Women should remain silent in the churches.

[jonojim1337]

It's not what I think, but what the bible teaches, although it does make clear that the animal sacrifice didn't actually take away sins, but were "types" or shadows pointing to Jesus Christ, the one true Sacrifice. Also, the verse I quoted says that in sacrifice Himself at Calvary, Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins forever. This is in the context of the previous verse having been talking about priests offering repeated sacrifices every day.

So you think offering animals counts as a "daily sacrifice", but not offering the bread?

 

[David Lamb]

So you think offering animals counts as a "daily sacrifice", but not offering the bread?

Of course! Where does the bible teach that the bread in the Lord's Supper is intended to be a sacrifice? It wasn't the bread that was mocked, tortured and crucified. The bread didn't "become sin" on the cross for all who trust in the Saviour. And if Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins forever, how can the bread be another sacrifice?

 

[jamiec]

1 Corinthians 14:35-38

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
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.
Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.
But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.


in the mind of man there is a place where he is not bound to the law and at this place he will commit adultery.
how can woman teach or preach when they do not know such a place exist. therefore woman cannot save man from sin
because woman do not know the mind of man.


Hosea 4:14
“I will not punish your daughters
when they turn to prostitution,
nor your daughters-in-law
when they commit adultery,
because the men themselves consort with harlots
and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes—
a people without understanding will come to ruin!

How can woman teach or preach when God will not punish woman?

I think the Pauline passage is culture-bound, of limited relevance, & of no present authority. Like this bizarre argument:

13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone is inclined to dispute this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11 - Sharing in the Lord’s Supper

You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ. Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is...

biblehub.com

It looks very much as though the Apostle is mistaking the conventions of Greco-Roman culture for an unchangeable law of nature. There is no "disgrace" for a man in having long hair; as the Bible itself proves. St Paul even fulfilled a Nazirite vow - he was arrested in the Temple while doing so. As for arguments from custom, if Jesus had bothered with custom, He would not have healed on the Sabbath or fraternised with "sinners" & lepers & Samaritans. St Paul's argument is ridiculous, and not at all persuasive. Saying that something is "a command of the Lord" does not make it so. For all that anyone knows, he may have mistaken the all too human biases of Paul for the Will of Christ. Claiming divine authority for one's ideas can also be a way to claim unassailable authority for them. That does not mean they are from God. His unwillingness to have his ideas challenged is a very bad sign, and suggests some insecurity.

He cannot claim the authority of Jesus for his attitude to woman, and both Huldah the Prophetess & Deborah, to say nothing of his own words in Galatians 3, undermine his pitiful attempt to keep women in their place. There is no spiritual, intellectual, moral, psychological or theological reason to prefer having men in authority in the Church, rather than women. As for the last 1990 years, men have made such a pig's ear of exercising authority in the Church that women could probably do no worse.

St Paul has put the Church in his debt; one can admit that, and also point out that he seems to have had some unfortunate blind spots. These blind spots can and should be pointed out and criticised, and replaced with something better.

 

[RDKirk]

I think the Pauline passage is culture-bound, of limited relevance, & of no present authority. Like this bizarre argument:

13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone is inclined to dispute this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11 - Sharing in the Lord’s Supper

You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ. Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is...

biblehub.com

It looks very much as though the Apostle is mistaking the conventions of Greco-Roman culture for an unchangeable law of nature. There is no "disgrace" for a man in having long hair; as the Bible itself proves. St Paul even fulfilled a Nazirite vow - he was arrested in the Temple while doing so. As for arguments from custom, if Jesus had bothered with custom, He would not have healed on the Sabbath or fraternised with "sinners" & lepers & Samaritans. St Paul's argument is ridiculous, and not at all persuasive. Saying that something is "a command of the Lord" does not make it so. For all that anyone knows, he may have mistaken the all too human biases of Paul for the Will of Christ. Claiming divine authority for one's ideas can also be a way to claim unassailable authority for them. That does not mean they are from God. His unwillingness to have his ideas challenged is a very bad sign, and suggests some insecurity.

He cannot claim the authority of Jesus for his attitude to woman, and both Huldah the Prophetess & Deborah, to say nothing of his own words in Galatians 3, undermine his pitiful attempt to keep women in their place. There is no spiritual, intellectual, moral, psychological or theological reason to prefer having men in authority in the Church, rather than women. As for the last 1990 years, men have made such a pig's ear of exercising authority in the Church that women could probably do no worse.

St Paul has put the Church in his debt; one can admit that, and also point out that he seems to have had some unfortunate blind spots. These blind spots can and should be pointed out and criticised, and replaced with something better.

The actual point, if people care to explore it, because it's known and not difficult, is that Paul's specific prescription is culturally based, but the purpose behind the prescription is not. Two particular rules for dress and appearance: 1. Don't be ostentatious, 2. Don't adopt secular appearance fads, particularly those affecting spirituality and morality.

 

[Paul4JC]

Apostle Paul, I do not permit a woman to teach - Dr Michael Heiser

transcipt...

timothy's second question and the last question of the episode is can you explain first timothy 2 verse 10 through 15. no not in a q a um you know this this whole passage this is about women you know not teaching and being silent and you know in in church this is of course the passages related to the larger women in ministry you know women of the church issue honestly you can argue both sides pretty well from the text now for people who have sort of followed my website my blog for any amount of time years ago i did a blog series on the women in ministry issue with john hobbins john and his wife are both pastors and so i told john you know i wanted to do this and i said your job is to make me care about the issue because again my view is this is so far down my list of things to really care about because because i see ambiguity in the text at key points and that is what allows us to argue both sides well from the text so i said john if you can make me care it make me make me feel like i need to to like land somewhere and then diss the other side go ahead but he he failed i still feel the same way about it but it was fun again i i tend to not get terribly invested in issues where positions get stalled in textual ambiguity to me the they become by definition issues of conscience and that's really for instance what i would tell my daughter if i had my daughter come up to me and say hey i feel god is calling me into the ministry i would say you know that's between you and the lord i can't honestly you know say that i'm sure you're you're doing the right thing or the wrong thing i don't know but do well and be a blessing that that's exactly what i would tell my daughter do the best you can be a blessing you know have a good ministry this is between you and the lord so when it comes to first timothy two i mean this little subset of the women in ministry issue um the passage itself has a few workable possibilities some that might seem better than others but there's nothing there's no one view that renders all of the other possibilities fundamentally incoherent and indefensible so again you you're dealing with a difficult passage that has certain ambiguities about what's in the text now to illustrate i'll make one exegetical observation about first timothy 2 10-15 and i'll use that as a basis for a position in other words i'm going to pretend here this is a thought experiment for the sake of the question of the podcast so i could look at the passage and say well you know paul in this passage really makes his judgment deeply personal he says you know let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness i do not permit a woman to teach her to exercise authority over men rather she's to remain quiet for adam was first form the name adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor you know if we if we go back into the passage you know again just looking at at that it looks like you know when he says i do not permit it looks like paul is making a personal argument and the exegetical point is that you know paul uses the first person i wouldn't do x y or z and i could interpret that and say well you know that means his advice may be just that a personal preference based on the rationale that he gives about genesis but you know paul conveniently leaves out that the man sinned willfully he's concerned that the woman you know was deceived and not the man but what he leaves out the fact that adam sinned with a high hand so to speak he sinned with full knowledge so if paul's point is that women shouldn't teach because they fall victim to false teaching more than men why not flip it around and say men are more dangerous to have as teachers because they can turn around and deceive people deliberately well he doesn't do that the fact that paul leaves something so obvious out of the discussion suggests to me that this is a personal preference born of some situation that influenced his thinking or perhaps it's the familiar model of judaism he was a pharisee and all that at any rate i could argue that the passage can be read as first corinthians 7 for example is read where paul just tells people where he's at hey you know you know i wish that you were all like me or or you know i'm going to give my judgment on this he's trying to give good advice for reasons that may not make complete sense to us but did make sense to him and others because they were living at a certain you know in a certain context there at corinth or here with timothy we may not be aware of every every reason that prompted paul to say what he said but my exegetical observation is he uses the first person which means he's giving personal advice now i can do that all day long i can take some other point of the passage and argue for a totally different view and this is the problem with 1st timothy 2 it's the problem with the women in ministry issue on at any given point i could argue either side of these questions pretty clearly and pretty effectively again using the text as my touch point not caring about gender issues feminine issues this or that group this or that ministry that takes this position you know don't care about any of that again the question is what what can the text sustain and depending on what you emphasize in your exegesis you can come down at different points and still build an exegetical argument on either side and for those who are interested in this you know you can go back and look at the at the exchange between myself and john again his job was not to convert me his job was to make me care enough about taking a position and like i said he failed but it was fun um there's just i don't i can't say it anyway i really don't feel that it's a good use of of my time and that i i should really be pontificating to you know too heavily on an issue that really there's there's in this one there's there's three or four points there's three or four passages that will make the issue turn in one direction or the other and the the honest thing to say is that it could go either way because there's ambiguity built up in the text it's just there we you have to be omniscient to really sort this one out that's that's the most honest thing i can say if you want to use the prophecy thing as an analogy like the rapture are you a splitter or a joiner when it comes to descriptions of the lord's return should we put them in two piles or one you put them in two piles you have a rapture and a second coming you put them in one you got one event which one is is the right answer i don't know i just don't know i can build an argument for either one and have it look wonderful and elegant but at the end of the day i have to tell you that i am landing here because i just decided to emphasize this over that and that's what you got with the women in issue issue it's what you have with first timothy 2 and by the way we didn't even get to the last part of the passage the whole thing about she shall be saved through childbearing that's a whole separate issue this passage would would take a whole i would say probably two or three episodes of the podcast to just sort of navigate uh the waters you know through this passage and of course since since this is first timothy 2 the whole wider issue of uh you know how you'd argue you know the the women's issue in either direction that would take probably three podcast episodes but i you know for those of you who that might sound like good news i would say don't expect that anytime soon because we are about to start into a new book study and uh again i care about that honestly the book study more than i care about you know this issue at least that's where i'm at right now

 

[RDKirk]

Some periods and paragraphs would help much.

 

[Legion7777777]

If she would be so wrong God wouldn't support her.

Shes allowed to under the Judas Covenant. The god of this world is supporting her back by the Covenant. They do whatever they want under that denominational Covenant(Matt 26:15). It has nothing to do with the Blood Covenant of Christ. They are not of us....Betrayal: Beginning of Non/Denominationalism set up by Judas Gen 25:29-34 sold birth right-first fruit Zec 11:12,13 Matt 26:14-16 Mark 14:15, 44 Acts 3:14,15 Matt 18:18 Luke 22:5,6 Luke 22:47,48 unholy kiss John 12:6-money bag Luke 22:5,6 Rev 1:18 3:20 Isa 28:15-18-SCOURGE {Jer 6:30 Luke 18:33 2Tim 3:7-9 Titus 1:16 Rev 2&3})

 

[Strong in Him]

Shes allowed to under the Judas Covenant. The god of this world is supporting her back by the Covenant. They do whatever they want under that denominational Covenant(Matt 26:15). It has nothing to do with the Blood Covenant of Christ. They are not of us....Betrayal: Beginning of Non/Denominationalism set up by Judas Gen 25:29-34 sold birth right-first fruit Zec 11:12,13 Matt 26:14-16 Mark 14:15, 44 Acts 3:14,15 Matt 18:18 Luke 22:5,6 Luke 22:47,48 unholy kiss John 12:6-money bag Luke 22:5,6 Rev 1:18 3:20 Isa 28:15-18-SCOURGE {Jer 6:30 Luke 18:33 2Tim 3:7-9 Titus 1:16 Rev 2&3})

What are you talking about?

 

[Legion7777777]

What are you talking about?

Matthew 26:14-16 KJV — Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they **covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
This is how the denominations operate. Under this Covenant. All the verses showing what took place are attached. Its the biggest lie ever told. Betrayal: Beginning of Non/Denominationalism set up by Judas Gen 25:29-34 sold birth right-first fruit Zec 11:12,13 Matt 26:14-16 Mark 14:15, 44 Acts 3:14,15 Matt 18:18 Luke 22:5,6 Luke 22:47,48 unholy kiss John 12:6-money bag Luke 22:5,6 Rev 1:18 3:20 Isa 28:15-18-SCOURGE {Jer 6:30 Luke 18:33 2Tim 3:7-9 Titus 1:16 Rev 2&3})

 

[Legion7777777]

Matthew 26:14-16 KJV — Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they **covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
This is how the denominations operate. Under this Covenant. All the verses showing what took place are attached. Its the biggest lie ever told. Betrayal: Beginning of Non/Denominationalism set up by Judas Gen 25:29-34 sold birth right-first fruit Zec 11:12,13 Matt 26:14-16 Mark 14:15, 44 Acts 3:14,15 Matt 18:18 Luke 22:5,6 Luke 22:47,48 unholy kiss John 12:6-money bag Luke 22:5,6 Rev 1:18 3:20 Isa 28:15-18-SCOURGE {Jer 6:30 Luke 18:33 2Tim 3:7-9 Titus 1:16 Rev 2&3})

This entire denominational system has absolutely nothing to do with God. They are the enemy of God

 

[Strong in Him]

Matthew 26:14-16 KJV — Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they **covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
This is how the denominations operate. Under this Covenant. All the verses showing what took place are attached. Its the biggest lie ever told. Betrayal: Beginning of Non/Denominationalism set up by Judas Gen 25:29-34 sold birth right-first fruit Zec 11:12,13 Matt 26:14-16 Mark 14:15, 44 Acts 3:14,15 Matt 18:18 Luke 22:5,6 Luke 22:47,48 unholy kiss John 12:6-money bag Luke 22:5,6 Rev 1:18 3:20 Isa 28:15-18-SCOURGE {Jer 6:30 Luke 18:33 2Tim 3:7-9 Titus 1:16 Rev 2&3})

Judas didn't set anything up; he killed himself.

 

[Strong in Him]

This entire denominational system has absolutely nothing to do with God. They are the enemy of God

No.
I don't like denominations, and I'm sure the Lord doesn't like divisions. But denominations are Christian and worship God; they are not his enemy.

This has nothing to do with women being ordained or allowed to preach.

 

[Legion7777777]

No.
I don't like denominations, and I'm sure the Lord doesn't like divisions. But denominations are Christian and worship God; they are not his enemy.

This has nothing to do with women being ordained or allowed to preach.

has everything to do with it. What do you mean he didn't set anything up? I gave you the verses. A called apostle of God makes a binding covenant with the temple and you think he didn't set anything up?

 

[Legion7777777]

Judas didn't set anything up; he killed himself.

That covenant allows satan to run the denominations. Judas did set it up and yes Judas did die.. a testament is a covenant.
Hebrews 9:16-17 KJV — For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Matthew 26:15 KJV — And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they *covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

Matthew 18:18 KJV — Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind(covenant) on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Isaiah 28:15-18 KJV — Because ye have said, We have made a *covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your *covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

how can you just explain that away as though its nothing?

 

[Legion7777777]

No.
I don't like denominations, and I'm sure the Lord doesn't like divisions. But denominations are Christian and worship God; they are not his enemy.

This has nothing to do with women being ordained or allowed to preach.

Jeremiah 2:13 KJV — For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

Deuteronomy 32:31-33 KJV — For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Acts 7:48 KJV — Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

Malachi 3:8-9 KJV — Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Revelation 2:12-13 KJV — And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
Satans seat,depths, dwelling place, doctrine. all in the churches. Its ran by the underworld. All the scriptures point directly to this.

 

[Strong in Him]

has everything to do with it.

No.
Women being called by God to be ordained as clergy in his church; Judas Iscariot betraying Jesus - no connection.

What do you mean he didn't set anything up? I gave you the verses.

No, you gave me some random verses.

Matthew 26:14-16 KJV — Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they **covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
This is how the denominations operate. Under this Covenant.

There is no covenant. Denominations started for a number of different reasons - none of which was anything to do with Judas, because he was dead.

Betrayal: Beginning of Non/Denominationalism set up by Judas Gen 25:29-34

That's about Jacob and Esau - who lived long before Judas was even thought of.

Zec 11:12,13

That is a prophecy that Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

Matt 26:14-16

That is the fulfilment of that prophecy.

Mark 14:15,

This is Jesus telling the disciples that a man will provide them with a room for the last supper.
Nothing to do with Judas.

Acts 3:14,

This is Peter preaching to the Jewish leaders and telling them they wanted Pilate to release Barabbas and not Jesus.
Nothing to do with Judas.

Matt 18:18

This is Jesus giving authority to the disciples.
Nothing to do with Judas' betrayal.

Luke 22:5,6

Yes, the religious leaders agreed to give Judas money - and?

Luke 22:47,48

This is how Judas betrayed Jesus - and?

John 12:6-money bag

Yes, Judas was in charge of the money bag and stole from it - and?

Rev 1:18

Jesus is alive forever.
Nothing to do with Judas' betrayal.

Most of your verses have nothing to do with Judas or his betrayal.
They certainly don't say that Judas set up different denominations.

 

[Strong in Him]

Jeremiah 2:13 KJV — For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

Deuteronomy 32:31-33 KJV — For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Acts 7:48 KJV — Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

Malachi 3:8-9 KJV — Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Nothing at all to do with the fact that God calls his people to serve him in many ways, according to the gifts he has given - and calls some women to be ordained.

It's just throwing random Scriptures around and making a connection which only you can see.

 

[Legion7777777]

No.
Women being called by God to be ordained as clergy in his church; Judas Iscariot betraying Jesus - no connection.

No, you gave me some random verses.

There is no covenant. Denominations started for a number of different reasons - none of which was anything to do with Judas, because he was dead.

That's about Jacob and Esau - who lived long before Judas was even thought of.

That is a prophecy that Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

That is the fulfilment of that prophecy.

This is Jesus telling the disciples that a man will provide them with a room for the last supper.
Nothing to do with Judas.

This is Peter preaching to the Jewish leaders and telling them they wanted Pilate to release Barabbas and not Jesus.
Nothing to do with Judas.

This is Jesus giving authority to the disciples.
Nothing to do with Judas' betrayal.

Yes, the religious leaders agreed to give Judas money - and?

This is how Judas betrayed Jesus - and?

Yes, Judas was in charge of the money bag and stole from it - and?

Jesus is alive forever.
Nothing to do with Judas' betrayal.

Most of your verses have nothing to do with Judas or his betrayal.
They certainly don't say that Judas set up different denominations.

It has everything to do with good vs evil. that's the battle ground. Matthew 26:15 KJV — And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they COVENANTED with him for thirty pieces of silver.

Luke 22:3-6 KJV — Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad, and COVENANTED to give him money. And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.

You say that covenant doesn't exist? what do you do with that covenant? act like its not there?

 

[Strong in Him]

It has everything to do with good vs evil. that's the battle ground. Matthew 26:15 KJV — And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they COVENANTED with him for thirty pieces of silver.

The Chief priests made an agreement with Judas; lead us to Jesus and, in exchange, we will give you 30 pieces of silver.
As you have already said, this was prophesied, by God, in the OT. It wasn't a surprise or Judas' own idea; it was foreseen.

And this agreement has nothing at all to do with either women being called by God, nor with the various denominations.
Writing the word Covenant in capital letters doesn't change that.

 

[Legion7777777]

The Chief priests made an agreement with Judas; lead us to Jesus and, in exchange, we will give you 30 pieces of silver.
As you have already said, this was prophesied, by God, in the OT. It wasn't a surprise or Judas' own idea; it was foreseen.

And this agreement has nothing at all to do with either women being called by God, nor with the various denominations.
Writing the word Covenant in capital letters doesn't change that.

its a covenant with a covenant keeping God. So what does that covenant do?