Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[Tom Wetmore]

Please reread post #357383.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

Regarding Phoebe, did you read the article to which I previously provided a link several times?

Here it is again - http://home.netcom.com/~cplampin/Lessons-on-Christian-Women/deacons/phoebe.htm

I find the analysis in that article persuasive.

Here is more from the article that you find persuasive. Let's look at it carefully.

Quote:

1 Tim. 3:13< - For those who have served (diakonehsantes) well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

As it is the verb to serve that is in the Greek text of this verse, the words as deacons are an addition to the text.

See v. 12, which shows it is talking about those who have served as deacons, or as church workers. It refers to those who perform the duties of deacon. Therefore it is legitimate to add the noun "deacons," since it is implied in the verb itself.

Quote:

1 Tim. 4:6 - In pointing out these things to the brethren, you (Timothy) will be a good servant (diakonos) of Christ Jesus.

Biblical translators are supposed to faithfully translate the meaning of the original texts so that you can understand and compare. Above in fourteen verses we have the same word, diakonos, translated as "servant" five times, as "minister" five times, and transliterated as "deacon" four times, one of which (1 Tim. 3:13) is an addition to the text. These transliterations are interesting because, if you will look again at the above verses, you will see that the translatores only used transliterations in two passages. We are going to think of why biblical translators didn't translate diakonos in these cases.

The author of the article seems to believe that the same word in Greek should be always translated the same way, but anyone who has done very much work in translation of any language knows that most words have different shades of meaning depending on the context. This is true of English words as well as Greek words. A glance at any standard Greek-English lexicon will show this. What the author of the article says here about the word diakonos could be just as well said about hundreds of other Greek words.

Quote:

In Philippians 1:1 the translators used the transliteration "deacons" and said "including the overseers and deacons."

There are also many other translations that don't use the word, "deacons." For instance, Letters From Paul (Blackwelder) has, "congregational overseers and their assistants." Helen Montgomery renders it, "elders and deacons." William Beck's Language of Today has it, "the pastors and helpers."

Quote:

The word "overseers" (episkopois), generally translated "bishops," refers to the elders (pastors) who are elected by their colleagues as overseers, directors, or superintendents of the elders (pastors). Translators had three choices:

say "overseers and servants." Now present day "deacons" are proud to be called by an elegant Greek title that has evolved into a position of authority, even over the elders (pastors), which was not at all the practice in the early church, but they wouldn't like to be called "servants" which is the correct translation.

say "overseers and ministers." The word "minister" has come to be used today for the elder (pastor), even though etymologically it comes from the Latin and means "servant." Therefore if they said "overseers and ministers" the translators would be saying "overseers of the elders (pastors) and the elders (pastors)." This won't say what the original Greek said.

The last paragraph above is not true. Many very good translations, in fact some of the very best, read, "overseers and ministers" (Rotherham). Robert Young's Literal has, "overseers and ministrants." It is only a choice, however, if the word "ministers" is understood to be a general church worker, or helper. It is not talking about "THE pastor" of a congregation, which is how the word is most frequently understood today. So if the translator believes his readers will misunderstand the word "minister," he shouldn't use it. Notice that Robert Young's choice (in the 1870s) of "ministrants" refers to "helpers," not THE pastor or THE minister of the congregation. I seriously doubt he would choose to use that word today because most readers would be confused by it.

Quote:

say "overseers and deacons." This is the choice of the translators. They did not translate diakonois. They transliterated. They invented the word "deacons" in English that is still in Greek.

There's nothing wrong with this translation at all. Helen Montgomery herself chose to translate it as "deacons." Heinz Cassirer (God's New Covenant) chose "leaders and deacons." A very good translation, recently published, reads, "elders and deacons" (The Voice), a translation by 21 highly regarded Bible scholars. In today's English, "a deacon is a church officer who helps the minister" (Webster's Dictionary). That is exactly what Phil. 1: 1 is referring to.

It is no more a Greek word than many other words we have in English that have their roots in the Greek language.

The truth is that all three words, "servants," "ministers," and "deacons," are acceptable translations in Phil. 1: 1. The main thing, as with any translation, is that the readers understand what the word has reference to. If readers think of "ministers" as THE pastor of the church, it would be a mistake to use it, for the NT calls the pastor "the elder" or "the bishop," not the diakonos (deacon, servant).

[John317]

This is in response to what you wrote on post #357383.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Regarding diakonos, ....

As for Paul's ambiguous phrase kai emou autou , that can reasonably be understood either as "of me myself" or "by me myself".

Lit. "for she became a helper of many, and of me myself."

If you were going to translate it "by me myself," you would need to also translate the previous phrase, "by many," so that it would then read, "she became a helper by many, and by me myself." Yet, as I show below, this is not an accurate or legitimate translation, which is the reason that not a single translation in English renders it this way. If you know of one I've missed, please let me know.

It could not be correctly translated, "she became a helper (or leader) of many, and by me myself." This is not even a possibility. I'm sure you would agree.

You'll notice that Helen Montgomery translates it, "she has been made an overseer to many, including myself." At least that is grammatically possible, athough it lacks a basis in the ancient manuscripts and seems also not to work either contextually or historically.

Could you parse this phrase and show your reasoning as to why you believe it could reasonably be translated as "by me myself"? Do you know of any translations that render it this way? Or any Bible commentators who say that it should be translated the way you have suggested here?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Either way it can make sense contextually. If one takes the narrowest possible meaning of prostatis as "benefactor" one can understand that she supported many by her means including Paul himself.

I don't agree that "by me myself" makes sense contextually, and I haven't found a single translation that renders it that way.

But I do certainly agree that prostasis probably refers to Phoebe's being a wealthy businesswoman {thus, a "protector" or "patroness," as many excellent translations give it) who supported many by her means including Paul himself, and she was no doubt someone who assisted the pastor of the Christian congregation at Cenchrea. In other words, she had proven that she could be trusted.

May I suggest that you take a look at the translation of this verse by the world's foremost translator of Greek, Richmond Lattimore, who taught Greek translation and also translated most of the Greek classics, including the most highly regarded editions of the Iliad and the Odyssey. He translates prostasis in Rom. 16: 2 as "benefactor." So Lattimore's translation reads, "... help her in anything she needs from you, for she has been the benefactor of many, myself among them." (Acts and Letters of the Apostles)

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Or if you take a larger possible view of the more likely meaning of prostatis as "one set over others" (in Paul's words "many others"), one does not have to understand him to be suggesting his own deference to her superior position (even though that could have been in the range of possible meanings) but rather that she was put in that position over others by Paul himself. I am more persuaded that it is more likely the latter given the immediate contextual evidence and the equally consistent idea that Paul himself sent her to Rome to deliver his letter to the believers there. Paul appointed Phoebe. And in Paul's usage, to appoint someone to a task, duty or role was to ordain them to do it.

The problem with this translation, though, is that it would make Paul say, "she has been made an overseer to many, and by me myself."

Are you saying you would favor a translation like this, "she has been made a leader over many, and [that] by me myself"?

As you can see, it would be necessary to add the word "that." I am only making suggestions here as to the possibilities if you were going to give it this meaning, but in the final analysis, Tom, the translation "by me myself" is not even a possibility, grammatically.

Where is the genitive (a possessive) pronoun, emou, translated as "by me"? Can you give me any examples in the New Testament? If so, please give the verse and the name of the translation.

As a genitive first person singular pronoun, it is always translated "to me" or "of me." If it's ablative, it would be translated "from me."

On the other hand, if Paul had intended to say "by me," he would have used the Dative/Instrumental emoi or moi. See standard Greek grammars. For instance, Ray Summers' Essentials of New Testament Greek, pp. 41, 42.

If you believe I'm wrong, please show the reason and the evidence, citing standard Greek texts or competant translations of the NT. If you can show me such evidence, I will happily take a second look at this.

Nor do I see it as acceptable contextually. It would mean Paul is asking the people of Romans to help her because Paul ordained her to be a leader in the church. It would be like telling them, "I expect you to welcome her and help her in every possible way because she's my supervisor," or "because I've ordained her to be a supervisor or leader." That doesn't sound like Paul to me, as there's no other place in the NT where he says such a thing. If you know of an example of where he speaks this way, please give the reference.

And why would Paul phrase it in such an awkward, passive way, "and by me myself," instead of the active and far more effective way, "I have made her an overseer"? Does Paul ever write this way elsewhere in his letters?

But again, in any case, the rules of Greek grammar rule this out as a possiblity.

Quote:

As for Junia, a much debated matter by many more qualified than you or me. I will not belabor it further. I believe you are wrong since current scholarship tends more toward considering that person to have been a woman.

It is true that if we were to count noses among the Bible scholars, most of them would probably say that they believe the name is Junia. But you should remember that not very long ago, the opinion of Bible scholars was just the opposite, that the correct name is Junias.

I've always said-- just like the SDA Bible Commentary, and most study Bibles and the footnotes in translations, say-- that it could be either Junia or Junias.

The point I would make here, Tom, is that the SDA church should not base its arguments for WO on such an uncertain translation. It needs to be based on a strong and clear teaching of Scripture. As it is, it gives the clear impression of grabbing at straws to try to prop up a weak case. People rightly wonder why anyone would use this poor argument if the Bible so strongly supports WO as some have claimed.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Regarding diakonos,....

And using the simplest of Greek lexicons, it is very clear that "helper" is a very poor translation, even on a most simplistic literal level, of prostatis. One can take a simplistic literal meaning of diakonos as "servant" and have at least a superficially correct understanding of the meaning of the original Greek word as it is within the range of possible meanings. But "helper" only remotely touches the essential meaning of prostatis and but for the traditional translation of its single usage in the NT, that is not even within the acceptable range of reasonably possible meanings of the word. If that is the extent of what you think Paul had in mind, you have to totally ignore the definition of the word and its common and well understood meaning and usage outside of the NT. And you have to ignore the clear meaning of the verb form of the word that is used in the NT, even by Paul.

There is absolutely no contextual reason to think that Paul meant Phoebe was merely a "helper". He would have had to have invented a new a different meaning for the word prostatis. The reason for the fractured translation is that it is the only way to remain consistent with the notion that Phoebe was simply a "servant" and to avoid any implication of higher standing of the woman as possibly being a minister of the church. But if you instead take the correct full meaning of the word prostatis and look back at all that precedes it about Phoebe, it actually makes more sense contextually that she was indeed someone fairly important and significant as is the clear meaning implicit in prostatis. And that is not inconsistent with the full range of meaning for diakonos.

I agree with you that "helper" is an inadequate translation in Romans 16: 2. Phoebe was no doubt not merely a "helper" as we understand that word today. She was a prominant woman in the church at Cenchrea, but we don't know precisely what she did. The fact that Bible scholars don't know exactly what she did, is the reason that many translators choose the general word "helper." Personally I think "benefactor" is the closest to what Paul was saying. Of course, a "benefactor" does help people. We know that Paul thought a great deal of her and must have put immense trust in her.

[John317]

In Romans 16: 2, it says, "that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints."

What do you believe this means?

Is Paul appealing to the Romans to welcome Phoebe as she deserves because of her position in the church?

How do you understand this?

[Tom Wetmore]

I think Paul was instructing the believers in Rome to accept her as one to be respected. That follows his opening word of commendation. The word translated a "commend" has in implication of putting people together with approval. And he then explains why she comes with such high recommendations. It is because of what she is and what she has done.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: In Romans 16: 2. Is Paul appealing to the Romans to welcome Phoebe as she deserves because of her position in the church?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: I think Paul was instructing the believers in Rome to accept her as one to be respected. .... It is because of what she is and what she has done.

The phrase, "in a manner worthy of saints," refers to the welcome and therefore to their conduct to her, i.e., as saints ought to do, and NOT as saints ought to be received.

Paul's appeal to them, to welcome her in a Christian manner, is based on their common Lord, as he says, "in the Lord." He's not telling them to welcome her in a special way because she's earned it or merited it, nor is it because of her high office. Their welcome is to be on account of the fact that they have the same Lord and Savior, and therefore their welcome of her will reveal that they themselves occupy a high status as God's saints.

Notice these translations:

1) "Give her a Christian welcome that shows you are God's holy people." GOD'S WORD

2) "Receive her in the Lord, in the manner in which saints should welcome one another." (Letters From Paul, Blackwelder)

3) "Welcome her in the Lord as holy people should." William Beck

4) "... that you may give her a Christian welcome in a manner becoming God's people." Charles B. Williams

5) "It is important that you welcome her in the Lord in a manner befitting your saintly status." The Voice New Testament (Thomas Nelson Pub,)

On the basis of the above, tell which of the following appeals is most like Christ and Paul:

A) "Welcome her as one to be respected, because of what she is and what she has done."

Or

"Give her a Christian welcome that shows you are God's holy people."

A or B?

Your thoughts?

[Tom Wetmore]

I think it is ambiguous and can in fact be reasonably taken either way.

Your bias takes you one direction. My bias takes me in another direction. But that pretty much speaks to every point ever stated by either of us on this entire topic. We each see the same evidence and draw the exact opposite conclusions.

The directive of Paul to the believers in Rome is simple, direct and unambiguous - to accept Phoebe and do whatever she needs of them. And the context also makes the reason they should accept a woman in that way clear - because Paul commends her to them and sent her to them carrying his letter to them. And Paul makes it clear why he has such confidence in this woman for such a purpose - she was no ordinary woman believer. What was the basis for Paul's high regard and confidence in Phoebe? She was unlike other ordinary female and male believers - she was a prostatis and a diakonos and so regarded by many others and by Paul himself.

I think that those believers in Rome understood what Paul was saying closer to what I am saying than to what you are saying. If he had simply said "The person who is delivering this letter to you is a diakonos from Cenchrea and a prostatis" there might have been room for ambiguous understanding of those commonly used Greek terms given several possible meanings and common usage. With nothing more than that, I would accept your interpretation as plausible and would not have much else to refute it. But Paul clarifies to remove any such ambiguity, and quite likely natural doubts about a woman, by all the qualifying words and phrases he adds to the introduction of this woman to these believers. She was not simply some rich woman who served and helped others.

[Tom Wetmore]

What distinguishes Phoebe from the other women Paul mentions? Why does he identify her differently and more specifically setting her apart from all the others he mentions in his greetings?

[Tom Wetmore]

Echoes of Pink Floyd...

"Is there anybody out there?"

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: I think it is ambiguous and can in fact be reasonably taken either way.

Your bias takes you one direction. My bias takes me in another direction.

Paul's language itself shows what he means. He's asking the people to give her a welcome like God's people ought to welcome one another. This exactly what the verse says. "Welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints" [plural], not "worthy of this saint" or of a particular individual.

I've already shown many translations that make this point clear, including a very recent translation, the Voice New Testament:

"It is important that you welcome her in the Lord in a manner befitting your saintly status." (Thomas Nelson Pub.)

Outside of this verse, where does Paul ever say in either Acts or in his letters to welcome someone because of their status or because of some special work they have done?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: What was the basis for Paul's high regard and confidence in Phoebe? She was unlike other ordinary female and male believers - she was a prostatis and a diakonos and so regarded by many others and by Paul himself.

He had a high regard for her because he knew her personally and knew she was worthy of his trust and wouldn't let him down. In fact, it's likely that Paul himself had been the one through whom she had converted to Christ.

The language shows that she was probably a wealthy woman who provided for Paul and other Christians. Many Bible scholars have written of this.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: If he had simply said "The person who is delivering this letter to you is a diakonos from Cenchrea and a prostatis" there might have been room for ambiguous understanding of those commonly used Greek terms given several possible meanings and common usage. With nothing more than that, I would accept your interpretation as plausible and would not have much else to refute it. But Paul clarifies to remove any such ambiguity, and quite likely natural doubts about a woman, by all the qualifying words and phrases he adds to the introduction of this woman to these believers. She was not simply some rich woman who served and helped others.

Based on what Paul says here, we can be sure of the following:

1) Phoebe was a woman from Cenchrea whom Paul completely trusted.

2) She as a diakonos, probably a deacon or deaconenss, of the lcoal congregation, although most NT scholars doubt that the term referred to a technical position at the time Romans was written. "A minister" is perfectly acceptable as a translation as long as readers understand she wasn't "the minister" of the congregation.

3) She was on some kind of business, probably of a financial nature, in Rome, and Paul asked the believers there to help her in any way she might need their help.

4) The above shows that she did not go there simply in order to deliver's Paul's letter, but it is more likely that Paul sent the letter with her because she was going to Rome on business.

5) She had been a protector, or benefactor, of many people, including Paul, and therefore Paul appeals to the Romans to help her. Bible scholars have pointed out that Paul seems to be playing on the verb parasthte [to help] and the noun prostatis [helper, defender, benefactor].

I think you can see how this last point makes better sense and fits the context better than if Paul's appeal is based on the fact that she was an official of the church and Paul's supervisor.

Your thoughts? :-)

[Tom Wetmore]

My thoughts are that you need to reread posts ##356363, 356819, 357383, 357913, 358005, 358327.

I think you will notice that I do not say that I think Paul considered Phoebe to be his supervisor. So I don't know why you keep returning to this point.

For example, from post #357383:

As for Paul's ambiguous phrase kai emou autou , that can reasonably be understood either as "of me myself" or "by me myself". Either way it can make sense contextually. If one takes the narrowest possible meaning of prostatis as "benefactor" one can understand that she supported many by her means including Paul himself. Or if you take a larger possible view of the more likely meaning of prostatis as "one set over others" (in Paul's words "many others"), one does not have to understand him to be suggesting his own deference to her superior position (even though that could have been in the range of possible meanings) but rather that she was put in that position over others by Paul himself. I am more persuaded that it is more likely the latter given the immediate contextual evidence and the equally consistent idea that Paul himself sent her to Rome to deliver his letter to the believers there. Paul appointed Phoebe. And in Paul's usage, to appoint someone to a task, duty or role was to ordain them to do it.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: My thoughts are that you need to reread posts ##356363, 356819, 357383, 357913, 358005, 358327.

Sure, be glad to reread those posts. I did respond to several of them before, but I'm not sure you saw them. In any case, I'll reread them and reply Sabbath.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The founders of our denomination had a full and robust dialog and Biblical study of the matter and concluded that there was no reason to limit women in ministry. Please read what I posted before - http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1092&journal=1&type=pdf

* * *

Here's the article you posted...

Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1,41-58.

Copyright 0 2005 Andrews University Press.

"YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY" :

JAMES WHITE, URIAH SMITH, AND

THE "TRIUMPHANT VINDICATION

OF THE RIGHT OF THE

SISTERS" TO PREACH'

...

And from the Back to Basics column in the May 13, 2010 Adventist Review continuing on the theme of "Your Daughters Shall Prophecy" from the prophet Joel and illustrating its fulfillment today:

Quote:

HOPE IS A WONDERFUL GIFT FROM GOD. IT BELIEVES THAT WE CAN DO ALL things through Christ who strengthens us. It’s the universal source of courage in life’s harshest realities and toughest challenges.

The Old Testament prophet Joel’s prophetic gaze pierced the dense fog of the future to see a world where there’s no discrimination based on race, religion, physical fitness, or social standing. Indeed, a church where there’s no distinction based on age, gender, parentage, or financial contributions; communities of faith where the focus is not on political power but on commitment to Christ.

To understand the prophecy of Joel 2:28, 29, it helps to see it from Peter’s perspective in Acts 2. For where Joel said: “And afterward,” Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed: “In the last days” (Acts 2:17). Since ours is the legacy of “the last days,” we should be alert to the fulfillment of this prophecy when ancient sprinkles were replaced by an abundant outpouring at Pentecost that fell on both men and women (Acts 1:15), and later on Gentiles (Acts 10:44). Those Pentecostal showers still fall on all who receive power to be Christ’s witnesses.

Another clear sign of this special anointing would be the total eradication of prejudice in any form—not only from individuals, but from our institutions as well. For the inspired Word says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus . . . and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:28, 29). Pious, pretentious lovers of self, instead of lovers of God (2 Tim. 3:2-4), will never perceive it, and will continue to misrepresent Scripture to support their own biases.

Joel and Peter also declared that God’s sons and daughters will prophesy in these last days. To prophesy is to be an anointed spokesperson for God in the twofold ministry of foretelling—as was manifested in Ellen White; as well as forth-telling—that is, proclaiming the gospel with confidence. There is no gender distinction in the Messiah’s kingdom.

I’m willing to concede that until Joel was divinely directed to include women, the priesthood or ministry in the Old Testament was the sole domain of men. But the Gospels report that many women were called and sent to minister by Jesus (Matt. 27:55, 56), were present at Pentecost, were recognized as disciples (Acts 9:36) and prophets (Acts 21:9).

As senior pastor of a large church for almost 14 years, and currently a professor in our seminary, where 132 women have responded to the call of Christ and are preparing to preach and teach the gospel alongside our brothers, I applaud our leaders for being part of this divine movement.

Here’s how the situation stands at the moment: One of our churches on a university campus is being successfully served by a female senior pastor; more than 450 women are serving the General Conference, the North American Division, and local conferences as vice presidents, treasurers, and pastors; and numerous other women serve in a variety of ministries in the Adventist world church. These are all vivid indications that even though we are not where we ought to be, we’ve come a long way toward fulfilling the divine plan foretold by Joel and Peter.

“Even on my servants, both men and women” will God’s Spirit be poured in the last days (Joel 2:29). The word “even” tells us how unusual this is, for it’s the very first time in the entire Old Testament that such an inclusive blessing is promised to slaves/servants. This word predicts that there will be no segregation in God’s true community of faith. And if we really are the remnant church, this will not be named or practiced among us.

For when God planned to send His only begotten Son to die for the sin of the world, He also made provision that His Holy Spirit would be poured out in full measure on males as well as females, so there would be unity in His church, and all would freely share in His everlasting grace!

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: John317

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The founders of our denomination had a full and robust dialog and Biblical study of the matter and concluded that there was no reason to limit women in ministry. Please read what I posted before - http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1092&journal=1&type=pdf

* * *

Here's the article you posted...

Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1,41-58.

Copyright 0 2005 Andrews University Press.

"YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY" :

JAMES WHITE, URIAH SMITH, AND

THE "TRIUMPHANT VINDICATION

OF THE RIGHT OF THE

SISTERS" TO PREACH'

...

And from the Back to Basics column in the May 13, 2010 Adventist Review continuing on the theme of "Your Daughters Shall Prophecy" from the prophet Joel and illustrating its fulfillment today:

Quote:

HOPE IS A WONDERFUL GIFT FROM GOD. IT BELIEVES THAT WE CAN DO ALL things through Christ who strengthens us. It’s the universal source of courage in life’s harshest realities and toughest challenges.

The Old Testament prophet Joel’s prophetic gaze pierced the dense fog of the future to see a world where there’s no discrimination based on race, religion, physical fitness, or social standing. Indeed, a church where there’s no distinction based on age, gender, parentage, or financial contributions; communities of faith where the focus is not on political power but on commitment to Christ.

To understand the prophecy of Joel 2:28, 29, it helps to see it from Peter’s perspective in Acts 2. For where Joel said: “And afterward,” Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed: “In the last days” (Acts 2:17). Since ours is the legacy of “the last days,” we should be alert to the fulfillment of this prophecy when ancient sprinkles were replaced by an abundant outpouring at Pentecost that fell on both men and women (Acts 1:15), and later on Gentiles (Acts 10:44). Those Pentecostal showers still fall on all who receive power to be Christ’s witnesses.

Another clear sign of this special anointing would be the total eradication of prejudice in any form—not only from individuals, but from our institutions as well. For the inspired Word says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus . . . and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:28, 29). Pious, pretentious lovers of self, instead of lovers of God (2 Tim. 3:2-4), will never perceive it, and will continue to misrepresent Scripture to support their own biases.

Joel and Peter also declared that God’s sons and daughters will prophesy in these last days. To prophesy is to be an anointed spokesperson for God in the twofold ministry of foretelling—as was manifested in Ellen White; as well as forth-telling—that is, proclaiming the gospel with confidence. There is no gender distinction in the Messiah’s kingdom.

I’m willing to concede that until Joel was divinely directed to include women, the priesthood or ministry in the Old Testament was the sole domain of men. But the Gospels report that many women were called and sent to minister by Jesus (Matt. 27:55, 56), were present at Pentecost, were recognized as disciples (Acts 9:36) and prophets (Acts 21:9).

As senior pastor of a large church for almost 14 years, and currently a professor in our seminary, where 132 women have responded to the call of Christ and are preparing to preach and teach the gospel alongside our brothers, I applaud our leaders for being part of this divine movement.

Here’s how the situation stands at the moment: One of our churches on a university campus is being successfully served by a female senior pastor; more than 450 women are serving the General Conference, the North American Division, and local conferences as vice presidents, treasurers, and pastors; and numerous other women serve in a variety of ministries in the Adventist world church. These are all vivid indications that even though we are not where we ought to be, we’ve come a long way toward fulfilling the divine plan foretold by Joel and Peter.

“Even on my servants, both men and women” will God’s Spirit be poured in the last days (Joel 2:29). The word “even” tells us how unusual this is, for it’s the very first time in the entire Old Testament that such an inclusive blessing is promised to slaves/servants. This word predicts that there will be no segregation in God’s true community of faith. And if we really are the remnant church, this will not be named or practiced among us.

For when God planned to send His only begotten Son to die for the sin of the world, He also made provision that His Holy Spirit would be poured out in full measure on males as well as females, so there would be unity in His church, and all would freely share in His everlasting grace!&#8194;

Yes. I read my hard copy earlier today and thought it was great.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, I think it provides good evidence in support of women in ministry.

[Woody]

Yes. I thought it did also.

Good Stuff.