Appreciate Dr. Gupta’s immense background research. I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of getting the first century context correct. However, I was a bit disappointed that he didn’t really do much exegesis in response to his background research. As someone sitting on the fence of this discussion, I still have found Dr. Breshears the most convincing.
The problem with 1 Tim 2:13 is vs 14 & 15. In my opinion, those 2 verses are the most anti-gospel pieces of scripture in the New Testament. Most complimentarians sidestep that, and have no explanation as to why salvation isn’t apparently enough to save a woman; and that she has to have children to be saved or why he seems in those verses to put most of the blame for the fall on Eve (as vs 14 & 15 posit). Everybody seems to just ignore the very uncomfortable texts in those 2 verses. If I cannot explain what 14 & 15 mean, then building a doctrine on vs 13 is ridiculous
Which is why your beliefs are built most strongly by the entire Bible, and not a few verses. Looking for the character of God and the people he seems to endorse. That's what Sheila gregior recommended in her podcast discussing this. And her theories seemed to be very reasonable.
Complementarians are desperate to uphold male entitlement, so yeah, they ignore all this and how these verses are for a certain situation at that time (worship of the goddess Diana, etc.).
I really appreciate Nijay’s ability to bring down the scholarly work to everyday language. He reminds me a lot of Tim Mackie in that way and in the way he (hyper)links passages together, like Mary and Deborah.
If I were the devil I would do everything in my power to see that complimentarianism wins the debate. With just this one victory, I could assure that the female half of God's royal priesthood would be silenced. "But you are a chosen people,* a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
Except "complementarianism" isn't about silencing women. Rather, the devil would want to create such a false dichotomy between the differences between men and women and value we have in Christ to make us all feel lesser if we don't have certain roles. Being part of the priesthood isn't the only qualification for being an elder. If it were, then children who are saved could be elders. We are all equally valued in Christ, but roles don't disappear because of that. There's still a structure.
@@susanbarackman-artist7670 if we do things in our own power, thinking we need to help God out, then we've lost sight of His word and are living out our own desires, and not what His word commands.
i doubt thse women are doing things under their own power seeing as claiming to be a christian in a muslim workd can lead to imprisonment or death. like the believers in the early church.
@@susanbarackman-artist7670 if they disobey God's word, then they are doing it with their own power, whether or not you agree. Women and men are called to share the gospel, but leading a church, i.e. teaching/preaching, is set aside for men. If these women are leading the church in the capacity of elder/overseer, then that's disobedience to God's word.
the problem in the church is not that some say women can preach/pastor/teach or not preach/pastor/teach but the downright hate coming from those who are patriarchal/complementarian towards those who believe God can and does call them as He sees fit. They say the meanest things to those who believe God can and does call women to preach/pastor/teach. Case in point---no names will be mentioned but with a little search on women in seminary you can see and hear it for yourself There is a woman who is a highly respected teacher of women in the southern baptist church. She believes that women should not preach/pastor or teach men and has very harsh words towards women who do as in they need to check if they are saved and need to repent. She influences many women. In a youtube video titled she discussed if women should attend seminary. She allowed that woman could attend seminary but could not take classes that are for pastors/preachers. But here is the egregious part. She stated that any women taking classes meant for pastors/preachers even though she may never pastor or preach was just like someone learning how to do abortions even though they may never do them. Basically she called women who want to learn more of God and service to Him ACCOMPLICES TO MURDER ?!?!?!?!!!!!!!! Then she called seminaries who allow women to take those classes sinners in need of repentance.
11:28 It really isn't' clear whatsoever that Deborah is more important than Gideon, aka JerubBaal, who God used to purge Ba'al worship and conquer the much larger army of Midianites before later in his life people of Israel actually begged him to be King; yet he refuses because 'only God is their rightful ruler.' So much for the reductive view that says Judges was simply 'a dark time where they lacked King' by reading Judges 18-21 back into the earlier parts of the text. Starting with Othniel(Caleb's younger brother) it is Yahweh that raises up deliverers for His chosen people and doesn't yet give them a King. After the time of David they have much the same problems as before all of which shall be corrected when the Son of David becomes the one true king as alluded to by Gideon's refusal to become a monarch. In fact at the very start of Judges there is a prophecy given that the Sons of Judah shall go down to fight; so Deborah's role as Prophet and declaring Naphtali and Zebulun shall go, to be lead by Barak, is following the normative pattern of this era. The request from Barak for her to come with him is the exceptional part and is why his honour(killing Sisera) is given to a woman(Jael). Don't even get me started on how badly he glosses over the victory song which honours Jael "towards the end", not Deborah; her and Barak are both honoured in the earlier section but here, as in the initial telling of the story, it is Barak with his men who goes down into battle in the valley, Sisera escapes and Jael takes his life by tricking him. Off to a bad start.
This was great, Dr. Gupta is always so reasonable and insightful. I still don't know what to do with 1 Timothy 2:11-15. It seems to require pretzel-like contortionist moves to extract anything even remotely woman-affirming from it, but on the other hand a face-value reading is surely wrong (in addition to making me want to jump off a bridge). I hope to one day ask Paul himself, "WHAT WAS THAT?" At which point he'll probably shrug and say, "Beats me, I didn't write it." Ha ha.
What makes most sense to me is the cultural context regarding Ephesus containing the Temple of Artemis and she is even mentioned by her other name in Acts(Diana). I think she had a very strong presence connection to the women of the time and this mix of culture and new Christians may have caused unnecessary disruption of teaching and false ideologies taught in the church at that time. I also think that he reaffirms the women that they will be saved through childbirth in the following of Christ rather than the perceived saving from Artemis. This is my current understanding of the likelihood as to why he said this.🤔
Wow, Nijay's journey is in many ways just the opposite of mine. I bought into Catherine Clark Kroeger's argument regarding the supposed Gnostic heresy being address in 1 Timothy for a well over a decade until I realized that the evidence she gathered to make her case is exceptionally weak. I tried to stay as far away from John Piper as I could during the 90s. Still not on board completely with Piper's approach to complementarianism. But glad to see that Nijay is honest about some of the inadequacies of the egalitarian approach to 1 Timothy.
People are a spirit first housed in a body, spirit is willing, flesh is weak. God calls the spirit of a person not necessarily the "house" they are living in. God gifts our spirit, that's the likeness and image of God, the speaking spirit part of humans. God is spirit. If you say only men can lead then you are saying by virtue of a penis (flesh) can you lead. Adam failed at "leading" Eve, when questioned by the serpent she says the tree in the midst of the garden we shall not eat from, that tree in the midst of the garden was the tree of life and no prohibition was placed on that tree. In fact she doesn't even know that the tree she is standing right in front of is the one she shall not eat from. She is seeking wisdom (look at her thought process Gen 3:6) because Adam had not properly shared with her what God had said. And men think they are the best choice for teaching and leading. The sin of Adam is passed to each man and each man passes it to his offspring. Adam is standing right there, doesn't defend the garden from this interloper snake, doesn't protect Eve or God's reputation. He listens while the serpent slanders God, does nothing. His remedy is not to take charge as a Godly man or call out for God in this crisis but rather eat what he absolutely knows he must not eat. He is deliberately disobeys. Eve is tricked by the serpent but with the assisstance of Adam and this is why God attributes Adam with the fall. God is always just, he did not blame Adam because of Eve, he blamed Adam because Adam was the blame. Eve is not well informed, she doesn't have benefit of knowing the commandment and where there is no law there is no transgression. Romans 5. If man is a leader he is a little pathetic at it. Adam blames God and Eve, Eve is the only one who told the truth. Adam doesn't mention the snake, Eve is the only one honest with God and tells him what happened. The snake wants to silence the woman for that reason and man has assissted the snake in the snake's desire. They have worked together in the past. The subjugation of women was born out of this event. God prophesized it in Gen 3:16, "in turning you will turn to him but he will simple lord over you and overrule your pleas to be heard and for compassion."
Gave me a lot to think about. My one complaint: “I tend to be a minimalist” with unstated connections and inferences when someone reads complementarianism into Gen 2, but then he proceeds to say Acts 5 is egalitarianism. It’s ok to do that, within theological and exegetical reason, but don’t claim you’re a minimalist as if the opposition is wildly reading their position into narratives. Both sides read betwixt the lines. Dr. Gupta, you are a dear man who has blessed the Church in many ways, but a minimalist you are not.
I am a complementarian for two reasons: 1. The strength of the argument exegetically. 2. The weakness of the egalitarian position, as is abundantly displayed in this video
Adam takes the blame becomes he is responsible as a leader. It’s a strawman to state that complementarians state that women’s are gullible. No, Paul’s grounds his argument for women to not teach and except use authority (such as pastors) over man in creation ORDER and her as being the first one to sin (1 Tim. 2:12-14). “The Bible was written in a patriarchal society” is not a good argument against how God sees authority. God recognized Adam’s authority.
I am sorry but scripture nowhere states that "Adam takes the blame", nor that this is so because "he is responsible as a leader". Adam is not described as a "leader" anywhere, nor did he "take" the blame, the blame is given. Nor is anywhere written that Adam was "in authority" (over Eve). Nor does the Bible teach that there was a "creation order". Those are all man-made explanations and descriptions based on your own interpretation of what you read.
Yes the Bible does teach that there is a creation order. I just quoted it to you. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."1 Tim 2:12-14. Did you even read my whole comment? Read Genesis 2. Adam names Eve. Eve was made FOR Adam not vice versa. And God first calls Adam when Satan seeks to first call Eve. Read Genesis 3 carefully. Rom 5 recognizes Adam as the federal head of the human race. Sin entered through him. He was silent as he watch Satan and Eve converse.@@LaLaBlaBla-r7m
@@LaLaBlaBla-r7m Who is Adam? Genesis 5:2 Ambiguous and obscure verses are not good for strict doctrine. Complimentarians are not instructed by bible verses; they are reinforced by them.
I had understood that the Timothy argument was written to him at a time of intense persecution to preachers of the gospel. Lots of persecution and culturally, very dangerous to women! Paul could have been protecting sisters at this time by telling Timothy to keep them on the down low in this time and culture. For their safety, And that the Genesis text was proof that they should step to the front and take the heat of persecution to help protect his sisters in the faith! But this interpretation also brings light!
@Preston Sprinkle Regarding the credentials of elders in Timothy and Titus , kindly note there is new research on translations which claim that the original text in greek do not have male pronouns to describe who should be an elder. Its the translators ( the first time it appears as a male pronoun) who use it after 350AD.
I’m hearing about more churches moving away from both egalitarian and complimentary, and returning to completely patriarchal as they shift into a more reformed theology. I see this as a natural response to the uncertainty and confusion associated with the two views.
1:16:20 Paul writes 1 Timothy 2 tonTimothy “as if its the first time he wrote it” because it was t just for Timothy but for the whole church. 1 Timothy 6:21 (ESV): Grace be with you This “you” is in plural because Paul is writing to Timothy but also for the whole church to hear it. Second, we all need reminders which Paul even states to Timothy. The interviewee still does not address 1 Tim. 2:14, but instead appeals to historical background that the letter was written with false teaching in mind. Paul appeals to creation order, not false teaching at the time, culture, etc. Therefore, this is for all time because the doctrine of creation still applies to us. Men even like FF Bruce are wrong. Appeal to Scripture.
1Tim chapt 2. The subject of women teaching and having authority "over" a man and qualifications to be overseer are two totally separate topics.The argument that only men are to hold office as Elder/Deacon or Pastor is very strong. However, verse 12 shows that a woman's teaching is juxtaposed with her having authority "over" a man. The key word is "over". That is, a woman's teaching does not usurp, or over-rule men's teaching. Why? because Eve was deceived, not Adam. If the men in the church say she is wrong, she is wrong, they over-ride her every time. It's not a prohibition, it's a boundary. Now in 1Cor 14:34,35 the text says that women are to remain silent in the churches. However, not only doesn't it sound like Paul, but it contradicts his statement at chapter 11:5 where woman can pray and prophecy (hardly silent) with conditions (head-covering). I believe (as do others) Paul is quoting a Corinthian idiom (as he does elsewhere. 1Cor 10:23) pushed by the Judaisers, and that Verse 36 is a rebuttal. The KJV, RSV, WEB, ASV and the HNV (Hebrew Names version) start v36 with the word "What"? was it from you only....etc which turns the verse into a rebuttal, which is the only translation that makes contextual and grammatical sense, allowing the context to flow. Other words used eg, 'and', 'or' etc makes the paragraph nonsensical. That's why most theologians (using these versions), believe these verses don't belong there and are a scribal error. I believe they do belong there, just change the first word, which the Greek makes applicable (allows for), and it all makes sense. It's ironic that the issue of women teaching is raised in a letter to Timothy who is overseeing a church where Apollos was instructed (taught/teach) more accurately (his theology was fine-tuned), by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:26). I don't think it's coincidence that Priscilla's name is intentionally mentioned first. It was culturally inappropriate to put the wife's/woman's name before the man without a specific reson. It makes sense that It was placed there by Luke, deliberately, to emphasis she was the dominant figure. We must not play down her role, simply because it doesn't suit previous interpretations regarding women teaching, which is easily rebutted. Throughout the Gospels Jesus sets the stage for a complete shift in paradigm for women, in the way He treated them and presented them to the Old Testament religious culture' Pointing to a return to the ideal in the garden of Eden. A significant message of the Gospel is that we are ALL "sons" of God. No male and female, "all" are Christs and all heirs according to his promise (Gal 3:26-4:7) It is also undeniable that there are women out there (Sandra Richter is an example of a brilliant teacher) who carry the gift of teaching by the Holy Spirit, for the edification of the Church. Don't misunderstand me, I'm fully aware that there are women out there who do teach, who shouldn't. In saying that there are just as many men as well.
When Dr. Gupta said how he came to his complementarian view wanting to fit in the circles he traveled in makes me think listening to his arguments he has done the same thing after marrying a lady in an MDiv program. His arguments are not compelling at all to me. I think when he said the OT was clearly a patriarchy. he is correct because that is what comes natural to humans. Just in the natural realm, especially in less civil times, who in their wildest imagination would assume a women would be leading men. It would be a hugely rare ocassion. The only reason this is a topic of discussion today is because of the influence of Christianity on the western world bringing civility and human rights to all people. What we are currently seeing in our culture is several different issues that throw off the "natural order" and choosing that which is unnatural. Let civil unrest come to our culture where there is no longer safety and your life is at risk even to leave your home and you would see a culture run back towards a patriarchy.
That's not a conversion; it's a declension or apostasy. Stop calling yourself Christians, and just go the whole distance; if you're going to reject parts of God's word, stop waffling and reject all of it. You "limp between two opinions", and you will be spat out apart from repentance.
I'd recommend everyone go back and read about Deborah in Judges 4 and 5. She never did any interpretation of scripture in a church. People always misrepresent what she did for the sake of making an agenda-pushing argument. She was judging disputes at court under a palm tree.
@@8784-l3b all judges were not the same. This is something people forget. Every judge had their own unique qualities. This is why we need to read the scripture about what they actually did.
@@emanuelbudisan7083 God made a woman a Judge over Israel. They were called pastors/shepherds in Chronicles. To say a woman could be a pastor/shepherd over Israel, but a woman can't be a pastor/shepherd over a small church in our time makes no sense. Excerpt from my short and free essay below: INTRODUCTION: Before God was rejected by Israel for the rulership of men, that is, kings, there were different 'seasons' so to speak. One of those seasons was the time of the Judges. ...but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-in that they have abandoned Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you as well. -excerpt 1 Samuel 8 A Judge at this time, was VERY different from a judge in our time. The Judge was over the nation of Israel. But not as a man, as King, or as a woman, as Queen, because God was not rejected as King as yet. God ruled Israel through the Judges. Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars? -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV Major modern English translations like the NASB use the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people... [PASTOR - Origin: late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French pastour, from Latin pastor ‘shepherd’.] In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation Also: Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning, and since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel. -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verses 9 and 10 KJV -God speaking to Nathan the prophet
Helpful. Here's the "call out" The way in which Gideon was called cowardly was tough, because it did not seem to be grace filled, AND the angel Gabrielle callls him "mighty man of valor" (valor: great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle) let's assume slower and dig deeper - the riches of God!!!! was not ephod made with spoils to take eyes OFF him and to give glory of God ?- Ephod! there is so much there Praying for the peace and purity of God's people to His glory
For the elder qualification for men to manage their own households does not mean that anyone who manages their households can be an elder. What all elders must be, every Christian should strive to be, yet only elders are required to be able to teach and as man only they can teach over other men (1 Timothy 2:12-14). Sadly, Gordon Fee rips this out of Scripture because of a bad argument from textual criticism: 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 (ESV): As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. This in context is referring to the weighing on of prophecies (which women can do in 1 Cor 11). But women were not allowed to do the weighing in because, for example, they can weight in and exercise authority over their own husband or another man who prophecies.
My last comment on this video. Why aren't we working through any texts. I really don't care about what Dr. Gupta thinks, or "it seems to me", or pagan cults did this or that. I am really grateful for the wide variety of guests Preston has on, but this guy is below the usual caliber of guests.
Because egalitarians know the text does not support their agenda. So speculation trumps Scripture; culture trumps creation; human reasoning trumps divine revelation.
Preston, did you happen to catch that Rosaria Butterfield has publicly called you out for your promotion of the use of preferred pronouns? She has chosen to publicly repent of her sin of using those pronouns, herself. Perhaps you should also?
I’m leaning toward complimentarianism… This is one reason why… Many Christians believe in a literal hell as opposed to an annihilation. That goes against our sensibilities. We just accept that God;s ways are different from our ways. So why then do we treat Paul’s words about women differently? At face value… women shouldn’t teach men.
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's verdict could not be altered. 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.
there are some very large leaps you are taking. I’ve never heard anyone make the assumptions that you are. I would be interested in seeing how you arrive at these conclusions.
The further I get in this interview the more I wonder how this guy is even considered a scholar. After listening to Preston's care in handling the text, wrestling with solid arguments, this guy is not in the same league. I've hosted many small groups as the homeowner and wasn't the leader of the group, that is a lame argument. If a woman is a widow, who else would be the leader of her household? I am always disappointed listening to these people why no one seems to address why did Jesus choose 12 men? He was God is human flesh, he never minded bucking tradition, why didn't he pick 6 men and 6 women to be the original disciples?? The arguments for the egalatarian position are about as weak as those used by the LGBTQ community to discount the major passages that teach the lifestyle is sin.
By that same argument: why didn't he pick them from 12 different time periods and then disperse them back after going to heaven? Then we'd likely have an eye witness to his life and ministry! My response would be, he chose out the current pool of options. And I that pool he chose the least of the least likely to be a disciple. He chose those who he wanted and not the best and brightest already being sought by other rabbis as students.
Why did Jesus choose those disciples? Peter who denied Him. Judas who betrayed Him. Had they been female disciples; one would have argued; that is why women shouldn't be disciples. Then the rest; what were their qualifications? why them and not others?
As a woman can't help but feel you're just pushing an agenda. First you state the need for scholarly work outside the bible that's clearly above the average lay person. I almost stopped watching at that point for the condescension. Then you start with Deborah. Sorry - pass.
(I haven't watched the video.) 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.
@@villain2374 (N.N. personal note) Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment. -excerpt Judges 4 Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars? -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV (In case the reader in unaware, the word pastor and the word shepherd are the same word. I prefer shepherd, because it has obvious meaning to the average person.) Major modern English translations like the NASB use the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people... In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation Some believe that pastor (or shepherd), is a position that was created in the New Covenant. This is not true. In the Old Testament shepherds are mentioned multiple times. Often in a negative way. “My people have become lost sheep; Their shepherds have led them astray. -excerpt Jeremiah 50 For an entire chapter on worthless shepherds, the reader may check out Ezekiel 34. When the shepherd over Israel died, the people went back into sin. That is because the Judge was the most important spiritual leader of this time period. But it came about, when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their obstinate ways. -excerpt Judges 2
You do not go to scripture for instruction. You go to scripture for reinforcement. Patriarchal women are spoon-fed by the status quo. You want to leisure it that way.
Okay another comment. My wife was saved first and far more spiritual than I am, though I have been the pastor of a couple churches and the clear spiritual leader of our home.
Ezer kenegdo, do a thorough study of this word, i have been a believer for 30 years, never ever heard this word taught is a single sermon in all that time. Accidentally came upon it a few months ago, be aware that our "patriarchal church system" does not want you to discover this word nor what it means. It is translated help meet in Gen. 2:18. Also, Ps.144:12 cites daughters as cornerstones just like Jesus is called the cornerstone. Proverbs brings the "femaleness of wisdom" to the forefront as a mother teaching her adult son while not being portrayed as a usurping his authority. It may be that the woman was one of man's earliest sacrifices. These are just a couple examples in scripture.
@@rgnold2517 Exactly. Ezer= rescue, help (also describes God himself in relation to Israel as their ezer!!) and kenegdo= ke neged do = equal to but opposite of. Addam was alone so God sent him rescue which was equal to, but opposite of Adam. A woman =)
Appreciate Dr. Gupta’s immense background research. I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of getting the first century context correct.
However, I was a bit disappointed that he didn’t really do much exegesis in response to his background research.
As someone sitting on the fence of this discussion, I still have found Dr. Breshears the most convincing.
The problem with 1 Tim 2:13 is vs 14 & 15. In my opinion, those 2 verses are the most anti-gospel pieces of scripture in the New Testament.
Most complimentarians sidestep that, and have no explanation as to why salvation isn’t apparently enough to save a woman; and that she has to have children to be saved or why he seems in those verses to put most of the blame for the fall on Eve (as vs 14 & 15 posit). Everybody seems to just ignore the very uncomfortable texts in those 2 verses. If I cannot explain what 14 & 15 mean, then building a doctrine on vs 13 is ridiculous
Which is why your beliefs are built most strongly by the entire Bible, and not a few verses. Looking for the character of God and the people he seems to endorse. That's what Sheila gregior recommended in her podcast discussing this. And her theories seemed to be very reasonable.
Complementarians are desperate to uphold male entitlement, so yeah, they ignore all this and how these verses are for a certain situation at that time (worship of the goddess Diana, etc.).
@@HonestCitizen-we1mh
Did you know a Christian responded with this:
"nonsense @Himmiefan"
I really appreciate Nijay’s ability to bring down the scholarly work to everyday language. He reminds me a lot of Tim
Mackie in that way and in the way he (hyper)links passages together, like Mary and Deborah.
Loved this! Another great interview!
If I were the devil I would do everything in my power to see that complimentarianism wins the debate. With just this one victory, I could assure that the female half of God's royal priesthood would be silenced. "But you are a chosen people,* a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
Except "complementarianism" isn't about silencing women. Rather, the devil would want to create such a false dichotomy between the differences between men and women and value we have in Christ to make us all feel lesser if we don't have certain roles.
Being part of the priesthood isn't the only qualification for being an elder. If it were, then children who are saved could be elders. We are all equally valued in Christ, but roles don't disappear because of that. There's still a structure.
@@noobmaster31 tell that to the underground church in iran.--led by women.
@@susanbarackman-artist7670 if we do things in our own power, thinking we need to help God out, then we've lost sight of His word and are living out our own desires, and not what His word commands.
i doubt thse women are doing things under their own power seeing as claiming to be a christian in a muslim workd can lead to imprisonment or death. like the believers in the early church.
@@susanbarackman-artist7670 if they disobey God's word, then they are doing it with their own power, whether or not you agree. Women and men are called to share the gospel, but leading a church, i.e. teaching/preaching, is set aside for men. If these women are leading the church in the capacity of elder/overseer, then that's disobedience to God's word.
39:33 wouldn´t she be under a legal guardian, even as a widow. And there had to be special circumstances for her to be her own Head of the Household.
"The tent peg woman" at 23:03 makes me wonder if we say "Jael" 3 times in a mirror she'll appear...
This discussion is refreshing.
the problem in the church is not that some say women can preach/pastor/teach or not preach/pastor/teach but the downright hate coming from those who are patriarchal/complementarian towards those who believe God can and does call them as He sees fit.
They say the meanest things to those who believe God can and does call women to preach/pastor/teach.
Case in point---no names will be mentioned but with a little search on women in seminary you can see and hear it for yourself
There is a woman who is a highly respected teacher of women in the southern baptist church. She believes that women should not preach/pastor or teach men and has very harsh words towards women who do as in they need to check if they are saved and need to repent. She influences many women.
In a youtube video titled she discussed if women should attend seminary. She allowed that woman could attend seminary but could not take classes that are for pastors/preachers.
But here is the egregious part. She stated that any women taking classes meant for pastors/preachers even though she may never pastor or preach was just like someone learning how to do abortions even though they may never do them.
Basically she called women who want to learn more of God and service to Him ACCOMPLICES TO MURDER ?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!
Then she called seminaries who allow women to take those classes sinners in need of repentance.
This one was a lot of fun. Great interview!
11:28 It really isn't' clear whatsoever that Deborah is more important than Gideon, aka JerubBaal, who God used to purge Ba'al worship and conquer the much larger army of Midianites before later in his life people of Israel actually begged him to be King; yet he refuses because 'only God is their rightful ruler.'
So much for the reductive view that says Judges was simply 'a dark time where they lacked King' by reading Judges 18-21 back into the earlier parts of the text. Starting with Othniel(Caleb's younger brother) it is Yahweh that raises up deliverers for His chosen people and doesn't yet give them a King. After the time of David they have much the same problems as before all of which shall be corrected when the Son of David becomes the one true king as alluded to by Gideon's refusal to become a monarch.
In fact at the very start of Judges there is a prophecy given that the Sons of Judah shall go down to fight; so Deborah's role as Prophet and declaring Naphtali and Zebulun shall go, to be lead by Barak, is following the normative pattern of this era. The request from Barak for her to come with him is the exceptional part and is why his honour(killing Sisera) is given to a woman(Jael).
Don't even get me started on how badly he glosses over the victory song which honours Jael "towards the end", not Deborah; her and Barak are both honoured in the earlier section but here, as in the initial telling of the story, it is Barak with his men who goes down into battle in the valley, Sisera escapes and Jael takes his life by tricking him. Off to a bad start.
This was great, Dr. Gupta is always so reasonable and insightful. I still don't know what to do with 1 Timothy 2:11-15. It seems to require pretzel-like contortionist moves to extract anything even remotely woman-affirming from it, but on the other hand a face-value reading is surely wrong (in addition to making me want to jump off a bridge). I hope to one day ask Paul himself, "WHAT WAS THAT?" At which point he'll probably shrug and say, "Beats me, I didn't write it." Ha ha.
What makes most sense to me is the cultural context regarding Ephesus containing the Temple of Artemis and she is even mentioned by her other name in Acts(Diana). I think she had a very strong presence connection to the women of the time and this mix of culture and new Christians may have caused unnecessary disruption of teaching and false ideologies taught in the church at that time. I also think that he reaffirms the women that they will be saved through childbirth in the following of Christ rather than the perceived saving from Artemis. This is my current understanding of the likelihood as to why he said this.🤔
Wow, Nijay's journey is in many ways just the opposite of mine. I bought into Catherine Clark Kroeger's argument regarding the supposed Gnostic heresy being address in 1 Timothy for a well over a decade until I realized that the evidence she gathered to make her case is exceptionally weak. I tried to stay as far away from John Piper as I could during the 90s. Still not on board completely with Piper's approach to complementarianism. But glad to see that Nijay is honest about some of the inadequacies of the egalitarian approach to 1 Timothy.
Wow! What a great presentation of the egalitarian view!
People are a spirit first housed in a body, spirit is willing, flesh is weak.
God calls the spirit of a person not necessarily the "house" they are living in.
God gifts our spirit, that's the likeness and image of God, the speaking spirit part of humans. God is spirit.
If you say only men can lead then you are saying by virtue of a penis (flesh) can you lead.
Adam failed at "leading" Eve, when questioned by the serpent she says the tree in the midst of the garden we shall not eat from, that tree in the midst of the garden was the tree of life and no prohibition was placed on that tree.
In fact she doesn't even know that the tree she is standing right in front of is the one she shall not eat from.
She is seeking wisdom (look at her thought process Gen 3:6) because Adam had not properly shared with her what God had said.
And men think they are the best choice for teaching and leading. The sin of Adam is passed to each man and each man passes it to his offspring.
Adam is standing right there, doesn't defend the garden from this interloper snake, doesn't protect Eve or God's reputation. He listens while the serpent slanders God, does nothing.
His remedy is not to take charge as a Godly man or call out for God in this crisis but rather eat what he absolutely knows he must not eat. He is deliberately disobeys.
Eve is tricked by the serpent but with the assisstance of Adam and this is why God attributes Adam with the fall. God is always just, he did not blame Adam because of Eve, he blamed Adam because Adam was the blame.
Eve is not well informed, she doesn't have benefit of knowing the commandment and where there is no law there is no transgression. Romans 5.
If man is a leader he is a little pathetic at it.
Adam blames God and Eve, Eve is the only one who told the truth. Adam doesn't mention the snake, Eve is the only one honest with God and tells him what happened.
The snake wants to silence the woman for that reason and man has assissted the snake in the snake's desire. They have worked together in the past. The subjugation of women was born out of this event.
God prophesized it in Gen 3:16, "in turning you will turn to him but he will simple lord over you and overrule your pleas to be heard and for compassion."
Is this supposed to be scholarly work?
Gave me a lot to think about. My one complaint: “I tend to be a minimalist” with unstated connections and inferences when someone reads complementarianism into Gen 2, but then he proceeds to say Acts 5 is egalitarianism. It’s ok to do that, within theological and exegetical reason, but don’t claim you’re a minimalist as if the opposition is wildly reading their position into narratives. Both sides read betwixt the lines. Dr. Gupta, you are a dear man who has blessed the Church in many ways, but a minimalist you are not.
Great interview!!😊👍
I am a complementarian for two reasons: 1. The strength of the argument exegetically. 2. The weakness of the egalitarian position, as is abundantly displayed in this video
Adam takes the blame becomes he is responsible as a leader. It’s a strawman to state that complementarians state that women’s are gullible. No, Paul’s grounds his argument for women to not teach and except use authority (such as pastors) over man in creation ORDER and her as being the first one to sin (1 Tim. 2:12-14).
“The Bible was written in a patriarchal society” is not a good argument against how God sees authority. God recognized Adam’s authority.
I am sorry but scripture nowhere states that "Adam takes the blame", nor that this is so because "he is responsible as a leader". Adam is not described as a "leader" anywhere, nor did he "take" the blame, the blame is given. Nor is anywhere written that Adam was "in authority" (over Eve). Nor does the Bible teach that there was a "creation order". Those are all man-made explanations and descriptions based on your own interpretation of what you read.
Yes the Bible does teach that there is a creation order. I just quoted it to you.
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."1 Tim 2:12-14.
Did you even read my whole comment? Read Genesis 2. Adam names Eve. Eve was made FOR Adam not vice versa. And God first calls Adam when Satan seeks to first call Eve. Read Genesis 3 carefully. Rom 5 recognizes Adam as the federal head of the human race. Sin entered through him. He was silent as he watch Satan and Eve converse.@@LaLaBlaBla-r7m
feminism has now become the gospel, blur the gender lines. Galatians 3:28 male and female are part of the patriarchy
@@LaLaBlaBla-r7m
Who is Adam?
Genesis 5:2
Ambiguous and obscure verses are not good for strict doctrine.
Complimentarians are not instructed by bible verses;
they are reinforced by them.
I had understood that the Timothy argument was written to him at a time of intense persecution to preachers of the gospel. Lots of persecution and culturally, very dangerous to women! Paul could have been protecting sisters at this time by telling Timothy to keep them on the down low in this time and culture. For their safety, And that the Genesis text was proof that they should step to the front and take the heat of persecution to help protect his sisters in the faith!
But this interpretation also brings light!
@Preston Sprinkle
Regarding the credentials of elders in Timothy and Titus , kindly note there is new research on translations which claim that the original text in greek do not have male pronouns to describe who should be an elder. Its the translators ( the first time it appears as a male pronoun) who use it after 350AD.
Do you have a source for the "research on translations"?
I’m hearing about more churches moving away from both egalitarian and complimentary, and returning to completely patriarchal as they shift into a more reformed theology.
I see this as a natural response to the uncertainty and confusion associated with the two views.
"Complementarianism" IS patriarchy.
It reflects the extremism currently going on in American society. Since it's not from God, it will eventually die off.
Excited to find a fellow Miami grad and Campus Crusade Miami alum, speaking on this topic.
Curious to know if his time in ministry at Miami was under Roger Hershey.
1:16:20 Paul writes 1 Timothy 2 tonTimothy “as if its the first time he wrote it” because it was t just for Timothy but for the whole church.
1 Timothy 6:21 (ESV): Grace be with you
This “you” is in plural because Paul is writing to Timothy but also for the whole church to hear it. Second, we all need reminders which Paul even states to Timothy.
The interviewee still does not address 1 Tim. 2:14, but instead appeals to historical background that the letter was written with false teaching in mind.
Paul appeals to creation order, not false teaching at the time, culture, etc. Therefore, this is for all time because the doctrine of creation still applies to us. Men even like FF Bruce are wrong. Appeal to Scripture.
1Tim chapt 2. The subject of women teaching and having authority "over" a man and qualifications to be overseer are two totally separate topics.The argument that only men are to hold office as Elder/Deacon or Pastor is very strong. However, verse 12 shows that a woman's teaching is juxtaposed with her having authority "over" a man. The key word is "over". That is, a woman's teaching does not usurp, or over-rule men's teaching. Why? because Eve was deceived, not Adam. If the men in the church say she is wrong, she is wrong, they over-ride her every time. It's not a prohibition, it's a boundary.
Now in 1Cor 14:34,35 the text says that women are to remain silent in the churches. However, not only doesn't it sound like Paul, but it contradicts his statement at chapter 11:5 where woman can pray and prophecy (hardly silent) with conditions (head-covering). I believe (as do others) Paul is quoting a Corinthian idiom (as he does elsewhere. 1Cor 10:23) pushed by the Judaisers, and that Verse 36 is a rebuttal. The KJV, RSV, WEB, ASV and the HNV (Hebrew Names version) start v36 with the word "What"? was it from you only....etc which turns the verse into a rebuttal, which is the only translation that makes contextual and grammatical sense, allowing the context to flow. Other words used eg, 'and', 'or' etc makes the paragraph nonsensical. That's why most theologians (using these versions), believe these verses don't belong there and are a scribal error. I believe they do belong there, just change the first word, which the Greek makes applicable (allows for), and it all makes sense.
It's ironic that the issue of women teaching is raised in a letter to Timothy who is overseeing a church where Apollos was instructed (taught/teach) more accurately (his theology was fine-tuned), by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:26). I don't think it's coincidence that Priscilla's name is intentionally mentioned first. It was culturally inappropriate to put the wife's/woman's name before the man without a specific reson. It makes sense that It was placed there by Luke, deliberately, to emphasis she was the dominant figure. We must not play down her role, simply because it doesn't suit previous interpretations regarding women teaching, which is easily rebutted.
Throughout the Gospels Jesus sets the stage for a complete shift in paradigm for women, in the way He treated them and presented them to the Old Testament religious culture' Pointing to a return to the ideal in the garden of Eden. A significant message of the Gospel is that we are ALL "sons" of God. No male and female, "all" are Christs and all heirs according to his promise (Gal 3:26-4:7)
It is also undeniable that there are women out there (Sandra Richter is an example of a brilliant teacher) who carry the gift of teaching by the Holy Spirit, for the edification of the Church. Don't misunderstand me, I'm fully aware that there are women out there who do teach, who shouldn't. In saying that there are just as many men as well.
As a minimalist he sure does read a lot into a list of names! What ever happened to exegesis?
When Dr. Gupta said how he came to his complementarian view wanting to fit in the circles he traveled in makes me think listening to his arguments he has done the same thing after marrying a lady in an MDiv program. His arguments are not compelling at all to me. I think when he said the OT was clearly a patriarchy. he is correct because that is what comes natural to humans. Just in the natural realm, especially in less civil times, who in their wildest imagination would assume a women would be leading men. It would be a hugely rare ocassion. The only reason this is a topic of discussion today is because of the influence of Christianity on the western world bringing civility and human rights to all people. What we are currently seeing in our culture is several different issues that throw off the "natural order" and choosing that which is unnatural. Let civil unrest come to our culture where there is no longer safety and your life is at risk even to leave your home and you would see a culture run back towards a patriarchy.
You do not go to scripture for instruction.
You go to scripture for reinforcement.
Do not appeal to nature and so is culture.
It will disappoint you.
That's not a conversion; it's a declension or apostasy.
Stop calling yourself Christians, and just go the whole distance; if you're going to reject parts of God's word, stop waffling and reject all of it. You "limp between two opinions", and you will be spat out apart from repentance.
I'd recommend everyone go back and read about Deborah in Judges 4 and 5. She never did any interpretation of scripture in a church. People always misrepresent what she did for the sake of making an agenda-pushing argument. She was judging disputes at court under a palm tree.
A Judge could judge homicide cases. Therefore a Judge
could execute a man for his sin (according to Deuteronomy).
@@8784-l3b all judges were not the same. This is something people forget. Every judge had their own unique qualities. This is why we need to read the scripture about what they actually did.
A judge was not a priest.
@@emanuelbudisan7083 exactly. And even if they were, a priest in the Old Testament isn't the same as an elder in the New Testament.
@@emanuelbudisan7083
God made a woman a Judge over Israel. They were called
pastors/shepherds in Chronicles. To say a woman could be
a pastor/shepherd over Israel, but a woman can't be a
pastor/shepherd over a small church in our time makes no
sense.
Excerpt from my short and free essay below:
INTRODUCTION:
Before God was rejected by Israel for the rulership of men, that is, kings,
there were different 'seasons' so to speak. One of those seasons
was the time of the Judges.
...but they have rejected Me from being King over them.
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-in that they have abandoned Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you as well.
-excerpt 1 Samuel 8
A Judge at this time, was VERY different from a judge in our time.
The Judge was over the nation of Israel. But not as a man, as
King, or as a woman, as Queen, because God was not rejected as King as yet.
God ruled Israel through the Judges.
Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV
Major modern English translations like the NASB use
the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people...
[PASTOR - Origin: late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French pastour,
from Latin pastor ‘shepherd’.]
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
Also:
Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning, and since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel.
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verses 9 and 10 KJV -God speaking to Nathan the prophet
Helpful. Here's the "call out" The way in which Gideon was called cowardly was tough, because it did not seem to be grace filled, AND the angel Gabrielle callls him "mighty man of valor" (valor: great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle) let's assume slower and dig deeper - the riches of God!!!! was not ephod made with spoils to take eyes OFF him and to give glory of God ?- Ephod! there is so much there
Praying for the peace and purity of God's people to His glory
For the elder qualification for men to manage their own households does not mean that anyone who manages their households can be an elder.
What all elders must be, every Christian should strive to be, yet only elders are required to be able to teach and as man only they can teach over other men (1 Timothy 2:12-14).
Sadly, Gordon Fee rips this out of Scripture because of a bad argument from textual criticism: 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 (ESV): As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
This in context is referring to the weighing on of prophecies (which women can do in 1 Cor 11). But women were not allowed to do the weighing in because, for example, they can weight in and exercise authority over their own husband or another man who prophecies.
It’s actually sentiments and experience over exegesis
My last comment on this video. Why aren't we working through any texts. I really don't care about what Dr. Gupta thinks, or "it seems to me", or pagan cults did this or that. I am really grateful for the wide variety of guests Preston has on, but this guy is below the usual caliber of guests.
Because egalitarians know the text does not support their agenda. So speculation trumps Scripture; culture trumps creation; human reasoning trumps divine revelation.
Preston, did you happen to catch that Rosaria Butterfield has publicly called you out for your promotion of the use of preferred pronouns?
She has chosen to publicly repent of her sin of using those pronouns, herself.
Perhaps you should also?
I’m leaning toward complimentarianism… This is one reason why… Many Christians believe in a literal hell as opposed to an annihilation. That goes against our sensibilities. We just accept that God;s ways are different from our ways. So why then do we treat Paul’s words about women differently? At face value… women shouldn’t teach men.
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's verdict could not be altered.
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.
there are some very large leaps you are taking. I’ve never heard anyone make the assumptions that you are. I would be interested in seeing how you arrive at these conclusions.
Cherry picking at best!
Every argument this guy gives is “Scholars say this, and scholars say that”. He showed his hand early on when he said his gf/wife convinced him. 😂
The further I get in this interview the more I wonder how this guy is even considered a scholar. After listening to Preston's care in handling the text, wrestling with solid arguments, this guy is not in the same league. I've hosted many small groups as the homeowner and wasn't the leader of the group, that is a lame argument. If a woman is a widow, who else would be the leader of her household? I am always disappointed listening to these people why no one seems to address why did Jesus choose 12 men? He was God is human flesh, he never minded bucking tradition, why didn't he pick 6 men and 6 women to be the original disciples?? The arguments for the egalatarian position are about as weak as those used by the LGBTQ community to discount the major passages that teach the lifestyle is sin.
By that same argument: why didn't he pick them from 12 different time periods and then disperse them back after going to heaven? Then we'd likely have an eye witness to his life and ministry!
My response would be, he chose out the current pool of options. And I that pool he chose the least of the least likely to be a disciple. He chose those who he wanted and not the best and brightest already being sought by other rabbis as students.
@sackettfamily4685 Wouldn't women be *even less likely* in the time and culture? 😐
Why did Jesus choose those disciples?
Peter who denied Him.
Judas who betrayed Him.
Had they been female disciples;
one would have argued;
that is why women shouldn't be disciples.
Then the rest;
what were their qualifications?
why them and not others?
This "minimalist" sure reads a LOT out of very little...
Egalitarian speculation: “defacto leader”
As a woman can't help but feel you're just pushing an agenda. First you state the need for scholarly work outside the bible that's clearly above the average lay person. I almost stopped watching at that point for the condescension. Then you start with Deborah. Sorry - pass.
(I haven't watched the video.)
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.
deborah was not a pastor@@8784-l3b
@@villain2374
(N.N. personal note)
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment.
-excerpt Judges 4
Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV
(In case the reader in unaware, the word pastor and the word
shepherd are the same word. I prefer shepherd, because it has
obvious meaning to the average person.)
Major modern English translations like the NASB use
the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people...
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
Some believe that pastor (or shepherd), is a position that
was created in the New Covenant. This is not true. In the Old Testament
shepherds are mentioned multiple times. Often in a negative way.
“My people have become lost sheep;
Their shepherds have led them astray.
-excerpt Jeremiah 50
For an entire chapter on worthless shepherds, the reader may
check out Ezekiel 34.
When the shepherd over Israel died, the people went back into sin. That is because the Judge was the most important spiritual leader of this time period.
But it came about, when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their obstinate ways.
-excerpt Judges 2
@@8784-l3bHi, where can I get this please?
You do not go to scripture for instruction.
You go to scripture for reinforcement.
Patriarchal women are spoon-fed by the status quo.
You want to leisure it that way.
Okay another comment. My wife was saved first and far more spiritual than I am, though I have been the pastor of a couple churches and the clear spiritual leader of our home.
If you have to dig this deep to support your cause, no wonder the first female Rabbi was ordained in 1972!
We'll stick with John MacArthur on this one.
I Corinthians 3
Ezer kenegdo, do a thorough study of this word, i have been a believer for 30 years, never ever heard this word taught is a single sermon in all that time. Accidentally came upon it a few months ago, be aware that our "patriarchal church system" does not want you to discover this word nor what it means. It is translated help meet in Gen. 2:18. Also, Ps.144:12 cites daughters as cornerstones just like Jesus is called the cornerstone. Proverbs brings the "femaleness of wisdom" to the forefront as a mother teaching her adult son while not being portrayed as a usurping his authority. It may be that the woman was one of man's earliest sacrifices. These are just a couple examples in scripture.
Anytime God saw a need He provided a rescuer. He said "it is not good for man to be alone, i will make him an ezer kenegdo."
@@rgnold2517 Exactly. Ezer= rescue, help (also describes God himself in relation to Israel as their ezer!!) and kenegdo= ke neged do = equal to but opposite of. Addam was alone so God sent him rescue which was equal to, but opposite of Adam. A woman =)
Amen !