Answering Christianity Myths of Women Preaching

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

Well, we are live. A bit late, but still live. Sorry about the technical issues.

All of a sudden, just before we went to go live, I lost the sound.

So, my output was no longer going and I couldn't get anything to work.

So, I, well, did what any of you would do, panicked. Yes, but I am your host,

Andrew Rappaport. I am the Executive Director of Striving for Eternity and the Christian Podcast Community, of which this live stream becomes a podcast of which is on that show.

So, if you want to check out Christian Podcast Community, go to ChristianPodcastCommunity .org. You can go to StrivingForEternity .org

to find out more about Striving for Eternity as I am still panicking and trying to pull up all of my files that I had opened before so that I could start this discussion.

Yeah, okay. My co -host is not in. That makes it even livelier. So, now

I have to do everything here and look at your comments and everything else.

I am trying to find my Word document that I had open because that's going to be needed.

And so, with that, let me just welcome those who are here. Tonight, what we're going to do is go through a podcast that I was asked to give a review of.

Basically, this podcast is called The Alabaster Jar.

This was one that they did where they were, I guess, spent a summer some time ago looking at what they referred to as Christian myths, and they dealt with a myth of the women of 1

Timothy 2 in their Women of the Bible series. So, that's what we're going to cover tonight.

I do want to just say, as we always do, is to let you guys know that if you want to come in here, we would greatly appreciate if you come on in.

And if you want to, you could do that. The way to do it is to go to apologeticslive .com

and then to just click on the duck icon.

I want to get folks who are watching, if you could just let me know you're hearing me okay, that everything's working on your end because I got no one to test with.

Especially since I'm seeing a Facebook user who are saying, are we live? Where is this taped?

I guess it's recorded already. So, I'm getting kind of concerned that this is going out properly.

So, if folks in the chat could let me know. Audio is good. Thank you, Jason. Jason Cave is saying that the audio is good.

All right. So, sorry for the slight hiccup there. I did want to, there was so much in the news that I was trying to struggle with what to do in the news section.

One of the things that I just want to touch base on, though, is to let you all know that this is the last week

I'll be doing a live one, at least for a little while. And so, we're going to be going,

I'll be headed to the Philippines for three weeks. So, I don't know,

I'll be talking to Drew and Aaron and see if they're going to set something up. I don't know if we'll be able to do that or not.

So, we may have no shows for the next three weeks, just to let you know. So, I do want to let everyone know about that.

Some topics that, and folks, I do appreciate you emailing me ideas for topics.

If that's something you have some ideas, what you want to do, you can just contact us. Contact us by going to info at strivingforeternity .com.

Info at strivingforeternity .com. And so, if you go there, you will be able to get some ways of letting us know some topics.

Some topics that we've been asked to talk about that we'll probably do when

I get back in May is the question of, is truth divisive? Can Christians donate sperm?

We'll have to dig into that. I have never been asked that one before. Why do entitled people not see it?

In other words, why don't they see that they're entitled? And then the follow -up to that is, can Christians feel entitled?

Can sin be present in heaven? So, that's another one. And then the, let's see, what was this other one?

Small sins and large sins have a payment, yet Colossians 2, all sin was paid at the cross.

So, we will look about the view of, is there different degrees of sin?

So, those are some topics that we're looking at covering in the future. If you have topics you'd like us to cover, please let us know that by just emailing us.

And we would appreciate that, and that way we know what you want to hear. So, with that, let's get into this.

Drew is, unexpectedly, had to go. His wife ended up having some plans.

And so, therefore, he could not make it. Or at least, he's probably going to be here later.

So, I want to jump into this. And folks, if you have questions, if you have things that you'd like us to talk about, you can always pop them into the chat.

But it is much better if you just join us. If you would join us live, that's the best way to get your questions answered.

So, let's jump into this podcast. Let me just read a little bit about this podcast as I look over here.

Sorry for those watching that I'm looking at this screen here. And it says, the description of this is,

Paul's instruction for Timothy concerning a group of women in 1 Timothy 2 has unfortunately been used to silence many women throughout the history of the church.

Lynn and Serene wrestle through the myths and themes around the contentious passage.

Context matters. And Lynn carefully provides a helpful explanation of all the different elements that were at work in the passage.

Learn more about Seminary Now courses, and I guess Lynn's Women of the

New Testament course. So, I guess she's teaching at a seminary.

So, right off the bat, that might tell us some things. I don't know anything about this podcast, nor these women before this.

So, with that, let me just jump right in because I didn't play the full 30 minutes.

Actually, it's like 28 minutes. But we grabbed a number of clips from this.

And so, I'm hoping that we will have something that will help us understand this unique view.

Now, I am going to say that I do think this is a rather unique view that they have.

So, this is something where I have not heard this argument before. It doesn't mean that just because I've never heard it, it's wrong.

It's not because it's maybe the only person that has this view that it's wrong. I think it's wrong for other reasons, and we're going to get into those reasons.

So, let us begin. And I will start by playing some clips.

Now, I want to just play different clips that they have. Some of these are going to be longer, and I understand that.

But I want to make sure that we get the context and we engage with them.

So, let me play this first one. It's going to be about 46 seconds. So, here this is.

In the lens through which all other women, named and unnamed, in the

New Testament are evaluated. So, I thought, all right, let's take a look at 1

Timothy 2 and the passage that— I'm kind of joking, but I also know it has been interpreted in certain ways that have caused great heartache in my own life.

And in many women who have used this, who have heard the

Scripture, not as something that builds them up in the Lord, but something that tears them down.

So, I want to offer another way of looking at it that I hope will dispel the shadow and bring light.

Okay, so right off the bat, you hear the personal nature of this. Her arguments are going to be because it hurt her.

And she's also made the point, if you heard it, she said that Scripture has to lift up. Now, this is a problem we see in Christianity today, that people have this view that Scripture must always lift us up and never, well, make us feel bad.

Because everything is about feelings. The reality is that as we end up seeing in this, the woman here speaking is talking, first off, saying that the common way of understanding this passage, well, it hurts her.

It has affected her emotionally. Maybe, I don't know, but being that she's teaching at a seminary, maybe it's that people say that she is not supposed to be teaching, and she feels that that is something that makes this interpretation that people have wrong.

Now, someone, we have Jesse saying, good point, an appeal to emotional fallacy. Exactly right.

If you go back to the episode I did on my rap report, I did a rap report series on what is a pastor.

There should be an article on strivingforturning .org that Josiah Nichols either wrote or is writing.

I don't know if it's out yet, on that subject, and it puts all of the 10 episodes together on what is a pastor.

But episode 2 and 3 and 4 dealt with what a pastor is not.

A pastor is not a woman. And so what we ended up seeing is, as I went through there, is

I gave all the emotional arguments that people have for women being pastors or preachers, and then the biblical arguments that people would make here.

And so Chris Huff is saying, feelings are not the judge of truth. Exactly. We should not let our feelings be the judge of what is true or not.

And so she was not liking this. She's saying that women are being hurt by this because it doesn't lift them up.

The reality is, Scripture doesn't always lift us up. A lot of times,

I don't know about you, but for me, as I read Scripture, a lot of the times I read the

Scripture and I'm not going, oh, that's so encouraging. I'm going, ouch, I got some things I got to work on.

And so when people are looking for the Scripture to be a feel -good thing,

I wonder if this is just another form of witchcraft. Yeah, yeah, exactly what

I'm saying. Where people think they could just go to the Bible and just read some parts, and it's going to just magically make them feel better.

The Bible is not a motivational document. It's not a document that, you know, we talk about motivational speakers, these books that people write, like basically

Joel Osteen's stuff is all motivational speaker stuff. It's all motivational to make you feel good.

But it's not true biblically. So we have to come up with the deal with the fact that what is truth?

So Chris Hough is making the point that I said. He says, Scripture will lift us up as it disciplines us.

That's right. That's exactly what it does. So let's jump into some more what she has to say. This next clip is another 47 second one.

So it's a little bit of a longer one, but let's listen in and then address this. I think one of the myths that happens is that this passage is seen as transcultural, like above culture.

And I just want to say that that statement is both a yes and a no, in as much as this is

Paul's letter to a church. And in that sense, it's really important that we understand the immediate context because it's a letter.

And so he's going to Paul is going to assume that his immediate audience understands certain things.

Right. It's communication that has a lot of asset expectations, implicit expectations.

So in that sense, we're going to really pay attention to the history of the historical context. Then, on the other hand, it is also

God's word for God's people down through the ages. So in that sense, it speaks to every culture.

But it is not transcultural in the sense that there is no culture as part of it.

Right. That it is somehow like a commandment, thou shalt not murder, as though it just sort of steps out of any particular set of circumstances.

So I think that's one myth that we need to address, that somehow this speaks for all time about all women everywhere.

Right. That's just not the way you would understand something in an epistle. Nevertheless, it is

God's word for us today. And so it's important that we understand it as best we can.

OK. So, again, this is from the Alabaster Jar podcast. This is Lynn from I just have her name

Lynn from seminary now. So she, I guess, teaches at seminary. But a lot some of what she said there is true, but it's mixed with error.

She's she's trying to say you don't take an epistle and give it a universal application.

Why not? In fact, that's a lot of what we do. Chris Huff is saying he said this is what we call a word salad.

You know, Kathy is saying this is horrible theology. And it is because the as we go through this passage, the reason we say that this is universal is because Paul makes arguments for this instruction based in creation.

So how do we know that lying is wrong? Because God is not a liar.

So we get it from the nature of God. Right. How do we know that murder is wrong? Because God's not a murderer.

We get it from the nature of God. So how do we know that women are not to teach or have authority over men?

Because that's how God created men and women. He bases it in the creation order and the sin order.

You can see that in as you look at 1st Timothy 2, 12 to 14.

Well, 13 and 14, he says, for it was Adam who was first created, then

Eve. So that's the creation order. Now, that would say that this is universal for all men and women ever since Adam and Eve.

So if you have any man or woman that's not the offspring of Adam and Eve, then maybe you can make an argument there.

But what we see is that all by the inspirational Holy Spirit, in other words,

God wrote that the reason he gives this instruction, I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

The reason is for Adam was created first. So that takes us all the way back to creation, making this universal.

And then verse 14, and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived who fell into transgression.

So what you see there is the sin order. So Paul is making the argument based in creation, and that is what makes it universal.

So when she says, oh, well, this isn't the way we would interpret this. She's sort of right that there are times that we don't just take something and make it universal.

There are things that are written for specific audiences. We get that.

But as we look at this, we're going to look at the context, the very thing she said we need to do.

We look at the context to realize that it's not arguing what she's claiming it's arguing.

All right. So let's listen to more what Lynn has to say here from the Alabaster Jar podcast they did.

This is a shorter one, but I think this will be somewhat helpful for us. I think another myth that happens in this is people read this passage and they forget that Paul actually had female co -workers.

So they forget that Priscilla in Acts chapter 18 taught

Apollos. OK. Now, if you go back and listen to the episode

I did on what a pastor is not, that pastor is not a woman. You will see that I deal with Priscilla in episode three on my rap report podcast.

Just search for rap report rap with two piece. But Priscilla in Acts 18. Do we see her teaching

Apollos? No, actually, we don't. Because the one thing that Lynn here in this podcast that Alabaster Jar podcast neglects to talk about is the fact that she was with someone else.

Does anyone want to guess who she was? Oh, I already have someone in before I even could say it.

Someone was ahead of me, and that was Chris Honholz, who says

Priscilla and Aquila. She left that out. Exactly the point I was going to make,

Chris, that I have here in my notes. She is never mentioned without her husband.

Priscilla is mentioned in Acts 18, Romans 16, 2 Corinthians 11, and 2

Timothy 4 with her husband. She's never mentioned without her husband.

There's no evidence that she taught Apollos or anyone else. She could have been completely silent with her husband speaking because it says that Priscilla and Aquila were teaching him.

So which one did the teaching? This is something you often see these people that want to argue that women could be pastors do.

They leave out the part of the passages that they don't like or don't fit with what their argument is.

Now, Melissa is saying these women use the same old arguments.

No, Melissa, they won't. That's why we're going to engage with this, and that's why we were asked to engage with this.

The thing is that this is different. She is going to have something different.

I don't know who this is. Facebook user saying, Hey, I'm Jay watching from the Philippines. So, Jay, if you're out there,

I hope you're coming to either the pre -conference on dealing with wokeness, or if you're going to the main conference either in Bajal, which

I think still has seats, but in the mainland there, we are filled up in Manila, but I hope you're going to Strangefire in Philippines.

So don't want to miss that if you're there. If you missed out on Manila, you can still catch up with us in Bajal or the pre -conference in Manila.

So this is a typical thing that people do, and I want you to notice it.

And Jason Cave says as well, he says, omission is a lie. This is purposeful omissions.

It's purposeful. And because of that, what you end up seeing people doing is they will leave out to make it seem like, oh, well, the

Bible teaches this. She just assumes this. She's saying that, oh, well, she taught as if the

Bible's encouraging it. And so what you end up seeing is the fact that they do this on purpose because the scripture doesn't actually teach what they say.

I mean, how do you answer this? Very simple. You read the context of what they're saying. You read all the passages and you can go and check them out and notice if Priscilla is ever mentioned anywhere by herself.

And teaching in any form. We don't know who did the teaching. It could have been her husband.

And she stopped by silently. Now, the fact that Paul had women with him.

Well, Jesus did that, too, as co -workers, as, you know, disciples.

But that doesn't mean that they were teaching. That's an assumption that she makes. She assumes that because these women were with Paul, they must be teaching like Paul.

That's a major difference. And you also have to take into account that just because she's talking, sharing the gospel with someone, can a woman share the gospel with a person?

Well, that's very different than preaching in a church service. And remember, my view is that this instruction is within the church.

She is going to later on explain what she thinks the purpose of 1 Timothy is.

And I'm going to say that I think she gets it very wrong. Okay, so I just see some comments here.

Joe Conkle, my brother, is saying, Everyone wish Andrew a happy birthday tomorrow. Well, if anyone's thinking of doing that, make sure you go out and wish

Joe Conkle a happy birthday today. Because today's his birthday. He beats me by a day.

Well, okay, a day in a few years, maybe. So let's continue with the next part of what she has to say to tell us here.

We have Junia, who is a leader in the church.

I think she was an apostle. But even if you're going to debate that title, she clearly was a leader in the church.

So much so that she earned the reward of being arrested, just like Paul. Okay. Let's see if this makes logical sense.

Because she was arrested like Paul was arrested, that makes her a leader like Paul was a leader.

Does that make every human being that's ever been arrested a leader in the church because they're like Paul?

No. And then she just says, I think she was an apostle. Makes that claim.

Notice she never gives you support for any of that. And you can listen to the full podcast if you want to go find it and and see that she never does.

But like Priscilla, she is also mentioned with someone else, her husband.

And there is no mention of any role that she has in the church. So any use of this to insert something that like she's an apostle is inputting it into scripture because there's nothing, nothing.

Let me try saying this again. Nothing that says that she had any role in the church, especially one of apostle or leader.

Junia is mentioned as a relation of Paul's, but that does not make her a leader in any way.

Okay. She's referred to in Acts 16 as a kinsman of Paul.

He says my kinsman her, but, you know, he's mentioning her in context of her husband.

Now, I see Chris Huff backstage. Let me bring him in. He's been chatting up. So he figured he figured.

All right. Enough of the chats. I should just jump in here and join the conversation. Yeah, man.

Hi, buddy. Good. So so Jason Cave has this right. He's he says wrong one.

He says total isogenesis. Isogenesis is the when someone takes a meaning and reads it into a text instead of taking the meaning out of the text.

And that's what she does here. She is taking this and basically with these past two that we see

Priscilla and Jimmy, she is inserting. Her own assumptions, inserting and omitting.

Yeah. And that's why I put in the chat. I said it's not I didn't say it's not I said

Jesus. I just said Narcissus. Yes. Because this this whole thing started with there it is with.

I don't like the way this makes me feel. Correct. And so because I don't like the way this makes me feel,

I'm going to read my framework into what Scripture says and then, you know, take my little red pen and mark things out.

So just because you do that in your physical Bible doesn't actually mean that you're removing anything.

It just means that you're stuck on yourself. Yeah. Chris. Chris Han holds the saying tons of injecting one's own biased into the text here.

Exactly. Now, Katie has got a good point saying, how do we know that she's actually a female?

This is a is an issue because this name can be used as male or female.

So it's understood to recognize. And so as we as we deal with it,

I just know these are the typical arguments. She's going to get into some different arguments that are are very nuanced, very different.

And I will admit ones I had never heard before. OK, it doesn't mean

I've heard every argument that's out there. It just means that this one is more unique. But I think as as Chris said, she's trying to make the

Bible say something. It does not say she's trying to make the Bible say what she wished it would say.

So she could feel better about herself. It seems I'm just I'm assuming that since she's at a seminary that she's teaching at a seminary, unless it's a seminary of all women or she only teaches women classes.

I'm going to assume just it's an educated guess.

I could be wrong. It's a hypothesis. Yeah, I'm assuming that she's teaching men in seminary.

OK, just from the way she argues for this, this specific text, what she has said, what we've already heard and that she's teaching at a seminary.

I don't I don't know what seminary now is. So I have not looked it up. I know some are saying, well, you should have done your homework.

Well, I did the homework of examining what she said compared to scripture. That's as far as I wanted to take it.

I didn't have all that much time. I, you know, with the Philippines, I had to do four or actually five new messages on the

Philippines for the Philippines. I got a fifth one. I got eleven or twelve. No, wait. Yeah.

Eleven or twelve messages. And well, nor should you. You know, it's it's I mean, it's one of those things that you can very clearly see just by using any amount of discernment what her motivations are.

You know, so the fact that she's touting herself as being a professor at a seminary tells you all you need to know about the seminary.

So we all were in seminary. I will give the benefit that I don't. Sure. Sure. They wouldn't claim business for a very long time.

Right. Will you will you put up Matt Hagan's comments? I was I was just I was waiting for you to stop because this is this is the new term.

What this is called. We should Jesus. So you have not wishing for Jesus. You have exegesis exegesis is where we take the meaning out of the text.

That's how we should do the study of God's word. We look at what God's word says and we get the meaning out of it.

I said Jesus is where we put a meaning into the text. And I guess we should. Jesus is where you just wish the

Bible said what you wanted to say. Emo Jesus. So it's emotional exegesis.

So, yes, he combined those two as well, which is which is emoji. Jesus is you're you're putting your emotions in now.

Melissa is asking. I'm surprised that Deborah hasn't brought up yet. No, actually, it wasn't.

It didn't. Yeah. And so remember, so these are the only two that she's going to mention that gets into the typical arguments you hear.

And so but for those who do bring up Deborah, I encourage you to check out my podcast

I did on what a pastor is. Episode three, because if you look at Judges chapter four,

Deborah is the worst example to use. Because Deborah tells

Barack that he's going to be judged because he won't go to war without this woman,

Deborah. We're in judges in our Bible reading plan that we just did. And yeah, so it's it's like she's telling him that this is this is not what

God wants. And her her going is like condemnation on him. Like she's not believing she's the leader that everyone claims she is.

Yeah. Well, and can we I want to go back to something real quick to when you were talking about just a few minutes ago.

Like, is it not OK for women to pray? And first Corinthians 11. Right. Drew and I did a podcast on head coverings, and we talked about this.

But first Corinthians 11 and verse five says, but every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying.

So she is shamed when we finish the verse, shames her head for she is one of the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

So so the the the thing is with this is that doesn't mean that women aren't allowed to pray publicly or to read scripture publicly or something like that, because we very clearly see

Paul giving an example of that in first Corinthians 11. I just I and I'm sure we'll get there.

So but it's I don't understand. Well, I do understand because it's a pride thing. This God's call for women is much higher than than this woman,

Lynn, tries to tries to tries to say, you know, and trying to defend women being pastors.

It's like I to quote, to paraphrase John MacArthur, it's like like the highest calling, the highest calling for a woman anywhere is to be a wife and a mother and and to to care for a home and to like like there's nothing degrading about that.

Like that is that is the creator of the universe. Psalm 33 says that he spoke speak stars into existence.

Like that's his design for you. Yeah. And that's why are you trying to exceed that?

Yeah. Verse 15 says talks about that very thing that they're going to be women. The women will be preserved through bearing of children if they continue in the faith and love and sanctity with self -restraint.

So so it highlights that. So so now let's start getting into her arguments are more unique arguments.

So this this next one is just a 12 seconds. We have Phoebe who

Paul and trust the letter to the Romans that would be delivered to the Romans and as was the custom of the day.

She would have read that letter to the Roman churches and exegeted it interpreted it for them. Now, I want you to see how much assumption went into that.

Okay, because there's nothing I forgot. There was one more in the

Phoebe mentioned. So Phoebe is Phoebe is is mentioned as a deacon some argue.

Well, the word for deacon. Remember is a transliterated word deacon us. It is the word we would refer to as a servant a waiter of tables.

Yeah. LSB translates it. Yeah. Now I commend you to her sister Phoebe who is a servant of the church, which is correct and so yes, the word is deacon us, but it does not mean she's a leader.

In fact deacons are not leaders in the church. They are servants of the church. So she's definitely not a pastor as people will try to argue.

But again, where I'm not quite sure where anywhere in scripture.

It says that Phoebe was the one that delivered the letter to the church.

I want you just to see that what she does here. She just makes dogmatic statements. And this is something you see people do all the time.

They just make a dogmatic statement. And we'll look I have a I have a seminary degree. I teach at a seminary and therefore

I could just make these claims and that makes them true. No, this is all assumption. First off does a does the person who delivers the letter do they read the letter?

Possibly maybe but we actually think historically they would have given it to the pastor of the church who would have read the letter.

They would have given it to the elders of the church. The elders of the church would have delineated that to the people of the church.

Correct. And so the assumption that because she delivers it she would read it is not what we end up seeing historically.

It's not we see when the letters that we see the epistles are delivered to the elders. Okay. So I'm going.

All right. Well, you missed that in first Lynn snowflakes opinions. Chapter three.

Chapter three. Verse one. That's that's what it is. Or a second second.

Was it that Matt's like always says second. I say second opinion sometimes.

Yeah. But what you end up seeing is.

She's then assumes that someone that the person who delivers it exegetes it.

And not the pastor. Well, where do we get that from? You know, when someone makes a statement like that and that's that is the proof of the when you make an argument.

Okay, you're going to lay out a premise. You're going to give support for the premise that leads it to the conclusion.

So you have supporting arguments and then you have the conclusion. And if your conclusion is not supported from the support, then it's not a good argument.

What she does is she doesn't support anything. She just makes the claim. This is a begging the question fallacy.

Here we go. Chris Brown said hesitation. That was what it was. Thank you,

Chris. Obviously, he listens. No, no. Melissa has the one that I was thinking. Here we go. Second.

That was the one that Matt's like if you're ever if you listen to this. Good job, buddy. Yeah. No, no.

So but here's here's what you do. Right. Let's let's first print or Romans 16.

One and two. Okay. It's very simple. And anyone out there that's listening to this later or watching now or listen now.

Listen, if you hear any of what she just said. Now, I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church, which is that centuria, that you receive her in the

Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you.

For she herself has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.

There's nothing in there about receiving a letter, nothing in there about nothing in there about reading a letter, nothing in there about about exegeting a letter.

No. She's not a pastor. This is this is all assumption on her part.

So, I mean, there's something she says. They're right. But but these claims that we're addressing are all assumption on her part.

Okay. She doesn't support him. She claims them and then goes moves on. So let's see what Lynn has to say.

So, again, if folks are just tuning in, this is we're taking a look at a podcast that was on the alabaster jar, their view of First Timothy two.

And so this next one is over a minute. So it's going to be a bit longer. So give a listen to this.

That means that Mr. Huff there is going to be taking notes to make sure he gets because this may just trigger him.

But no, I'm just saying. But there's some correct things that may be said. But overall, we'll see.

First, start at the beginning. So look at chapter one and in chapter one, verse three, we find certain people are teaching falsehoods and that is a theme throughout.

So the next verse, chapter one, verse four, they're teaching myths and genealogies.

I'm going to come back to that in a minute. But that's mentioned here and in chapter one and also in chapter four.

In fact, Paul goes on to say in chapter one, verse seven, that there are these people, men, certainly there are men in this group who want to be teachers of the law.

They're fashioning themselves as knowing a lot and wanting to teach a lot. And Paul says,

Timothy, they've got to stop because they are teaching falsehoods. We so that's that's something to keep in mind.

This is a church right now that is wrestling with inaccurate doctrine, inaccurate understanding of who

God is and the and his redemptive plan. So the.

So right out of the gate, we we know that. OK, so Chris Huff, I do not want you to answer this in the chat.

OK, this is a question for you. I'm going to give you the poll. I want to see what you guys think.

And so here's the poll. Is the purpose of First Timothy about answering or correcting the church?

Or is it a blueprint for how to run the church? So you have two choices. He was trying to correct error or give a pattern for church.

I want to see in the chat to see you guys. Which is it going to be? Is it going to be one her argument that the purpose of First Timothy is to correct error or two?

Is the purpose of First Timothy to be a blueprint for how to run church? So I want to see if maybe it's me.

Maybe I got the whole purpose of the book wrong. I could be wrong, but it seems that it seems to be.

Let's see. Chris Honholds is saying blueprint. He is saying blueprint. We got Sister Tara saying pattern.

I think I think, you know, that. Well, and Jesse just says, number two,

Stan says blueprint. Kathy, I mean, I think everyone is agreeing here,

Chris. What do you think? What are what do you think is the purpose of this book?

Do you think, well, you actually put you typed it up. You said put it in the chat.

Go ahead. Give it. Give us your answer. So, yes, it's a blueprint. It's that they're called the pastoral epistles for a reason.

So it is a blueprint of how the Lord wants his church structured, organized, and how worship is to take place inside the church.

The qualifications of those who lead the church are qualifications of those who serve in the church.

And and like I said in the chat, there's also there's also other reasons. There's it's also the blueprint for how we as believers are to to strive after holiness, to not be timid, to be courageous, to preach the word.

And so it's a blueprint. There is some correction in there. But then thirdly, we have to remember who it's written to and why it's written to him.

It is written to Timothy to encourage him. It is written to Timothy to admonish him a little bit, because there's a possibility of some timidity, some fear, some discouragement because of what's going on, especially

Second Timothy. But my goodness, like when she said and Hotholtz put it in the chat because he saw me go, when she said there are people in the church, men.

Yeah, Hotholtz was like, do I need to start screen capturing? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You should. You should screenshot of that one, Chris. He can go back and do it. Don't worry. Yeah. You know, Melissa saying context matters.

And that's the thing. So she is reading in a context. And I'm just I want to say, because I've already listened to the podcast.

This what she just said is important. So instead of saying this is a blueprint for how to run the church, she's going to shift the focus to be on basically to focus on on error in the church.

And because I'm just going to tell you up front, she's going to say that this passage is dealing with error. Let me just give a quick thing.

And men were preaching the error. So I have a feeling. Okay. Okay. Okay. Not just that.

I'm getting ahead. I'm getting ahead. Go ahead. You haven't seen this thing. Drew heard it. You haven't. You haven't listened. I haven't heard it.

Drew shared it with you. No, no, he didn't. Let me give it this way. If folks remember back when we had the guy come in here who wanted to make a case for, you know, gay

Christianity. Right. Affirming Christianity is what he wanted to call it. If you remember, he takes the passages that talk against homosexuality like really, really clearly and says, oh, what

Paul was really doing was talking about abuses of Christianity. Right. And so what did

I do? He's making the case. Well, this word talk. This word is only used here is talking about abuses.

And therefore, it wasn't that homosexuality is wrong. It's abuse of homosexuality that's wrong.

Okay. Now, what did I do? I just took him to another verse. And he was like, well, see, there's a difference there.

But both of the passages that we brought up dealt with the issue of idolatry.

So I asked him, is there an abuse of idolatry? Because it has to fit within the context of Paul's dealing with abusive homosexuality, then the idolatry must be abusive as well.

And I don't know anywhere where idolatry is accepted. And he just could not see or just didn't want to see that connection.

Well, that's what she's going to do here. She is interjecting. And that's exactly what Chris Honholz is saying.

He's saying that the lady interjects her own context. She couldn't care less what the actual context is.

Well, true, because she's interjecting a context, because she's coming to this text,

I believe, with an argument. And the argument is very similar to what people do with the homosexual passages.

Oh, it's not teaching that God's against homosexuality. It's just abusive sexuality.

So she's actually going to make a case that women should be teaching, just not be teaching false teaching.

If you doubt that, well, we're going to get to that in a minute. Now, let's listen to this next clip, which, again, is a lengthier one.

And the reason I do the lengthier ones is so that you can hear the context. If you were a

Gentile pagan raised in Ephesus, you would have seen lots of festivals honoring the

Artemis of the Ephesians, the goddess there that had a huge temple, much larger than the

Parthenon in Athens, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

And the way that you worshiped Artemis at times included exuberant expressions of wealth, displays of wealth.

For women, that could include fancy dress, fancy hairstyles, including a particular way of styling your hair that included braids that included putting gold, let's say, like netting and that kind of thing.

And so this is what you would have seen as holiness, as well, maybe not all, but piety.

Right. Let me say it that way. Piety. OK. So let's look at the passage she's referring to.

I'll start in verse 9. This is 1 Timothy 2, 9. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.

So she's saying that braiding your hair with the gold was a kind of piety. As far as we know, historically, they braided their hair with the gold and pearls and wore costly garments.

The women that were doing that were the prostitutes to attract people's attention.

Well, men's attention. The most of the women in that day covered their hair.

So you wouldn't have seen it. OK. And so you wouldn't have had your hair out unless you were a woman that was trying to attract the attention of men.

And so this is one of these cases where she gets it. A hundred and fifty hundred eighty degrees wrong.

Not to mention what does Artemis have to do with any of this? Nothing.

Right. But it's just interjected. We're going to put that in. So I sound smart.

So I sound like I know what I'm talking about. And so I can make my point. Yeah. And Chris Honhold says that he's like he typed in there.

Artemis has nothing to do with 1 Timothy. You see, folks, this is not very difficult to do.

Right. I mean, people, we do this show to train people how to do apologetics.

Right. We don't just do apologetics. We want to train you. And that's why we're doing things like this is to break it down, to work through this and just show it's not very hard.

You can read the context. You read what's happening. You know, she's making this whole thing, saying the braiding of hair with gold and pearls, a netting of some kind is is a type of piety.

And yet, Paul, when he says, likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not not with braided hair.

So she made my point because, I mean, I was immediately going to go back to first Corinthians 11. Like I mean, if in that time, like specifically where Timothy was, they would have had their heads covered.

Like culturally, that's what they did. And it's good. This brings up a good point, too.

It's good. It's good to look at culture. It's good to look at history. It's good to look at what happened. Absolutely. But that does not stand above scripture.

It doesn't. And there's nowhere in this passage that. Wow. OK. Sorry. Yeah.

No. And see, I think the thing is, is you can see people who can sound intelligent.

But I'm going to mention a bit later, this works it as well, is the fact that she does not understand the culture of which she's speaking.

OK, she's going to be making an argument that Paul is speaking to Jewish culture.

And this is, again, one of the things I'm going to make the case that she doesn't understand, because first off, she

Paul is writing to Timothy. OK, Timothy at this time is not reaching out to Jewish people.

This is not a church of Jewish people. He is in Ephesus. Yep. And therefore he's speaking to a

Roman, to a Gentile group.

And yet later you're going to see she's going to make an argument for a Jewish culture as if that's who he's speaking to.

But here she doesn't even understand the culture. Of the day. She is, you know, and if she's a seminary professor.

She should know better. OK, like, I mean, she's the one saying she teaches at seminary. So if that's what you're doing, then you then

I'm going to hold you to the higher standard, the more academic standard, if you're claiming that you teach at seminary.

OK, so. She totally misses the point again, comes to the exact wrong conclusion.

Let's listen to this next minute clip. And I guess, Chris Hanholds, get your screen capture ready, just saying, you know,

I don't know what your face is going to do when you hear this. But, you know, there's better ones coming.

This one's not even the battle. Paul is using the command form.

A woman should learn and the English a woman should learn kind of has that force. Sometimes it's let a woman learn, which

I think we could maybe hear in the English translation there.

Hey, Timothy, if you have some extra time, let the women learn, you know, kind of optional. But really, this is

Paul is really focused on a woman learning.

A woman should learn. Now, how does how does one learn in the ancient world? Well, they learn in quietness and submission.

That's how everybody learns. And I don't have time to get into it, but the listeners hopefully just take my word for it.

When when learning is described, not just in the New Testament, but elsewhere at this time, it's done quietly in full submission.

So it's not like men can learn in rowdiness and aggressiveness, but women in quietness.

It's not it's you know, it's not peculiar to women. It's peculiar to learning. OK, so look on your face,

Chris. I mean, there's so much there's so much there. I think I think the key word and you picked up on the key part was this when she said this to second.

The listeners hopefully just take my word for it. That's exactly what she wants you to do. Listener, ignore everything and just take her word because she is the authority, obviously, because she can just interject things at any point.

But. When she met, so so is it good for women to learn? Yes. Yes.

That's not a problem. No one no one says women shouldn't learn. Right. But when you look at it, what people like this do is they take something that we can all agree on.

And this is a a debate tactic, maybe you say, or a teaching tactic, but you start with something everyone can agree on.

Then you say something that's they wouldn't have agreed on if you just said that. Right.

But by pairing it with something that someone already agrees with, the inclination that this does to the human is we end up.

Well, I agree that every woman should learn, and therefore you start to believe the rest of what she's saying that's not true because you're already thinking, well,

I agree with that. And then you think, well, maybe I agree with this is what she's doing.

So that's how all people learn and quietness and submissiveness. No. And but like Paul specifically says, a woman must learn, must learn.

So there needs to be knowledge happening. You need to be growing, learning all of that.

But how in this and submission is directed towards women. But it doesn't just mean they're quietly don't say anything, but men can be rowdy and crazy.

No. Like, OK, the Greek word there to learn men fail.

OK. It also means you can learn by hearing to be informed, to learn, to grow, to increase your knowledge.

I don't know. OK. But the thing is that her argument is actually not even fitting with the culture.

OK. Oh, look, this is a thing when you if you know that the culture, the Jewish culture, the

Arab culture in the Middle East, you know, this was something that Nabil Quresh when he was alive, people gave him a hard time because when he would speak to American Muslims, he'd be very calm, making arguments the way

Western folks want to make an argument, which is a more calm demeanor. But when he would debate someone that's a

Muslim from the Middle East, he was very agitated. And people wondered why he was that way, and he would explain why, because in that culture, if you do not show some emotion when you're making your argument and some expression, they think you don't really believe it.

So she is actually injecting an American culture into the

Roman culture of that area and then trying to make her arguments. Right.

What is that called nowadays when people take someone else's culture and, you know, applies it to themselves?

You know, the the folks always have this cultural appropriation.

Hmm. This is the reverse. This is cultural, what I guess, subjection or interjection.

Right. She's interjecting her culture into the people that Timothy was dealing with in Ephesus.

And saying, well, see, that's how they would behave. They should be learning quietly, not all right.

But they do teach. I mean, that's how they learn. Look, I'm going to be debating

Michael Brown. We're both Jewish. We've already discussed the fact that we know that our style of discussion gets we raise our voice.

We get excited. We go off on tangents. And so we've agreed, like in a formal debate, we know we can't do that.

But if we have a discussion on it, I mean, he and I, when we're discussing these things, we get agitated.

We get emotional. It's not quiet. You know, Matt Slick and I, when we when we debate, especially if we're sitting around like a table or just he and I, we're both getting loud.

Right. But what are we doing? We're we're we're challenging one another. That's a way of learning.

So her argument is that, well, he's telling the women to to learn quietly because that's how how they should be.

So she's saying that the quietness is tied to the instruction, not to the woman. So when it says in verse 11, a woman must receive must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

The argument she makes is that the idea of quietness is tied to instruction and not woman.

It's tied to the woman. Correct. OK, so it's it's something where and you're going to see her make these associations.

But but look, we're just going to we're just going to say, I mean, she she said it all when she said this.

The listeners hopefully just take my word for it. Yep. That's what she wants you to do. Just take her word for it, because obviously she could be trusted or maybe not.

So this one's, you know, Chris, you'll be happy. It's only 10 seconds long. I don't mind the long ones.

She just to me, she just digs herself further into the ground. Oh, she will. OK, good. The permit is very much tied to the circumstances.

What's going on at that moment? Am I going to permit or not permit?

So when he says in verse 12, I do not allow that sometimes translated permit. She's she's saying

I'm going to play this again because I want I want you guys to hear this, because some people may not pick up on like she's doing the very same thing

I just mentioned before. She's tying it as she did with a woman should be quietly receive instruction.

She tried the word quiet instead of tying it to the woman, as the text says. She ties it to instruction.

She does this a couple of times throughout. And oh, she uses a lot of Greek language and to explain it that way.

And there's sometimes that is the case. But she uses the Greek to try to make it sound like it's always this way.

The permit is very much tied to the circumstances. What's going on at that moment?

Am I going to permit or not permit? So she's tying the permit to what circumstances she never says.

Right. So so she's saying that this allow I do not allow a woman to teach or have exercise.

Well, that's part of the circumstances. Well, what circumstances? Well, don't worry. It's the circumstances she's going to inject.

No, it's not. It's I do not I do not allow you. OK, you do not allow who you do not permit who a woman.

Yeah. It's it's really clear who he's tying that allowed to.

And it's he's going to argue that it's tied to the circumstances. What circumstances?

Remember, he says the circumstances is correcting error. That's the circumstances.

But is that the circumstance of the book? No, she did that. But now that that was the circumstance.

OK, but let's just say that was the circumstance. Paul doesn't allow a woman to correct the false teaching either.

Yeah. Publicly, you know, like, oh, gosh. OK, sorry. Yeah. No, but that's the thing.

What you see with people that do this is she makes that. That's why I had to play some of these things early on so that you see the things that she's going to interject now, because now that she she laid those out earlier.

People go, oh, OK. Oh, I see how this connects, because now what she's trying to do is connect these dots. Mm hmm.

And when you have an argument, if any of you do debate, this is the first thing you got to learn is you got to learn to figure out what the premises of the argument.

When they make an argument, they're going to have a premise. You want to look at that premise and see if the support.

Takes you from the premise to the conclusion in a consistent way. So what you have here is you have someone who is laid out a statement.

And now she's going to try to connect the dots, but she never supported it. It was just you're just going to have to trust her.

He doesn't have the time. And so what she does is she just makes statements.

And now she's building on those statements. And what it can do to people is go, oh, look at how this works together.

Oh, this is such insightful. Oh, this is helpful now, because now I can see how once we interjected this context, now all this makes sense in a way that lets a woman teach.

I mean, that's the whole goal of this. Right. So. And there are so many people that have such an abysmal lack of any sort of biblical discernment that they listen to this stuff like this and they go, oh,

I've never thought about that. And because it's a new thought that they've had, it must be true because she teaches at a seminary and she wouldn't lead me astray.

She's she says she loves Jesus and loves his word. Yeah. Yeah. Which which which

Jesus is. So, again, in case we had a commenter who commented on which

Jesus being like exegesis and eisegesis, exegesis, taking the text out, getting the meaning out of the text, exegesis, reading a meaning into the text, which is what she's doing.

But he was saying this is wish to Jesus. She's wishing she's putting her what she wished the Bible said in there.

So let's get this next one. This will be 50 seconds long.

What I'm saying is that the the verb always includes the particular context in order for its meaning to be clear in a full way.

So I am not permitting right now. We could almost say a woman to teach.

Wow. The word that the way that infinitive to teach is you could put a period right after it in terms of grammar.

Paul is following grammar rules. You could put a period right there. So I'm not permitting a woman to teach.

And I actually think that really could be what Paul is saying here. Because I think these women are not teaching correct doctrine in the same way that back in Chapter one, the men were doing false teachings.

So you're seeing now how you're seeing how this is connecting now. Right. This is this is where she's starting to put this together.

So first off, she's she's saying that he's saying that a woman should not is not allowed to teach for now.

Where did she get the for now? Hold on. Hold on. I got it. Wait. There it is right there out of thin air.

He just rubs it out of thin air. It's complete make believe it is.

Right. And then she's like, we could almost put a period there. Are you forgetting that the word or the word or in the

Greek day? So I was just I had my screen. Who day is to mean or not even not neither even not nor.

So she ignores the fact that there is a a word here. OK, that is a connecting word.

So what she wants to do is say, I don't I don't allow a woman to teach, period. Brothers and sisters, there are no such things.

There's no such things. There's no such thing as ancillary or secondary or words in Scripture that don't matter.

And this is exactly why. Yeah. So her argument is that she she puts a period at the end of teach.

So it says, I do not allow a woman to teach. Now, her argument is, well, but that's just for now.

Why? Because this book is supposedly about correcting false teaching.

And she goes back to to to chapter one to where he's not actually addressing false teaching.

When you go back to that chapter, he's mentioning the the the things that people argue over.

And he's giving away for the church to function. And so he's basically saying to ignore that.

Right. He he's giving them and he's saying it's instruction, you know, for them.

This is what he says in verse verse three, as I urge you, this chapter one, verse three, as I urge you upon my departure from Mesopotamia, remain at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to end to to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to speculation, rather furthering the administration of God, which is by faith.

And then he starts it. So basically what he does. Yes, he mentions that certain people are teaching wrong.

But but that's it. It stops there. I mean, yes, he does throughout the book. Talk about sound doctrine, correcting wrong doctrine.

But that's not the purpose of the book. He's giving them instructions on how to function in the church, how to run a church.

And so what when she interjects, this is why her for this argument she's making, she has to interject and change the context and the purpose of the book.

Yes. So that she can interject now. Into this part to say, well, they just shouldn't be teaching now because of the fact that some of these women were teaching incorrectly.

Now, in chapter one that I read to you, does Paul explain clearly that some men were teaching things incorrectly and even what they were teaching?

Yep. Yes. Why doesn't he do it for the women then? Because that is what this is talking about.

That's why. So not only is she is she twisting the context of the entire letter to the first letter to Timothy, but she's twisting the context of each section and each individual verse to fit her own framework.

Correct. I mean, so so here's my question.

You know, I was messing with Katie and Jesus on the chat because she kept posting scriptures that also just completely refute what she's saying.

So so I would love to. Again, I haven't listened to the podcast, so she might have dealt with that. So how does she deal with First Corinthians 14 when

Paul says the women are to keep silent in churches, but they are not permitted to speak? But again, there's no period in any sort of any any way, shape or form.

There's there's connecting adjoining words. It's one one fluid thought, but are subject to themselves just as the law also says.

So does she deal with that at all? No, no. Of course not. All right.

So so Chris Hough has I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to give you some time to think about it.

OK, jump to an answer. OK, so I'm going to give you the question and then let you think how she's going to respond because you didn't listen to this.

This is correct. You heard how she takes the teaching. Right. So she she's going to make the case that it should say

I do not allow them to teach for now. Period. End of sentence. I want when we come back from a word from our sponsor,

I'm going to ask you what you think she's going to talk about the exercise authority is.

So so we're going to let Chris think about this. He's going to need some time because, I mean, he's already realizing she's been pretty creative.

And he's how in the world would she go now? Look, I've been reading some of the comments and I see that a lot of you are having a headache from this.

You know, I get it. But maybe what you're going to need is after the show, you will just need to go and get a good pillow to lay your head on.

And if you want to do that, go to mypillow .com. Use the promo code SFE. It stands for striving for eternity so that you can get a good night's sleep after this, because I think after this podcast, you may need a really good pillow.

It may actually you may not just need their pillow. You might need the three inch mattress topper to make sure you get a good sleep after this episode, because I know that that it's hurting.

I get it. But maybe maybe. OK, maybe what happens is you just can't sleep.

And because we kept you up, we triggered poor Chris Hough is going to be up all night because we triggered him.

And he's like my my my pillow with the promo code SFE just didn't do it for me. Well, in the morning, what he's going to have to do is go get himself a nice cup of squirrely

Joe's coffee to wake himself up because he the pillow just wasn't enough after this.

And so if you go to striving for attorney dot org slash coffee, you can get yourself a good cup of squirrely

Joe's coffee. And remember, if you're a first time buyer, your first purchase, use the promo code

SFE for striving for eternity. And that will get you 20 percent off your first order.

But I do encourage you every every order. Just go to striving for attorney dot org slash coffee so that he knows that you bought the coffee because you heard about it from us.

And that way it's not just the first time, but every time. And that way he will hopefully continue to support us here.

So I tried to give you enough time, Chris. What do you think? And audience, we get to see whether he's going to be right or not.

But what do you think she's going to do with the authority? I mean, there's so many ways to go here because she's shown a creativity that we haven't seen before.

I mean, I think maybe she's going to try to to tie it back to, you know, that they shouldn't exercise authority while they figure out.

I don't know. Like I don't know. You know, keep going. You say keep going.

You're going to say you're going to tie to what she's going to tie to the right now piece again.

And because the men were the ones responsible for the false teaching that once they get that all under control, then women can exercise authority over them.

OK, well, let's see. So, folks in the chat, you're going to get to see. And by the way, I should say, folks, if you want to share this right now, whatever media platform you're watching it on.

I want to see what we're getting. We're starting to get close to maybe hit 200 people watching live.

So let's see if we can hit that. So so maybe share it out, because, I mean, we need other people not being able to get a good night's sleep tonight.

Or maybe maybe we just might get someone who actually believes in a position like Lin's here and will want to come in and have that discussion.

That would be even more fun. So let's listen to this next 30 second clip.

Then the verse goes on to say that I do not permit a woman to have authority over authority over a man.

And the word man does go with authority. It doesn't in a strict grammatical sense.

It does not go with to teach. Now, I don't want to get it. There is an exception. OK, you know, for those people who love

Greek, you can dive into certain exceptions. But in general, the authority goes with man.

OK, so if you're a nerd and you get into the Greek, you know, in other words, I'm trying to make it sound like I really know the

Greek and I got the Greek. But I got to give some way of explaining the fact that if you really understand

Greek and you're really nerdy in the Greek, in other words, if you have basic understanding of Greek, you're going to know what I'm saying is wrong.

Because, as we said, there's a connector there, teach or exercise authority.

It connects those. That's the purpose. You remember, OK, I'm going to date myself,

Chris, you won't know this, but some of the audience you'll remember if I start singing conjunction junction, what's your function?

Yeah, right. When you have a conjunction, what does that do? It puts two things together.

It locks those two trains, if you remember that. Right. It was a TV show back when

I was a kid where they tried to use where TV was supposed to be educational. Unlike today, that's right.

Notice that he says Schoolhouse Rock. That's exactly what it was. And so here you have a conjunction which is tying two things together.

That's basic grammar. But she's like, oh, if you know, only if you're really nerdy in the

Greek, you'd think that it's tied to the teaching. It is tied to the man. I agree with her.

She's right. But it isn't directly tied to the man. Just like the woman isn't the teachings, not directly tied to the woman.

So you see, she so it's the woman is tied to teaching and authority, just like the man is teaching to teaching and is tied to teaching and authority.

So what you have is the woman's not allowed to teach and have authority and the man is to teach and have authority.

They are connected, but she totally separates these. So let me bring in our

I can't even say our latest speaker at Striving Fraternity anymore. But let me bring in Mr.

Aaron Brewster. But Aaron is no longer the newest speaker.

I meant to mention this at the beginning, but we have a new speaker at the roster at Striving Fraternity.

Mr. Anthony Russo is the newest speaker. We just set up.

Yeah, I know your title is removed. You're the old man now. You're the middle child.

Actually, you're the middle child. You're younger than Anthony or I, but so but, you know,

Anthony Russo is for folks who may know him from Grace. Oh, Grace and Truth Radio, Grace and Peace Radio.

Why am I going blank? Grace and Peace. We have too many podcasts at the Christian podcast community.

Watch your mouth, mister. But he is he's what was for many years a an admin with the

Christian podcast community. And now he is he's come on as one of our speakers. He's an

ACBC counselor, just like Aaron, and he's going to be probably traveling with Aaron, probably more with Aaron than me so they could talk more counseling, which, you know,

I don't want to talk counseling. That just gets me into touching, you know, touchy subjects and, you know, have to deal with things.

But I did I did refer to Aaron. I referred to you this week when I was teaching at the church. Yeah, because we talked about the fact of that, you know, the thing that you had said about that.

We're talking about people who try to make things sound like God's word. God spoke to me so that it has more weight to what

I'm saying when it's sinful, because we're dealing with the passage of First Timothy to where he says not to use your liberty as a cause for vice, you know, as an excuse for vice.

And I referenced how you said, yeah, the women who come and say, well, God told me to divorce this man because God told me it must be true.

Well, no, God never told you to divorce this man because he wouldn't say such a thing. So tell you how many times

I've I've heard that sentence. Yeah. So and by the way, folks, there really is not a tributary.

We do not have a requirement that our speakers have a name that starts with the letter A. I mean, just because my co -host here is

Drew, short for Andrew, and I'm an Andrew. And we have we had an

Anthony and now we have another Anthony and we have an Aaron. We we also had another.

I mean, for folks who remember, you know, long enough ago, you know, we had a mollus.

And so, you know, Frank starts with an F. So we did have one speaker that didn't start with an

A. I don't really care what the speaker's names are, as long as they're listed alphabetically.

So I guess they're listed alphabetically. I'm fine with it. Yeah. Aaron, this is true.

You would like that. So so let's whether it's first or last name, Aaron. Generally speaking, I'm for the last name, too.

Yeah. So, OK, so we we see how she's tying the exercise authority to a man.

So the women are to teach. But I guess I guess she would say that the men are supposed to exercise authority.

So maybe she's nuancing it to where because she's getting rid of that or making it a period.

She almost seems like she's saying that the women could be teaching, but the men should have the authority.

But I almost if you listen to that clip, it sounded almost like she was thinking it through her head and she's backing off from what she's saying.

And I want to play it again to see if you guys think what I was thinking when I heard it, because it almost sounded like she's saying it.

And then it's kind of backpedaling a bit because it's saying that, oh, only men can have authority.

And that that may not be what she wants. I've said so they play it again.

I want you guys to tell me if you think the same thing. Then the verse goes on to say that.

I do not permit a woman to have authority over assume authority over a man. And the word man does go with authority.

It doesn't in a strict grammatical sense. It does not go with to teach.

Now, I don't want to get there is an exception. OK, you know, for those people who love

Greek, you can dive into certain exceptions. But in general, the authority goes with man.

Right. Right. Exception. It's a word in the text. Yeah, it's the conjunction that puts the two together.

So I don't know. So let's let's take a look at, you know, maybe maybe this, you know, maybe it's just that there's when we look at the passage real quick.

First, we're in First Timothy to first 12, 12, 12 to 14 is. So right now we're in 12 with which she's,

I guess, trying to exegete. So Matt says here, as soon as she starts using words like grammatical and Greek, it's time to duck and cover the woman.

We never did review the video. Someone sent me a video to review years ago of a woman who teaches in seminary for all.

I know it could be the same woman, but who is doing stuff like this. She was using all the big words to impress people to make it sound like, well, if you know,

I'm educated, you're not. I know these words and I know how the Greek is used. And therefore, you must trust me, because remember, you know, she she made it clear that listeners hopefully just take my word for it.

That's what she wants you to do. Listen, just take a word for it. So let's see if we should take her word for it. But this word authority doesn't occur anyone.

This verb doesn't occur anywhere else in the New Testament, and it doesn't occur.

Well, occurs very, very rarely in the first century texts outside of the New Testament.

So it's hard for us to know the exact nuance of it. But what we can say is it's a really negative use of authority.

It's abusive. It's not the usual word for authority that we find elsewhere in the New Testament. OK, so here now you see her nuance this.

Remember, what did she interject to the context of First Timothy? She interjected the idea that the book is not about a blueprint or a pattern for how to do church.

She's saying it's about correcting false teachings. So this is to, you know, an abusive authority.

Remember what I said earlier about when Aaron and I had that guy that wanted to argue for gay Christianity? And he was saying, well, that word for homosexual is not saying you shouldn't have homosexual sex.

It's that shouldn't be abusive. Now, do you see why I said this is where she's going to go?

So the word means to give orders, to dictate, to domineer.

That is, you know, a use of it to hold a sovereign authority.

And she's right. This word appears once in the New Testament. That doesn't make it any less inspired.

Correct. And it's a compounded Greek word made up of.

We have to remember that as well. And Paul is using it very specifically here. That's why it's the only place.

Yeah. And, you know, this is I'm going to say this. It's very similar to what we had before when we had the homosexual claim, right, where he was using a word and saying, well, this is a compound word.

And it's, you know, it's it's only used here and it's not used anywhere else. And therefore, we can interject a meaning.

But I decided to do a little looking because she said this is not used elsewhere.

You know, even in in, you know, other writings. OK. And it's not it's not as we don't see it as often.

But let me I just want to share my screen here and give you a look at my from my logos.

And I want to share BDAG. This is a BDAG. But this is a the lexicon of the early church literature.

So this shows us when we see a word and this is helpful to use these when we have words that are not found often in scripture.

OK, when we when we have a word that's not often used in scripture, it's good to use this because what this allows us to do is see how the word was used outside of scripture.

And so she's saying this is only used once in the scripture. True. OK, but BDAG, which is how we refer to this book, but it's a

Greek and Greek English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.

So what I'm showing here is there's not a lot here. I mean, if you're familiar with BDAG, there's usually a lot.

But I just want to count up the sources because she says it's it doesn't there's not a lot. But I count. Let's see.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

I think it's used a number of times. So let's see what it says. It says to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to dictate to.

OK, not really the way she described it, that it's abusive.

Well, now, I don't I don't like to play devil's advocate, per se. I don't like to give credit where credit is not due.

But I will say this, according to Vine's expository dictionary,

Vine's complete expository dictionary of the Bible, which I actually really like, it does specify that an earlier.

Usage of the word earlier in the language uses of the word is used to signify that somebody who is whose own hand killed either others or himself.

Yes. So that is a statement that is accurate from the standpoint of the earlier usage of the word. But let's all take a moment to step back and say that a few hundred years ago when this country was founded to be a liberal, right, was to have a political persuasion that is nearly identical to modern day

Republicans. And that the term in just a couple hundred years had literally flip flopped and now means the exact opposite of what it meant for politically speaking.

So even though she makes that point, which is not 100 percent inaccurate, it's kind of ridiculous for her to stand by that being the main concept when clearly that was an older usage of the word.

So let me use a little bit of a different one that's a little bit easier for folks to realize.

The example I always give is that FDR was referred to as a very gay man.

Now, did that mean he was a homosexual? Well, no. If you know anything about FDR, I mean, his wife, they think was, but FDR was always getting in trouble with his secretary.

So the the word gay meant happy. Now, are we going to use that today to use that word and assume that every time someone says gay, they mean it that way?

Because if I use it just one time, should I assume the meaning it had 50 years ago, 70 years ago, or should

I assume the meaning that it has today? Well, you'd assume the meaning that it has in that day. And as you describe me, do me a favor and never use that word.

Thank you. You are so gay. And I don't mean it in the 1950s way.

So, no, I mean, what we end up seeing is that what she's doing is looking at the way it was used older, not at that time.

So when we look at the early the the documents in Greek history closer to the time of the writing of first Timothy, that's the use we should use.

Well, and she's zeroing in on that because it supports her narrative. Correct. Because it's with the story she's trying to tell.

Correct. You know, she's she's not she's zooming in on that because it fits the narrative instead of, oh, well, there are also other definitions.

You know, one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, an absolute master to govern, to exercise dominion over another.

And that's literally what Vines Expository Dictionary says. It says later it came to denote one who exactly what you just said.

Yeah. And so so if she's an expert in Greek, she should know these basic things of language.

Right. I mean, she doesn't seem to know what a conjunction the purpose of a conjunction is. She doesn't seem to know that words change meaning.

But let's listen to this next one. This should be quite entertaining. It's only a minute.

Grab your pillow. One of the things we know that happens within a. OK, let me stop that.

One of the things we know. I'm going to play it again. One of the things

I've realized is every time she says something we know, it's usually something she interjects.

It's not something we know. It's something she's making up. But let me let me do it again. One of the things we know that happens within a couple of generations, 40 years or so from when

Paul lived, was we have this. Rise of a heresy called

Gnosticism. And Gnosticism taught that the creation was bad, that material things are bad, the only real and good is spiritual.

So the creator God, Jehovah of the Old Testament, is actually not the supreme

God because he messed up and he created material things. So when Eve in the story, when

Eve takes the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Her eyes are open to the fact that material things are bad and spiritual is good.

And so Gnosticism celebrated, if you will, Eve. Wow.

OK, so celebrated Eve. Now, first off, let us give kudos to Paul for writing to Timothy about a future heresy that did not exist yet.

So, I mean, that's first off, kudos. But yeah, now she's going to jump into an argument for the fact that Gnosticism was celebrating

Eve. Where is that? We don't know that. But did you hear how she said the tree of knowledge?

Uh -uh. Finish it. Right? So she is,

Chris Honhold is saying it, let me pull this comment up. She pulled that completely out of thin air.

As with most of the stuff she's pulling out. I mean, it's completely made up. Now I don't know the full context of this, but I am curious.

It sounded to me like she was just saying this is what other people think. This is what the Gnostics thought. Is she also claiming like this for herself?

Well, yeah, she's saying this is what Paul is trying to address. This is the heresy.

So what she's saying is that Paul's writing to Timothy this book to correct error.

That's going to happen 40 years from then. Women were teaching error. They're both teaching error.

And now she's trying to say that this whole thing with the authority is that they're teaching error of Gnosticism.

Which didn't exist yet. John deals with it later on, like closer to the 90s.

Well, and there are some scholars and theologians who believe that Paul also addressed it to the

Church of Colossae. That it was starting to rear its head there. Where you get

Colossians 2 .8. Yeah, there was a very early version of it. But truthfully, the

Gnosticism that we know of as Gnosticism really wasn't for like 100 years. So, I mean, the entire

Bible was written before that was really became to its full tuition. But so early on, though, the idea that, well, anything physical is bad.

That's true. Anything material, bad and spiritual good. That is what Gnostics believed.

What does that have to do with authority? Nothing. So it's an interjection of some true things.

And remember what I said, she interjects the true. So that you can, it's the false is more palatable.

Right. But she gets into this whole thing of, I mean, saying that Gnosticism was really about praising

Eve. And that the eating of the tree of knowledge was a good thing.

No. I don't think so. So. Let's get that.

We have two more clips left. Let's this next one is 42 seconds. And then the last one is pretty short. It may be that.

That kind of syncretism of reading. Genesis wrong through a proto

Gnostic lens and the kinds of stuff that was just assumed from the

Artemis worship. Kind of pulled together such that these women in Ephesus who were not trained, most of them are going to be

Gentile converts to Christianity. But, you know,

I don't know any better. And so just like the men in chapter one are going to need to teach the correct thing or not talk at all.

So to in chapter two, women, women who are teaching the wrong things need to stop.

Okay. So this is going to bring me. She's bringing it all the way back to her beginning thing. This is where she's just bringing the conclusion where she's saying, hey, like mention it should be silent to if they're teaching wrong things.

That's what this is really all about. Now. Early on, we played the clip where she kind of says, hey, this isn't really addressing a universal thing.

You know what she didn't address in this podcast? Versus 13 and 14.

Nope. That give us the purpose for this claim, which makes it why it is not something to that.

She that Paul is addressing to the local period, the local issues, the scenarios, or as she had said, the situations of Ephesus.

It also completely undoes her not Gnosticism argument as well as valid argument, because Paul specifically talks about Adam and Eve and Eve is deceived.

This was her attempt to bring Eve into it, but she's almost praising

Eve for doing what Paul says and what scripture says is sin. So again, she only missed it by eternity.

Okay. So I mentioned that she doesn't quite seem to understand the culture.

This is going to be another example. This is a short one, but she misses it.

And you may not pick it up, but I did. Let's listen. But of course, in the synagogue, women and men sat together and heard the word of God every

Sunday, every Sabbath. Right. So they had the women had training. Okay. So let's deal with there was there was several errors in their short enough that we could play it again.

I already know Aaron picked up on one of them. Okay. The men and women would have been in the synagogues training together.

So now he's talking about the Gentiles, but he's now going to bring in a

Jewish thinking. Okay. In a Jewish synagogue, men and women are separated.

They still do that today. If I thought my wife would be willing to even have her voice on the podcast,

I was going to call her over just so that I can have her answer this. But I was going to ask her when we went to the

Wailing Wall, were we together? Because the answer she would say was no. We had to go to separate areas.

In a synagogue, you have the men's section and women's section. If they were in the same sanctuary, they had a cloth down the center for the more

Orthodox. Now, maybe the more liberal synagogues are not going to do that. But did you also pick up what day she said they were?

I was just about to say that. She said Sabbath, but then she said Sunday. She said Sunday, and then she said

Sabbath. She got that wrong. You wouldn't be in the synagogue on the

Sunday for service. Nope. Now that we said that,

I won't play it again, so you pick up on it. What is this woman's name? Synagogue. Women and men sat together and heard the word of God every

Sunday, every Sabbath. So the women had training. Lynn is her name.

Her name is Lynn. She's from Seminary Now. This is the podcast that they did. It's called The Alabaster Jar.

Do you notice what she did there, though? I mean, she catches herself. She said Sunday, then Sabbath.

Okay. We all do that. I don't want to be too hard on that one. That could be just a slip of the tongue because we worship on Sunday.

That can naturally come out. But women learning or training in synagogue, they were, but they were doing it from not teaching the men.

I do like what Matt says here. Hold on. Let me read this verbatim. Matt says, word salad right there.

She is like, blah, blah, blah, Gnosticism, blah, blah, Greek, blah, blah, synagogue, blah, blah.

Grammatical, blah, blah, blah, men, blah. Men are bad, blah, blah. Women are pastors, blah, blah,

Sabbath. And proto. You got to throw a proto in there because that makes you sound like. Yeah. I mean,

I think that Matt nailed it. And so, yeah,

I mean, so I think that we've played more than half of the podcast.

The podcast itself is 28 minutes. I think that I don't know exactly how many minutes total

I've grabbed, but I think that it's more than half. So we got most of the context.

Okay. I got to jump in here, though, real quick. Again, just coming to the side of potential fact.

I'm going to see here. First Timothy, second Timothy, written around when? Good question.

Let me check because I don't have it off the top of my head. And we're talking about you said that Gnosticism come in full swing into like 90s.

Right. By the way, great decade. Yeah. Is that right?

Okay. Yep. So there are a selection of Gnostic texts that do seem to call it venerate, call it look on Eve with a certain type of honor and respect because of what she did.

In fact, as an example, the Apocalypse of Adam, which there's not a very good, there's a huge window of when that could have been written anywhere from like 50 to 150.

Talks about Eve as Adam saying of Eve that she taught me the word of knowledge of the eternal

God. And Gnosics looking at her as a teacher of theological knowledge.

Now, when that became a full blown belief, when this was written, when that idea was there, it is just something interesting to note that there are from a

Gnostic persuasion, it could potentially be argued that they do look at her as being venerable because of that choice to allow that knowledge.

And then to teach that knowledge, you know, having been the first one to eat, to teach that knowledge to Adam. So there's throwing that out there as an observation.

Yeah. I mean, but, but the thing is, is that I think overall what she's doing, it's wrong, but no, she's skipping the main, this is a case of, you know, missing the mountains and looking at the pebble.

I mean, she's missing the main purpose of Timothy interjecting things that aren't in Timothy and then, and then building a whole case on it.

And I actually, the whole thing undercuts her, her whole argument, because if Eve is the one teaching, right, she's the one who taught

Adam this theological knowledge. And, and, and Paul specifically in first Timothy is arguing against this, not yet formed

Gnostic heresy. Then in reality, he is teaching against women, teaching men because supposedly that's what they held to.

So she's shooting herself in the foot regardless. Right. Yeah. Well, the majority of her argument is undone by that one word.

Yeah. I mean that, and the fact that she's, she's in the context of the book, the content, the context of the letter.

And then that one, that one small word where it connects the two. And then of course,

I mean, she just completely, a woman, you know, she just can't get over that, that a woman is to, is to learn in quietness and in all submission.

Yeah. So let's, let me go through, as we wrap up, I'm just going to hit some of the comments that came in that I saw.

And I know I missed a bunch because I don't have Drew here to do it. Melissa says that was 20, 28 minutes too long.

I agree. So someone, Melissa had asked me, do you happen to know her theological background is?

No. Other than whatever seminary now is, is all that I, that I saw. Melissa had said this.

She said, I was on the path to become a female pastor until I got smacked upside the head with the scriptures.

Now let's go to how we started this with the very first clip that I played of her and see,

Melissa is a good example where scripture didn't encourage her make meaning, making her feel good.

It smacked her upside the head, corrected her. That's what scripture should do when you're wrong. And that's what

I hope Lynn would, if Lynn ever listens to this podcast that she would learn. Like if anyone knows who

Lynn is from Alabaster Jar podcast and Seminary Now, share this with her and have her come on.

Let's, let's have the discussion. One last comment that I have here is

Gwen says, my pastor used Acts 2 .17 to justify his support for women pastors.

I don't agree with him. This is the only thing I disagree with him on. So let's look at that passage.

So the passage says this, Acts 2 .17, and it shall be in the last days.

God will, God says that I will pour forth my spirit on all mankind and your sons and daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams.

So their whole argument is on daughters shall prophesy. So the, now they have to make the case that prophesying is preaching.

To, to make the argument. Therefore, what you'd have to do is, you know, if you're going to make that case, you got to go to Joel 2 .28

-32, which is where this is from and see what, what that's referring to.

Is it referring to preaching? Right. And what we end up seeing is it's, it's not going to, it's not fulfilled completely.

Acts, Acts 2 is referring to Joel 2. And what you end up seeing is a, you're going to see a reference here in that is, it's a partial fulfillment.

So this is what Acts 2 .28 -32 says. And it will come after this, that I will pour out my spirit on all mankind and your sons and daughters will prophesy.

Your old men's will dream dreams and your young men will see visions. Even on the male and female slaves or servants,

I will pour out my spirit in those days. I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth and the blood and fire in the smoke.

And the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and awesome day of the

Lord comes. And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered on the, from, from, for on Mount Zion.

And in Jerusalem, there will be those who escape as the Lord said, even among the survivors who call, who the

Lord calls. So there are some who say that this is alluding to, to Joel 2, but Joel 2 clearly is not fulfilled yet.

But what they're focused on, what you end up seeing in Maxis focused on is the idea that the spirit would indwell even

Gentiles today. Okay. And so the fact that he's, he quotes this, what's he quoted in reference to?

Well, if we back up a little bit, right. And you see what, what was going on. You end up seeing all these people that start speaking in tongues and they're like, what is going on?

Right. And then verse 15, he says, for these men are not drunk. He's giving a, he's, he's giving us a, he's explaining scripture, right.

He's explaining what's going on. And he says, Peter gets up and says, he says, for these men are not drunk as you suppose for only, it's only the third hour of the day, but this is what was spoken of, of the prophet

Joel. So Joel gave some future prophecy. And in the prophecy, it ends up mentioning that, you know, he's using that to say that these men are prophesying in saying things in a language they didn't previously know.

That's the context. So there's nothing you can't, you can't use this to say women can be pastors because it's saying nothing about pastors.

You, you have to make the association that prophecy is preaching to say that women can preach.

I'd wonder too, if the pastor who said that, uh, was the cessationist or not, because you look at, you look at the list and, you know, yes, we know that prophesy can be a, a telling of the future or foretelling.

But we also know that can be used of a foretelling, right? We recognize that reality, but it's coupled with seeing visions and dreaming dreams, which are both have that idea of extra biblical revelation from God for the purpose of revealing information.

That's not currently in the scriptures. This is not a, this is not a foretelling. So if he's going to point to this and say, women can be pastors, and he's also pointing to this and say, women can be pastors and claim to speak for God because they're seeing the future and know things that we don't know.

Well, I don't know that he's saying that. Yeah. I mean, the thing is, this passage in Acts 2 cannot be used to argue women can be pastors because it's not speaking of pastors, period.

Yeah. Now, can you use it? If you're going to use it, be prepared that that woman is going to claim to be able to see the future.

I'm just saying. Yeah. Well, that's what I was going to get to. So if you're going to use this to say, well, yes, preaching can sometimes refer to, um, to preaching and prophecy.

They could be similar, but as you said, telling the past, but what you have here is you have someone that is, it's very clearly telling the unknown.

And so this is clearly the way that people think of prophecy saying that which is not known. So, um, all right.

So let's close out. We got a couple of things. Humble Clay, uh, says, Andrew, you need to look at first assumptions and maybe that's the book that she was reading from.

Which by the way, I found, uh, she's a, it's a Dr. Lynn Kochick, Kochick, excuse me.

Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Director of Houston Theological Seminary at Houston Christian University.

There you go. So one last thing, Matt, who was giving us some great comments, he goes,

I got to go to bed. Uh, y 'all have a good night. This was really fun time. Thank you.

Thank you. All the speakers. I think, uh, he, he must really, uh, like to beat himself up if he thought it was fun listening to all that.

But, but, uh, we, we are glad that you guys listened. Um, like I said, Drew and Aaron, I hope we'll have something for the next three weeks while I am in the

Philippines. Um, I don't know what they're going to do cause I haven't talked to Drew yet.

Um, but I'm sure Drew and Aaron may be able to figure some out or Drew and Chris. And I hope that we don't have nothing, but, um,

I got to teach Drew how to set up the show, uh, because he usually just leaves that to me.

So, uh, so, uh, Chris Brown is saying, um, thank you very much for your commentary.

Andrew, Chris and Aaron appreciate you brothers. Well, we thank you Chris. And so, you know, uh, be praying for me as I'm out in the

Philippines, uh, preaching with Justin Peters and Jim Osmond. We are going to be busy, but I think

I have, I think I have a couple more events than they do. Unless there's some things that are in the schedule that they're doing.

I'm not because, uh, I'm speaking about, I think like a dozen times, but, um, while there is, uh, uh, some breaks,

I know, uh, I will be going into a school to share the gospel. Um, what, while they get to relax,

I think was there going to be at a hotel relaxing while, you know, preparing for the radio interview we're all going to do.

Uh, I will be doing a seminar at a church camp on open air preaching. Um, so that's an added session.

So unless they got some extra, I know Jim is doing some extra preaching. Uh, he's going to be preaching a Sunday message. And if you, if you haven't heard

Jim Osmond preach, yeah, you're missing out. Just saying, um, Aaron and I just got back from, uh, up North, North New York, uh,

Watertown, Copenhagen, uh, great church. Uh, had a great time.

Um, that it was river of life church. If you're up that way, there's life fellowship church.

There's actually another river of life church area in, in, in the area. So river life fellowship church, uh, it was a great church, great people.

Uh, we had a really good time. And, uh, I'll be headed to the Philippines.

And so I do want to let you know, uh, if you want to, uh, the next time at least Aaron and I will be together again, we'll be in Arizona.

And that is at Vail Valley Baptist church. Uh, that will be August, uh, the let's see,

I think it's the 12th, I think is the Sunday. What was the, it starts on the 8th, 8th or 9th.

So, um, so I encourage you guys to, to check that out. We do have a page.

If you go to strivingforfreedom .org, there is a banner that will bring you to the page where you can go to the event by page and find out all about it.

It is called the Christian, uh, Christian responsibility in an un -Christian world. We got some great speakers lined up for that.

So I want to encourage you to check that out. And, uh, until next week, remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.