does the bible forbid men to do things that women can do?

Contenders Edge said:

All the versions of Deut. 22:5 in the link you have provided do so indicate clothing. None of them strictly refer to armaments as you define it. Even the cited Young’s Literal Translation of that verse did not specifically state anything associated with warfare specifically. It just stated “habiliments” which could easily mean anything worn that is designed for a man.

What you also referenced in Strong’s Hebrew Word 3627 was not the actual definition according to Strong’s but rather how the word 3627 was translated; all the definitions it was applied to and the number of times applied to each listed definition. The word in question clearly has several different meanings, one of which can apply to implements associated with warfare, but not always. Word 3627 has also been translated as miscellaneous at least 13 times which could mean anything including clothing.

The actual definition of 3627 according to Strong’s is “something prepared” which can apply to many different things including “dress” which implies clothing. It also lists “that which pertaineth” which means more than what you say it does.

The source to which you appeal in your rendering of 1 Tim. 2:12 is incorrect in its definition of the word used for “authority.” They use the word “authentein” to define “authority” which they say can also mean “ to originate” when the actual word defining authority in the case of 1 Tim. 2:12 according to Strong’s 831 (Greek), was “authenteo” which is defined as “dominate” or to “usurp authority over.” No other definitions are attached to it.

While goddess worship was undeniably prevalent in the Greco-Roman culture, the Kroeger’s thesis is not consistent with how the text presents itself. In order for their thesis on 1 Tim. 2:12 to be correct, Paul would have had to outrightly address the goddess cults in that passage and if they were bringing heresy into the Church at that time, there would have been direct mention of it in his epistles. The Bible lists a number of different false doctrines besetting the early church, but doctrines founded in goddess worship are not mentioned in any of the epistles.

The only passages of scripture to which Kroeger’s thesis claiming of goddess cult heresies infiltrating the church might best apply would be Revelation 2:20-23 in which Jesus rebuked the church in Thyatira for tolerating the immoral doctrines of a woman named Jezebel who called herself a prophetess and seduced the saints into committing fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols, warning that because she would repent of her immorality and false doctrine, that she and any following her would face judgment.

But even if the Kroeger thesis were to be applied to Rev. 2:202-23, it could only be done so in theory and not as established fact because again, this passage does not specifically mention what this Jezebel’s heresy was founded on. It could have just as easily been a heresy of her own making as it could have been derived from a goddess worshipping cult creed.

If 1 Tim. 2:12-14 had been translated with a patriarchal bias it would have been made out to say, “suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man” to make it appear to be directly forbidden by God for woman to hold authority over a man in the church instead of saying “I suffer not” which implies that this passage was written based on a personal and understandable judgment on the part of Paul and not a direct command from God.

Click to expand...

The Bible is its own dictionary, commentary and interpreter. This is why I go by what words are translated as and not what the concordance definition says it is. Concordance definitions are human interpretations not Scriptural definitions and are not always correct for that reason. We understand the general meaning of words used based on how they are translated in the Scripture.

So if a word such as is used in Deuteronomy is most often translated as "other than being a garment", than it is more likely that "miscellaneous" usage does not mean "garment", especially seeing how there is another Hebrew word more commonly used for "garment", that those who penned the verse (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) could have just as easily used.

So no, that word does not mean "garment" as it is translated and we know this also based on the fact that the second half of the verse "man not put on a woman's garment". That is a different word than the "what pertains to a man" translation earlier in the verse. That word "garment" pertaining to women's clothing is most commonly translated "garment(s)" and "clothing". It's also translated "cloak" and "cloth" and defined as "mantle"; which would mean an outer garment as we would use the term "coat".

Now that also makes contextual sense when comparing the second half of the verse with the first half speaking of battle armament. I.E. using women as human shields and men appearing as women to avoid combat. (Probably most likely in the context of trying to fool the enemy.)

And here's another lesson; sometimes the translators get it wrong too.

We see this in the New Testament too when the word "sabbath" is translated "first day of the week" in reference to the resurrection; when its actually indicating in the usage of the Greek that there are two sets of sabbaths and that the sabbath of the New Testament was changed to Sunday. In the Hebrew when referencing a "day" as a "sabbath" no other word is used other than "sabbath" and when referencing a day other than Saturday, Hebrew will say "X days after the sabbath" or "before the sabbath". And the New Testament does that too. "X days before Passover...". So the fact that the New Testament writers specifically used the word "sabbath" in reference to the day of the resurrection has significance.

And these principles can also be said for 1 Timothy 2:12. The form of that specific word used, is only found in that particular place in the Bible; yet that same linguistic couplet is used other places in the Scripture. And the linguistic couplet is what links the two phrases together. So the "usurp authority" is linked to the "Because Adam was created first."

So therefore your saying "I suffer not" is a personal interpretation of Paul's does not stand up either, based on the fact that Genesis does declare that Adam was created first.

Now taking the principal that the Bible interprets itself, you could reasonably argue that the counter part to 1 Timothy is Revelation. And that this doctrine of Jezebel that Revelation does not define; could very well be defined in 1 Timothy. Contextually that fits, because both passages are discussing something being taught.

We see this principle in Corinthians and Acts when looking at the subject of "speaking in tongues". Now Corinthians does not define what "tongues" were in that passage. We get the definition out of the book of Acts, where it defines "speaking in tongues" specifically as speaking in earthly languages where with the speaker had not been formerly taught.

So there you go. There's a lesson in Scriptural hermeneutics and interpretation.

The Righterzpen said:

The Bible is its own dictionary, commentary and interpreter. This is why I go by what words are translated as and not what the concordance definition says it is. Concordance definitions are human interpretations not Scriptural definitions and are not always correct for that reason. We understand the general meaning of words used based on how they are translated in the Scripture.

So if a word such as is used in Deuteronomy is most often translated as "other than being a garment", than it is more likely that "miscellaneous" usage does not mean "garment", especially seeing how there is another Hebrew word more commonly used for "garment", that those who penned the verse (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) could have just as easily used.

So no, that word does not mean "garment" as it is translated and we know this also based on the fact that the second half of the verse "man not put on a woman's garment". That is a different word than the "what pertains to a man" translation earlier in the verse. That word "garment" pertaining to women's clothing is most commonly translated "garment(s)" and "clothing". It's also translated "cloak" and "cloth" and defined as "mantle"; which would mean an outer garment as we would use the term "coat".

Now that also makes contextual sense when comparing the second half of the verse with the first half speaking of battle armament. I.E. using women as human shields and men appearing as women to avoid combat. (Probably most likely in the context of trying to fool the enemy.)

And here's another lesson; sometimes the translators get it wrong too.

We see this in the New Testament too when the word "sabbath" is translated "first day of the week" in reference to the resurrection; when its actually indicating in the usage of the Greek that there are two sets of sabbaths and that the sabbath of the New Testament was changed to Sunday. In the Hebrew when referencing a "day" as a "sabbath" no other word is used other than "sabbath" and when referencing a day other than Saturday, Hebrew will say "X days after the sabbath" or "before the sabbath". And the New Testament does that too. "X days before Passover...". So the fact that the New Testament writers specifically used the word "sabbath" in reference to the day of the resurrection has significance.

And these principles can also be said for 1 Timothy 2:12. The form of that specific word used, is only found in that particular place in the Bible; yet that same linguistic couplet is used other places in the Scripture. And the linguistic couplet is what links the two phrases together. So the "usurp authority" is linked to the "Because Adam was created first."

So therefore your saying "I suffer not" is a personal interpretation of Paul's does not stand up either, based on the fact that Genesis does declare that Adam was created first.

Now taking the principal that the Bible interprets itself, you could reasonably argue that the counter part to 1 Timothy is Revelation. And that this doctrine of Jezebel that Revelation does not define; could very well be defined in 1 Timothy. Contextually that fits, because both passages are discussing something being taught.

We see this principle in Corinthians and Acts when looking at the subject of "speaking in tongues". Now Corinthians does not define what "tongues" were in that passage. We get the definition out of the book of Acts, where it defines "speaking in tongues" specifically as speaking in earthly languages where with the speaker had not been formerly taught.

So there you go. There's a lesson in Scriptural hermeneutics and interpretation.

Click to expand...

Contenders Edge said:

The concordance definitions are based on how the words were translated from the languages in which scripture was first written to begin with. Even some of the ways that H 3627 is translated (i.e. stuff, miscellaneous) while not mentioning clothing specifically can still be applied in that sense because of how broad the meaning of H 3627 is.

Click to expand...

Except the translated words in this case contradict your statement here.

Contenders Edge said:

The context of Deut. 22:5 does have in mind something that is worn regarding what men are forbidden to wear and what women are forbidden to wear.

Click to expand...

Yet if you look at the other words in this verse; the "wearing of" such (battle armaments) are only forbidden "above and beyond" what a man would do. This does not ban women from combat. In the case of nomadic culture, pre 20th century armies and ancient Israel contextually speaking; someone had to defend the camp and there is no prohibition of women defending themselves if need be. That only makes practical sense.

Contenders Edge said:

If the intent of the author was strictly to address warfare, that is what we would be reading, but because that is not how the text presents itself, that is not how it can be rendered.

Click to expand...

Yet the question remains, is how it's rendered in English what the intent really was in the Hebrew? Comparing what the words are translated as in other places and the fact that other words that would have been more suitable and definitive of what you believe this says could have been used; apparently the answer to that is no.

Contenders Edge said:

But if Strong’s definition of H 3627 is inaccurate, then the burden of proof remains on you to demonstrate how it is since the definition of H 3627, in short, means “something prepared” which applies to a lot of things including things that people wear upon them.

Click to expand...

And I adequately demonstrated that; but if you don't want to see it because you don't like my answer; that's not my problem.

Contenders Edge said:

The intent of the author simply was this: Men are not to behave like women and women are not to behave like men.

Click to expand...

That issue is addressed other places in Scripture.

Contenders Edge said:

That Adam was created before Eve was the justification cited for Paul’s forbidding a woman to exercise authority over men in the church would naturally link “I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over the man” to the passage that states that “Adam was first formed, the Eve.”

1 Tim. 2:12 gives Paul’s prohibition against women (not presented as being a direct command from God) being in positions within the church where they hold authority over men. Verses 13 and 14 gives us the reason for why he felt this way.

But none of the definitions imply that Paul’s personal judgment against women teaching or possessing authority over a man in the church had anything to do with a goddess cult infiltrating the church. If that had been the case, that passage would have either mentioned it or at least contextually alluded to something like that being a factor, but the context expresses nothing of the sort and because that is not how the text presents itself, that factor cannot be used in determining Paul’s reasoning for not feeling comfortable about women having authority over men in the church.

Click to expand...

Except your statements here are not internally consistent with the rest of Scripture; where we do see women exercising positions of some sort of authority. This is seen often along side of men as leaders of groups.

Contenders Edge said:

But what can be alluded to in 1 Tim. 2:12-14 regarding Paul’s prohibition against women heading fellowships at best are two things:

There were women already heading fellowships and according to Paul’s observations, heresy and false doctrines may have been more prevalent in fellowships headed by women than those headed by men, and this made Paul feel uncomfortable with allowing women to be in a teaching position over a man. But this is only a speculation.

Click to expand...

This is an assumption. There is no historical evidence of female led congregations that I'm aware of. So unlike what you accuse me of with "proof of goddess cults alluded to" (which are indeed historical artifacts of the ancient world) you are on shakier standing with this assumption than I am with what I have stated.

Contenders Edge said:

But the question that needs to be asked is this: Are women more susceptible to being led astray than men? And how many women are willing to humbly ask this question about themselves before God?

Click to expand...

Women being more prone to being led astray than men is another assumption. How many men have the humility to ask God: "Am I being led astray?" There are plenty of deceived men out there too. False doctrine is not a gender delineated problem in the church.

Also, just because back when there was one male and one female; Eve was the one who was deceived, does not automatically translate to being the case with all women. Especially when Paul himself says "There's no male or female in Christ" Galatians 3:28. If women even under Old Testament economy had limited leadership roles; why would that be suddenly forbidden in the New Testament? Again, that interpretation is not internally consistent with the entirety of Scripture.

One could argue too that since Eve was not told that her husband would rule over her until after the fall; we could reasonably argue that a certain degree of egalitarian equality takes precedence even in practical terms of those restored unto fellowship in Christ. We know that's the case of the standing of individual believers before God. Therefore God does not withhold truth and understanding of Scripture based on gender.

The other issue with that interpretation of this passage is where do you draw the line when it comes to "authority over men" as it relates to believers interactions with each other? What about teenage boys and female Sunday school teachers? What about mothers and male children? What about "para church" type organizations like private schools? Is a Christian high school not allowed to have female teachers or a female principal?

Contenders Edge said:

The context of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 has been this: It may not be the most expedient thing for a woman to be placed in a position where she wields authority over men within a fellowship, but at the same time, that passage should not be treated as a direct prohibition against doing so either.

Click to expand...

From my reading, Paul was rigid in one particular aspect: That women should not be discipled under men, nor should men be discipled under women.

I use "disciple" as a verb where Paul used "teach" because in our parlance using "disciple" as a verb gets closer to what Paul meant by "teach."

A "teacher" in Paul's understanding was not someone who stood in front of a class or on a stage and read from a prepared text. A "teacher" was someone who held extreme authority over his students and for whom students were not only learners but even personal servants. A disciple learned and accepted the teacher's philosophy of life as his own--doctrinal authority.

A teacher could say to his disciples, "I'm tired and hungry. I'm going to sit at this well and ask this woman for a drink of water. All of you go into town and get food, then bring it back here."

A teacher could say to his disciples, "I'm tired of walking. All of you go into town and get me a donkey to ride. Walk the donkey back here to me. I'll ride and you can walk behind me."

A teacher could say to his disciple, "What did your father name you? Simon? From now on, your name is Peter."

Paul did not allow men to be discipled under women in that manner, or vice versa.

But Paul did allow women to convey information about the gospel in ways that did not infer or denote taking authority over them, as when Priscilla expounded the gospel to Apollos.

And when Paul sent his letter to the Roman church, clearly Phoebe was the leader of that delegation, as Paul requested (by his authority as an apostle) the church to aid her in all her business in Rome (not even mentioning anyone else in the delegation). And surely, given the times, Phoebe was not traveling alone or only with women.

RDKirk said:

From my reading, Paul was rigid in one particular aspect: That women should not be discipled under men, nor should men be discipled under women.

I use "disciple" as a verb where Paul used "teach" because in our parlance using "disciple" as a verb gets closer to what Paul meant by "teach."

A "teacher" in Paul's understanding was not someone who stood in front of a class or on a stage and read from a prepared text. A "teacher" was someone who held extreme authority over his students and for whom students were not only learners but even personal servants. A disciple learned and accepted the teacher's philosophy of life as his own--doctrinal authority.

A teacher could say to his disciples, "I'm tired and hungry. I'm going to sit at this well and ask this woman for a drink of water. All of you go into town and get food, then bring it back here."

A teacher could say to his disciples, "I'm tired of walking. All of you go into town and get me a donkey to ride. Walk the donkey back here to me. I'll ride and you can walk behind me."

A teacher could say to his disciple, "What did your father name you? Simon? From now on, your name is Peter."

Paul did not allow men to be discipled under women in that manner, or vice versa.

But Paul did allow women to convey information about the gospel in ways that did not infer or denote taking authority over them, as when Priscilla expounded the gospel to Apollos.

And when Paul sent his letter to the Roman church, clearly Phoebe was the leader of that delegation, as Paul requested (by his authority as an apostle) the church to aid her in all her business in Rome (not even mentioning anyone else in the delegation). And surely, given the times, Phoebe was not traveling alone or only with women.

Click to expand...

Good insight on this!

RDKirk said:

From my reading, Paul was rigid in one particular aspect: That women should not be discipled under men, nor should men be discipled under women.

I use "disciple" as a verb where Paul used "teach" because in our parlance using "disciple" as a verb gets closer to what Paul meant by "teach."

A "teacher" in Paul's understanding was not someone who stood in front of a class or on a stage and read from a prepared text. A "teacher" was someone who held extreme authority over his students and for whom students were not only learners but even personal servants. A disciple learned and accepted the teacher's philosophy of life as his own--doctrinal authority.

A teacher could say to his disciples, "I'm tired and hungry. I'm going to sit at this well and ask this woman for a drink of water. All of you go into town and get food, then bring it back here."

A teacher could say to his disciples, "I'm tired of walking. All of you go into town and get me a donkey to ride. Walk the donkey back here to me. I'll ride and you can walk behind me."

A teacher could say to his disciple, "What did your father name you? Simon? From now on, your name is Peter."

Paul did not allow men to be discipled under women in that manner, or vice versa.

But Paul did allow women to convey information about the gospel in ways that did not infer or denote taking authority over them, as when Priscilla expounded the gospel to Apollos.

And when Paul sent his letter to the Roman church, clearly Phoebe was the leader of that delegation, as Paul requested (by his authority as an apostle) the church to aid her in all her business in Rome (not even mentioning anyone else in the delegation). And surely, given the times, Phoebe was not traveling alone or only with women.

Click to expand...

While your post may be informative insofar as the cultural understanding of Paul’s day goes of what the teacher-disciple relationship might have been, this did not reflect Paul’s understanding of what a relationship between a teacher and his students should be.

What you describe as being the teacher-disciple relationship understanding of that culture and day was one of the very things for which the church in Corinth was rebuked by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to them because they had elevated him and other teachers to an esteem higher than they should have done to the point that it was causing division amongst them; some siding with Paul, other siding with Apollos, Cephas, and Christ (1 Cor. 1:12-13) when Christ is that perfect example the church in Corinth should have aspired to be more like.

Paul wrote to them saying, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13) and went on to say that he and others like him were mere vessels by whom the church in Corinth had come to saving faith in Christ to begin with and that it was “God that giveth the increase.” (1 Cor. 3:7)

The objective of Paul and the other Apostles was not to make followers of themselves but of Christ and Paul wanted to be sure that the teacher-disciple relationship was put in its proper place and that it was Jesus to whom believers were to seek to be like and it was His doctrine that they were to follow. Paul was just a vessel through whom that doctrine was delivered and that he wanted to make clear.

And what you describe as being the teacher-disciple relationship in that culture and generation also provides insight why so many false doctrines and heresies have entered into our midst over time; teachers, Pastors, and evangelists being elevated higher than they should be and thereby the doctrine that they teach becomes the doctrine of their followers who accept it without question.

It is a problem within our ranks that persists even today; many professors of the faith not considering that the Pastors and teachers that they look up to can err in doctrinal matters and disappoint in matters of their conduct at times. When one places too much trust in a Pastor or teacher for truth, they can be easily led astray by false doctrines and destructive heresies and when that teacher to, whom his or her disciples look, disgraces themselves in some way, they who followed them are demoralized because they looked to a person who was not the perfect example that Christ.

All of us have at one time, whether we want to admit it or not have place a figure who has been an instrument of God for inspiration in our lives at a higher level of esteem than we should. Hero worship is not just a problem in the world of the unbelieving, but it can be a problem in the Church as well.

Sammy-San said:

Men still wear tank tops as part of their bathing suits sometimes.

Click to expand...

that far back in the day it actually was illegal for men to go topless too. Look at Victorian bathing costume photos

The Righterzpen said:

Except the translated words in this case contradict your statement here.



Yet if you look at the other words in this verse; the "wearing of" such (battle armaments) are only forbidden "above and beyond" what a man would do. This does not ban women from combat. In the case of nomadic culture, pre 20th century armies and ancient Israel contextually speaking; someone had to defend the camp and there is no prohibition of women defending themselves if need be. That only makes practical sense.



Yet the question remains, is how it's rendered in English what the intent really was in the Hebrew? Comparing what the words are translated as in other places and the fact that other words that would have been more suitable and definitive of what you believe this says could have been used; apparently the answer to that is no.



And I adequately demonstrated that; but if you don't want to see it because you don't like my answer; that's not my problem.



That issue is addressed other places in Scripture.



Except your statements here are not internally consistent with the rest of Scripture; where we do see women exercising positions of some sort of authority. This is seen often along side of men as leaders of groups.



This is an assumption. There is no historical evidence of female led congregations that I'm aware of. So unlike what you accuse me of with "proof of goddess cults alluded to" (which are indeed historical artifacts of the ancient world) you are on shakier standing with this assumption than I am with what I have stated.



Women being more prone to being led astray than men is another assumption. How many men have the humility to ask God: "Am I being led astray?" There are plenty of deceived men out there too. False doctrine is not a gender delineated problem in the church.

Also, just because back when there was one male and one female; Eve was the one who was deceived, does not automatically translate to being the case with all women. Especially when Paul himself says "There's no male or female in Christ" Galatians 3:28. If women even under Old Testament economy had limited leadership roles; why would that be suddenly forbidden in the New Testament? Again, that interpretation is not internally consistent with the entirety of Scripture.

One could argue too that since Eve was not told that her husband would rule over her until after the fall; we could reasonably argue that a certain degree of egalitarian equality takes precedence even in practical terms of those restored unto fellowship in Christ. We know that's the case of the standing of individual believers before God. Therefore God does not withhold truth and understanding of Scripture based on gender.

The other issue with that interpretation of this passage is where do you draw the line when it comes to "authority over men" as it relates to believers interactions with each other? What about teenage boys and female Sunday school teachers? What about mothers and male children? What about "para church" type organizations like private schools? Is a Christian high school not allowed to have female teachers or a female principal?

Click to expand...

“Except the translated words in this case contradict your statement here.”



How do they contradict my statement? H 3627 is a definition that applies to a lot of things including things that are worn by people which can cover anything from armor to general clothing. In order for the translated words to contradict my statement, they would have to be words specifically addressing what you say they do. H 3627 as far as Deut. 22:5 is concerned does not do that specifically because H 3627 is a very broad definition and cannot be used to specifically address things associated with warfare as you claim.

If that was the intent of the author, he would have used definitions that would have made that clear such as H 2488 which is clearly defined as armor and nothing more, H 5402 which is clearly associated, in a more general sense with military equipment, He would not have used definitions with broad applications such as H 3627.





“This does not ban women from combat. In the case of nomadic culture, pre 20th century armies and ancient Israel contextually speaking; someone had to defend the camp and there is no prohibition of women defending themselves if need be. That only makes practical sense.”




What does that have to do with anything?




“your statements here are not internally consistent with the rest of Scripture; where we do see women exercising positions of some sort of authority. This is seen often along side of men as leaders of groups.”



I do not understand why you insist on accusing me of treating Paul’s reservations about women holding authority over men in the church as a direct command from the Lord and not simply a personal judgment of Paul’s for reasons already addressed. I have repeatedly stated 1 Tim. 2:12-14 as appearing to be a personal judgment on Paul’s part regarding women holding positions of authority over men in the church and not a direct command from God.



“There is no historical evidence of female led congregations that I'm aware of. So unlike what you accuse me of with "proof of goddess cults alluded to" (which are indeed historical artifacts of the ancient world) you are on shakier standing with this assumption than I am with what I have stated.”



Accuse you of? You have been trying to impose the “goddess cult” factor upon a passage of scripture that in no way specifically supports that kind of rendering of Paul’s personal prohibition against women holding authority over men in the church:




“The verses about Adam and Eve talk about Adam being created first and Eve being deceived; but Adam was not, so therefore his accountability to God was greater than Eve's because he didn't eat the fruit because of some "magical" belief that it would make him wise.

So back up to the verses in front of that. Women aren't to teach that they are the authors of man - because Adam was created first.... And historically speaking, there was a goddess cult that taught that… Now taking the principal that the Bible interprets itself, you could reasonably argue that the counter part to 1 Timothy is Revelation. And that this doctrine of Jezebel that Revelation does not define; could very well be defined in 1 Timothy. Contextually that fits, because both passages are discussing something being taught.”



And here is the source you used to support your claim that 1 Tim. 2:12-14 was addressing goddess cults:




“My instruction of the Greek language (couplette used) and the historical evidence about goddess cults came out of this book:
https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/i-suffer-not-woman-kroeger-pp073.pdf”



Your words. Not mine.



And I never denied the existence of goddess cults or goddess worship in the Greco-Roman culture during that first generation of Christians as you seem to imply. I just do not believe that it had anything to do with Paul’s personal reservations about permitting women to assume authority over men in the church.

You again have made me out to have made statements in a way that I did not. I never said that there were female-led congregations in that first generation of believers as a matter of fact. I said that in a speculative sense only, though I will admit based upon the context of 1 Tim. 2:12, that such a theory is not necessarily an implausible one.



“Women being more prone to being led astray than men is another assumption. How many men have the humility to ask God: "Am I being led astray?" There are plenty of deceived men out there too. False doctrine is not a gender delineated problem in the church.”



I never said that it was. I only said that in light of Paul’s reasoning behind why he himself did not permit a woman to possess a position of authority over men in the fellowship, that it was a question that should be asked: Are women by nature more susceptible to being deceived than men? After all, while neither gender is superior or inferior to the other, it is a fact that God did not create both entirely the same.

And because the thinking processes of men and women are known to be different, whether or not women are more susceptible to being deceived than men, especially in light of the fact that it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent and not Adam (Adam sinned willfully), it is not an unfair or unreasonable question to ask.

But I never said that false doctrine was a gender delineated problem in the church.
I know that there are a lot of deceived men as well and that there are many men who teach false doctrine. But I also know that the ratio of men heading churches in comparison to women is much higher; always has been. Nevertheless, as to whether or not women are susceptible to being deceived than men is not an unfair question to ask since 1 Tim. 2:12-14 was not placed in the scriptures in vain.



“Also, just because back when there was one male and one female; Eve was the one who was deceived, does not automatically translate to being the case with all women.”



I never said that was the case with all women.



“Especially when Paul himself says "There's no male or female in Christ" Galatians 3:28. If women even under Old Testament economy had limited leadership roles; why would that be suddenly forbidden in the New Testament? Again, that interpretation is not internally consistent with the entirety of Scripture.”



In spite of his personal reservations against it, Paul never demanded for any women who may have held an authoritative position over men in the church to step down from their role or for any congregations to remove them from said positions. Neither did he make his prohibition against women being elected to positions of authority over men in the church a mandate for all congregations.


Again, making it sound as though I am treating 1 Tim. 2:12-14 as a direct command from God rather than a personal judgment of Paul as you always seem to do.




“God does not withhold truth and understanding of Scripture based on gender.”




I never said that He did.




“The other issue with that interpretation of this passage is where do you draw the line when it comes to "authority over men" as it relates to believers interactions with each other? What about teenage boys and female Sunday school teachers? What about mothers and male children? What about "para church" type organizations like private schools? Is a Christian high school not allowed to have female teachers or a female principal?”



Paul did not have teenage boys in mind. Only full-fledged adult men. As for mothers and male children, that is an entirely different matter—a parent, son relationship---and has nothing to do with church leadership.

Contenders Edge said:

But the question that needs to be asked is this: Are women more susceptible to being led astray than men? And how many women are willing to humbly ask this question about themselves before God?

Click to expand...

The answer to this question is No. If we're looking at a context like our modern society, where women have the same access to education as men, then no, women are not more susceptible to being led astray than men. This is one of the difficulties we face when interpreting and applying the advice from I Timothy.

PloverWing said:

The answer to this question is No. If we're looking at a context like our modern society, where women have the same access to education as men, then no, women are not more susceptible to being led astray than men. This is one of the difficulties we face when interpreting and applying the advice from I Timothy.

Click to expand...

My question is not based upon the culture of the past or now or what everyone has access to. The question really centers around human nature and the inward nature of both genders which God knows better than any of us. After all, it is really about why Paul felt the way that he did and does not have anything to do with promoting a patriarchal concept as others may claim.

1 Tim. 2:12-14 taken at face value, despite it not being presented as a direct command of God as others may render it, is one of those passages, especially in this modern age in western society, that is hard to accept and yet it cannot be dismissed because it is divinely inspired scripture and still, there are those who will ignore it or try to render it according to factors that the text itself makes no mention of.

Contenders Edge said:

“Except the translated words in this case contradict your statement here.”

How do they contradict my statement? H 3627 is a definition that applies to a lot of things including things that are worn by people which can cover anything from armor to general clothing. In order for the translated words to contradict my statement, they would have to be words specifically addressing what you say they do. H 3627 as far as Deut. 22:5 is concerned does not do that specifically because H 3627 is a very broad definition and cannot be used to specifically address things associated with warfare as you claim.

If that was the intent of the author, he would have used definitions that would have made that clear such as H 2488 which is clearly defined as armor and nothing more, H 5402 which is clearly associated, in a more general sense with military equipment, He would not have used definitions with broad applications such as H 3627.

“This does not ban women from combat. In the case of nomadic culture, pre 20th century armies and ancient Israel contextually speaking; someone had to defend the camp and there is no prohibition of women defending themselves if need be. That only makes practical sense.”

What does that have to do with anything?

“your statements here are not internally consistent with the rest of Scripture; where we do see women exercising positions of some sort of authority. This is seen often along side of men as leaders of groups.”

I do not understand why you insist on accusing me of treating Paul’s reservations about women holding authority over men in the church as a direct command from the Lord and not simply a personal judgment of Paul’s for reasons already addressed. I have repeatedly stated 1 Tim. 2:12-14 as appearing to be a personal judgment on Paul’s part regarding women holding positions of authority over men in the church and not a direct command from God.

“There is no historical evidence of female led congregations that I'm aware of. So unlike what you accuse me of with "proof of goddess cults alluded to" (which are indeed historical artifacts of the ancient world) you are on shakier standing with this assumption than I am with what I have stated.”

Accuse you of? You have been trying to impose the “goddess cult” factor upon a passage of scripture that in no way specifically supports that kind of rendering of Paul’s personal prohibition against women holding authority over men in the church:

“The verses about Adam and Eve talk about Adam being created first and Eve being deceived; but Adam was not, so therefore his accountability to God was greater than Eve's because he didn't eat the fruit because of some "magical" belief that it would make him wise.

So back up to the verses in front of that. Women aren't to teach that they are the authors of man - because Adam was created first.... And historically speaking, there was a goddess cult that taught that… Now taking the principal that the Bible interprets itself, you could reasonably argue that the counter part to 1 Timothy is Revelation. And that this doctrine of Jezebel that Revelation does not define; could very well be defined in 1 Timothy. Contextually that fits, because both passages are discussing something being taught.”

And here is the source you used to support your claim that 1 Tim. 2:12-14 was addressing goddess cults:

“My instruction of the Greek language (couplette used) and the historical evidence about goddess cults came out of this book:
https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/i-suffer-not-woman-kroeger-pp073.pdf”

Your words. Not mine.

And I never denied the existence of goddess cults or goddess worship in the Greco-Roman culture during that first generation of Christians as you seem to imply. I just do not believe that it had anything to do with Paul’s personal reservations about permitting women to assume authority over men in the church.

You again have made me out to have made statements in a way that I did not. I never said that there were female-led congregations in that first generation of believers as a matter of fact. I said that in a speculative sense only, though I will admit based upon the context of 1 Tim. 2:12, that such a theory is not necessarily an implausible one.

“Women being more prone to being led astray than men is another assumption. How many men have the humility to ask God: "Am I being led astray?" There are plenty of deceived men out there too. False doctrine is not a gender delineated problem in the church.”

I never said that it was. I only said that in light of Paul’s reasoning behind why he himself did not permit a woman to possess a position of authority over men in the fellowship, that it was a question that should be asked: Are women by nature more susceptible to being deceived than men? After all, while neither gender is superior or inferior to the other, it is a fact that God did not create both entirely the same.

And because the thinking processes of men and women are known to be different, whether or not women are more susceptible to being deceived than men, especially in light of the fact that it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent and not Adam (Adam sinned willfully), it is not an unfair or unreasonable question to ask.

But I never said that false doctrine was a gender delineated problem in the church.
I know that there are a lot of deceived men as well and that there are many men who teach false doctrine. But I also know that the ratio of men heading churches in comparison to women is much higher; always has been. Nevertheless, as to whether or not women are susceptible to being deceived than men is not an unfair question to ask since 1 Tim. 2:12-14 was not placed in the scriptures in vain.

“Also, just because back when there was one male and one female; Eve was the one who was deceived, does not automatically translate to being the case with all women.”

I never said that was the case with all women.

“Especially when Paul himself says "There's no male or female in Christ" Galatians 3:28. If women even under Old Testament economy had limited leadership roles; why would that be suddenly forbidden in the New Testament? Again, that interpretation is not internally consistent with the entirety of Scripture.”

In spite of his personal reservations against it, Paul never demanded for any women who may have held an authoritative position over men in the church to step down from their role or for any congregations to remove them from said positions. Neither did he make his prohibition against women being elected to positions of authority over men in the church a mandate for all congregations.

Again, making it sound as though I am treating 1 Tim. 2:12-14 as a direct command from God rather than a personal judgment of Paul as you always seem to do.

“God does not withhold truth and understanding of Scripture based on gender.”

I never said that He did.

“The other issue with that interpretation of this passage is where do you draw the line when it comes to "authority over men" as it relates to believers interactions with each other? What about teenage boys and female Sunday school teachers? What about mothers and male children? What about "para church" type organizations like private schools? Is a Christian high school not allowed to have female teachers or a female principal?”

Paul did not have teenage boys in mind. Only full-fledged adult men. As for mothers and male children, that is an entirely different matter—a parent, son relationship---and has nothing to do with church leadership.

Click to expand...

Truth of the matter is, that despite all of your objections to what I've written you still fail on two points:

1. The translation of the word in Deuteronomy 22 is not as broad as you state it is. The argument can reasonably be made that specific word has nothing to do with garments not worn for the purpose of performing certain tasks. In all contexts that word is used to denote articles worn by men for the purpose of performing a certain task, not garments put on simply for the purpose of wearing clothing.

2. No where in that passage in Timothy does Paul indicate that what he's saying there is his opinion. He only gives a personal opinion in 1 Corinthians 7:12 where he's speaking of a believer is not required to divorce an unbeliever.

The Righterzpen said:

Truth of the matter is, that despite all of your objections to what I've written you still fail on two points:

1. The translation of the word in Deuteronomy 22 is not as broad as you state it is. The argument can reasonably be made that specific word has nothing to do with garments not worn for the purpose of performing certain tasks. In all contexts that word is used to denote articles worn by men for the purpose of performing a certain task, not garments put on simply for the purpose of wearing clothing.

2. No where in that passage in Timothy does Paul indicate that what he's saying there is his opinion. He only gives a personal opinion in 1 Corinthians 7:12 where he's speaking of a believer is not required to divorce an unbeliever.

Click to expand...

“1. The translation of the word in Deuteronomy 22 is not as broad as you state it is. The argument can reasonably be made that specific word has nothing to do with garments not worn for the purpose of performing certain tasks. In all contexts that word is used to denote articles worn by men for the purpose of performing a certain task, not garments put on simply for the purpose of wearing clothing.”



“The KJV translates Strong's H3627 in the following manner: vessel (166x), instrument (39x), weapon (21x), jewel (21x), armourbearer (with H5375) (18x), stuff (14x), thing (11x), armour (10x), furniture (7x), carriage (3x), bag (2x), miscellaneous (13x).”


Genesis 1:1 (KJV)



Strong’s defines H 3627 as the following:



“י kᵉlîy, kel-ee'; from H3615; something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon):—armour(-bearer), artillery, bag, carriage, furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of, × one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon, whatsoever.”




Out of the different definitions to which H 3627 is applied, in Deut. 22:5 it seems that only the following definitions are allowed by the context of the passage:

armour, bag (a type of bag a man would carry but not a woman and vice versa), jewel (a type of jewel a man would wear but not a woman and vice versa), thing (which could mean anything including garments pertaining to a man or woman) and miscellaneous (which can also mean anything including garments pertaining to a man or woman)

Now, out of all the definitions and meanings to which H 3627 is applied, how can that possibly be narrowed down to that which is strictly associated with warfare and not to clothing in a general sense?

And if the author intended to forbid a woman to wear that which pertained to a man and a man from wearing a woman’s garment as it related to warfare, why would the author use a word that is applied in a more general sense rather than definitions that strictly apply to warfare?



2. No where in that passage in Timothy does Paul indicate that what he's saying there is his opinion. He only gives a personal opinion in 1 Corinthians 7:12 where he's speaking of a believer is not required to divorce an unbeliever.



Now that sounds like a complete reversal from the position for which you had been advocating. So now you are saying that the prohibition against women holding a position of authority over men in the church, especially a teaching position, is to be treated as a direct command from God?

Contenders Edge said:

Now, out of all the definitions and meanings to which H 3627 is applied, how can that possibly be narrowed down to that which is strictly associated with warfare and not to clothing in a general sense?

Click to expand...

So now you understand and recognize that this has something to do with articles men may "put on" to perform a task. Yet, let's take a look at what else it's translated as:

"vessel" - Are women not suppose to carry watering jugs? In order to answer that - you'd have to look up all the places "vessel" is used and see what it's referring to. (This word is most commonly used in description of "vessels in the temple".)

"instrument" Are women not suppose to play musical instruments. (This is the word used to describe musical instruments used in worship.)

What about "jewel"? Are women not suppose to wear jewelry? (This word describes jewelry worn by both men and women.)

Again, you'd have to look up all these and see what the context is. The best overall translation of that particular Hebrew word is "implement" or "thing". Yet that "thing" itself may have application to both males and females.

Contenders Edge said:

And if the author intended to forbid a woman to wear that which pertained to a man and a man from wearing a woman’s garment as it related to warfare, why would the author use a word that is applied in a more general sense rather than definitions that strictly apply to warfare?

Click to expand...

So, now how do we know this is talking about warfare. The answer to that comes in the next word; "man". This isn't "man" generically such as "Adam", or in the New Testament we commonly see "anthropos" where we get "anthropology" (the study of humanity) from. No this word has another word attached to it that means "mighty", "strong", "valiant", "warrior".

And so what are the "implements" / "things" most associated with "mighty", "strong", "valiant", "warrior" men?

Answer - weapons!

So yes, it is proper and appropriate to translate this word in context of weapons used in warfare.

Now beyond that - look at all the words in the passage.

3808 "not" 1961 "come to pass" 3627 "implements" (of) 1397 "mighty men" 5921 "upon" (above, against) 802 "woman" 3808 (negation) "no" (most commonly translated as - nor, none, never) 3847 "be clothed" 1397 "mighty men" 8071 "cloak" (cloth / clothing (outer)) (of) 802 "woman" ..... "for abominations to God are all who do these".

The term "abomination" is in reference to something God finds morally reprehensible. "Style of clothing" (outside of being culturally rendered "designed for men" or "designed for woman") does not fit that criteria. For example, to say a man is violating a Biblical standard by wearing a kilt, or "women can't wear pants" is not Scripturally founded.

Now effeminate men is addressed in other parts of the Scripture; which is closely akin to homosexuality.

Contenders Edge said:

Now that sounds like a complete reversal from the position for which you had been advocating. So now you are saying that the prohibition against women holding a position of authority over men in the church, especially a teaching position, is to be treated as a direct command from God?

Click to expand...

In light of the entirety of the context of all of Scripture. Just as with this Deuteronomy passage; I don't conclude that it is saying what you think it is saying.

“‘vessel’ - Are women not suppose to carry watering jugs? In order to answer that - you'd have to look up all the places "vessel" is used and see what it's referring to. (This word is most commonly used in description of "vessels in the temple".)

“‘instrument’” Are women not suppose to play musical instruments. (This is the word used to describe musical instruments used in worship.)



The terminology used in Deut. 22:5 does not refer to instruments or vessels specifically so therefore that passage could not be used in and of itself to determine whether women were allowed to do the above, but we do know that women did regularly retrieve water from well and other sources of water so therefore, what vessels women were forbidden to take upon themselves did not include that.


And as for instruments, the term instruments does not strictly apply to musical instruments, but is a figurative expression to describe “a tool.”



“What about "jewel"? Are women not suppose to wear jewelry? (This word describes jewelry worn by both men and women.)”



Both men and women wore jewelry in that culture but there was jewelry worn by women that wasn’t worn by men and vice versa.





“So, now how do we know this is talking about warfare. The answer to that comes in the next word; "man". This isn't "man" generically such as "Adam", or in the New Testament we commonly see "anthropos" where we get "anthropology" (the study of humanity) from. No this word has another word attached to it that means "mighty", "strong", "valiant", "warrior".”




The terms “mighty” and “valiant” are attributes based on actions and deeds performed. “Warrior” is an occupation. “Strong” is to describe a man or person of strength.


“Gehber,” the word used in this case is used to describe men of valor or warriors in the proper use, but can also be used in the generic sense according to how Strong’s defines the term but consider that at that time any able bodied man was expected to be ready to fight and naturally, they would have dressed accordingly and this applies to both armor worn in battle and even garments prepared in anticipation for such an event. They had to be prepared for to go out to war and prepared to defend from an attack. They would not have worn anything that would have inhibited movement and mobility required in the event of battle. They would have had to wear clothing that allowed them to move about freely.


Women’s garments on the other hand would not have been designed for fighting because women were not called to take up the sword as men were. In any case. Even that in and of itself would have created a stark difference between what was typically worn by women and men.




“to say a man is violating a Biblical standard by wearing a kilt, or ‘women can't wear pants’ is not Scripturally founded.”




That is not the issue. We know that kilts are male-designated ware and that there are pants designed to be worn by women that are not designed for men and vice versa.

What is at issue is what would have been designated in that culture to be worn specifically by men and not women and what was specifically worn by women and not by men.




“In light of the entirety of the context of all of Scripture. Just as with this Deuteronomy passage; I don't conclude that it [1 Timothy 2:12-14] is saying what you think it is saying.”




That passage is either God forbidding women to teach or usurp authority over a man or a personal judgment on the part of the Apostle Paul for reasons we can only speculate. It cannot be rendered any other way and contextually speaking, I side with the latter and not the former.

The Righterzpen said:

So now you understand and recognize that this has something to do with articles men may "put on" to perform a task. Yet, let's take a look at what else it's translated as:



"vessel" - Are women not suppose to carry watering jugs? In order to answer that - you'd have to look up all the places "vessel" is used and see what it's referring to. (This word is most commonly used in description of "vessels in the temple".)



"instrument" Are women not suppose to play musical instruments. (This is the word used to describe musical instruments used in worship.)



What about "jewel"? Are women not suppose to wear jewelry? (This word describes jewelry worn by both men and women.)



Again, you'd have to look up all these and see what the context is. The best overall translation of that particular Hebrew word is "implement" or "thing". Yet that "thing" itself may have application to both males and females.







So, now how do we know this is talking about warfare. The answer to that comes in the next word; "man". This isn't "man" generically such as "Adam", or in the New Testament we commonly see "anthropos" where we get "anthropology" (the study of humanity) from. No this word has another word attached to it that means "mighty", "strong", "valiant", "warrior".



And so what are the "implements" / "things" most associated with "mighty", "strong", "valiant", "warrior" men?



Answer - weapons!



So yes, it is proper and appropriate to translate this word in context of weapons used in warfare.



Now beyond that - look at all the words in the passage.



3808 "not" 1961 "come to pass" 3627 "implements" (of) 1397 "mighty men" 5921 "upon" (above, against) 802 "woman" 3808 (negation) "no" (most commonly translated as - nor, none, never) 3847 "be clothed" 1397 "mighty men" 8071 "cloak" (cloth / clothing (outer)) (of) 802 "woman" ..... "for abominations to God are all who do these".



The term "abomination" is in reference to something God finds morally reprehensible. "Style of clothing" (outside of being culturally rendered "designed for men" or "designed for woman") does not fit that criteria. For example, to say a man is violating a Biblical standard by wearing a kilt, or "women can't wear pants" is not Scripturally founded.



Now effeminate men is addressed in other parts of the Scripture; which is closely akin to homosexuality.







In light of the entirety of the context of all of Scripture. Just as with this Deuteronomy passage; I don't conclude that it is saying what you think it is saying.

Click to expand...

“‘vessel’ - Are women not suppose to carry watering jugs? In order to answer that - you'd have to look up all the places "vessel" is used and see what it's referring to. (This word is most commonly used in description of "vessels in the temple".)

“‘instrument’” Are women not suppose to play musical instruments. (This is the word used to describe musical instruments used in worship.)



The terminology used in Deut. 22:5 does not refer to instruments or vessels specifically so therefore that passage could not be used in and of itself to determine whether women were allowed to do the above, but we do know that women did regularly retrieve water from well and other sources of water so therefore, what vessels women were forbidden to take upon themselves did not include that.


And as for instruments, the term instruments does not strictly apply to musical instruments, but is a figurative expression to describe “a tool.”



“What about "jewel"? Are women not suppose to wear jewelry? (This word describes jewelry worn by both men and women.)”



Both men and women wore jewelry in that culture but there was jewelry worn by women that wasn’t worn by men and vice versa.




“So, now how do we know this is talking about warfare. The answer to that comes in the next word; "man". This isn't "man" generically such as "Adam", or in the New Testament we commonly see "anthropos" where we get "anthropology" (the study of humanity) from. No this word has another word attached to it that means "mighty", "strong", "valiant", "warrior".”




The terms “mighty” and “valiant” are attributes based on actions and deeds performed. “Warrior” is an occupation. “Strong” is to describe a man or person of strength.

“Gehber,” the word used in this case is used to describe men of valor or warriors in the proper use, but can also be used in the generic sense according to how Strong’s defines the term but consider that at that time any able bodied man was expected to be ready to fight and naturally, they would have dressed accordingly and this applies to both armor worn in battle and even garments prepared in anticipation for such an event. They had to be prepared for to go out to war and prepared to defend from an attack. They would not have worn anything that would have inhibited movement and mobility required in the event of battle. They would have had to wear clothing that allowed them to move about freely.

Women’s garments on the other hand would not have been designed for fighting because women were not called to take up the sword as men were. In any case. Even that in and of itself would have created a stark difference between what was typically worn by women and men.




“to say a man is violating a Biblical standard by wearing a kilt, or ‘women can't wear pants’ is not Scripturally founded.”




That is not the issue. We know that kilts are male-designated ware and that there are pants designed to be worn by women that are not designed for men and vice versa.

What is at issue is what would have been designated in that culture to be worn specifically by men and not women and what was specifically worn by women and not by men.




“In light of the entirety of the context of all of Scripture. Just as with this Deuteronomy passage; I don't conclude that it [1 Timothy 2:12-14] is saying what you think it is saying.”




That passage is either God forbidding women to teach or usurp authority over a man or a personal judgment on the part of the Apostle Paul for reasons we can only speculate. It cannot be rendered any other way and contextually speaking, I side with the latter and not the former.

Dressing like a woman

Contenders Edge said:

And what you describe as being the teacher-disciple relationship in that culture and generation also provides insight why so many false doctrines and heresies have entered into our midst over time; teachers, Pastors, and evangelists being elevated higher than they should be and thereby the doctrine that they teach becomes the doctrine of their followers who accept it without question.

Click to expand...

You’re correct and I’ve witnessed it firsthand on many occasions. The behavior was reminiscent of gurus and their followers. Having practiced many religions including Buddhism and Hinduism I know what it is. The elevation and near infallibility of the pastor was troubling. It was a warning bell in my mind.

It is a problem within our ranks that persists even today; many professors of the faith not considering that the Pastors and teachers that they look up to can err in doctrinal matters and disappoint in matters of their conduct at times.

Click to expand...

There was a well-known pastor frequently quoted. His name was mentioned in bible studies and his commentaries were regarded as solid without question. If he said it they took it as fact.

When one places too much trust in a Pastor or teacher for truth, they can be easily led astray by false doctrines and destructive heresies and when that teacher to, whom his or her disciples look, disgraces themselves in some way, they who followed them are demoralized because they looked to a person who was not the perfect example that Christ.

Click to expand...

Two of the churches I once attended have had trouble with their senior pastors. One retired early and the other was removed. The third church has been unable to find a replacement for their aging pastor and he reduced his workload while others fill in.

I’ve watched the fallout of household names topple from grace and the egg resting on those who championed them or were aware of their sins.

All of us have at one time, whether we want to admit it or not have place a figure who has been an instrument of God for inspiration in our lives at a higher level of esteem than we should. Hero worship is not just a problem in the world of the unbelieving, but it can be a problem in the Church as well.

Click to expand...

I don’t have the capacity to idolize men of God. In my mind they’re servants whose lives are imperfectly lived as mine. I seek the Lord’s word and address my concerns and questions to Him first before another. Oftentimes He’s an afterthought for most. They turn to one another instead.

LaBèlla said:

You’re correct and I’ve witnessed it firsthand on many occasions. The behavior was reminiscent of gurus and their followers. Having practiced many religions including Buddhism and Hinduism I know what it is. The elevation and near infallibility of the pastor was troubling. It was a warning bell in my mind.



There was a well-known pastor frequently quoted. His name was mentioned in bible studies and his commentaries were regarded as solid without question. If he said it they took it as fact.



Two of the churches I once attended have had trouble with their senior pastors. One retired early and the other was removed. The third church has been unable to find a replacement for their aging pastor and he reduced his workload while others fill in.

I’ve watched the fallout of household names topple from grace and the egg resting on those who championed them or were aware of their sins.



I don’t have the capacity to idolize men of God. In my mind they’re servants whose lives are imperfectly lived as mine. I seek the Lord’s word and address my concerns and questions to Him first before another. Oftentimes He’s an afterthought for most. They turn to one another instead.

Click to expand...

“I don’t have the capacity to idolize men of God.”



The scripture warns us that if anyone thinks they stand, “take heed” lest they fall. (1 Cor. 10:12) Whenever we come across a figure used of God to enlighten and inspire us, there is always that tendency to elevate them higher than we should and it is when we come across such figures that we must keep ourselves in check. They may provide wonderful insight and display a lot of wisdom and knowledge, but we must always remember that they are vessels of the living God, just as we are and all vessels are faulty and fallible.

I do not know how far along you are in your walk with the Lord, but I can say this that when you undergo what is called a period of sifting, you find out that you are not as strong as you once thought and that you do in fact have vulnerabilities that the adversary of our souls and of Christ will try to exploit in order to render you useless as a servant of the Kingdom.

That sifting process began for me in my second year as a Christian and it lasted roughly seven years and during that time, I was made aware of my vulnerabilities. I knew during that time that I was not as strong and invincible as I seemed to be.