Dangers of women leaders.

[Textus Receptus]

Good question MT, what DID she need protection from?

That is rather obvious knowing the history. There was a tree, there was a serpant, there was an apple. Had they BOTH stayed together, our history might be very different. There WAS danger in the garden, and Eve found it.

Heaven, before sin, was also perfect. One could say there was no apparent danger. Yet, that is where sin orginated with Lucifer. Sin is a mystery, there really is no explanation for it.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

And we can read in Genesis, being "perfect" did not innoculate the races from sin. The Book of Job also notes that being perfect did not prevent exposure to Lucifer.

In some of the newer translations, the word "perfect" is translated "blameless", which I find describes more clearly even the children of God on this earth as we now know it. Since none are righteous, no not one, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, it does not seem far fetched to recognize our safety has always depended upon our willingness to let God work His works in and for us, as our only and best method for hope in an eternal future in the heavenly kingdom.

God cares!

[ClubV12]

pierrepaul, I believe Ellen Whites commentary on Gen 3 is accurate. In Gen 3 we have Eve and the serpent engaged in conversation. There is no record of Adam engaging in conversation with the serpent, or even of him personally hearing such a conversation. There is no record of Adam taking the fruit from the tree or from the serpent. Eve gave it to him.

Conclusion: Adam was with Eve, in the garden. He was not at her immediate side when she was conversing with the serpent, taking the fruit and eating it. Afterward, carrying some to Adam for him also to eat.

But it's a minor point...

[LifeHiscost]

Genesis 3:6 is pretty clear that Adam was with Eve at the time of the eating of the fruit. The "wandering off" tale is not supported by the biblical text.

Of course one would have to accept the fact that Adam had to be with Eve at the time the fruit was given to him, as the Word declares. OTOH since the Word doesn't describe a moment by moment activity, it doesn't seem beyond reason that Eve could have been just around the other side of the tree while Adam was playing catch-up having been occupied in less dangerous proximity to the tree.

Since I'm of the opinion God doesn't leave His people without defense, even in the dangerous times we're living in, I'm satisfied in the advice given by Spirit filled individuals when that advice is consistent with the merciful nature of the God of creation as it is needed.

"And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus."

Philippians 4:19 NASB

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

Amos 3:8 KJV

God cares!

[phkrause]

I'm in total agreement Club

[ClubV12]

Patriarchs and Prophets, what a great book! I read the first four chapters, again, this morning.

Adam and Eve were in perfect harmony in the garden, the were equal. While Adam had dominion over the "planet", this was not an issue worthy of even mentioning. When Eve sinned that harmony was broken. NOW to maintain harmony someone needed to be in charge, a leader, a concept foreign to them before sin. God placed Adam in that roll as we know from the biblical record. That has never changed, never will change. It was for the continuing protection and good of Eve. It was to re-establish the lost harmony. It was from a spirit of love toward them that God did this. Because being the creator, He knows what is best for us. I trust Him.

Obviously man has messed this relationship up countless times, warped it, got it wrong, made the Eve's of this planet to suffer. Women still fight against their God given roll, they, like Eve, want more. All this is not Gods fault, He made the roses, not the thorns, so to speak.

[scott.t]

Is there a bible verse that actually forbids women leadership?

Scott

[ClubV12]

1 Corinthians 14:34 NIV

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."

What "law" is Paul referring to here? An Old Testament law from God. A PRINCIPLE of the Old Testament, not necessarily a specific verse. NOT one of the 613 man made laws of the Jewish system.

Timothy says,

1 Timothy 2:12 NIV

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Obviously verses such as these set off a firestorm of analysis and opinions. You asked, I gave a couple of verses. Don't shoot the messengers (Paul and Timothy to be precise).

[phkrause]

And they are also to cover there head! No? So is this also being done?? So why are we not talking to this??? There is no clear statement in the Bible or the SOP to this issue of WO. Otherwise we would not have all these intelligent Theologians not being able to agree!!

[ClubV12]

Oh some of us are cetainly talking about it PK!!! You should come visit my Church sometime, you'll get an ear full.

Just recently there was a discussion about "bonnets", when, who, how big they should be, are they required. And then there was the "week of ties", bow ties according to certain specifications are acceptable. Long ties are for decoration. Don't get me started on the food. But those are all minor issues. The BIG one is: IS the Church Babylon? No, it's not.

[Kevin H]

Thanks for the tip Kevin, I'll look into Flemings work.

My opinions on NAD's recent recommendations toward interpretation are still taking shape. My immediate reaction is "caution". The debate over how to interpret scripture goes back a long way in our Church and there are many and varied opinion. I wonder, have we been doing it wrong for quite awhile? I wonder is this new method even worse?

Difficult questions...

No new methods, and we have not been doing it wrong, just increased amount if information to apply the good old methods to.

[scott.t]

1 Corinthians 14:34 NIV

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."

What "law" is Paul referring to here? An Old Testament law from God. A PRINCIPLE of the Old Testament, not necessarily a specific verse. NOT one of the 613 man made laws of the Jewish system.

Timothy says,

1 Timothy 2:12 NIV

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Obviously verses such as these set off a firestorm of analysis and opinions. You asked, I gave a couple of verses. Don't shoot the messengers (Paul and Timothy to be precise).

Thank you Club, I will not shoot the meseninger. I am just searching, and I appreciate your honest answer.

Scott

[CoAspen]

You might want to take a gander at this article.

Headship/Leadership

[ClubV12]

Kevin, consider the verses I posted above. There are a number of ways and methods that could be employed (and have been employed) to interpret these. I've seen a couple of different methods from Pastors within our Church who come to completly different opinions! This becomes very important and difficult with prophecies in Daniel. I really believe the Church is at somewhat of a cross roads on the methods that have been and are being used for interpretation. In a nut shell, a historist view vs what I see with NADS "new" way as being a more modern view.

I don't think I'm to far off with my concerns over where this might be headed, and even from where we've come. But I am encouraged with your attitude that "we got it right" and NAD isn't to far out in left field.

Sister White says, many times over, through a lot of years, "take the bible just as it reads". You can see the obvious problem with the above two verses if we do that! W.O. would be immediately solved and the case closed. And yet, here we are....

And Daniel 11, to my way of thinking, is WAY more important than W.O. and we, as a people, are all over the map on that! Largely because we can't agree on a method of interpretation.

[Tom Wetmore]

Adam and Eve were in perfect harmony in the garden, the were equal. While Adam had dominion over the "planet", this was not an issue worthy of even mentioning. When Eve sinned that harmony was broken. NOW to maintain harmony someone needed to be in charge, a leader, a concept foreign to them before sin. God placed Adam in that roll as we know from the biblical record. That has never changed, never will change. It was for the continuing protection and good of Eve. It was to re-establish the lost harmony. It was from a spirit of love toward them that God did this. Because being the creator, He knows what is best for us. I trust Him.

Scripture states that both the man and the woman were given dominion over the earth. Read Genesis 1:26-28. It clearly says that He gave them dominion, both male and female he created is the them that He created.

[Windsor]

pierrepaul, I believe Ellen Whites commentary on Gen 3 is accurate. In Gen 3 we have Eve and the serpent engaged in conversation. There is no record of Adam engaging in conversation with the serpent, or even of him personally hearing such a conversation. There is no record of Adam taking the fruit from the tree or from the serpent. Eve gave it to him.

Conclusion: Adam was with Eve, in the garden. He was not at her immediate side when she was conversing with the serpent, taking the fruit and eating it. Afterward, carrying some to Adam for him also to eat.

But it's a minor point...

You say it's a minor point but unfortunately I've heard of several Adventists leaving the church (one I know personally) over that very verse! They decide Ellen White could not have been inspired because she disagrees with where Adam was during the whole debacle. Therefore all of Adventism must be false! This was even discussed over on Advincate (http://advindicate.com/articles/2044).

Unfortunately, these former Adventists didn't really study the Hebrew word "with". Not only that, but the story is completely illogical if Adam is physically standing next to Eve at that time.

1. Adam blames Eve (while Eve blames the serpent) instead of the serpent even though Adam was supposedly standing there the whole time hearing the same speech from the serpent.

2. Eve said she was tricked into eating the fruit. 1 Timothy 2:14 says Adam was NOT deceived. So, you have Adam standing there, knowing Eve is being tricked, yet letting her eat the fruit. Some husband he was.

3. The serpent addresses Eve only despite Adam supposedly being there and of course being the head of that relationship.

4. Adam doesn't pluck the fruit from the tree even though he knows that touching will invite death. Instead, Mr. Nice Husband Adam stands there while Eve risks death.

5. Regardless of what the word "with" actually means, it only mentions Eve is "with" Adam when she handed him the fruit. Most Bible versions have Eve eating the fruit in a separate sentence.

6. Finally, the Hebrew word "im" from which we get the word "with" is better translated as "companion". "Eth" would have been the preferred Hebrew word if proximity was intended.

[Green Cochoa]

Thank you Club and Olger. I understand that some bible verses talk about men being the head of the household and such. And most everyone realizes the culture that the bible was written in, women were considered subservient to men. So I get why a lot of people might be against women ordination, but what specific danger is cited. What will a woman do that is offensive to adventism? What reason does the bible give for not wanting women leaders?

Thanks

Scott

Scott,

I don't think the Bible gives any reason. It doesn't have to. Parents often say simply "because I said so" to their children, and the same is true of many of the Biblical commands given to us. For example, we are not told why we should not put marks on our bodies, shave the corners of our heads, or even why we should not cook a kid in its mother's milk. We are simply told not to do these things.

Coming more to this issue at hand, we are never told why Korah could not be a priest. He was Aaron's cousin. But only Aaron and his sons were to be priests. End of story. We are not given a reason why others could not be priests, though we are told in some places why Aaron's family was made the priests.

Getting still closer to the home, the Bible never says why women could not be priests or elders. But the Bible gives specific qualifications for priests and elders that proscribed women. We are not told why. We can maybe guess, but I tend to think any guesses I might make would be shot down by those who take an opposite view just as quickly as Korah and his followers shot down God's own requirements and truly believed that they were entitled to priesthood.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[ClubV12]

You see the word "them" (KJV) as applying to Adam AND Eve. I see it as applying to "mankind". They were creating, at the time, "man", which in the Hebrew is "Adam" and his kind would follow. "Mankind" is perhaps a better word? That would include the whole human race, by our current definition of mankind, and of course Eve as a result.

Genesis 1:26 (NIV)

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Anyway, I think it's a moot point because it was never an issue for them, mankind, Adam, Eve or the angels. They were equal,,, before sin.

Windsor, I enjoyed your post and Green you make a good point. Because God said so, it's enough, I trust Him!

[Neil D]

Adam was in leadership over Eve BEFORE sin. She was warned to stay close to him, her protector. We see men in leadership rolls all through the bible. The New Testament leaders followed that biblical advice, as should we. Regardless of "culture".

[ClubV12]

"The angels cautioned Eve not to separate from her husband in her employment, for she might be brought in contact with this fallen foe."

The Story of Redemption pg 31

Romans 11:34 NIV

“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

I see your point Neil, I think the same could be said for Adam, don't separate yourself from Eve. But for some reason, the inspired messenger only reports this for Eve. Strange that...

[Neil D]

a good reference to team work.....and not to Adams leadership....

[CyberGuy]

I didn't realize that women ordination was even an issue in the adventist church. What specific problem or danger does a women conference president bring? Is there something she cannot do that a male could? Or would do that a male wouldn't ?

Scott

It is job security plain and simply. If we bring women into the mix that means men must compete for a job with women for pastors that once only a man could have. What man in his right mind would want to compete with a women. Better to dis enfranchise 60% of the church and only allow women to be ordained pastors and NEVER allow a women to be president. Why to take orders from a woman would be a supreame insult.

[Tom Wetmore]

You see the word "them" (KJV) as applying to Adam AND Eve. I see it as applying to "mankind". They were creating, at the time, "man", which in the Hebrew is "Adam" and his kind would follow. "Mankind" is perhaps a better word? That would include the whole human race, by our current definition of mankind, and of course Eve as a result.

Genesis 1:26 (NIV)

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Anyway, I think it's a moot point because it was never an issue for them, mankind, Adam, Eve or the angels. They were equal,,, before sin.

Windsor, I enjoyed your post and Green you make a good point. Because God said so, it's enough, I trust Him!

I agree that "mankind,", "humanity", "human beings" or "humans" would be better than "man" to accurately translate the Hebrew in the context of these verses. The Hebrew word, "adam", does in fact mean mankind, as most frequently used hundreds of times in the OT, as well as man or men. However, this only strengthens my point. The context in this passage clearly means this, any option of which is gender inclusive, both male and female, as the the one verse (27) you omit emphasizes. That verse emphatically states that God created mankind, both male and female, in his image. The whole passage reads together without leaving out any part to mean that mankind, both male and female, were created by God in His image to rule over the rest of His creation here on earth. There is no implication of any gender difference in the role of rulership to be found in this passage.

I simply went with the traditional version preferred by the anti-WO proponents. The KJV uses the word "them" to give the same meaning to clarify that this passage as a whole was not speaking only of the one singular man of creation. The whole of mankind at that point was two people, a male and a female. They were created equal, just as EGW repeatedly states.

[Tom Wetmore]

pierrepaul, I believe Ellen Whites commentary on Gen 3 is accurate. In Gen 3 we have Eve and the serpent engaged in conversation. There is no record of Adam engaging in conversation with the serpent, or even of him personally hearing such a conversation. There is no record of Adam taking the fruit from the tree or from the serpent. Eve gave it to him.

Conclusion: Adam was with Eve, in the garden. He was not at her immediate side when she was conversing with the serpent, taking the fruit and eating it. Afterward, carrying some to Adam for him also to eat.

But it's a minor point...

Every time this comes up, those who want to believe the traditional view that Adam would have been better able to withstand the temptation like to ask how could he stand there silently if he was at the tree with Eve. Just as you have done, they will always point out that the text does not say that he said anything as proof that he couldn't have been at the tree with Eve. But that is inconsistent with the logic (not to mention poor hermeneutics) that claims that she wandered away from Adam's side, when the text likewise gives no indication of that either. One has to read into the text a whole lot to build the case for the traditional view reflected in EGW's writings.

Lest anyone go off on a tangent I am undermining EGW and "making her writings of none effect", etc., stop right there. Those most upset are typically those who really subscribe to the false notion that she was merely God's secretary writing down every word as dictated from His lips to her ear...

[Neil D]

"The angels cautioned Eve not to separate from her husband in her employment, for she might be brought in contact with this fallen foe."

The Story of Redemption pg 31

Romans 11:34 NIV

“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

I see your point Neil, I think the same could be said for Adam, don't separate yourself from Eve. But for some reason, the inspired messenger only reports this for Eve. Strange that...

If Eve was given foreknowledge to compensate for her abilities to be busy to help Adam, then why is this some indication that Adam is THE leader of this new household? As a team, the leader directs...in this case, Angels are sent to remind Eve ....The leader, ie GOD, sent the angels to remind Eve...

Will anyone make the claim that as a unit, the family reflects the character of God best? Individually, yes, we can, but the beginning family, a husband and wife, a man and woman dedicated to each other, reflects the Character of God best...Genesis merely shows the downfall of mankind, and that each gender failed to deal with Satan...as a team, mankind does better job to remove the deceptions of Satan, but individually, we are more easily decieved....Not to say that we can't do it, but even God is more willing to give advice as to prevent the fall of mankind...

As for the verse of who has the mind of God, the redeemed human race are the only creatures in the universe that understand the depths of sin, the grace of God, and all that it entails...We understand the universal question of what happens when you go against the nature of God...We understand God and His mercy and grace...We understand the mind of God...