Why Women Must Learn in Quietness and Submission: Xenophon of Ephesus and 1 Timothy 2 (Gary Hoag)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лис 2015
- seedbed.com
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com
DOWNLOAD THE GROUP PDF DISCUSSION GUIDE:
store.seedbed.com/products/wom...
In 1 Timothy 2:11 Paul writes to Timothy, his pastoral trainee, “A woman must learn in quietness and submission.” Paul also instructs women on how to dress and to be modest. Is this just another expression of ancient, patriarchal culture that sought to marginalize women? What might this cryptic text mean, and how does it relate to the situation of the church to which he was writing? The ancient writings of people like Xenophon of Ephesus offer important cultural details that greatly affect how we ought to interpret passages like this one, and they help us determine what their significance is for contemporary Christians. In the case of women in Ephesus, it may just be that the customs associated with the cult of Artemis offers surprising insight into the actual intention of Paul the apostle.
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
I cried watching this this morning ...
Almost all my life I have felt the call of God to teach and lead in the church, first in the Catholic Church where I grew up, and then in a complementarian church as a young adult. But never would I have wanted to disobey God to teach the Word of God (to men).
This teaching in particular has set me free to enter into the role I am called to ...
Thank you for giving real sound biblical answers to these controversial passages. May it set many other women free to serve as they are called by God.
The fact that he used an extra biblical text to explain/refute what is clearly written in Scriptures, should give one pause. Similar wording to this 1 Timothy 2 passage is found in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Women can teach -- other women and children. The role of Elder/Pastor is reserved for men of one wife. The answers are in the Bible. No need to dig up obscure historical texts as this presenter has done. May the Lord lead you to all truth and understanding.
Sister, don’t use this one man’s esoteric academic argument to convince you to disobey the plain sense of scripture. Please consider the following:
1) I understand your heart to teach, but your calling will never exceed that which the Lord has revealed. To step outside of this will never lead to your fulfilment; but God gives us strength and grace to live within it.
2) As another commentator here has put it - if you have the gift to teach, do that with children and other women. Especially young women. There are SO many opportunities and SO much need. You don’t have to teach men to be fulfilled.
3) Notice what this guy is selling you - an excuse to shake off what the church has believed for 1900 years, and the plain sense of scripture. By his own admission, he’s found some obscure, esoteric ancient text, and apparently that gives us all license to disregard what Paul is saying. Don’t be deceived: this is academic fancy, nor life giving exposition.
Again, you ought to be realised to fulfil your gift in the manner God has willed. Don’t let a random UA-cam video and an esoteric hypothesis lull you into a false sense or security. Don’t let this man establish another priesthood, in which only an elite have access to the truths of God.
@@BouncySlim1try reading the bible without a dictionary. Dictionaries are extra biblical you know.
@@BouncySlim1also be sure to throw away all the "extra biblical" writings of the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and the current pastors of your denomination. And your own notes. All of that is outside the Bible and, by your own logic, highly suspect.
@@JasonPrzybycien Why would I need a dictionary to read the Bible?
FINALLY I've understood what that verse in 2 Timothy means about women, being quiet in church, women pastors, and that verse about "women getting saved through childbearing."
I've been praying for nearly 40 years about the meaning of this - just last week I prayed for the answer! Whew! Yeah, God!
So may I ask the meaning behind it
What's the conclusion then
@@dpr-ss187 It is explained in the video.
that's so cool!
This is the best, BEST of all interpretations. This makes complete sense. Horrifying to think that a mistranslation, misinterpretation, and lack of original historical context for these verses is what has led to the barring of female pastors for centuries. Never again will women be restricted from using the gifts given to us by the Holy Spirit; women will work alongside men on equal footing just like God intended.
it makes one wonder how we can truly understand anything properly without context and background.
U can't
It makes you see how false prophets with followers with itching ears add to the Word of God.
@VinceBoyle With humility to realise that one's first impressions of things can be wrong. And to learn to dig deeper.
@@markaurelius61 What is there to expand upon a commandment? If you attempt to extract further than silence and all subjection it is not faith but a disobedient spirit adding to the Word of God as if God doesn't know what He is doing. Faith - either do it or don't.
The Bible was written by men inspired by God, but in human language in human cultures. Part of its beauty is that it connects us with different times and places, and obliges us to look into those different cultures to understand what it means in some places. One obvious one is know what a cubit is, for example, or what Roman armour is.
The Epistle to Timothy was written to a particular individual in a particular situation. It starts off telling Timothy to stay in Ephesus.
In Christ there are no distinctions, no male or female, rich or poor, jew or gentile. Jesus was totally against people exerting authority over others. It seems that people from the goddess cult of Artemis in Ephesus were coming into the church carrying on the old ways of priestesses shouting out and wearing expenive hair-dos and in other ways intimidating the audience. Paul wants that to stop.
This is mindblowing. The verse seems like a slamdunk case against female priests, but once you see the pagan context, fitting like a hand in a glove, it changes everything.
Exactly!! Great analogy also.
This is awesome! It explains how wrong my acceptance of other people’s theology is soooo wrong! He just set a whole generation free of wrong belief and traditions. Thank you Jesus for this teaching!!
Learn in silence now
Interesting insight. One thing I've come to learn about Paul is his use of local issues/customs/practices which he uses to reply to the letter's recipients. He doesn't stop to explain why he uses this example or that one because he doesn't have to, his audience knows full well what he's referring to.
Fast forward many centuries and we don't have a clue about the backstories. Then the literalist Western mind takes over and interprets the words into a whole different context. Or more frequently, readers skim over the words not realizing their significance.
Keep in mind Paul has reasons for everything he says, every example he uses, every comment he makes. He doesn't waste words. If it seems to a reader that he "wasting words" then it likely means the reader does not fully understand what Paul is conveying.
Quick examples: Paul references a boxer beating the air or an athlete training for a wreath of leaves. These are all references to the athletic games that were held in Corinth. So he skillfully uses local knowledge to help drive home a message to the local audience.
also keep in mind that its not entirely Paul's thoughts or instructions. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit, God himself wanted these words written down for the purpose and instruction of the church throughout its entire existence. God is not up there saying "ohh i should of mentioned to the people that those ideas must change in the 21st century. I mean, The instructions in the epistles are not open to different interpretations, based on different time periods and advancements of social ideals. Pauls writing to Timothy, to give him instructions of how the church should conduct itself, also at the same time by the Holy Spirit, these words were to be recorded by Gods will for the purpose of all Christians to read and learn from them. The doctrine is the same today as it was then. God is the same today as he was then, God does not change, nor does his Word, God does not change to suit any social standard. Jesus never conformed to the ideas of society, neither does he now. Men and Women are equal in the redemptive state, they are equal in creation, in the eyes of God, but to put it simply, Men and Women have clearly been created for different roles. A mans role to be a pastor, elder, leader, bread winner, protector of his family does not make him better or more loved by God, nor does the Womens roles makes her less inferior. Vice versa. God is no respecter of persons nor is there any partiality. Thats why Paul goes back to creation to explain it again. Man is responsible to love and lead his family like Jesus does the church. It is so simple, Men are to teach,lead and shepard the church. Why? Because God Said!
John Warren haven’t you pretty much disregarded what this teacher has just explained. There is cultural context to be considered.
@Red Hot Pepper Spray what is your point?
This guy blew my mind. That makes more sense than many other interpretations I've heard.
If any man contradicts the Bible because of their ideology they are in error. You don’t mix today’s world views with Bible world views. You take the world view of God and follow it.
Exactly! Which is precisely what he is doing. Excellent exegesis and proven historical facts.
This is perhaps an example of why you should not "beat" people with your interpretation.
I had judged this before even listening and after listening I can say I was wrong , this guy explained perfectly and I enjoyed listen , might have to listen a few more times to get more insight. Thank you
13. To condemn women preachers and women church workers is a serious offense, because God has stamped His approval on them by His Spirit over and over again, and who is man to fight against the Spirit of God?
To condemn women preachers and women church workers is in a sense to claim they are doing wrong and committing sin...and all those who support them and listen to them are having a part in that sin.
For anyone to do this, he must condemn approximately 99% of all the Spirit-filled believers and the vast majority of all of Christianity.
"Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons..." (Acts 10:34).
This article was taken from Email list subscription at NOTE FROM PAM CLARK
Thank you, so refreshing to hear a man who has actually researched!!! I also recommend ‘The Sourse’ New Testament with extensive notes on Greek word meanings by Dr A Nyland. Each sentence in 1 Timothy 2 has a whole page of explanations of the original Greek route words and their contexts in relation to corresponding biblical passages and other historical texts. It’s so enlightening to know what Holy Spirit is really saying.
Thank you for this insightful background to this passage. It’s amazing when problem passages aren’t so problematic when you have the right context for the text.
Amen!
Okay, thanks for your reply. I will have to listen to it again.
That's some great insight from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus. Thank you very much for sharing, Gary Hoag and SeedBed!
😉👍🏼
@@garyhoag8964 do you have a academic paper or some other form of writing on this. I’d love to have something like that to reference on this erase change you have done
@@valin77778 Find a recent WEA article "Demystifying Gender Issues in 1 Timothy 2:9-15, with Help from Artemis" (theology.worldea.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ERT-Vol-44-No-3-August-2020.pdf) my BBRS volume "Wealth in Ancient Ephesus" here (www.amazon.com/Wealth-Ancient-Ephesus-Letter-Timothy/dp/157506829X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=hoag+ephesiaca&qid=1603199604&sr=8-1)
thank God for revealing this to Gary. all praise to our Lord
Amen 🙏
Good job. Thank you for the fresh insights.
This video should be shared a million times
Yes thanks, that's very helpful. Brilliant scholarship.
Thank you for sharing your research, it's going to help the church deal with this point... Blessings!!
Brought much understanding, thanks!
Thank you for your incitefull research.
Thank you so much for this research.
Very enlightening. Great insight. Thank you.
Thank you! My own study has come to these same conclusions!
This is great!!
Whew!! Thanks God. That was refreshing. I always stumbled over that passage, but I think this video offers an incredible insight. Praise the Lord!!
Thank you for all these excellent comments.
His mind-numbingly tedious introduction that took the first 3 minutes almost had me turn it off. The comments I had read before convinced me to give it a chance. Glad I did!
Well explained. Thank you for sharing your study or research.
Thank you so much!!
Thank you for your in depth study! It matters! Especially to women who feel the call of God into Ministry! God bless!
Thank u so much dear!!
The background information is interesting, but besides the point.
The problem is that Paul gives his reasoning for forbidding women to teach or have authority over men: because "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
Then there is the context of the command to men, which is a clearly literal and universal command to "pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.".
Paul refutes the erroneous teaching of creation with the actual story of creation. And shows that women can be deceived by fables. The Bible says sin entered through one man also.
Thank you
Superb.
Thank you
.
Wow. This is such a powerful and succinct explanation.
Absolutely beautifully scholarly done!!
Very interesting, this. Very!
With all due respect Mr. Hoag, I consider myself an educated man, Master's degree, and I have not heard of let alone used half of the words you used in the first two minutes of this video. Um, in the future can you perhaps narrate this down to folks that aren't perhaps in an advanced level Literature course??? Otherwise, I appreciate your work on this subject and the insights shared here. Thanks
Can anyone point me in the direction of the “Kroger” resource he quotes for authenteo being author? Thanks
Stay within the God given scripture...
You realize Scripture has context though, right? By reading Paul’s letters you are first of all reading someone else’s mail. Sure it was written for you, but it wasn’t written to you. Effort needs to be made to reconstruct the situation which necessitated the letter before appropriate interpretation can be discerned. God gave us a brain for a reason.
@@Sputnik1in1957 See Daniel Schidmt's answer above!
@@nickalsop3833 what’s his answer? I can’t find it
@@Sputnik1in1957 Anyone looking for a translation of Xenophon of Ephesus' Ephesiaca it can be found here:
www.elfinspell.com/ClassicalTexts/Rooke/XenophonsEphesianHistory/Ephesiaca-Book1.html
Having read this, the only possible connections to the Timothy text seem to be:
"Her Golden Hair was partly bound up in Tresses, but the greatest Part thereof hung loose" Eph. 1.12
"He afterwards adorn’d her with costly Ornaments, cloath’d her in rich Attire, and plac’d much Gold by her" Eph. 3.69
The first is referring to the female lead of the story, Anthia, who at the time was one of the virgin’s preparing for the procession of Artemis. It only refers to her hair, not to the hair styles of the other women. It does not report it as being customary for a woman of Ephesus. It describes the appearance of one character, not necessarily that of a the virgins in general. Therefore, extrapolating more than that seems to be beyond the bounds of the reference.
The second is referring to when Anthia, supposedly dead, is being prepared for burial by her fiancé in ornate jewelry, clothing and gold. This should provide no insight into the 1 Timothy 2 passage. Here she is not the one adorning herself, and the person who is, is Perilaus, not even from Ephesus, but rather a Cilician.
Therefore, the only potential connection is the first reference. But if anyone were to read it in context, they certainly wouldn’t make the jump that this Virgin of Artemis from a romance novel having braided hair proves that Paul in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is only referring to women who have come from being Artemis Virgin priests. This conclusion seems only possible if you are disposed to this result beforehand.
@@nickalsop3833 No
Phenomenal insight and much needed for Biblical interpretation. Thank you!
You are welcome! It was nearly ten years of research.
Wow! Thank you! I am reading your book on the subject now; the church desperately needs this type of teaching.
See Daniel Schidmt's answer above!
Author .... Thanks 🙏🏾
Praise Lord!
Added context for better focus and intrinsic guidance that is the path laid out. Connection is inevitable that is what eternity means as we continue and as we form more connections we contribute to our culturalization. The relevance of the work done described in the video can be indispensable for many many reasons. Subscribed !
This is more solid than anything I've seen on the internet so far...
I was wondering if you could link a photo copy of the page where this is found. I would love to insert this in my Bible, as a rich historical fact. Or at least tell us where to find the parts you are using to prove the point. Thank you. Great video.
Check out my BBRS volume, "Wealth in Ancient Ephesus" on Amazon for the full explanation.
I m also researching on ministers and wealth in 1 Timothy 6
Good scholarship Gary.
But poor theology
See Daniel Schidmt's answer above!
thank you
Can i like this 100 times! It's so freeing
Thanks for the encouragement. The argument with evidence is clearly laid out in my BBRS volume available on Amazon as "Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy". The evidence speaks for itself. Happy reading.
I would honestly say that you better think 100 time before you like it once. God's word can not be broken and unless we continue in humility and submission here on Earth, the consequence of fitting the Scriptures to our own likeness, feminism among many, will be tragic.
@@Merih98614
I think Gary just slew a sacred cow.
Please kindly supply full link of your monograph
I found this helpful with the exception of your quite glib interpretation of the word authority. A lot hangs on this so more thought and explanation should have been given to this.
I loved this!! How beautiful the teaching of God is, in helping transform our minds and hearts. What life giving, refreshing truth those young women in Ephesus received!
I am thankful for Dr. Hoag's insights, and knowledge, based on his thorough research!!
See Daniel Schidmt's answer above!
That was brilliant. It sheds much light on how important historical and cultural context is when interpreting a passage.
I absolutely cannot believe I have gone this long in church and have never heard this before. This is quite ridiculous the limitations we put on women because of our gross misinterpretation. Wow…
Well. He is lying, but if it makes you feel better
@@noneofyourbusiness9635 how do you mean?
@@darrellmitchell4293 isn’t the body of Christ called the bride? Isn’t God, the head of the body? So, if we are the bride and collectively the children in the bride, who is actually speaking IN US?
Matthew 10:20 (KJV)
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
Awesome the best ❤❤❤❤
Listen to Ben Witherington 3rds, teaching on this and of Junia. You will be encouraged.
correct
I have just finished reading Mary and Early Christian Women: Hidden Leadership. The fundamental message that God allows women to be religious leaders who preach and give direction to men is true and deeply needed now in the Catholic/Christian faith. I wrote this review from the idea of writing a letter to the author. The best part of this book comes when the author’s (Ally Kateusz) hard work and courage reveal the long “hidden” stories of Christianity’s early female apostles (Romans 16:7) and deacons (Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11). However, I would warn the author (and the readers) to have more faith in the actual Bible and to be more careful to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” (Matthew 13:24-32 and Luke 3:17) in terms of the extra-biblical sources.
Spoiler alert! This book does not prove that women have ever received what the Catholic Church terms the “ministerial priesthood”. In my opinion, she does prove that the Catholic Church’s current conventional narrative (CCC 1577) about how the apostles only chose men as their ordained collaborators and only had men for liturgical service is false. She proves this in the chapter on women preachers and baptizers. However there is a conspicuous lack of narrative evidence that the women apostles Nino Thecla, and Irene ever conferred the sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8: 14-17 and Acts 19:1-7) or Order (Acts 6:-1-7, Acts 13: 1-3)
To be fair there are some excellent novels and histories (2nd century) based on earlier oral traditions that were written down by early Christians. Unfortunately, later church authorities downgraded women's leadership and these true stories that were handed down from generation to generation were censored or destroyed. Kateusz tries to undo that damage. One of the gems of this book comes when Kateusz proves that honoring Mary as the mother of God (Theotokos) was universal among Christians before the Council of Ephesus.
Let the reader be warned! There is a lot of “chaff” in this book where the author completely brakes with the actual Bible and the Catholic faith.
Here is the case in point, Kateusz claims that Mary offers herself along with Christ at the Last Supper. Obviously, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could not have forgotten that. If what Kateusz puts forward is true, then all she has done is call the reliability of the canonical Gospels into doubt. So, at that point she is basically adding whatever she likes to the Catholic religion. Second, she wants to throw 1 Timothy out of the Bible because she claims that it can't be reconciled with her thesis. The third instance of chaff in her book comes when she unfortunately sites doctrinally unreliable texts like the Acts of Phillip alongside good doctrinally sound texts like the Life of Thecla.
Here is some of the good “wheat” that is on display in Kateusz’s book. Kateusz argues persuasively that the Six Books written down in the 2nd century are based on older Apostolic oral traditions about Mary the Mother of God. The Six Books were read in Christian churches and are probably the most reliable extra biblical sources that the author analyzes. She looks for common events in Mary's life and ministry that are present in this source and the Dormition narratives of Mary’s death, as well as The Life of the Virgin associated with Maximus the Confessor, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of Bartholomew.
The chapter on women preachers and baptizers proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the women deacons from Roman 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:11 were commissioned to preach, baptize, and oversee new Church communities in mission territory. It is believable that they could have been the religious leaders for these communities until male presbyters and apostles could arrive who would have been able to confirm the converts and set up local presbyters. It is notable that Kateusz cannot present a scrap of evidence that the female apostles were ordaining presbyters for their communities. Confirming and Ordaining are among the first things that Paul does when he arrives in a community.
Here are some other highlights
• The book confirms what Hans Urs Von Balthasar theorized about Mary being the greatest theologian. Kateusz shows that early Christian oral tradition describes Mary sending out a group of (male and female) missionaries from Jerusalem, supervising their preaching, and giving them further instruction.
• Many early Christians believed that Mary's religious leadership was fully equivalent to the male apostle’s “high priesthood”. This is demonstrated by how the Protoevangelium of James has Mary twice entering the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple and by Romans 16:7. The Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James is always going to be a good witness to the Marian beliefs of Christians that lived in the first centuries however there are serious doubts about its historical reliability.
• Early traditions have Mary offering her prayers along with liturgical incense in an action that was later restricted to Ministerial Priests.
• The Life of the Virgin is part “wheat” and part “chaff”. It has some value in bringing out Mary's leadership in the early community. However, the author’s contention that Mary offered herself as priest and victim along with Christ at the Last Supper borders on blasphemy. Once again this isn't about being for or against patriarchal Catholicism this is just about being consistent in Catholicism’s understanding of the canonical Gospels. You simply cannot add Mary co- presiding at the Last Supper and still cite the canonical Bible as an infallible witness to Jesus’s life and ministry.
• Kateusz relies on early Christian catechisms like the (Didascalia Apostolorum) and written collections of oral tradition to conclude that it was common in the early church to have two presiders at the Eucharist one male and one female (father and mother). She thinks that this demonstrates that women were ministerial priests. However, there is no reason to think that a female deacon couldn't co-preside. This is much more consistent with the canonical New Testament than believing that females transubstantiated the Eucharist. Remember other than consecrating the Eucharist deacons (in the 1st century) basically could do everything presbyters did in the early Church. That is why St. John Chrysostom expressed confusion about whether he was in fact reading about the deacons (and not presbyters) in Acts chapter 6. They seemed to him to be demonstrating the managerial, pastoral, and other non-sacramental responsibilities that were only given to presbyters in St. John Chrysostom’s time.
One of the highlights of this book is learning how early Christian writing and art proves how Jesus and Mary are inseparable. It proves that doctrinally orthodox Christians venerated and prayed to Mary in the 2nd and 3rd centuries without any doctrinal guidance from the Church. Another joy is learning about how central Mary’s leadership was in the founding of Christianity.
I could see that the author probably has multiple PHD's in art history because she spent a lot of time analyzing the symbols inside historical church artworks. Her argument for women priests is basically this. Roman 16: 7 and reliable oral traditions from the 1st and 2nd century agree that women were given the extraordinary title “apostle”. Furthermore, the author's analysis of art history reveals that artwork inside Catholic churches and monasteries depicts women wearing a symbol of priestly ministry.
Artwork is clearly very subjective even if you do have multiple degrees in art history. For me the decisive point is this, if author’s argument for women priests were correct her Life of Thecla would have Thecla performing the sacrament of Confirmation (laying on his hands) as well as baptizing. That along with the fact that Paul easily could have included a simple one sentence note about women priests in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 just as he did with women deacons a few sentences later are the two fundamental reasons that I don't believe the author's argument for women priests. That being said I still enjoyed the majority of her book.
Next time just use biblical scriptures and examples.
Other books from individuals carry no weight as we see Catholics do with their catechism which contradicts the bible BUT they take it as infallible proof.
So...Paul establishes the position of wives in their homes as "oikosdespotes" ... Literally "house ruler/despot." And he does this using exactly the same word used to describe the husbands. That famous verse where Peter admonishes men to pay honor to women as more delicate vessels (hint: sexual dimorphism is a thing, don't abuse your power, guys) uses a word for "co-heirs" that was binding on *legal* documents in both Greek and Roman *courts*.
In Ephesians 5, the ONLY verb in the entire chapter which might be translated as a form of submission is present only in the MASCULINE plural. That means the group of people being called to submit could be all male, exclusively...or males and females together universally....but cannot grammatically refer exclusively to women...because *that* would require a uniquely feminine conjugation. Yet...that last gramatically impossible option is what most churches (falsely) teach as "truth." That's the single most glaring "we translated it how we wanted it because Go Go Roman Pagan Patriarchy, Let's conform Christ to Aristotle and Plato too!" in Scripture...right there in black and white for anyone to look up....but most won't.
Paul gave his most famous and influential letter to a *woman* to deliver and read.....and one might be curious as to *why* the translators of his letters in the KJV *decided* that whenever the word "deacon" applied to a clearly female person, it suddenly somehow meant something *other* than deacon.
It just reaches the point of silly when we consider that overall, across Paul's letters, more women are mentioned by name as being in specific positions of leadership in the Church than men....
Take a lesson from an ex-Muslim. You wanna learn what a religion really teaches? Learn to read the languages in which it was written.
There aren't supposed to be divisions and hierarchies.
No Jew/gentile
No Master/slave
No Husband/wife
CLEARLY the God who made man and woman knew that there was male and female, so He wasn't saying "I'm scragging gender!"... He was saying He was scragging *hierarchy.*
The qualification to teach and preach the Gospel is the indwelling Presence of Holy Spirit...not the presence of a penis. Pull the Church out of such carnal badges of office before we burn.
There's a REASON the very first instruction for encasing yourself in the Full Armor of God is to gird your LOINS with the Gospel of TRUTH.
Greek words don’t have masculine plurals. What are you talking about.
If the information in this video is true, it merits a re-translation of the entire passage.
See my reply above and consider how strong of an argument exists for that.
Amen!
You can't even name any of the manuscripts let alone know where they were found.
@SergeantRAZOR Not to mention the KJV translators had enough common sense to not use a manuscript found in a trash pile.
@@jlt-kjv2840 textus receptus/Septuigent, Alexandrian, Masoretic, how am I doing so far, seminary brat? My comment is over 4 years old, these days I work for a living so I don't have time to count the angels on a pinhead with you. Most of you seem to have missed the thrust of what I was saying anyway.
lovely take, especially on the always confusing part of that verse: "women shall be saved through child bearing." i watched dr. witherington iii try to explain it a couple of times, and in his case, he said the phrase meant we will be save through the childbearing of the woman, which he said is Mary and Jesus. that didnt sit well with me. but hearing this today makes far more sense. context is indeed king, even historical context. the rest of the verse i had no issue with it because i already understood the context of the goddess artemis.
Can you explain more about what you said in regards to authentein? I’m trying to learn an egalitarian view of that word and I keep getting conflicting responses.,
If such background knowledge is necessary to correctly interpret significant portions of the bible, then the vast majority of Christian's are totally clueless and in significant error. In fact, only a very, very small minority will ever have "true knowledge" about sacred scripture.
At what point are these "clarifications" simply serving to contribute to the madness that often goes hand-in-hand with biblical interpretation?
The implication that only a very few will ever have "true knowledge" is in a sense correct. And the fact of the matter is that, due to its culturally-embedded nature, the entire Bible is a human artifact. That means the further away we get from the historical events of the text, the more scholarship is needed to provide accurate interpretations of the text. That's why some are given the gift of teaching by the Holy Spirit: so that those who learn, who do the hard work of theology, might teach others what is lacking in our understanding. A theologian's work is never done, because there is never a moment when we can possibly cease re-imagining the gospel so that those who are not yet Christians might hear and understand the message of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Many are just too lazy. It's so much easier to just read it as it is on the page, particularly that affirms any prejudices.
See Daniel Schidmt's answer above!
@@Himmiefan
...or not even read it, and just let the man in the pulpit tell them what it means.
Perhaps sin did start with the man adam. God commanded adam to not eat of the tree before eve was formed. So it would have been Adam's responsibility to teach eve the command God gave to him exclusively about not eating from the tree. So adam failed to teach eve properly the command and stood by while she broke the command. So who really failed in the garden?
Another over looked point in 1 Timothy 2:15 women do not get salvation from child bearing! Jesus was child birthed! That's how the woman gets her salvation!
@@hollyreed2609 it's quite clear sin began in the garden of Eden.
Eve was deceived.
Adam rebelled against God.
I would very much like to hear more information from Seedbed on this topic of why many Christian denominations make women silent in the church roles. There is not enough scholarly voices out there speaking about how these passages should be read. I personally do not feel that women need to keep only silent roles without "usurping authority"; however, I have dealt with many super-conservative Christian denominations (ie., the church of Christ and some Baptist sub-groups) that are literalists in their textual readings. How do we lay people come to terms with research if the scholars do not give us their study? Thank you, Seedbed and Asbury Theological Seminary, for these excellent scholarly videos! God bless!
primomezzo, they’re only literalist when it suits them.
Try reading 1 Corinthians 11 in the King James Bible if you want to be slapped in the face with the truth.
@@jlt-kjv2840 KJB truth? That's laughable. Joking right?
Another overlooked part of 1 Timothy 2:15 is women don't get saved by child bearing! Their Savior Jesus comes forth through a woman's child bearing. Jesus saves women because He was born.
"All this commentary for no reason, when one simply need read 1 Timothy 2:14 to see exactly why Paul made his admonition.
"Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor".
How much clearer can it get??
Women are more easily deceived than men, this they are not supposed to have authority over men, including in the church setting". ----- jsmilers 8 months ago.
How true indeed!
You are demonstrating exactly why the Bereans were more noble because they searched the scriptures to see if what was being taught was true. Tell me, what does your simple reading do with Romans 5:12?
Wow! Great research!
So 1 Tim 2 is a polemic meant to undermine the religious system(s) in Ephesus at the time?
Men need to stop blaming everyone for their sin in the garden. Women and including blaming GOD ALMIGHTY for the woman He gave you!
Thank you. I read this passage today and was struggling with it. It is more than a coincidence that I stumbled upon this video.
See Daniel Schidmt's answer above!
1Co 11:1to10 its clear. God head of Jesus, Jesus head to man, man head to woman. Does that clarifies who teaches to whom? who has authority over whom? Or do you need to "interpret" this statement with a word salad?
Actually, you have pointed to verses that provide continuity with the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, not conflict. Head can mean literal head or "source", like headwaters of a river. It is rarely used for leader when the word is kephale is used; rather, leader is typically archon. Woman was taken from man, thus he was her source or progenitor; however, Jesus is the source of man. He made man (and woman) before he was born in bodily form. God was the source of Christ because Jesus was the only begotten son of God at the incarnation and thus Christ, in his risen form, is the second Adam (see Romans 5). Jesus is salvation and source of the bride, the church. This is Pauline theology about Christ.
Why, if indeed Paul’s intention was not to forbid women at all from speaking in the Church, does his letter to Timothy appear so obscure in his address concerning this subject?
John Esker, Paul didn’t even write 1 or 2 Timothy, Titus, or 2 Thessalonians. Look into it. Paul praises women in the struggling early churches in his authentic letters nobody disputes.
There’s something in each of these pseudonymous letters worth their making it into the Bible anyway, but it’s not these verses.
@@joeltunnah Scripture shows us Paul wrote them.
The rest is scholarly NONSENSE
(The proceeding comment was left by Sharon Magnus, Ron's wife.)
I appreciate this research and exegesis. I would love to hear your thoughts on why Paul says it was the “woman who was deceived and became a transgressor” (vs 14). I never heard egalitarians comment on this passage and would be interested to hear your take.
It also feels extremely stretching to say that “exercise authority over a man “ should be rendered “head over the man” would love to understand the reason for translating that.
Thank you!
The title!
I'm wondering if you can provide more basis for understanding "not to exercise authority over" as "not be be author of". Is this legitimate?
Check out my BBRS volume, "Wealth in Ancient Ephesus" on Amazon for the full explanation.
It's called using worldly sources when the word of God offends you. That's what this video is.
it is a combination of the Greek word "autos" and an obsolete Greek word "hentes" which means scholars have been debating what Paul was trying to communicate. Paul could have used "authenteo" but did not. Nijay Gupta also has a video regarding the confusion of this word that Paul used.
@@jennywidner4889 who is Nijay Gupta???
@@jlt-kjv2840 sadly many use worldly sources for spiritual things to be taught by the Holy Spirit
Clearly those who repeatedly say that a simple reading of the English translation(s) of 1 Timothy 2 makes the meaning crystal clear must think Peter a buffoon for saying "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. If we are not struggling to understand Pauline theology, we are probably not understanding it.
(I haven't seen this video.)
It always goes back to Deborah. Once Deborah is
understood everything changes. (My short essay
on her can be posted, should there be real interest.)
Where can I read Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus?
Try: perseus.tufts.edu
It is there is the original greek, I do not know about translations. The Persus Digital Library is my initial go to site for classical literature. It is a fantastic resource.
Check out "Daphnis and Chloe. Anthia and Habrocomes" (Loeb Classical Library) as Ephesiaca also goes by the title "Anthia and Habrocomes" or find it in "Collected Ancient Greek Novels" edited by B.P. Reardon. Then my evidence is clearly laid out in my BBRS volume available on Amazon as "Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy".
Here is chapter 1: www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0649
See Daniel Schidmt's answer above!
It's not biblical scripture.
I don't see how you justify your (creative) translation of αὐθεντέω (authenteō) typically translated "authority" or "to dictate" as "to author"? I see nothing in the classical or other Greek lit. to justify this. It seem to be a key issue of the argument.
I would suggest that everyone who watches this go read the scriptures themselves and do additional research. Paul didn't say the reason for his limitation on women was because of what was going on in Ephesus. He says in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 that it was done because of the order of creation in Adam and Eve.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 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. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Additionally his definition of "authentein" is questionable at the very least. People should also go investigate that claim more closely.
False teachers will try to justify their own beliefs and twist scripture while doing that. I hope we're all wise enough to question the claims and do our own reading of scripture.
I appreciate his honesty in stating "maybe" multiple times. He is basically saying this is a possibility. Scripture helps to interpret scripture and in this case, the rest of the Scriptures do not seem to support this position in my view.
In pagan cultural context it is plausible as explained here, but in the simplicity of the gospel it seems a stretch. How would future Christians interpret this particular biblical text without knowing cultural context? I will study subject matter further.......
In the simplicity of the gospel is where it's less of a stretch. Pay attention to how Jesus spoke to women, honored and validated women as well as Paul then explain why we are cherry picking a couple scriptures to keep women in subjection to the will of men? He came to set the captives free and the most captive people at that time were women.
See Daniel Schidmt's answer above!
There should have been a trigger warning before reading Pauls letter.
Again , if you want to find a loophole in the scriptures you might think you find it , the Christian lgbt group think they also found a loophole to be Christian and sinful at the same time , i am a Man and i see some woman don't agree with Paul , i can only love my sisters in Christ since i am not the one going against the scriptures😢
Proving that one can find connections anywhere to support a doctrine even if there clearly isn't any.
Should just have studied the scriptures instead of some writing of a nobody
Thanks for sharing. The same conclusions can be reached by reading the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels such as 'On the Origin of the World'. The wrong doctrine is that Sophia wakes Adam from sleep and was first. It is only those with wrong doctrine Paul silences. He told the men with wrong doctrine in the book of Titus they must also have their mouths stopped. Gnostic ideas began at Ephesus with Heraclitis approx 500 BC - he explained the logos. Have tried to explain all these things in a simple book 'One Father One Teacher One Head - Women in Worship' Robin Jones. I hope others will catch on to the context of Paul's words to the Ephesians and to the Corinthians which have been largely misunderstood for 2,000 years !
Gnostic teachers, or rather proto-gnostics are addressed in 1 and 2 john.
We deal with this passage of scripture in our latest video: ua-cam.com/video/_A666ltks4Y/v-deo.html
What do you mean Eve was not deceived? It clearly says Adam was not deceived!
Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Point to note.
Eve was deceived by satan.
Adam rebelled against God because he knew the TRUTH yet put it aside.
Adam was not innocent since God gave Him the rule which he taught Eve.
The Man is only the head of the woman in a marriage. This is where the man is given God given authority over his wife.
No where else.
So if my sister doesn't have kids, she isn't saved?
This passage always struck me as a bit misogynistic. Not anymore! Thank you!
I thought so!
This is great and confirms what I suspected.
I wonder how many other scriptures have their roots in a cultural meaning.
So sad we can't see past our own (cultural, and by extension religious) understanding.
You don’t think that the scripture of being saved thru child birth is talking about the savior who came thru child birth, to save us
It just means by being born again. Women represent the earth “Mother Earth”…..
Revelation 17:5 (KJV)
And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Genesis 4:11 (KJV)
And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
The guy in the video is completely wrong
Wow!
Authentein, not an author of man
Monograph
Epigraphic
Socio rhetorical methodology
Zit zen leben - "setting in life" in German
Hepta Themata
New terms and concepts....thank you!!!!
With regards to this topic, I would like to suggest that the passage in 1 Tim. 2 is not necessarily transcultural, nor do I think that Paul was trying to create a stumbling block for women’s participation in worship/ministry. Certainly the Christian faith is dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit in us (who are empty vessels ready to be filled by Him), and His gifting according to His mercy and grace. Verses in the Bible such as Joel 2:28 clearly leaves no one out, and there’s no shortage of verses and examples in the Bible, along with historical and present day accounts of God moving mightily in women, including in the role of teaching. So I can’t see Paul ostracizing women from this role as a generally applied directive, but rather a specific instruction for a particular time and context - and I believe the text supports this argument.
Many read this passage and automatically jump to the negative narrative, and assert that Paul is being misogynistic, when in fact he is actually trying to protect the women of that time from judgement. I believe that Dickson’s argument of the difference between “teaching” and “preaching” is valid and applicable. We know this when we look at other passages where Paul makes the distinction between these gifts (1 Cor. 12:28, Rom. 12:4-8, etc.), and as you read his and other letters, it is clear that this distinction was understood among 1st Century Christians. In James 3:1, James strongly cautions the brethren/believers about not seeking to become “teachers”, because there is a greater judgement for those who teach incorrectly. “Teaching” is meant for those who can read, interpret and explain the Word correctly, whereas “Preaching” is intended for witnessing and sharing the good news after one has been taught. Paul is discouraging women of that time from “teaching”, not “preaching”. (and not from prophesying, speaking in tongues, performing miracles or any other gifting/ministry either). It is clear from the passage that women were not in a position to be properly equipped to teach. You need mentorship to become a “teacher”, similar to how Paul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), but this was not available to women of that time - only to men - and he didn’t want women to use their new-found freedom to assume the role of teaching without proper training (additionally, considering the very low literacy rates of the time among men, women would be even less privileged to have an education, making matters worse). So given the opportunity, there’s no reason why women can’t teach or be Pastors. Paul uses the illustration from Genesis because God told Adam directly about the forbidden fruit in Genesis 2, prior to Eve being formed. Adam would have shared the knowledge about the forbidden fruit with Eve after she was formed. When Eve was tempted/questioned by the serpent/devil, she was unable to correctly respond/deceived, and eventually sinned, causing judgement on herself and Adam (to be clear, Adam sinned as well). Paul is basically trying to explain how important it is to have a full understanding and knowledge of the word, otherwise you will be prone to fail/sin, which the women of that time would have been in a position to do so. Paul ends the passage about women “saved through childbearing”, not in the context that this is their only purpose (as Augustine incorrectly interpreted and asserted), nor that every women who gives birth gets saved and goes to heaven, but rather imploring women of that time that, if they want to do good, then they can carry out a very important role of “teaching” (without facing judgement, and thus “saved”): which is to raise up Godly children “in faith, love and holiness with propriety”.
So, I suppose then that it wasn't necessary for Jesus to assume the ROLE of savior and die for us. After all, "parents are to lay up for children," according to the Word, "not children for parents." So, it could've and should've been the ROLE of the Heavenly Father to come in the flesh and be sacrificed for the payment of sins' penalties. (Yes, I'm being satirical and nonsensical, but also Socratic.)
Perhaps much learning has made me mad?