Michael, if you read this, I just want you to know how loved you are my brother. Yes, the Lord has used you to give me unspeakable gifts of a deeper understanding of the things of God, but at this time, I just want to give back to you and let you know how deeply, deeply, appreciated and loved you are. I can't wait to fellowship with you one day. Total love to you my friend.
I love and appreciate this brother. His work has had a life-changing impact on how I read and understand the narrative and context of scripture. I also disagree with him here
@@jasongoad1084 Oh man, I missed that announcement. I will be praying for peace and comfort for his family. I am sad, he is such a blessing to the body of Christ.
Having listened to so many Internet debates, Mike handled this really well. It’s okay sometimes to say “I don’t know”, the other guy was being kind of rude by not even asking if Mike wanted to have a debate
1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Ever since Paul wrote 1Ti 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.", we have been trying to explain it away.
Kind of sums it up perfectly with Biblical scripture. And then practically we can look at the Ellen G whites, Beth Moores and know Pauls statement is even more correct
You can always verify scripture with scripture...and in the verse you quoted it is verified many times. Voddie Baucham summed up this exact question in one of his sermons correctly and with scriputure to back it up
Adam was the federal head over Eve while in Eden. God made Adam first and Eve was made from Adam. When Eve ate of the fruit, her eyes were not opened. It was only after Adam ate that both their eyes were opened because Adam was the fountainhead of humanity. Adam’s one act of disobedience affected everyone downstream from him. Jesus is the final Adam, our federal head, who makes us righteous from his one act of righteousness. So yes both Adam and Eve were expected to be servant leaders in Eden, but the headship was also in place in Eden, meaning there was a distinction between male and female in roles.
@The FBI I do not think it is my job to defend something that is very clear in the scriptures, as if it were my own opinion, and you can always come up with IF IF IF examples, but it is pointless, am I right or wrong ?
I would say whichever way a person answers their answer needs to be harmonious with all scripture. We cannot take the passage and rubber stamp it over all scripture as all scripture does not agree that a woman cannot exercise authority over a man.
@@elgatofelix8917 Men rule if God rules the men. Weak vice ridden men should not rule, and other men should discipline them, remind them that primarily they are stewards not masters. This is where men have always lost the game, keeping each other in check, holy.
Sadly, I saw this as a challenge, not an intelligent debate... The brother even had it prepped on his phone... It was a classic, "I got you now Buddy" moment.
@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve Watch again how he keeps the mic leaning near his lips... Sad, again, but so evident. These angry agendas are ultimately connected to a past experience, an unbalanced ego, an inferiority complex, or the fear factor- a disarming change. And fear, plus unacceptable change, brings about our illusion of Control. Me da pena.
I think it would benefit us all to remember that God loves us and wants us to experience blessing in our relationships (peace and harmony being among them) and therefore, instructions that our Lord has given us regarding the roles of men and woman , via Paul's ministry, are to ensure that we walk in that blessing. They are not to hurt us (though as sinners we have the ability w/in us to abuse those roles) but to bless us.
I've seen over the years extraordinarily powerful work coming from many women in ministry. God gave them a very unique ability to handle many functions in ministry. We need more voices shouting the good news!
@@kmountain5533 You think you're greater than Paul and have better understanding of God and scripture than him? That's something. Have you been taken to the 3rd Heaven, to the throne of God? Have you been selected by God to be the one to spread the church from the Jews to the pagan nations? Has Jesus appeared to you and audibly spoken to you?
Why does Heiser AVOID honestly answering the question and obfuscate with double speak?? Makes me angry and especially considering what he presents himself as being! It’s VERY clear Paul said women are NOT to teach or exercise authority over men in the New Testament assembly and quotes Eden to back it up! Women as pastors is the sole question, period! That’s it! Not as prophets or anything else; pastors is the question!
Apostle Paul makes a clear about women preaching and teaching being the leaders it makes it very clear let’s not make it difficult as it already is. Apostle Paul even goes back to the garden to say why
What I find is that no one is consistent on it. The same church that would never think of a female in the pulpit will sponsor a female missionary. It's fine for a woman to preach the gospel, just not in our four walls. She can go over there and build four more walls. And far from being silent in church, she can teach Sunday school and do virtually everything except this one thing. No one actually follows Paul's formula. Not even Paul did.
@@Wraiths_and_Wreckage I've often thought the same about women missionaries within this discussion. Being a missionary for over 30 years, I have seen and known many that do more in a day than many men who stand in American pulpits do in a year. I was just in a very remote part of Guatemala where there are no comforts. The missionary who initiated the work I visited there and now helps to support others who have come behind is a woman. She's tenacious. I was blessed and impressed to know her and her collogues-mostly women.
Why did you click on the link if you weren't even going to listen to anything? It's redundant to keep claiming something is "clear" when the video you are watching is CLEARLY pointing out how UNCLEAR the thing is!
No Paul doesn’t make it clear- Read the Book of Acts - Paul had no problem with women in ministry- The Book of Acts even addresses the woman’s name before the man’s Acts 18:18 Priscilla and Aquila-They ministered along with Paul 1Cor 16:19-24. Greet the church in their house- equal billing in addressing the church Besides the commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil- was given to Adam - before God created Eve… hmmmm…. Adam might not have passed the information on to Eve-either way he ate too. Then there the Scripture written by Paul - Gal 3:28- there is neither male or female we are all one in Christ
Love your teachings and agree with you 99% of the time. Here's a 1% point I differ with you on. You invoke the Edenic standard BUT WE ARE NOT IN EDEN. And because we are not in Eden, because we are fallen, because we have fallacies and blind spots and unhealthy fleshly desires specific to our genders, God implements certain instructions to follow that protect us from ourselves. Immediately after the fall God stated that woman's desire would be to rule over her husband and that was not a good thing. That was not a problem pre-fall. So using Eden as your yardstick is completely irrelevant. IMHO. Simply because God chooses to make exceptions to his own instructions (Ex. Choosing the younger Jacob over Esau, the elder) does not invalidate the instruction.
Thank you. I agree. Men are the heads of their households, as they were priests in the temple...and one argument that has been brought up is that when a woman was in leadership in the Bible usually it's when His people were under judgement. Women have their roles - and there ARE strong women in the Bible - but it's clear that men were chosen for leadership
I did not see your comment until after I had written mine. I am in agreement with you. Here is what I wrote... ______________ But we're not in Eden. We are on a fallen Earth, living in sinful flesh...a body of death. I remember hearing about a "Christian" church who started a nudist society, and their reason too was to point to Eden. That is how they justified it. But THEY ARE NOT IN EDEN! And nowhere does Christ tell His church to invoke Eden in making such decisions. Until we are in our glorified bodies, we (being in our sinful body of death) must continue living under the restrictions of being born again of spirit, but still living in this Earthly, fallen body.
Funny that it's a bunch of guys agreeing that only guys should be in charge.. Correct, we are not in Eden, but he's saying that when all other arguments cancel each other out that is the yardstick to measure by. I would say "love your neighbor as yourself" is an even a better way to frame it. Your neighbors are also women, FYI.
So many church traditions, all read that same bible, and disagree with each other on so many points. Many hide behind "we believe in what the bible says and that's why we believe this 'n this". Like Michael says at 4:28 . What if arguments in favour and against a statement can be proven AND disproven with the bible... then what? Then we leave interpretation to experts like Michael ;)
@@timoloef The experts disagree with each other. What will you do now? I'll do like the Bereans did, and "study the scrptures day and night" to figure out if what Paul preached them was true. And Paul praised them for fact checking him by the scripture, calling them noble. In Paul we have more than Heiser, or any other contemporary "expert". Trusting in experts gets you no further than trusting in church traditions. And if you say it's the Bible that is unreadable, then both the church and the traditions are for nothing.
@@AnnaMarianne the problem with most "experts" is that they are not experts at all. They studied the bible wearing the glasses of their own church culture and so they are biased. The bible is a book that you read in your teens, your twentees, thirties etc. and everytime you read it you learn something new. So, it serves a purpose. Church traditions usually seem to be there just to justify their own existence and most of them can not be traced back to the bible. Just realize that they are man-made traditions and see if they serve a purpose for yourself. It's all personal in the end.
Now that’s what I’m talking about, and he also told us not to lean on our own understanding,what the word say that’s what it is,it’s not what we think or thank it’s what he said,now how hard is that to grasp. Heavenly Father bless you sister
Bravo! Well-handled Mike! I think it’s important to understand that ‘Ministry’ encompasses everything we all do in service to the Lord. And while I personally do not believe it is be-fitting for a woman to Pastor a Church (as the main spiritual head under Christ,) and I do not see much Biblical precedence for female Apostles, there is most certainly Biblical precedence for all other roles.
Why would you embrace as normative the Fallen state? We who are New Creations in Christ the Second Adam should aspire to and reach for the equality evident in the Old Creation before the Fall -- unless you believe we should also intentionally avoid things that make work easier, reducing the "sweat of the brow," and that make childbirth less painful.
Here's the main issue: pride and submission. Modern culture tells everyone that their truth matters and that they can do whatever they want. Scripture counters this. We put all things under submission to Him and we obey His commandments. But because of pride people will always want to do what they are told not to and they will find clever ways to justify themselves. Like Solomon says "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil." Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
The Scriptures, particularly the New Testament Scriptures are not historical and do not refer to historical circumstances. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings is not historical and does not refer to historical circumstances. The New Testament must be read as though it was fiction, you cannot carry things between the mundane world and the world of the New Testament as though there is no seam between these two worlds. History does not just march on from the last page of Revelation, but is a self contained story, with Characters and Plot and Scenes, etc and cannot be forced into the temporal world.
@@echeneis2256What are you saying? Of course there's history in the New Testament. It contains the most verified Historical documents of it's time! There's more proof for Jesus historical existence than there is for Alexander the Great's.
There's a lot of things men and women aren't equal in. Childbirth for instance. Equality and worth aren't the same thing. Roles and hierarchy are ment for good in the Bible. It's good that God is above us. It's a good thing that children doesn't get do decide over their parents. It's also a good thing that men and women are set to serve differently in some areas.
1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
-----From a protestant missionary to the traditional Catholicisme. Go to the Mass in Latin, you will understand the whole Bible by the rite itself. NO, we live in the fallen world; women can't be in the priestly ministry.
@@ANARCH3TYPE I am a woman; and I have been living like a man : success, money, independence, single, childless. Women around me, no one is married. May I remind you that the Apostle Paul composed most of the New-Testament?
I’m not sure the Eden argument is as conclusive as you propose. 1) Eve was Adam’s Helper in Eden suggesting a possible separation of responsibilities 2) God eludes to a hierarchy as a result of the fall. I don’t think we can assume that what “might” have been the case in Eden applies to the structure God applies to our fallen state. I’m not saying your wrong, just saying I don’t think an argument based on Eden is conclusive. Btw, I capitalized Helper, because this is a type of help that only God and Eve provide. Being a Helper is not a lower state, just a different state.
It's not as conclusive when limited to Eden, but I've found a connection with headship described in 1 Corinthians 11 and the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the Son and man in John 17. If Paul really is comparing those relationships with the relationship between a man and a woman, there is a headship based in equality if done as intended. Different roles, but in unity as one. Am I stretching it?
Help isn't a good word because God even defines himself as a help. English speaking countries use it in a way that we think of a maidservice but its not a hebrew way of thinking of it. It's a military term. In Hebrew it reads more like "and I will create a corresponding might"
@@Pedant_Patrol not even close to begging correct. With that logic Adam never needs to sin on his own because he’ll just be liable for eve- yet that never happens because Adam is never chastised for her own sin. In fact that is a direct violation of a Torah law that you cannot be blamed for the sin of another. What you are describing is a caste system, not gods ideal creation. They have complete agency and independence and they both share the same prime directive to reign over Eden. God never admonishes Adam for not stopping eve, and eve is never blamed for Adam accepting the forbidden fruit from her. They both choose for themselves. You can’t say women are liable without them having any authority - it doesn’t work and is a double standard. They rule as equals, never over each other. The only time this changes is when God describes how the dominos will fall due to their errors, not before. You can’t rule over another image of God and keep the same prohibitions in plaice, and also suggest that one has more authority than the other.
People aren’t considering the arc of creation and what that means. Eve was created within sacred space, within Eden. Everything with an Eden is considered a delight, because that’s what Eden means. The dust and substance of human beings was taken from outside of that scared space to form Adam, who was later placed in the garden. This is a metaphor to show that what we are from is not worth anything until God gives us worth dust has no value. There are things that are true within the creation account that illustrate the most simple aspects of creation from the most complex and sophisticated creation efforts. Spiritually, men and women are of the same in value and substance but genetically women are far more complicated than men. You can look this up yourself X chromosomes are more complicated than Y, and given the fact that we are having children, we are complicated for that matter alone. If you read carefully, you will notice that there are specific steps within the human act of creation that applies to both men and women. first, they are made privately. Adam was made, and then placed in the garden, Adam was rendered into deep unconsciousness without warning or explanation and removes his side, which is unfortunately translated as rib in English. Eve is later brought to the man. Secondly, They were both formed and fashioned, showcasing a personal and deep investment from the creator to the creation, where everything else is spoken into creation except for us. The word form has two Hebrew yods in the word in the Paleo Hebrew picture, for that is hands, implying God is using full effort, or ‘both hands’ in making us. Third, they knew you God before they knew each other. This initial contact with God after their first moments of existence showcase is that we have a specific and private relationship with our creator. forth, this also sends a clear message that we are not created as collectives, but as specific individuals. the government would love it if we were created as a collective, as units, like the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, but we are not because we are created in the image of God, and that makes us unique agents who have been bestowed the very same attributes that God has. We are all made as individuals and then brought together in marriage, as God did in the Eden. Think about the picture that is being painted here: God is taking a side of Adam, not a foot, not a head, not a hand, but a literal side, and then declares that he will be making a ‘corresponding might’. Corresponding meaning in front of each other, side-by-side they were created, and a face to face, they relate to each other. Even after the fall, they are given fur robes by God, which are priestly symbols to tell us that, even in our fallen state, we are still made in the image of God, and still have the same mandate to rule creation as best we can, we are just bound to do it under fallen conditions until the kingdom arrives.
In Paul's explain for why women shouldn't be in ministry (speaking in the congregation), he refers to the nature of each that led to the fall. The man sinned willfully but the woman was deceived. Just a thought -- deceived people are sincere and can be passionate but are wrong. Willful deceivers are easier to spot.
Your clear- minded logic would be sorely missed. Praying for you. Just shared your longer video on Book of Enoch in early church with someone claiming that it was discovered by a James someone or other in the 1700's and he was a free mason ( everyone is a free mason these days) Thank you for all your shared knowledge and wisdom. God bless
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ESV I’m a woman, and as of now I am unsure to the reasoning behind why Paul would have said this. Does it stem from the fact that Eve was coerced in the garden? Ultimately it all comes down to the conviction of the Holy Spirit after you have worked out your faith with fear and trembling.
They can teach they can do anything other than lead a church right per the scripture. Doesn’t matter if they can some obviously can better than men it is a matter of obedience to the word of God. If you are disobedient to one thing it opens you up to all kinds of other things. 🕊️🔥
Exactly, it doesn't matter what we think or how well we can argue a side. Here on earth, women are subject to the authority of their husbands, and not to be teaching men. 1 Timothy 2:12
@@megansousa2659 In Jesus I trust. Thanks for the scripture. Surprised @ Dr. Heiser on this matter....not sure if he's more of a scientist or a real believer in Christ. This level or exercising ' opinion ' isn't good for the scholarly....in my opinion. lol.peace
@@megansousa2659 And his brothers should always correct him when the husband abused his authority or leads his family into sin. Responsibility always seems to be interpreted as wilfulness and licence (Pride) we live by secular standards.
I typically support the biblical text stating that women are not to be ministers, priests, etc...however, I see what is happening in the country of Iran. There is a strong, growing, underground church there. They have house churches, because they will be executed otherwise. And who are the leaders of these house churches? Almost exclusively women.
@@kmountain5533 From what I understand, most of these women are considered pariahs by their cruel, Islamic culture. I would highly recommend that you visit FAI International (Frontier Alliance International). They produced a documentary called Sheep Among Wolves. It will probably leave you in tears There's more than one video. Just search for the one about the underground church in Iran. There may be some men who are Christian there too, but they are not the majority.
Same in China. I was a missionary in Manchuria. Returned to the states in 2001. There were few males in any of the underground churches. Women were pastors, evangelists, teachers, counselors, musicians, intercessors, disciple makers, and mercy workers.
Love Michael Heiser and I'm sorry for his loss, but thankful that he's recorded and written so much. I would say though there are multiple facets of this argument and pros and cons to both sides.. However to disagree, we are not in Eden anymore but rather we are in a cursed land and therefore there was enough biblical evidence especially New testament to say that women are not pastors or elders. Furthermore the pragmatic approach to having a female Pastor is that these churches are often liberal or very liberal and not proclaiming the truth not preaching the gospel not calling sin, sin not urging sinners to cling to Christ but rather dealing with social ills and problems and ignoring eternity. I know of no church that is planted with a female Pastor is the head Pastor or even any Pastor for that matter that has thrived and done well over the long-term. We've now had enough evidence over several decades of many denominations having female pastors or priests and yet the fruit of it is rotten at best. it's not an insult it's just what it is, so it minimum pragmatism says that planting a church or having a female Pastor is incredibly unwise and unfruitful and does not produce the kingdom of God that he calls us to
It doesn't matter how we feel it's about what's written, and what's written is that women are not teachers of men. I hate this Liberal saying but in this case it holds relevance (for a change).... and we need to remember facts over feelings, or in this case what's written over feelings. Remember what's written about the spirit warring with the flesh? People we either follow the Word of God or we don't. We either obey God's word or we don't. You don't get to pick and choose what sounds good to you. That isn't what God said about obedience.
I want to start by saying that I agree with you... but I never hear anyone make this argument for something truly unpopular. It's just a way to bludgeon egalitarians. It's an excuse people invoke when they want to belittle the other side (I'm not saying this is *your* motivation, but it usually is the motivation behind this kind of language). To make it a little more clear: I never hear Christians say "you either follow God's word or you don't!" about James 5:1-6. I'll have an easier time believing people who make this argument the minute I see them come to church wearing thrift-store clothes, driving a used car. But it's all designer-suits and BMW's. The minute you suggest taking care of widows or orphans, the excuses come rolling in. Ultimately, unless you have achieved a state of "sinless perfection" and put Billy Graham and Mother Theresa to shame, you can't make this argument without being a great big hypocrite.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 This is going to be extremely long my friend, so just keep reading if you would, okay? What churches are you speaking of where people are driving in with BMW's and designer suits? And just be aware I used to know people who drove BMW's that didn't have a lot of money, rather due to the high mileage of the car they payed a pretty respectable low budget price for the car. I wouldn't judge a book by it's cover automatically simply because someone has money. For instance what we see on the hypocritical news and internet youtube specials is that preachers have millions of dollars so automatically they skimmed the top from the funding of the church itself. Keep in mind many of these people write books, have side businesses, and have other ways to make money. I have no doubt that the Word of Faith movement (for example) is a scam in itself to make money, and there are even pastors out there who claim to be Jesus himself. In the Bible it's stated to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing, and how do we KNOW they are wolves? Do they preach the Bible or do they twist it? Dude that doesn't mean these guys are making money off of their congregation though. I've known quite a few pastors that had side jobs to occupy their time with, and yes.... to make a little more money, and there's nothing wrong with that. The rich people that James was talking about were the ones who screwed people over and stepped on anyone and everyone to get what they had, and that was just as common back then as it is today. When the young rich ruler came to Jesus and Jesus told him to sell off all of his possessions and give it to the poor and follow him..... dude don't you see what Jesus was doing? He was showing the people that the rich young ruler loved his belongings and his wealth more than God. That's all that was. When Jesus said.... "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (the eye of a needle in those days was known as a very narrow walkway where most people would have to walk in single file to walk in it, and there were certain sections called "eyes" where it was an arched doorway like structure that was built only so high.... that being said they usually weren't arched high enough for large animals to go through..... for any reference you should speak to someone who knows about the structures and cultures of that time period to understand the reference); understand what Jesus said when his disciples asked "Then who can enter the kingdom of Heaven.... and Jesus's response was.... "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible".... meaning the whole point to the rich young ruler was that he didn't trust God with what.... well..... God gave him and allowed him to have in the first place. Jesus was God, and as such God was telling him what to do with his possessions, and the man wasn't willing to give it up. Dude..... that's a big problem in todays world because God WILL ask you to give things and even people up to follow him. Remember as well what the disciples did... heck what Abraham and Moses and many others did to follow God.... they left their families, friends, and places of comfort to succeed in God's task. How many people are willing to do that today? Would you leave all that you cherish to follow God's instructions? Look at Abraham when God called him to sacrifice his own son..... just...... WOW. And God stopped him before he did it. That's what it means when God calls us..... sometimes it's a test, and sometimes..... we have to give it all up like Jesus spoke of the pearl and burying it in the land then selling everything you own to possess it. Sometimes..... that's what God calls us to do..... but you need to keep this in mind..... God doesn't ALWAYS do that. As for the widows and orphans you better believe we're called to help them and take care of them in their times of need. I agree with you on this point..... if God gives us wealth to begin with, and we don't help others when God slaps us right in the face with them..... that's defiant. That's giving God the finger. You don't do that. But dude.... where most people are coming from is jealousy when they speak about rich pastors. Think of your favorite actor/actress, favorite politician, favorite musician? Do you judge them the way you judge the pastors? There's a lot of money floating around unnoticed that's given to charity constantly by many churches across the country.... the difference is they aren't making a public spectacle about it like you see on you tube or with actors or musicians ir politicians who make it a point to toot their own trumpets on national tv for a headliner...... "LOOK WHAT I DID! I'M A GOOD PERSON!" That's what the Pharisees used to do. Jesus said.... "Do not let your left hand know what your hand hand is doing".... meaning..... don't be like the Pharisees who want praise from men. Do it in secret, because it's not for your honor, it's for God's. So..... dude just keep all this in mind. I'm not saying preachers and churches don't do what you're saying they do, I'm sure there are.... I'm positive they are...... but that doesn't mean they all do that. That's like saying all black people are drug dealers and thieves because there's a few dummies out there that do that thing, or saying that all white people are slave owners from the 1800's. I don't mean to bring this stuff up but it's the only way that most people understand anymore due to the times. I'll use what's "relevant" even if it really isn't. Okay.... I'm done now.
@@therant3837 regarding the quotation from the sermon on the mount: the gate you are referring to was built in the middle ages. Jesus was referring to a sewing needle. Jesus was saying that it was impossible, not difficult. You have missed my point entirely and written several paragraphs under a wrong assumption (not your fault), so let me clarify. (James 2: 1-15 sheds more like on this) the Bible is replete with examples of God praising the humble and bringing the proud low. Every passage in the Bible that discusses modesty instructs us to avoid costly displays of wealth. The reason I mentioned designer suits and BMW's is precisely because they serve no purpose but to show off one's wealth. Mennonites and other anabaptist groups take this very serioisly and practice something called "plainclothes"... but then they get other things wrong. The fact that you made a wrong assumption here is proof of my point, though. That you would go so far as to imply that my opinion is born of jealousy really drives it home. You can'tsay you want to follow scripture when you don'tknow what it says. I used this example because I knew it would be hard to swallow, because I never see Christians in my culture (American) paying any heed to what the Bible says about how they ought to spend their money and time and how they ought to present themselves. We don't live in a time where we can lay all we have at the Apostle's feet for distribution to the needy. But I remain firmly convinced that as long as there are rich Christians, there should not be poor Christians, and as long as there are fat Christians there should be no starving Christians. Well, it isn't as if i escape from the charge of hypocrisy, either. I'm not doing nearly enough for the needs of the Body of Christ... that's why i avoid saying things that make it look like I'm the one who's gettinf everything right.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 I tell you what.... I know people who have been to seminary school school already as I have not yet.... but soon I am going. I'll get back to you on this..... I promise you that. It might be a while.... Just out of curiosity are you a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness?
@@therant3837 Naw, I grew up in a Presbyterian (PCA) church so I still have a membership there.. but I don't consider myself part of any denomination. Presbyterians are disasterously wrong about soteriology, even though they get a lot of other things right. I appreciate your civility. I tried not to word anything in my reply as a personal attack and I'm very grateful you didn't take it that way. I was only trying to say that I think it's risky to say things like "I follow the scripture!" because it's only really true if you live a perfect life! And no one does!
It's not a matter of leadership but position. In today's world we identify leaders with rulers but nothing could be further from the truth. It's simply different positions with different responsibilities and has nothing to do with an authoritative position. Turning it into an authoritative position eliminates and disqualifies the individual regardless of being a male or female.
-----From a protestant missionary to the traditional Catholicisme. Go to the Mass in Latin, you will understand the whole Bible by the rite itself. NO, we live in the fallen world; women can't be in the priestly ministry.
@@nikokapanen82 He's still busy with it. I don't know how many more videos are still scheduled. But he's always saying that he's a "soft" Complementarian.
Mike is wrong about a lot because he never does any reading from the paleo Hebrew which breaks things down to a micro level. That alone makes me think of him as lazy. If he wanted real answers he’d get as specific as you can, and he’s not even close.
God bless Dr. Heiser. I arrived at the same conclusion a while back after years of wrestling with this topic. The edenic ideal is what Jesus is steadily moving His church towards through history. The Apostle Paul didn't see a need to be countercultural one issue at a time. ("Let's make waves in this patriarchal society by letting women be overseers.") Instead, he preached Christ and Him crucified, knowing that when people turn to Christ, all of those issues get resolved, or tossed out altogether, as in some cases. Paul wasn't being anti-women in his assertions. He was being anti-contention.
When did we “rise above” the patriarchy? Are we free from the Trinity as well, which Paul used as an illustration for the roles of the family and the church? Did Christ redeem the flesh to allow us to chose which scripture was time based and which we can now throw out because of our “enlightenment?” Paul didn’t care about the culture in which he lived then. We shouldn’t care about the culture we live in now. We don’t have the roles described in Timothy, Genesis and others because of our need to bend to culture or our lack of understanding the ideal. We have the roles because it is in our humility to follow God and to realize that we are NOT HIM, that He is glorified. Our flesh and our society is not better now or (progressed) than the first century. But our pride clearly has exploded.
@@rodneystewart-wilcox4001 the response is in the focus of the church while we are here. To say that we somehow are rising above our flesh to personify the ideal (Eden), is to say we have have the perspective of Him in our grasp. We don’t. That is why he provided the boundaries to live by. Paul talks of those boundaries, not as cultural contextual but has theological walls. This is why he references Genesis and the fall. To argue and Dr. Heiser does in this video that because there are “arguments” for each side we should default to a perceived ideal before the fall is to ignore our fallen state and the corruption of our flesh regardless of the presence of the Spirit. Therefore in my view we should be patient. Live by the Spirit but be wary of the flesh. And that means respecting the sometimes seemingly arbitrary boundaries of the roles that we have been given. We see in our culture people giving into their flesh to change their sexual desires and even their genders, contrary to the roles they have been created to personify. How is this different? Because we “feel” that the roles are too restrictive? That His word somehow was lacking in context as understood for thousands of years. Paul puts an end to that by saying to ignore the culture in understanding your worth. BUT play your part in Love understanding that in Heaven all will be different. That is why he didn’t advocate for rebelling against political systems or earthy evil institutions. Not because they were not evil, but because our lives are not meant to glorify us but Him. In serving, suffering, and loving we show the world that Heaven is the goal, not a better version of our dying flesh. Stop fighting what we perceive to be earthy injustice with more earthy desires and serve Him. In the way He asked us to do so.
Adam was the federal head by design; not Eve. Zipporah wasn't a priest. Women were not priests in the OT. And that doesn't even really matter, Paul says women are not to hold authority over men. A man cannot be the head of his home, and then go to church where his wife is the head over him. There is a created design and order and role for men and women. God says when women rule it is a sign of judgment (Isa. 3:12). God said it, not me.
The verse in the NT that says that a man cannot be taught/led by a woman seems to be saying that men must be spiritually mentored by mature men, and women by mature women. So that doesn’t preclude women from ministry, they are able to minister to other women.
Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases. If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false.
@@HHGary Sorry for the delay. I received no notification. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. -1 Timothy 2:12 Deborah is what God actually did. Paul's teachings are all over the place, but that is yet another essay. Deborah essay: read time 12 minutes, free, postable
@@HHGary You have to understand the story of Deborah AND what a Judge was. That is the place to start. If you want the Table of Contents of my other essay (on some of Paul's teachings) , that certainly can be pasted up. You can pick one or more 'Parts' and I can paste that part/teaching up for you.
As with the eschatology issue, Michael' s answer is really a non-answer. He has deeper concerns with doctrines like the Divine Council, etc., that have more profound implications apologetically, so I do not blame Michael for not jumping in too deep here. But as another commenter as mentioned, the big issue is what to do with Paul's statements in 1 Timothy 2-3, along with Titus 1, as well as other places like 1 Cor 11 and 14, that address the "women in ministry" question. Michael would prefer not to go there, and just stick with an Old Testament answer, but unfortunately, his response does not help us to figure out what to do with Paul in the NT..... There is a reason why the "women in ministry" issue is one of the most divisive issues in the church today. Michael would rather focus on what he sees are more important issues and questions.
Pondering... Who did Paul direct his letter to? Greeks? Jews? Romans? What was historically and culturally occurring in that specific place and time? Was it a blanket statement or directed to a specific congregation? What was the context? A Biblical verse without context lacks legs to stand on.
Paul's women comments are directed straight the feminist cult of the goddess Artemis of Ephesus. If everyone knew what was happening there'd be no discussion. But since most "christians" don't bother to investigate or research the Bible we end up with make believe doctrines and false interpretations.
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 The problem is this, however: What type of evidence do we possess that Paul was specifically addressing the cult of Artemis? Do we have any specific detail in the NT that directly demonstrates this? Any archaeological or literary evidence outside of the NT that shows that a certain group of women in Paul's Ephesian churches were promoting a syncretized Artemis/Christian message? Granted, we have circumstantial evidence that this "could" have happened. Elsewhere, Heiser acknowledges the evidence is not conclusive here. ruclips.net/video/Dcq-gRMs3uo/видео.html. Not impossible, but just not conclusive, which explains why Heiser tends to back off on this issue: Each position can be argued either way. Regarding the Gnosticism hypothesis, we actually have good evidence that Gnostic Christians were teaching that Eve came before Adam, but not until the 2nd century. This hypothesis fits the data, but not the date, as it would push the writing of Acts into the second century (or late first at best), which is too late for Paul. It seems strange the early church would have been so silent on the matter. If only we had stronger evidence in favor of the Artemis cult hypothesis. Much of this comes down to how much you value early church tradition and who bears the burden of proof.
No he didn't, he answered pretty straight up, when the guy tried to bring up an example (Deborah) heisser immediately shot it down, so he clearly wasn't afraid of tackling the issue and wasn't "dodging" anything.
Paul's argument, 1Timothy 2:12-14 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." This is from the Garden of Eden. There is an order to things 1Cor. 11:3
The lack of humility plays a huge role in discernment and Wisdom. The brother arrived with loaded pistoles- not seeking understanding, and not an ounce of humility.
Pride is the deadliest sin for a reason, it goes from egotistical to the most self pitiful mentality that tells us that we aren't worthy of salvation or whatever
@@nereida116 The word 'surrender' is viewed in a miriad of ways...and though I understand to a degree of what you are saying, there are rules and laws in Gods Kingdom...These are important questions that need to align with scripture...and with debate 'iron sharpens iron' and merely 'surrendering'/submission is not good doctrine
I actually would like to hear Michael's arguments for both sides and not just for the sake of argument. As a woman who believes she IS being called, but is wrestling with that issue I want to have a very reasonable points to both from his perspective. People take the Edenic ideal and they say that because Adam named Eve then he has authority over her (male headship) in Eden and therefore the argument of women not being preachers, prophets, deacons bc they can't have "authority" over a man. Well what do you do with that? genuinely asking. I believe God called them to rule together and there wasn't a headship in Eden. It was only after the fall that God said your desire would be for your spouse and he would rule over you. Jesus restore the Edenic model of Christ as head and man/woman having diminion together... and yet others say no. It is a very confusing matter for women who are wrestling with is this just the traditions of men? What does God really think on this. I agree.. it is ambiguous if one does really search the scriptures. I would like to hear a podcast episode dedicated to this. He did one a very long time ago but it did not address this issue biblically arguing both points.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve." (1 Tim. 2:11-13) Both being in ministry doesn't mean that both minister the same way.
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed. Refusal to accept a Judge's verdict on any matter, resulted in execution, according to Deuteronomy. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
Here's a real question no one asks because you will start WWIII: Remarriage after divorce. Both Jesus (to His Jewish audience) and Paul (to a mixed CHRISTIAN audience) said no....but watch people dance around that one.
MSH nails it. What is the point of Christ's sacrifice and reconciling us to the Lord if the "ideal" is still the curse and judgement of women being ruled over by men.
Even in the Old Covenant: Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment. -excerpt Judges 4 To not accept the decision of a judge resulted in the death penalty. (I did an essay on Deborah. Reply if you want it.)
In Eden, they Adam and Eve were naked and vegan... Besides, Paul explicitly argues from a post-fall position. I'm sorry, but this is very unconvincingly argued.
Woman was made from man's side. To be a helper. "It is not good for man to be alone." It was Eve who sinned first, but who did God go to first, for the account? God went to Adam. "What is this you have done?" Then the blame game started and continues to this very day. Paul is pretty clear. God holds us men accountable for the things done by women alongside and "under" us. I think men who want to be the "boss" are missing a lot of context. I like Heiser's resolution here. "The Edenic Ideal." What God made before we fell. A partnership. We are one in Christ. All this is post fall reasoning. I think we do well to invite women to be our partners.
@@Dolfiey Pre-fall, they were vegan. Post-fall they were allowed to kill and eat animals. There is an unspecified amount of time between Creation and Fall. Could've been a day. Could've been a year or two. Or more. During that time it is not described that they ate meat, only after the fall.
@@Dolfiey Genesis 9 is post flood. A very long time after the fall. If there was no death in the world before the fall then the logical conclusion is Adam and Eve were vegan, more specifically fruitarian, due to the fact that eating meat requires harvesting it from a dead animal and eating anything other than the fruit of a plant would require killing the plant.
@@zacdredge3859 NT scholar Phil Payne, from the online essay, "Examining the Twelve Pillars of Male Hierarchy": ------------------------ Paul encourages all believers to desire the office of overseer by stating in 1 Timothy 3:1, “Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task” (NIV 2011). The subject of both Paul’s lists of qualifications for overseers and elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is “anyone.” There is not a single masculine pronoun or any other limitation to men in either list, contrary to most English translations. Both the Common English Bible and the Contemporary English Version translate these passages faithfully, without introducing any masculine pronouns. Some think that “one woman man” in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 excludes women, but even prominent complementarians Doug Moo and Thomas Schreiner acknowledge this phrase does not exclude women.[17] It is a requirement that overseers be “monogamous,” whether men or women. As Hugenberger has shown,[18] and Jesus’ interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 in Mark 10:12 confirms, it is common throughout the Bible for prohibitions addressing men also to apply to women. For example, “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife” implicitly also prohibits coveting your neighbor’s husband. Paul’s point is not that all overseers must be married. Paul, after all, encourages single believers not to marry but to be devoted to the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, 32-35. Furthermore, to demand that overseers be married would exclude Jesus, Paul (1 Cor 7:7), and virtually all Catholic priests as well as monastics, both male and female. Since “one woman man” is an idiomatic phrase for a monogamous relationship, any claim that a single word of it (“man”) also functions separately as a universal requirement must posit a double meaning. The context does not warrant this. It is bad hermeneutics to isolate a single word (“man”) from an idiomatic phrase (“one woman man”) and elevate that single word to the status of a separate universal requirement. It is like taking “household” out of “ruling children and their own households well” and insisting that only slave owners can be overseers. ------------------------ Andrew Bartlett and Terran Williams give similar but more current and detailed info in their response articles to Mike Winger at Terran's Web site.
I miss Dr. Heiser, he was careful not to rock the boat to much so he could keep researching but he always tried his best to be heard anyway even when kicking over other people’s sacred cows. Christian culture doesn’t listen, we’ve attracted many abusers and narcissists into positions of power. I’m grateful I got to be born at this time where I had internet access and the ability to reteach myself out of these abusive patterns; away from the female leaders teaching me how to manipulate my husband to get my needs met because they married the first guy to expressed interest when they were 18, or the male leaders verbally patting my head in patriarchal distain and telling me to abuse my children cause “God commands it.” So many churches, so many men and women victims. When people leave the church it’ll be the church’s fault. Victims of abuse are free to leave the abusers now, you have to learn to stop being abusive.
1 Timothy 2:13 speaks to the edenic ideal suggesting that the creation order is a reason for the differing roles of authority between a man and a woman. The edenic ideal does not suggest that women should pastor.
I am a big fan of Heiser's work, though the emphasized point about Deborah being only a prophet, which in his words does not really equate to the same thing as a pastor or leader is extremely short sighted and even misleading to those trying to understand this nuanced topic. Deborah held the highest rank in Israel as certainly not just a prophetess, but a judge for 60 years. The only other OT leader who had this same rank was Samuel. All the children of Israel came to her for judgement (Judges 4:5). The word "judgement" there is "Mishpat" and is defined as "decisions, determinations and decrees"). That word is also used Isaiah 26:9, "God's just decisions fill the Earth and instruct the peoples' righteousness." If her role here is not seen as pastoring/leading both men and women, I don't know what is. If this is a canonized scripture, which of course it is, then women in leadership is clearly not against the will of God. If we move to the New Testament there are many examples of women in leadership as well.
Problem is we don't live in the edenic ideal. We live in a fallen world until Christ returns. So unfortunately I disagree. I hate that, i cannot hear what Heisers opinion on that is .
Just because you are a Biblical scholar doesn't mean your conclusions are always right. Sometimes, being a scholar can actually blind you to seeing what is plain and simple. The problem often is that we don't want to see what is plain and simple because it cuts across our ideas. Scripture does not need scholars to interpret its meaning. Just the Holy Spirit for those humble enough to receive Him. No matter how much historical knowledge and ability to translate ancient languages, which are assets, it is only the Holy Spirit that can truly reveal what the meaning and intentions are for the words He inspired the biblical writers to write which are not open for private interpretations, but are plain and simple enough for anyone who wants to understand with His guidance.
Scholars can help us understand the finer points that are often overlooked in passages especially when it comes to cultural norms of the audiences involved. But I too think he over reads the Scripture here. In Eden Adam served in a different role than Eve. They were truly equally yoked but still had different responsibilities in the temple.
The "plain and simple" is not plain and simple unless you like to twist Scripture. "Plain & Simple" means no contextual understanding or blissfully unaware of the backstory. There is very very little "plain & simple" in the Bible. That's what makes it so awesome and wondrous.
@Baltic Hammer plain and simple sometimes means just that. The meaning is obvious. We twist scriptures at times to fit in with our own perceptions and ideas, which causes confusion and the creation of false doctrines, interpretations, and divisions. There is a danger of leaning more on "scholarly" knowledge than dependence on the Holy Spirit to make plain what He inspired in the first place..
@Sold out Completely by the way you have opened your response, making assertions I do not claim, I can see you are a person who takes comments out of context and responds from erroneous assumptions. There is no need to engage any further.
There is also a difference between being in ministry and being part of the sacrificial priesthood. This is why Orthodox Churches allow for women to serve in leadership roles just not in the Altar. Is that really a major deal though? Never could understand why its such a major deal as there are so many ministry roles outside of performing the liturgy.
Esh / Esha are complimentary and have separate roles in the process, …..there is also a gender hierarchy…husbands…like Messiah loved the church and gave himself for it. There’s a reason why the feminine gender was not given that directive
(I didn't watch the video.) By both sides, I guess you mean Complementarianism and Egalitarianism. I am egalitarian. I can post my essay on the judge Deborah if requested. I don't know about this channel. Mike Winger has done several videos. He is complementarian.
Adam was the federal head over Eve while in Eden. God made Adam first and Eve was made from Adam. When Eve ate of the fruit, her eyes were not opened. It was only after Adam ate that both their eyes were opened because Adam was the fountainhead of humanity. Adam’s one act of disobedience affected everyone downstream from him. Jesus is the final Adam, our federal head, who makes us righteous from his one act of righteousness. So yes both Adam and Eve were expected to be servant leaders in Eden, but the headship was also in place in Eden, meaning there was a distinction between male and female in roles.
That's right. Women can serve in the church. They can serve in ministry. They can even lead others in the church (ie other women and children). What Paul was getting at is they should not, be head of, or be put into leadership of other men inside the church.
What most people don't realize is how important of a role women played in Jesus' ministry and the first century church. They were actually out front but in the background. It requires a very spiritually strong person to fill that role. Stronger even than the one that is always being seen by others. God's intended plan was for ALL people to be subservient towards each other. There should not be a chain of command within the church but simply different people fulfilling different roles without regard of gender. Today's church structure is not even remotely close to how the first century church functioned. In Christ, Baron T.
@@areallycoolhat5427 Usually you verify scripture with scripture...we have 'instances' of it, however, over and over the Bible confirms that men are leaders, and women are only in leadership roles when there's judgement on the land
@@nikokapanen82 he cited exodus 4. I think he wanted to go into more detail but didn't because it was still a qna, others were probably waiting their turn.
So IYO, even those of us who are in Christ, the Last Adam, part of the New Creation, should take as normative the fallen state, as if being reborn by the Spirit has no real meaning?
If you knew the backstory of Ephesus and the Artemis cult (radical feminism) then you'd completely understand WHY Paul writes what he does. But since so many "christians" choose to not understand the context of biblical writings they end up manufacturing doctrines they like.
@@xnihilo1044 "Alleged setting"??????? You need to spend the couple hundred hours researching like I did. Then you'll see the puzzles falling into place. Paul had his hands full in Ephesus with the aggressive cult followers of Artemis. Every point of the Artemis beliefs is aimed directly to oppose the Bible's narrative. Its like it was custom made to attack or challenge everything in the OT/NT. Learning about Ephesus and its famous goddess cleared up all questions on WHY Paul and others were sent to work there. Here's an excellent lecture on Corinth and what was happening there with the womens' lib and the fashion rage of dressing and hair styling to look like a prostitute. ruclips.net/video/UoegVdstfn4/видео.html
In the past I have known those men who have quoted Paul and Peter saying “ wives should be subject to their husbands “ but the results have been concerning. Particularly a lazy husband demanding his wife to do everything but he just sits back. My thoughts are that everyone of the books after the 4 gospels should be filtered through the sermon on the mount. If a husband is giving to all that ask him and turning the other cheek or doing good to those who spitefully use them, that should lead on to Jesus being the judge between the good sheep and the bad sheep ( Ezekiel reference to the messiah). Then Paul comes in and says “ because your husband is following the teachings of Jesus, you therefore should not then take advantage of your serving husband.
@@damnedmadman all the curses "magically" disappeared!! That is the power of the blood. You just need to proclaim His absolute finished work or you can keep living under your curse!!! =
@@katerinaa.whitehouse4104 No, it's not finished. Obviously many things aren't fulfilled yet. They will be when He comes back in glory. Only then we should expect a universal redemption.
@@kmountain5533 Jesus died for our sins yes.... but that didn't magically fix the nature of men and women. Men still make better leaders and protectors. Women still make better helpers and are far better at being nurturing. Both have their pitfalls as well. Men abuse power more often and women are emotionally manipulative. This remains true despite Jesus dying on the cross.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. [15] Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
@@lindac2554 I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Galatians 5:13-14 Paul exhorts them to live according to the precepts of the law by the spirit. Grace justifies, but sanctification will kill rebellion against the law. Galatians 5:13-14 outline a rule for living, is Paul contradicting himself within the same chapter? As I believe Paul himself would say, "By no means!"
I enjoy watching people’s faces when I point out every scripture they use to create a hierarchy for men and women is a response to sin, and not the original way God wanted things. The Edenic ideal is…the ideal.
Yeh this is always a hot button topic but it would not if seminaries or the "giants of the faith" did a little research into Ephesus. Its hard work but if I can do it and figure WHY Paul writes what he does, then there is zero reasons why others cannot do the same. But they chose to be willfully ignorant. Seriously, how many centuries does it take to understand the proper context of a Bible verse?? Makes me think the misinterpretation and ignorance is deliberate.
the New Testament Scriptures are like a dream, there are things in the dream that correspond to historical reality, but you would be a fool to think that the world in the dream operates in the same way as the real world. Whatever Paul said about women being pastors is really only relevant in the context of the story its self and has no bearing on historical/temporal circumstances - which would be akin to making the New Testament into some kind of Law book or manifesto to organize an institution.
what no one is addressing here in this silly endless dispute, mainly in so called "people of the book" type churches, the more orthadox ones who insist on Patriachal church, is they love to see all the bits where Paul forbids women for doing something, usually because of some outside reference like tempting angels, but there is another point. That is that the christian believer is a new creation neither jew nor gentile, master or slave nor MALE OR FEMALE. We are all equal, and if one is a pastor or a bishop they are actually SERVING THE BODY and not being BOSSES of groups. This issue is all on its head, the ones who insist men should be IN CHARGE miss the biblical point. That as members of the body we are all equally important to make up the body of christ.
I think it's simple. Absolutely women can and should be in ministry. No, they should not be PASTORS. Having a ministry / serving in a ministry is not synonymous with being a pastor.
I sincerely adore a lot of what I've learned by Dr. Heiser, but on the man vs woman leader, nowhere is man denied leadership roles in the Bible. However, we do have significant weight in the column of women NOT leading men. They can lead women, but not men; the language is blunt and clear. Per the Edenic ideal, of which Paul wasn't ignorant, woman is the helper. This in no way lessens women, God simply assigns them a role.
You need to study the hermeneutics surrounding highly misunderstood verses like 1 Timothy 2:12. I would suggest studying the works surrounding it by Dr. Ben Witherington III.
Greek women were highly esteemed in their culture (hence all the Greek goddesses), and Lydia was a businesswoman and probably educated -- do you think she sat mute and submissive as Paul taught in her house? I'm pretty sure she had questions, and maybe a few answers as well.
If it ends with eden, then you have to consider the whole story and why they aren't still there. Eve transgressed and Adam was held responsible because he, as the head of his household, didn't control her enough, or disciple to her well enough to teach her enough self-control, to prevent it.
Christians do vary on the women pastor issue. There's a lot of Christians that believe it's a sin for women to be pastors, and there's a lot of Christians that believe it's not a sin for women to be pastors. The reason why many people have differing opinions about the women pastor issue is because it's very hard for people to determine whether 1 Timothy 2:12 is a cultural specific situation of Paul and Timothy restricting the women from Ephesus that were teaching Gnosticism from being pastors or a universal situation of God not wanting any woman to be a pastor of a church. The context of 1 Timothy is about Paul and Timothy ministering to the people in Ephesus, and Ephesus did have a huge problem with women that were false teachers teaching Gnosticism to people. A lot of information in 1 Timothy is universal, and a lot of information in 1 Timothy is culture specific. It's very hard to tell if 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal principle or a culture specific principle. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal principle, that proves how women shouldn't be pastors. Some people use the "husband of one wife" argument to prove it's a sin for women to be pastors. 1 Timothy 3 talks about how pastors need to be the "husband of one wife". Some people think that when the Bible says that pastors need to be the "husband of one wife", it means they have to be men since husband implies man. The phrase "husband of one wife" isn't meant to be taken literally. If "husband of one wife" were meant to be taken literally, that would mean single people can't be pastors because husband implies being married, but there's strong evidence in the Bible how it's not a sin for single people to be pastors. Paul and Timothy were pastors of churches, and they weren't married, and God approved of them being pastors, which is strong evidence how it's not a sin for single people to be pastors. The Greek word for "husband of one wife" is Mias Gunaikos Aner, which means one woman man, someone who doesn't struggle with adultery, etc. When the Bible says pastors need to be the "husband of one wife", it means they need to be people who don't struggle with adultery, who aren't players, who aren't womanizers, etc. Some people think that since the word "He" is used a lot in 1 Timothy 3 to describe qualifications of being a pastor, he means that women can't be pastors. 1 Timothy 3 says "he must not be quarrelsome, he must be the husband of one wife, he must be trustworthy", etc. The thing is all throughout the Bible when the word "He" "Men", etc is used, the situation applies to both men and women. When Matthew 10:37 says that "He that loveth a father or mother more than me is not worthy of me", the situation applies to both men and women. Proverbs 22:6 says "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from me". Even though the word "He" is used in Proverbs 22:6, the situation applies to both men and women. When Ephesians 4:8 says "God gave gifts to all men", the situation applies to both men and women even though the word men is used. When Matthew 5:28 says "Whosoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart", the situation applies to both men and women, the situation applies to men lusting after women, the situation applies to women lusting after men, etc. Some people use the argument how it's not a sin for women to be pastors due to Priscilla being a pastor. Priscilla in the Bible wasn't a pastor. Priscilla in the Bible was a ministry leader but not a pastor. I can't find any examples of women pastors in the Bible. It's very hard to tell if 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal principle or a culture specific principle. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal principle that isn't a culture specific principle, that would prove how it's a sin for women to be pastors.
you wrote: I can't find any examples of women pastors in the Bible. Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation Full read time: 12 minutes , free
I do feel, as a woman, that women can have major gifts of the spirit - that include teaching and prophesying. But I also think the question of authority is tricky. I read the Bible and read that church is whenever 2 or 3 gather in His name… I do not see a reason or even a mandate for an organized church headship - because at the end, Christ is the head and we all must answer to him. Paul was right to say that women should not have authority over men… but my question is (and maybe it’s in the Bible): what would he have said (or did he say) about men having that same kind of authority over other men? Was the church structure as we understand it today even on their minds? I know they had deacons and pastors - but the same titles doesn’t mean the same purpose. I guess in the end, if a woman has the gifts of prophecy or teaching, and she shares those in a neutral forum - and men are drawn to her message and way of delivery, and want to support her ministry - I don’t necessarily think that should be looked at as “authority.” More like “I can feel the Holy Spirit moving in her and I want to support her to continue to plug into that.” But women seeking to rule over men? No. It’s not natural. Look at our modern culture to see fast things can go terribly wrong when men take a back seat and women demand to be in charge… this doesn’t mean that SOME women aren’t called to proper leadership in public life - but when women are given priority and men are ignored, subverted, and maligned… oh boy. 😬
Right, I thought of that when speaking with a hard complimentarian. I got many of the standard arguments/ passages, and it just occurred to me. I asked her, well, are you still under the curse of the fall?
We are under the new covenant, but that does not mean that the conditions of the world that we have to struggle against have been eliminated, even though they have been alleviated in certain ways. I think Paul is mostly concerned about the serpent (and evil forces) targeting Eve, and trying to spare women from an undue burden, especially as things against Christians will continuously become more aggressive and violent towards the end of days. Right up until Christ death he told his apostles to go get swords because after his death, things would actually get harder for Christians in many ways. This isn’t really a matter of ‘can’ woman preach, it’s more of a matter of for the protection of women they shouldn’t. Women in many ways are vulnerable enough and to add to the burden can seem unfair. It also is possible that if women preach a lot of men will be lazy and simply stop. It’s also possible that we are seeing this from the vantage point of a first world relatively safe society. We don’t necessarily have to worry about our churches being burned down like people do in Egypt or other parts of the world.
@@bell5309 the question is whether an heritable, ontological moral change occured at the fall (and the answer is: no). The western church has held to this view since Augustine, but it's not supported by reason or scripture. So though we face the consequences of sin, and though we have an orientation towards evil, we are not a different kind of human being. Having received the regeneration from the Holy Spirit, is it reasonable to say that we are still undee the curse? As we grow in sanctification, we become more and more like the original Adamic ideal. It's one of those "already and not yet" situations. We're already cleansed byt we're not already fully transformed in our minds. We're already redeemed but our bodies have to be resurrected for the full effect.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 to say that a belief in original sin is without reason and scriptural support, as if the arrival at such a belief was done without reason or could not have been reasoned to and (worst of all) has absolutely no basis in scripture, is juvenile, insulting, and at the end wrong. Of course, there are reasons why people believe it, and they used reason to get there, and those reasons are based in scripture. Its odd that you even said that. It seems you do not fully realize the destructiveness, the malignancy, nor the finality of sin. It did change us (us, as in all humanity, the damned and the redeemed, because you seem to play fast and loose with the meaning, i.e. one moment meaning humanity while the next moment meaning only the saved). God no longer walked with us, our every inclination was toward evil, the very Earth was cursed beneath our feet. Humanity, indeed all of creation, was fundamentaly changed. And like begets like. Thats why it is written, "rebellion is bound up in the heart of a child," and, "there is none that seek after God, no not one," and, "our righteousness is as filthy rags." Thats why, "it grieved the Lord that He had made man." Obviously something changed, certainly not God, and certainly God didnt intend for us to live in willful disobedience. Something changed, and it was because of sin. Your retorical question was asked as if the answer was obviously "no," (because you played around with the word "us," now you intend it to mean only the redeemed.) when, in fact the answer is "yes." Having been redeemed, it is perfectly reasonable and, more importantly, biblical to say we (the saved) are still under the curse of sin. As you yourself point out, the process of sanctification is not complete, and will not be fully complete this side of heaven, so the effects of sin are still to be expected on this side. Even Jesus, Our Lord, experienced all the innocent malidies of the fall (e.g. He grew hungry amd thirsty, He grew tired and slept, He actually grew in favor with the Lord, etc.) Now, half of the reason for us (the saved) still living under the curse of sin is that we are not fully sanctified, amd the other half of the reason comes from those who reject Christ. When the New Jerusalem comes we will be free from even the presence of sin. You kind of talk about this, but i think you confuse justification with sanctification. We (the saved) are fully justified in Christ, yes, but we are not fully sanctified... amd so we (the saved) still sin.
@@olorinmartinez this is all too much to reply to, so I will only reply to this part: I was trying to be brief by saying that thr idea of original guilt is not supported by scripture or reason- I should have written that none of those arguments from scripture or reason stand up to scrutiny, precisely because of scripture and reason. Any offense that was taken at this was taken, not given.
Women can be in ministry if it means educating children, helping the poor, counseling, serving etc. But if said ministry positions requires teaching or exercising authority over men, then she shouldn't hold that position. Scripture is very plain 1 Timothy 2:12-14 and even uses Eden as a justification for this. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The ONLY person who has ever rendered an opinion on women in ministry is PAUL. There are ZERO Torah/Tanach passages against women in ministry and the New and Original testaments give over a dozen examples of women in ministry. And Paul is offering HIS OPINION ONLY.
The question we have to answer regarding texts like 1 Timothy 2 is this, was this meant to be universal or was Paul’s main concern geared toward the specific group of people that he is writing to Timothy about. This is extremely Important, because if it is meant to be universal then all who say that v12 applies to all women, also need to say that the preceding verses about women not being allowed to wear pearls, gold, braided hair etc, need to be universally enforced as well. Or how about head coverings and long hair on men in the church in 1 Cor? Paul also cites the creation narrative to support his point, but I do not see anyone enforcing head dresses in the very same churches where they prohibit women pastors. Unfortunately these commands become a pick and choose for whoever finds them convenient.
I think Mike inadvertently conflated the questions of women in ministry and women in church leadership (being elders / pastors). Affirming women in ministry because of the Edenic ideal is fine, but it’s not the same thing as affirming them in the role of elder / pastor.
That is not what helper means and it’s not with the Hebrew says. God even calls himself as a help, do you consider God to be a lesser roll than you? And it clearly says that stewardship of the garden was given to both of them read carefully, and actually think critically before you say more stupid things.
1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
A lot of the people commenting fail to look at Jesus example. He had women in ministry and according to Him we are all equal. So why can’t a woman lead. Doesn’t a woman have the capacity to be spirit filled? Isn’t a woman a child of God? I will warn you to please avoid the Pharisaical spirit of denying access to God’s children. If you have all the gifts and have not love, you have nothing
We cannot rewrite the Bible. What Hieser is talking about is prior to God handing down judgement due to the fall. It was Gods original intent. However, the fall did happen and God instituted what he wanted. Hieser just doesn’t like for Christian’s to argue over issues and stay focused on the Great Commission.
@@silent1967 Exactly. Is this a Jesus vs. Paul debate? Are we then to throw out the doctrine of biblical inerrancy? How many of Paul's instructions are we to remove the scriptures? Yes, we are equal before God with respect to our redemption and His love for us, but we have different roles. It's the abuse that many of our sisters object to and I can understand that. Just because one particular woman is more versed then a particular man, for example, does not give us the right to override God's directives. A woman has every right to call out a brothers abuse of scripture, and visa versa. If we try and reverse the roles that God has laid down for us, then we are out of His will for our lives and only set ourselves up for destruction.
The Bible doesn't show women preaching at all. Jesus certainly didn't have any women in ministry, especially because none of the 12 that were primarily chosen to fulfill that role was a woman. Jesus telling a woman to inform the others that He was resurrected doesn't magically mean that it's proof that women were given ecclesiastical authority.
"If we were to go back to Eden, and ask this question; Which one of these two are suppose to be, servant steward rulers of Eden? I think the answer would be; Yeah, like why are you asking me to pick."❤️
@@googIesux From 1 Timothy 2- "11 A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; b 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. "...post-fall (or post-Edenic) after the initial conditions of Eden from which Heiser makes his argument.
The difference here is that Eve was targeted specifically by Satan and still is post fall. We have several warnings of laws against women warned about in revelation. We have the “enmity” meaning that women are continuously targets of Satan, because Eve was the first person to call Satan the anti-truth, the one who “deceives”. Remember, they were naked, which, in Hebrew means that they were transparent. What you see, is what you get, which is incontrast to Satan’s craftiness, which means that he has a hidden agenda. There’s also a difference between a sin and a transgression. Adam disobeyed full well knowing what he did, but eve believed a lie, and then called satan out over it. The motive of the sin is different.
My question is what exactly is the Edenic ideal? Adam was the responcible party (addressed first to give an acount, given a job first etc...) does this mean his headship applies men as the pastoral head over women for all time, or that this structure exists and that we should not blur who is who? (Women as women, men as men) for whatever that means in the cultural norms and views.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin.
I think we should follow scriptures. Women can become great saints and write or inspire other Women and men , but not become prisets or pastors. God clearly made a hierchy with the genders for a good reason. we should trust in his Wisdom and accept our roles because each one is holy. Mothers can be teachers for their children.
@@8784-l3byeah, Deborah was the only time a Judge not the military leader, and also was the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished
@@disguisedcentennial835 you wrote: the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not even one was left. Also: So God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan on that day before the sons of Israel. And the hand of the sons of Israel pressed harder and harder upon Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had eliminated Jabin the king of Canaan. -excerpts Judges 4 And the land was at rest for forty years. -excerpt Judges 5 last sentence, and the end of the story of Deborah
@@8784-l3b Judges 4:9 (ESV): 9 And she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.
@@disguisedcentennial835 you wrote: was the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished There was no disgrace on her part. No scriptures say that or hint at that.
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
Whomever you are, commit your life to the Lord. He will.put you where you can best serve. Then serve.
Sooo much this.
God can use us all, even if people don't like it, God will provide that gift that individual to fulfil that purpose at that time.
Exactly.
Praying for you brother, for Gods healing hand on your body.
--------Catholicism is post-Messianic Judaism with Roy Schoeman-ruclips.net/video/cxnvsDsc5j8/видео.html
Amen
Michael, you have changed my life by your teachings. Thank you for all your service to our Lord. Hasta pronto !!
Michael, if you read this, I just want you to know how loved you are my brother. Yes, the Lord has used you to give me unspeakable gifts of a deeper understanding of the things of God, but at this time, I just want to give back to you and let you know how deeply, deeply, appreciated and loved you are. I can't wait to fellowship with you one day. Total love to you my friend.
Amen
I love and appreciate this brother. His work has had a life-changing impact on how I read and understand the narrative and context of scripture. I also disagree with him here
I hope MIke will have a loooong life and will share his understanding of the scriptures with all of us...
Amen.
And amen.
Praying for this. He is a blessing to the body.
Sadly, he announced yesterday that he has a short time left here on earth. Just heartbreaking. I hate cancer.
@@jasongoad1084 Oh man, I missed that announcement. I will be praying for peace and comfort for his family. I am sad, he is such a blessing to the body of Christ.
miss this guy! what a gift he was (edit....and still is.)
Having listened to so many Internet debates, Mike handled this really well. It’s okay sometimes to say “I don’t know”, the other guy was being kind of rude by not even asking if Mike wanted to have a debate
"Occum's Razor". Love it. He had such a gift for breaking it down to basics, responsibly.
1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Ever since Paul wrote 1Ti 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.", we have been trying to explain it away.
Kind of sums it up perfectly with Biblical scripture.
And then practically we can look at the Ellen G whites, Beth Moores and know Pauls statement is even more correct
You can always verify scripture with scripture...and in the verse you quoted it is verified many times. Voddie Baucham summed up this exact question in one of his sermons correctly and with scriputure to back it up
Adam was the federal head over Eve while in Eden. God made Adam first and Eve was made from Adam. When Eve ate of the fruit, her eyes were not opened. It was only after Adam ate that both their eyes were opened because Adam was the fountainhead of humanity. Adam’s one act of disobedience affected everyone downstream from him. Jesus is the final Adam, our federal head, who makes us righteous from his one act of righteousness. So yes both Adam and Eve were expected to be servant leaders in Eden, but the headship was also in place in Eden, meaning there was a distinction between male and female in roles.
@The FBI It is not a matter of a woman can teaching and preaching, she can, but if a woman can be the leader of a church, she can`t. 💕
@The FBI I do not think it is my job to defend something that is very clear in the scriptures, as if it were my own opinion, and you can always come up with IF IF IF examples, but it is pointless, am I right or wrong ?
This just keeps running through my mind. He made them male & female. THEM being the meaning. I do believe there's assignments for all of us.
Bible still does say the man is the head of the women though.
The assignments are as follows: Men lead. Women cook.
@@ngkngk875 Right.
I would say whichever way a person answers their answer needs to be harmonious with all scripture. We cannot take the passage and rubber stamp it over all scripture as all scripture does not agree that a woman cannot exercise authority over a man.
@@elgatofelix8917 Men rule if God rules the men.
Weak vice ridden men should not rule, and other men should discipline them, remind them that primarily they are stewards not masters. This is where men have always lost the game, keeping each other in check, holy.
I love you Mike, you are in my prayers.
Now that's a great name you have there, crashtestdhimmi, wish I'd thought of it.
Yup.. Debates are always healthy in a respectful way.. Always good to listen to both sides of there opinions as long as they stay in topic... 🕊️🙌🏼🙏🏼👍🏼
Sadly, I saw this as a challenge, not an intelligent debate... The brother even had it prepped on his phone... It was a classic, "I got you now Buddy" moment.
@@nereida116 hahaha. Yup...
@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve Watch again how he keeps the mic leaning near his lips... Sad, again, but so evident. These angry agendas are ultimately connected to a past experience, an unbalanced ego, an inferiority complex, or the fear factor- a disarming change.
And fear, plus unacceptable change, brings about our illusion of Control.
Me da pena.
@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve Lord Jesus -Our Christ -bless you copiously and keep you Angel! Amen.🤲🏼
@@nereida116 He seemed very eager, but a challenge to debate is a challenge. Nothing wrong with that
I think it would benefit us all to remember that God loves us and wants us to experience blessing in our relationships (peace and harmony being among them) and therefore, instructions that our Lord has given us regarding the roles of men and woman , via Paul's ministry, are to ensure that we walk in that blessing. They are not to hurt us (though as sinners we have the ability w/in us to abuse those roles) but to bless us.
Right, and just an example, some parents abuse their children, but that mournful reality does not undermine the legitimacy of the parental role.
--------Catholicism is post-Messianic Judaism with Roy Schoeman-ruclips.net/video/cxnvsDsc5j8/видео.html
Thanks Jackson!
I've seen over the years extraordinarily powerful work coming from many women in ministry. God gave them a very unique ability to handle many functions in ministry. We need more voices shouting the good news!
The issue is leadership in the Assembly, not spreading the Gospel.
Amen. Humanity (male and female) has been reconciled to the Lord. Before him we are each considered sons, heirs, and kings.
@@kmountain5533 You think you're greater than Paul and have better understanding of God and scripture than him? That's something. Have you been taken to the 3rd Heaven, to the throne of God? Have you been selected by God to be the one to spread the church from the Jews to the pagan nations? Has Jesus appeared to you and audibly spoken to you?
@@kmountain5533 do you believe paul is a follower and a believer of Jesus Christ...? And not a con man
Why does Heiser AVOID honestly answering the question and obfuscate with double speak?? Makes me angry and especially considering what he presents himself as being! It’s VERY clear Paul said women are NOT to teach or exercise authority over men in the New Testament assembly and quotes Eden to back it up! Women as pastors is the sole question, period! That’s it! Not as prophets or anything else; pastors is the question!
Apostle Paul makes a clear about women preaching and teaching being the leaders it makes it very clear let’s not make it difficult as it already is.
Apostle Paul even goes back to the garden to say why
What I find is that no one is consistent on it. The same church that would never think of a female in the pulpit will sponsor a female missionary. It's fine for a woman to preach the gospel, just not in our four walls. She can go over there and build four more walls. And far from being silent in church, she can teach Sunday school and do virtually everything except this one thing. No one actually follows Paul's formula. Not even Paul did.
@@Wraiths_and_Wreckage I've often thought the same about women missionaries within this discussion. Being a missionary for over 30 years, I have seen and known many that do more in a day than many men who stand in American pulpits do in a year. I was just in a very remote part of Guatemala where there are no comforts. The missionary who initiated the work I visited there and now helps to support others who have come behind is a woman. She's tenacious. I was blessed and impressed to know her and her collogues-mostly women.
Why did you click on the link if you weren't even going to listen to anything? It's redundant to keep claiming something is "clear" when the video you are watching is CLEARLY pointing out how UNCLEAR the thing is!
No Paul doesn’t make it clear- Read the Book of Acts - Paul had no problem with women in ministry- The Book of Acts even addresses the woman’s name before the man’s
Acts 18:18 Priscilla and Aquila-They ministered along with Paul
1Cor 16:19-24. Greet the church in their house- equal billing in addressing the church
Besides the commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil- was given to Adam - before God created Eve… hmmmm….
Adam might not have passed the information on to Eve-either way he ate too.
Then there the Scripture written by Paul - Gal 3:28- there is neither male or female we are all one in Christ
God Bless you, your family, and ministry Mike! We’re praying for ya!
Love your teachings and agree with you 99% of the time. Here's a 1% point I differ with you on. You invoke the Edenic standard BUT WE ARE NOT IN EDEN. And because we are not in Eden, because we are fallen, because we have fallacies and blind spots and unhealthy fleshly desires specific to our genders, God implements certain instructions to follow that protect us from ourselves. Immediately after the fall God stated that woman's desire would be to rule over her husband and that was not a good thing. That was not a problem pre-fall. So using Eden as your yardstick is completely irrelevant. IMHO.
Simply because God chooses to make exceptions to his own instructions (Ex. Choosing the younger Jacob over Esau, the elder) does not invalidate the instruction.
Indeed. It's in God's wisdom, at this time, for men to lead in certain areas (through Jesus' style servant leadership of course).
I agree.
Thank you. I agree. Men are the heads of their households, as they were priests in the temple...and one argument that has been brought up is that when a woman was in leadership in the Bible usually it's when His people were under judgement. Women have their roles - and there ARE strong women in the Bible - but it's clear that men were chosen for leadership
I did not see your comment until after I had written mine. I am in agreement with you. Here is what I wrote...
______________
But we're not in Eden. We are on a fallen Earth, living in sinful flesh...a body of death.
I remember hearing about a "Christian" church who started a nudist society, and their reason too was to point to Eden. That is how they justified it.
But THEY ARE NOT IN EDEN!
And nowhere does Christ tell His church to invoke Eden in making such decisions. Until we are in our glorified bodies, we (being in our sinful body of death) must continue living under the restrictions of being born again of spirit, but still living in this Earthly, fallen body.
Funny that it's a bunch of guys agreeing that only guys should be in charge.. Correct, we are not in Eden, but he's saying that when all other arguments cancel each other out that is the yardstick to measure by. I would say "love your neighbor as yourself" is an even a better way to frame it. Your neighbors are also women, FYI.
What a great answer. Thank you Lord for our brother.
Dr. Heiser, I pray you awaken to the voice of our Lord saying "Well, done thou Good and Faithful servant."
It doesn't matter what you think only what the bible says.
So many church traditions, all read that same bible, and disagree with each other on so many points. Many hide behind "we believe in what the bible says and that's why we believe this 'n this". Like Michael says at 4:28 . What if arguments in favour and against a statement can be proven AND disproven with the bible... then what? Then we leave interpretation to experts like Michael ;)
@@timoloef The experts disagree with each other. What will you do now? I'll do like the Bereans did, and "study the scrptures day and night" to figure out if what Paul preached them was true. And Paul praised them for fact checking him by the scripture, calling them noble. In Paul we have more than Heiser, or any other contemporary "expert". Trusting in experts gets you no further than trusting in church traditions. And if you say it's the Bible that is unreadable, then both the church and the traditions are for nothing.
@@AnnaMarianne the problem with most "experts" is that they are not experts at all. They studied the bible wearing the glasses of their own church culture and so they are biased. The bible is a book that you read in your teens, your twentees, thirties etc. and everytime you read it you learn something new. So, it serves a purpose. Church traditions usually seem to be there just to justify their own existence and most of them can not be traced back to the bible. Just realize that they are man-made traditions and see if they serve a purpose for yourself. It's all personal in the end.
Now that’s what I’m talking about, and he also told us not to lean on our own understanding,what the word say that’s what it is,it’s not what we think or thank it’s what he said,now how hard is that to grasp. Heavenly Father bless you sister
Or brother
Bravo! Well-handled Mike!
I think it’s important to understand that ‘Ministry’ encompasses everything we all do in service to the Lord. And while I personally do not believe it is be-fitting for a woman to Pastor a Church (as the main spiritual head under Christ,) and I do not see much Biblical precedence for female Apostles, there is most certainly Biblical precedence for all other roles.
The Edenic ideal will be possible when Christ returns. Until then, men have roles and women have roles.
But then you get into eschatology… just going off scripture, we don’t know for sure if there’s a final Day of the Lord coming or not
Why would you embrace as normative the Fallen state? We who are New Creations in Christ the Second Adam should aspire to and reach for the equality evident in the Old Creation before the Fall -- unless you believe we should also intentionally avoid things that make work easier, reducing the "sweat of the brow," and that make childbirth less painful.
Here's the main issue: pride and submission. Modern culture tells everyone that their truth matters and that they can do whatever they want. Scripture counters this. We put all things under submission to Him and we obey His commandments. But because of pride people will always want to do what they are told not to and they will find clever ways to justify themselves. Like Solomon says
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil."
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
The Scriptures, particularly the New Testament Scriptures are not historical and do not refer to historical circumstances. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings is not historical and does not refer to historical circumstances. The New Testament must be read as though it was fiction, you cannot carry things between the mundane world and the world of the New Testament as though there is no seam between these two worlds. History does not just march on from the last page of Revelation, but is a self contained story, with Characters and Plot and Scenes, etc and cannot be forced into the temporal world.
@@echeneis2256What are you saying? Of course there's history in the New Testament. It contains the most verified Historical documents of it's time! There's more proof for Jesus historical existence than there is for Alexander the Great's.
Hope you are hanging in there. Thanks for all your teachings. Christ be with you :)
I agree. The original idea was for men and women to serve God and themselves. Sin entered and the relationships were warped.
So true Michael.
Women and men are equal in worth. The only place They are not equal is in physical strength
There's a lot of things men and women aren't equal in. Childbirth for instance. Equality and worth aren't the same thing. Roles and hierarchy are ment for good in the Bible. It's good that God is above us. It's a good thing that children doesn't get do decide over their parents. It's also a good thing that men and women are set to serve differently in some areas.
1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Wow! I'm so thankful for this snippet! I have been wondering what Mike would say on this issue
-----From a protestant missionary to the traditional Catholicisme. Go to the Mass in Latin, you will understand the whole Bible by the rite itself. NO, we live in the fallen world; women can't be in the priestly ministry.
@@twnb7733 horsesh!t
@@ANARCH3TYPE Where is the tomb of the Apostle Paul? In a Catholic Church in Rome.
@@twnb7733 both your priestly ministry and the response you made about women are complete horsesh!t. Who cares where a man’s dead body is?
@@ANARCH3TYPE I am a woman; and I have been living like a man : success, money, independence, single, childless. Women around me, no one is married. May I remind you that the Apostle Paul composed most of the New-Testament?
We are all called to share the good news family ❤️
I’m not sure the Eden argument is as conclusive as you propose. 1) Eve was Adam’s Helper in Eden suggesting a possible separation of responsibilities 2) God eludes to a hierarchy as a result of the fall. I don’t think we can assume that what “might” have been the case in Eden applies to the structure God applies to our fallen state. I’m not saying your wrong, just saying I don’t think an argument based on Eden is conclusive. Btw, I capitalized Helper, because this is a type of help that only God and Eve provide. Being a Helper is not a lower state, just a different state.
It's not as conclusive when limited to Eden, but I've found a connection with headship described in 1 Corinthians 11 and the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the Son and man in John 17. If Paul really is comparing those relationships with the relationship between a man and a woman, there is a headship based in equality if done as intended. Different roles, but in unity as one. Am I stretching it?
Help isn't a good word because God even defines himself as a help. English speaking countries use it in a way that we think of a maidservice but its not a hebrew way of thinking of it. It's a military term. In Hebrew it reads more like "and I will create a corresponding might"
Woman was subservient to man even before the fall. It's how it's meant to be. It's a feature, not a bug caused by the fall.
@@Pedant_Patrol not even close to begging correct. With that logic Adam never needs to sin on his own because he’ll just be liable for eve- yet that never happens because Adam is never chastised for her own sin. In fact that is a direct violation of a Torah law that you cannot be blamed for the sin of another. What you are describing is a caste system, not gods ideal creation. They have complete agency and independence and they both share the same prime directive to reign over Eden. God never admonishes Adam for not stopping eve, and eve is never blamed for Adam accepting the forbidden fruit from her. They both choose for themselves. You can’t say women are liable without them having any authority - it doesn’t work and is a double standard. They rule as equals, never over each other. The only time this changes is when God describes how the dominos will fall due to their errors, not before. You can’t rule over another image of God and keep the same prohibitions in plaice, and also suggest that one has more authority than the other.
People aren’t considering the arc of creation and what that means. Eve was created within sacred space, within Eden. Everything with an Eden is considered a delight, because that’s what Eden means. The dust and substance of human beings was taken from outside of that scared space to form Adam, who was later placed in the garden. This is a metaphor to show that what we are from is not worth anything until God gives us worth dust has no value. There are things that are true within the creation account that illustrate the most simple aspects of creation from the most complex and sophisticated creation efforts. Spiritually, men and women are of the same in value and substance but genetically women are far more complicated than men. You can look this up yourself X chromosomes are more complicated than Y, and given the fact that we are having children, we are complicated for that matter alone. If you read carefully, you will notice that there are specific steps within the human act of creation that applies to both men and women.
first, they are made privately. Adam was made, and then placed in the garden, Adam was rendered into deep unconsciousness without warning or explanation and removes his side, which is unfortunately translated as rib in English. Eve is later brought to the man.
Secondly, They were both formed and fashioned, showcasing a personal and deep investment from the creator to the creation, where everything else is spoken into creation except for us. The word form has two Hebrew yods in the word in the Paleo Hebrew picture, for that is hands, implying God is using full effort, or ‘both hands’ in making us.
Third, they knew you God before they knew each other. This initial contact with God after their first moments of existence showcase is that we have a specific and private relationship with our creator.
forth, this also sends a clear message that we are not created as collectives, but as specific individuals. the government would love it if we were created as a collective, as units, like the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, but we are not because we are created in the image of God, and that makes us unique agents who have been bestowed the very same attributes that God has. We are all made as individuals and then brought together in marriage, as God did in the Eden.
Think about the picture that is being painted here: God is taking a side of Adam, not a foot, not a head, not a hand, but a literal side, and then declares that he will be making a ‘corresponding might’. Corresponding meaning in front of each other, side-by-side they were created, and a face to face, they relate to each other.
Even after the fall, they are given fur robes by God, which are priestly symbols to tell us that, even in our fallen state, we are still made in the image of God, and still have the same mandate to rule creation as best we can, we are just bound to do it under fallen conditions until the kingdom arrives.
Dr. Heiser!!! was this video recently recorded??? stay well, sir 💕
In Paul's explain for why women shouldn't be in ministry (speaking in the congregation), he refers to the nature of each that led to the fall. The man sinned willfully but the woman was deceived. Just a thought -- deceived people are sincere and can be passionate but are wrong. Willful deceivers are easier to spot.
Your clear- minded logic would be sorely missed. Praying for you. Just shared your longer video on Book of Enoch in early church with someone claiming that it was discovered by a James someone or other in the 1700's and he was a free mason ( everyone is a free mason these days) Thank you for all your shared knowledge and wisdom. God bless
It's hard to watch a great mind go. We really benefited him from a time when a lot of people feel lost.
@@TheNocturnium yes
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ESV
I’m a woman, and as of now I am unsure to the reasoning behind why Paul would have said this. Does it stem from the fact that Eve was coerced in the garden? Ultimately it all comes down to the conviction of the Holy Spirit after you have worked out your faith with fear and trembling.
Perhaps the women in the Corinth church were using it as a time to gossip about other peoples sins? just a guess honestly
@@Mwinslow1467and may of been worshipping idols. So causing chaos and distraction. Is what I have heard.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Tim 2v13
She wasn't coerced 😅😅
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 Even thought it was a brilliant idea too.
They can teach they can do anything other than lead a church right per the scripture. Doesn’t matter if they can some obviously can better than men it is a matter of obedience to the word of God. If you are disobedient to one thing it opens you up to all kinds of other things. 🕊️🔥
What's the Bible say?
That's really the crux (?) of the matter isn't it?
Just a thought , particularly on the chain of command in the Bible.
Exactly, it doesn't matter what we think or how well we can argue a side. Here on earth, women are subject to the authority of their husbands, and not to be teaching men. 1 Timothy 2:12
Yes it’s not up to human reasoning.
@@megansousa2659
In Jesus I trust.
Thanks for the scripture. Surprised @ Dr. Heiser on this matter....not sure if he's more of a scientist or a real believer in Christ. This level or
exercising ' opinion ' isn't good for the scholarly....in my opinion. lol.peace
Agreed
@@megansousa2659 And his brothers should always correct him when the husband abused his authority or leads his family into sin.
Responsibility always seems to be interpreted as wilfulness and licence (Pride) we live by secular standards.
Thank you Dr. Heiser (mic drop) !
Ty Dr. H ! 💜🙏🏼🤍
I typically support the biblical text stating that women are not to be ministers, priests, etc...however, I see what is happening in the country of Iran. There is a strong, growing, underground church there. They have house churches, because they will be executed otherwise. And who are the leaders of these house churches? Almost exclusively women.
I think that might be God doing the best possible with an unideal situation like with Deborah.
@anjeluriel4457 I was just thinking about Deborah. Reminds me also of the rocks crying out passage. God will use what He may to accomplish His will.
@@winniecash1654 Exactly, God will use what He will to accomplish His plan but we shouldn’t use the exceptions to invalidate the norm.
@@kmountain5533 From what I understand, most of these women are considered pariahs by their cruel, Islamic culture. I would highly recommend that you visit FAI International (Frontier Alliance International). They produced a documentary called Sheep Among Wolves. It will probably leave you in tears There's more than one video. Just search for the one about the underground church in Iran. There may be some men who are Christian there too, but they are not the majority.
Same in China. I was a missionary in Manchuria. Returned to the states in 2001. There were few males in any of the underground churches. Women were pastors, evangelists, teachers, counselors, musicians, intercessors, disciple makers, and mercy workers.
Love Michael Heiser and I'm sorry for his loss, but thankful that he's recorded and written so much.
I would say though there are multiple facets of this argument and pros and cons to both sides..
However to disagree, we are not in Eden anymore but rather we are in a cursed land and therefore there was enough biblical evidence especially New testament to say that women are not pastors or elders.
Furthermore the pragmatic approach to having a female Pastor is that these churches are often liberal or very liberal and not proclaiming the truth not preaching the gospel not calling sin, sin not urging sinners to cling to Christ but rather dealing with social ills and problems and ignoring eternity.
I know of no church that is planted with a female Pastor is the head Pastor or even any Pastor for that matter that has thrived and done well over the long-term.
We've now had enough evidence over several decades of many denominations having female pastors or priests and yet the fruit of it is rotten at best.
it's not an insult it's just what it is, so it minimum pragmatism says that planting a church or having a female Pastor is incredibly unwise and unfruitful and does not produce the kingdom of God that he calls us to
It doesn't matter how we feel it's about what's written, and what's written is that women are not teachers of men. I hate this Liberal saying but in this case it holds relevance (for a change).... and we need to remember facts over feelings, or in this case what's written over feelings. Remember what's written about the spirit warring with the flesh?
People we either follow the Word of God or we don't. We either obey God's word or we don't. You don't get to pick and choose what sounds good to you. That isn't what God said about obedience.
I want to start by saying that I agree with you... but I never hear anyone make this argument for something truly unpopular. It's just a way to bludgeon egalitarians. It's an excuse people invoke when they want to belittle the other side (I'm not saying this is *your* motivation, but it usually is the motivation behind this kind of language).
To make it a little more clear: I never hear Christians say "you either follow God's word or you don't!" about James 5:1-6. I'll have an easier time believing people who make this argument the minute I see them come to church wearing thrift-store clothes, driving a used car. But it's all designer-suits and BMW's. The minute you suggest taking care of widows or orphans, the excuses come rolling in.
Ultimately, unless you have achieved a state of "sinless perfection" and put Billy Graham and Mother Theresa to shame, you can't make this argument without being a great big hypocrite.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 This is going to be extremely long my friend, so just keep reading if you would, okay?
What churches are you speaking of where people are driving in with BMW's and designer suits? And just be aware I used to know people who drove BMW's that didn't have a lot of money, rather due to the high mileage of the car they payed a pretty respectable low budget price for the car. I wouldn't judge a book by it's cover automatically simply because someone has money.
For instance what we see on the hypocritical news and internet youtube specials is that preachers have millions of dollars so automatically they skimmed the top from the funding of the church itself. Keep in mind many of these people write books, have side businesses, and have other ways to make money. I have no doubt that the Word of Faith movement (for example) is a scam in itself to make money, and there are even pastors out there who claim to be Jesus himself.
In the Bible it's stated to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing, and how do we KNOW they are wolves? Do they preach the Bible or do they twist it? Dude that doesn't mean these guys are making money off of their congregation though. I've known quite a few pastors that had side jobs to occupy their time with, and yes.... to make a little more money, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The rich people that James was talking about were the ones who screwed people over and stepped on anyone and everyone to get what they had, and that was just as common back then as it is today. When the young rich ruler came to Jesus and Jesus told him to sell off all of his possessions and give it to the poor and follow him..... dude don't you see what Jesus was doing? He was showing the people that the rich young ruler loved his belongings and his wealth more than God. That's all that was. When Jesus said.... "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (the eye of a needle in those days was known as a very narrow walkway where most people would have to walk in single file to walk in it, and there were certain sections called "eyes" where it was an arched doorway like structure that was built only so high.... that being said they usually weren't arched high enough for large animals to go through..... for any reference you should speak to someone who knows about the structures and cultures of that time period to understand the reference); understand what Jesus said when his disciples asked "Then who can enter the kingdom of Heaven.... and Jesus's response was.... "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible".... meaning the whole point to the rich young ruler was that he didn't trust God with what.... well..... God gave him and allowed him to have in the first place. Jesus was God, and as such God was telling him what to do with his possessions, and the man wasn't willing to give it up.
Dude..... that's a big problem in todays world because God WILL ask you to give things and even people up to follow him. Remember as well what the disciples did... heck what Abraham and Moses and many others did to follow God.... they left their families, friends, and places of comfort to succeed in God's task. How many people are willing to do that today? Would you leave all that you cherish to follow God's instructions? Look at Abraham when God called him to sacrifice his own son..... just...... WOW. And God stopped him before he did it. That's what it means when God calls us..... sometimes it's a test, and sometimes..... we have to give it all up like Jesus spoke of the pearl and burying it in the land then selling everything you own to possess it. Sometimes..... that's what God calls us to do..... but you need to keep this in mind..... God doesn't ALWAYS do that.
As for the widows and orphans you better believe we're called to help them and take care of them in their times of need. I agree with you on this point..... if God gives us wealth to begin with, and we don't help others when God slaps us right in the face with them..... that's defiant. That's giving God the finger. You don't do that.
But dude.... where most people are coming from is jealousy when they speak about rich pastors. Think of your favorite actor/actress, favorite politician, favorite musician? Do you judge them the way you judge the pastors? There's a lot of money floating around unnoticed that's given to charity constantly by many churches across the country.... the difference is they aren't making a public spectacle about it like you see on you tube or with actors or musicians ir politicians who make it a point to toot their own trumpets on national tv for a headliner...... "LOOK WHAT I DID! I'M A GOOD PERSON!" That's what the Pharisees used to do. Jesus said.... "Do not let your left hand know what your hand hand is doing".... meaning..... don't be like the Pharisees who want praise from men. Do it in secret, because it's not for your honor, it's for God's.
So..... dude just keep all this in mind. I'm not saying preachers and churches don't do what you're saying they do, I'm sure there are.... I'm positive they are...... but that doesn't mean they all do that. That's like saying all black people are drug dealers and thieves because there's a few dummies out there that do that thing, or saying that all white people are slave owners from the 1800's. I don't mean to bring this stuff up but it's the only way that most people understand anymore due to the times. I'll use what's "relevant" even if it really isn't. Okay.... I'm done now.
@@therant3837 regarding the quotation from the sermon on the mount: the gate you are referring to was built in the middle ages. Jesus was referring to a sewing needle. Jesus was saying that it was impossible, not difficult.
You have missed my point entirely and written several paragraphs under a wrong assumption (not your fault), so let me clarify.
(James 2: 1-15 sheds more like on this) the Bible is replete with examples of God praising the humble and bringing the proud low. Every passage in the Bible that discusses modesty instructs us to avoid costly displays of wealth. The reason I mentioned designer suits and BMW's is precisely because they serve no purpose but to show off one's wealth. Mennonites and other anabaptist groups take this very serioisly and practice something called "plainclothes"... but then they get other things wrong.
The fact that you made a wrong assumption here is proof of my point, though. That you would go so far as to imply that my opinion is born of jealousy really drives it home. You can'tsay you want to follow scripture when you don'tknow what it says. I used this example because I knew it would be hard to swallow, because I never see Christians in my culture (American) paying any heed to what the Bible says about how they ought to spend their money and time and how they ought to present themselves.
We don't live in a time where we can lay all we have at the Apostle's feet for distribution to the needy. But I remain firmly convinced that as long as there are rich Christians, there should not be poor Christians, and as long as there are fat Christians there should be no starving Christians.
Well, it isn't as if i escape from the charge of hypocrisy, either. I'm not doing nearly enough for the needs of the Body of Christ... that's why i avoid saying things that make it look like I'm the one who's gettinf everything right.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 I tell you what.... I know people who have been to seminary school school already as I have not yet.... but soon I am going.
I'll get back to you on this..... I promise you that. It might be a while....
Just out of curiosity are you a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness?
@@therant3837 Naw, I grew up in a Presbyterian (PCA) church so I still have a membership there.. but I don't consider myself part of any denomination. Presbyterians are disasterously wrong about soteriology, even though they get a lot of other things right.
I appreciate your civility. I tried not to word anything in my reply as a personal attack and I'm very grateful you didn't take it that way.
I was only trying to say that I think it's risky to say things like "I follow the scripture!" because it's only really true if you live a perfect life! And no one does!
It's not a matter of leadership but position. In today's world we identify leaders with rulers but nothing could be further from the truth. It's simply different positions with different responsibilities and has nothing to do with an authoritative position. Turning it into an authoritative position eliminates and disqualifies the individual regardless of being a male or female.
Mike winger has done one of the most exhausted studies on this topic. It goes for about 30 hours but it leaves no stone unturned.
👍🏼
So, what was his position after 30 hours of study? Was it clear in one way or the other or was it like in this video, completely neutral?
-----From a protestant missionary to the traditional Catholicisme. Go to the Mass in Latin, you will understand the whole Bible by the rite itself. NO, we live in the fallen world; women can't be in the priestly ministry.
@@nikokapanen82 He's still busy with it. I don't know how many more videos are still scheduled. But he's always saying that he's a "soft" Complementarian.
--------Catholicism is post-Messianic Judaism with Roy
Schoeman-ruclips.net/video/cxnvsDsc5j8/видео.html
Mike is wrong about a lot because he never does any reading from the paleo Hebrew which breaks things down to a micro level. That alone makes me think of him as lazy. If he wanted real answers he’d get as specific as you can, and he’s not even close.
God bless Dr. Heiser. I arrived at the same conclusion a while back after years of wrestling with this topic. The edenic ideal is what Jesus is steadily moving His church towards through history. The Apostle Paul didn't see a need to be countercultural one issue at a time. ("Let's make waves in this patriarchal society by letting women be overseers.") Instead, he preached Christ and Him crucified, knowing that when people turn to Christ, all of those issues get resolved, or tossed out altogether, as in some cases.
Paul wasn't being anti-women in his assertions. He was being anti-contention.
When did we “rise above” the patriarchy? Are we free from the Trinity as well, which Paul used as an illustration for the roles of the family and the church? Did Christ redeem the flesh to allow us to chose which scripture was time based and which we can now throw out because of our “enlightenment?” Paul didn’t care about the culture in which he lived then. We shouldn’t care about the culture we live in now. We don’t have the roles described in Timothy, Genesis and others because of our need to bend to culture or our lack of understanding the ideal. We have the roles because it is in our humility to follow God and to realize that we are NOT HIM, that He is glorified. Our flesh and our society is not better now or (progressed) than the first century. But our pride clearly has exploded.
@@bretttimmons2653 not certain how this responds
@@rodneystewart-wilcox4001 the response is in the focus of the church while we are here. To say that we somehow are rising above our flesh to personify the ideal (Eden), is to say we have have the perspective of Him in our grasp. We don’t. That is why he provided the boundaries to live by. Paul talks of those boundaries, not as cultural contextual but has theological walls. This is why he references Genesis and the fall. To argue and Dr. Heiser does in this video that because there are “arguments” for each side we should default to a perceived ideal before the fall is to ignore our fallen state and the corruption of our flesh regardless of the presence of the Spirit. Therefore in my view we should be patient. Live by the Spirit but be wary of the flesh. And that means respecting the sometimes seemingly arbitrary boundaries of the roles that we have been given. We see in our culture people giving into their flesh to change their sexual desires and even their genders, contrary to the roles they have been created to personify. How is this different? Because we “feel” that the roles are too restrictive? That His word somehow was lacking in context as understood for thousands of years. Paul puts an end to that by saying to ignore the culture in understanding your worth. BUT play your part in Love understanding that in Heaven all will be different. That is why he didn’t advocate for rebelling against political systems or earthy evil institutions. Not because they were not evil, but because our lives are not meant to glorify us but Him. In serving, suffering, and loving we show the world that Heaven is the goal, not a better version of our dying flesh. Stop fighting what we perceive to be earthy injustice with more earthy desires and serve Him. In the way He asked us to do so.
Adam was the federal head by design; not Eve. Zipporah wasn't a priest. Women were not priests in the OT. And that doesn't even really matter, Paul says women are not to hold authority over men. A man cannot be the head of his home, and then go to church where his wife is the head over him. There is a created design and order and role for men and women. God says when women rule it is a sign of judgment (Isa. 3:12). God said it, not me.
The verse in the NT that says that a man cannot be taught/led by a woman seems to be saying that men must be spiritually mentored by mature men, and women by mature women. So that doesn’t preclude women from ministry, they are able to minister to other women.
Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman
can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God.
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed.
A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false.
@@8784-l3b what do you think 1 Timothy 2:12 means then?
@@HHGary
Sorry for the delay. I received no notification.
But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
-1 Timothy 2:12
Deborah is what God actually did. Paul's teachings are all over
the place, but that is yet another essay.
Deborah essay: read time 12 minutes, free, postable
@@8784-l3bI'm just trying to understand... so God's words in Timothy are wrong?
@@HHGary
You have to understand the story of Deborah AND what a
Judge was. That is the place to start.
If you want the Table of Contents of my other essay
(on some of Paul's teachings) , that certainly can be
pasted up. You can pick one or more 'Parts' and I can
paste that part/teaching up for you.
As with the eschatology issue, Michael' s answer is really a non-answer. He has deeper concerns with doctrines like the Divine Council, etc., that have more profound implications apologetically, so I do not blame Michael for not jumping in too deep here. But as another commenter as mentioned, the big issue is what to do with Paul's statements in 1 Timothy 2-3, along with Titus 1, as well as other places like 1 Cor 11 and 14, that address the "women in ministry" question. Michael would prefer not to go there, and just stick with an Old Testament answer, but unfortunately, his response does not help us to figure out what to do with Paul in the NT..... There is a reason why the "women in ministry" issue is one of the most divisive issues in the church today. Michael would rather focus on what he sees are more important issues and questions.
Pondering... Who did Paul direct his letter to? Greeks? Jews? Romans? What was historically and culturally occurring in that specific place and time? Was it a blanket statement or directed to a specific congregation? What was the context? A Biblical verse without context lacks legs to stand on.
@@nereida116 So would you then propose that certain scripture is only edifying to specific people groups while others are not?
Exactly!
Paul's women comments are directed straight the feminist cult of the goddess Artemis of Ephesus. If everyone knew what was happening there'd be no discussion. But since most "christians" don't bother to investigate or research the Bible we end up with make believe doctrines and false interpretations.
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 The problem is this, however: What type of evidence do we possess that Paul was specifically addressing the cult of Artemis? Do we have any specific detail in the NT that directly demonstrates this? Any archaeological or literary evidence outside of the NT that shows that a certain group of women in Paul's Ephesian churches were promoting a syncretized Artemis/Christian message? Granted, we have circumstantial evidence that this "could" have happened. Elsewhere, Heiser acknowledges the evidence is not conclusive here. ruclips.net/video/Dcq-gRMs3uo/видео.html. Not impossible, but just not conclusive, which explains why Heiser tends to back off on this issue: Each position can be argued either way. Regarding the Gnosticism hypothesis, we actually have good evidence that Gnostic Christians were teaching that Eve came before Adam, but not until the 2nd century. This hypothesis fits the data, but not the date, as it would push the writing of Acts into the second century (or late first at best), which is too late for Paul. It seems strange the early church would have been so silent on the matter. If only we had stronger evidence in favor of the Artemis cult hypothesis. Much of this comes down to how much you value early church tradition and who bears the burden of proof.
He did a good job of dancing around that one.
That is a good way of putting it......or like handling a hot potato
No he didn't, he answered pretty straight up, when the guy tried to bring up an example (Deborah) heisser immediately shot it down, so he clearly wasn't afraid of tackling the issue and wasn't "dodging" anything.
@@23045678 Yeah OK.
Haha, nobody got the definite answer they wanted.
@@23045678
He did not clearly answer what is his position on the matter, he kept as neutral position as he could.
Paul's argument, 1Timothy 2:12-14 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." This is from the Garden of Eden. There is an order to things 1Cor. 11:3
The lack of humility plays a huge role in discernment and Wisdom. The brother arrived with loaded pistoles- not seeking understanding, and not an ounce of humility.
Pride is the deadliest sin for a reason, it goes from egotistical to the most self pitiful mentality that tells us that we aren't worthy of salvation or whatever
@@mrmerfeo4320 For me, via decades of experience, the most powerful and key behaviors within Christ and His people are: SURRENDER & YIELD in love.
@@nereida116 The word 'surrender' is viewed in a miriad of ways...and though I understand to a degree of what you are saying, there are rules and laws in Gods Kingdom...These are important questions that need to align with scripture...and with debate 'iron sharpens iron' and merely 'surrendering'/submission is not good doctrine
That much was quite clear.
@@kmountain5533 'Surrendering to Christ' is much different than to 'surrendering' to what makes people feel good...sorry you missed the point
Love God . Love Neighbor. The Greatest Commandment
I actually would like to hear Michael's arguments for both sides and not just for the sake of argument. As a woman who believes she IS being called, but is wrestling with that issue I want to have a very reasonable points to both from his perspective. People take the Edenic ideal and they say that because Adam named Eve then he has authority over her (male headship) in Eden and therefore the argument of women not being preachers, prophets, deacons bc they can't have "authority" over a man. Well what do you do with that? genuinely asking.
I believe God called them to rule together and there wasn't a headship in Eden. It was only after the fall that God said your desire would be for your spouse and he would rule over you. Jesus restore the Edenic model of Christ as head and man/woman having diminion together... and yet others say no. It is a very confusing matter for women who are wrestling with is this just the traditions of men? What does God really think on this. I agree.. it is ambiguous if one does really search the scriptures.
I would like to hear a podcast episode dedicated to this.
He did one a very long time ago but it did not address this issue biblically arguing both points.
The Bible is The ultimate authority.
@simbarashekunedzimwe1372 obviously, that is without question.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed; then Eve." (1 Tim. 2:11-13)
Both being in ministry doesn't mean that both minister the same way.
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed.
Refusal to accept a Judge's verdict on any matter,
resulted in execution, according to Deuteronomy.
A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
Here's a real question no one asks because you will start WWIII: Remarriage after divorce. Both Jesus (to His Jewish audience) and Paul (to a mixed CHRISTIAN audience) said no....but watch people dance around that one.
MSH nails it. What is the point of Christ's sacrifice and reconciling us to the Lord if the "ideal" is still the curse and judgement of women being ruled over by men.
Even in the Old Covenant:
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment.
-excerpt Judges 4
To not accept the decision of a judge resulted in the death penalty.
(I did an essay on Deborah. Reply if you want it.)
In Eden, they Adam and Eve were naked and vegan...
Besides, Paul explicitly argues from a post-fall position.
I'm sorry, but this is very unconvincingly argued.
Woman was made from man's side.
To be a helper.
"It is not good for man to be alone."
It was Eve who sinned first, but who did God go to first, for the account?
God went to Adam. "What is this you have done?" Then the blame game started and continues to this very day.
Paul is pretty clear. God holds us men accountable for the things done by women alongside and "under" us.
I think men who want to be the "boss" are missing a lot of context.
I like Heiser's resolution here. "The Edenic Ideal." What God made before we fell. A partnership. We are one in Christ. All this is post fall reasoning.
I think we do well to invite women to be our partners.
I don't think they were vegan, read Genesis 9:3
@@Dolfiey
Pre-fall, they were vegan.
Post-fall they were allowed to kill and eat animals.
There is an unspecified amount of time between Creation and Fall. Could've been a day. Could've been a year or two. Or more. During that time it is not described that they ate meat, only after the fall.
@@Dolfiey Genesis 9 is post flood. A very long time after the fall. If there was no death in the world before the fall then the logical conclusion is Adam and Eve were vegan, more specifically fruitarian, due to the fact that eating meat requires harvesting it from a dead animal and eating anything other than the fruit of a plant would require killing the plant.
@@Dolfiey Genesis 9:3 isn't addressed to Adam and Eve though, is it? Is that post-eden and post-fall?
1:03 No, it's the other way around, and the qualifications for Elders are greater than that of Deacons, not identical.
And yet nothing in those qualifications excludes women.
@@Norrin777Radd Women can't be the husband of one wife.
@@zacdredge3859 NT scholar Phil Payne, from the online essay, "Examining the Twelve Pillars of Male Hierarchy":
------------------------
Paul encourages all believers to desire the office of overseer by stating in 1 Timothy 3:1, “Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task” (NIV 2011). The subject of both Paul’s lists of qualifications for overseers and elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is “anyone.” There is not a single masculine pronoun or any other limitation to men in either list, contrary to most English translations. Both the Common English Bible and the Contemporary English Version translate these passages faithfully, without introducing any masculine pronouns.
Some think that “one woman man” in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 excludes women, but even prominent complementarians Doug Moo and Thomas Schreiner acknowledge this phrase does not exclude women.[17] It is a requirement that overseers be “monogamous,” whether men or women. As Hugenberger has shown,[18] and Jesus’ interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 in Mark 10:12 confirms, it is common throughout the Bible for prohibitions addressing men also to apply to women. For example, “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife” implicitly also prohibits coveting your neighbor’s husband.
Paul’s point is not that all overseers must be married. Paul, after all, encourages single believers not to marry but to be devoted to the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, 32-35. Furthermore, to demand that overseers be married would exclude Jesus, Paul (1 Cor 7:7), and virtually all Catholic priests as well as monastics, both male and female.
Since “one woman man” is an idiomatic phrase for a monogamous relationship, any claim that a single word of it (“man”) also functions separately as a universal requirement must posit a double meaning. The context does not warrant this. It is bad hermeneutics to isolate a single word (“man”) from an idiomatic phrase (“one woman man”) and elevate that single word to the status of a separate universal requirement. It is like taking “household” out of “ruling children and their own households well” and insisting that only slave owners can be overseers.
------------------------
Andrew Bartlett and Terran Williams give similar but more current and detailed info in their response articles to Mike Winger at Terran's Web site.
I miss Dr. Heiser, he was careful not to rock the boat to much so he could keep researching but he always tried his best to be heard anyway even when kicking over other people’s sacred cows. Christian culture doesn’t listen, we’ve attracted many abusers and narcissists into positions of power. I’m grateful I got to be born at this time where I had internet access and the ability to reteach myself out of these abusive patterns; away from the female leaders teaching me how to manipulate my husband to get my needs met because they married the first guy to expressed interest when they were 18, or the male leaders verbally patting my head in patriarchal distain and telling me to abuse my children cause “God commands it.” So many churches, so many men and women victims. When people leave the church it’ll be the church’s fault. Victims of abuse are free to leave the abusers now, you have to learn to stop being abusive.
Changed the subject at the end to who rules in Eden.
I was JUST discussing this with a friend this morning!
1 Timothy 2:13 speaks to the edenic ideal suggesting that the creation order is a reason for the differing roles of authority between a man and a woman. The edenic ideal does not suggest that women should pastor.
And then there was Deborah whom the Lord appointed to be Prophetess and Judge over Israel.
I am a big fan of Heiser's work, though the emphasized point about Deborah being only a prophet, which in his words does not really equate to the same thing as a pastor or leader is extremely short sighted and even misleading to those trying to understand this nuanced topic. Deborah held the highest rank in Israel as certainly not just a prophetess, but a judge for 60 years. The only other OT leader who had this same rank was Samuel. All the children of Israel came to her for judgement (Judges 4:5). The word "judgement" there is "Mishpat" and is defined as "decisions, determinations and decrees"). That word is also used Isaiah 26:9, "God's just decisions fill the Earth and instruct the peoples' righteousness." If her role here is not seen as pastoring/leading both men and women, I don't know what is. If this is a canonized scripture, which of course it is, then women in leadership is clearly not against the will of God. If we move to the New Testament there are many examples of women in leadership as well.
Problem is we don't live in the edenic ideal. We live in a fallen world until Christ returns.
So unfortunately I disagree.
I hate that, i cannot hear what Heisers opinion on that is .
Just because you are a Biblical scholar doesn't mean your conclusions are always right. Sometimes, being a scholar can actually blind you to seeing what is plain and simple. The problem often is that we don't want to see what is plain and simple because it cuts across our ideas. Scripture does not need scholars to interpret its meaning. Just the Holy Spirit for those humble enough to receive Him. No matter how much historical knowledge and ability to translate ancient languages, which are assets, it is only the Holy Spirit that can truly reveal what the meaning and intentions are for the words He inspired the biblical writers to write which are not open for private interpretations, but are plain and simple enough for anyone who wants to understand with His guidance.
Scholars can help us understand the finer points that are often overlooked in passages especially when it comes to cultural norms of the audiences involved. But I too think he over reads the Scripture here. In Eden Adam served in a different role than Eve. They were truly equally yoked but still had different responsibilities in the temple.
@@RealCaptainAwesome absolutely 💯
The "plain and simple" is not plain and simple unless you like to twist Scripture. "Plain & Simple" means no contextual understanding or blissfully unaware of the backstory. There is very very little "plain & simple" in the Bible. That's what makes it so awesome and wondrous.
@Baltic Hammer plain and simple sometimes means just that. The meaning is obvious. We twist scriptures at times to fit in with our own perceptions and ideas, which causes confusion and the creation of false doctrines, interpretations, and divisions. There is a danger of leaning more on "scholarly" knowledge than dependence on the Holy Spirit to make plain what He inspired in the first place..
@Sold out Completely by the way you have opened your response, making assertions I do not claim, I can see you are a person who takes comments out of context and responds from erroneous assumptions. There is no need to engage any further.
There is also a difference between being in ministry and being part of the sacrificial priesthood. This is why Orthodox Churches allow for women to serve in leadership roles just not in the Altar. Is that really a major deal though? Never could understand why its such a major deal as there are so many ministry roles outside of performing the liturgy.
Esh / Esha are complimentary and have separate roles in the process, …..there is also a gender hierarchy…husbands…like Messiah loved the church and gave himself for it. There’s a reason why the feminine gender was not given that directive
Wish you could do a deep study on both sides. Does anyone know if he has anything on this anywhere?
(I didn't watch the video.)
By both sides, I guess you mean Complementarianism
and Egalitarianism. I am egalitarian. I can post my essay
on the judge Deborah if requested.
I don't know about this channel. Mike Winger has done
several videos. He is complementarian.
Adam was the federal head over Eve while in Eden. God made Adam first and Eve was made from Adam. When Eve ate of the fruit, her eyes were not opened. It was only after Adam ate that both their eyes were opened because Adam was the fountainhead of humanity. Adam’s one act of disobedience affected everyone downstream from him. Jesus is the final Adam, our federal head, who makes us righteous from his one act of righteousness. So yes both Adam and Eve were expected to be servant leaders in Eden, but the headship was also in place in Eden, meaning there was a distinction between male and female in roles.
That's right. Women can serve in the church. They can serve in ministry. They can even lead others in the church (ie other women and children). What Paul was getting at is they should not, be head of, or be put into leadership of other men inside the church.
What most people don't realize is how important of a role women played in Jesus' ministry and the first century church. They were actually out front but in the background. It requires a very spiritually strong person to fill that role. Stronger even than the one that is always being seen by others. God's intended plan was for ALL people to be subservient towards each other. There should not be a chain of command within the church but simply different people fulfilling different roles without regard of gender. Today's church structure is not even remotely close to how the first century church functioned.
In Christ, Baron T.
We do not live in the first century though.
Not a very good answer Michael, it should be an easy question to answer, and although we may not think it is fair, the scriptures give us the reason 💕
He did give scripture but okay
@@areallycoolhat5427 Usually you verify scripture with scripture...we have 'instances' of it, however, over and over the Bible confirms that men are leaders, and women are only in leadership roles when there's judgement on the land
What scripture?
@@areallycoolhat5427
He tried to make a point that Scripture is totally neutral on this subject when in reality it is not.
@@nikokapanen82 he cited exodus 4. I think he wanted to go into more detail but didn't because it was still a qna, others were probably waiting their turn.
I agree with his point before the fall. But after.... no.
So IYO, even those of us who are in Christ, the Last Adam, part of the New Creation, should take as normative the fallen state, as if being reborn by the Spirit has no real meaning?
Yeah, let's forget what Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
If you knew the backstory of Ephesus and the Artemis cult (radical feminism) then you'd completely understand WHY Paul writes what he does. But since so many "christians" choose to not understand the context of biblical writings they end up manufacturing doctrines they like.
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 Oh, sure, let's totally contradict what Paul gave command on for an alleged historical setting 🙄
@@xnihilo1044 "Alleged setting"??????? You need to spend the couple hundred hours researching like I did. Then you'll see the puzzles falling into place. Paul had his hands full in Ephesus with the aggressive cult followers of Artemis. Every point of the Artemis beliefs is aimed directly to oppose the Bible's narrative. Its like it was custom made to attack or challenge everything in the OT/NT.
Learning about Ephesus and its famous goddess cleared up all questions on WHY Paul and others were sent to work there. Here's an excellent lecture on Corinth and what was happening there with the womens' lib and the fashion rage of dressing and hair styling to look like a prostitute. ruclips.net/video/UoegVdstfn4/видео.html
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 Ooooh! You're a scholar.
So I take it you put White-Out over that verse to fit your scholarly research.
@@xnihilo1044 I see you are a mocker who is too lazy to do any research. Best to keep silent and be thought the fool.
In the past I have known those men who have quoted Paul and Peter saying “ wives should be subject to their husbands “ but the results have been concerning. Particularly a lazy husband demanding his wife to do everything but he just sits back. My thoughts are that everyone of the books after the 4 gospels should be filtered through the sermon on the mount. If a husband is giving to all that ask him and turning the other cheek or doing good to those who spitefully use them, that should lead on to Jesus being the judge between the good sheep and the bad sheep ( Ezekiel reference to the messiah). Then Paul comes in and says “ because your husband is following the teachings of Jesus, you therefore should not then take advantage of your serving husband.
God said part of the punishment for the sin in the garden is that the man will rule over the woman.
@@kmountain5533 They didn't magically disappear. Jesus didn't bring back His kingdom on Earth, but opened for us the way to Heaven.
@@damnedmadman all the curses "magically" disappeared!! That is the power of the blood. You just need to proclaim His absolute finished work or you can keep living under your curse!!! =
@@katerinaa.whitehouse4104 No, it's not finished. Obviously many things aren't fulfilled yet. They will be when He comes back in glory. Only then we should expect a universal redemption.
@@kmountain5533 Jesus died for our sins yes.... but that didn't magically fix the nature of men and women.
Men still make better leaders and protectors. Women still make better helpers and are far better at being nurturing. Both have their pitfalls as well. Men abuse power more often and women are emotionally manipulative. This remains true despite Jesus dying on the cross.
@@damnedmadman omg. He said it himself you pagan!!! It is finished... And in His name I rebuke the demon on unbelief inside you
1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. [15] Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Deborah was a Prophetess AND a Judge. 💞
Remember, her climactic moment was to help (encourage/rebuke) a man to take responsibility.
Where the Fruit of the spirit is - there is no law
Gal.5
@@lindac2554 I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Galatians 5:13-14 Paul exhorts them to live according to the precepts of the law by the spirit. Grace justifies, but sanctification will kill rebellion against the law. Galatians 5:13-14 outline a rule for living, is Paul contradicting himself within the same chapter? As I believe Paul himself would say, "By no means!"
@@ethanmulvihill7177 Gal 5: 22-23
If anyone needs a true and clear straight answer, there is a real Preacher named Voddie Baucham.
I enjoy watching people’s faces when I point out every scripture they use to create a hierarchy for men and women is a response to sin, and not the original way God wanted things. The Edenic ideal is…the ideal.
@@kmountain5533 what does this have to do with my comment?
Yeh this is always a hot button topic but it would not if seminaries or the "giants of the faith" did a little research into Ephesus. Its hard work but if I can do it and figure WHY Paul writes what he does, then there is zero reasons why others cannot do the same. But they chose to be willfully ignorant.
Seriously, how many centuries does it take to understand the proper context of a Bible verse??
Makes me think the misinterpretation and ignorance is deliberate.
the New Testament Scriptures are like a dream, there are things in the dream that correspond to historical reality, but you would be a fool to think that the world in the dream operates in the same way as the real world. Whatever Paul said about women being pastors is really only relevant in the context of the story its self and has no bearing on historical/temporal circumstances - which would be akin to making the New Testament into some kind of Law book or manifesto to organize an institution.
what no one is addressing here in this silly endless dispute, mainly in so called "people of the book" type churches, the more orthadox ones who insist on Patriachal church, is they love to see all the bits where Paul forbids women for doing something, usually because of some outside reference like tempting angels, but there is another point.
That is that the christian believer is a new creation neither jew nor gentile, master or slave nor MALE OR FEMALE. We are all equal, and if one is a pastor or a bishop they are actually SERVING THE BODY and not being BOSSES of groups. This issue is all on its head, the ones who insist men should be IN CHARGE miss the biblical point. That as members of the body we are all equally important to make up the body of christ.
I think we should have a national day of praying for Mike. What do you guys think? Let's ask hour God to restore mike as he was before!
I think it's simple. Absolutely women can and should be in ministry. No, they should not be PASTORS. Having a ministry / serving in a ministry is not synonymous with being a pastor.
I sincerely adore a lot of what I've learned by Dr. Heiser, but on the man vs woman leader, nowhere is man denied leadership roles in the Bible. However, we do have significant weight in the column of women NOT leading men. They can lead women, but not men; the language is blunt and clear. Per the Edenic ideal, of which Paul wasn't ignorant, woman is the helper. This in no way lessens women, God simply assigns them a role.
You need to study the hermeneutics surrounding highly misunderstood verses like 1 Timothy 2:12. I would suggest studying the works surrounding it by Dr. Ben Witherington III.
@whyareyouasking7153Super eloquently put, thank you.
Have you read the old testament? Or how about Apollos getting corrected by a woman?
@@ri3m4nn and taught by her
Greek women were highly esteemed in their culture (hence all the Greek goddesses), and Lydia was a businesswoman and probably educated -- do you think she sat mute and submissive as Paul taught in her house? I'm pretty sure she had questions, and maybe a few answers as well.
If it ends with eden, then you have to consider the whole story and why they aren't still there. Eve transgressed and Adam was held responsible because he, as the head of his household, didn't control her enough, or disciple to her well enough to teach her enough self-control, to prevent it.
12 male apostles, 12 males heads of Israel. Clearly God chooses men to lead and take headship. I’ll stick with teaching other women and children.
Christians do vary on the women pastor issue. There's a lot of Christians that believe it's a sin for women to be pastors, and there's a lot of Christians that believe it's not a sin for women to be pastors. The reason why many people have differing opinions about the women pastor issue is because it's very hard for people to determine whether 1 Timothy 2:12 is a cultural specific situation of Paul and Timothy restricting the women from Ephesus that were teaching Gnosticism from being pastors or a universal situation of God not wanting any woman to be a pastor of a church. The context of 1 Timothy is about Paul and Timothy ministering to the people in Ephesus, and Ephesus did have a huge problem with women that were false teachers teaching Gnosticism to people. A lot of information in 1 Timothy is universal, and a lot of information in 1 Timothy is culture specific. It's very hard to tell if 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal principle or a culture specific principle. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal principle, that proves how women shouldn't be pastors.
Some people use the "husband of one wife" argument to prove it's a sin for women to be pastors. 1 Timothy 3 talks about how pastors need to be the "husband of one wife". Some people think that when the Bible says that pastors need to be the "husband of one wife", it means they have to be men since husband implies man. The phrase "husband of one wife" isn't meant to be taken literally. If "husband of one wife" were meant to be taken literally, that would mean single people can't be pastors because husband implies being married, but there's strong evidence in the Bible how it's not a sin for single people to be pastors. Paul and Timothy were pastors of churches, and they weren't married, and God approved of them being pastors, which is strong evidence how it's not a sin for single people to be pastors. The Greek word for "husband of one wife" is Mias Gunaikos Aner, which means one woman man, someone who doesn't struggle with adultery, etc. When the Bible says pastors need to be the "husband of one wife", it means they need to be people who don't struggle with adultery, who aren't players, who aren't womanizers, etc.
Some people think that since the word "He" is used a lot in 1 Timothy 3 to describe qualifications of being a pastor, he means that women can't be pastors. 1 Timothy 3 says "he must not be quarrelsome, he must be the husband of one wife, he must be trustworthy", etc. The thing is all throughout the Bible when the word "He" "Men", etc is used, the situation applies to both men and women. When Matthew 10:37 says that "He that loveth a father or mother more than me is not worthy of me", the situation applies to both men and women. Proverbs 22:6 says "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from me". Even though the word "He" is used in Proverbs 22:6, the situation applies to both men and women. When Ephesians 4:8 says "God gave gifts to all men", the situation applies to both men and women even though the word men is used. When Matthew 5:28 says "Whosoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart", the situation applies to both men and women, the situation applies to men lusting after women, the situation applies to women lusting after men, etc.
Some people use the argument how it's not a sin for women to be pastors due to Priscilla being a pastor. Priscilla in the Bible wasn't a pastor. Priscilla in the Bible was a ministry leader but not a pastor. I can't find any examples of women pastors in the Bible.
It's very hard to tell if 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal principle or a culture specific principle. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal principle that isn't a culture specific principle, that would prove how it's a sin for women to be pastors.
you wrote:
I can't find any examples of women pastors in the Bible.
Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman
can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God.
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
Full read time: 12 minutes , free
I do feel, as a woman, that women can have major gifts of the spirit - that include teaching and prophesying. But I also think the question of authority is tricky. I read the Bible and read that church is whenever 2 or 3 gather in His name… I do not see a reason or even a mandate for an organized church headship - because at the end, Christ is the head and we all must answer to him.
Paul was right to say that women should not have authority over men… but my question is (and maybe it’s in the Bible): what would he have said (or did he say) about men having that same kind of authority over other men? Was the church structure as we understand it today even on their minds? I know they had deacons and pastors - but the same titles doesn’t mean the same purpose.
I guess in the end, if a woman has the gifts of prophecy or teaching, and she shares those in a neutral forum - and men are drawn to her message and way of delivery, and want to support her ministry - I don’t necessarily think that should be looked at as “authority.” More like “I can feel the Holy Spirit moving in her and I want to support her to continue to plug into that.”
But women seeking to rule over men? No. It’s not natural. Look at our modern culture to see fast things can go terribly wrong when men take a back seat and women demand to be in charge… this doesn’t mean that SOME women aren’t called to proper leadership in public life - but when women are given priority and men are ignored, subverted, and maligned… oh boy. 😬
The Edenic ideal has men leading. That is the basis of Paul's argument against female pastors.
Right, I thought of that when speaking with a hard complimentarian. I got many of the standard arguments/ passages, and it just occurred to me.
I asked her, well, are you still under the curse of the fall?
We are though aren’t we? Otherwise we would never sin, or tired, or get sick.
We are under the new covenant, but that does not mean that the conditions of the world that we have to struggle against have been eliminated, even though they have been alleviated in certain ways.
I think Paul is mostly concerned about the serpent (and evil forces) targeting Eve, and trying to spare women from an undue burden, especially as things against Christians will continuously become more aggressive and violent towards the end of days. Right up until Christ death he told his apostles to go get swords because after his death, things would actually get harder for Christians in many ways. This isn’t really a matter of ‘can’ woman preach, it’s more of a matter of for the protection of women they shouldn’t. Women in many ways are vulnerable enough and to add to the burden can seem unfair. It also is possible that if women preach a lot of men will be lazy and simply stop. It’s also possible that we are seeing this from the vantage point of a first world relatively safe society. We don’t necessarily have to worry about our churches being burned down like people do in Egypt or other parts of the world.
@@bell5309 the question is whether an heritable, ontological moral change occured at the fall (and the answer is: no). The western church has held to this view since Augustine, but it's not supported by reason or scripture.
So though we face the consequences of sin, and though we have an orientation towards evil, we are not a different kind of human being. Having received the regeneration from the Holy Spirit, is it reasonable to say that we are still undee the curse? As we grow in sanctification, we become more and more like the original Adamic ideal.
It's one of those "already and not yet" situations. We're already cleansed byt we're not already fully transformed in our minds. We're already redeemed but our bodies have to be resurrected for the full effect.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 to say that a belief in original sin is without reason and scriptural support, as if the arrival at such a belief was done without reason or could not have been reasoned to and (worst of all) has absolutely no basis in scripture, is juvenile, insulting, and at the end wrong. Of course, there are reasons why people believe it, and they used reason to get there, and those reasons are based in scripture. Its odd that you even said that.
It seems you do not fully realize the destructiveness, the malignancy, nor the finality of sin. It did change us (us, as in all humanity, the damned and the redeemed, because you seem to play fast and loose with the meaning, i.e. one moment meaning humanity while the next moment meaning only the saved). God no longer walked with us, our every inclination was toward evil, the very Earth was cursed beneath our feet. Humanity, indeed all of creation, was fundamentaly changed. And like begets like. Thats why it is written, "rebellion is bound up in the heart of a child," and, "there is none that seek after God, no not one," and, "our righteousness is as filthy rags." Thats why, "it grieved the Lord that He had made man." Obviously something changed, certainly not God, and certainly God didnt intend for us to live in willful disobedience. Something changed, and it was because of sin.
Your retorical question was asked as if the answer was obviously "no," (because you played around with the word "us," now you intend it to mean only the redeemed.) when, in fact the answer is "yes." Having been redeemed, it is perfectly reasonable and, more importantly, biblical to say we (the saved) are still under the curse of sin. As you yourself point out, the process of sanctification is not complete, and will not be fully complete this side of heaven, so the effects of sin are still to be expected on this side. Even Jesus, Our Lord, experienced all the innocent malidies of the fall (e.g. He grew hungry amd thirsty, He grew tired and slept, He actually grew in favor with the Lord, etc.) Now, half of the reason for us (the saved) still living under the curse of sin is that we are not fully sanctified, amd the other half of the reason comes from those who reject Christ. When the New Jerusalem comes we will be free from even the presence of sin.
You kind of talk about this, but i think you confuse justification with sanctification. We (the saved) are fully justified in Christ, yes, but we are not fully sanctified... amd so we (the saved) still sin.
@@olorinmartinez this is all too much to reply to, so I will only reply to this part:
I was trying to be brief by saying that thr idea of original guilt is not supported by scripture or reason- I should have written that none of those arguments from scripture or reason stand up to scrutiny, precisely because of scripture and reason.
Any offense that was taken at this was taken, not given.
I love his teachings on the Old Testament. But Doctrine and Dispensation Matter’s!
Women can be in ministry if it means educating children, helping the poor, counseling, serving etc. But if said ministry positions requires teaching or exercising authority over men, then she shouldn't hold that position. Scripture is very plain 1 Timothy 2:12-14 and even uses Eden as a justification for this. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The ONLY person who has ever rendered an opinion on women in ministry is PAUL.
There are ZERO Torah/Tanach passages against women in ministry and the New and Original testaments give over a dozen examples of women in ministry.
And Paul is offering HIS OPINION ONLY.
“I do not permit” is not an opinion. Stop.
The question we have to answer regarding texts like 1 Timothy 2 is this, was this meant to be universal or was Paul’s main concern geared toward the specific group of people that he is writing to Timothy about. This is extremely Important, because if it is meant to be universal then all who say that v12 applies to all women, also need to say that the preceding verses about women not being allowed to wear pearls, gold, braided hair etc, need to be universally enforced as well. Or how about head coverings and long hair on men in the church in 1 Cor? Paul also cites the creation narrative to support his point, but I do not see anyone enforcing head dresses in the very same churches where they prohibit women pastors. Unfortunately these commands become a pick and choose for whoever finds them convenient.
Exactly.
@@angelaryanrnbsn2764 No.
The guy asking the question and everyone like him is the reason I stopped going to church
Feels?
Cool.
@StyreneDreams Gatekeepers won't keep me away from "The Presence"
I think Mike inadvertently conflated the questions of women in ministry and women in church leadership (being elders / pastors). Affirming women in ministry because of the Edenic ideal is fine, but it’s not the same thing as affirming them in the role of elder / pastor.
Adam was given stewardship over Eden and Eve was created to fill the role of a "helper."
Genesis 2:24 "one flesh"
That is not what helper means and it’s not with the Hebrew says. God even calls himself as a help, do you consider God to be a lesser roll than you? And it clearly says that stewardship of the garden was given to both of them read carefully, and actually think critically before you say more stupid things.
"the adam" was given stewardship over Eden. "The Adam" does not mean male. This comes later in the text.
1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
A lot of the people commenting fail to look at Jesus example. He had women in ministry and according to Him we are all equal. So why can’t a woman lead. Doesn’t a woman have the capacity to be spirit filled? Isn’t a woman a child of God? I will warn you to please avoid the Pharisaical spirit of denying access to God’s children. If you have all the gifts and have not love, you have nothing
Then you're saying Paul's teaching is wrong ?
We cannot rewrite the Bible. What Hieser is talking about is prior to God handing down judgement due to the fall. It was Gods original intent. However, the fall did happen and God instituted what he wanted. Hieser just doesn’t like for Christian’s to argue over issues and stay focused on the Great Commission.
@@silent1967 Exactly. Is this a Jesus vs. Paul debate? Are we then to throw out the doctrine of biblical inerrancy? How many of Paul's instructions are we to remove the scriptures? Yes, we are equal before God with respect to our redemption and His love for us, but we have different roles.
It's the abuse that many of our sisters object to and I can understand that. Just because one particular woman is more versed then a particular man, for example, does not give us the right to override God's directives. A woman has every right to call out a brothers abuse of scripture, and visa versa. If we try and reverse the roles that God has laid down for us, then we are out of His will for our lives and only set ourselves up for destruction.
The Bible doesn't show women preaching at all. Jesus certainly didn't have any women in ministry, especially because none of the 12 that were primarily chosen to fulfill that role was a woman. Jesus telling a woman to inform the others that He was resurrected doesn't magically mean that it's proof that women were given ecclesiastical authority.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 lol. We’re just going to keep on preaching and you’re just going to have to stay mad... aaand see you in hell I guess 🤷🏽♀️
So wat is tha Edenic ideal
"If we were to go back to Eden, and ask this question; Which one of these two are suppose to be, servant steward rulers of Eden? I think the answer would be; Yeah, like why are you asking me to pick."❤️
Paul’s rationale for his stance against women teaching men is post-Edenic.
@@garywhitt98 Paul's rationale, as an apostle, was Eden since Eve was deceived before she fell, not after.
💯 agree!
@@googIesux From 1 Timothy 2- "11 A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; b 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. "...post-fall (or post-Edenic) after the initial conditions of Eden from which Heiser makes his argument.
The difference here is that Eve was targeted specifically by Satan and still is post fall. We have several warnings of laws against women warned about in revelation.
We have the “enmity” meaning that women are continuously targets of Satan, because Eve was the first person to call Satan the anti-truth, the one who “deceives”. Remember, they were naked, which, in Hebrew means that they were transparent. What you see, is what you get, which is incontrast to Satan’s craftiness, which means that he has a hidden agenda. There’s also a difference between a sin and a transgression. Adam disobeyed full well knowing what he did, but eve believed a lie, and then called satan out over it. The motive of the sin is different.
My question is what exactly is the Edenic ideal? Adam was the responcible party (addressed first to give an acount, given a job first etc...) does this mean his headship applies men as the pastoral head over women for all time, or that this structure exists and that we should not blur who is who? (Women as women, men as men) for whatever that means in the cultural norms and views.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God.
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin.
I think we should follow scriptures. Women can become great saints and write or inspire other Women and men , but not become prisets or pastors. God clearly made a hierchy with the genders for a good reason. we should trust in his Wisdom and accept our roles because each one is holy. Mothers can be teachers for their children.
I suggest you read about Deborah in Judges 4,
else my essay on her.
Jews that came to Christ already knew her story.
@@8784-l3byeah, Deborah was the only time a Judge not the military leader, and also was the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished
@@disguisedcentennial835
you wrote:
the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished
But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not even one was left.
Also:
So God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan on that day before the sons of Israel. And the hand of the sons of Israel pressed harder and harder upon Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had eliminated Jabin the king of Canaan.
-excerpts Judges 4
And the land was at rest for forty years.
-excerpt Judges 5 last sentence, and the end of
the story of Deborah
@@8784-l3b Judges 4:9 (ESV): 9 And she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.
@@disguisedcentennial835
you wrote:
was the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished
There was no disgrace on her part. No scriptures say that or
hint at that.