Why women should be church leaders and preachers // Ask NT Wright anything 

I appreciate comments like these. God bless you!

So, my wife should come to church with me and see that I am under the authority of another female (the pastor at my church), she may wonder how come in the household she has ceded the authority to her husband as determined in the Bible and yet the Church has made itself special and said those rules r for u, but we have different rules for us. The problem is that God requires order. that requirement for order must not allow my wife to see me under the authority of any other women that is a contradiction, and is disrespectful to her. That is a fundamental objection to the female pastor. Also if u make the female pastor OK then the family leadership is up for grabs also. In most families the women will lead because they r simply better at it, however, maybe God wants the men to lead, maybe because they are not much good at it and need to be encouraged to take control of their families. Whatever the reason, that patriarchal system is the model laid down. Spoiler Alert - most women reject it both within and outside the church. The consequences ?

@@gtolose "The problem is that God requires order." Not quite. God IS order. The human condition (ie 'infected' with sin) is not. Your subsequent application of that (as you've described above) is part of that human condition. The Kingdom of God does not look like that at all. We know that because Jesus tells us in Matt 20:25. Hierarchy is MAN MADE. Mutuality is God's way. There is no 'authority' among humans that isn't a product (and sometimes a necessity) of our sinful condition. In the Kingdom it is only the Godhead that has authority. Thus, we have people in charge here, people to have the 'last word' because we have elected or appointed them, and we can remove their authority if they abuse it. We recognise it as transitory as opposed to ontological. In complementarian ideology such authority isn't appointed but intrinsic: it is assumed by virtue of genitalia and it cannot be removed or given to another who does not have the required genitalia. This is about as far from God's Kingdom as anything else we call 'idolatrous'. We have effectively given men the position that only Christ can possibly ever have. We have persistently sinned in the way of the first two commandments, and the two 'greatest' commandments cited in the Gospels by Jesus. "if u make the female pastor OK then the family leadership is up for grabs also" - absolutely correct! The problem is that you've assumed and authority in the home that you don't have and I don't think there is scope to repeat it all here. Much scholarship has been done on this by folks like Philip Payne, Gordon Fee, Margaret Mowczko, Sarah Bessey, Lee Grady, Ron Pierce, Rebecca Groothius, Loren Cunningham, Scot McKnight, John Temple Bristow: I could go on - my point is not to say these are 'better' at interpreting the bible than complementarian scholars, but just to provide some names to investigate and measure their works on their individual merits. "Spoiler Alert - most women reject it both within and outside the church" - not sure where you get this from - perhaps it's a cultural issue, because I certainly don't see it in my circles. Most women want a partnership with men and husbands, not an hierarchy. Of course, when men refuse to partner it can LOOK LIKE women are trying to 'seize power', but it is very much the way a child who has had a toy unfairly take off them by another child and tries to get it back. We are all God's children, and he handed out those toys (gifts) fairly. Men have grasped them from the hands of women then complained and even used violence when women have either complained about the unfairness or attempted to take them back.

Fluffy Baby Bunny If we are to agree that God is the authoritarian, deserving of all honor and respect and worship because he is God, and, as you say, he IS order, then we have to also accept that the order in which she did things was very specific and for a very specific reason. God created man before he created woman. When he created all the other animals, he made them in pairs, male and female. So does that make us think he didn’t know what he was doing whenever he created man alone? I think there is a theological purpose intended for the order of when the human male was created. He created the animals together. He created humans, male first and then female out of male. Genesis 2:20 says that woman would be a helper for man because, before God created her, he did not have a helper. He assigned roles to us so that we would function within them. Because of sin, that has been tainted and so therefore we redefine those roles according to what we pridefully think they should be. Just because we want something to be true, and one can justify it in different directions or find different sources that agree to make those justifications more “true“, doesn’t mean that is what is actually truth.

@@KingdomFTX I've always maintained that the debate over gender roles is not about gender and who should do what at all. Rather it is over Biblical interpretation. Just a look at the path most of the comment threads have gone down in this post alone shows us nothing if it doesn't show us that how we interpret the bible - all of it - is what is the bottom line. And one thing that is also evident in every conversation I've ever had about anything to do with the Bible is that no two people interpret everything the same way - regardless of their culture, gender, education, faith tradition or anything else. That said I suggest to you that you are over-reading 'order', to the extent that it could be misused (and I maintain has been misused) in Orwellian style. In Animal Farm the pigs maintained the 'order' because that's how they were created (we would call that 'the created order'), and in doing so ruled over (in any way they saw fit either benign or otherwise) the rest of the animals. Of course Orwell was critiquing something much broader than gender roles but its a technique that has endured through history from social structure to race to gender: Consider these sayings from the last century or so: 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others' 'Separate but equal' 'Equal but different' They make perfect sense to their advocates, but to those they marginalise they are heinous (of course, some of those they marginalise are oppressed into submission to the point of not recognising this: just reading about Harriet Tubman and some of the folks she attempted to emancipate would not leave, out of fear or simply not knowing what the future held for them). You said: "Because of sin, that has been tainted and so therefore we redefine those roles according to what we pridefully think they should be." I agree: this is what men have done throughout history as regards women. This is what men have done since the Fall. Prior to last century the vast majority of men have considered women not as equals in any way but as 'less than'. Historically we can trace this back to Aristotle, or one might say to the Fall: 'he will rule over you' (part of the curse not God's design). Incidentally , someone here mentioned the superior physical strength of men as one reason why they thought God had 'put men in charge'. Aside from other obvious problems with this I would suggest that since the verses used to describe 'the woman' in the creation account are 'ezer kenegdo' which translates to 'a great help which is equal (to me)' it is likely that the smaller stature of most females is a product of the fall. It is only during the last century - after the wars had shown that women are capable of many things they were formerly thought not capable of - that Christians (and others) began to see that women were indeed, 'equal' to men. But men still could not give up privilege so 'complementariansm' was born. First flagged in the 60's or early 70's by someone called George Knight III, and named (a number of people claim to have named it, among them Mary Kassian) 'complementarianism' in the 80's. This was very clever: giving the movement a name that it didn't deserve (the true meaning of the word holds no hierarchical implications. Many egalitarians today maintain the complementarity of the sexes as a Biblical concept rooted in the Genesis account, but with no hierarchy implicit). At that time the SBC - arguably one of the most influential protestant denominations in America which has worldwide influence - stopped ordaining women and began to talk about 'roles' in terms of gender. Things snowballed from there. John Piper and Wayne Grudem put together the very influential 'Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood': I've read it and use it to refer to often. It is one of the most disjointed pieces of segregational nonsense I've ever had the misfortune to read. The individual authors cannot make a coherent case between them, as they all apply their 'theology of gender' in different ways. (By contrast, although due to the same interpretational and translational issues that we all face not all egalitarians agree on HOW they get their position, they APPLY their theology consistently, as it does not allow for exclusion of some of God's people. How complementarians manage to get along with such a broad range of application boggles the mind - but then I suppose they don't get along, so there's that). This notion of 'complementarity' of 'equal but different' is sneaky. In and of themselves the phrases appear true so they make sense to people, but the implications intended that extend beyond them are what matters to those who coin and use them, not the phrases themselves. In other words, complementarianism is a subterfuge: it is a trick. And it is very very new in Christendom. Yet it is painted as a long part of Christian history. In reality, (orthodox) Christian history devalued women the whole way: they were never 'equal' to men, spiritually or otherwise. This is a position most Christians today - regardless of their stance on women's 'roles' - would outright reject, and one that is really easy to prove false. With regard to the Genesis account - which you mention, how is 'the man' created first relevant to matters of leadership? There are too many problems with that notion. There are many ways to interpret that account (which is written in poetical style - it isn't a science class and we can't retrospectively read science into it). Firstly, the first human was not 'the man' (ish). 'The man' (ish) did not exist until 'the woman' (ishshah) was taken out of 'the human' (ha-adam). It was also the human (neither male nor female) which 'named' the animals. The account when read in the original language makes these distinctions clear, although they are not necessarily clear in the English or modern languages, and one cannot possibly claim from this account alone that males were 'created' before females. There's no argument of 'order' with relation to hierarchy among human beings here, nor is there when God gives the humans dominion: Gen 1:26 - 'they' are to rule - male AND female. Despite people attempting to attribute hierarchy here there IS none. (For more see margmowczko.com/human-man-woman-genesis-2/; Chapter two in 'Man and Woman, One in Christ' - Philip B Payne; Katherine Bushnell - chapter 1 (I think) 'God's Word To Women', among many others - these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head). So where so we get the idea that 'Adam' was 'created first' and 'Eve' subsequently created? It is from some phrases of Paul's in Corinthians, Ephesians and Timothy. These require a bit more study which is out of the scope of this format, but suffice it to say that Paul was countering a particular local issue in those two churches: this is covered well in the above resources and in many scholarly books and articles that can be found by searching the Christians for Biblical Equality site (The Junia Project is another good resource). We could argue this indefinitely here, but I would prefer to direct people to other resources as I don't actually know anyone here and I have other things to do (I've been answering the more respectful comments here for the past two hours, for instance and have done so many mornings over the past week to ten days). The bottom line: I have found that the more people study the Bible using a variety of resources (assuming these are Bible-based in that they recognise Scripture as authoritative in terms of teaching) the more they come to realise that they have been fed the wrong ideas about quite a few things but mostly about male-female relationships. Gal 3:28 starts to make a lot more sense when this realisation sets in. Many still say 'that is only about salvation' in an attempt to maintain gender 'roles' but that neither fits the broader context of the Epistle, the entreaty to Christians throughout the scriptures to seek 'the kingdom of God' 'on earth as it is in heaven' and it seeks to limit the scope of what 'salvation' actually means in any practical sense. That is a broader discussion, however. (note: I am now turning off notifications for this video and will not see any replies)

@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 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.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i

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

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.

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. 😀

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

WOW! This guy clears this matter up. You got to watch this! Let me know what you think? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DZsS0DqJ2ZY.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.

Praying for your family.

Prayers

I pray to break the spirit of rejection off of your life in Jesus name!

Yes! This is from Wright's podcast called "Ask NT Wright Anything". I listen to it on Spotify but I'm sure you can find it on most podcast services.

@@dingledan1966 Yes, thanks for that.

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.

What truth? I want to know

I think this man is misleading, where is the truth?

Paul quoted stupidity of Corinthians... about sex ("you say it's good not to touch women, but I say, let everybody have their wife... and the wife husband....") and marriage... and about women prophecying... and the order, gifts, perfect law and coverings and many other stuff... it has quotation marks there... so Paul is answering their question with their quote... not contradicting himself about New Creation... and Paul never refers to law as absolute truth.. It was about culture my friend, some Greek pagans taught that women were created first... and the man caused to sin.. and Paul said I will not allow them to teach that "woman is the author of man....", that's why spoke about Eve that she sinned first (whats the matter anyways.. who sinned first.. you have to take it to the serpent then and the devil in the end....)ö. Check this out: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GxvTugE9_nM.html

Right. There was a caveat regarding women covering their heads, but NOT about their place.

C Bedford he also uses creation and Angels as a reason women should cover their heads. If women can’t be shepherds (pastors) then their heads must also be covered.

Ilmar Meldre why was the hierarchy mentioned?, because there is a different rule for a man and woman. Of the 12 apostle, why all men? Is that not an obvious clue?

Amen Bro! God bless you in Jesus Christ!

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.

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.

What an incredible, well thought out comment. NT Wright is bringing back many women to the church, because his teachings mean we FINALLY have a place. The fact that he speaks calmly while the commenters are know-it-all's who speak violently are proof enough.

Thank you for your very wise and thoughtful words. They are a great reminder of Who we serve and Who's we are.

But the Apostles were Jewish MEN! Therefore, only Jewish and Gentile MEN can be ministers! (In the confused logic of the misogynists.)

@Douglas 🙄

Nathan, WOW! This guy clears this matter up, it's not literal women. You got to watch this! Let me know what you think? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DZsS0DqJ2ZY.html

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.

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. ;-)

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.

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?

So? What does being a Holy nation have to do with holding the office of Elder?

Not to mention that even the forgery argument is weak, given that the male as the head of the female is repeated even for the born-again life. As well, the very argument itself depends on ignorance of the fact that Paul most likely used a scribe for almost all of his letters (as was common back then). If he were to change his scribe then the style would change somewhat, unless he strictly dictated his words. And given that he admits to being less bold and strong in person than he was in his letters (and various scenes in Acts testify to this), it isn't likely that he spoke to his scribes in that way.

@@blanktrigger8863 That "head" you refer to means "source" or "origin".

Traditional teaching on this isn't derived from the Bible, it's derived from Plaltonism.

I did a long study (over many years, reading many books and articles from both 'sides' of the debate, and spending much time in Scripture and prayer) of 1 Tim 2 and there are at least seven major interpretations. There are variations within these, but they can generally be narrowed down to about 7 broad positions. Two of those (one patriarchal; one egalitarian) would dismiss Scripture as authoritative; two are supposedly 'Bible based' patriarchal views; one is a bit esoteric but basically allows women to preach to and teach men today (but not in apostolic times) and another two are completely egalitarian. Five of them are at least PLAUSIBLE (I'm dismissing the first two I've mentioned as I assume we discussing this with the assumption that Scripture isn't 'outdated' or irrelevant to today). None of them can be proven beyond the point at which they don't raise further questions. This is reasonable given that scholars disagree so broadly on what some words and phrases mean. There is at least one word that is pivotal to the text that is not used anywhere else in the Bible, and not used that often elsewhere, either. However the two patriarchal positions and the esoteric one struggle to account for certain verses: 15 for eg, as well as some other verses in the epistles to Timothy and background on what is going on in Ephesus from Acts and the epistle to the Ephesians, which could seem a bit odd or irrelevant if one didn't bother to put the pieces together. Of the two egalitarian positions, I would favour one over the other, but it doesn't really matter because the outcomes are the same in terms of serving the church and who can do what, so any disagreement among these egalitarian interpretations is largely academic rather than tangible: it does not affect the way we evangelise, it certainly doesn't affect the Gospel. The two patriarchal interpretations (one people would call 'patriarchy' or maybe even 'hard complementarian', the second people would call 'soft complementarian'. These two are plausible as well, but less so as they do not take into account context beyond a very limited range of verses in the immediate text and and equally limited range of verses elsewhere in the Bible (ie: you have to pluck them out of both immediate and broader Biblical context to make them make sense). Thus Wright claiming that his take is 'just as good a way of reading the passage' is not only reasonable: it's sensible and honest. It is entirely dishonest to claim that the 'correct' interpretation' is 'clear' given that textual scholars don't even agree on what some of the verses mean!

@@fluffybabybunny5822 Textual scholars disagree about a lot of clear things due to be unspiritual people reading a book written in spiritual words. Doesn't make the text unclear at all. It just proves the natural confoundness of human thinking, especially compared to the Spirit, who is not a spirit of confusion.

@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.

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.

◄ 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.

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.

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.

Yes that’s true, but men shouldn’t be trans and believe they can take on the role of a women. We are still made different

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

Most of the variants in the original Greek are insignificant (e.g., spelling differences). Most commentaries will discuss any variants that could have some impact, but even then no major points are lost.

Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GgjaBClU3Pw.html

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.

Timothy was taught in the Lord by his mother and grandmother.

You've missed the context he provided. Ephesus was the home to the temple to Athena where women traditionally handled all of the religious activities. In 1 Timothy 2:8-10 Paul calls on the members of the church to break away from stereotypes leading into the verse you've quoted. Paul is overthrowing the stereotype of who are the sole religious leaders in Ephesus at the time of the letter.

I call hypocrisy: If you don't follow EVERYTHING that Paul says about the Church but come up with ways to explain them away, but STILL think that we should hold women back from preaching the gospel in order to save souls - you are a hypocrite and your argument is invalid. James 2:10 - For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. Luke 12:1 - Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. There are two points here: Paul didn’t write that, and also IF Paul did write it, you are acting as if he didn’t because you aren’t following all of those laws. Main Point: Mark 3:1-6 New International Version (NIV) Jesus Heals on the Sabbath 3 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.” 4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent. 5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus. -------- The questions is: Do you condemn Christ for disobeying the Sabbath? Even though it was written that anyone who did anything of the Sabbath was to be killed? There was nothing written down that affirmed what Christ said, there were no letters from Paul to explain it more. There was a law of Moses that Christ rejected because it’s application was wrong: He showed that to not follow its entirety the law but to be a hypocrite and pick and choose was wrong. Here are the things that Paul condemns in regard to a Church: Women cannot speak at all Men cannot have long hair Women can prophecy No speaking in tongues if there is not an interpreter and even then just 3 at a time Women cannot be preachers Woman can teach women and children (boys up until 20) Every single person who doesn’t force women to be quiet in church and is keeping the rule to not allow women to be Pastors is a hypocrite. So do you follow all of these to the letter or are you picking out what you want and don't want to follow because you don't want a woman to have authority over you? God said in Joel that He would pour out His Spirit on ALL - and if we are all set free from the bonds of sin by Christ then the original curses - including for women are not in play anymore. While women experience pain in child birth - they actually don’t because of modern medicine. Would you have that outlawed? I am not speaking in extremes - but in concert with your understanding of the Bible. We cannot take a part and not the whole - especially when the stakes are so high. We need as many workers as possible for the harvest (Matthew 9:38) and women play an intergral role in the very essence of what it means to be a Christian - you cannot build a home without a woman and you cannot build the Church with half of the people in improper subjugation. Do you think that in heaven - God is going to reprimand women for leading people to eternity?

@@user-wn8mc1yc1g Yes! if they countermand the Lord's command for their silence in the church assemblies and refuse to comply with St. Paul's instructions, not to teach men, or usurp their God-given authority........for in effect, such brassy women are "Doing evil that good may come".

Earnestly contending for the faith You ACTUALLY think that God is going to reprimand women for not doing what PAUL said? Hahahahaha. Wow - you are in for a real shock. There is NO way that you live according to such rules everywhere in your life. You will be a cautionary tale for the generations after if you don’t cut the crap and get real. It’s a gutless and spineless thing to imagine such a scenario. But soon - the proof of these things will be revealed. Though - I would assume that when Christ truly corrects you that you will humbly submit yourself to the appropriate punishment and dedicated yourself to the proper teachings.

Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GgjaBClU3Pw.html

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*

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.

@@Baseballisbest67 Correct. I share your thinking. They never show us the original text, neither the tools that discern and prove its the original text; yet they claim the original Greek says such and such. And Tom Wright, who is an extremely dangerous false teacher, is here actually giving a new English version, the Tom Wright version.

@@Baseballisbest67 Just to clarify, my first reply was meaning the original manuscripts, and thus the original Greek. I believe we have the original Greek, and the only possible place it can be is the King James Version of the Bible. My reference was to the fabled 'original' manuscripts which most seem to think inspiration stopped with, and the Greek thereon.

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 '' !!! ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GgjaBClU3Pw.html

DON'T TRUST THIS NT WRIGHT HE IS HERETIC

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

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.

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!

I haven't made up my mind about all this stuff yet, but one could argue that it's ad hominem. Arguing against the person / people, rather than the argument. Whether these people are sufficiently generous has nothing at all to do with what the correct interpretation of Timothy 2 is.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

The colloquial term is “whataboutism”.

The Scripture(Rom 16:1) you're referring to said "Phebe our sister" , not phebe our pastor, not phebe our prophetess, not phebe our deacon. But phebe our sister. Teach the truth, the word is truth. Dont change it. It is what it is. It means what it said. if it doesn't suit your beliefs, then change what you believe to suit it. Paul spoke by the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Spirit can not make a mistake, why would God say through him, "i suffer not a women to teach not to be an overseer over the men", then the next day, turn around and say, "I'm sending phebe up to the church of Rome to give a sermon". A sermon is speaking. Women can't give sermons, she can speak... in the church. It never said nothing about speaking outside the church, but it said she cant speak inside of the church. The word calls for her complete obedience in this matter. Not rebellion. It's not that she can't do it, it's that she shouldn't do it. I'm sure women or just as cappable of speaking scriptures in the pulpit, but God said she cant give a sermon, she cant speak... in the church, and not one church, but all the churches, he said. All. "1Corinthians 14:33 (kjv) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as 👉in all👈 churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is 👉not permitted👈 unto them 👉to speak👈; but they are 👉commanded👈 to be under obedience, as also saith the law." And the law doesn't permit a women to be a preist, and the priestly ministry was given over to a pastoral ministry when Jesus came. Also in Gen 3:16. GOD Put the man to be the overseer of the Women. Which is a type and shadow of Christ being the head and his elected church. So how can a woman get up on the pulpit and claim(usurp) authority over a congregation full of men?. That's against God's divine plan. I may not like it. But i must believe it. "1Timothy 2:12(kjv) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” If a aged women wants to teach, she can teach younger women(Titus 2:3,4), not men, that's biblical, and not from the pulpit either. Because she cant speak(give a sermon) inside the church. 1 Corinthians14:35 (kjv) ... for it is a shame for women to speak 👉in👈 the church.” God thinks it's shamful. There must be a reason. I may not know or understand completely why, but i trust Him. You should to. God's word is infallible and it is always right, regardless of if we agree with it or not. Dont let satan cause you to believe a lie (2Thess2:11 - 2Chron18:21)

@@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!

It is indeed!

I like the world BOOM It's a powerful word

You kidding me... Mary Magdalene was the only christian woman at the time... she was the first one to believe in the Resurrection. Read in Acts and Paul letters.. women were deacons, phophets (they sould not speak.. how do you prophecy with being silent? or is it skrewed translation and minsunterpretation of what Paul is sainyg), even a married couple, "known among the Apostles...". Chech the old Testament.. Devorah, Ruth... Matthew portrayes them.. even prostitute Rahab is in the family of Jesus according to Matthew... What a grace... in the Jewish culture were women were law. Now modern research shows us that even orthodox and catholic church in the early stages up until 8th century had women leading liturgy, burning incence, serving the cup... all of which is priesthood roles... In the end of the day.. in Christ there is no rich, no poor, no slave, no free, no man or woman... that means there is total equality... There's no higher... Yes, they are distinct.. and the family roles are distinct.. but diffrent does not mean "bigger..." hello... Everyone is called to proclaim the Gospel Good News, including Women!!!

Rules for the church, not outside the body. Women can teach their children if the husband is not a believer. The first martar Stephen as an example.

@@cbedford2699 now where in the bible does it say that?

Taylor Berger I agree with you. I think there’s a huge difference between a woman teaching Christ and a woman participating in pastoral office. All because the New Testament shows many women characters witnessing the resurrection and teaching Christ doesn’t necessarily mean they qualify as pastors to lead a church.

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.

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

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.

Katherine and other similar names are my favorite. 🥰 My favorite saint is Catherine of Alexandria.

Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GgjaBClU3Pw.html

The word for servant is deacon. This just confirms that women are to be involved in the ministry of the church but it doesn’t say anything to women being pastors/preaching.

@@justinperez1972 no

Greek word translated “minister” is the same Greek word for “deacon”

@@justinperez1972 nope a servant means to help, where dO y’all get that stuff from

@@houseofyahweh3785 If you can't read Greek, you have nothing to say here. THE GREEK TEXT CALLS HER A DEACONESS.

I agree 100%

What is my role in the church as a woman? What am I allowed to do. What areas am I allowed to serve in? What spiritual gifts do women receive (since they clearly must not get any that require a voice). I sound angry but more frustrated. So many are happy to tell me what I can’t do and what gifts I clearly don’t have cuz I’m a woman but these same people never can answer the questions I posed above. Perhaps you will. Please include Scripture-and at least two because the Bible teaches us that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall all things be established.

1. I don't see how you can't see the logic of it? I do. Will expand on this later. 2. Pheobe, tho her name may not be mentioned, i need to recheck this later, paul does mention that it is a she. So yes, it is in the scriptures 3. Not really, out of the many arguments I've heard about this particular issue, he is the only New Testament scholar that makes a solid case for the woman. 4. I can go one by one and show you that you aren't really making a case here. Even some verses you input it here don't even have to do with the woman preaching or not. So why even put them there. I am a Christian just in case i am not labelled anything else. I am not here to simply debate you and say that you are wrong but to help you understand where N. T. Wright is coming from. I see that you gained some likes but my best guess is that not a single one of them questioned anything you said. So that just tells me is that they do not read the bible. Cause i just checked the bibles cites you input it and they don't even mention anything about woman and preaching. So there's that. God bless you and i will be waiting for your response.

@@hebera.carrillo2049 Dear Heber, thanks for your reply. 1. I’m not sure if you did in fact come back to this point. I failed to see NTW’s logic because, in terms of formal logic, he commits a non-sequitur - his conclusion that women can preach does not logically follow from his statement that women witnessed the resurrection. He assumes a hidden premise (A below), a premise which I do not think can be argued from any Bible verses. I think he is arguing thus: A*. Being the first to witness the resurrection gives the gender of that witness the authority to preach and lead in church B. Mary Magdalene, whose gender is female, was the first to witness the resurrection Conclusion: Therefore females are given the authority to preach and lead in church 2. You still have not shown why Paul merely mentioning Phoebe would lead to an authorisation of all women to preach and lead in church. Also you did not address the red-herring of the Artemis cult. 3. Your answer that NTW is a lone voice in giving a “solid case” does nothing to alleviate his pot-calling-the-kettle-black. 4. Again your response does nothing to counter my point, which was that NTW fails to deal with the breadth of arguments from the whole Bible for Complimentarianism. For you to successfully counter my argument you would need to point me in the direction of where NTW or any other egalitarian has systematically dealt with the verses cited. Some of the verses which I cited may not appear to deal with women preaching, but as the Complimentarian argument has to do with the place of women in God’s whole design, both in the church and in the family, you may begin to see that they are all relevant. Thank you for your well-mannered reply brother.

@@Crucian1 1. The problem here is that you wrote the premises in a form that seems illogical to follow. But from what i saw in the video, that isn't the way N. T. Wright stated his argument. So right off the bat, your premises are dismissed since they weren't even mentioned. Lets stick with this point first. The way N. T. Wright formulated his idea is by stating that the woman were the first to witness the living Christ. They were the chosen once to spread the word to the apostles. If God didn't want women to tell men what to do then why in the world would God allow the women to be the FIRST witnesses of the resurrection. With this at hand, i do not see how women can't share the gospel since they were the first to witness it. The reason why N. T. Wright said that we need to go back to the ressurection is for the simple fact that Christianity hinges on that event. If Jesus Christ did not resurrect then our faith is in vain. So. In that very important moment, who were the first to witness and spread the news of that VERY IMPORTANT event?? Women. Period. Women were the first witnesses and were the onces to spread the word to the apostles. God gave women the privilege to see the risen Christ and spread the word. Of God did not want the women to preach about this event then why would God choose them to be the firsr witnesses? For the simple fact that they are authorized by God to do so. And God confirmed it by the ressurection event by letting the woman be the first witnesses and the once to spread the word to the apostles.

@@David-kz3dt isn't it that when we preach the word of God, we are testifying His glory? Also, been submissive to the husband doesn't necessarily follow that they shouldn't be able to lead. And yes the men are called to be the head of the house, but what about those that don't? And women take over? Cause someone has to lead. No where in the does it state that it is a SIN for a women to preach or evangelize anyone.

Paul quoted stupidity of Corinthians... about sex ("you say it's good not to touch women, but I say, let everybody have their wife... and the wife husband....") and marriage... and about women prophecying... and the order, gifts, perfect law and coverings and many other stuff... it has quotation marks there... so Paul is answering their question with their quote... not contradicting himself about New Creation... and Paul never refers to law as absolute truth.. It was about culture my friend, some Greek pagans taught that women were created first... and the man caused to sin.. and Paul said I will not allow them to teach that "woman is the author of man....", that's why spoke about Eve that she sinned first (whats the matter anyways.. who sinned first.. you have to take it to the serpent then and the devil in the end....)ö. Check this out: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GxvTugE9_nM.html

Well, if God called you to teach, then He must be crazy. Then God is a lier, and I am praying to a God that contradicts Himself. How did He called you? Audibly, or through His word? And if it's through His word, then reference that. Thank you and God's richest blessing.

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.

Are Women Preachers Biblical? '' NO '' !!! ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GgjaBClU3Pw.html

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?

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.

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!

First I had to look up the definition of obfuscation. Then I literally laughed out loud.

@@sharplikecheddar2 lol

An Anglican trait!

Thank you for pointing out Biblical truth!

The spiritual gifts apply today....

Lol, good one!

So true. It always does seem to be the cessationists. They're practically writing off half of the New Testament but I'm the one in huge error. I won't even argue or debate with them.

@@boopsnootandboogie Well if there are still apostles and prophets going around healing the lame, and the blind and the deaf where are they? Jesus healed all who came to him, the Apostles healed men crippled from birth. If you think we still have apostles then you think they're are men alive who have seen Jesus and can write scripture. Do you really think that? That these things reduced and then ceased once the Apostles were fine is quite clear. The miracles were to attest to the truth of this new message. Now we have the scriptures. If you disagree can we meet at my local hospital and you can prove me wrong? Until you can your claim that they are still here is just vocal nonsense.

@@boopsnootandboogie Oh, don't ever be afraid of a discussion, that is how I learned my way round scripture etc as a visually impaired person. Cessationists think thay have a monopoly on what scripture teaches when in fact it is 'spiritually discerned' 1 Cor 2. Lots of Christians shy away from difficult issues which keeps large numbers of people in church denominations in ignorance! How do you think that men like the late Ravi Zacharias got away with immorality for years when he was alive?

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.

1Tim 2:13-14 lets us know that Paul wasn’t admonishing women to be quiet because of some issue of the time. He referred back to the original intent of GOD in the creation, before there were any cultural issues. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 KJVS [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Sorry for responding so late, but I hope this helps you.

@@roblane5699 Thanks. It does.

@@stevendobo4059 Anytime brother GOD Bless

@@roblane5699 it can be a divisive issue, but many times people are not willing to hear the historical sources that help understand what was going on in Ephesus at that time.

@@stevendobo4059 I understand the point that people make about the cultural issues present in Ephesus. However, I always submit that the Eternal Word of GOD transcends any temporary issue that may have existed, because scriptural principles are unchanging no matter the time period. The principle that Paul was standing on is GOD’s order of headship, which has been the same since the beginning of creation. He also states it in 1Cor 11:3 The problem is that most can’t see GOD’s principles because they are too focused on the culture. Basically, societal cultures change but GOD remains the same

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.

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

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

Hahaha, I had a good laugh at that one.

Good one! 😂

I also was quite surprised, and unfortunately so. :-(

😂

Something Dr Wright can NEVER be accused of

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/

It is the Lord's commandment [thus irrevocable] that women are forbidden to speak, thus talk, read or pray aloud in the church assemblies. 1 Corinthians 14:33-38. St. Paul agrees and so forbids women to teach or usurp man's God given authority over the woman.

@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 was that intended as a reply to me? Wright says Junia was an apostle. I poi ted out the passage was ambiguous.

"Devil women" are increasing daily in the fallen churches of today. For as St. Paul has stated, forbidding faithful women of God to teach, preach, and must NOT usurp the God given authority of men...... 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:10-14 (KJV) AMEN!

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.

all correct, except for the 'roles' bit: that's not in the Bible

You mean like the one "In Christ there is no more male or female. We are all joint heirs with Christ".

The roles of men and women are clear in the Bible.. One example: A man and a wife come together as one in marriage, being husband and wife. The husband is to have headship over the wife (Ephesians 5:23).

That verse in Galatians is clearly speaking of the fact that men, women, children, everyone is equal in Christ. There's no discrimination of background. It doesn't do away with the fact that men and woman are clearly different from each other.. Everyone in the faith are brothers and sisters, having different gifts in the body of Christ for the sake of one another.

@@risingdawn5788 Actually, yes, it does do away with that. that is the very reason he brings it up.There is a discussion going on about women should do this or that, like covering their heads (these verses are a quote from a letter that was sent to him) He then contradicts these silly ideas like "even nature shows us that women..." and responds with "but in Christ there is no male or female". He was not saying "there is no discrimination, but actually you have to discriminate (make a difference) between male and female when being allowed to talk about God to others." NO. In that day women WEREN'T allowed to even be TAUGHT Scripture. So Paul says "women SHOULD BE taught, in submission" This submission is the same thing required of MEN when placing themselves under a rabbi... The problem with interpretaion is it can get really stupid if you don't take into consideration WHO Paul was talking to. What matters, is that we submit ONE TO ANOTHER in love. We do NOT force anyone to be under us, like men do to women in the church by not allowing them to proclaim the Good News just like everyone else. This is also why Paul didn't want women lording it over men either, like what happened in the female-dominated GREEK society. He addressed BOTH scenarious. No one is in charge. Christ is head of all.

Barry Mann agreed. We should give all our money to the poor.

And all because of a three-letter word: sin

What can we agree upon? The Bible was written by a bunch of narcissistic misogynistic men.

@@God.sDaughter I can see why you think that, but I'd change it to: the bible has historically been translated and interpreted by a bunch of narcissistic misogynistic men. And quite a few of them are crapping on ad nauseam here. Further to the original comment to claim that an English translation of a diverse 2000+ old plus collection of ancient documents 'should be straightforward 'is patently idiotic.

@@fluffybabybunny5822 Exactly.

There's NO such thing as a female pastor.

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!

Neither the man nor the woman is cursed in Genesis. Only the serpent and the 'ground'. The curse on the ground was lifted later in Genesis. Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i We don't understand how you can say that about the curse of Genesis 3 if you have read it recently. We did a video on women prophets, especially because Islam denies them, but it addresses the issue. The link is below if they don't block it:

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yZKHjAW5XWM.html

@@christianfrommuslim Were Adam and Eve cursed due to the fall? First what, SPECIFICALLY, was cursed is what is important to know. The serpent was cursed. The 'ground' was cursed. __________________________________________ Then the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all the livestock,... -excerpt Genesis 3 __________________________________________ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you;... -excerpt Genesis 3 _________________________________________ The curse on the ground was prophesied to be lifted by Lamech. Now Lamech lived 182 years, and fathered a son. And he named him Noah, saying, “This one will give us comfort from our work and from the hard labor of our hands caused by the ground which the Lord has cursed.” -excerpt Genesis 5 Noah name meaning = rest Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took some of every kind of clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. -excerpt Genesis 8 Was Adam cursed? NO Was Eve cursed? NO _______________________________ To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall deliver children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” So women now experience great pain in childbirth, yet there are more people on earth now than have ever been in the earth's history. In the natural view of things, the strong dominate the weak. Strong animals over the weaker. Strong countries over the weaker. The physically stronger gender over the weaker gender. There is a natural tendency for men to want/need to rule over women, even though both genders are equal before God. Regardless, neither men nor women are cursed. Genesis 5, which comes after the fall of mankind (in Genesis 3) says this below: This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created. In Genesis 1 below we read this: So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Obviously, the earth has more people than ever in its history. Obviously, the earth is subdued. Trees cut. Rivers dammed. Gold and oil extracted, etc. __________________________________________________ CONCLUSION Natural tendencies changed regarding men and women after the fall. Natural physical changes also. Women were not cursed. Men were not cursed. Men and women are still blessed.

Meant little g for the idol of Moab

no, not because of the fall

@@fluffybabybunny5822 well yes because Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't (Adam simply disobeyed - is that better?). Adam knew that God said to eat of that tree meant death. There is nothing in the text to say that he disbelieved God or that he was deceived by the serpent. But what could he do, he already knew had Eve had eaten of the fruit, and she would now die, he decided to go with her, against God. I don't want Adam to be portrayed as a noble creature who sinned for the love of Eve, because he disobeyed Gods clear instruction defiantly. God did not give him a partner to plot against himself but he did anyway. But the outcome according to Paul is that the deception weakness vs the defiance weakness placed Adam as the leader of Eve!

@@gtolose the deception card is easily proven false and most complementarians would reject it. There is plenty of scholarship on this, I don't think it deserves pursuing. Suffice it to say if you think women are more easily deceived than men and that's why they can't lead then you cannot claim that women have equality with men in any way (spiritual, in the life after this one, whenever) and that is definitely NOT biblical (it's Platonic and adopted from there by some early church fathers). I have no time for this notion - it's heretical and it's holders are to me divergent from from some of the core aspects of our faith.

@@fluffybabybunny5822 Your comments are fantastic. It's funny to me, the level of ignorance here. People take these verses in English, divorce them from an alien cultural context and then threaten anyone who doesnt agree with being a hell-bound heretic.

1. Women Are To Teach Women Titus 2:3-5 The older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things- that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 2. Women May Teach Men In The Assembly Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 3. Priscilla Was Involved In Teaching Apollos Acts 18:25-26 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 4. Women Are Commanded To Teach 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men [anthropus] who will be able to teach others also. anthropos (a[nqrwpo"), is used generally, of a human being, male or female, without reference to sex or nationality. Vine, W. E., Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words aner (ajnhvr, is never used of the female sex; it stands (a) in distinction from a woman, Vine, W. E., Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words "Man [anthropus] shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' (Matthew 4:4) Genesis 5:1-2 In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

Keyword he said "I" and that was to the Corinth Church because of the women there

@@MrMrDrummerguy Thank you for the response. Yes, I did notice the "I" and have heard the point about the women of the Corinthian church being disruptive, but when we read this verse in context, I think that both of those explanations fail. Blessings Brian.

@@MrMrDrummerguy you present youre thinking as a fact. Fact is that God made a clear point: God-Jesus-church-man-woman different roles but equal to eachother

@@peterwubs5663 read my reply above regarding the Orwellian misnomer : 'complementarian' and 'equal but different'

Well, my guess is we as a whole have chosen to ignore his command for Saints to greet one another with a holy kiss... that is an easy shot but there are plenty of others.