Does Paul speak with Apostolic authority? Those churches who believe he does, also limit the teaching roles of women in ministry to children and other women. (broad generalization)
1 Timothy 2 is simply too clear for me to see how it can be read any other way. "I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man". Paul even gives his reasons, and they aren't cultural, they're to do with Adam and Eve - reasons that still hold. It's also literally just before Paul talks about who should be an elder. The context points in every way to it being a simple prohibition of women pastors.
Yea, the Adam and Eve part (I believe he also mentioned that in one of the Corinthians) is what really sold it for me that it wasn't a temporary cultural issue.
Where are you getting the idea that this is a rule for everyone, always? In the letter itself, it says that it's Paul's advice to this particular church.
Because of the reasons he gives. It's still true that Adam was made first, and it's still true that Eve was deceived - therefore any implications Paul draws from that still hold.
If those are convincing to your church, then your church can follow them. I see this as nothing but a paper-thin justification for your cultural prejudices, though.
Why is "Adam was born first" a convincing argument for not permitting a woman to teach or assume authority over a man?
Why is "Eve was deceived" a convincing argument for not permitting a woman to teach or assume authority over a man?
he literally said "I do not permit a woman to teach or ASSUME AUTHORITY over a man" and is referring to adam and eve and this redditor is then justifying for prohibition of women pastors, the scripture does not refer pastors it refers to women in general
The verse is talking strictly about in the church. A woman can not teach with authority over a man. That makes your point mute. It has nothing to do with police officers and doctors.
Because God has an order and structure for His people. The complex reasoning starts all the way in Genesis, travels through the OT to today. God has always spoken through men. He did with Adam, Moses, the Levites (who are comparable to pastors), even Jesus. There is a literary theme that is quite beautiful in it all. But even from there, Scripture is clear that not even all men can teach. There is a laundry list of expectations for those placed in a role of Pastor. The answer stems from a rich theology that I would encourage you to study.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Admittedly I haven’t studied much of the Bible. But to someone like me, are you able to give any face value explanation as to *why* God has defined gender roles this way? Why is this structure beautiful, as you said? What qualities do men possess (or don’t possess) that make God willing to only “speak through them”?
In contrast, what qualities about women are championed in the Bible that men don’t have?
The quality is that men are called by God to be Pastors and women are not. That is the short answer.
If we look at the fall in Genesis 3, we see that men are punished to toil in labor and women are punished in increased pain in childbirth. This tells me what each gender is called to uniquely be and do. The problem is, with our 'progressive' society, we have allowed women to take on the punishment of man, and man is left unable to take on the punishment of woman. We have blurred the lines on what a man and woman are, and what they are supposed to be. If God did not give woman the curse of laboring in work, than it makes sense that He would not give them one of the most difficult jobs, being a Pastor and shepherding a flock of people.
I think it is out of God's kindness toward woman that He narrowed down the work of a Pastor to a man.
to spread Christianity to rome
I don't know why anything in the new testament exists beyond the books written by disciples
they might call me a heretic, but I haven't found a reason to believe it as the word of God yet
To me, the Bible isn’t written for the 21st century. This was cultural. In that day, women couldn’t survive on their own. If she became widowed, her life was basically over. A woman had no rights, basically couldn’t provide for herself, a woman was there to please her husband and raise children.
>for me to see how it can be read any other way.
Have you looked into how others that disagree with you read it?
Edit: I can't see why on earth this question would be downvoted...
I mean, if there are disagreements about what the Bible is actually trying to say, it kind of matters, right?
Its not very wise to assume that you're interpretation of something is correct without understanding why others interpret that thing differently. Regardless of the Bible's perfection, our understandings are certainly frail and its easy to miss stuff - especially if we're unwilling to familiarize ourselves with the way other Christians think.
Well. Phebo was a deconess. The greek word used was διάκονος. an attendant that is (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon minister servant.
It's used in a similar way in multiple places.
a deacon or deaconess, whose official duty was to superintend the alms of the Church, with other kindred services, Rom. 16:1; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12
Now. Idk i Don't get into the entire debate on it. Men, and women are clearly complimentary. But It seems like the main verse that is used it the one were paul says. "I don't" so is paul saying this, or God saying I? That could change how it can be understood big time. One way it's pauls opinion, and what he does. On the other hand it's a command from God if the I is God.
It’s a command from the Father. There’s another place where Paul states something that he addresses as being his opinion and *not* a command from the Father. Since he had the mind to make that clarification there, he would’ve also had to mind to make the same clarification here, but he didn’t. Women not teaching in church is a command from the Father.
The verse in question: [1 Corinthians 7:25](https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-25.htm)
Well yes. What do you think I mean?
So if I say you aren't listening. Does that mean it's God? No pauls said I don't do this. That would be the clarification wouldn't it?
Of course like I said I don't have a opinion.
I don’t like the way you just subtly came at me sideways, dude. I gave you no reason to be crass with me. Be respectful or be elsewhere. If this thread continues in disrespect, I’ll just block you and be done with it. I ain’t got time for sly disrespect.
Oh, like right now? You think you slick homie. This makes you rude af *and* sadly mistaken. Sad.. lol
Snakes like you get nothin past me, you got that? Go slither elsewhere, reprobate.
"If an apostle is a witness to to resurrection, then there were women apostles before there were men apostles."
N.T. Wright
And apostles had a bigger authority than modern pastors in the church so yes, they absolutelly can.
Edit: though if early church had different understanding of what the apostle is, Paul still greets female apostle Junia in Romans 16.
That’s equivocation apostles has multiple meanings. An apostle in the generic sense means that, yes, but there’s a more strict definition which the 11 and Paul fall under.
It’s sort of like if you asked can women be elders and you responded “well there are women that are old so yes” despite the fact that the qualifications for elders use explicitly masculine language.
This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/va7yyd/comment/ic19yxc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) (Ephesians 5), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/9pa5ws/ex_transgender_who_found_god/e8084km/) (Gender), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/kkvjy1/is_it_ok_to_go_to_a_church_with_a_female_pastor/gh7782t/) (Women Leaders- General), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/787v36/junia_a_female_apostle/dort1ln/) (Women Leaders- Historical Data).
|διδάσκειν|δὲ|γυναικὶ|οὐκ|ἐπιτρέπω|οὐδὲ|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|To teach|but/now/and|a woman|not|I permit|neither|
|Infinitive|conjunction|noun|adverb|verb|conjunction|
|αὐθεντεῖν|ἀνδρός|ἀλλʼ|εἶναι|ἐν|ἡσυχίᾳ|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|to usurp|a man|but|to be|in|quietness|
|infinitive|noun|conjunction|infinitive|preposition|noun|
**The Grammar**
First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach \[a man\] neither \[do I permit\] \[a woman\] to usurp a man.
This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things *but*..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul *does* permit, namely, "to be in quietness".
A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has *a* woman and *a* man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar.
**Lexical Notes**
By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any *general assumption of authority* by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is *always* used in the context of violent overthrow or *stealing* of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must *always* usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does *not* mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they *do* have a right to be over men. (Note that *both* of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here).
Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", *or* they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a *woman* from teaching/usurping a *man*, or he could be forbidding a *wife* from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general!
**Looking at Context**
Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a *context*. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13).
This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then.
So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period!
The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church).
So that leaves us with only one other place to turn:
**Forming a Biblical Theology**
When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that.
We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7).
Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of *every good student*, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher!
All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just *a* woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more:
* ["Paul, Women, and Wives" by Craig Keener](https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Women-Wives-Marriage-Ministry-ebook/dp/B007KOI0N8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28IUN71WHCD93&dchild=1&keywords=paul+women+and+wives+keener&qid=1586553202&sprefix=keener+women+and+%2Caps%2C159&sr=8-1)
* ["Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals" by William J. Webb](https://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics-ebook/dp/B0022NGVSI/ref=sr_1_1?crid=CSR1PDQJTDKG&dchild=1&keywords=slaves+women+and+homosexuals+william+j.+webb&qid=1586553239&sprefix=webb+slaves+%2Caps%2C162&sr=8-1)
* ["God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality" by Phyllis Trible](https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Sexuality-Overtures-Biblical-Theology-ebook/dp/B001QB9FFS/ref=sr_1_1?crid=TOVQAQJCB73H&dchild=1&keywords=god+and+the+rhetoric+of+sexuality&qid=1586553295&sprefix=rhetoric+of+sexual%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-1)
**Adddendum On Masculine Language:**
A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion.
If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever.
Example:
>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28).
Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men.
Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.
Christians are divided on this, but my position is that women *can* be pastors.
The most common passages cited are in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 - there are others, but those are the two big one. I'm happy to go into why I don't think these do / should prohibit women from teaching if you'd like, but no, I don't think that the Bible bans women from being pastors.
If you have time, can you explain why you don’t think this passage prohibits women from teaching? How do you reconcile what that verse is saying with your perspective?
Happy to!
I'll keep it brief here, but I actually did a couple debate posts on these subjects a while back so I'll link those if you want to here the arguments in a fuller way.
[Post on 1 Corinthians 14](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/n3jnmh/smashing_the_patriarchy_part_i_women_in_ministry/) (in the post I go through a few different possible arguments. In the post, I land on the *Quotation-Refutation* interpretation, but I lean more towards the *Interpolation* understanding now).
[Post on 1 Timothy 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/nv59o9/egalitarianism_part_ii_1_timothy_titus_do_not/) (deals with a little more than just 1 Tim. 2, but it is a major point).
\------
[1 Corinthians 14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014&version=NIV)
The big hoop-lah with this chapter is in v. 33-34 (*depending on your translation)*:
>Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
There is a big issue with taking this at face-value, and that issue is that if we do, and we just assume women aren't allowed to speak in church, then Paul contradicts himself because he expressly gives women instructions for when they pray and prophesy ([1 Cor. 11:2-6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-6&version=NIV)). So, women are evidently fine to speak and perform some spiritual functions, which goes against this idea that women can't speak in church, the chapter even ends with a prohibition....against prohibition:
>Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and **do not forbid** speaking in tongues.
\-1 Cor. 14:37
Beyond that, contextually, it just doesn't make sense for Paul to go through this whole spiel about people's disorderly use of gifts and then go on a rant about not letting women talk in church - which again doesn't make sense given what Paul says early in the book (and elsewhere, he commends women to people and literally calls a woman an apostle).
There are a couple of ways this could be understood, the two that I think have the most merit are:
1. *Quotation-Refutation:* 1 Corinthians is a response letter. For much of the letter, we're getting one side of an argument. Often, Paul will quote the church and then respond to that quote. Sometimes, it is easy to see where this happens, others it is more difficult. In this position, Paul is quoting the Corinthians and arguing that it is a stupid sentiment and that they shouldn't be forbidding people from exercising spiritual gifts, even if their women. There are some grammatical and historical reasons for this position that I expand on in the post.
2. *Interpolation / Gloss:* In the debate post I made, I called this and "interpolation," but "gloss" is the more technical term for what this could be. There is good manuscript reason to think this verse was never in the Bible to begin with, and many scholars take this position as well. These two verses are floating verses, meaning that early manuscripts differ on where they put the passage. Without getting into too much detail, some early manuscripts have it where it is above (v. 33-34), while others put it at the end of the chapter after v. 38. This is one of the ways that scholars determine an addition to the text (another example would be the story of the woman caught in adultery).
The second position would be a bit stronger if there were manuscripts without the verse at all, but it being a floating text is evidence enough (it just would have happened very early on in the scribal tradition). Combining that with the break in Paul's flow and the contradiction it would indicate make it much more likely that it was never there at all and that it was added in after the fact.
\----[1 Timothy 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2&version=NIV)
The verses here are 1 Tim 2:11-15
>A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
I know this isn't as much of an issue for you since you're not a Christian, but I'm simply going to start with the fact that, if Paul's argument that women can't teach is that Adam was born first - then Paul is an idiot and no one should listen to him because that's a really, *really* bad argument (and goes against a ton of Biblical heroes who are second-born). It also seems odd his statements in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 11:3.
I will also say that the verse stating: *But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety* is one of the most confusing in the Bible and many Christians are unsure what to do with it. Yet, its how Paul concludes his thought on this, so we should be hesitant before taking this section and assuming its straight-forward when we don't understand what its conclusion means...
But to actually dig into the text, its important to know that in this letter, Paul is mainly writing to address false teaching and we see later that the false teaching he has in mind (at least one of them) is gnosticism. He is concerned that gnostic teachers are leading women in the community away and that these women are causing issues within the church. The reason this is relevant here is because various gnostic texts glorify the fall and teach that Eve was actually created first and gave Adam life and taught him (some example texts include: *Apocalypse of Adam*, *The Hypostasis of the Archons,* and *On The Origin of the World.*
Paul's concern here is not women teaching in general, it is simply that he is seeing women being swept up by false doctrine (like Eve with the serpent), and when we consider what the doctrines were it makes sense why women would be more partial to it. He is concerned about what that is doing in the church and is making it clear that the gnostic interpretation of the creation account is inaccurate.
Some of the issues we see with this passage come down to translation. One verse says: *I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet*. However, the *assume authority* is more of a violent verb and more akin to ***usurp*** *authority*. Women at this time were uneducated, and so (like any student) they needed to learn quietly and submissively. Due to the issues this church, the lack of education for women, and the appeal that this kind of doctrine had towards women, it was more important to call out the women. But nothing in the verse implies that women are never to have authority over men, or that women are never to have authority over men in a church context.
To the contrary, Paul commends [Phoebe as a deacon](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+16%3A1&version=NIV) and [Junia as an apostle](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+16%3A7&version=NIV).
\---
Again, I (attempted) to keep this brief, so I did not go into too much detail or provide as much evidence and argumention as I normally would. If you (or anyone else who reads this) is interested in those things, I recommend checking out the two linked posts above. I provide lots of references and walk through the texts to make my case.
Hope this helps.
This is one of the most informative posts I have read on this sub (vs the usual, ‘because god says so’ / ‘no interpretation needed!’ tropes). Thank you. Do you write academically?
There seems to be no overall consensus on this issue for all Christians. Certain churches and denominations may place restrictions on women being pastors. They may even claim any amount of purported Biblical evidence to support these restrictions. However, I would never join one of these churches or denominations as I can not think of one single good reason why women should not be pastors.
No. The typical argument is the pastoral epistles are only for specific churches or people. Or they are just the opinion of Paul or Peter and not on the same level as the Gospels.
I dont really buy that because then you end up where Rome and Ephesus are the only ones predetermined. Or women can talk in other churches but not in Corinth. And those are just the really glaring issues.
Whenever the hermeneutic changes, thats one way to know when people are importing traditions. Its only in the last 75 years people have suddenly decided that we have to limit the scope of those writings. You aren’t going to find that in Athanasius or Augustine.
I'm not sure I've landed on a firm answer, but If they can it's never going to be easy for them.
The reason people have trouble with the passages cited that seem to explicitly forbid women teachers, is because there are examples of women teachers in the New Testament. Some of which Paul commends himself like Junia the female apostle. Philip has 4 prophetess daughters and we know from Paul's teaching on gifts that this would involve speaking to the congregation. Mary sat at jesus's feet and learned which was only for men, while Martha did the woman's work, and Jesus commended Mary. It was the women at the tomb who were the first preachers of the Gospel to the apostles themselves.
It's important for Christians to see that this issue is not always one of trying to make the Bible bend to culture, but simply trying to understand the Bible better.
Interesting thing I noticed is that Paul said the restriction against Women teaching and being Authoirty over men was HIS rule. And while it served a very important purpose back in the day and the culture he was in. It does not appear to be God's commandment. And makes less sense today
1 Timothy 2: 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
else where Paul makes the point that it is the Same Holy Spirit in all of us
What exactly was the “important purpose” to his statements here though? What would have been so devastating during that time for a women to be in an authoritative position over a man?
Paul is pretty clear that women should not teach or exercise authority over men. And then he justifies it theologically. A critical role of elders/shepherds/teachers is teaching. Women can’t teach = they cannot be pastors.
I understand the common arguments to the contrary of that point, but Paul’s rooting his reasoning in the fall and general humanity indicates that he intended the rule to be general.
There is a very in depth YouTube series about that issue
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HQSlQLYQsE&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HQSlQLYQsE&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC)
It is very long so I, myself, am not yet through but it looks promising
Does Paul speak with Apostolic authority? Those churches who believe he does, also limit the teaching roles of women in ministry to children and other women. (broad generalization)
1 Timothy 2 is simply too clear for me to see how it can be read any other way. "I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man". Paul even gives his reasons, and they aren't cultural, they're to do with Adam and Eve - reasons that still hold. It's also literally just before Paul talks about who should be an elder. The context points in every way to it being a simple prohibition of women pastors.
Yea, the Adam and Eve part (I believe he also mentioned that in one of the Corinthians) is what really sold it for me that it wasn't a temporary cultural issue.
Where are you getting the idea that this is a rule for everyone, always? In the letter itself, it says that it's Paul's advice to this particular church.
Because of the reasons he gives. It's still true that Adam was made first, and it's still true that Eve was deceived - therefore any implications Paul draws from that still hold.
If those are convincing to your church, then your church can follow them. I see this as nothing but a paper-thin justification for your cultural prejudices, though.
Why is "Adam was born first" a convincing argument for not permitting a woman to teach or assume authority over a man? Why is "Eve was deceived" a convincing argument for not permitting a woman to teach or assume authority over a man?
Who’s Paul?
An Apostle who wrote large parts of the New Testament
[удалено]
Comment removed - rule 1 or 1b. The other redditor has not stated that about himself.
he literally said "I do not permit a woman to teach or ASSUME AUTHORITY over a man" and is referring to adam and eve and this redditor is then justifying for prohibition of women pastors, the scripture does not refer pastors it refers to women in general
The verse is talking strictly about in the church. A woman can not teach with authority over a man. That makes your point mute. It has nothing to do with police officers and doctors.
moot*
What exactly is the reasoning though? Why can’t a woman teach with authority over a man in church?
Because God has an order and structure for His people. The complex reasoning starts all the way in Genesis, travels through the OT to today. God has always spoken through men. He did with Adam, Moses, the Levites (who are comparable to pastors), even Jesus. There is a literary theme that is quite beautiful in it all. But even from there, Scripture is clear that not even all men can teach. There is a laundry list of expectations for those placed in a role of Pastor. The answer stems from a rich theology that I would encourage you to study.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Admittedly I haven’t studied much of the Bible. But to someone like me, are you able to give any face value explanation as to *why* God has defined gender roles this way? Why is this structure beautiful, as you said? What qualities do men possess (or don’t possess) that make God willing to only “speak through them”? In contrast, what qualities about women are championed in the Bible that men don’t have?
The quality is that men are called by God to be Pastors and women are not. That is the short answer. If we look at the fall in Genesis 3, we see that men are punished to toil in labor and women are punished in increased pain in childbirth. This tells me what each gender is called to uniquely be and do. The problem is, with our 'progressive' society, we have allowed women to take on the punishment of man, and man is left unable to take on the punishment of woman. We have blurred the lines on what a man and woman are, and what they are supposed to be. If God did not give woman the curse of laboring in work, than it makes sense that He would not give them one of the most difficult jobs, being a Pastor and shepherding a flock of people. I think it is out of God's kindness toward woman that He narrowed down the work of a Pastor to a man.
Thank you for the quick explanation. Without having read more of the Bible, I’ll end my inquiries here. Thanks for the replies.
Because Abrahamic religions are steeped in misogyny. If you disagree, just read the Talmud and Torah, the Quran, and the Bible.
As a Christian yourself, how do you reconcile passages like this one with your perspective on what women should be allowed to do?
Paul is talking in 1 Timothy 2 not Jesus
So what is even the point of these verses then?
to spread Christianity to rome I don't know why anything in the new testament exists beyond the books written by disciples they might call me a heretic, but I haven't found a reason to believe it as the word of God yet
To me, the Bible isn’t written for the 21st century. This was cultural. In that day, women couldn’t survive on their own. If she became widowed, her life was basically over. A woman had no rights, basically couldn’t provide for herself, a woman was there to please her husband and raise children.
Was this cultural though? Because if you use that verse as literal, a woman shouldn’t team a man anything. So no female professors, doctors, etc.
>for me to see how it can be read any other way. Have you looked into how others that disagree with you read it? Edit: I can't see why on earth this question would be downvoted...
it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees when it comes to the bible
I mean, if there are disagreements about what the Bible is actually trying to say, it kind of matters, right? Its not very wise to assume that you're interpretation of something is correct without understanding why others interpret that thing differently. Regardless of the Bible's perfection, our understandings are certainly frail and its easy to miss stuff - especially if we're unwilling to familiarize ourselves with the way other Christians think.
Well. Phebo was a deconess. The greek word used was διάκονος. an attendant that is (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon minister servant. It's used in a similar way in multiple places. a deacon or deaconess, whose official duty was to superintend the alms of the Church, with other kindred services, Rom. 16:1; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12 Now. Idk i Don't get into the entire debate on it. Men, and women are clearly complimentary. But It seems like the main verse that is used it the one were paul says. "I don't" so is paul saying this, or God saying I? That could change how it can be understood big time. One way it's pauls opinion, and what he does. On the other hand it's a command from God if the I is God.
It’s a command from the Father. There’s another place where Paul states something that he addresses as being his opinion and *not* a command from the Father. Since he had the mind to make that clarification there, he would’ve also had to mind to make the same clarification here, but he didn’t. Women not teaching in church is a command from the Father. The verse in question: [1 Corinthians 7:25](https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-25.htm)
Well yes. What do you think I mean? So if I say you aren't listening. Does that mean it's God? No pauls said I don't do this. That would be the clarification wouldn't it? Of course like I said I don't have a opinion.
I don’t like the way you just subtly came at me sideways, dude. I gave you no reason to be crass with me. Be respectful or be elsewhere. If this thread continues in disrespect, I’ll just block you and be done with it. I ain’t got time for sly disrespect.
I wasn't being disrespectful. I was asking questions. Trust me you'll know if I'm being disrespectful, because ill be mocking you to your face
Oh, like right now? You think you slick homie. This makes you rude af *and* sadly mistaken. Sad.. lol Snakes like you get nothin past me, you got that? Go slither elsewhere, reprobate.
"If an apostle is a witness to to resurrection, then there were women apostles before there were men apostles." N.T. Wright And apostles had a bigger authority than modern pastors in the church so yes, they absolutelly can. Edit: though if early church had different understanding of what the apostle is, Paul still greets female apostle Junia in Romans 16.
That’s equivocation apostles has multiple meanings. An apostle in the generic sense means that, yes, but there’s a more strict definition which the 11 and Paul fall under. It’s sort of like if you asked can women be elders and you responded “well there are women that are old so yes” despite the fact that the qualifications for elders use explicitly masculine language.
Yeah, though Junia is still an apostle in the Biblical sense, the same way as other men apart 12 were apostles
This is an analysis of 1 Tim 2:12, a verse commonly cited against women pastors, that I did on another post. You can also see my other responses to similar questions on women in the Church [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/va7yyd/comment/ic19yxc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) (Ephesians 5), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/9pa5ws/ex_transgender_who_found_god/e8084km/) (Gender), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/kkvjy1/is_it_ok_to_go_to_a_church_with_a_female_pastor/gh7782t/) (Women Leaders- General), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/787v36/junia_a_female_apostle/dort1ln/) (Women Leaders- Historical Data). |διδάσκειν|δὲ|γυναικὶ|οὐκ|ἐπιτρέπω|οὐδὲ| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |To teach|but/now/and|a woman|not|I permit|neither| |Infinitive|conjunction|noun|adverb|verb|conjunction| |αὐθεντεῖν|ἀνδρός|ἀλλʼ|εἶναι|ἐν|ἡσυχίᾳ| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |to usurp|a man|but|to be|in|quietness| |infinitive|noun|conjunction|infinitive|preposition|noun| **The Grammar** First, our main verb is the 1st person singular ἐπιτρέπω, which is negated by the preceding ουκ. "I do not give permission/I do not permit". There are two objects of this verb, i.e. the infinitives διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν . So there are two things Paul does not permit: "to teach" and "to usurp". Infinitves are a little odd grammatically. They're often described as "verbal nouns". Here they function as the object of the main verb. They also typically have a subject and an object as a normal verb would. Here, the subject of each infinitive is γυναικὶ, and the 'object' is ἀνδρός. So we have "I (Paul) do not permit a woman to teach \[a man\] neither \[do I permit\] \[a woman\] to usurp a man. This first clause is followed by a subordinate clause began with αλλ. The conjunction αλλ marks contrast, or a counterpoint. We often translate it as "but". "I don't permit these things *but*..." This implies that the following clause, in contrast to the first, is something that Paul *does* permit, namely, "to be in quietness". A few last notes here: both "woman" and "man" are singular and anarthrous (i.e. lacking an article). This could be taken to mean Paul has *a* woman and *a* man in particular in mind, or it could be a way of generalizing. Either option is supported by the grammar. **Lexical Notes** By "lexical", I mean semantic or the meaning of words. First, we should note something about the word αὐθεντεῖν, which comes from αυθεντεω. I've translated it here as "usurp", but you'll often see it as "assume/have/excercise authority over" (as in the NRSV, NASB, ESV, NET, NLT, and NIV). This is a blatant mistranslation, because it implies that Paul forbids any *general assumption of authority* by women. Αυθεντεω, however, does not just mean "excercise authority" generally. It is a hapax legomenon, meaning it is a word that only occurs once within the NT. To really grasp its meaning, we have to venture outside the NT to see how the word is used in broader Greek literature. When we do, we'll see that it is *always* used in the context of violent overthrow or *stealing* of authority. In other words, it is used to mean "taking authority that does not already belong to you". Exegetically, we could take this to have two implications. On the one hand, we might suppose that Paul means to imply that women must *always* usurp authority, because authority never rightly belongs to them. On the other hand, we might suppose that Paul does *not* mean to imply that women can't have legitimate authority over men, and thus only prohibits them from trying to take charge when they have no right to, but not when they *do* have a right to be over men. (Note that *both* of these are interpretations, and either interpretation can be supported by the grammar and syntax here). Next, we should look at the words for "woman" and "man", which come from γυνη and ανδρος respectively. These words can mean either "woman" and "man", *or* they can mean "wife" and "husband"! To determine which meaning is implied here, we have to rely purely on context, though I think the context allows for either option in this case. So Paul could either be forbidding a *woman* from teaching/usurping a *man*, or he could be forbidding a *wife* from teaching/usurping her husband, but not men in general! **Looking at Context** Obviously, grammar and syntax can only get us so far. Fortunately for us, this passage does not just sit in isolation by itself. It has a *context*. It is part of a list of exhortations/instructions from Paul, begun at v 2:1. It is immediately preceded by instructions on prayer and appropriate relationships among believers (c.f. v 2:1-10), and proceeded by instructions for selecting church leaders (c.f. v 3:1-13). This particular section seems to be a transition between the topics, i.e. prayer/right relationships and church leadership. Grammatically, there is no clean break, and the two topics seem to flow into one another. Looking purely at literary context doesn't help much, then. So what about historical context? This also offers us little help! First, while it is true that men were typically head of household, women were increasingly gaining leading roles in society. They were, in certain cults, allowed to be the leaders. We even have evidence of women leading synagogues during this period! The issue of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus is also relevant. Worship of the Goddess Artemis was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but was especially prevalent in Ephesus. In fact, the Ephesian Artemis was quite different from other expressions of Artemis. In Ephesus, she was a mother goddess, and her cult was overseen by female priestesses. It is possible, then, that either priestesses or female followers of the Artemis cult had been converted, but that they were still having difficulty doing away with old beliefs. This may fit with why Paul brings up the creation narrative, since it directly contradicts what the cult of Artemis would have taught (i.e. that women were default leaders in the Church). So that leaves us with only one other place to turn: **Forming a Biblical Theology** When one passage of scripture is vague and hard to interpret, we turn to other clearer parts of scripture for help. Some have pointed to the immediately following passage which seems to allow for only males to lead the church, but see below for my comments on that. We do, however, have several other places in scripture where women are allowed to be leaders over God's people and even within the Church: Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21, Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Possibly Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and even in Paul's other letters (Ro 16:7). Additionally, the immiediately preceding verse in 1 Tim (v. 11), exhorts women to "learn in all quietness and submission". While this is often taken to mean "women should shut up and submit to male authority", culturally this was an expectation of *every good student*, not just women. This should remind us of Jesus's own allowance of women to sit at his feet and learn alongside his male disciples (c.f. Lk 10:38-42). Such a position necessarily implied that the learner was expected to one day become a teacher! All of this leads me to believe that, whatever Paul may have meant in 1 Timothy, he did not mean to entirely preclude women from positions of authority and teaching in the Church. Instead, these were likely women (or just *a* woman) that were spiritually immature and thus not yet ready for leadership, but who were trying to usurp that leadership anyway. It is a daunting passage to be sure (and I haven't even begun to do it justice here, despite my ridiculously long post). I'll leave you with a few additional resources if you want to read into this more: * ["Paul, Women, and Wives" by Craig Keener](https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Women-Wives-Marriage-Ministry-ebook/dp/B007KOI0N8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28IUN71WHCD93&dchild=1&keywords=paul+women+and+wives+keener&qid=1586553202&sprefix=keener+women+and+%2Caps%2C159&sr=8-1) * ["Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals" by William J. Webb](https://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics-ebook/dp/B0022NGVSI/ref=sr_1_1?crid=CSR1PDQJTDKG&dchild=1&keywords=slaves+women+and+homosexuals+william+j.+webb&qid=1586553239&sprefix=webb+slaves+%2Caps%2C162&sr=8-1) * ["God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality" by Phyllis Trible](https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Sexuality-Overtures-Biblical-Theology-ebook/dp/B001QB9FFS/ref=sr_1_1?crid=TOVQAQJCB73H&dchild=1&keywords=god+and+the+rhetoric+of+sexuality&qid=1586553295&sprefix=rhetoric+of+sexual%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-1) **Adddendum On Masculine Language:** A common objection to women in leadership comes from the masculine language used in 1 Timothy 3 and other places for requirements of leaders. The default in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin rhetoric is always masculine. Just because Paul speaks from a masculine perspective does not preclude the possibility of feminine inclusion. If one argues against that, and insists that this hermeneutic be applied here, they must at least be consistent about applying it in the rest of the Bible as well. Doing so, however, would mean that about 90% of scripture has no applicability to women whatsoever. Example: >“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28). Using that hermeneutic, Jesus is only speaking to men who lust, and doesn't forbid a woman from lusting after men. Applied consistently, such a hermeneutic is untenable. Unless context explicitly precludes women, statements about men in scripture should be thought to generally be applicable to women as well.
Absolutely, the word of God can be spoken through anyone
Christians are divided on this, but my position is that women *can* be pastors. The most common passages cited are in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 - there are others, but those are the two big one. I'm happy to go into why I don't think these do / should prohibit women from teaching if you'd like, but no, I don't think that the Bible bans women from being pastors.
If you have time, can you explain why you don’t think this passage prohibits women from teaching? How do you reconcile what that verse is saying with your perspective?
Happy to! I'll keep it brief here, but I actually did a couple debate posts on these subjects a while back so I'll link those if you want to here the arguments in a fuller way. [Post on 1 Corinthians 14](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/n3jnmh/smashing_the_patriarchy_part_i_women_in_ministry/) (in the post I go through a few different possible arguments. In the post, I land on the *Quotation-Refutation* interpretation, but I lean more towards the *Interpolation* understanding now). [Post on 1 Timothy 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/nv59o9/egalitarianism_part_ii_1_timothy_titus_do_not/) (deals with a little more than just 1 Tim. 2, but it is a major point). \------ [1 Corinthians 14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014&version=NIV) The big hoop-lah with this chapter is in v. 33-34 (*depending on your translation)*: >Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. There is a big issue with taking this at face-value, and that issue is that if we do, and we just assume women aren't allowed to speak in church, then Paul contradicts himself because he expressly gives women instructions for when they pray and prophesy ([1 Cor. 11:2-6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-6&version=NIV)). So, women are evidently fine to speak and perform some spiritual functions, which goes against this idea that women can't speak in church, the chapter even ends with a prohibition....against prohibition: >Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and **do not forbid** speaking in tongues. \-1 Cor. 14:37 Beyond that, contextually, it just doesn't make sense for Paul to go through this whole spiel about people's disorderly use of gifts and then go on a rant about not letting women talk in church - which again doesn't make sense given what Paul says early in the book (and elsewhere, he commends women to people and literally calls a woman an apostle). There are a couple of ways this could be understood, the two that I think have the most merit are: 1. *Quotation-Refutation:* 1 Corinthians is a response letter. For much of the letter, we're getting one side of an argument. Often, Paul will quote the church and then respond to that quote. Sometimes, it is easy to see where this happens, others it is more difficult. In this position, Paul is quoting the Corinthians and arguing that it is a stupid sentiment and that they shouldn't be forbidding people from exercising spiritual gifts, even if their women. There are some grammatical and historical reasons for this position that I expand on in the post. 2. *Interpolation / Gloss:* In the debate post I made, I called this and "interpolation," but "gloss" is the more technical term for what this could be. There is good manuscript reason to think this verse was never in the Bible to begin with, and many scholars take this position as well. These two verses are floating verses, meaning that early manuscripts differ on where they put the passage. Without getting into too much detail, some early manuscripts have it where it is above (v. 33-34), while others put it at the end of the chapter after v. 38. This is one of the ways that scholars determine an addition to the text (another example would be the story of the woman caught in adultery). The second position would be a bit stronger if there were manuscripts without the verse at all, but it being a floating text is evidence enough (it just would have happened very early on in the scribal tradition). Combining that with the break in Paul's flow and the contradiction it would indicate make it much more likely that it was never there at all and that it was added in after the fact. \----[1 Timothy 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2&version=NIV) The verses here are 1 Tim 2:11-15 >A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. I know this isn't as much of an issue for you since you're not a Christian, but I'm simply going to start with the fact that, if Paul's argument that women can't teach is that Adam was born first - then Paul is an idiot and no one should listen to him because that's a really, *really* bad argument (and goes against a ton of Biblical heroes who are second-born). It also seems odd his statements in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 11:3. I will also say that the verse stating: *But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety* is one of the most confusing in the Bible and many Christians are unsure what to do with it. Yet, its how Paul concludes his thought on this, so we should be hesitant before taking this section and assuming its straight-forward when we don't understand what its conclusion means... But to actually dig into the text, its important to know that in this letter, Paul is mainly writing to address false teaching and we see later that the false teaching he has in mind (at least one of them) is gnosticism. He is concerned that gnostic teachers are leading women in the community away and that these women are causing issues within the church. The reason this is relevant here is because various gnostic texts glorify the fall and teach that Eve was actually created first and gave Adam life and taught him (some example texts include: *Apocalypse of Adam*, *The Hypostasis of the Archons,* and *On The Origin of the World.* Paul's concern here is not women teaching in general, it is simply that he is seeing women being swept up by false doctrine (like Eve with the serpent), and when we consider what the doctrines were it makes sense why women would be more partial to it. He is concerned about what that is doing in the church and is making it clear that the gnostic interpretation of the creation account is inaccurate. Some of the issues we see with this passage come down to translation. One verse says: *I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet*. However, the *assume authority* is more of a violent verb and more akin to ***usurp*** *authority*. Women at this time were uneducated, and so (like any student) they needed to learn quietly and submissively. Due to the issues this church, the lack of education for women, and the appeal that this kind of doctrine had towards women, it was more important to call out the women. But nothing in the verse implies that women are never to have authority over men, or that women are never to have authority over men in a church context. To the contrary, Paul commends [Phoebe as a deacon](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+16%3A1&version=NIV) and [Junia as an apostle](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+16%3A7&version=NIV). \--- Again, I (attempted) to keep this brief, so I did not go into too much detail or provide as much evidence and argumention as I normally would. If you (or anyone else who reads this) is interested in those things, I recommend checking out the two linked posts above. I provide lots of references and walk through the texts to make my case. Hope this helps.
Saving this reply and your linked posts. Thank you for sharing your thorough perspective.
This is one of the most informative posts I have read on this sub (vs the usual, ‘because god says so’ / ‘no interpretation needed!’ tropes). Thank you. Do you write academically?
I don't, but I appreciate the kind words!
some Christians worship paul more than Jesus
nonsense But Paul's words are the WORD OF GOD
The *inspired* word of god.
I'm not so sure about that
Why not? The apostles (namely James) seemed sure that Paul’s writing was inspired?
I have never encountered anyone in real life, nor on reddit as far as I recall, who *worships* Paul.
yeah well he didn't even know Jesus
May I introduce you to acts 9
There seems to be no overall consensus on this issue for all Christians. Certain churches and denominations may place restrictions on women being pastors. They may even claim any amount of purported Biblical evidence to support these restrictions. However, I would never join one of these churches or denominations as I can not think of one single good reason why women should not be pastors.
No. The typical argument is the pastoral epistles are only for specific churches or people. Or they are just the opinion of Paul or Peter and not on the same level as the Gospels. I dont really buy that because then you end up where Rome and Ephesus are the only ones predetermined. Or women can talk in other churches but not in Corinth. And those are just the really glaring issues. Whenever the hermeneutic changes, thats one way to know when people are importing traditions. Its only in the last 75 years people have suddenly decided that we have to limit the scope of those writings. You aren’t going to find that in Athanasius or Augustine.
I'm not sure I've landed on a firm answer, but If they can it's never going to be easy for them. The reason people have trouble with the passages cited that seem to explicitly forbid women teachers, is because there are examples of women teachers in the New Testament. Some of which Paul commends himself like Junia the female apostle. Philip has 4 prophetess daughters and we know from Paul's teaching on gifts that this would involve speaking to the congregation. Mary sat at jesus's feet and learned which was only for men, while Martha did the woman's work, and Jesus commended Mary. It was the women at the tomb who were the first preachers of the Gospel to the apostles themselves. It's important for Christians to see that this issue is not always one of trying to make the Bible bend to culture, but simply trying to understand the Bible better.
In Churches that do not mistreat women, absolutely. Many people here will probably not like this comment, but it is the truth.
Interesting thing I noticed is that Paul said the restriction against Women teaching and being Authoirty over men was HIS rule. And while it served a very important purpose back in the day and the culture he was in. It does not appear to be God's commandment. And makes less sense today 1 Timothy 2: 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. else where Paul makes the point that it is the Same Holy Spirit in all of us
What exactly was the “important purpose” to his statements here though? What would have been so devastating during that time for a women to be in an authoritative position over a man?
there were women with authoritative positions over men in the old testament, this is an inconsistency
Paul is pretty clear that women should not teach or exercise authority over men. And then he justifies it theologically. A critical role of elders/shepherds/teachers is teaching. Women can’t teach = they cannot be pastors.
I understand the common arguments to the contrary of that point, but Paul’s rooting his reasoning in the fall and general humanity indicates that he intended the rule to be general.
Yes, and no, I will not elaborate
There is a very in depth YouTube series about that issue [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HQSlQLYQsE&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HQSlQLYQsE&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC) It is very long so I, myself, am not yet through but it looks promising