From Adams creation his wife had to follow his lead with regards to spiritual matters
In times past, God passed down spiritual directions and actions to be implemented through the Male heads of households or communities (Gen 7:17, 12:1-5). When the nation of Israel was constituted, God selected a MALE ONLY priesthood to take the lead in matters pertaining to worship and MALE ONLY Levites to help them with this issue(Deut 33:10). When the nation of Israel came under the rulership of Kings, who had a mandate to lead the Israelites in a path of spiritual righteousness, God selected only MALES as kings.

Coming down to the Christian era.

When Jesus walked the earth, he had many disciples including women who wanted to follow his footsteps. These women (including his mother) COULD NOT take a leading role in matters pertaining to pure worship. When Jesus selected those that would be his Apostles and subsequently take the lead in the Church (Acts 2:14, 8:14-17, 10:24), Jesus selected only MALES. Similarly when a replacement for 1 of the twelve was made it WAS NOT OPEN TO ANY OF THE FEMALE DISCIPLES who had toiled with Jesus (and since this appointment was made under the guidance of the holy spirit, it gives a strong indication as to what the will of God was towards who could be an overseer).
Later when some issues in worship had to be addressed, the Apostles appointed ONLY MEN TO SERVE AS DEACONS (Acts Chap 7:1-7) to work under their authority to oversee certain issues.
Appointment of elders in Churches was done under the guidance of Holy Spirit. These Elders HAD TO TEACH, INSTRUCT, SHEPHARD, PRESIDE OVER AND OVERSEE THE AFAIRS OF THE CHURCH (Acts 14:23, 16:4,5, )
[b]When other matters arose that needed directives and instructions the Apostles and these MALE Elders under the direction of the Holy Spirit issued these AND THE WHOLE CHURCH HAS TO FOLLOW THEIR LEAD AND WERE SUBJECT TO THEIR AUTHORITY).([/b]Acts Chapter 15)

It never seems to stop puzzling me on why people who watch west ham and wigan would make a comment on the premier playmaker of the premier club in world footballs recent history.

8 champions league final appearances in the last 18 years. Forza Milan, Forza Pirlo . Grazie Milan, Grazie Il capitano, Grazie Pirlo.


And as a side note

European league performances in the last 18 years in Champions league

Italian teams.  13 final appearances  

Spanish teams  8  "    "

English teams   4


You guys need to stop kissing the premierships ass

@Jackal and Ruudie

HAVE ANY OF YOU WATCHED PIRLO BEFORE PLAY A LEAGUE GAME before

Have any of you guys watched Pirlo playing for Italy except in the world cup

Fifa and Uefa obviously rate him as the best visionary passer of the ball in the world. The best to have ever kicked a ball if you go by some accounts.

If you guys think you are better than FIfa and Uefa technical committes then

B/4 you guyz can say anything about Pirlo, watch him in the League, then you will understand why people that Know him KNOW he is the best midfielder in the world and by a long distance

Most people in here must be crazy

Kitaun you are so right. I need to give you a high five.

Riquelme can never clean Pirlo's boot. Pirlo is better than any Midfielder in the world, and by some miles IMO

See what watching too much premiership has done to people.

If you guyz did not kiss the premierships ass so much you might have realised that

1 Pirlo's six years in Milan has conicided with the one of the best for years of any Proffesional club in the history of football.

2 Pirlo has won everything to be won in football except 4 two of them. One he will win in December, the other one next summer.

3 Pirlo holds the record for Milan in number of freekicks for a season. Last season he scored Four freekicks in less than 3 months.

4 Pirlo had the highest number of Man of the match awards in the last world cup. I cant remember when last that happed in Morden history.

5 Pirlo singlehandedly carried a group of young kids to a bronze medal position in the olympics

6 Rated so highly by Fifa, Uefa picked him as the obvious candidate for their technical school instructions when it came to passing the ball

7 The whole AC Milan is built to suit Pirlo's style of play Thats the level of his quality.

In the last qualifiers, i was going through player statistics in Eurosport and the average Midfielder in Europe ( Including any midfielder on earth you can think of) had about 45-60 completed passes.

Pirlo had 100   :ocompleted passes and two perfect assists.

People say Kaka shone in that 2005 Champions league. Well 3 accurate and pinpoint passes from Pirlo to a speeding Kaka ( all resulting in goals though one  discounted) was what made that Final what it was/is


DID ANYBODY HERE FOLLOW AC MILANS DOUBLE WINNING SEASON OF 2002-2003 OR THE NEXT YEAR AS THEY ROMPED TO THE SERIA A TITLE?

IM SICK OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PIRLO TALKING TRASH

HE IS MILES AHEAD OF ANY MIDFIELDER IN THE WORLD (LIKE HE SHOWED IN THE WORLD CUP).

He had a bad season last year admittedly but Riquelme or anyother person is not fit to clean his boots.

YOU GUYZ SHOULD STOP INSULTING PIRLO ON THIS FORUM.

And keep on kissing the premierships ass and talking trash.

wow

ive been away for a while. When did sister Pilgrim join the debate .
Its getting hot in here .

@Pilgrim. Ive gone thru your argument and you are making the same mistake that Stimulus is making


TV01 is trying to bring it accross to you that those that are allowed to teach, shephard and lead within the Church and on Church issues as the letter to Titus directed are the Elders. All true Christians came/come under the shepharding care of this Elders and followed/follow their lead. And the holy spirit reserved that role exclusively for men.

Ehe i said i was gonna make a concise discussion from the bible but ive been away for a while.

Now that im back 4 a while im feeling so lazy , Il be back soon though

@ Stimulus


Your argument with Deborah and Miriam do not hold water at all. Neither does you your arguments with the apostle quoting Joel and the other New testament scriptures that you quoted also. You are trying to make it look like they played the same role with the Men who had authority and that somehow that now means that women can become Shephards in the Church. That idea does not come from the bible.
(This was part of the reason why i mentioned the example of Korah. Korah had no intentions of delibrately displeasing God, nor did he dispute the fact that God gave out spiritual instructions through Moses. But presumteous thinking when it came to leadership in spiritual matters and trying to assume a position he thought Moses was Hoarding and he thought he and other qualified men were also entitled to but were beign denied by a class promoting Moses was his pitfall) (It was the same trap Athaliah and Miriam [whom you keep mentioning] feel into and one who another prophetess like Miriam, Deborah, advoided by showing Godly subjection to divinely constituted authority

The reason why the Holy Spirit appointed only Men as Shephards in the first century was because of a devine precedent that preceeded the Law of Moses. It is a precedent that had been devinely instituted from Creation and Shows up time and again Before the law, Under the Old convenant and Under the New convenant as well.

Im working on a project now but il Come back and handle this issue in detail most likely this weekend

@TV01

Looks like you have even answered the questions i wanted Stmulus to answer. I was typing this up, left my desk and came back later to post it b/4 i read your comments. .

Besides

You will need to do this to clarify yourself


First Il like you make this issue clear.



1 Compare the roles of a Male Judge like Samuel to the role that a female judge like Deborah could play. (And include the role Miriam could play)

2 What role did/could women in the first century Church play within the Church?

@Stimulus


The work of women in the body is always appreciated like i said b/4 and they have different gifts which they use in the ministry and in fufilling their commision of lauding the Christ

SO

Let us sum up this topic and make it concise and remove ambiguity

Given that authority over the Church is given to Elders appointed by Holy Spirit and it was/is their duty to Oversee, Preside over, Shephard, Lead, Teach, Issue directives, within the Church

1 Explain which of these roles you say a woman can take on and in what context within the Church and

2 How that relates with the principle of headship within the Church


and lets hold it against the light of Bible truth.

Talk about irony

These religious leaders who call themselves "Christians" realise that

Flag salute/worship, Pledges/oath of alligience, anthems, the spirit of patriotism and Nationalism and Promising to serve the nation with all your life constitues worship of the nations.

Irronically they dont have the moral authority to say that the principles by which wordly Kingdoms operate and that of Christianity is such that you cannot Serve the Nation and Serve the True God at the same time.

Rather they try (But ultimately fail) to rationalise how one can worship the nation and God at the same time (From a Christian standpoint)


I guess that goes to confirm Revelation


The worlds masses really worship the wild beast primariy.

Some just claim to also worship the true God but we know that God does not accept worship of him and the wild beast at the same time

Talk about irony

These religious leaders who call themselves "Christians" realise that

Flag salute/worship, Pledges/oath of alligience, anthems, the spirit of patriotism and Nationalism and Promising to serve the nation with all your life constitues worship of the nations.

Irronically they dont have the moral authority to say that the principles by which wordly Kingdoms operate and that of Christianity is such that you cannot Serve the Nation and Serve the True God at the same time.

Rather they try (But ultimately fail) to rationalise how one can worship the nation and God at the same time (From a Christian standpoint)


I guess that goes to confirm Revelation


The worlds masses really worship the wild beast primariy.

Some just claim to also worship the true God but we know that God does not accept worship of him and the wild beast at the same time

@TV01

I want you to read this. I read the paper yesterday and i wento to the site

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/faith-shouldnt-.html#more


Faith shouldn't be red, white and blue
Patriotism and religion each hold a prominent place in the American story. That’s as it should be. To wed the two, however, is a disservice to patriots and to the faithful.
By Tom Krattenmaker

The Fourth of July is a time for Americans to honor our country and, for the many religious people among us, to honor God. But as the fireworks explode on Independence Day, let's resist an all-too-common tendency these days to drape the American flag around the Christian cross. Let's remember that religion is not patriotism, that patriotism is not religion — and that when we combine them both with a glorification of American military might, something has gone disturbingly askew.

(Illustration by Sam Ward)

Sadly, the distinction between faith and martial-tinged patriotism seems lost on some of our most fervent advocates for the military and religion. Rewind to Memorial Day weekend, when a Christian organization called Task Force Patriot USA and other groups staged a three-day salute to the troops at Stone Mountain Park in Georgia. Drawing about 100,000 people, the celebration featured Christian worship services and Bible giveaways, speeches by retired military personnel and Air Force jet flybys.

Not to single out Christianity. After all, a cross-themed celebration of the military is harmless next to jihadists who kill in the name of religion. And U.S. troops certainly deserve appreciation. Yet one has to ask: Do Christian worship and Bibles really belong with demonstrations of U.S. military might?

For one evangelical leader here in Oregon, the conflation of patriotism and Christianity reached the point where he took action that's considered anathema in many conservative church communities: He publicly spoke out against what was happening at his church.

Bob Hyatt, now pastor of the upstart Evergreen Community in the Portland area, worked on the staff of a local megachurch in the fevered period immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Despite being raised and educated in a strict Christian conservative environment in which the United States was regarded as God's favored nation, Hyatt was aghast to find the sanctuary frequently decked out in red-white-and-blue bunting with a pair of 50-foot American flags. In the Sunday service nearest the Fourth of July, congregants recited the Pledge of Allegiance and sang patriotic songs. As the pattern continued through the early months of the Iraq war, Hyatt could hold his tongue no longer. At a pray-for-our-troops rally at the megachurch, he took a turn at the microphone and cited the teachings of Jesus in making the unpopular suggestion that the congregants also pray for Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people. He went on to write an Internet article titled, "Profoundly Disturbed on the Fourth of July," which was not well-received at the church and led to his leaving its staff.

'We were worshiping America'

Reflecting on those patriotic services, Hyatt wrote: "We had taken a time that belonged to the worship of God and turned it toward the appreciation of a country, a political system, a flag. We said that we were worshiping God through the singing of those patriotic songs, the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance and the rest, but in fact we were worshiping America."

There is considerable practical wisdom in the old saying about atheists in foxholes. A complete separation of faith and patriotism in a time of war is as unlikely as expecting religious soldiers not to turn to God in the face of enemy fire, and as unreasonable as expecting Christian believers to pray equally for al-Qaeda fighters and U.S. troops. Right or wrong, we have a long tradition of political and military leaders invoking God in non-neutral ways during times of war.

During the crucial D-Day invasion, President Franklin Roosevelt took to the airwaves with an appeal to "Almighty God" to "lead (our men) straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith."

Would those words arouse the ire of Americans today? Of some, probably. My own response to Roosevelt's religious invocation is colored by indelible memories of my visit to the World War II cemetery in Normandy. I still have vivid mental pictures of the graves of the American soldiers, of the crosses laid out in row after solemn row. Interspersed throughout the cemetery were many Stars of David, rising over the graves of the fallen Jewish soldiers whose role in the fight has special poignancy.

No doubt, faith has long played a role in the American military, but it has been an inclusive faith, one respecting a diversity of denominations and religions, with chaplains of different stripes available to assist soldiers on their own religious terms. Contrast that with what's been happening in the military in recent years, where sometimes-coercive Christian evangelizing has triggered lawsuits and lent a crusader overtone to the fight against terrorism. Contrast that inclusive tradition with rhetoric that portrays Jesus as America's "commander in chief" and efforts by a group called Christian Embassy to proselytize to our diplomatic corps and military leadership. Is militaristic Christian nationalism really where we want to take this country and our dominant religion?

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama recently spoke of the danger to our critical thinking ability when we become too convinced of America's righteousness and God's allegiance with the United States. While acknowledging the evil of the 9/11 attacks, Obama sounded this note of caution: "The danger of using good vs. evil in the context of war is it may lead us to be not as critical as we should be about our own actions."

Obama went on to cite the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and "unjust" detentions at Guantanamo as examples of the abuses of which we are capable when we become too convinced of our inherent God-sanctioned goodness.

'The light is the light of Christ'

The progressive evangelical leader Jim Wallis has sounded similar warnings to Christians who might go too far in mixing their patriotism and faith. Wallis has repeatedly chided President Bush for voicing a theology that speaks of America as "the hope of all mankind the light (that) shines in the darkness."

Wallis acknowledges the biblical foundation of such language, but he adds, it is important to note that, "In the gospel, the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God, and the light is the light of Christ. It's not about America and its values."

God and country — the two live side-by-side in the hearts of many tradition-minded Americans. Yet faith and patriotism are different ideals that at times require vastly different allegiances. Given the reality of religious pluralism in America, the government cannot rightly become the instrument of any one form of belief. Conversely, our country will not always do right — no nation can — and only by maintaining its distinct identity can religion retain its ability to call people to conscience.

May patriots honor the flag on the Fourth of July. And may religious people revel in the beauty of their faiths. But let's remember that being Christian is not a requirement of patriotism. And that patriotism is most assuredly not a requirement of being religious. Let's honor the flag and faith — by keeping a reverent measure of distance between the two.

Tom Krattenmaker, who lives in Portland, Ore., specializes in religion in public life and is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

@TV01

I like the way you present your points. Very detailed and concise

Infact thi sums up the whole discussion. The point ive been trying to make

TV01:

~ Women can minister/teach other women and juveniles and with authority (from the eldership). They can also counsel privately anyone that can benefit from their maturity, but they cannot in the presence of mature qualified and available men teach or presume overall leadership of the congregation. If one wants to see this ministry as a form of "leadership", I won't be semantic, but it is not shepherding the flock or overall leading the church. Biblically/historically, could/were women ever shepherds?
~ Women have roles, abetted with skills, talents, gifts and of course the same Spirit and grace afforded to men. Their are joint heirs and equally valued by God.


God bless
TV

@Tv01

Once again so straight to the point and accurate.

I wonder where people get their ideas from and Where in True Christianity women could shephard the flock

Guyz i have an idea

This issue can be clarified if we examine the Scriptures to see the role Elders(a role reserved only for Men appointed under the guidiance of the spirit) played.


@ Stimulus (After answering the 2 questions that i asked) and Tayo D

If you guys can use the scriptures to outline the role of Elders in the Church, then we all can see clearly what role women played/play in True worship.

Tayo D had a point

Ive made quite a number of points but i need to put it in a concise manner, its all over the place. I would do that to ensure that we do not go over the same thing over and over again

But briefly i know my Points have covered the following

1 Precedents seen in the bible as regards to leadership in pure worship

2 What past examples show us as to the seriousness of the issue (some people think its a personal issue)

3 Qualifications for the position of Elder as outlined by the holy spirit.

4 How First Century Christianity Functioned and the example of Jesus and the early Christians

Also as a note below

Parrallels exist b/w pure worship in Israel and under Christianity

1 In Israel Men, Women and Children were all called into the Old Convenant. Under the new convenant all also have an opportunity to worship God

2 All Israelities were entitled to the same blessings and rewards for staying a faithful course. All true Christians are entitled to that too today.

3 However only select people could lead the people in worship in accordance with God's arraingments. the same was true of First Century Christianity.

4 Like in Israel, the people that led in Worship were not in anyway more exaulted in the eyes of God than the rest who could not. They were all one in the eyes of God as long as they stayed the course.

The Men who took the lead in the First Century congregation were not more exaulted in God's eyes than other Christians. They all would be rewarded in the same way either male or female. But even at that, the Holy spirit appointed only Men to take the lead. This was no mistake

And Stimulus

I don't understand understand you on the issue of the apostles too

You said that the Church was not yet formed then. I don't know what point you are trying to make with that.


Jesus had chosen his apostles and had assigned them Leadership roles among his followers. These apostles took the lead in the Church in Leading and Issuing directives.


Now my questions to you is

1 Why did Jesus Choose only men as his apostles and gave them Leadership roles in the Church that was to be established despite having faithful women who had toiled with him around him? Why did he not assign them any leadership role?

2 Can you please define what Leadership roles you say a woman can assume and what you mean by[b] difference in Leadership and worship[/b] (Bearing in mind that decisions affecting the congregations are the responsibility of the Elders and this decision making body were ONLY MEN as led by God's holy spirit)

ok Stimulus, take it easy bro

We have established that using Christian and Biblical Standards

1 Women cannot teach in the church

2 They are not allowed to try to Take over authority from men.

NOW COMES THE QUESTION OF WHAT ROLE CAN THEY PLAY AS REGARDS TO LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE BODY OF THE CHRIST.

Now we need to also go back and examine true Christianity as it was led by God.

When issues that needed leadership and handling came up in the first century issues like the Jew-Gentile divide and Circumcision, the holy spirit guided the Elders to give spiritual directives on the matter and to preside over such issues.
The case of becoming Elders or Presiding and Overseeing the flock was the duty of the Elders. It was/is not a role open to women. Before men could become appointed as oversears of the flock, they had to display the friutage of God's holy spirit and these appointments were made under God's guidiance.

Men appointed under the influence and Guidiance of Holy spirit were the only ones who lead the flock.


You mentioned Eph Chap 4. Il come back and analyze that and some of the other Scriptures you stated and discuss women as found in the body of the Christ

@Stimulus

The problem really stems from the fact that you are trying to make it look like the oversight of the congregation which were done by only Men who were elders in the first century congregation under the guidiance of the holy spirit is somehow discriminatory and that if women are not allowed to lead that that somehow points towards discrimination.

@Stimulus and Tayo D

I used the examples of how true worship has been constructed throughout human history to shows that leadership roles have been reserved for certain people. in the christian congregation that role was open only to men. That does not mean the others worshiping God did not or do not have the same measure of his blessing and cannot serve in other capacities in the worship of God nor will not get the same reward

The reason i cited the examples i did was to show that humans might not fully comprehend why God makes certain arraingments when it comes to worship and leading in worship.

For eg some people in Israel might not have understood why God choose a certain group of people over another, and it might have even looked unjust in the eyes of humans but if they were to have God's approval, they had to subject to his will and follow the way of worship he approved of.

IN LIGHT OF THIS WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD REALLY ASK IS WHAT ROLE DO WOMEN PLAY IN THE BODY OF THE CHRIST? and not if they are allowed to Preside over the flock

@Stimulus


What i don't understand though is that are you somehow suggesting that God's holy spirit directing only men to take the role of Elders and to have oversight of the flock in the first century was somehow Chauvunistic and discriminatory Does Jesus assigning the duty of Shepharding the flock to his male disciples somehow sexist?

Both Jesus and the First century Christians acted under the guidiance of God's holy spirit and fully had God's favour.

When Paul gave out the qualifications for those who would serve as Elders and Oversee the flock, it was clear that such positions of Oversight was reserved for Men
( In Timothy)

When issues affecting the first century congregation were to be decided, the holy spirit directed only men as elders to take leadership decisions (In Acts)

On a number of occassions that directives had to be issued to Congregations all over the world, the Elders were the ones that would take the lead in making decisions as regards to worship

Jesus Christ before he asscended to heaven had chosen only men as his apostles. When he gave instructions as to Oversight of the flock, it was to his male apostles (despite the presence of women disciples)

The hard work of women in worshiping God are appreciated even in the scriptures.

Paul compared the work of women who declear the good news of the kingdom of Christ to the nations to a Large army and he sent out commendation and encouragement to women who had laboured with him in his efforts.

But the question is who is to Oversee and preside over the Flock in worship?

I believe for us to do that we have to keep human reasoning to the side
and examine closely the example of the Master Jesus Christ and the First Century Christians who did God's will.

i still have not seen anything in the bible to support that kind of assertion if that is what you are saying.

There were female prophets in the old testament like Miriam and Deborah(who also served as a judge in her own case). It would be erronous to think that it changed divine standards.

Samuel was a judge like Deborah, but when it came to presiding over the worship of God he led the Israelites in Worship. This was a role no woman played in the bible.


You have cited Miriam leading fellow women in worship, Paul admonishing women to teach fellow women and the proclamation of Joel.

But these passages in no way contradict the fact that Leadership in worship was a role played only by men even under the first century Christian congregation.

@Stimulus

There is this assertion i don't know if you are making

That under Christ there is neither male nor female therefore females can become the oversears, elders and Shephards and preside over the flock?

My examples were simply to show that God has placed headship in the christian congregation in a certain way and its not up to humans to change that. Yeah Korah was Levite and Datan and Abiram were Rubenites but the point i was trying to make is that they felt that Moses was promoting a certain class of people over another and that that was not God's will.

God had placed the leadership position in the hands of certain people and the Israelites (And he had his reasons) so regardless of what the other Israelites felt about it beign fair or not or discriminatory  they had to obey and follow it wholeheartedly if they were to have God's favour.

Il come back and state my reason for citing these examples tough.


@Thief throughout history, when it comes to leading in the worship of God, its not really been a male/female issue though[b] in the Christian congregation only men can preside, oversee, shephard and be elders to the flock [/b] and il explain why

Miriam was a prophetess and a Levite woman who led fellow women in worship of God. At a point, she wanted to do more than that and assume a role which in God’s arraignment she was not allowed to do. She became discontent with her position in pure worship and started to desire a role that she could not have.
She never intended to disrespect God. But by refusing to stick to her place in His arraignment, she did just that and God dealt a sever blow to her.

Atahliah was a woman who overstepped her place in Gods arraignment and felt she could assume a position which women were not allowed to. God executed her for that.

These are examples I remember for now. All over the bible examples of people who have tried to alter the arraignment for worship of God and How God executed them. Taking the lead in worship was and still not is something the Almighty jokes with. (Some of God’s decisions might look unjust from a human standpoint eg with King David and Uzzah, but divine justice is principled)

Humans are not in a position to rethink or reassess who can take the lead in worship


Im on my break time and I just took out as lil time to post a few of these. If I remember more il post them

Saul was selected by God as King of Israel. Samuel led Israel in worship b/4 God. When Saul and the Israelites were about to be over run by enemy soldiers and Samuel failed to show up like he should, Saul acted to save the people of Israel. He had very good intentions and desired to please God. But in doing that, he assumed a role that was not allowed to in the worship of God.
As Samuel latter showed him his good intentions did not count. What counted was that in trying to assume a position which he was not allowed, he disobeyed and disrespected that divinely ordained arraignment. It was not a case of anybody could take the lead as long as we are worshiping God. Only a designated person by God could take that lead for that worship to be acceptable to God. (Similar to what people say today that it does not matter who, as long as it is God they are trying to worship)
For that act God took away rulership from him and his linage and he lost God’s approval

Uzzah was a God Fearing man who was among those bringing the Ark back to Jerusalem. When the horses carrying the ark almost tumbled the ark to the ground, he tried to save the ark from falling off. God executed him for that. From a human view point this was harsh and might even look unjust. King David was very unhappy about that and so were the Israelites.
But that he wanted to save the ark was not the point. In God’s divine arraignment of worship, only certain people could come near the ark in that manner. Uzzah disrespected God’s arraignment for worship and had to die, irrespective of how noble his intentions were.

Korah was a well respected Rubenite in Israel and a chieftain who felt that Moses (a Levite) was just misinterpreting the will of God to create a class system. Korah genuinely felt that a just and righteous God would in no way propagate a class system in which only a certain group of people could lead other people in worship to Him. Korah felt that any Israelite who worshiped God should also be able to take the lead in worship and not what he thought was an elite class of Levites that he felt Moses was advocating. He tried to take on a leadership position in the worship of God and he felt he was doing God’s will. He had lots of people who supported him but God executed Korah as well as anybody who shared his idea that anybody could assume a leading role when it came to presiding over true worship.

For Moses to say that it was only his tribe that was allowed to lead others in worship sounded presumptuous, irrational and discriminatory from a human standpoint (ironically Moses may never had known why God selected only his tribe).

But the point was that it was a divine arraignment for pure worship and had to be respected. God destroyed Korah and any other person that felt that the will of God was that anybody who worshiped him could assume a leadership position

Even though i grew up in Naija i never stressed things like this.

Ive seen a female aquintance swear to the man she wanted to marry that he cannot see her pants b/4 their wedding night while she was giving it to other guyz. The guy was was thinking since she said she will not have sex with me b/4 marriage that means she is marriage material (the usual African Man's mentality) Little would he know wats up though.