Hi Ms. Childers, I am at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School writing a dissertation on the reception history of Rom 16:7 and Junia. The information you and Ms. Williams have presented on Rom 16:7 in this interview is not accurate. 17:00 -- "John Chrysostom and his contemporaries talked about this and thought [Junia] was a masculine name" -- This is false. John Chrysostom very specifically said Junia was a woman, and he certainly had no contemporaries who said it was masculine. Rufinus' translation of Origen used the nominative feminine singular twice out of five mentions. Theodoret used the accusative feminine singular, which could theoretically be masculine or feminine, but considering that the name "Iunias" was completely unattested at that point in time, there's no reason to think he meant the masculine. Also, Theodoret is clearly aware of and echoing Chrysostom, so he would seem to have a woman in mind. Jerome used the nominative feminine in his entry for the name ("Iunia") in his Book of Hebrew Names. He used "Priscus" instead of "Prisca" in one or two places, "Priscilla" or "Prisca" in the others, so had he thought "Iunia" could be masculine, it seems more likely he would have written "Iunius." Ambrosiaster used only the accusative, again, at a time when the masculine form was unattested, but he immediately references the "kinswoman" Elizabeth, indicating that he probably sees a woman in the text. You may have had in mind Epiphanius, but Epiphanius never commented on Junia. The document in question, the *Index Discipulorum,* was not written by Epiphanius; it is a later, 6th-century document, and it is the earliest attestation of the masculine. It also says Priscilla was a man and has many other inaccuracies. I'll be arguing in my dissertation (and at ETS in the fall) that internal evidence from the document shows the author was well-aware Junia and Priscilla were women and switched their names to masculine on purpose, to fill out his list. 17:49 -- "Grammatically, the sex of that person, it could go either way" -- Untrue. We have hundreds of attestations of the feminine in antiquity and zero attestations of the masculine. I understand that Al Wolters and Esther Ng have introduced complicated arguments for how it could be a rare Hebrew masculine name (actually, Wolters admits it could be a Hebrew feminine name; people always seem to ignore that in his paper), and I will be addressing these arguments in my dissertation, but when one side has church fathers and hundreds of attestations while the other has theorycraft and guesswork, and a late 6th century source that also says Priscilla is a man, I would call that a "slam dunk." 18:16 -- "We know who the apostles were. They were the Twelve." -- More like the Twelve, Paul (who clearly doesn't number himself among the Twelve), Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), Silvanus (1 Th. 2:6, cf. 1:1), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19, cf. 1 Cor. 15:7), and yes, Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7). Also, Paul talks about his troubles with counterfeit apostles; he could not have been having so much trouble with false apostles had there only been twelve. Finally, there are numerous references in the early church to there being more apostles than Twelve. But there is no doubt that an interpretation of "only Paul and the Twelve" eventually became the dominant interpretation in church history; I believe this is part of the reason the "well-known to the apostles" interpretation/translation came into its own, and not simply misogyny towards a female apostle. As far as whether or not Andronicus and Junia were merely "well-known to the apostles," Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret all clearly took the passage inclusively from a grammatical standpoint. This is especially devastating in the case of Origen, who seems to want to read the passage exclusively but does so with allegory; did he not see a grammatical path? Ambrosiaster is ambiguous but arguably inclusive. I do not know yet when the exclusive reading actually entered the history of biblical interpretation (it was around by Beza), but it appears to be very late. Female apostles are attested in some other sources in church history, which I'll be discussing in my dissertation. I'll also be presenting on this at ETS in November. You say several times that the matter is very complicated; it's actually surprisingly simple, and has only been made complicated by people who do not like what the record from church history has to say on the matter. I hope these sources from church history assist you with your quest for historic Christianity! :-)
What a timely discussion! I just joined a new engineering firm and attended an internal Women in Engineering meeting today. I was saddened to hear so many women lament the low retention of women in engineering, as if the demographic disparity, which is more a function of the different ways women and men are designed than systemic sexism, was some evil to vanquish. I have no idea how to relate to someone bemoaning being asked more often than the men to send out project communication because she happens to be a better communicator. Somehow, using a special skill is now a chore to be derided as less valuable because it's not engineering or design. I'm an excellent communicator, and I love being asked to use that talent! Most of all, I hate being characterized as a female engineer. I'm just an engineer who happens to be a woman. That's it! It's not like we add special titles to engineers who also happen to be tall. "And that's Joe, our resident tall engineer." Absurd! P.S. Love the Mike Winger plug. He's easily my favorite online bible scholar, and I am LOVING his series on women in ministry. (I love all of his series, though.)
SO good. You ladies did such a wonderful, loving and thoughtful way of walking through this. I wish I could articulate this well, lol. Thank you both for your ministries and for being good “Bereans”.
Excellence again from Alisa! Terrific guest, amazing thoughtful discussion. I appreciate there bringing complex discussions down to everyday language. Great to know people are so knowledgeable and so generous with it. So relatable and down to earth with great wisdom and learning. These women of God seem to have it all.
I think Mike does an excellent job in his series. I think the main misunderstanding is assuming that if you’re complimentarian that automatically means women should submit to all men. False. Authority is parental, then in marriage. Some random man in the church does not had authority over me.
@Prey R And in your job, and to your government authorities, and if you live in a HOA …. Actually the list goes on and on. What most women bristle at, however, is their submission to their husbands. Buffet Christianity is quite popular today.
@@jaco7675 the distinction is that in those circumstances, authority isn’t inherently male over female. It’s positional authority, not sex based authority. Those individuals have just as much authority over the men as the women. And If my boss at work wants to go in a direction I oppose, I can quit my job.
@@DogDocLou I agree. Both women and men are called to subject themselves to those in authority over them. But it is a falsity to suggest that women, (as a group, or individually) are supposed to submit to ALL men, categorically. That would be a complete misunderstanding of Biblical intentions.
Submission not only has to do with having or not authority over you. It is a matter of character. Is humility. HUMBLE: reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission. (Merriam-Webster) Having authority over you not necessarily means that you will be nulified or that men can do what they want with you. It means that you respect them and their leadership.
This was a fabulous interview. Weighty subject with meaty content. I would love to hear more discussions between you both. Dianna, you need your own podcast too. Such depth from you. TY!
I agree, what you're referring to is called a RESPONSE vs a REACTION, responses flow out of lives controlled by the Holy Spirit, which bears testimony to Christ's sacrificial response to OUR sin. I believe the majority of the sin we're looking at today is the rotten fruit of women's sinful REACTION to thousands of years of abuse & subjugation by men, unfortunately what I see in the Church, instead of men stepping up in RESPONSE, is a sinful REACTION being led by "men" like Jesse Lee Peterson, and others whose lives are controlled by fear, hatred & pride instead of God's Spirit. I pray that God would strengthen REAL MEN in the Church & teach them how to RESPOND, so they might lead in BOTH Truth AND Love, because one without the other is neither & only capable of reproducing in the world the LIE they represent.
I enjoyed this conversation. Your explanation of what submission looks like is critical for all of us to understand. I'll be looking for everything you've written.
Thank you for your thoughtful discussion on this topic. I know you had Dr. Groothuis on your show previously. His late wife wrote on egalitarianism and supported her conclusions from the Biblical text. It may be interesting to have his perspective on your show.
Agreed. Prior to the Fall, there was no "authority" of man over woman, of any kind. They were one and shared equal dominion and authority. After the Fall God pronounced the curses. To the woman it was "man will rule over you". No such thing existed until then. The greatest atrocity today is poor teaching on this which leads to a ton of abuse. Add to that the suppression of woman called to ministry in all aspects as men. It is demonic doctrine at it's finest. And, pretty easy to prove - IF you want to to see the truth. Sadly, I have to unsubscribe to this channel as it does not teach truth.
Phenomenal. Does Dianna have any online writing, videos, etc.? She brrrrrought it!! Quick question: How do you ladies think *Paul* defines subordination/submission? Such an excellent point about reading our modern definitions into terms, making them seem "straightforward" to us!
Alisa, I would love if you would do an interview with Noelle Mering regarding her book Awake Not Woke in which she tackles the deception of and our cultures acceptance of "woke" ideologies. She is Catholic and I've watched interviews done with her lead by other Catholics, but I would very much love to hear an interview with her lead by a more protestant interviewer such as yourself. Thank you so much for all you do!
Just so you know, you are not getting accurate information about those of us from historically egalitarian denominations. As a Pentecostal, I find his resources strange. His arguments are misleading and more like a straw man argument. Some of us have tried to correct him, but he is still not using resources that we would recommend.
@@PM-hh9ur Yes, I have experienced that. I am so disappointed with him. I have quit listening to him for the most part, and cut back on almost all of them from Calvary Chapel. The only one I halfway respect is J. D. Farag.
This was an enjoyable discussion! Thank you both. Dianne’s point about how the author used modern terms and applied or implied those on history is a great point. It is actually a poor way of interpreting history and not the method of this discipline. Historians who seek to understand history from a perspective that is not diabolical or anachronistic avoid this. Historians usually learn this in the intro class that they take to the discipline at every academic level. Moreover, honest historians would not take the actions from people in the middle ages and apply them to the historical context in which Paul was writing. If she wanted to dive into the historical context of scripture (which is what she sort of purports on the cover of her book), she would have done a historical review of the Jewish and Roman culture leading up to and during the time when the scripture in question was written. She kept jumping a hundred years one way and a hundred years the other way as if it were all the same. That is not an historical interpretation with any integrity.
It doesn't CAUSE it but it can, and sadly often DOES contribute. The Bible is a theological book but it is ALSO a historical and sociological book which means to be read in the context of the times it was written for and to.
It is so obvious that both Alisa and Dianna are "soft" complementarians, and therefore are having a hard time giving an objective critique of Barr's book. Unfortunately, it is human nature to go out of our way to be less generous (than we would normally be) when trying to understand and critique someone with who's views we don't agree in general. It seems that they are almost going out of their way to misunderstand and misinterpret her.
Excellent content. I'm learning a lot. I'm confused about something, though. It seems like you (Alisa) were saying toward the beginning that the early Church fathers had a few issues. Then, around the 43.10 mark, you're saying that what they wrote was God-breathed. Would you please explain further what you mean? Peter seems to say that Paul is kind of hard to understand, so there might have been confusion for hearers when they heard Paul, even back then. There were disagreements between the early Church fathers, too. Is that what you are meaning in the earlier comment?
I don't know the book or the author you are discussing but I must mention some blatant errors in your comments. First of all, Dianna said there were only the 12 apostles. That is patently false. Paul, Barnabas, James the brother of Jesus, Silvanus, Timothy, and many others are also identified as apostles. Second, The idea that Junia was actually Junias is arbitrary at best. The overwhelming manuscript evidence supports that it is the female name Junia. 3rd, the idea that the text implies that Andronicus and Junia were known 'to' the apostles as opposed to 'among' the apostles is also a very weak argument. The natural reading and the manuscript evidence suggests that they were in fact apostles in the same sense as Paul, James, Barnabas, Timothy, etc. And finally, you made the implication that the egalitarian view either is or leans toward progressivism. While progressives are egalitarian for feminist reasons, The Nazarene church and other holiness churches have been ordaining women for well over a hundred years and for biblical reasons, not societal reasons. There is nothing progressive in John Wesley's teachings despite the fact that he included women in ministry. While progressives are egalitarian, it is not evidence of progressivism but rather incidental.
Dianna used the same tactic she accused Dr Barr of using. Bait and switch - there are 12 Apostles (men who were chosen by Jesus as his primary disciples). There are other apostles, some true, some false (2 Cor 11:13) which you mention above.
My husband is a pastor, paid ministry. He says all the time it’s not my job to work the field alone. It’s my job to teach and equip the saints to develop disciples. Bible illiteracy is a huge issue! And we are always fighting against it with love and education. We had the same issue when my husband was the youth and children pastor. It was like and we heard comments about how it was my husbands job to teach the kids only. We watched parents abdicate their roles as primary spiritual leaders and teacher of their children. And wonder why youth don’t stay in the church. They were never in the church. The children were always separate as soon as they could do nursery. Sigh. There’s nothing wrong with programs in themselves. But if their parents don’t do Christian life at home and do the deeper life with Christ at home… why would they stay when they are suddenly expected to sit in with a group of people they don’t know. A service they don’t know. They haven’t practised.
I would also say men use the title complimentarianism to hide behind to abuse. As I live in a matriarchal society. And my husband is apart of a mens group and and they are severely abused by some of the women. All people are capable of horrible things. Either side.
QUESTION: How would you say women should respectfully push back when needed? I have seen some bullying by male church leader and it’s accepted. I think this behavior needs to be addressed. Or it can lead to sin. Of which we have seen lately.
when your brother sins against you, you go to him and tell him. Matthew 18. When someone who is in authority over you sins against you, you still submit (as long as he's not asking you to sin) and know that God is willing and able to fight the battle for you. Jesus submitted to sinful Pilate because his authority was from above. If sinless Jesus could submit to sinful man, then we can do the same. We can entrust ourselves to Him who judges rightly. 1 Peter 2 and 3
@@sallyapokedak4079 You are confusing Jesus' mission on earth, in His submission to Pilate to the submission of women being bullied. Jesus would never expect you to be submit to bullying and and enable the one doing the bullying/sinning.
@@LT-cy3uj So though Jesus submitted to sinful men who had God-give authority, we ought not take up our crosses and follow him? We ought to rebel against God-give authority? What do you do with 1 Peter 3:1 which tells us to submit in like manner---the same way Christ submitted? Without a word. Entrusting himself to him who judges rightly. If you want to fight your own Bibles go for it. I'll entrust myself to God.
@LB According to 1 Peter all believers are a royal priesthood. So the pastor cannot be considered to be "the priest" in christianity. Also The women in the old testament were prophets, a rank that allows you do give sacrifices to the Lord (like in the book of samuel), guide the whole people of God and tell them what they should do according to what God himself told them. They were also able to identify what is or is not the word of God like in the case of Huldah. So even back then the distinction you are making between priests and others people called by God to lead was not always that set in stone. Finally I would add that the people of Israel did not look at the priests as the go to to be led. It was always the prophets that were the leader of the people when it came to following God, and that is a category we see several women in the bible fit into (Deborah, Miriam, Huldah).
@LB Unfortunately when it comes to that kind of conversations people will often argue against an argument that they can refute but that no one was making in the first place. I don't think Mike Winger does it on purpose (contrary to some people who definitely rely on this as a strategy), but it does muddy the waters and lead people to wrongful conclusions.
@LB Regarding why there were only male Priests the text does not give any indications so any theory about that will only be speculation that cannot be verified. Maybe it's to avoid sexual misconduct in the sanctuary? Or maybe the priests were a stand-ins for Jesus specifically because he is our high priest? Honestly without any data in the text one can just make up any explanation they want. One thing that we cannot do though is to make conclusions that contradicts the character of God and the actions we see Him accomplish elsewhere in scriptures. Since God definitely does appoint women as leaders over his people the reason why there is no female priest cannot be because God doesn't want women in position of authority.
@@alexmarysaint2523 If you read the comments of his posts, then you will see that there are some of us who come from historically egalitarian denominations that attempt to correct him. We have suggested resources, but he continues to misrepresent our position.
If someone wants to argue that complementarianism leads to domestic abuse, we can argue that egalitarianism leads to skyrocketing divorce rates and broken homes, which leads to decreased academic performance, and to increased crime rates. OR we can both be more intelligent than that and blame those issues on the sinfulness of mankind.
I’m sorry, that’s just a cop out. You should consider the idea that there are serious doctrinal and religious dogmas that create at atmosphere in which domestic violence is more likely. Evil is an intelligent force and does not come out of thin air. It is rooted in ideology and a certain rationale.
@@farahjichi4617 😂🤣😂🤣😂 You think you have common sense? We're living in the most egalitarian society to ever exist on this planet, and look at the rates of divorce, of suicide, of crime, of homelessness. Look at the broken homes and failing schools. You've got your head so deep in the sand (I'm being generous), because you refuse to see. You wouldn't know common sense if it slapped you in the face.
Isn’t it sad that we know about Jesus from reading the Bible but we don’t want to search it like the Bereans in order to live like and believe what He wants. We live our lives on the words of others, the inflections of a teacher reading something, or subtly adding to a passage. Thank you for explaining the lack of verses etc and that Paul was preaching a sermon which is in the Bible. These aren’t only his words but God’s. What does God want me to know needs to be prayed and asked.
I enjoyed this talk, however, I don't think you finished addressing "what does Paul actually mean in Eph. 5:22" I thought you would, but then you skipped over to I Cor.
The term is "presentism" and is used by current historical revisionists to take current cultural influences and praxis and apply it to biblical era and culture.
Unfortunately, you both are mistaken in your understanding of what complementarians teach about Headship and Submission. If you read the Danvers statement, the founding document of complementarianism, and listen Dr. Wayne Grudem tell you what he means by Headship and Submission you will discover it is not biblical, but by head, he means authority, and by submit, he means “to rank under” in a role of perpetual hierarchy, none, absolutely none of which is biblical if you know the Word of God!
@LB You missed the point of Esther. God was behind her ascension to save his covenant people. Nothing to do with her pleasing body. Women preached the gospel, supported the ministry, Philip prophesied and prayed publicly in church. As the video clearly stated Paul said in Christ there is neither male nor female, they are equal in value as God is the Head of Christ, subordinate in role as Mediator but equal in essence as God. I suggest going in depth into what Scripture says about it as the culture imposes its views onto the text as the video brings out well.
@LB I totally get where you’re coming from. That overall - even with passages like Galatians 3:28 - in practice, the Bible overwhelmingly places more emphasis on the role of men than women. But why is this a faith-shaker? Could you elaborate on that?
Women are not called out as leaders in the new testament but they were definitely acknowledged as prominent contributors to accomodating and supporting the spread of the gospel.
Complementarianism wrecked and I mean wrecked my family. My dad’s dad was a head of household type of man. Never met him but my uncle said that he was identical to my dad. My dad ended up having a personality disorder. My papa (mom’s dad) was a traditional man as head of household. He was abusive toward my mom and her mom never stopped him. Between her dad and the way my dad treated her she left and now here I be taking care of my sibling with a disability whom I love. A good tree doesn’t bare bad fruit. If you look at what the early church Father’s say about junia it’s very clear that she is an apostle. And you both are teaching and if the the body of Christ is considered to be the biblical church, then you are preaching in church and I’m sure men are listening. But in Romans 16 but paul mentions a woman being like a mother to him…moms teach…when we put our focus on who’s doing the teaching and what gender they are we miss the point. The point is Jesus. I don’t think that Jesus would stop a woman from teaching a biblically solid sermon. Remember this…Christianity started when Jesus revealed Himself as our risen Lord to 2 women who then went and told the other apostles that He is risen. They were the apostles to the apostles
Hi Alissa great show on Complimentalism and Egalitarianism . The insights are good but my question is does the Holy word of God take preeminence in our changing Culture. We did write the bible but God our has given us instructions to live by .
WHAT LEADS TO ABUSE IS SIN. A man who is controlled by the Holy Spirit will never abuse a woman. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23 NIV)
I want to know this: Why does Paul call Jesus' brother James an apostle...Jesus' brother James is not one of the 12? Galatians 1:19 Also, what is the spiritual gift of apostleship? 🤔🤔🤔 I'm not trying to be argumentative. This confuses me!
Paul also was not one of the 12. There were the twelve, but there were also other apostles. James (apparently) didn't believe in Jesus until after His resurrection. But once he believed, he went to tell others. I think "apostle" is intended to mean something like "missionary". There may be more to it than that, since apostle refers to "one who is sent".
@vociferous777 Women civilize men and men protect women. This is a basic construct of God's design for the family unit. Men are stronger and more aggressive, which when used in the Spirit, will protect women. Women have the power to tame men and keep them from being too wild. I know I sit up a little straighter when my wife is around. 🙂
@@charleschi843 So you subscribe to the theory of evolution then? Because this is where the idea that women needs males to protect them and male allows themselves to be "tamed" in order to have a mate actually comes from. Not to mention that it puts the responsibility of men's action on women. That is definitely not a biblical teaching. In the bible everyone will have to give an account for their own words and actions. Nowhere does it says that women are the ones bearing responsibility for men's actions.
@vociferous777 The Bible is not clear on women abusing men, yet you even stated that it can happen. There is no reference to this but we know it can happen as a result of the fall. Not every observable truth is listed in the Bible. Ephesians 5 is a great starting place for the role of men and women in marriage. The role of men sacrificially leading means laying down their personal agenda to literally love their wife like Christ loves the Church. A husband should be wiling to die to protect his wife. This is a profound example with high expectations.
@@alexmarysaint2523 I never said that women are responsible for men's actions. I do not subscribe to the false theory of evolution as well. Women are beneficial to men. That is not the same as "responsible for".
QUESTION: What would you say about the view that Jesus was welcoming to women but there is evidence that after Jesus the church fathers and later Paul were less welcoming to women I this church?
The scripture verify that while some of Jesus' most faithful followers were women, the only ppl that received authority from Him to preach were men(Matt. 10:1-7, Mar. 3:13-19, Luk. 9:1-2, Acts 10:40-42). There is simply no biblical basis for women being pastors, especially because they all teach terrible theology.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 What was the terrible theology that Priscilla (and Aquila) taught Apollos for which Paul singled her out for praise? What was the terrible theology that Lois and Eunice who influenced Timothy played a role in setting up the early church? What was this terrible theology espoused by these women that Paul was applauding. SOME women teach terrible theology. so as SOME men teach terrible theology. "They ALL teach terrible theology". Substantiate your claim.
Complementarianism leads to other systemic problems which honestly are nothing more than discrimination against single-individuals, not just "women" or abusing "women" As someone who went to a complementarian church more than once I can honestly say it without a doubt what happens: de-valuing singles and their giftings (particularly teaching anything in some ultra-conservative places-- such as the inability to lead a small group even), devaluing infertile couples (literally), and yes devaluing women as well. This can come in a variety of ways from snide remarks to sometimes outright accusing people of things that are simply not true (you are greedy because you are in college--- wait what?!). Women who are married in these communities oftentimes frown down upon anyone who is single (maybe it is from jealousy?) I'm not sure which, but comments like "I didn't know anything until i was married!" or "my marriage has made me mature in christ," are two VERY obvious examples of an "us vs them," verse saying something like "god has used my marriage to show me some of my flaws," or a leader responding with "yes god can use many things in our lives," vs just sitting there and being like "oh yes that is sooo good!" in front of a ton of singles..like give me a break. Sorry but someone can mature in Christ without being married. Everyone's lives are different and valuable. With the overwhelming majority of churches facing a man-exit crisis, they need to rethink things concerning "man and women's roles" in church. I can understand wanting the senior pastor to be male (quite frankly just because many men will fail to listen to women) BUT past that? No way. People who are married are no better than those who are not, yet in the church that is clearly what is seen in these complementarian spaces. I've seen women also give up good careers because their husbands told them they must "submit" and do that. Or "asking permission" to work a part time job. Also the expectation of women to have children is absurd in some of these circles. What happens then is once a woman hits around 27 she is no longer valued in the community and seen as "an old hag or spinster." I'm not making this up. Look at complementarian churches and how many single women there are over 27 (doesn't matter if they are Christian or not, or have been for decades-- you are now "too old to breed."). The men however, continue to date women half their age for breeding purposes. So yes, it does lead to abuse. If a woman is seen as an object, it is abusive.
The 'resitance' narrative that Beth Barr paints reveals her lack of understanding of sound theology. Romans was not written to the government or to pagans, but to the saints living in Rome. Furthermore Timothy was not written to the Romans at all so to assert that Paul's letter to the Roman's exists in some special category that permits you to assume Paul's intentions without addressing the text consistently is absurd.
I'm not sure I am following the argument of this video. Around the 45 min mark, Diana argues that we should not use "resistance to the culture" as a hermeneutic in St. Paul's writings. But the larger argument of this video, and Alisa's other enjoyable videos, is about resistance to the culture - resisting Critical Race Theory, or resisting the gender fluid movement, etc. If we're about resisting the culture in our context today in the name of Christ, why shouldn't we see St. Paul as resisting the culture of his day in the name of Christ? It seems to me that Alisa's message has been a strong, encouraging message of resistance, and I'm disheartened that this video wants to suggest that resistance to a culture contrary to Christ is not part of the Bible's story. As Alisa says shortly after, little is more counter-cultural than Jesus!
Please define feminism. From that, why do you think there is such a thing called feminism? What caused feminism? Why would women want to be identified as a feminist?
The bible is fundamentally a theological text, not an activiist text, and so activist hermeneutics aren't necessarily the best way to understand God and scripture. 20th century feminism cannot be used a hermeneutic for a 1st century religious text
Not only teachers, but leaders who have a lot of influence in the evangelical sphere, especially Alisa. If they were able to be intelectually honest about that... But instead they have to downplay that and keep evangelical patriarchy system happy in order to keep their legitimacy and not to be seen as rebellious feminist false teachers.
contemplementarianism is false doctrine - not found in the Bible the Bible says women can teach and preach. just as men. men have to submit to women just as much as women to 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.
different but equal in value; can do the same, but do not have to. If the words are an insurmountable stumbling block, we can agree to find the ethically superior.
@@geekygecko1849 Hah. Incredible. Well. No one thinks that anymore, except... of course... the extreme left like Kindi, or self proclaimed racist and race baiter Robin D'Angelo... and the leftist branch of the education department of America, creating safe spaces and segregated dormitories for different grades of melanin. These supposed do-gooders, in their lack of wisdom, are recreating that same hell for different reasons, to be anti-racist. (If they knew Greek, they could have saved themselves the trouble, cos the affix 'anti-' in Greek not only signifies against / opposite, but also 'to come in the place of something' / replacement) ... but we won't let them. Meanwhile, in this context, one would have to be a strange kind of weird to use this sentence as a call or excuse to segregate woman from men in a Christian context. It's fine. Women and men are different and equal in value. This is biblical, and remains true.
Check out Sandra Ritcher, women in ministry. The 1 Corinthians 14, are believed to be notes on the side. Paul never spoke about the law. So it is believed that he is making a comment on how this is not right. Read the passages before and after. See that there is not a continuum. Then continue and see the both brothers and sisters prophecy etc. Her argument is like this other lady that you are talking about and it actually comes from a male scholar. Anyway is not stretching at all on this. Same with Ephesians, you need to look at its entirety and not just a few verses. The submit each other is for marriage not some random comment that Paul wrote for the rest of humanity especially being before the sentence of wives and men.
Some content is explaining away things in a flippant way that fails to recognize the rationale behind deconstruction (which means something different in different circles). We can't be so fearful of truly dissecting things we have been taught and truly evaluating them in the original context to who they were written. Having lived in an abusive relationship for 14 years, I don't think complementarianism leads to abuse, I do think cover up language in truly egalitarian views and calling themselves complementarian promotes abuse. I think purity culture that still exists in marital teaching promotes marital rape and sexual abuse. And I do believe sin causes abuse and we as believers are called to fight for the oppressed and marginalized. For those who disagree, fine, Jesus dwells with us in those margins.
Today's Church has fallen into the unbiblical 'requirements' for Church leaders both for men and women. Academia is now a primary factor for credible leadership rather than solid Biblical knowledge and adherence to it in teaching it, preaching it, and living it and making it the foundation for the world view that leads to obedience to Biblical truth even when it goes against personal or social view points
Honestly, I am tired of the term "complementarianism" at all. Compliments are great and ought not to be shunned or rejected. However, the very nature of the word and its root, or heart, "compliment" suggests the spare usage of such commentary so that its value can remain intact and memorable and venerated. Compliments are verbal or logos based. Word based. So, there is a direct link with the belief of complementarian "ism" and how people perceive Jesus, Logos, The Word. Moreover, in this war over male and female position, not only is God's term "coheir" and exploration of the term and its heart being shunned as entirely unimportant to speak about, God's term, "coheir" and His kingdom is NOT being sought. "Coheir" is being rejected by both men AND women. Thus, we are not only losing but stunting our growth as the body of Christ and rejecting God's understanding that He wants us to understand and inherit.
Dude. The root word is complement not compliment. You looked up the wrong definition. And I would love to see the term coheir used more but that leans toward a more positional/identity emphasis whereas "complementarian" emphasizes roles. We should use both words.
Alisa I have a question that has not anything to do with this topic but has been troubling me. I am a Christian I believe in Jesus Christ, God and the Holy Spirit. I know Jesus died on the crosse for my sins. I’m not progressive or new age. But I have been struggling with everything that has been going on with the laws in regards to abortion. I don’t think there is any reason where an abortion is an option. But I’m struggling with our enforcing our beliefs on people that do not believe on what I do. God does not force himself on us ever!!! We are free to walk ourselves straight to hell. So why do we think we have the right to force what we believe when God doesn’t?
Easy answer. If you believe scripture about people having value and humanity before birth, the issue is protecting life,. Even libertarians are against murder.
I am a conservative in most things but when it comes to women in the Bible I am an egalitarian. I disagree with the opinions above. I have been reading the Bible since I was a small child and I feel there is evidence for both complementarianism and egalitarianism in the word of GOD
@@bmbmbm1 1 Timothy 2: 12 . I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man. NIV other translations say the same thing. The context is that Paul is instructing Timothy in how to govern the churches
@LB When a person is close minded meaning BLIND it is hard to see anything but what you want to see MR You can use the Bible to say ANYTHING Just cause you can manipulate the Bible does not mean You have the word of GOD THE DEVIL can manipulate the Bible as he is the liar from the start DO NOT USE GODS WORD TO PROVE IT IS OK FOR YOU TO BE THE CHOVINIST YOU ARE
@LB Paul is giving instructions to Timothy on how to run God's churches. When Paul is speaking on his own authority as a trustworthy servant of the Lord he says so. Fully credentialed Biblical scholars can be wrong. Some think that the Bible does not condemn homosexual activity. It doesn't take any training at all to see that it does. One highly respected, published fully accredited professor of Biblical studies is even an atheist because he rejects the possibility of anything supernatural including God. Bart Ehrman.
@LB Again quoting the Bible means NOTYHING as it can be interpreted many ways GO DO RESEARCH before you put your women hating nonsense on the internet Read some thing that does NOT agree with your nonsense I listened to many teachings that do not agree with me so before you spew your nonsense online go EDUCATE YOURSELF and do not waste your time writing to me I will not read anymore of that uneducated nonsense you put out hear
sounds ridiculous to me, especially if the complete vegetarian is a Christian. The original diet in the Book of Genesis Before the Flood fruits nuts and grains. Read Genesis 1 to 3 about. And Mankind wasn't given permission to eat meat by God until after the flood. If it really true that being a complete vegetarian leads to abuse which you can call sin then that means that God didn't have the perfect plan. We can reject this one out right without watching the video. The Bible tells us that the lion will eat straw like an ox. There isn't anything that's going to die in heaven. There's not going to McDonald's in heaven where you can buy a mcburger at. Animals die on this world because of sin and it becomes necessary to consume their flesh sometimes if you have nothing else to eat. But it is no way a bad thing to go vegetarian if you can afford to get the right foods. And have a proper diet. I like a lot of your videos though. Yeah there's some people who are into alternative religions new age and other Eastern religions Etc that are vegetarians, but we think that whatever someone does who's a vegetarian that's bad does not have to do with a healthy vegetarian diet itself but might have something to do with the religion they follow. Or the spirits that are inspiring them. Will know them by their fruits. You don't gather grapes from thistles do you? A vegetarian diet that's healthy has been shown to increase how long somebody lives. Eating a heavy meat diet will result in early death for many people.
Yahweh/Jesus CLEARLY considered women worth less than men. Not equal, but lesser. Leviticus 27:3-7: set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels; for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels[f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels.
ephesians 5:28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own body. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife. Ephesians5:31-32 A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. Kinda of sounds like equal value to me. Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband... Matthew 25:6 But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him. ' Revelation 19:6-8 ... for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready. Ever notice God always talks about the church in feminine terms. Luke 8:48 "Daughter" he said to her... Jesus called her daughter, good enough for me. With the exception of John the men were hiding in fear, it was the women at the foot of the cross. Job 1:8 ... Have you notice my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth-a man of complete integrity... Job 42:15... And their father put them into his will along with their brothers. If the man who God called the finest in the land saw his daughters equal to his sons, that says something.
@@jackiefout9302 I gave you a reference where women are valued lesser in real shekels - real worth in any culture, in any time. You gave me verses where it's kind-of we-can-infer equal treatment. A god can exist and call a male his "son" and a female his "daughter" and value the male more than the female. This is the Ancient Near East. Women were valued less THEN. Women are valued less there TODAY. What you are doing is called rationalization in the face of known facts.
Patriarchy was an outcome of the fall. That's proof it was not God's original intent or design for humankind. It is not God's model. The fact that it is in the Bible doesn't mean it is prescriptive. There are many things in the Bible that are descriptive.
I see egalitarianism as also Biblical. My wife and I are no longer two, but one. Gen 2:24, Matt 19:5, Mark 10:8, and Eph 5:31. We are to function as a single unit in submission to one another, under God.
@@padillas4357 No. Two becoming one does not undo the specific gender roles established in Scripture. Male leadership is the design. A woman does not have the authority to act a pastor.
The Human triad is to be a Loving Monarchy not an egalitarian trinity. The Monarch is superior in authority and responsibility. The comforter/helper is to demonstrate submission as the Spirit submits to the Father and works to bless the Son by teaching the bride to come to Jesus Christ and "obey everything I have commanded you". The son is to be fruitful and multiply, bringing into the family a bride and "the children the LORD has given me" to the glory of GOD the Father. Jesus said "the Father is greater than I" that doesn't mean a son or a wife is less "mankind," and the statement by Jesus does not negate the Divinity of Christ as the "GODKIND". The Son is always subordinate to the Father and so too the Comforter is always subordinate to the Father. The Son sends the Spirit in ministerial procession as He proceeded from the Father through the operation of the Son from the Father alone. The difference is that the Son is Begotten/generated without the Helper in the Divine triad, yet the Spirit proceeds from the Father's Substance alone (Eastern Orthodox) through the operation of the Logos (Eastern Catholic) this the statement by Rome that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is acceptable only as the Eastern Catholics affirm..Dual substantial procession would make the Son the transgender Mother of the Spirit which is insanity! Evangelicals and their divine"three co-equal" bros egalitarian trinity is nothing but spiritual feminism on steroids.
Ladies, as you can see Yahweh/Jesus clearly treated you like you were the man's property and possessions like his ox and donkey. Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." LOL
@@Julia29853 Women were PROPERTY. To be sold - by their own fathers - and bought by others. Exodus 21:7-8 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her."
Complementarianism is modern code word for Second Class status. IF this verse of the NEW Testament doesn't clearly show you your second class status in church, you have drunk the koolaid. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Women are not second class citizens. We are all made in the image of God and that is where our value comes from. We just have different roles in the church.
@@wiggydebates3944 Why are you guys responding to a troll? He isn't trying to understand the conversation or add anything, just throw shots at everyone. Do not feed the trolls!
THE STRANGER WHO CAME TO LIVE WITH US By Ken Raggio A few months after I was born, my parents heard of a stranger who had just come to town. They heard lots of fascinating stories about him. He was the talk of the town. One day, someone introduced him to my parents, and they invited him to come to our home. All of us quickly fell in love with him and, believe it or not, they invited him to come live with us permanently. Instantly, he became a huge part of all our lives. Since he was already living with us when I started growing up, I never questioned his place in our home, or in our family. We were Church-going people. We read our Bibles, and prayed about important things. We believed in obeying and living by the Word of God. We believed that the Bible should define all our values and beliefs. But the stranger was a big storyteller. He never ran out of stories to tell. Every day, he had something new. Adventure stories. Mysteries. Comedy. Old cowboy stories. Romance stories. You name it, he had a story for everything. We spent hours, almost every evening, listening spellbound to the stranger as he told us his stories. As our family grew, the stranger became an intimate friend to us all. We actually listened to him a lot more than we listened to each other. As long as he was in the room, we almost never talked to each other. He took us to our first major league baseball game. He took us to almost every movie that came out of Hollywood. He introduced us to all the famous movie stars, all the celebrity singers and dancers. Thanks to the stranger, we learned about so many people and things that we would never have known without him. People that we really didn't need to know. He was an incessant talker. Sometimes, Daddy or Mother would get tired of listening to his stories, and leave the room, while us kids just sat there and continued listening, all the way till bedtime. Then we begged them to let us stay up late so we could hear some more stories. I wondered if they ever regretted letting him move in with us. I think we probably would have had a lot more time with each other if he hadn't been around. I feel sure that we would have read the Bible and prayed and talked a lot more about good and Godly things if he hadn't been there. The really bad thing about the stranger is that he never had the same values that my family did. Daddy and Mother were both God-fearing, Bible-reading, Church-going people. They both ruled our household with certain moral convictions. But this stranger never showed any respect to our values whatsoever. For example, I never heard my parents use one word of profanity. Bad words were just not allowed in our house. And they would not allow us to make friends with people who talked like that. But our longtime visitor gradually started using bad language. At first, it was pretty rare - just an occasional four-letter word. But it burned our ears and made us all squirm. Every now and then, they would make him shut up, but as time passed, he became bolder and bolder to say things and talk about things that were really taboo - things that none of us would have been allowed to discuss. His language got worse and worse and worse. All our family and friends were teetotalers. We did not approve of or allow alcoholic drinks EVER in our household. But the stranger did everything he could to show us that drinking was cool. Almost every day, he would tell us stories about people drinking, and smoking, doing drugs, gambling, and committing crimes, and doing immoral things. And almost every time, he made it look like there was nothing wrong with it. He made it look like all those things were perfectly normal for everybody. He tried to persuade us to buy beer, cigarettes, and do all kinds of things that we didn't believe in. He made a hard sell, too. He always made them look like we would really enjoy them, and that we would be more popular and fit into the crowd. And then there was the subject of sex. Our family NEVER discussed sex, but the stranger talked about it all the time. He talked way too freely about it. It was embarrassing. Sometimes, his comments were so blatant and offensive that every one of us blushed, but nobody told him to shut up. He just kept talking, and we just kept on listening. A whole lot of my earliest ideas about love and sex came from him. Unfortunately, everything he taught us was EXACTLY the opposite of what we were told at Church, and what we read in the Bible. If we hadn't gone to Church and read the Bible, the stranger would have made us completely different kind of people than we were. As I look back, I know that it was a miracle from God that the stranger did not influence us more than he did. I know that it was because we always heard strong preaching at Church that refuted all the stranger's values. But I have no doubt that our minds were still affected negatively by his relentless arguments. It did not make any sense for us to allow him to continue living in our house, but he did. He was rarely rebuked, and was never asked to leave. I am sure that he made me think and believe a lot of things that I would never have accepted if he had not been there day-in and day-out. A lifetime has passed since the stranger moved in with our young family. He is much older, and his stories by now have been told all over the world. Everybody knows him by name. The worst part is that the stranger has turned into a really dirty old man. His mouth is so foul, nowadays. He never stops using the most obscene, profane language. And he never stops talking about sex, and violence, and immoral things. It is appalling and horrifying. Hour after hour, he just rants and raves and spouts off all his filthy talk. He constantly shows pictures of things we shouldn't even be looking at. Even his rants about politics and religion are hateful, irrational, and intolerable. Every day, he fills the ears of his listeners with all kinds of downright lies. He really sounds like he works for a tyrannical dictator. And now, he argues non-stop that we should approve things like homosexuality, and drugs, and all kinds of immorality and perversions. He spends an awful lot of time trying to convince us that there is no God. I've come to believe that he is actually working for the devil himself. The last time I heard him on a rant, I was utterly shocked. He made me feel completely vile. I decided that I simply do not want to listen to his garbage any more. I made up my mind that from now on, I am treating him like the enemy that he really is. Oh, I never mentioned his name. We just called him "T.V."
This type of vid drives me crazy, but it is not the only one. The lack of education of so-called well educated people in ministerial or theological pronouncements leadership positions is appalling. No one, repeat no one should be making their theological ideas known in books or subscribed to vids unless they have at minimum at least a knowledge of Greek or Hebrew that is well above the intro word study level. Plus at least a a level that can compare Josephus and other early historic cultural commentary to the Biblical text. What nonsense to try and make any intelligent comment without some mature understanding. (while an interesting vid that I could mainly agree with it was gobby gook for the most part in its scholarship. Ie. how do explain the Samaritan woman was able to debate Jesus theologically, has a bunch of town elders follow her to see what Jesus was saying, has jesus stay in her town and then about 30 years later the Roman army has to send a force into her town because there are so many Christians the remaining jews are upset)
So important to talk about this issue! I love how both highlight that our faith is not based on sociology, it's based on Scripture, so true!
Hi Ms. Childers, I am at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School writing a dissertation on the reception history of Rom 16:7 and Junia. The information you and Ms. Williams have presented on Rom 16:7 in this interview is not accurate.
17:00 -- "John Chrysostom and his contemporaries talked about this and thought [Junia] was a masculine name" -- This is false. John Chrysostom very specifically said Junia was a woman, and he certainly had no contemporaries who said it was masculine. Rufinus' translation of Origen used the nominative feminine singular twice out of five mentions. Theodoret used the accusative feminine singular, which could theoretically be masculine or feminine, but considering that the name "Iunias" was completely unattested at that point in time, there's no reason to think he meant the masculine. Also, Theodoret is clearly aware of and echoing Chrysostom, so he would seem to have a woman in mind. Jerome used the nominative feminine in his entry for the name ("Iunia") in his Book of Hebrew Names. He used "Priscus" instead of "Prisca" in one or two places, "Priscilla" or "Prisca" in the others, so had he thought "Iunia" could be masculine, it seems more likely he would have written "Iunius." Ambrosiaster used only the accusative, again, at a time when the masculine form was unattested, but he immediately references the "kinswoman" Elizabeth, indicating that he probably sees a woman in the text.
You may have had in mind Epiphanius, but Epiphanius never commented on Junia. The document in question, the *Index Discipulorum,* was not written by Epiphanius; it is a later, 6th-century document, and it is the earliest attestation of the masculine. It also says Priscilla was a man and has many other inaccuracies. I'll be arguing in my dissertation (and at ETS in the fall) that internal evidence from the document shows the author was well-aware Junia and Priscilla were women and switched their names to masculine on purpose, to fill out his list.
17:49 -- "Grammatically, the sex of that person, it could go either way" -- Untrue. We have hundreds of attestations of the feminine in antiquity and zero attestations of the masculine. I understand that Al Wolters and Esther Ng have introduced complicated arguments for how it could be a rare Hebrew masculine name (actually, Wolters admits it could be a Hebrew feminine name; people always seem to ignore that in his paper), and I will be addressing these arguments in my dissertation, but when one side has church fathers and hundreds of attestations while the other has theorycraft and guesswork, and a late 6th century source that also says Priscilla is a man, I would call that a "slam dunk."
18:16 -- "We know who the apostles were. They were the Twelve." -- More like the Twelve, Paul (who clearly doesn't number himself among the Twelve), Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), Silvanus (1 Th. 2:6, cf. 1:1), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19, cf. 1 Cor. 15:7), and yes, Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7). Also, Paul talks about his troubles with counterfeit apostles; he could not have been having so much trouble with false apostles had there only been twelve. Finally, there are numerous references in the early church to there being more apostles than Twelve. But there is no doubt that an interpretation of "only Paul and the Twelve" eventually became the dominant interpretation in church history; I believe this is part of the reason the "well-known to the apostles" interpretation/translation came into its own, and not simply misogyny towards a female apostle.
As far as whether or not Andronicus and Junia were merely "well-known to the apostles," Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret all clearly took the passage inclusively from a grammatical standpoint. This is especially devastating in the case of Origen, who seems to want to read the passage exclusively but does so with allegory; did he not see a grammatical path? Ambrosiaster is ambiguous but arguably inclusive. I do not know yet when the exclusive reading actually entered the history of biblical interpretation (it was around by Beza), but it appears to be very late.
Female apostles are attested in some other sources in church history, which I'll be discussing in my dissertation. I'll also be presenting on this at ETS in November.
You say several times that the matter is very complicated; it's actually surprisingly simple, and has only been made complicated by people who do not like what the record from church history has to say on the matter.
I hope these sources from church history assist you with your quest for historic Christianity! :-)
@LB It is always my pleasure to combat misinformation on Junia.
Thank you Bridget. How does one contact you over this important subject? Thank you
What a timely discussion! I just joined a new engineering firm and attended an internal Women in Engineering meeting today. I was saddened to hear so many women lament the low retention of women in engineering, as if the demographic disparity, which is more a function of the different ways women and men are designed than systemic sexism, was some evil to vanquish. I have no idea how to relate to someone bemoaning being asked more often than the men to send out project communication because she happens to be a better communicator. Somehow, using a special skill is now a chore to be derided as less valuable because it's not engineering or design. I'm an excellent communicator, and I love being asked to use that talent!
Most of all, I hate being characterized as a female engineer. I'm just an engineer who happens to be a woman. That's it! It's not like we add special titles to engineers who also happen to be tall. "And that's Joe, our resident tall engineer." Absurd!
P.S. Love the Mike Winger plug. He's easily my favorite online bible scholar, and I am LOVING his series on women in ministry. (I love all of his series, though.)
SO good. You ladies did such a wonderful, loving and thoughtful way of walking through this. I wish I could articulate this well, lol. Thank you both for your ministries and for being good “Bereans”.
This is a wonderful discussion. I have been reexamining what I believe on this topic and you both examine biblical truth in such a thoughtful way.
I am curious: how do you account for female apostles like Juno’s and Phoebe?
Loved this conversation! God bless you both.
Excellence again from Alisa! Terrific guest, amazing thoughtful discussion. I appreciate there bringing complex discussions down to everyday language. Great to know people are so knowledgeable and so generous with it. So relatable and down to earth with great wisdom and learning. These women of God seem to have it all.
I think Mike does an excellent job in his series. I think the main misunderstanding is assuming that if you’re complimentarian that automatically means women should submit to all men.
False.
Authority is parental, then in marriage. Some random man in the church does not had authority over me.
@Prey R And in your job, and to your government authorities, and if you live in a HOA …. Actually the list goes on and on. What most women bristle at, however, is their submission to their husbands. Buffet Christianity is quite popular today.
Disagree woman should respect mens authority In church and work and anything else like that
@@jaco7675 the distinction is that in those circumstances, authority isn’t inherently male over female. It’s positional authority, not sex based authority. Those individuals have just as much authority over the men as the women.
And If my boss at work wants to go in a direction I oppose, I can quit my job.
@@DogDocLou I agree. Both women and men are called to subject themselves to those in authority over them. But it is a falsity to suggest that women, (as a group, or individually) are supposed to submit to ALL men, categorically. That would be a complete misunderstanding of Biblical intentions.
Submission not only has to do with having or not authority over you. It is a matter of character. Is humility.
HUMBLE: reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission. (Merriam-Webster)
Having authority over you not necessarily means that you will be nulified or that men can do what they want with you. It means that you respect them and their leadership.
This was a fabulous interview. Weighty subject with meaty content. I would love to hear more discussions between you both. Dianna, you need your own podcast too. Such depth from you. TY!
Wow!
I have so many huge takeaways!
And both of these women!!
Well spoken, intelligent, humble, thoughtful, empowering!!
Thank you both so much!!
My twin sis is AMAZING!! Awesome job Di. 💚💚💚
I love this comment! I'm a twin as well and my twins biggest fan. I love this discussion and I will send it to her 😊
@@annieharrison851 awesome Annie! 😇
You are both amazing!! Well done Di!!
This is fantastic! Thank you ladies
We also need to ask men to step up! In many churches women are doing more ministry than men. They do more work. Men step up!
I agree, what you're referring to is called a RESPONSE vs a REACTION, responses flow out of lives controlled by the Holy Spirit, which bears testimony to Christ's sacrificial response to OUR sin. I believe the majority of the sin we're looking at today is the rotten fruit of women's sinful REACTION to thousands of years of abuse & subjugation by men, unfortunately what I see in the Church, instead of men stepping up in RESPONSE, is a sinful REACTION being led by "men" like Jesse Lee Peterson, and others whose lives are controlled by fear, hatred & pride instead of God's Spirit. I pray that God would strengthen REAL MEN in the Church & teach them how to RESPOND, so they might lead in BOTH Truth AND Love, because one without the other is neither & only capable of reproducing in the world the LIE they represent.
I enjoyed this conversation. Your explanation of what submission looks like is critical for all of us to understand. I'll be looking for everything you've written.
What an amazing conversation, may God bless you both!
Very well explained video & topic ladies. God bless you both your family, & ministries always
Thank you for your thoughtful discussion on this topic. I know you had Dr. Groothuis on your show previously. His late wife wrote on egalitarianism and supported her conclusions from the Biblical text. It may be interesting to have his perspective on your show.
Mike winger analysed Dr Groothuis' work I think in the second video of his women in ministry series. Will be worth checking it out .
Agreed. Prior to the Fall, there was no "authority" of man over woman, of any kind. They were one and shared equal dominion and authority. After the Fall God pronounced the curses. To the woman it was "man will rule over you". No such thing existed until then. The greatest atrocity today is poor teaching on this which leads to a ton of abuse. Add to that the suppression of woman called to ministry in all aspects as men. It is demonic doctrine at it's finest. And, pretty easy to prove - IF you want to to see the truth.
Sadly, I have to unsubscribe to this channel as it does not teach truth.
@@peegee681 Mike Winger is questionable.
Mike Winger is very reliable as he is super committed to rightly interpreting the Bible.
@@StandUp777 That’s an understatement.
Thank you both for covering this issue so very well...in a Biblical, kind and with exceptional scholarly content! May the Lord bless you both!
Phenomenal. Does Dianna have any online writing, videos, etc.? She brrrrrought it!! Quick question: How do you ladies think *Paul* defines subordination/submission? Such an excellent point about reading our modern definitions into terms, making them seem "straightforward" to us!
Alisa, I would love if you would do an interview with Noelle Mering regarding her book Awake Not Woke in which she tackles the deception of and our cultures acceptance of "woke" ideologies. She is Catholic and I've watched interviews done with her lead by other Catholics, but I would very much love to hear an interview with her lead by a more protestant interviewer such as yourself. Thank you so much for all you do!
Your book is fantastic! On the 9th chapter totally recommend it.
I wish y’all would explain what you think all these terms mean.
Excellent discussion! Thank you for clearly explaining God's Word.
Oooohhh I can’t wait!!!!
I'm watching the Mike Winger series! Great stuff, both of you.
Me too
Just so you know, you are not getting accurate information about those of us from historically egalitarian denominations. As a Pentecostal, I find his resources strange. His arguments are misleading and more like a straw man argument. Some of us have tried to correct him, but he is still not using resources that we would recommend.
@@padillas4357 He’s great at gas-lighting when you bring up your objections.
@@padillas4357 💯 agree.
@@PM-hh9ur Yes, I have experienced that. I am so disappointed with him. I have quit listening to him for the most part, and cut back on almost all of them from Calvary Chapel. The only one I halfway respect is J. D. Farag.
Another great conversation that brings information, education about the Bible.
This was an enjoyable discussion! Thank you both. Dianne’s point about how the author used modern terms and applied or implied those on history is a great point. It is actually a poor way of interpreting history and not the method of this discipline. Historians who seek to understand history from a perspective that is not diabolical or anachronistic avoid this. Historians usually learn this in the intro class that they take to the discipline at every academic level. Moreover, honest historians would not take the actions from people in the middle ages and apply them to the historical context in which Paul was writing. If she wanted to dive into the historical context of scripture (which is what she sort of purports on the cover of her book), she would have done a historical review of the Jewish and Roman culture leading up to and during the time when the scripture in question was written. She kept jumping a hundred years one way and a hundred years the other way as if it were all the same. That is not an historical interpretation with any integrity.
Great discussion. So many good things both of them have mentioned. I hope people will watch and think and read scripture. ^^
It doesn't CAUSE it but it can, and sadly often DOES contribute.
The Bible is a theological book but it is ALSO a historical and sociological book which means to be read in the context of the times it was written for and to.
It is so obvious that both Alisa and Dianna are "soft" complementarians, and therefore are having a hard time giving an objective critique of Barr's book. Unfortunately, it is human nature to go out of our way to be less generous (than we would normally be) when trying to understand and critique someone with who's views we don't agree in general. It seems that they are almost going out of their way to misunderstand and misinterpret her.
Excellent content. I'm learning a lot. I'm confused about something, though. It seems like you (Alisa) were saying toward the beginning that the early Church fathers had a few issues. Then, around the 43.10 mark, you're saying that what they wrote was God-breathed. Would you please explain further what you mean? Peter seems to say that Paul is kind of hard to understand, so there might have been confusion for hearers when they heard Paul, even back then. There were disagreements between the early Church fathers, too. Is that what you are meaning in the earlier comment?
I don't know the book or the author you are discussing but I must mention some blatant errors in your comments. First of all, Dianna said there were only the 12 apostles. That is patently false. Paul, Barnabas, James the brother of Jesus, Silvanus, Timothy, and many others are also identified as apostles. Second, The idea that Junia was actually Junias is arbitrary at best. The overwhelming manuscript evidence supports that it is the female name Junia. 3rd, the idea that the text implies that Andronicus and Junia were known 'to' the apostles as opposed to 'among' the apostles is also a very weak argument. The natural reading and the manuscript evidence suggests that they were in fact apostles in the same sense as Paul, James, Barnabas, Timothy, etc. And finally, you made the implication that the egalitarian view either is or leans toward progressivism. While progressives are egalitarian for feminist reasons, The Nazarene church and other holiness churches have been ordaining women for well over a hundred years and for biblical reasons, not societal reasons. There is nothing progressive in John Wesley's teachings despite the fact that he included women in ministry. While progressives are egalitarian, it is not evidence of progressivism but rather incidental.
Dianna used the same tactic she accused Dr Barr of using. Bait and switch - there are 12 Apostles (men who were chosen by Jesus as his primary disciples). There are other apostles, some true, some false (2 Cor 11:13) which you mention above.
Very, very good. Thank you
Great conversation.
My husband is a pastor, paid ministry. He says all the time it’s not my job to work the field alone. It’s my job to teach and equip the saints to develop disciples. Bible illiteracy is a huge issue! And we are always fighting against it with love and education. We had the same issue when my husband was the youth and children pastor. It was like and we heard comments about how it was my husbands job to teach the kids only. We watched parents abdicate their roles as primary spiritual leaders and teacher of their children. And wonder why youth don’t stay in the church. They were never in the church. The children were always separate as soon as they could do nursery. Sigh. There’s nothing wrong with programs in themselves. But if their parents don’t do Christian life at home and do the deeper life with Christ at home… why would they stay when they are suddenly expected to sit in with a group of people they don’t know. A service they don’t know. They haven’t practised.
I would also say men use the title complimentarianism to hide behind to abuse. As I live in a matriarchal society. And my husband is apart of a mens group and and they are severely abused by some of the women. All people are capable of horrible things. Either side.
QUESTION: How would you say women should respectfully push back when needed? I have seen some bullying by male church leader and it’s accepted. I think this behavior needs to be addressed. Or it can lead to sin. Of which we have seen lately.
when your brother sins against you, you go to him and tell him. Matthew 18. When someone who is in authority over you sins against you, you still submit (as long as he's not asking you to sin) and know that God is willing and able to fight the battle for you. Jesus submitted to sinful Pilate because his authority was from above. If sinless Jesus could submit to sinful man, then we can do the same. We can entrust ourselves to Him who judges rightly. 1 Peter 2 and 3
@@sallyapokedak4079 You are confusing Jesus' mission on earth, in His submission to Pilate to the submission of women being bullied. Jesus would never expect you to be submit to bullying and and enable the one doing the bullying/sinning.
@@LT-cy3uj So though Jesus submitted to sinful men who had God-give authority, we ought not take up our crosses and follow him? We ought to rebel against God-give authority? What do you do with 1 Peter 3:1 which tells us to submit in like manner---the same way Christ submitted? Without a word. Entrusting himself to him who judges rightly.
If you want to fight your own Bibles go for it. I'll entrust myself to God.
There were female leaders in Scripture....
Deborah, Judges 4:4;
Priscilla, Romans 16:3;
Miriam, Micah 6:4;
Romans 16:1, Phoebe, a deacon
@LB According to 1 Peter all believers are a royal priesthood. So the pastor cannot be considered to be "the priest" in christianity.
Also The women in the old testament were prophets, a rank that allows you do give sacrifices to the Lord (like in the book of samuel), guide the whole people of God and tell them what they should do according to what God himself told them. They were also able to identify what is or is not the word of God like in the case of Huldah. So even back then the distinction you are making between priests and others people called by God to lead was not always that set in stone.
Finally I would add that the people of Israel did not look at the priests as the go to to be led. It was always the prophets that were the leader of the people when it came to following God, and that is a category we see several women in the bible fit into (Deborah, Miriam, Huldah).
@LB Unfortunately when it comes to that kind of conversations people will often argue against an argument that they can refute but that no one was making in the first place. I don't think Mike Winger does it on purpose (contrary to some people who definitely rely on this as a strategy), but it does muddy the waters and lead people to wrongful conclusions.
@LB Regarding why there were only male Priests the text does not give any indications so any theory about that will only be speculation that cannot be verified.
Maybe it's to avoid sexual misconduct in the sanctuary? Or maybe the priests were a stand-ins for Jesus specifically because he is our high priest? Honestly without any data in the text one can just make up any explanation they want.
One thing that we cannot do though is to make conclusions that contradicts the character of God and the actions we see Him accomplish elsewhere in scriptures. Since God definitely does appoint women as leaders over his people the reason why there is no female priest cannot be because God doesn't want women in position of authority.
@@alexmarysaint2523 If you read the comments of his posts, then you will see that there are some of us who come from historically egalitarian denominations that attempt to correct him. We have suggested resources, but he continues to misrepresent our position.
If someone wants to argue that complementarianism leads to domestic abuse, we can argue that egalitarianism leads to skyrocketing divorce rates and broken homes, which leads to decreased academic performance, and to increased crime rates.
OR we can both be more intelligent than that and blame those issues on the sinfulness of mankind.
I’m sorry, that’s just a cop out. You should consider the idea that there are serious doctrinal and religious dogmas that create at atmosphere in which domestic violence is more likely. Evil is an intelligent force and does not come out of thin air. It is rooted in ideology and a certain rationale.
@@AnonymousC-lm6tc "All the problems in the world are because you don't think like me."
Expet you will have zero data to prove your point while we can prove ours with pure common sense
@@farahjichi4617 😂🤣😂🤣😂 You think you have common sense? We're living in the most egalitarian society to ever exist on this planet, and look at the rates of divorce, of suicide, of crime, of homelessness. Look at the broken homes and failing schools. You've got your head so deep in the sand (I'm being generous), because you refuse to see. You wouldn't know common sense if it slapped you in the face.
Thank you, sweet sister's🙏✝️🌻
This book was great! 🔥 I love our beliefs being challenged!
Excellent discussion.🙏
Isn’t it sad that we know about Jesus from reading the Bible but we don’t want to search it like the Bereans in order to live like and believe what He wants. We live our lives on the words of others, the inflections of a teacher reading something, or subtly adding to a passage.
Thank you for explaining the lack of verses etc and that Paul was preaching a sermon which is in the Bible. These aren’t only his words but God’s. What does God want me to know needs to be prayed and asked.
Great podcast!
I enjoyed this talk, however, I don't think you finished addressing "what does Paul actually mean in Eph. 5:22"
I thought you would, but then you skipped over to I Cor.
The term is "presentism" and is used by current historical revisionists to take current cultural influences and praxis and apply it to biblical era and culture.
Unfortunately, you both are mistaken in your understanding of what complementarians teach about Headship and Submission. If you read the Danvers statement, the founding document of complementarianism, and listen Dr. Wayne Grudem tell you what he means by Headship and Submission you will discover it is not biblical, but by head, he means authority, and by submit, he means “to rank under” in a role of perpetual hierarchy, none, absolutely none of which is biblical if you know the Word of God!
And Dr. Wayne Grudem has taught countless students in seminary for decades!
Some do teach women are inferior but they distort Scripture to arrive at that.
@LB You missed the point of Esther. God was behind her ascension to save his covenant people. Nothing to do with her pleasing body. Women preached the gospel, supported the ministry, Philip prophesied and prayed publicly in church. As the video clearly stated Paul said in Christ there is neither male nor female, they are equal in value as God is the Head of Christ, subordinate in role as Mediator but equal in essence as God. I suggest going in depth into what Scripture says about it as the culture imposes its views onto the text as the video brings out well.
@LB I totally get where you’re coming from. That overall - even with passages like Galatians 3:28 - in practice, the Bible overwhelmingly places more emphasis on the role of men than women.
But why is this a faith-shaker? Could you elaborate on that?
Women are not called out as leaders in the new testament but they were definitely acknowledged as prominent contributors to accomodating and supporting the spread of the gospel.
Complementarianism wrecked and I mean wrecked my family. My dad’s dad was a head of household type of man. Never met him but my uncle said that he was identical to my dad. My dad ended up having a personality disorder. My papa (mom’s dad) was a traditional man as head of household. He was abusive toward my mom and her mom never stopped him. Between her dad and the way my dad treated her she left and now here I be taking care of my sibling with a disability whom I love. A good tree doesn’t bare bad fruit. If you look at what the early church Father’s say about junia it’s very clear that she is an apostle. And you both are teaching and if the the body of Christ is considered to be the biblical church, then you are preaching in church and I’m sure men are listening. But in Romans 16 but paul mentions a woman being like a mother to him…moms teach…when we put our focus on who’s doing the teaching and what gender they are we miss the point. The point is Jesus. I don’t think that Jesus would stop a woman from teaching a biblically solid sermon. Remember this…Christianity started when Jesus revealed Himself as our risen Lord to 2 women who then went and told the other apostles that He is risen. They were the apostles to the apostles
Hi Alissa great show on Complimentalism and Egalitarianism . The insights are good but my question is does the Holy word of God take preeminence in our changing Culture. We did write the bible but God our has given us instructions to live by .
You never discussed what 1 Co said, what it meant! So what did Paul mean. It would have been nice to hear your input! So what do you think?
WHAT LEADS TO ABUSE IS SIN. A man who is controlled by the Holy Spirit will never abuse a woman.
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23 NIV)
I want to know this:
Why does Paul call Jesus' brother James an apostle...Jesus' brother James is not one of the 12? Galatians 1:19
Also, what is the spiritual gift of apostleship?
🤔🤔🤔
I'm not trying to be argumentative. This confuses me!
Paul also was not one of the 12. There were the twelve, but there were also other apostles. James (apparently) didn't believe in Jesus until after His resurrection. But once he believed, he went to tell others. I think "apostle" is intended to mean something like "missionary". There may be more to it than that, since apostle refers to "one who is sent".
Amazing video
There’s soo many Christian books, yet the Bible remains fresh terrain for many
Complementarism protects women and civilizes men. If it is anti anything, it is anti passive men not sacrificially leading at home and in the church.
@vociferous777 Women civilize men and men protect women. This is a basic construct of God's design for the family unit. Men are stronger and more aggressive, which when used in the Spirit, will protect women. Women have the power to tame men and keep them from being too wild. I know I sit up a little straighter when my wife is around. 🙂
@@charleschi843 So you subscribe to the theory of evolution then? Because this is where the idea that women needs males to protect them and male allows themselves to be "tamed" in order to have a mate actually comes from.
Not to mention that it puts the responsibility of men's action on women. That is definitely not a biblical teaching. In the bible everyone will have to give an account for their own words and actions. Nowhere does it says that women are the ones bearing responsibility for men's actions.
@vociferous777 Really good point. When a woman abuses a man, they are sinning and they should face justice.
@vociferous777 The Bible is not clear on women abusing men, yet you even stated that it can happen. There is no reference to this but we know it can happen as a result of the fall. Not every observable truth is listed in the Bible. Ephesians 5 is a great starting place for the role of men and women in marriage. The role of men sacrificially leading means laying down their personal agenda to literally love their wife like Christ loves the Church. A husband should be wiling to die to protect his wife. This is a profound example with high expectations.
@@alexmarysaint2523 I never said that women are responsible for men's actions. I do not subscribe to the false theory of evolution as well. Women are beneficial to men. That is not the same as "responsible for".
QUESTION: What would you say about the view that Jesus was welcoming to women but there is evidence that after Jesus the church fathers and later Paul were less welcoming to women I this church?
The scripture verify that while some of Jesus' most faithful followers were women, the only ppl that received authority from Him to preach were men(Matt. 10:1-7, Mar. 3:13-19, Luk. 9:1-2, Acts 10:40-42). There is simply no biblical basis for women being pastors, especially because they all teach terrible theology.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 What was the terrible theology that Priscilla (and Aquila) taught Apollos for which Paul singled her out for praise? What was the terrible theology that Lois and Eunice who influenced Timothy played a role in setting up the early church? What was this terrible theology espoused by these women that Paul was applauding. SOME women teach terrible theology. so as SOME men teach terrible theology. "They ALL teach terrible theology". Substantiate your claim.
Complementarianism leads to other systemic problems which honestly are nothing more than discrimination against single-individuals, not just "women" or abusing "women" As someone who went to a complementarian church more than once I can honestly say it without a doubt what happens: de-valuing singles and their giftings (particularly teaching anything in some ultra-conservative places-- such as the inability to lead a small group even), devaluing infertile couples (literally), and yes devaluing women as well. This can come in a variety of ways from snide remarks to sometimes outright accusing people of things that are simply not true (you are greedy because you are in college--- wait what?!). Women who are married in these communities oftentimes frown down upon anyone who is single (maybe it is from jealousy?) I'm not sure which, but comments like "I didn't know anything until i was married!" or "my marriage has made me mature in christ," are two VERY obvious examples of an "us vs them," verse saying something like "god has used my marriage to show me some of my flaws," or a leader responding with "yes god can use many things in our lives," vs just sitting there and being like "oh yes that is sooo good!" in front of a ton of singles..like give me a break. Sorry but someone can mature in Christ without being married. Everyone's lives are different and valuable. With the overwhelming majority of churches facing a man-exit crisis, they need to rethink things concerning "man and women's roles" in church. I can understand wanting the senior pastor to be male (quite frankly just because many men will fail to listen to women) BUT past that? No way. People who are married are no better than those who are not, yet in the church that is clearly what is seen in these complementarian spaces. I've seen women also give up good careers because their husbands told them they must "submit" and do that. Or "asking permission" to work a part time job. Also the expectation of women to have children is absurd in some of these circles. What happens then is once a woman hits around 27 she is no longer valued in the community and seen as "an old hag or spinster." I'm not making this up. Look at complementarian churches and how many single women there are over 27 (doesn't matter if they are Christian or not, or have been for decades-- you are now "too old to breed."). The men however, continue to date women half their age for breeding purposes. So yes, it does lead to abuse. If a woman is seen as an object, it is abusive.
Paul seems to value the organizer, the teacher, one who donates money and all other roles as of equal value. All are needed. Some of them are women
Diana's amazing 🤩
The 'resitance' narrative that Beth Barr paints reveals her lack of understanding of sound theology. Romans was not written to the government or to pagans, but to the saints living in Rome. Furthermore Timothy was not written to the Romans at all so to assert that Paul's letter to the Roman's exists in some special category that permits you to assume Paul's intentions without addressing the text consistently is absurd.
Beautiful!! 😍
Saying something leads to abuse requires examples, explaination and a solution to the problem that works for people who believe in it
2 Peter 1: 19 - 21
Jeremiah 23: 23 - 24
I'm not sure I am following the argument of this video. Around the 45 min mark, Diana argues that we should not use "resistance to the culture" as a hermeneutic in St. Paul's writings. But the larger argument of this video, and Alisa's other enjoyable videos, is about resistance to the culture - resisting Critical Race Theory, or resisting the gender fluid movement, etc. If we're about resisting the culture in our context today in the name of Christ, why shouldn't we see St. Paul as resisting the culture of his day in the name of Christ? It seems to me that Alisa's message has been a strong, encouraging message of resistance, and I'm disheartened that this video wants to suggest that resistance to a culture contrary to Christ is not part of the Bible's story. As Alisa says shortly after, little is more counter-cultural than Jesus!
Please define feminism. From that, why do you think there is such a thing called feminism? What caused feminism? Why would women want to be identified as a feminist?
It was good to hear Mike Winger's series on Women in Ministry plugged.
The bible is fundamentally a theological text, not an activiist text, and so activist hermeneutics aren't necessarily the best way to understand God and scripture. 20th century feminism cannot be used a hermeneutic for a 1st century religious text
I don’t understand-aren’t you both teachers?
Right now they are women who are actually teaching but arguing against women teaching 😂😂😂😂
Not only teachers, but leaders who have a lot of influence in the evangelical sphere, especially Alisa. If they were able to be intelectually honest about that... But instead they have to downplay that and keep evangelical patriarchy system happy in order to keep their legitimacy and not to be seen as rebellious feminist false teachers.
If interested in historical Christianity then check out David bercot!!
contemplementarianism is false doctrine - not found in the Bible
the Bible says women can teach and preach. just as men. men have to submit to women just as much as women to 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.
different but equal in value; can do the same, but do not have to. If the words are an insurmountable stumbling block, we can agree to find the ethically superior.
Different but equal... Now where have I heard that before...
@@geekygecko1849 Where have you heard that before?
@@discoveringthegardenofeden7882 back when we thought it was ok to segregate black people
@@geekygecko1849 Hah. Incredible. Well. No one thinks that anymore, except... of course... the extreme left like Kindi, or self proclaimed racist and race baiter Robin D'Angelo... and the leftist branch of the education department of America, creating safe spaces and segregated dormitories for different grades of melanin.
These supposed do-gooders, in their lack of wisdom, are recreating that same hell for different reasons, to be anti-racist. (If they knew Greek, they could have saved themselves the trouble, cos the affix 'anti-' in Greek not only signifies against / opposite, but also 'to come in the place of something' / replacement) ... but we won't let them.
Meanwhile, in this context, one would have to be a strange kind of weird to use this sentence as a call or excuse to segregate woman from men in a Christian context. It's fine. Women and men are different and equal in value. This is biblical, and remains true.
"Can do the same but do not have to" is in real life can do the same but women are not allowed to.
Check out Sandra Ritcher, women in ministry. The 1 Corinthians 14, are believed to be notes on the side. Paul never spoke about the law. So it is believed that he is making a comment on how this is not right. Read the passages before and after. See that there is not a continuum. Then continue and see the both brothers and sisters prophecy etc. Her argument is like this other lady that you are talking about and it actually comes from a male scholar. Anyway is not stretching at all on this.
Same with Ephesians, you need to look at its entirety and not just a few verses. The submit each other is for marriage not some random comment that Paul wrote for the rest of humanity especially being before the sentence of wives and men.
Some content is explaining away things in a flippant way that fails to recognize the rationale behind deconstruction (which means something different in different circles). We can't be so fearful of truly dissecting things we have been taught and truly evaluating them in the original context to who they were written. Having lived in an abusive relationship for 14 years, I don't think complementarianism leads to abuse, I do think cover up language in truly egalitarian views and calling themselves complementarian promotes abuse. I think purity culture that still exists in marital teaching promotes marital rape and sexual abuse. And I do believe sin causes abuse and we as believers are called to fight for the oppressed and marginalized. For those who disagree, fine, Jesus dwells with us in those margins.
Today's Church has fallen into the unbiblical 'requirements' for Church leaders both for men and women. Academia is now a primary factor for credible leadership rather than solid Biblical knowledge and adherence to it in teaching it, preaching it, and living it and making it the foundation for the world view that leads to obedience to Biblical truth even when it goes against personal or social view points
Honestly, I am tired of the term "complementarianism" at all. Compliments are great and ought not to be shunned or rejected. However, the very nature of the word and its root, or heart, "compliment" suggests the spare usage of such commentary so that its value can remain intact and memorable and venerated. Compliments are verbal or logos based. Word based. So, there is a direct link with the belief of complementarian "ism" and how people perceive Jesus, Logos, The Word. Moreover, in this war over male and female position, not only is God's term "coheir" and exploration of the term and its heart being shunned as entirely unimportant to speak about, God's term, "coheir" and His kingdom is NOT being sought. "Coheir" is being rejected by both men AND women. Thus, we are not only losing but stunting our growth as the body of Christ and rejecting God's understanding that He wants us to understand and inherit.
Dude. The root word is complement not compliment. You looked up the wrong definition.
And I would love to see the term coheir used more but that leans toward a more positional/identity emphasis whereas "complementarian" emphasizes roles. We should use both words.
Alisa I have a question that has not anything to do with this topic but has been troubling me. I am a Christian I believe in Jesus Christ, God and the Holy Spirit. I know Jesus died on the crosse for my sins. I’m not progressive or new age. But I have been struggling with everything that has been going on with the laws in regards to abortion. I don’t think there is any reason where an abortion is an option. But I’m struggling with our enforcing our beliefs on people that do not believe on what I do. God does not force himself on us ever!!! We are free to walk ourselves straight to hell. So why do we think we have the right to force what we believe when God doesn’t?
Easy answer. If you believe scripture about people having value and humanity before birth, the issue is protecting life,. Even libertarians are against murder.
I am a conservative in most things but when it comes to women in the Bible I am an egalitarian. I disagree with the opinions above. I have been reading the Bible since I was a small child and I feel there is evidence for both complementarianism and egalitarianism in the word of GOD
What does "I do not allow a woman to have authority over a man" mean to you?
@@bmbmbm1 1 Timothy 2: 12 . I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man. NIV other translations say the same thing. The context is that Paul is instructing Timothy in how to govern the churches
@LB When a person is close minded meaning BLIND it is hard to see anything but what you want to see MR You can use the Bible to say ANYTHING Just cause you can manipulate the Bible does not mean You have the word of GOD THE DEVIL can manipulate the Bible as he is the liar from the start DO NOT USE GODS WORD TO PROVE IT IS OK FOR YOU TO BE THE CHOVINIST YOU ARE
@LB Paul is giving instructions to Timothy on how to run God's churches. When Paul is speaking on his own authority as a trustworthy servant of the Lord he says so.
Fully credentialed Biblical scholars can be wrong. Some think that the Bible does not condemn homosexual activity. It doesn't take any training at all to see that it does. One highly respected, published fully accredited professor of Biblical studies is even an atheist because he rejects the possibility of anything supernatural including God. Bart Ehrman.
@LB Again quoting the Bible means NOTYHING as it can be interpreted many ways GO DO RESEARCH before you put your women hating nonsense on the internet Read some thing that does NOT agree with your nonsense I listened to many teachings that do not agree with me so before you spew your nonsense online go EDUCATE YOURSELF and do not waste your time writing to me I will not read anymore of that uneducated nonsense you put out hear
sounds ridiculous to me, especially if the complete vegetarian is a Christian. The original diet in the Book of Genesis Before the Flood fruits nuts and grains. Read Genesis 1 to 3 about. And Mankind wasn't given permission to eat meat by God until after the flood. If it really true that being a complete vegetarian leads to abuse which you can call sin then that means that God didn't have the perfect plan. We can reject this one out right without watching the video. The Bible tells us that the lion will eat straw like an ox. There isn't anything that's going to die in heaven. There's not going to McDonald's in heaven where you can buy a mcburger at. Animals die on this world because of sin and it becomes necessary to consume their flesh sometimes if you have nothing else to eat. But it is no way a bad thing to go vegetarian if you can afford to get the right foods. And have a proper diet. I like a lot of your videos though.
Yeah there's some people who are into alternative religions new age and other Eastern religions Etc that are vegetarians, but we think that whatever someone does who's a vegetarian that's bad does not have to do with a healthy vegetarian diet itself but might have something to do with the religion they follow. Or the spirits that are inspiring them. Will know them by their fruits. You don't gather grapes from thistles do you? A vegetarian diet that's healthy has been shown to increase how long somebody lives. Eating a heavy meat diet will result in early death for many people.
Should read we did not write the Bible.
Yahweh/Jesus CLEARLY considered women worth less than men. Not equal, but lesser.
Leviticus 27:3-7: set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels; for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels[f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels.
ephesians 5:28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own body. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife.
Ephesians5:31-32 A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.
Kinda of sounds like equal value to me.
Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband...
Matthew 25:6 But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him. '
Revelation 19:6-8 ... for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready.
Ever notice God always talks about the church in feminine terms.
Luke 8:48 "Daughter" he said to her...
Jesus called her daughter, good enough for me.
With the exception of John the men were hiding in fear, it was the women at the foot of the cross.
Job 1:8 ... Have you notice my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth-a man of complete integrity...
Job 42:15... And their father put them into his will along with their brothers.
If the man who God called the finest in the land saw his daughters equal to his sons, that says something.
@@jackiefout9302 I gave you a reference where women are valued lesser in real shekels - real worth in any culture, in any time.
You gave me verses where it's kind-of we-can-infer equal treatment.
A god can exist and call a male his "son" and a female his "daughter" and value the male more than the female.
This is the Ancient Near East. Women were valued less THEN. Women are valued less there TODAY.
What you are doing is called rationalization in the face of known facts.
Complementarianism leads to feminism. Patriarchy is the biblical model.
Don’t you mean “Egalitarianism”?
Patriarchy was an outcome of the fall. That's proof it was not God's original intent or design for humankind. It is not God's model. The fact that it is in the Bible doesn't mean it is prescriptive. There are many things in the Bible that are descriptive.
@@LT-cy3uj Patriarchy is God’s design.
I see egalitarianism as also Biblical. My wife and I are no longer two, but one. Gen 2:24, Matt 19:5, Mark 10:8, and Eph 5:31. We are to function as a single unit in submission to one another, under God.
@@padillas4357 No. Two becoming one does not undo the specific gender roles established in Scripture. Male leadership is the design. A woman does not have the authority to act a pastor.
The Human triad is to be a Loving Monarchy not an egalitarian trinity. The Monarch is superior in authority and responsibility. The comforter/helper is to demonstrate submission as the Spirit submits to the Father and works to bless the Son by teaching the bride to come to Jesus Christ and "obey everything I have commanded you". The son is to be fruitful and multiply, bringing into the family a bride and "the children the LORD has given me" to the glory of GOD the Father. Jesus said "the Father is greater than I" that doesn't mean a son or a wife is less "mankind," and the statement by Jesus does not negate the Divinity of Christ as the "GODKIND". The Son is always subordinate to the Father and so too the Comforter is always subordinate to the Father. The Son sends the Spirit in ministerial procession as He proceeded from the Father through the operation of the Son from the Father alone. The difference is that the Son is Begotten/generated without the Helper in the Divine triad, yet the Spirit proceeds from the Father's Substance alone (Eastern Orthodox) through the operation of the Logos (Eastern Catholic) this the statement by Rome that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is acceptable only as the Eastern Catholics affirm..Dual substantial procession would make the Son the transgender Mother of the Spirit which is insanity! Evangelicals and their divine"three co-equal" bros egalitarian trinity is nothing but spiritual feminism on steroids.
Ladies, as you can see Yahweh/Jesus clearly treated you like you were the man's property and possessions like his ox and donkey.
Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
LOL
@@Julia29853 Women were PROPERTY. To be sold - by their own fathers - and bought by others.
Exodus 21:7-8 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her."
@@bmbmbm1 So, the Exodus rules don't apply anymore ? So, the Ten commandments have also been abandoned, right ??!
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 wow, you really are clueless aren’t you Sanjeev
Complementarianism is modern code word for Second Class status.
IF this verse of the NEW Testament doesn't clearly show you your second class status in church, you have drunk the koolaid.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Women are not second class citizens. We are all made in the image of God and that is where our value comes from. We just have different roles in the church.
@@User_Happy35 Are you saying "Separate But Equal" ?
I have heard that phrase somewhere.
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 Sir, did you listen to the actual conversation? These things you mention are discussed.
@@wiggydebates3944 Why are you guys responding to a troll? He isn't trying to understand the conversation or add anything, just throw shots at everyone. Do not feed the trolls!
@@ericedwards5034 Quoting REAL bible verses is trolling; Good one. LOL
THE STRANGER WHO CAME TO LIVE WITH US
By Ken Raggio
A few months after I was born, my parents heard of a stranger who had just come to town. They heard lots of fascinating stories about him. He was the talk of the town.
One day, someone introduced him to my parents, and they invited him to come to our home. All of us quickly fell in love with him and, believe it or not, they invited him to come live with us permanently. Instantly, he became a huge part of all our lives.
Since he was already living with us when I started growing up, I never questioned his place in our home, or in our family.
We were Church-going people. We read our Bibles, and prayed about important things. We believed in obeying and living by the Word of God. We believed that the Bible should define all our values and beliefs.
But the stranger was a big storyteller. He never ran out of stories to tell. Every day, he had something new. Adventure stories. Mysteries. Comedy. Old cowboy stories. Romance stories. You name it, he had a story for everything.
We spent hours, almost every evening, listening spellbound to the stranger as he told us his stories. As our family grew, the stranger became an intimate friend to us all. We actually listened to him a lot more than we listened to each other. As long as he was in the room, we almost never talked to each other.
He took us to our first major league baseball game. He took us to almost every movie that came out of Hollywood. He introduced us to all the famous movie stars, all the celebrity singers and dancers. Thanks to the stranger, we learned about so many people and things that we would never have known without him. People that we really didn't need to know.
He was an incessant talker. Sometimes, Daddy or Mother would get tired of listening to his stories, and leave the room, while us kids just sat there and continued listening, all the way till bedtime. Then we begged them to let us stay up late so we could hear some more stories.
I wondered if they ever regretted letting him move in with us. I think we probably would have had a lot more time with each other if he hadn't been around. I feel sure that we would have read the Bible and prayed and talked a lot more about good and Godly things if he hadn't been there.
The really bad thing about the stranger is that he never had the same values that my family did. Daddy and Mother were both God-fearing, Bible-reading, Church-going people. They both ruled our household with certain moral convictions.
But this stranger never showed any respect to our values whatsoever. For example, I never heard my parents use one word of profanity. Bad words were just not allowed in our house. And they would not allow us to make friends with people who talked like that.
But our longtime visitor gradually started using bad language. At first, it was pretty rare - just an occasional four-letter word. But it burned our ears and made us all squirm. Every now and then, they would make him shut up, but as time passed, he became bolder and bolder to say things and talk about things that were really taboo - things that none of us would have been allowed to discuss. His language got worse and worse and worse.
All our family and friends were teetotalers. We did not approve of or allow alcoholic drinks EVER in our household. But the stranger did everything he could to show us that drinking was cool. Almost every day, he would tell us stories about people drinking, and smoking, doing drugs, gambling, and committing crimes, and doing immoral things. And almost every time, he made it look like there was nothing wrong with it. He made it look like all those things were perfectly normal for everybody.
He tried to persuade us to buy beer, cigarettes, and do all kinds of things that we didn't believe in. He made a hard sell, too. He always made them look like we would really enjoy them, and that we would be more popular and fit into the crowd.
And then there was the subject of sex. Our family NEVER discussed sex, but the stranger talked about it all the time. He talked way too freely about it. It was embarrassing. Sometimes, his comments were so blatant and offensive that every one of us blushed, but nobody told him to shut up. He just kept talking, and we just kept on listening. A whole lot of my earliest ideas about love and sex came from him.
Unfortunately, everything he taught us was EXACTLY the opposite of what we were told at Church, and what we read in the Bible. If we hadn't gone to Church and read the Bible, the stranger would have made us completely different kind of people than we were.
As I look back, I know that it was a miracle from God that the stranger did not influence us more than he did. I know that it was because we always heard strong preaching at Church that refuted all the stranger's values. But I have no doubt that our minds were still affected negatively by his relentless arguments.
It did not make any sense for us to allow him to continue living in our house, but he did. He was rarely rebuked, and was never asked to leave. I am sure that he made me think and believe a lot of things that I would never have accepted if he had not been there day-in and day-out.
A lifetime has passed since the stranger moved in with our young family. He is much older, and his stories by now have been told all over the world. Everybody knows him by name.
The worst part is that the stranger has turned into a really dirty old man. His mouth is so foul, nowadays. He never stops using the most obscene, profane language. And he never stops talking about sex, and violence, and immoral things. It is appalling and horrifying.
Hour after hour, he just rants and raves and spouts off all his filthy talk. He constantly shows pictures of things we shouldn't even be looking at. Even his rants about politics and religion are hateful, irrational, and intolerable. Every day, he fills the ears of his listeners with all kinds of downright lies. He really sounds like he works for a tyrannical dictator.
And now, he argues non-stop that we should approve things like homosexuality, and drugs, and all kinds of immorality and perversions. He spends an awful lot of time trying to convince us that there is no God. I've come to believe that he is actually working for the devil himself.
The last time I heard him on a rant, I was utterly shocked. He made me feel completely vile. I decided that I simply do not want to listen to his garbage any more. I made up my mind that from now on, I am treating him like the enemy that he really is.
Oh, I never mentioned his name. We just called him "T.V."
This type of vid drives me crazy, but it is not the only one. The lack of education of so-called well educated people in ministerial or theological pronouncements leadership positions is appalling. No one, repeat no one should be making their theological ideas known in books or subscribed to vids unless they have at minimum at least a knowledge of Greek or Hebrew that is well above the intro word study level. Plus at least a a level that can compare Josephus and other early historic cultural commentary to the Biblical text. What nonsense to try and make any intelligent comment without some mature understanding. (while an interesting vid that I could mainly agree with it was gobby gook for the most part in its scholarship. Ie. how do explain the Samaritan woman was able to debate Jesus theologically, has a bunch of town elders follow her to see what Jesus was saying, has jesus stay in her town and then about 30 years later the Roman army has to send a force into her town because there are so many Christians the remaining jews are upset)