Women and Ministry, Part II (Ben Witherington)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 бер 2012
- 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
This episode features Dr. Ben Witherington III on the role of Women and their role in Ministry from Scripture.
How should we interpret 1 Timothy 2 which appears to limit women's roles in the church? Watch this ground-breaking explanation if you are truly open to where the evidence leads:
ua-cam.com/video/tsyQlaC0btY/v-deo.html
Amen to this message.
Well supported by context and Scripture. Thank you.
Thank you Lord that here is a servant of the Lord explaining an issue that the devil have used as a tool using male pastors to stop women doing what God have called them to do. I agree that Paul was addressing issues affecting the churches he was visiting therefore should not be used to disqualify the women doing God's call of service. Be very careful men pastors
"DO NOT ADD OR DEDUCT GOD'S WORD". God's Holy Spirit is here to assist us in God's work so be allert n sensitive to him.
Yesss agreed!
Thank you, this needs to be taught in every congregation.
Thank you for the post.
Very enlightening, to say the least. I can agree with this teaching fully.
Freeing. Thank you. : ))
Now comes one of the first contemporary novels portraying a female pastor in the evangelical community, highlighting the tension and controversy surrounding her leadership role. From the pen of bestselling author Randall Arthur, the story takes place in a small Georgia town with plenty of colorful characters and drama. A riveting, true-to-life story that will challenge, entertain and inspire.
“I have read few stories that have pulled me in like A Quiet Roar. It confronts the very cultural foundations of the North American church. This is a must read.” - Dr. Butch Entrekin, Community Bible Church
“You had me on the tip of my toes from the start of the book till the end of the book. The book is bold, honest, educational, and inspiring.” - Anna Strawn, Junior, Auburn University
“Praise for A Quiet Roar. Mr. Arthur has a gift of drawing you into his story from the first page. A Quiet Roar has made an impact on my life unlike any other book. It will continue in my heart and life for a long time.” - Jimmy Cochran, columnist for the Henry Times.
“Over the years I have read a ton-and I mean a ton of books. After all, my work as a pastor requires I read, read, and read some more. If you read no other novel this coming year, please please please read A Quiet Roar. Take a hot topic -female pastors; add a lot of small town church drama; a mysterious woman; and even more mysterious benefactor; a dash of contemporary culture and world events; and I kid you not, you have a recipe for a lot of sleepless nights. I guarantee your life and faith will no longer be the same.” - Bill Grandi, Senior Pastor.
A Quiet Roar is available now on Amazon (both in paperback and e-book versions) and is also available at www.RandallArthur.com.
Amen 🙏
very interesting
This was thought through and spoken well, I wish I could say the same about the negative comments it's attracted though. I'm fine with critical points of view but it is sad when people call others apostate or heretics without giving and weight to what has been stated or showing any respect within disagreement.
Clowns like that expose that they have a prior held agenda and seek validation from scripture rather than it being the other way around.
Agree, Phillip Booth. It’s embarrassing that so many brothers and sisters are easily enraged instead of thoughtfully considering. We need the ability to hold an ideas gingerly, consider it from all sides, study, without feeling we have to attack without listening.
This is so beautifully said and documented. It is for Freedom that Christ as set us free!!
Thank you for your wisdom.
One of my heroes... so good!
Keyword Dr. Witherington said was 'now.' That Paul said to the high status women they had to listen and learn FIRST (that is 'now') and then later teach and lead. What does the text say: "11 A woman must learn in quietness with all submission. 12 But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.' There is no "now" in this verse. This 'temporal' nuance is inserted into the text by Dr. Witherington's explanation. He seems to appeal to the Greek verb which, according to him, indicates this "temporal" nuance. I looked at Blue Letter Bible and it doesn't indicate anything of the sort (but maybe there's something I'm missing there). Dr. Witherington also points back to the earlier command for men to not grumble, nor doubt but lift holy hands as evidence of contextualization. However, is this command for men something that shouldn't be done in all times and cultures? I have to question his exegesis here. It would seem clear that just as Christ is the ransom for all men (universal fact), therefore, the following verses regarding men and woman should also be considered universal facts. In addition, "noteworthy among the apostles' doesn't NEED to mean they were apostles themselves. It just means that they were noteworthy...among the apostles. Of course, if one wants the former interpretation, then they'll go for it, but the language doesn't demand it. Overall, I am not (yet) persuaded that women should teach and have authority over men. I think Dr. Witherington is correct that women DO have gifts and callings and CAN take part in "ministry," yet not to the point of authority and leadership over men in a congregation. Why? Because God, being a God of order, created Adam first and then Eve and puts the role of leadership on men to fulfill. That is exactly what Paul uses for support in 1 Timothy 2 AND Dr. Witherington never addressed. NOTE: I am open-minded about this issue and sifting through my convictions to see what is mere enculturation and what is based on the Word of God.
I caught the "now" as well. I thought perhaps I'd somehow missed that in my previous readings, but sure enough, it isn't in the text. I checked 26 translations to see if any of them had an indication that Paul's teaching was only temporary; not one had anything suggesting that understanding. Perhaps I'm missing something else that makes "now" a legitimate interpretation (and I welcome helpful guidance), but, at this point, it seems like Prof Witherington is offering an explanation that is at least a little faulty.
One general said to Judge or Prophetess Deborah that if she doesn’t go with him to war, he won’t go. God bless you. ✝️ ❣️
@@grantstevensbreak Witherington is not establishing his reasoning for saying now prior to saying it, but the argument is essentially that epitrepo (permit) is in the present tense, meaning that it's a present thing. So he's saying he is not presently allowing women to teach by authentein - taking dominion over - a man. That's the egalitarian interpretation
It would help if you researched the word “authority” Paul used when discussing women are not to have authority over men. It is a negative term, meaning to take authority by force. I wouldn’t think anyone would want a woman or a man to use forceful authority.
@@rhavenlynn5364 See 1995 article by Scott Baldwin which exhausted all meanings of the verb ‘authenteno’ in the literature available and no negative example fits. The best translation to date is “exercise authority.”
Dr. Ben Witherington III is raised by the Lord to teach the truth. To those who have responded with so much anger, has it not occur to you that there is a possibility that you may be wrong? This world is dying and the Christians are fighting about whether the men or the women should be sitting at God's right hand and left hand. Are Christians becoming stumbling blocks to the dying world? Paul exhorted "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near." Philippians 4:4-5
“is raised by the Lord to teach the truth.”
Fighting for what is truth is what all Christians should be doing. Woman pastoring is not truth, it is error and rebellion.
@@IAX1126 Utter nonsense. You are trading the truth of God for a lie. You ignore the women following Jesus, the women who first preached the good news of the resurrection of Jesus TO MEN, women who taught men like Priscilla did to Apollo's, women who were apostles like Junia, and the list goes on.
Further you ignore the context on your problem passages. A text without a context is a pretext. Witherington shows you how the first hearers would have understood those passages.
@@bobjones9725 Keep reaching and stretching texts to fit your agenda. Sad.
@@IAX1126 The two foremost NT scholars today, Witherington and NT Wright, disagree and show you how you are subverting the scriptures. Stop listening to hot shot UA-camrs and sit down with your Bible, a good commentary, and works by scholars in the field.
@@bobjones9725 Yawnnnnn
I find it interesting that the Torah actually says nothing about women in leadership roles; 10 commandments and 613 laws and nothing about women rabbis, despite orthodox Jews being against them . Also, Mary Magadele, Mary of Bethany, etc. would be examples of women apostles too in my opinion.
Question: Where did Apostle Paul get this word or reason why woman not permitted to teach? from 1 Timothy 2:13-14. Was it from any Earthly context or is it from God? What influences him to say this reason?
Best exposition I've seen on the subject to date!
Cesar Gil
Is this the very first exposition you have seen on the subject? If so, then it is the best!
Egalitarian argument: it was only correcting problems or only applies to the first century. Why then does the Holy Spirit move Paul to use the order of the creation of mankind and the woman's being deceived in the Garden of Eden to support his argument that women should not teach nor usurp authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:11-14? Since Paul goes all the way back to creation in the Garden that makes these principles timeless. Plus Titus 1:6 says an elder must be the husband of one wife. It is kinda hard to be the husband of one wife if you're not even a man!
+james3v6 See our video on 1 Timothy 2: ua-cam.com/video/tsyQlaC0btY/v-deo.html
+james3v6 IF the order of creation implies superordinate hierarchy, then does it not seem that man would "not" rule over the fish birds and other stuff - inasmuch as mankind was created last??
Tom Sterbens
I almost didn't respond because IbaerdeLouisYAna responded so eloquently. However, I felt like I had to just simply ask if scripture is enough for you. The verse in question: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." 1Timothy 2:13 NKJV
Isn't that good enough for you?
lBaerdeLouisYAna no, the word is mankind. All. It applies to both sexes.
Tom Wright and Craig Keener speak well to your last point about Bishops/Elders being the husband of one wife. It was still quite common for men, in the first century, to be married to more than one wife. This prescription was a command for men to return to God’s original intent for marriage: one man and one woman. In other words this requirement was to bring a corrective to men, not a refusal of women to hold the office of Elder.
"Noteworthy among the apostles," not apostles.
She was a apostle
Women absolutely could be apostles. Mary at the tomb? Surely you don't think she was the first to see Jesus by mere happenstance? Is there an order? Absolutely. But women and men both prophesied and will continue to. To be honest, this is such a "worldly" issue that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Christ is the Head of the Church, and it is the Holy Spirit that brings truth through the mouths of man and woman.
So where can I go to church? I agree with this and always have. And as a biblically conservative southern baptist, I've simply chalked it up to one of many (in any denomination) open-handed issues, the hill on which I don't have to die, as it were. Also, everywhere I see women in ministry (except perhaps one local church), I see progressivism of every order - theological liberalism and political, both of which are contrary to the Christian who wants to follow the Word.
Just go somewhere and observe 1 Timothy 2.8 "Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument." Doesn't he actually refer to it around 4:10 in the video?
@@aaronwalterryse4281 Good and precise point.
Notice that Paul again goes back to Genesis for the reason. He does not say "not yet," he says, 'Not as long as creation stands.' He never references culture - name one place where he writes "because of cultural sensitivity." He states frankly, man was created first and then woman. There you see that Adam was given God's words before Eve was made. I wonder where Eve got her teaching from . . . Does Roman's 16 mean the women mentioned were apostles, or that they were noteworthy among those who were apostles?
Yes I agree Paul never calls this woman disciples. They were a great help. This man just isn't telling the truth
The cult of Artemis taught Artemis was born before Apollo, so women should be able to domineer men.
@@davidqatan Interesting information.
It’s sad how far you’re willing to go to keep in line with your agenda. Okay if you’re right you’re saying God specifically designed women to be deceived easier than men, (aka stupider) and you’re saying that what’s clearly called a female apostle is just known to the apostles? Not only are you butchering scripture, your taking unnatural interpretations to justify a position you already hold. Try exegeting next time.
@@justchilling704 first of all, you are gaslighting, which is a form of falsehood and it breaks the commandment regarding false witness. Calling women stupid are your words. As far as exegeting, the burden of exegesis requires we deal with the words, "For Adam was formed first then Eve." Why does Paul appeal to creation order? Is creation order a cultural reason, or a historical reason transcending all times and places? Exegesis requires I ask myself what happened at creation that would impact this? Seems pretty obvious to me. Also, the term used for some women is deacon, not apostle. Are there women deacons? That's another topic. However, there is no woman listed among the apostles. There are 12, Paul is the final one.
This problem will never be resolved until patriarchal interpretation and translation is removed. Roman and Helenistic polluted the teachings. Half of the body Christ can't be dismissed and vilified.
I recognize that there are Biblical arguments for female pastors, and I don't think it's a heresy or anything to have female pastors, but I frankly find the exegetical arguments weak at best. If this is the right way to interpret the text, why did no church have female clergy until the mid-20th century, right about at the time when theological liberalism started to take over the Protestant churches?
Complementarianism - (basic definition)
The priesthood of the New Covenant is tiered. There is a hierarchy.
A new believer is automatically assigned their level, higher or lower,
at the moment of salvation, as a birthright. Their gender determines
their tier. A Christian can not move to a higher or lower tier.
A church can be made up of only men.
A church can not be made up of only women, because
it would have no elders.
______________________________________
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood...
-excerpt 1 Peter 2
A 2-tiered priesthood doesn't exist, but this is what
Complementarianism supports. It is a false teaching.
It uses double-talk by telling women they are equal to
men, yet states that women can't teach men. It states
that a group of Christian women can not be a church
under any circumstances, because there would be no
elders.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah.
The Judges were referred to as pastors/shepherds by God
in Chronicles.
Mary Magdalen was the APOSTLE to the APOSTLES.
No! Jesus was!!! Be careful.
3:24 Your addition of the word "now" to 1 Timothy 2:12 is concerning not only because it does not appear in 15 major translations, but also because it allows you to get to the point that you seem to want to make rather than following where scripture leads.
Everyone forgets 1TIMOTHY 2:11-15!
Dr. Witherington, I do not generally disagree with the interpretation of the so-called "problem passages" you have explained. However, for those of us in the Orthodox/Catholic tradition, there is a whole sacramental theology you seem to ignore. All those who are baptized are saved and all those who are chrismated are "Christed", and thus become "kings and priests", male or female. So there is no disagreement essentially with what you teach.
However, "The Twelve" have given their succession to presbyters and bishops who have never been female. Christ does not just assign The Twelve as a show for replacing the the 12 tribes of Israel. They were the "rock" of the Church so to speak. Paul himself was given Apostolic **authority** by "The Twelve's" laying on the hands.
Furthermore, very early documents and canons of the Church, such as the didascalia (2nd to 3rd century AD), describe the roles of the holy orders very early on in the ancient Church. We cannot simply interpret the Scriptures without what the authors of the Scriptures left for us in succession, and thank God, the successions have continued to write to give us an idea of the ancient Church practices.
It is even mentioned in the ancient 4th century AD Apostolic Constitutions that if women were allowed in the episcopacy, the Virgin Mother would have been the foremost from among "The Twelve" (giving a hint of high veneration for the Mother of Christ). But she was not.
Yes, there are deaconesses. No Orthodox or Catholic denies that. But proper understanding of the holy orders in the ancient Church shows us a Church that inherited from Paul, Peter, John, etc. a specific rules and regulations of the holy orders in the Eucharistic Assembly, the very center of Christian life in the ancient Church. The one who consecrates bread and wine into body and blood was never female at all.
So yes, women can teach, can preach, have been apostles, have been deaconesses, have prophesied, have evangelized, but never lead a Eucharistic assembly. That is only for the "episcopos" and the "presvyteros". Because the deacon is NOT ALLOWED to bless or lead a Eucharistic service, there were male and female deacons alike, equal in honor, although the historical evidence does shows still a vastly different role from one another based on the gender.
Thus far, your research only assumes a minimalist position in contrast to the clear ancient sacramental and liturgical practice of the Church. Therefore, your arguments fails on the part where you still have not been able to answer effectively why the Church has never allowed women to lead a Eucharistic liturgy.
God bless.
Mina
My views on the role of women in the church as I understand the scriptures compared to how this speaker presented them.
I copied and pasted the following to get some clarification on the word "prophecy" as this is what a person does in the "priesthood":
prophéteia: prophecy
Original Word: προφητεία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: prophéteia
Phonetic Spelling: (prof-ay-ti'-ah)
Short Definition: prophecy
Definition: prophecy, prophesying; the gift of communicating and enforcing revealed truth.
HELPS Word-studies
4394 prophēteía (from 4396 /prophḗtēs, "prophet," which is derived from 4253 /pró, "before" and 5346 /phēmí, "make clear, assert as a priority") - properly, what is clarified beforehand; prophecy which involves divinely-empowered forthtelling (asserting the mind of God) or foretelling (prediction).
The act of "ministering" is defined as follows:
1249 diákonos (from 1223 /diá, "thoroughly" and konis, "dust") - properly, "thoroughly raise up dust by moving in a hurry, and so to minister" (WP, 1, 162); ministry (sacred service).
1249 /diákonos ("ministry") in the NT usually refers to the Lord inspiring His servants to carry out His plan for His people - i.e. as His "minister" (like a deacon serving Him in a local church).
[A. T. Robertson, "1249 (diákonos) properly means 'to kick up dust,' as one running an errand." 1249 (diákonos) is the root of the English terms, "diaconate, deacon."
This root (diakon-) is "probably connected with the verb diōkō, 'to hasten after, pursue' (perhaps originally said of a runner)" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 147).
It is good to study to show thyself approved. I want to caution you however "to work out your salvation with fear and trembling" as "it is an awesome thing to fall into the hands of the Living God". I will present my thoughts but they are just mine. I am definitely not as learned as "scholars". I would encourage you to pose the same question to David Yasko to, I'm sure, get a more educated response.
The speaker talks about how in biblical times they lived in a "patriarchal" society. This means the father is head of family. As far as I can tell in scripture, the father is still head of the house/his wife (Eph. 5:23) as Christ is the head of the man and the church (1 Cor. 11:3, Col. 1:18), regardless what society is trying to push on people. Society is trying to neuter "man" and "woman". But God created them "man" and "woman". (You should SEE the Time issue I've saved for you to read. Definitely a confused bunch of people when they reject God's design) There is no hierarchy in the Church, but there is organization as Paul says "all things should be done decently and in order". (1 Cor. 14:40)
1 Timothy 2: 12 reads "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent". The speaker specifies that it was only directed at Grecian women who were used to having status within their pagan religions. Also, he talks about women being disruptive in 1 Cor. 14: 33-36 needing to "keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, are are you the only ones it has reached?" I believe that these scriptures are directed at ALL women, not just the women of these times. Why else would they be recorded other than for an example for us to pattern ourselves after? These were not temporary issues either as they would apply to all cultures over the course of centuries.
At various times in history, women have risen up against the degradation that they have experienced at the hands of men, and rightly so. The scriptures have been twisted so that they have been thought of as less than, not allowed to have an opinion or vote (at one time), or even in more current times to earn equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately son, sometimes the pendulum is swung too far the other way as to be out of balance (but also to get some form of recompense for past wrongs). Neither extreme is sensical, mutually respective (as being submissive to one another), correct or Godly.
From this speaker's phrasing of "priests" and "ordained ministers", it is clear to me that he is talking from what appears to be a denominational perspective. In fact in his rather jumbled introduction, he specifies he is talking about an issue that has Protestants and Catholics (or the Orthodox? sounds unclear) divided. The New Testament Church are neither therefore personally, I am not as confused about this issue as these denominations sound to be. The use of words like "priest" and "ordained" are scriptural and not wrong of themselves, but traditionally the churches of Christ have not used these terms much in our practices (at least in terms of describing a certain ministry person; as in "my priest says..." and "Are you an ordained minister?"). A denomination is a division of the New Testament church. They often have a tainted or skewed perspective of scriptures, and their interpretations can be akin to apostasy. So tread lightly when considering others' views of scriptures. Remember my caution to you earlier to look at the world through the scriptures' eyes instead of viewing the scriptures through the world's eyes.
In at least one instance, he uses verse out of context. For example, his quoting of Galatians 3:28 as a support of women being able to do what men do appears erroneous. Previously salvation was only given to the Jews. If you read the context of the scripture, what Paul is teaching here is that your nationality no longer matters (no Jew or Gentile), your social status no longer matters (slave or free), neither does your gender (male or female) when it comes to being a child of God through faith. We are all children of Abraham's seed, altogether heirs and one in Christ. This has nothing to do with roles.
The act of prophesying can be done by any person, man or woman, as it is simply the telling of the Good News and how the Holy Spirit has inspired them to speak and to live. We can be mindful of God's prophecy, keep a Godly perspective of the world and our salvation with it, rejoice in it, repeat it, inform others of it and remind the brethren about it, but that's the extent of our ability to "predict" anything (as in the definition above).
All the predicting has been done in the Word. It is His COMPLETE revelation, so there is no basis for any further revelation. That is why the Word says that if anyone "adds to (or) takes away anything from the words of the book" (Revelation 22:18-19) "even if we or an angel of light preaches a gospel other than the one we (the apostles) preached to you, let him be eternally condemned." (Galatians 1:8-9)
The heading for 1 Corinthians 14 in some Bibles reads "Propriety in Worship" though this heading is man's interpretation of what follows and is not found in the Greek (as with all headings), so do not be misled. I have seen other Bibles without this specific heading. Everyone is directed to "Go into all the world and preach (prophesy) the Good News of salvation." (Mark 16:16) It is not clear however, that 1 Cor. 14 specifically denotes the worship assembly and many scholars take issue on this view. I would personally err on the side of caution here. Worship itself can be done anywhere by anyone in Christ, so don't confuse this specific passage with the assembling of the saints on the Lord's Day. Therefore the issue of prophesying or ministering to others outside the assembly applies to all.
I know that you know that according to the Word, we are all a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2: 5, 9) with Christ himself as our High Priest. No one I know in the "churches of God"/Christ has ever referred to another member as a priest. We know ourselves to be priests, but we don't wear the robes of the denominational religions (nor do other vain practices). To the "church of Christ's" practice of teaching then, this is to our credit I believe as not differentiating between "Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female." (Acts 3:28)
You may ask why women are allowed to teach in our Bible classes. Bible classes are a ministry. They are under the authority and direction of the elders of each congregation. In Romans 16:1 Phoebe is mentioned as a "deaconess" and the members are directed to "welcome her in the Lord as one who is worthy of honor among God's people". As you may see from the definition above, a deacon (or deaconess) can simply be a minister. Because of her extraordinary efforts she is noted to be due honor. But this word "deaconess" or recommendations for due honors does not put her at the head of, or in authority over, any man.
Nowhere do I see the quote in Romans 16 that the women were included as "apostles" in this scripture as he indicates. In the NIV and the NLT they are referred to as "believers" and "saints", but not "apostles". Even if a version says the women mentioned were "together with the apostles" does not make them apostles, just simply present or included with these men in Paul's greetings at the end of the chapter.
I know I have written a lot and it may sound a bit scattered, but I wanted to exhaust my thoughts on this as it challenged me. What do you think of my study and reflections?
Love,
Dad
The phrase 'one woman man' is an idiom. It is also used of male and female deacons in the same chapter. It is used specifically of women ('one man woman') widows who were to be put on the list to serve in the church. The meaning is directed at being faithful.
And you take Galaitians 3 completely out of context. It is not saying that there are no defined roles exclusively for men and women. Anyone who has read Ephesians 5 should understand that. In Galatians 3 Paul is saying that salvation in Christ is for all, and that it is not defined by nationality, gender etc. This is simply recycling the same tired arguments that have been refuted. Was the church wrong 1970 years??
I agree that Galatians 3 is not arguing against defined roles for men and women. But what Galatians 3 DOES argue is that those roles are subject to our primary identity as children of God--whatever our culturally-defined roles may be. By inference, then, we can clearly see that gender roles are not ontologically-connected imperatives that impinge upon Christians, regardless of their cultural significance. Paul is saying that salvation in Christ is for all. But he's obviously saying quite a bit more than that, too; otherwise, he would have said merely that salvation in Christ is for all persons. I'm not sure which "tired arguments" you're referring to, so I cannot comment cogently as to their refutations; but I will say that the church was obviously wrong about a great many things 1970 years ago, as so many of the letters and epistles of the New Testament intimate, so we should probably not be surprised to find the primitive church wrong on this subject of women and ministry.
Jared Pomeroy Indeed, but when will our identity as new creations be completely fulfilled?? When Christ returns and He has made all things new. Now we see through a glass dimly lit. Our roles in the kingdom are indeed defined by our status as children of God.But for now, we still live in the old world where there is still male and female, and that being the case there is a need for order. This has nothing to do with cultural identity. Asserting that women should not serve in any vocation is hardly culturally embraced, nor was it in the first century, at least not in terms of clergy. There were gnostic groups that had women serving as leaders. This is not just about first century culture.
Our new identity as new creations in Christ is already fulfilled. Now. Here. At this moment, if indeed we are in Christ. As Christians, we may live in the world, but we are no longer subject to the worlds imperatives. We have come out of the world, distinct from it in our eschatological hope, which drives the moral implications we draw from the New Testament's hermeneutic of love. In the church, in the community of Faith, the world experiences the mediated grace of God in Christ as it sees a new world order established on the basis of altruistic love (Phil. 2), in direct contrast and polemical opposition to the systems of the world which are based on the abuse of others as means to ends. The Holy Spirit grants order now, not codes for appropriate conduct. Have we returned again to the law? And in what way does our subjection of our identities as males and females imply the cessation of those biological facts?
SteveB 67
I couldn't disagree with you more. When I became a Christian my dick disappeared. I now just have a smooth spot there. This is what this passage means... Wait are you saying you still have... Oh no!
SteveB 67
Obviously, I am just kidding. You correctly identified the meaning of this passage. It gives me great pleasure (especially now that I got my dick back) to see that there are a few people that still have some sense.
I was excited to see that there were women apostles and read up on the verse (Romans 16:7). However, I believe he is mistaken. What he says regarding women being apostles is proven in Romans 16:7 is not accurate according to the Greek tense. Even new translation recognize this and translate Romans 16:7 as "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me." [NET]. As far as most ministry roles, I really don't see a problem with women doing them according to the NT. However, no one has of yet explained away the very specific requirements for being an overseer/elder 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
If anyone disagrees with the the Lord's command for the silence of women in the church assemblies, and the Pauline instruction for them to "Learn in silence with all subjection" and must not "Usurp authority" of men, then they are teaching heresy and are blaspheming the Word of God.
It's really as simple as that.
You just created a context out of thin air. If you read 1 timothy 2:12, and Pauls argument, it was from creation, not this fictional context of high profile women. I'm going to make a video responding to the misinterpretation of this Scripture!
He said something like "Paul is correcting a problem" and his conclusion is that that somehow proves that the forbiding of women to speak în church is just for the context of the problem Paul is correcting. Well, read Colossians. There, as in all epistles, there is a problem. The specific problem has to do with christology. Motivated by the problem, and by the Holy Spirit, Paul is presenting a True christology. The fact that this presentation came in the context of a specific (maybe) gnostic heresy, doesn't make Paul's christology True only în the context of that heresy. That is True of the commandments and forbidings of 1 Cor 14. The fac that Paul is responding to specific problems by setting clear guideliness doesn't hurt în any way the universal relevance. Of the commendments. In fact, Paul is using statements that prove the universality of his teachings. Just read the opening verses of 1 Corinthians and see the fact that the book is for all who call the Name of the Lord. Just read the reasons for things like head covering, order in charismatic gifts and other teachings. The reasons are creation and fall(for head covering showing that is not something cultural) and God's ordered character(for order în charismatic gifts). The fact that a problem is treated doesn't mean that the solution is something restrained for the comunity in which the problem appeared. I'm not a native english speaker, sorry for my misspelings.
Conveniently avoided discussing I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 where the qualifications for Bishop and Deacon are listed. When one reads these passages carefully it seems clear that those roles are only for men. Not a thorough discussion on the subject because critical passages are avoided.
Absolutely!
Are you reading that in the original Greek as the original audience would have heard it?
@@jennywidner4889 there were no ‘original audiences’. These were personal letters of instruction to two pastors about how to conduct God’s business in the church
There have been a large number of English translations done over the years. They all basically agree. It boggles the mind to think that over all these years and the many scholars who were involved in all of these translations and they still couldn’t get it right.
It seems to me that we only get concerned about the Greek when the English translations clearly say something we don’t agree with.
Finally, I do have two years of college level koine Greek under my belt. Have you read it and translated it from the koine Greek?
@@davidkemper6761 I hope to be learning Greek next year as I work on my Masters in Religious Education. I am well aware how challenging translation can be regardless of what manuscript is being translated, origin language, or host language. I have spoken to many missionaries across various languages and heard their stories of the challenges of translating a biblical concept into a language or culture that does not have the concept. Words don't match in a one-to-one fashion across languages especially when one language has multiple words for something while the other language has one word that supposedly encompasses all the meanings. It doesn't surprise me that as archaeological and other discoveries are made that scholars learn something that affects knowledge and past work.
@@jennywidner4889 you ask that for what reason? you think it does not apply to us?
"Noteworthy among the apostles" does not mean that they were apostles themselves by any stretch of the imagination. In the opening of his letters Paul always expresses gratitude to the church he is addressing. He would have probably said the people in those churches were noteworthy among he and the apostles. That is not the same thing as calling them apostles.
Bad logic. You can't argue what Paul said with what you think Paul *would have said*.
Jared Pomeroy Says the person who is trying to claim that Paul is endorsing women's ordination here, which he is not nor never did. "Notable among the apostles" means simply what it says, that the apostles considered them notable. You do realize that historically "The apostles" refers to the primary 12 disciples of Jesus right? The logical conclusion of your alleging that Paul is including women in that reference is that not only are you saying that Paul endorsed women's ordination, but you're saying that some of apostolic churches were started by women. Hence you are also alleging that you know better than the church did for nearly 2000 years. And I am the one putting words in Paul's mouth?
The church also embraced slavery for nearly 2000 years. Sometimes, yes, I do know better than the church--yet, not I, but Christ in me who gives revelation according to the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart and mind. You'll have to really work hard if you mean to argue that "apostles" refers only to the 12--Paul is not going to get a place among them by that logic, despite his claim to apostleship. Meanwhile, we must include Judas among the apostles by your logic, which is absurd. If the meaning of "notable among the apostles" is so simple and direct in its meaning, why do so many interpret that phrase differently than you do? What are you afraid of?
And by the way, when did I ever claim that Paul is endorsing women's ordination here?
Jared Pomeroy
Great point with the whole slavery argument buddy!
Man 1: The church teaches that Jesus is God! I think it is important to consider why the church believes that.
Man 2: The church also teaches slavery...so...Jesus isn't God.
To quote Jared Pomeroy, "Seriously, folks. You can't just make grandiose accusations like this without anything on which to base those accusations. Interact with the video or don't comment. Comments like yours, Fernando Flores, are just entirely ignorant and unhelpful."
Another fantastic Jared Pomeroy quote: "Bad logic. You can't argue what Paul said with what you think Paul would have said." This is exactly what Ben did when he literally claimed Paul said something that Ben thought Paul would have said. See 3:09 to 3:18. Jared, I realize I am being hard on you. I don't want to be mean but you just set yourself up for it. I mean come on man!
What he is talking about is not a matter of salvation. So if you disagree with his, or any other, teaching on this subject it comes down to a matter of opinion. Interpretation is a delicate matter, and with things not concerning salvation, it should not be a divisive issue! Does he read into some things? Yeah, it's called interpretation! Does he exhaust the subject? Of course not, the video is 7 minutes long. One could (and many do) spend a lifetime studying the texts he mentions, as well as scripture as a whole. Gender roles aren't any clearer in scripture than the parables Jesus told. It takes exhaustive study, as well as intervention from the Holy Spirit to understand scripture, and even then, we all get it wrong sometimes because we're human. In the end, one thing remains, Jesus Christ is the Messiah and His death, burial, and resurrection is the only thing that can bring us salvation. Everything else, we'll figure out when we get to heaven.
Very good point! It shouldn’t divide the church. But churches do need to deal with this issue. Imagine what is lost when an entire demographic of people is cut off from sharing equally in worship and teaching. It’s tragic.
@3:20 I'm confused. Why are only high-status women being addressed at coming from other religions and speaking out? The same can be said for men. There are still concerns of 12 Disciples... Christ could have easily sought out women as he encountered many but did not... anyhow, just an exhausting argument. People are just going to believe what they want to believe and articulate the Bible accordingly for what they feel they should do. Paul established the hierarchy of man, then a woman helper. Never does the Bible say one is ever better than the other, one has more salvation than another but that there is an order that we created before the fall.
I like most of this guys teaching but I believe he misses the mark because of newly liberal teaching inside the Wesleyan churches. What would John Wesley say but more importantly what is our example from early church history. Not because church history is gospel but because these leaders were there and knew what the Apostles wanted. One more thing there were no women apostles. He is just wrong on this matter.
Not really persuaded, a deacon is not a church leader, prophesying isn’t a scripture teaching leadership role, no women apostles as far as I can see in scripture (it says the person concerned was known to the apostles, not that she was one of them). Not one book of the bible was penned by a woman. Women and men simply have different roles as far as I can see in scripture. Women can serve God sure, but I think scripture says they shouldn’t lead a congregation or have a pulpit type teaching role. It doesn’t mean one sex is more valued by God, they just gave different tasks in general, in my view
"prophesying isn’t a scripture teaching leadership role"Just read Isaiah, Jeremiah and tell me there are no teachings
God was notGod sad ! please excuse me .
If its a correction of a problem then your only introducing the problem again. U seem to have left out the last part of the passage in 1Timothy 2:12:14 which tells us why he asks this. You are leaving out a critical part which explains the nature of women.
The bible is clear men lead women follow. It's not politically correct but it is biblical so if you are a Christian follow the Bible not the world
It doesn't seem like the early church fathers supported this. Didn't the First Council of Nicaea condemn this? Also, you ignored that Paul references the creation of male first as to his reasoning. Not culture. I believe we have much more evidence to show the exact opposite of what you are saying here.
Nope.
Equating feminine pagan"priestly" function with "being educated"???? Really, Ben? Stick to the texts and don't bring in non-evidentiary cultural contextual examples. Real issue: what is Asbury's position on inerrancy? Case to court or dismiss without evidence?
Well, he butchered it, as they say...
Man, this guy really likes to explain his own thing using eisegesis. There are so many lines he makes where I could ask "where does it say that?" I'll take scripture for what it says and not pull rabbits out of my hat to justify my positions.
Many more confused just like him.
Opinions
This guy clearly twists scripture, in order to fit the warped view of the Methodist church. What's next, homosexual pastors? O wait. ..
"or did the word of God come only through you?"
"When we walk in the spirit, we are not to regard anyone after Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. "
This man seems quite balanced, I have no problem with his equitable teaching.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with the natural genders that God has made. You are actually equating women teaching in ministry with homosexuality??? what is wrong with you Chad Daniels? You obviously have a spirit of Jezebel which is a religious spirit.
I loved this man. He is awesome!!
Jessica Evrist this guy believes in evolution, and rejects a literal adam and eve. Hes wrong in so many areas.
Chad Daniels oh. that is not good.. are u sure?nevertheless…. amazing how people can have a handle on one area and not another…
Jessica Evrist Yes, look it up.
This guy is apostate
Completely ignoring the scriptures SMH
Of course women can minister aka serve but women can’t have authority over men in the Church. That’s why Paul says the Man was made first before the Woman, no?
I found gems in the video though. Thanks.
This dude is ridiculous. He doesn't understand scripture at all
Why do you think that?
Jared Pomeroy Because he clearly rips Scripture out of context
AONHipHop What passages does he rip out of context, and how does he do so?
Jared Pomeroy 1 Timothy 2 & 1 Corinthians 14. Not to mention Titus speaks of "MEN" who have to keep their house in order if they wish to preach. I recommend reading John Piper and Wayne Grudems book "50 Crucial Questions About Manhood And Womanhood"
AONHipHop Okay, so you answered part of the question...
I have agreed with gentleman on most of his teachings....But I believe he's taken "great" liberty with the scriptures on this topic.....Paul was definitive about the structure of the Church and role of men and women...Paul continually refers to "men" in the roles of pastors, deacons and elders.....Women were to teach the young women...Nowhere does Paul give credence to women in leadership of the Church..."Nowhere"...If he would stick to the scriptures on this matter as closely as he did critiquing the pre-trib rapture, i believe he would arrive at a different conclusion.... He missed the crux of this by a country mile..Still enjoy his ministry however...