW." Yet we’re aren’t under the law but under grace.
Also we arent even sure if this law was a Jewish made law or a law given by God, not that that matters tho. We go by the spirit not the law. Jesus fullfilled the law. if we love one another we fullfilled the law. Reread Galatians, and Romans. if we are of the spirit why does it matter if a woman stays silent in church cuz the law says so? Christians are under grace. so if a woman had to obey the law she has to obey everything That also means the men as well. we should be stoning people right now, not eating pork or shrimp, women shouldnt go out on their period, AND ESPECIALLY WE SHOULDNT BE HAVING CHURCH ON SUNDAY but Saturday. to tell woman now to obey the law when Christians arent under it and nobody else is really obeying everything else in the law is hypocritical.
-Check the replied comment to see the few examples of women teaching and having an authoritative role over men in the bible.
Here are some women in the bible who had authority and taught in the old testament and new testament.
And also u cant say the women in the old testament doesn't apply to us now, because if that's the case say the same to job, Jacob, Joseph, Isaac..ect or any other person in the old testament. We r supose to learn from the old testament not discard it also we arent under the law they were in. Roman's 15:4. Also u cant say they did that just for Israel. Israel is God chosen people. We as Christian's are God's chosen people, and we as God' people are the church as well as any jew that believes. It's not about the building. The old testament shows if God can do it for those people, then what more can and would he do for us who are in christ jesus. Anyways, also we shouldnt pick and choose who's relevant in the bible theirs a reason why they are in there.
OT
-Deborah(a judge over Israel, and a woman who lead an army, a prophet. It wasnt really a thing for women to lead an army and it was made known in the judges where it talks about her)
-Mariam(lead Israel with with her brothers)
-huldah(a prophet)
NT
- Priscilla (missionary with her husband, she taught Apollos)
-phebe( a minister, deacon, servant of the lord)
- other women in Paul's ministry
-the samaritan woman(she discipled her husbands)
- mary magdalene( was a follower of jesus she also was a woman who witness jesus's resurrection, women back then weren't seen as witnesses, so to her to be a witness and tell the 12 disciples has great importance)
To say God is against women who teach men and have some type of authority role over them, would be God contradicting himself. Which God cant do. He's not an author of confusion. God is never changing. He's no respecter of person.
So good. The "under the law" thing you mentioned.
It proves some grumpy churchfather had its say and added to the Word.
God made man according to His own image and likeness. Man AND woman He made them. Same fullness.
In Christ differences in man-woman cease to exist.
We ALL with unveiled faces reflect His glory and are being changed into His Image from glory to glory by the Spirit who is the Lord. Same fullness.
It is common knowledge that the early churchfathers added, manipulated the word of God. So just saying: it is written, without Spirit revelation by Holy Spirit can do a lot of harm.
I know woman that preach that are in error, i know man that preach and are a horrible representation of how Christ intented life to be.
Truth doesn't change. We are all complete in Christ. Man and woman alike. And grow in to Him in all things.
Col 2:9-10. The fullness of deity dwells in Jesus bodily and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM (the last Adam!) who is the head of all principality and power.
Because of what God did in Christ you automatically became what you are already. A new creation in Christ.
A partaker of the divine nature for free. 2 Pet 1:3-4.
We awake by the Spirit to that fact and grow in to Him, the normal divine nature, for free. Because of His great love for us, His creation. 2 Cor 3:18.
Out of His fullness we have received.
Good news, joy unspeakable. God came, took us in and restored us back to original created value to walk as Jesus.
As He is.... so are we. All that is His is ours. The Father in Christ and Christ in us. Seamless oneness. For free. Yay!
Thank you Jesus for opening our eyes to the inexpressible riches, the normal divine nature, we have received in You.
Women. Preach it, teach it, live it! You are so equally in!!!
Let's share the good news.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Here’s why:
825. αὐθεντέω authenteō verb
Have or exercise authority over.
Grammatical Form:
1. αὐθεντεῖν authentein inf pres act
Concordance:
1
to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,
1 Tm 2:12
Word Studies:
Classical Greek
Authenteō is a word made up from autos, “self,” and entuō or entunō, “to prepare or equip.” The self factor in the meaning is very strong, being enforced not only in autos but also by the nature of the verb entuno. Writers of classical Greek used authenteō to describe murders plotted against one’s own (self) family members for one’s own (self) benefit. Authenteō is evident in the English word authentic. (Related cognates are rendered “original” or something “created” by a person.) Another classical use translates it as “absolute authority.”
The verb authenteō is a rare word not attested prior to the First Century B.C., and then only in a couple of papyri. It is not used in either the Septuagint or Josephus, although cognates authentēs and authentia appear in the Septuagint (Wisdom 12:6 and 3 Maccabees 2:29, respectively).
New Testament Usage
Its sole occurrence in the New Testament is found in 1 Timothy 2:12. An analysis of the modern translations of the New Testament will show some variance in nuance. Essentially three senses are represented: (1) “to usurp authority” (KJV), taking authority not properly delegated; (2) “to domineer” (ASV, NEB), the abuse of properly delegated authority; and (3) “to have authority” of any sort (NIV, RSV).
A recent article (1984) by George Knight (“Authenteō in Reference to Women”) thoroughly analyzes the occurrences of authenteō, and shows that in its earliest uses (First Century B.C. to Second Century A.D.) it means simply “to have authority.” “The authority in view in the documents is understood to be a positive concept and is in no way regarded as having any overtones of misuse of position or power, i.e., ‘to domineer’ ” (pp.150-151). Even as late as Sixth Century A.D., this basic sense still predominated. Thus he and others believe that the first and second options above should be rejected in favor of the third. Paul did not permit women in Ephesus to have authority of any sort over men. The problem at Ephesus was that many influential women were being persuaded by false teachers and were “going about from house to house . . . saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:13, NIV). In 2:11 Paul exhorted these women to learn and be in full submission. These two injunctions exactly parallel the prohibitions “to teach” and “to have authority” in verse 12.
Thoralf Gilbrant, ed., “825. αὐθεντέω,” in The Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary - Alpha-Gamma, (Springfield, MO: Complete Biblical Library, 1991).
Furthermore how could Paul be referring to a husband and wife relationship when 1 Timothy is not a general epistle (written to the church in general), but a pastoral epistle (written to & for pastors)? Now that is exactly what Paul says in it:
“These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
I Timothy 3:14-15 NKJV
Thus it is clear, the whole purpose for the entire epistle was to instruct Timothy (a young pastor) on how to conduct the church services, i.e., what to allow & what not to allow in the church. (And) In 1 Tim. 2:12, he instructs him not to allow women to teach or “exercise” authority over men. Which is in keeping with God’s natural order of things (1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:3). It’s really that simple!
If the Bible says that women should be silent in the church then how is it biblical to have women pastors in the church
So many issues in the word of God has a thread from start to finish and this issue of the women is one of those that unfortunately some get to wrapped up in the couple of scriptures that keep women in a box but the overarching thread is missed and NT is very gifted at bringing out some simple common sense to assist in picking up the thread.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 14:34 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. 14:35 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. 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 14:37 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. 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Thank you for pointing out Biblical truth!
This is so liberating... for 30years I was in a church that believed that women aren't to be in any seen ministry and the church now, though I'm a 'leader', it seems to be by name only.... I'm so grateful to hear this from a very learned man.
Just because someone says something that you like doesn’t make it true. Be sure to always stick to the Word of GOD.
1 Corinthians 14:34-37 KJVS
[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. [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. [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.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 KJVS
[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.
"11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
2 Thess 2:11-13 (ESV)
@@roblane5699 ................"11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
2 Thess 2:11-13 (ESV)
Nothing and no one should deceive you into disobeying the Commandment of the Lord for woman to be silent in the churches. The Devil and his disciples will try by appealing to your fleshly desires, but you must resist....
Eww, how dare this "Earnest" guy call someone deluded or unrighteous for wanting to obey the Great Commission and save souls. Makes you wonder who is truly being influenced by the devil. I bet he doesn't know Koine Greek (neither did the KJV translators!) but he is stopping his ears to someone who does, just because his fragile ego can't handle what this scholar is saying.
If anyone is interested Mike Winger has the most in depth explanation regarding women in ministry I’ve ever seen. I highly recommend it. He has a massive video series that addresses pretty much all of this.
While he certainly did a fair amount of research, he certainly did not look into the matter as much as he could have. There are numerous scholars that have brought up issues with his points (which he has yet to address), and I myself, a simple laywoman, was able to find a fair amount of research myself that directly contradicts his points. Rather unfortunate considering the wide reach he has.
@@marstothestars33 I recommend commenting on his last video because he’s asked for anything he didn’t consider. I really believe he wants to know the truth and is doing his best to find it. He said he went into his research hopping to becoming egalitarian and was very disappointed in the lack of evidence he found. Have you watched the whole 40 or 50+ hour series? Who would you recommend for more information?
@@GraceandFranz I don't disagree with looking at multiple perspectives on a issue. I think it's very wise. I was just saying that Mike Winger comes up short on various points. I know people hold to his statement that he "researched into the issue hoping to become egalitarian and became complimentarian instead," but when this research ignores lots of sound evidence and scholarly criticism, it becomes a bit of a moot point, especially considering that others have researched the matter as well, some for YEARS, and came to the opposite conclusion. And I have watched the series. I wouldn't be saying this otherwise. My point is simply that watching him as if he's the be-all-end-all on the issue is not very wise considering the holes in his points.
@@marstothestars33 who do you recommend reading or listening to?
@@GraceandFranz I didn't really come to my conclusion through watching a TH-cam video. It came from reading historical documents, Greek concordances, and scholarly writings on the matter. In this regard NT Wright is right on the mark (at least in reading directly from the Greek). Although this is a rather short video, so it doesn't quite address all the points.
If I were to recommend anyone, I would recommend Terran Williams. He is egalitarian, yes. But he approaches the matter respectfully and with regards to the original language used and the historical background behind these passages, not mere emotional or "quota" arguments. He does quite the elaborate breakdown of Mike Winger's videos. After all, critical thinking is not just viewing the perspectives of our own "side."