Can Women Be Elders? [1 Timothy 3 Explained] - Katia Adams
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- Does 1 Timothy 3 restrict women from leadership? In this teaching, Katia takes a look at what this passage means for Women in the church.
This video contains content from Katia's book "Equal". For more information visit www.frequentse...
About:
Dr. Katia Adams is a Director at Frequentsee. She is passionate about leading men and women into breakthrough and experience of their God-given freedom. She resides in Durban, South Africa, with her husband, Julian, and two children.
For more information:
Frequentsee
frequentsee.org/
Facebook: / frequentsee.. .
Instagram: / frequentsee
This by far has to be one of the best arguments I’ve seen on this topic
As a pastor, i want to commend and thank you for your faithful study, necessary teaching, and wonderful example of a woman using her gifts for the building up of the body of Christ. As i teach from a similar perspective, I know that it is costly, but necessary.
Thank you for supporting and uplifting woman as a Christian man! It means so much.
Stop leading the people a stray.. you are also twisting the bible to suit your opinions and that's why God didn't allow u women to interpret.. what you are doing is of the devil.. the scripture is perfect for doctrine and reproof. Keep your sinful mind to your self. The real Church of Christ will easily see the devil speak in every second of this video.. the book speaks about women/ people like you.. Save yourselves people. Abort this rubbish. And pastor you need to check your soul. Being a pastor doesn't save you from hell. Matthew 7 v 21 are for people like you. Girl Get off the net.
Mannn, the determination to defy God's word is truly historical. It only took one contrary voice for Eve to be decieved and mankind to be cursed. At what point do you learn to choose TRUTH over CONSEQUENCES???
AMEN, AMEN, & AMEN...
p.s. TRULY a mic-drop STATEMENT of TRUTH...May the LORD "continue" to BLESS you with UNDERSTANDING..🙏
ll cor 11:3 Paul is stating that both men and women can be deceived like Eve was. Deception is not just a gender thing. Excellent teaching sister.
Very powerful 🔥.. much needed
very good sister!!!! Praise God!!
Very good point, with good scholarship. Thank you.
The Bible says that women are not to have authority over men in the church, and if a women prays or prophecies she is to have her head covered, as a sign of authority and because of the angels,
every church that has women pastors always goes very liberal and compromised, in our church there are women elders and even a young women was an elder, and I feel even though they are lovely women and very kind and encouraging,
the word says what it says. women are not to be in a position of authority over men, we do have enough men to fill those positions, and even if we don't, no where does it say that the counsel of elders has to have a full table of 12
even if we only have 3 or 4 men still the practice of filling those extra spots with women is unbiblical, and that seems to be the situation, so we go with a small number, thats fine.
Since the feminist movement moved in to the church thats when all these unbiblical practices were implemented.
For fear of offending them the church I was raised in a liberal denomination said they would call God He / she,
the evangelical church I now attend doesn't believe that, but they have made allowance for feminist sensibilities, by allowing Christian women raised ( unknowingly and indoctrinated with feminism ) to be in positions like the pastorate, and Elderships.
Feminism was good when they were marching for women's rights to own property to vote and be seen officially as persons. with equal rights under the law, that was good, but then it goes too far, when they change the compromise the gospel to serve the fragile egos of women who want what Jesus specifically mandated as for men.
Jesus saw everyone as equal but we all have different positions in the church.
Agreed 💯. I couldn't have stated that any better.
Love this teaching. I am preparing a teaching in women as elders, and this is really helpful
She should not be teaching, and needs to repent
@@Sanctified57repent for what?
Phoebe was a fellow gospel proclaimer not an elder of the governing body of the church.
presbyterianism is not bibical outside the local church since the ancient church used episcopacy or apostle rule,
Oh, My!! 6:45 in, And I can't stands no more... It's the same old "there's a problem with the Greek!
No, I assure you, there's NO problem with the Greek! This is simply "another gospel" heresy!
Take as long, long look at the titles on several of her other vids. Going to great lengths to try to convince everyone that she's "right" on this subject!
First rule of proper exegesis... Scripture Interprets Scripture! She sights plenty of other "scholars" opinions, but she certainly doesn't favor using the whole of scripture, apparently!
I guess she believes in the old adage: If you repeat it enough times, they'll believe it!
Amen👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Except she did not say that "there's a problem with the Greek." She simply explained how the Greek language works and how that impacts our English translations. That said, I absolutely agree with you that we should use scripture to interpret scripture, so how do we do that when it comes to understanding Paul saying: "I suffer not a woman to teach,...." in light of the fact that this same Paul also said: "henceforth know we no man after the flesh" (not even Christ)? Why would Paul say that we are NOT to know one another according to the flesh and then lay down rules that are gender specific (that require us to continue to know each other according to the flesh)? Could it be that Paul isn't doing that at all? That, instead, he is using the man and the woman (singular) to teach us something about Christ and the church? Isn't that how Paul used Adam and Eve and the marriage relationship elsewhere in the NT?
And if we are looking at 1 Tim 2:11-15, in particular, how do you believe Paul's words ("Nevertheless she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith...") relate to Jesus' words in John 16, where he likens his MALE disciples to A WOMAN in travail, A WOMAN whose hour was come to be "delivered of the child," so that A MAN could be born into the world? Or what about Paul's own experience of "travailing in birth"? Paul's not "a woman" (according to the flesh) but he speaks of travailing in birth, of having to "put away the child," in order to become "a man." That sure sounds like what Jesus was talking about and it sure sounds like it might have something to do with being "saved in childbearing," to me. And in both instances it's being applied to those who are men, according to the flesh. Now that's interesting! Isn't it?
Are you aware that these same patterns exist in the OT? That Isaiah refers to the spiritually immature as "babes," "children" and (yes) even "women"? Are you aware that Jeremiah also speaks of MEN travailing with child, even of "every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail"? Even Jeremiah alludes to it when he says "a woman shall compass a man." If we want to understand scripture we need to, first, understand that the gospel is all about Jesus Christ (A MAN). But it also about "the body of Christ," which is the church, which is also the bride of Christ (A WOMAN). And "the woman" must be "delivered of the child" in order to receive "the adoption of sons" (which is all about "Christ in you, the hope of glory"), at which point "a MAN is born into the world.," at which point one is able to stand "in Christ's stead" (and be called by HIS name). That has nothing to do with one's gender, but everything to do with whether of not the word of God is coming "out from you," or if it has come "unto you only." It's not a good thing to be like those "silly women laden with sin, led away with divers lusts," who Paul refers to in 2Tim 3, who were "ever learning and never able to come unto a knowledge of the truth" (of whom he gave TWO MEN as examples). SO.... maybe Paul isn't saying what you think he is saying when he talks about "women," particular the woman typified in Eve.
Let us rightly divide the word of truth and hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches, as we look not at those things which are seen (being temporal) but at those things which are not seen (which are eternal). No?
Why didn't Jesus include women in His selection of the twelve apostles? Yes, there were women that traveled with Him but none were included in the twelve! If He had done that there would be no need for this conversation!
The qualification of Overseer/ Bishop is one Lucy be an Elder in the faith. Eldership is not a title Eldership is requirement. Eldership which means mature is the faith, meaning that you have lived to societal status of maturity, you have been tested in life and in you faith, and you remained above reproach.
1 Timothy 3:2 in the greek: mias gunaikos andra ... "one woman man" or "a husband of one wife". To say this isn't a comment on gender is terribly dishonest. You say this idiom was written on gravestones. Yes, but only on men's gravestones, because to write this phrase on a woman's gravestone would have been absolutely ridiculous. In 1 Timothy 5:9 Paul uses the exact inverse of this phrase: henos andra gune, which means "a wife of one husband". Notice, he doesn't say that phrase in 3:2 because that phrase does not apply, because he's speaking to men. This is made especially clear when you realize that four verses earlier he said, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." To say that the text is not excluding women is blatantly dishonest. Don't just read liberal commentators, be honest with the language.
Powerful!! Praise God!!
Sorry, ma'am, this teaching is gravely mistaken.
Acts 6: Even in service, men were appointed as leaders in serving.
1 Corinthians 11: the whole point is to establish that even naturally, Christ is head, and man is covered. Christ is also head of women but that is through man's ordained leadership.
Ephesians 5:22-24: the wife submits to the husband leadership, just as the church (Christ's bride) submits to Jesus.
Colossians 3:18-21: "Wives submit to your husbands." Though fathers are directly told to not anger their children, does that mean women can? Or does that actually mean both are commanded not to, but if either fail, the man takes responsibility as head of the home?
1 Timothy 2: "I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH OVER A MAN". This is in the context of the church as a whole. Women can be teachers, but not like those of elders and senior elders (lead pastors/shephards)
1 Timothy 3:1-13: So, it is okay for women to marry women? Since an elder is supposed to be "The husband of ONE WIFE" and again "Their WIVES likewise must be dignified..."
Titus 1:6: The Husband of ONE WIFE
Please...explain those to me. Or rather, stand before God Himself and tell him he's wrong.
Then why does the language
Then why do we find at verse 11 the specific reference to a women after the qualifications are laid down for eldership? I respectfully disagree. Your brother in Christ.
What do you do with 1 Timothy 2:12-15?
You need to understand the culture and the original text and understand that the English translation was sometimes done in a certain way for a certain reason. One, the word "quietness" means something more like "peaceful," meaning not in a chaotic or flashy way. It didn't mean "don't open your mouth or speak words." Two, "submission" means service, not subjugation. Three, in those days, it would've been wild for women to be encouraged to learn at all... and prophesy and pray, which Paul also instructs them to do in church. So the emphasis is on the fact that he is actually prescribing that the women learn... and that they do so in a way that is edifying by being peaceful and serving to the body. Four, Paul is not Jesus. Paul was a former murderer who was redeemed but imperfect and still subject to the culture of his time.
Jesus treated women with equality. He approached the woman at the well and spoke directly to her despite the fact that you didn't do that to women in those days. You didn't speak to single women, you spoke to their male family members if you needed to communicate with them. He also risked his reputation by associating with someone who was essentially seen as, for lack of a better term, a "whore." By talking to her alone at the well, he was risking people gossiping and saying that he was also sleeping with her. I know men alive today who would not do literally exactly what he did because of what it would look like. Gathering water at the well was a social event for the women. The fact that she's alone in the middle of the day in the middle of town means people are steering clear of her. And Jesus, as his disciples are off elsewhere, walks right up to her and sits with her. They're apart from others but in plain sight, the perfect combination for assumptions to be made about what they're saying and why. But her salvation was of utmost importance to him, so image and gossip mongering didn't matter. In that culture, the woman's spirituality was basically piggybacked off of her husband or father. But Jesus wanted women to choose him for themselves. That was huge.
His best friends were siblings Lazarus, Mary, and Martha - two being single women. Despite her reputation, Jesus is close to Mary Magdalene. Two thousand years later, people STILL like to say he slept with her. He knew that would happen and he still treated her with care and affection. In fact, MM was the first person to proclaim that he was alive. She was the first person to spread the gospel making her the first evangelist. That is also HUGE. Her name is mentioned more times in the gospels than most of the apostles. That is very significant for the way in which they documented things. But Paul is not Jesus. Paul goes to Macedonia expecting to meet a man and instead encounters Lydia. I always feel that God let him believe he was going to meet a man so he would be humbled by his preconceived ideas. I think it's clear Paul underestimated women. So not everything Paul espouses is perfect.
There is a difference between biblical culture and biblical principles. In biblical culture, there is polygamy. David, a man after God's own heart, is an adulterer who has a woman's husband killed off. Should we do those things, too, or should we see the lesson in those stories? See the ever existing possibility for redemption? Much of what is *said* by Paul is just that - dialogue. And we don't treat anyone else's dialogue as though it is to be followed to a T outside of Jesus', so why Paul's? So when Paul says a woman should not teach or assume authority over a man, he's a man living 2,000 years ago. If a woman is called to lead, a man living 2,000 years ago doesn't get to say that she can't. However, the Council of Laodicia in the 4th century prohibited women from calling themselves pastors and elders, etc. (It also excluded books from the bible that we now include, so if we've overturned that decision, why not the one in reference to women?) This means they had been doing so, which means the early church actually let women lead and a few centuries later a bunch of misogynists decided to put an end to it. But even in the bible, Priscilla is referred to in the same manner in which other men whom we consider to be elders and pastors were. Paul even calls her and her husband his co-workers in Christ.
When it was later translated into English, many scholars will tell you that when given the choice to make something that seemed neutral in the original version sound more sexist or male-inclined, a lot of early translators chose sexism because they wanted their faith system to reinforce the culture of their time. And this is why referencing original meaning is so important for key verses like this. You will be shocked to find that even 2,000 years ago, some of their declarations weren't half as sexist as Christians hundreds of years later wanted them to be. So the only argument for excluding women and treating them like second class citizens comes from barely reading the bible, cherry-picking verses, confusing biblical culture with biblical principle (only when it's convenient), and refusing to acknowledge context and hermeneutics. We're supposed to study the bible and we're supposed to approach it and absorb it with wisdom, not in clear cut little blurbs like inspirational magnets you buy at Barnes and Noble. We cannot base our entire lives on deracinated little verses and prescribe treatment of half the population on them. God created all of us in his image and gave us all individual callings and passions that make up a nuanced tapestry of contributions to the Kingdom. Not all men are alike and not all women are alike in terms of gifts and strengths, so we can't exclude someone from nor promote them to a position based on gender alone. We live in an imperfect world where there is a lot of injustice and oppression. But we don't live by the ways of the world, we live by the values of Christ and strengths God has placed within us. Jesus was radically treating women equally two millennia ago. I think it's time we stop twisting little bits of scripture to justify not following his much more bold and obvious lead.
@@litastardreams really good explanation 👑👑
@@litastardreams ❤️
@@litastardreamsvery well said
This is like watching the bomb disposal unit disposing a bomb by carefully snipping one wire at a time until at last the bomb is rendered inert. This is what happens when the text doesn’t say what you want it to say; indeed, when it says the opposite; then the offending verse must be carefully diffused or defused. The bible just doesn’t say what you want it to. It says roughly the opposite and the most you can do is neutralise the offending verses, which fairly loudly oppose your position, leaving you with some meagre evidence for the affirmative. It’s like asking people to please ignore the boulders because there are some pebbles underneath.
Not a bad analogy! However, the difficulty we have is that whatever Bible we read, we are reading a translation. The newer NIV and other versions translate 1 Timothy 2. 12, to be saying that a woman must not treat men in a domineering way. I believe this is a better translation of the Greek word.
If faithfulness to your spouse is what you claim the scripture is referring to then we have a problem, because by that understanding you cannot rule out polygamy. Because polygamy is not unfaithfulness to your spouse. Polygamy is faithfulness to multiple women.
"Can Women Be Elders?"
Well they can call themselves any thing they wish. But, I believe, it will NEVER be condoned by Jesus (who is God Almighty). Oh indeed. Note the many proofs, in the following:
Jacob had 13 children: 12 sons and one daughter (Dinah). And Jesus told Jacob; that his 12 son's names (Why not Dinah?); would be forever sacred, as the "12 Tribes of Israel". Oh indeed.
Fast forward to when "God" was manifested (on earth) in the flesh (Jesus); and He picked 12 "Disciples". Note: Not one of them was a woman. Why? Note this: Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme...
...Now why in the pluperfect hallelujah, did Jesus use the word "men". Why didn't He say "men and women"?
Please read: 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh (Jesus), justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Now...Fast forward to Revelation and it is talking about the "Tribal" leader's names. And there was not one single female in there. Why?
Further; EVERY single book in the bible was written by men. Why? Also...show me a single female true "leader" in the bible. Plus, there is not a "chosen" prophet that was a female. Why not?
Note: there were two females that called themselves prophets ("Huldah and Deborah") in the bible. But my considered opinion is; Jesus did not choose them.
Finally: Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Do you suppose, that "Joyce Myers", is that "Jezebel"? I do NOT know. But I tell you this: If it turned out to be true, it would not surprise me one iota!
And on and on and on.
I rest my case. Could I be wrong? ABSOLUTELY Yes!. But this applies to all others, that also could be wrong.
In any case, Please Pray and Praise Jesus OFTEN; for He is the ONLY true "God Almighty"; there will ever have been. Praise His Holy Name. AMEN!
I have just finished reading Mary and Early Christian Women: Hidden Leadership. The fundamental message that God allows women to be religious leaders who preach and give direction to men is true and deeply needed now in the Catholic/Christian faith. I wrote this review from the idea of writing a letter to the author. The best part of this book comes when the author’s (Ally Kateusz) hard work and courage reveal the long “hidden” stories of Christianity’s early female apostles (Romans 16:7) and deacons (Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11). However, I would warn the author (and the readers) to have more faith in the actual Bible and to be more careful to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” (Matthew 13:24-32 and Luke 3:17) in terms of the extra-biblical sources.
Spoiler alert! This book does not prove that women have ever received what the Catholic Church terms the “ministerial priesthood”. In my opinion, she does prove that the Catholic Church’s current conventional narrative (CCC 1577) about how the apostles only chose men as their ordained collaborators and only had men for liturgical service is false. She proves this in the chapter on women preachers and baptizers. However there is a conspicuous lack of narrative evidence that the women apostles Nino Thecla, and Irene ever conferred the sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8: 14-17 and Acts 19:1-7) or Order (Acts 6:-1-7, Acts 13: 1-3)
To be fair there are some excellent novels and histories (2nd century) based on earlier oral traditions that were written down by early Christians. Unfortunately, later church authorities downgraded women's leadership and these true stories that were handed down from generation to generation were censored or destroyed. Kateusz tries to undo that damage. One of the gems of this book comes when Kateusz proves that honoring Mary as the mother of God (Theotokos) was universal among Christians before the Council of Ephesus.
Let the reader be warned! There is a lot of “chaff” in this book where the author completely brakes with the actual Bible and the Catholic faith.
Here is the case in point, Kateusz claims that Mary offers herself along with Christ at the Last Supper. Obviously, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could not have forgotten that. If what Kateusz puts forward is true, then all she has done is call the reliability of the canonical Gospels into doubt. So, at that point she is basically adding whatever she likes to the Catholic religion. Second, she wants to throw 1 Timothy out of the Bible because she claims that it can't be reconciled with her thesis. The third instance of chaff in her book comes when she unfortunately sites doctrinally unreliable texts like the Acts of Phillip alongside good doctrinally sound texts like the Life of Thecla.
Here is some of the good “wheat” that is on display in Kateusz’s book. Kateusz argues persuasively that the Six Books written down in the 2nd century are based on older Apostolic oral traditions about Mary the Mother of God. The Six Books were read in Christian churches and are probably the most reliable extra biblical sources that the author analyzes. She looks for common events in Mary's life and ministry that are present in this source and the Dormition narratives of Mary’s death, as well as The Life of the Virgin associated with Maximus the Confessor, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of Bartholomew.
The chapter on women preachers and baptizers proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the women deacons from Roman 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:11 were commissioned to preach, baptize, and oversee new Church communities in mission territory. It is believable that they could have been the religious leaders for these communities until male presbyters and apostles could arrive who would have been able to confirm the converts and set up local presbyters. It is notable that Kateusz cannot present a scrap of evidence that the female apostles were ordaining presbyters for their communities. Confirming and Ordaining are among the first things that Paul does when he arrives in a community.
Here are some other highlights
• The book confirms what Hans Urs Von Balthasar theorized about Mary being the greatest theologian. Kateusz shows that early Christian oral tradition describes Mary sending out a group of (male and female) missionaries from Jerusalem, supervising their preaching, and giving them further instruction.
• Many early Christians believed that Mary's religious leadership was fully equivalent to the male apostle’s “high priesthood”. This is demonstrated by how the Protoevangelium of James has Mary twice entering the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple and by Romans 16:7. The Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James is always going to be a good witness to the Marian beliefs of Christians that lived in the first centuries however there are serious doubts about its historical reliability.
• Early traditions have Mary offering her prayers along with liturgical incense in an action that was later restricted to Ministerial Priests.
• The Life of the Virgin is part “wheat” and part “chaff”. It has some value in bringing out Mary's leadership in the early community. However, the author’s contention that Mary offered herself as priest and victim along with Christ at the Last Supper borders on blasphemy. Once again this isn't about being for or against patriarchal Catholicism this is just about being consistent in Catholicism’s understanding of the canonical Gospels. You simply cannot add Mary co- presiding at the Last Supper and still cite the canonical Bible as an infallible witness to Jesus’s life and ministry.
• Kateusz relies on early Christian catechisms like the (Didascalia Apostolorum) and written collections of oral tradition to conclude that it was common in the early church to have two presiders at the Eucharist one male and one female (father and mother). She thinks that this demonstrates that women were ministerial priests. However, there is no reason to think that a female deacon couldn't co-preside. This is much more consistent with the canonical New Testament than believing that females transubstantiated the Eucharist. Remember other than consecrating the Eucharist deacons (in the 1st century) basically could do everything presbyters did in the early Church. That is why St. John Chrysostom expressed confusion about whether he was in fact reading about the deacons (and not presbyters) in Acts chapter 6. They seemed to him to be demonstrating the managerial, pastoral, and other non-sacramental responsibilities that were only given to presbyters in St. John Chrysostom’s time.
One of the highlights of this book is learning how early Christian writing and art proves how Jesus and Mary are inseparable. It proves that doctrinally orthodox Christians venerated and prayed to Mary in the 2nd and 3rd centuries without any doctrinal guidance from the Church. Another joy is learning about how central Mary’s leadership was in the founding of Christianity.
I could see that the author probably has multiple PHD's in art history because she spent a lot of time analyzing the symbols inside historical church artworks. Her argument for women priests is basically this. Roman 16: 7 and reliable oral traditions from the 1st and 2nd century agree that women were given the extraordinary title “apostle”. Furthermore, the author's analysis of art history reveals that artwork inside Catholic churches and monasteries depicts women wearing a symbol of priestly ministry.
Artwork is clearly very subjective even if you do have multiple degrees in art history. For me the decisive point is this, if author’s argument for women priests were correct her Life of Thecla would have Thecla performing the sacrament of Confirmation (laying on his hands) as well as baptizing. That along with the fact that Paul easily could have included a simple one sentence note about women priests in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 just as he did with women deacons a few sentences later are the two fundamental reasons that I don't believe the author's argument for women priests. That being said I still enjoyed the majority of her book.
May I get that book's e copy
You have obviously twisted the scripture to benefit yourself. Fully explai 1 Tim 2 vs 12
It just truly amazes me how supposed Christians do not know their Bible because if they truly did the question of can women be elders, pastors and teachers in church would not even be questioned because the Bible clearly and emphatically says NO! They cannot
The scriptures are clear. A Judge was a pastor. Deborah was a Judge. I suggest my short and free essay on her.
@@8784-l3b What verses or combination of verses are you referring to which suggest Deborah was a pastor?
@@noobmaster31
Taken from my free essay:
Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV
Major modern English translations like the NASB use
the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people...
[PASTOR - Origin: late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French pastour,
from Latin pastor ‘shepherd’.]
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
@@noobmaster31
Miriam was also a spiritual leader, though
I haven't written anything about her.
“My people, what have I done to you?
How have I burdened you? Answer me.
I brought you up out of Egypt
and redeemed you from the land of slavery.
I sent Moses to lead you,
also Aaron and Miriam.
-excerpt Micah 6 NIV
@@8784-l3b Two things. One, is "shepherd" in the original translation, the same as spiritual leader, as in the context of an elder or pastor being a shepherd (i.e. what is the translation) or is it referring to a civil leader? And two, outside of that phrase, how did Deborah, specifically, show spiritual leadership. Applicable verses would be appreciated.
Starting at 12:40 why are the things said to the women in the deacon section being used as a supportive argument when the discussion is about the office of an elder? Deacons and elders are two separate roles. I don't believe this should be used as a supporting argument here. Did I miss something here? - genuine question and open to responses.
(I didn't watch the video.)
I believe that women can hold any position/title
in our time. Much of that belief goes back to Deborah,
who I wrote an essay on.
Anyway Paul wanted deacons to be men.
A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.
-excerpt 1 Timothy 3 NIV
But then changed his mind I guess????
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.
-excerpt Romans 16 NIV -words of Paul
So maybe only Paul can understand Paul.
Reply if desired.
@@8784-l3bthe word deacon depends on the version of the Bible. Others use the word servant. The Bible never identifies a specific role, other than they did good works in the church.
The main argument from 1 Tim 3 I find powerful is not addressed in this video. I'll write it here. Anyone respond if you see fit.
1 Tim 3 describes the qualification for elders *and* deacons. The qualifications for elders use generally masculine or neuter terms. The qualifications for deacons use the same masculine or neuter terms, but in the middle of the qualifications for deacons, it inserts this note as verse 11: "In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything."
That word translated "women" could be understood as "wives" or "women".
If it means "wives", it would seem to be placing a requirement on the character of a man's wife in order for *him* to be a deacon. That would be odd. It's plausible, I suppose. Except that there is no such statement in the qualifications for eldership, which is the office with higher authority. Why would one office but not the other have a qualifications for the character of the *spouse* of the office-holder? And if only one of the two offices, why the office with *less* authority but not the one with higher authority? That makes no sense. So I think it's right to understand that word as referring to women, not "wives".
In that case, the qualifications for deacons specifically include a statement about what would qualify women for the office of deacon. But there is no such statement about women in the qualifications for elder. So we have male and female deacons but only male elders.
Anyone have a good way to pick at that?
Complementarianism is a false teaching. At its center
it supports a two-tiered priesthood based on birthright.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood...
-excerpt 1 Peter 2
Reply for my full post 'Complementarianism' if desired.
Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually.
What about Paul saying, I do not permit women to preach because, God first created Adam and then created Eve.
Paul doesn’t mention the word preach.
@@stevereilly7058 You're right, it says teach. If a woman is a pastor of a church, her teaching is preaching. It's one in the same. The scripture is referring to the church.
@@vmac38 you can be a pastor on a team and never preach. Or, you can be a pastor and only preach to women.
@@stevereilly7058 Yes, you are correct and that's fine. I referred to a woman that is a pastor of the church, not just a pastor within the church. I don't have an issue with a woman being a pastor in title.
Funny how a woman here is teaching that a woman can teach when the Bible says they can’t. Thanks but I think I’ll stick with the word of God. 🤣🤣🤣
the bible also says that you should not listen to men teachers
@@ZileleDinUrma Keep fooling yourself! 🤣🤣🤣
@@Thetruthhassetmefree retard🤣🤣🤣🤣🥸🥸🥸
Anytime we can have a zoom public debate on this, anytime
@@ZileleDinUrma Only a “lady” with exceptional intelligence would use such a word! 🤣🤣🤣 Such a “class” act.
Here’s the kicker the levitical priesthood was a shadow of the first priesthood, the order/priesthood of Melchizedek. Given that it was a shadow, and the office and auxiliaries of the assembly (Body of Christ) reflect that of the priestly line of Melchizedek. HAS THERE EVER BEEN A FEMALE PRIEST IN ALL OF RECORDED SCRIPTURE? And by all I mean all, modern canon, Apocrypha, Dead Sea scrolls, all. There has never been a female priest, therefore in the case of mashiach leadership, Yeshua is the head, then men, the. Women, then children. YH will not contradict His order in any way. And if you need more clarification. The apostle Paul breaks it down to you. Man/Human - males were made in the image of YHVH-Elohim, Woman/Humans females were made in the image of man/human males.
So how could a judge in Israel, with the authority
to execute men, be a woman?
No women with great respect women cannot be elders of the Church ( The body of Christ )
Agreed
the Bible says women can teach and preach. just as men
first of all there is no male no female in Christ Lord Jesus (gal 3;28). God doesnt look at us through flesh because those who look at the flesh are carnally minded (rom 8;5)
secondly, in 1 tim 2 apostle paul talks about ONE woman to not teach one man. God is very specific and He does know how to use singular and plural form. when in the earlier verses paul was talking about modest dressing style when referren to women he used PLURAL form and then he talked about some issue we do not know about he used singular form. he forbade one woman to teach one man. he added that she was not to usurp authority over the man. of course! nobody can usurp authority over another person. men cannot usurp authority over women as well. men are to be submitted to their wives just as women to their husbands (eph 5;21), they are to walk in humility and die for their wives just as Christ died for the church (eph 5;25), if they want to be first they are to be slaves of all (mark 9;35).
also priscilla taught a man, apollos (acts 18;26),
we all are to teach and admonish one another (col 3;16). i repeat ALL
in 1 cor 14;35 the verse talking about women not speaking in the church does not say that women are to be silent in the church and cannot preach. it talks about chatting of women thorugh which they were disturbing the service. in 1 cor 11 paul taks about women praying and prophesying in church so women did speak in the church.
also, infamous jezebel was preaching in those times and she was deceiving people. Lord Jesus was correcting her about deceiving people and what did He say? He told her to repent... of what...of preaching and teaching? No! of her fornication.
in 1 cor 14;26 we read that everyone who comes to the church meeting can serve the church whether it is psalm, doctrine, revelation. everyone is everyone.
also in eph 4;11 we read that it is God who chooses apostles pastors prophets etc. Women are prophets chosen by God and the office of the prophet is mentioned in this verse next to the office of pastor or apostle or teacher. women are not excluded. all the offices are mentioned in the same verses. if women can be prophets they also can be pastors and teachers.
these are just a few reasons women can teach and preach to men and be pastors so stop lying and deceiving people.
Nie zawiera wirusów.www.avast.com
So 1 Timothy 3:2 AMP. Now an overseer must be blameless and beyond reproach, the husband of one wife... This is most definitely talking about men being in authority. I feel that the context is being discussed rather than what is actually being said, in order to make it read that it's ok for a woman to hold that position. My opinion is that women most definitely can be in a position of leadership, but the bible is quite clear on this, but I just believe that God has made it clear that's all.
I have now heard many arguments by women who seem to somehow alter the word so that it suits them. And yet the bible says this in Genesis 3:16. God says: "Yet your desire and longing will be for your husband, And he will rule [with authority] over you and be responsible for you.” So God gave man authority not the women. My bible commentary says this: “The word ‘desire’ can also mean ‘an attempt to control.” Are we not seeing that in society today? As I said, I am so not against women at all, indeed I support women but in this one thing I cannot see it. Sorry.
I also have to ask then, why are you trying to go against what God wrote in His word through man in this case Paul.
I'm really sorry, you are making assumptions, and to say that God's word is in error is appalling!!
The scriptures are clear. A Judge was a pastor. Deborah was a Judge. I suggest my short and free essay on her.
Also, a Judge according to scripture, had the authority to
execute a man. Certain sins such as premeditated murder
required execution.
@@8784-l3b judge is not a pastor. Does not officiate religious activities.
@@ephraimaurerehau3251
Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 KJV
(In case the reader in unaware, the word pastor and the word
shepherd are the same word. I prefer shepherd, because it has
obvious meaning to the average person.)
Major modern English translations like the NASB use
the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people...
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
Some believe that pastor (or shepherd), is a position that
was created in the New Covenant. This is not true. In the Old Testament
shepherds are mentioned multiple times. Often in a negative way.
“My people have become lost sheep;
Their shepherds have led them astray.
-excerpt Jeremiah 50
For an entire chapter on worthless shepherds, the reader may
check out Ezekiel 34.
Whosoever is not 'masculine' sister.
Qualification for an Elder is HE has to be a HUSBAND of 1 wife. Adam was created 1st Eve was 2nd. The male is the 1st in authority. I don’t know why woman can’t understand that men are the leaders. No APOSTLE was a woman. Not 1 woman wrote a book in the Bible. Not one woman was ordain to preach in the bible
Amen! But good luck trying to convince a Jezebel that she can’t be a prophetess!!!
How about Jesus 12 disciples, why no woman in it ? Please don't resist the Bible.
Acts 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
Hmmm, no gentile disciples either. Should I resign as an elder?
Yes
No sister, please don't add to the Bible..
Husband of one wife is clearly masculine.
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.
-excerpt Romans 16 NIV -words of Paul
Extremely poor exegesis, completely out of kilter with Scripture teaching for the faithful and humble "Daughters of Sarah".
"11 Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness.
12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to
remain in quietness and keep silence [in religious assemblies].
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but [the] woman who was
deceived and deluded and fell into transgression"
1 Tim 2:11-14 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE)
For this woman defiantly countermands the Lord's command for the silence of women in the church assemblies.
"34 The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says.
35 But if there is anything they want to learn, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to talk in church [ for her to usurp and exercise authority over men in the church].
36 What! Did the word of the Lord originate with you [Corinthians], or has it reached only you?
37 If anyone thinks and claims that he is a prophet [filled with and governed by the Holy Spirit of God and inspired to interpret the divine will and purpose in preaching or teaching] or has any other spiritual endowment, let him understand (recognize and acknowledge) that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
38 But if anyone disregards or does not recognize [ that it is a command of the Lord], he is disregarded and not recognized [he is one whom God knows not]."
1 Corinthians 14:34-38 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE )
Sadly this teaching of heresy is one whom Almighty God does not know, anymore.
Not a very nice position to be in folks.
No, sorry, stick to God's devine word, woman are to be quiet and not teach...
This is false teaching.
This is a disingenuous video to not included 1 Timothy 2 as that is the most critical verse
I actually made 3 other videos on 1 Tim 2: ruclips.net/video/UujLa_rVaPs/видео.html
Plus I wrote a book on it, called Equal (find it on Amazon)