What would Jesus have to say about WO?

[Tom Wetmore]

An interesting thought was made on Facebook that is well worth considering. It seems to be a strong argument against those pushing the headship of males in the church argument against WO. It answers the arguments that women can't be church leaders. It is a strong argument against those striving to maintain the status quo of a male dominated church.

The point made was that this all sounds like the spirit of the disciples arguing of who would be first in Jesus' kingdom.

And what was Jesus response?

[CoAspen]

Good thought! Can definitely see parallels.

Maybe best that we quit all the 'hue and cry', Hang our heads, ask for Gods forgiveness and get on with the work that He gave us all.

[Hair]

Good thought! Can definitely see parallels.

Maybe best that we quit all the 'hue and cry', Hang our heads, ask for Gods forgiveness and get on with the work that He gave us all.

Amen! It was Mary washing the feet of Jesus while the disciples sat around complaining. It will be the women that finish the work while these men set around grumbling about it in the last days too, unless these men can get their heart in tune with God.

[phkrause]

Isn't always the men that do all the complaining? Complain about WO or no WO! Tithe? etc., etc. While the women don't really care about the complaining, just do the work and not worry about being Ordained, etc., etc.!

[Johann]

Isn't always the men that do all the complaining? Complain about WO or no WO! Tithe? etc., etc. While the women don't really care about the complaining, just do the work and not worry about being Ordained, etc., etc.!

[olger]

Isn't always the men that do all the complaining? Complain about WO or no WO! Tithe? etc., etc. While the women don't really care about the complaining, just do the work and not worry about being Ordained, etc., etc.!

Did you omit the word "it" in this comment of yours?

As it is - it doesn't make sense.

Thanks,

`G

[Green Cochoa]

Why didn't Jesus invite a woman or two or more in place of some of those men to be His disciples?

I find this question to be very relevant to this topic. One cannot easily overlook the fact that Jesus trained men to be the church leaders. After all, wasn't that what the disciples were training for?

The Jewish leaders thought themselves too wise to need instruction, too righteous to need salvation, too highly honored to need the honor that comes from Christ. The Saviour turned from them to entrust to others the privileges they had abused and the work they had slighted. God's glory must be revealed, His word established. Christ's kingdom must be set up in the world. The salvation of God must be made known in the cities of the wilderness; and the disciples were called to do the work that the Jewish leaders had failed to do. {AA 16.1}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[olger]

Jesus might say "I gave you My Word. Obey it."

Who was it who signally rebuked the church of Thyatira for allowing a "woman Jezebel" to didasko (teach) in their midst. Jesus (Rev. 2:20-23). Notice that the word didasko is precisely what Paul forbids a woman to do over a man in 1 Timothy 2.

rest in His Word,

g

[Tom Wetmore]

But was that a practical consideration given the times and culture in which Jesus lived? Was it intended to absolutely exclude women for all times?

If you take a look at Romans 16 you will see that Paul identifies a number of women who were fellow workers and even identifies Phoebe as a minister and leader of the church. There is also Junias, a woman, who was outstanding among the apostles. And we're you aware that there is at least one woman in the NT specifically identified as a disciple? And female elders in the church where Timothy was ordained?

[Green Cochoa]

Tom,

Jesus had many disciples. Many were women. I see no reason for thinking none of them should have been named. But how many of those did Jesus ordain?

As for it being "the times and culture in which Jesus lived," there is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament or elsewhere that Jesus would have allowed the culture of His day to supersede His teachings or His will. There is plenty to the contrary.

We can consider, for example, the response Jesus gave to the Pharisees when they rebuked Him for allowing His disciples to eat with "unwashen" hands. It was part of their culture in that day, a part of their tradition. They would not eat if they had not first washed their hands, and they had a special way of washing all of their pots and cups too. But Jesus criticized their practice soundly, and said they had made it a "doctrine." To me, this teaches clearly that if Jesus' "doctrine" had gone against the culture, He would never have allowed that culture to trump it.

We can look at His own words in that instance.

Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:6-9)

Obviously, Jesus held no special regard for the customs or traditions of the people in His day. He held God's commandments and doctrines above them.

You are right about Phoebe having been given special mention in Romans 16. She was a deaconess in the church. It seems both Mrs. White and the Bible, at least once each, make mention of deaconesses. I am fully persuaded that the office of deaconess within the church is part of gospel order, and respectable, God-fearing women of experience should be ordained to this position. This does not mean, of course, that they are entitled to other positions as well which God has not indicated for them.

For example, a man can be ordained to be a deacon, an elder, or even a minister. But a man's eligibility to these positions does not further entitle him to become ordained as a deaconess. This would be a woman's position, not a man's.

Not many people who quote Galatians 3:28 would use it to say a man should become a deaconess. Why does it seem so logical, given today's societal views, for people to see it the other way around? Obviously, Galatians has been often taken out of context and used to support views that are not taught in the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

Green,

Not sure how much on the topic of Phoebe you have read here or elswhere. we have discussed it a lot here in a variety of threads. But rather than rehash all of it, let me recommend for your reading edification this recent article published in Ministry Magazine - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader . In short, looking at the original Greek it is clear that she was not simply a deaconess. She was a minister and a leader of the NT church. And amazingly, this idea is not new to Adventism. An article on this fact about Phoebe was published backing the 1800's in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald.

[olger]

"There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:9. {1T 421.3}

Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women."

Of course,

g

[Neil D]

"There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:9. {1T 421.3}

Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women."

Of course,

g

this is an opinion, based upon religious prejudices....If this were pronounced in 1960, it might carry some weight...but what woman, TODAY, is interested in dressing like a man...even the women's levis are cut for comfort for the woman...And a woman is more flamboyant than the man in her dress...most guys dress with a levi pants and some dark colored pull over shirt....A woman will not only have a distinctive colorful blouse, but a printed vest over it...or a coat/sweater....as distinctive as genders can get....

get real, Jerry...

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

get real, Jerry...

Not sure that this anecdotal evidence will hold up in court, but it does seem to me that if the male gender dressed more closely to the female, there would be many more males arrested for indecent exposure of the private parts.

Of course that is like comparing apples to oranges, or is that more like comparing nuts to bananas. ...or something like that!

God cares!

[olger]

Quote:

get real, Jerry...

Not sure that this anecdotal evidence will hold up in court, but it does seem to me that if the male gender dressed more closely to the female, there would be many more males arrested for indecent exposure of the private parts.

Of course that is like comparing apples to oranges, or is that more like comparing nuts to bananas. ...or something like that!

God cares!

[Green Cochoa]

Green,

Not sure how much on the topic of Phoebe you have read here or elswhere. we have discussed it a lot here in a variety of threads. But rather than rehash all of it, let me recommend for your reading edification this recent article published in Ministry Magazine - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader . In short, looking at the original Greek it is clear that she was not simply a deaco ess. She was a minister and a leader of the NT church. And amazingly, this idea is not new to Adventism. An article on this fact about Phoebe was published backing the 1800's in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald.

Tom,

I just read the article. I notice it is built up upon a sand castle of human opinions. There are many words like "suggest," "assume," "indicate," "appears," "tends," etc., to say nothing of the multitude of points which the author attempts to make interrogatively, without actually stating any facts. Words like "if" and "why" are used to try to prove that something must be so, but such rationalizations are not sound logic.

One can make anything appear to be true by casting it in a certain light and asking the right (or wrong, as the case may be) questions to cast doubt upon certain aspects. That is what I see happening here.

If we stick to facts, the word "diakonos" does mean "servant." And we should all be servants of God, willing to serve Him in any capacity. When one serves God, one accepts the position that God has ordained for him or her. One who truly serves God will not be envious of another who is also serving God.

Lucifer fell into this very trap. This was the cause of the entire sin mess we have today. He became envious, and thought himself worthy of a higher position than God had ordained. God did not create all of His creatures as of equal position or rank. Christ, whom Lucifer envied, was not created, of course, and Lucifer did not, perhaps, realize that he was already exalted so highly above all of the other beings God had made. Yet when he became dissatisfied with his position, it was sin.

We can also sin today in the very same manner. Satan leads many to believe that they should have positions that God has not given them. If women only knew, their God-given position is already higher than what they are reaching for now on the ordination issue.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I agree! Sometimes I go off in my own little world. BTW, I misplaced my purse (male gender) and would appreciate your prayers for recovery of same.

God cares!

[Tom Wetmore]

You appear to have only read it rather superficially and do not seem to understand the scholarship involved. Check the footnotes carefully. And you seem to ignore most of the points made regarding prostatis and the fact that in almost every instance where diakonos is use regard an man in the NT it is translated as minister or deacon and not merely servant. Oh yes, it literally means "servant". But what about the context and the usage in context of role within the NT church?

If Phoebe was merely a servant/helper why would Paul tell the Roman believers to follow her instructions, rather than the other way around?

I think it seems that some simply refuse to accept the truth of the matter, no matter how authoritative the source.

[Green Cochoa]

You appear to have only read it rather superficially and do not seem to understand the scholarship involved. Check the footnotes carefully. And you seem to ignore most of the points made regarding prostatis and the fact that in almost every instance where diakonos is use regard an man in the NT it is translated as minister or deacon and not merely servant. Oh yes, it literally means "servant". But what about the context and the usage in context of role within the NT church?

If Phoebe was merely a servant/helper why would Paul tell the Roman believers to follow her instructions, rather than the other way around?

I think it seems that some simply refuse to accept the truth of the matter, no matter how authoritative the source.

Tom,

What is an "authoritative source" to you? To me it would be anything from the Spirit of Prophecy (which includes EGW and the Bible). I do not personally give much credence to human opinions or sources. Only inspired sources give us reliable truth.

I could see a list of so-called scholarly sources a mile long in the footnotes, and it would mean less to me than one single passage of scripture. I do not regard even the Adventist commentators who edited the Adventist Bible Commentaries, with the exception of Mrs. White. I have discovered many errors in the Adventist commentaries--how shall I then regard those pertaining to other denominations who understand still less of the truth?

We are to follow scripture, and only scripture. The scriptures are to be our sole rule of faith and doctrine. (I include Mrs. White in my definition of "scripture," though I believe our major doctrines should all be supportable from the Bible alone to anyone outside of our church who has not learned to esteem her writings. I realize this is a debatable point, and I'm not trying to change the topic for this thread, I'm only qualifying my own meaning in my usage of these terms. Basically, to me, "spirit of prophecy" equals "scripture" per the Bible's own definitions.)

I am open to using the scripture to interpret itself. I am highly cautious of receiving interpretations from uninspired sources.

You started this thread with the question of how Jesus would view the issue of women's ordination. Though they are the "best of Pharisees" for their learning and scholarship, I would ask at this point, how would Jesus regard all of those "scholars" that are quoted in the footnotes?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Neil D]

I am open to using the scripture to interpret itself. I am highly cautious of receiving interpretations from uninspired sources.

You started this thread with the question of how Jesus would view the issue of women's ordination. Though they are the "best of Pharisees" for their learning and scholarship, I would ask at this point, how would Jesus regard all of those "scholars" that are quoted in the footnotes?

It occurs to me that unless you get a statement that plainly states something [as in the mathematical statement "A=a"], then you have "arrived" at the truth....But what about the mathematical concept of "If A=B and B=C, then A=C"?

Does that hold true for Jesus as being a part of the Godhead? How do you arrive at Sabbath truth, assuming that you are an Adventist?

Just asking the hard questions here...not trying to start an argument.....

[olger]

Quote:

I agree! Sometimes I go off in my own little world. BTW, I misplaced my purse (male gender) and would appreciate your prayers for recovery of same.

God cares!

"he misplaced his purse........."

[Green Cochoa]

Neil,

Pardon me. I'm really not sure I'm understanding your questions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Neil D]

Neil,

Pardon me. I'm really not sure I'm understanding your questions.

[Green Cochoa]

Neil,

You have provided an interesting analysis of those who participate here. Indeed, people come in many types and flavors. I am one who focuses on "balance." I naturally like clear statements like "thus saith the LORD" to settle a matter (don't we all?) but I am not limited to them, nor should anyone be so limited, for the Bible does not choose to give us all truths with such explicitness.

However, when we begin to enter the realm of "so-and-so says this, and he/she is an authority...", I begin to back away. The Bible is clear that we are to put our trust in God, and not in man. God has given us His Word to be our "authority." We cannot safely substitute human reasoning, however scholarly it might seem, in place of it. I think most Christians would agree with this view.

Yes, I am an Adventist.

Relative to the questions regarding Jesus' divinity and the keeping of the Sabbath, I think if one uses the Bible alone, there is no question at all about these things. They have never even been presented to my mind before as having been controversial matters. Paul never said the Sabbath was done away any more than he said food was done away! (I am assuming you are using Colossians 2:16 as your basis.) Bible scholars need discernment, and when we begin hearing the opinions of others in place of the actual scriptures, we can fall prey to any number of misunderstandings or errors.

There is no question that women are important. There is also no question as to the need of women in ministry. Where the question comes in is more along the lines of "what ministry is appropriate for women, and what ministry is for men?" There are natural roles for each. God has given each person a work to do for Him. A man cannot do everything that a woman can do and vice versa. Both are needed and important.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[olger]

True, Green

`G