11 reasons why I understand the Bible and Mrs. White to support Women's ordinaion

[Kevin H]

1.) Because Numbers 15:38 tells all the children of Israel to wear tassels with blue threads. Archaeology has discovered that in the ancient world this was a symbol of being an ordained priest.

 

2.) There are Psalms written in the feminine indicating that they were to have been lead by a female priest.

 

3.) About 200 years before Jesus there was a push in Judaism to STOP having female priests and Rabbis. And that only Men should wear the tassel with the blue thread, thus the traditions of may were changing the law of God.

 

4.) The topic of women's ordination was a debated topic in Jesus' day. Despite 200 years of trying to get rid of them there were still some women Rabbis with in Judaism.

 

5.) The culture of Jesus' day was that when a Rabbi sat to teach, his (and some cases her) ORDAINED disciples sat at his (and in some cases her) feet. About 12 who were the same sex as the Rabbi due to the 24 hour access and privileged to late night talks as they were going to sleep, then about 70. Among the conservative Rabbis in Jesus day the 70 tended to have both men and women. Among the liberal Rabbis of Jesus' day the 70 would be all men. The lay members would stand. Again if it was a conservative Rabbi it would be both men and women standing. If it was a liberal Rabbi the lay men would stand. The women had to do hospitality tasks. We find in the Bible that Martha was doing what the liberal Rabbis said a woman should do and Protested that Mary was in the position not of a layman but as an ordained Rabbinical Student. She SAT at Jesus' feet. A sign of being ordained. Jesus could have easily have said "Mary, while you don't need to do these hospitality tasks, women really should not be ordained. You are welcome to stand with the Laymen." Instead Jesus allowed her to be in the position of ordination and said that she choose good and it would not be taken away from her. Why should we say that Jesus is wrong and say that the Rabbis who opposed women's ordination was right?

 

6.) Besides Mary there is evidence that Jesus ordained other women among the 70. On the road to Emmaus Jesus met two disciples. One is named, indicating that it was a husband and wife. Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas. The fact that they were both disciples indicated that they were both ordained. In John 19:25 we read about Mary the wife of Clopas being at the cross. This was probably the same name as Cleopas, so the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus were Cleopas and Mary, both ordained disciples. Not one disciple and his wife.

 

7.) In teams in both the culture at the time and in the Bible the leader's name would be mentioned first. If you were to read in your Bible about Aquilla and Priscilla; in all but one place when talking about them as man and wife it is Aquilla and Priscilla. However when talking about them as a ministerial team it is ALWAYS Priscilla and Aquilla. Thus the Bible says that Elder Priscilla was the head pastor with her husband Aquilla being her assistant.

 

8.) The letter to the Romans: Paul had not yet been to Rome. Yet he was aware of a number of women, not because he enjoyed their contribution to the pot luck after church, but because of their ministry. The terms applied to Phoebe are the words from which we get our concept of ordination. Until around 1300 AD Junia was unquestioned female. It was Catholic Priests who did not like the idea of a female apostle who around 1300 AD invented arguments to try to make her a male.

 

9.) The verses that we use against women's ordination were written to specific churches with specific problems. They make sense in their context. It is not that Paul was against women being ordained or that Paul was a victim of his culture etc. Paul (as indicated in Acts and Romans) supported women's ordination. But had some problems that he was addressing in Corinth and Ephesus that history has saved for us to know what he was talking about. To rip those texts out of the context and apply it to women' ordination is being unfair to the Bible. Also, those who oppose women's ordination are doing a tap-dance over the words. They say that the words don't mean what they actually say. They say that women are allowed to do everything those verses command them not to do just as long as we don't ordain them.

 

10.) In the first decade of the 1900s the New York Conference and Atlantic Union wanted to start ordaining women. A. G. Daniels was on a visit at the time. He agreed with them that they should start ordaining women. However he asked them to hold off for just a little bit. He pointed out to the leaders that there were uneducated people in the church who thought that women should not be ordained The church leadership did not want to hurt their faith but wanted to educate the church first. Since here there were women ready for ordination he was going to ask Mrs. White to write some articles about women in ministry that was to try to educate those uneducated members so that the church could ordain women. Mrs. White here had the chance to nip the problem in the bud. She was not afraid to tell us when we were doing something wrong. Here was her chance to correct Elder Daniels, the NY Conference and Atlantic Union and lay the issue to rest once and for all. Instead she wrote those articles that Elder Daniels promised NY and the Atlantic Union that she would write. The opponents of women's ordination need to act like lawyers looking for loopholes in these writings and explain them away as dealing with lay ministries and not ordained. However Mrs. White wrote them in a historical contexts of wanting to prepare the church to start to ordain women.

 

11.) Dr. Brian Strayer a church historian at Andrews has found other documents of our pioneers supporting women's ordination. The evidence looks like they felt like what Elder Daniels expressed to New York and the Atlantic Union that they felt that women's ordination was Biblical but that there were uneducated people who did not think it was and that they needed to work with these people to educate them. That they did not want to offend weaker breathern. Now people want to turn this kindness into enforcing the ignorance.

[DeborahR]

If I might ask...where are the footnotes to verify the historical claims.

1.  the blue tassels worn by women

2.  many words are masculine or feminine....Question....A male would be "priest."...a female would be "priestess" ......where in scripture did God call women to be "priestess'?"  The pagans employed "priestess"

3.  The men in scripture that went to visit the temples were attending to visit the "priestesses" that were serving...these were pagan activities

4.  where was the debate about the women being ordained

5.  where is verification that sitting at Jesus feet meant "ordination?"

6.  women ordained by Jesus?

7.  Elder Priscilla? I would like to see the text please

8. many women have ministries....does that mean they are given headship positions? Where can that be verifies in scripture?

9.  where have women had to kill the sacrifice? or to represent her husband at the Temple without her husband?

10. there were 31 "licensed" female pastors in Mrs. White's day....they were not "ordained"...neither was Mrs. White.  All the documentation can be gotten from the White Estates.....where is the verification of such a conversation between Mrs. White and A.G. Daniels? Would not Mrs. White forged ahead with female ordination had the Lord told her to?  

 

Is God not powerful enough to be clear (ordaining of women) and to do away with the "headship principle" without all this argument? 

 

I could go on and ask many more questions....however, I am looking for footnotes and references here to the claims that have been made...if you don't mind.....I would like to see your references....

 

Thank You

Deborah

[Kevin H]

Some of these were pointed out in classes at Atlantic Union College and Andrews University. But an excellent resource is a 5 sermon series on "Attitudes towards Women in the Bible" Sadly they are not currently selling the recordings of the lectures but you can buy the notebook. Also the notebook has a fantastic bibliography where you can really become proficient.  http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58

 

Also, the heathens had male priest to use in the same way, because the heathens used them that way. Heathen priesthood was very sexual for both men and women. why didn't God just not have any priests at all?

 

Verification of the sitting at the feet of the Rabbi as ordination comes from Jewish history.

 

We have records of the conversation between Elder Daniels and the leaders of the Atlantic Union. It was pointed out at the New York Conference campmeeting 2 summers ago. I don't know if we have on record what Elder Daniels said to Mrs. White. But we do find that she did write the types of articles that Elder Daniels promised the leadership of New York and the Atlantic Union. Why did God have to add to the confusion by allowing Mrs. White to write these articles within this historical context. Would it have not been better for her to tell Elder Daniels and the leadership of the New York Conference and Atlantic Union that they were wrong and to nip this in the bud. Mrs. White had corrected people including Elder Daniels on other issues. So why did she go along with his promise if they were wrong?

 

One of the characteristics of God is to lead us without forcing the will. Letting us try and fail and get up and walk again. To continue to study and grow. To be unassuming. To not have flesh and blood tell us but to have the Holy Spirit tell us. Daniel's reason for New York and the Atlantic Union to wait; that there were people who would not understand and he did not want to hurt them until they could be educated. God frequently works with argument. He wants us to be careful of our attitudes in discussing the different sides of the argument, and he wants us to dig deeper into the Bible to come closer to the Bible.

 

Also, sadly, in that time of history Mrs. White was getting older, and there were a number of people in the church saying that she had apostatized, that we need to read her earlier writings which came from God not her current writings which came from Willie, Daniels, Prescott or others. And she did loose a number of battles in the last decade of her life. 

[jsm]

It’s sad the diversions people will use in attempts to offset clear biblical instructions. “God is no respecter of persons,” (Acts 10:34), and He gives abilities and responsibilities to all; but we must follow the direct words given by Him in the Bible on how and by whom they are to be used.

“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.” “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him.” 1 Cor 12:4-6, 18.  

 

Miriam was a prophetess and led the women in singing (Exodus 15:20-21); but when she and Aaron later wanted to share the leadership position God gave to Moses, God was angry with both of them, but only caused Miriam to become a leper (Numbers 12:1-10). Obviously God considered her demand to be a greater wrong. 

 

Kevin wrote: “The verses that we use against women's ordination were written to specific churches with specific problems.” But that is not an accurate statement.

Paul left Titus in Crete to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in EVERY city” as he had appointed. And they were obviously to be men—“the husband of one wife.” Titus 1:4-6. 

 

I have concerns about The Adventist World March 2015 article titled “Ministry Is Ministry Changing views about women pastors” and I will give just one example:

Richard Davidson, professor of Old Testament interpretation, is said to state that the Hebrew word “Adam” doesn't mean male: it means human; and he used that to justify use of both genders as pastors. 

The word “Adam” first appears 6 times in Genesis 2:18-24 where God clearly calls “Adam” a man. If “Adam” just means human, then can an “Eve” be married to any human? “And Adam (any human?) called his (or 'her'?) wife's name Eve.” Genesis 3:20.

 

Jesus said, "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven." Luke 11:2. Why not just 'Supreme Being' of either gender? And why did Jesus come as a man instead of a human with neither gender? He is our heavenly High Priest (Hebrews 3:1). 

 

We are told to follow the heavenly pattern: "In the beginning, the head of each family was considered ruler and priest of his own household. Afterward, as the race multiplied upon the earth, men of divine appointment performed this solemn worship of sacrifice for the people." 1SP 53-54.

"In God’s sight, a man is just what he is in his family. The life of Abraham, the friend of God, was signalized by a strict regard for the word of the Lord. He cultivated home religion. The fear of God pervaded his household. He was the priest of his home. He looked upon his family as a sacred trust. His household numbered more than a thousand souls, and he directed them all, parents and children, to the divine Sovereign." OFC 173. 

 

Keep in mind that there will be changes in heaven: "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Mark 12:25.  

 

May God help us to follow His plan instead of our own based on personal interests and social norms.

 

jsm

[Johann]

- - -

 

Keep in mind that there will be changes in heaven: "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Mark 12:25.  

 

May God help us to follow His plan instead of our own based on personal interests and social norms.

 

jsm

 

We are make our life here on earth a foretate of heaven. Since gender will not separate us in haven why should we place such retrictions on the usefulness of one gender here on earth?

[JimTN]

Johann -- Because there will be a **HUGE** difference between us living here on Earth and us living there in Heaven! Until mankind is translated into perfect bodies, we are still in this world and we all should abide by GOD's commands that the man is to be the spiritual head of his family.

[jsm]

We must be careful not to wrongly apply statements inspired by God. "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 

 

EGW applied the phrase "foretaste of heaven" to character building, and not to the elimination of gender differences.  

 

"That which our people must have interwoven with their life and character is the unfolding of the plan of redemption and more elevated conceptions of God and His holiness, brought into the life. The washing of the robes of character in the blood of the Lamb is a work that we must attend to earnestly while every defect of character is to be put away. Thus are we working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The Lord is working in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. (Phil. 2:12-13). We need Jesus abiding in the heart, a constant living wellspring; then the streams flowing from the living fountain will be pure, sweet, and heavenly. Then the foretaste of heaven will be given to the humble in heart." CW 81. .

[Gail]

Re: Adam

The translators' notes in the NET mention that the Hebrew "adam" does mean "humankind" until Gen. 2:20 where it appears without the article, suggesting that it may now at this point be his actual name:

"Translations of the Bible differ as to when they make the change from 'man' to 'Adam' (e.g., NASB and NIV translate 'Adam' here, while NEB and NRSV continue to use 'the man'; the KJV uses 'Adam' twice in v.19)."

[Ron Lambert]

Everyone sincerely interested in knowing the truth of these matters, especially in regards to denominational history and the position of Ellen G. White, needs to read Appendix C of Daughters of God. You will see listed there over two dozen women who were issued licenses to preach duriong Sister White's lifetime. Ellen G. White herself participated personally in ordaining women as deacons. In 1895, Sister White wrote: "Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. THEY SHOULD BE SET APART TO THIS WORK BY PRAYER AND LAYING ON OF HANDS. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church."--RH, July 9, 1895; DG 249.2 (emphasis supplied)

 

Question: If women can be ordained by the laying on of hands for the job of deacon (there was no separate word for deaconess in the New Testament), why can't they be ordained for any other office to which Christ calls them?

 

Question: If women can be given licenses to preach, why can't they be ordained? Ordination is not magic. Ordination does not convey any super-authority or divine power. Here is what Sister White said about the ordination of Paul and Barnabus: "Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and THE CEREMONY OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS ADDED NO NEW GRACE OR VIRTUAL QUALIFICATION. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God." Acts of the Apostles, p. 161 (emphasis supplied)

 

The reluctance some feel about ordaining women may come from the way the Roman Catholic Church has perverted the meaning of ordination. According to Roman Catholic theology, ordination confers upon the priest a sort of semi-divine status and power, where now he has the ability to "create the Creator" in the Eucharist, by turning the wine and wafers into the literal blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. Many Protestants, and even some SDAs, retain some of this mystical misunderstanding of the nature of ordination.

 

The time has come and is way overdue for a needful reform in the treatment of women in our church. The real submission that we need to be concerned about is submission to the headship of Christ. Acts 5:32 tells us that the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God. Anyone who defies God's authority to call anyone He will to any office He chooses, and refuses to acknowledge this by ordaining anyone God calls, even if a woman, will pray in vain for the Holy Spirit. He cannot receive the Latter Rain, and is disqualified from having any part in the finishing of the work.

[Ron Lambert]

JSM, you said: "Kevin wrote: 'The verses that we use against women's ordination were written to specific churches with specific problems.' But that is not an accurate statement."

 

It IS an accurate statement. Sound, responsible Bible scholarship requires that we take everything in context--including cultural context. All the Bible verses sometimes cited in an effort to oppose women's ordination, depend upon a superficial interpretation, that neglects such things as the common practice of most human languages of using the masculine to refer to both genders. Such as James 1:5-8; NKJV: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Notice that here it uses masculine pronouns--"him" and "he." It even says "that man." But no one would deny that this statement is equally true for women.

 

And look at the way cultural context makes all the difference in rightly interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12-15. If you insist on a superficial, overly literal interpretation of what Paul says here, you have the Apostle of Justification by Faith stating blatant heresy when he says "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing...." Women are saved by the blood of Christ, the same as men. Obviously this is a poor translation. The correct sense of the Greek is that "women shall be kept safe in childbirth."

 

This was a large concern back when one woman in five died in childbirth. This meaning is indicated in the margin for The English Version Good News translation: “But a woman will be saved through having children, {will be saved through having children; [or] will be kept safe through childbirth.} if she perseveres {if she perseveres; [or] if they persevere.} in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” As scholars have noted, this was the very promise that the false goddess, Artemis (or Diana to the Romans) made to women in the cult of Artemis, which is what Paul and Timothy were principally dealing with in Ephesus. Paul was saying put your trust in the Lord, not in Artemis. It is the Lord who has the power to keep you safe during childbirth.

 

Likewise the previous verses can be translated with better accuracy, when we keep in mind that Paul was counselling Timothy on how to deal with the Artemis Cult in Ephesus, which taught a number of errors, such as that Eve was created first, and that because Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, that conferred upon all women a secret wisdom.

 

Also it must be remembered that even in Judaism, women were not taught to read, and Gentile women in Ephesus were not educated, except in the myths of the Artemis cult. So of course Paul would not want any of those who were uneducated in the Scriptures to teach. 1 Tim. 2:11 says, in the KJV: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” But again, this is not a good translation, and does not convey properly the imperative sense of the sentence. The Living Bible does it a little better. It says: “Women should listen and learn quietly and humbly.” The actual sense of the original Greek is, “Let the woman learn (or be taught).” Then of course women can teach others, once they have been educated in God’s Word themselves. This was really a very radical thing in Paul’s time. He was in effect saying “Women should be taught.” Even today, the Taliban sect of Islam forbids the education of women. The true religion of God and His Word must lead us away from such wrong customs.

 

Many people get hung up with 1 Tim. 2:12. This also is poorly translated in most modern versions where they say Paul did not allow a woman to “have authority” over a man. That is not what the original Greek means. Originally, Paul was referring to the cult of Artemis, in which women dominate over men through their supposed secret knowledge that comes from Eve eating of the Tree of Knowledge, and also by giving sexual favors to those who submit to the control of the women. Paul was countering this by saying he did not allow women "to domineer over men." This is in fact, the way the old Vulgate translation rendered this. It is only the modern translations that make it sound like Paul did not allow women ever to exercise any authority at all over men. Even the KJV made it a little clearer by saying “usurp authority” over a man. The Living Bible captures the sense a little better, when it says: “I never let women teach men or lord it over them.”

 

The fact that this is contrary to the real thinking of Paul should be evident from the way that Romans 16:1, 2 clearly contradicts this, where Paul commends to the Roman Christians the woman Phoebe, who he calles a diakonen in the original Greek (the word from which we get the English word deacon) in verse 1, and calls a prostatis in verse 2--which means a woman set in authority over others, according to Thayer's Bible Dictrionary (the standard reference which most translators go by).

 

If you want to be faithful to what the Bible truly teaches, then be an honest and responsible student, and take everything in context that should properly be considered in context. Do not just blindly, stubbornly hold on to a superficial, overly literal interpretation--or you will be like Martin Luther, who caused unnecessary division in the Protestant Reformation by his blind adherence to a superficial, literal intepretation of Jesus' words, "This is my blood." The other reformers such as Ulrich Zwingle of Switzerland were very frustrated in trying to deal with his intransigence on this issue.

[Ron Lambert]

Jim, I would have to observe that the one who is truly spiritual should be the spiritual head of the family. Men are not automatically more spiritual, or qualified to be the head of the family. The submission we should all really be concerned with is submission to the Headship of Christ.

[JimTN]

Ron, in the case of a family having a good Christian woman as the wife of an alcoholic non-believing husband, the wife indeed will become the spiritual head of that family and will do her best to teach the children to respect GOD -- but her witness to her husband will best be showing him patience and love, NOT pretending that she is now his pastor! There are many, many different ways for people to "preach the Gospel"....

Regarding Sister White and the other women who were given licenses to preach, I heard somewhere that this was done for another reason possibly for making it easier for Sister White to be able to travel?... (Does anyone have any information about this?)

The bottom line to this entire subject for me is that if GOD wanted this denomination to have lots of women ordained as pastors, He would've made sure that this happened before Sister White passed away -- and it didn't happen -- so I really don't see it as being "necessary" down here at the End of Time to enable SDAs to receive the Later Rain.

[stinsonmarri]

1.) Because Numbers 15:38 tells all the children of Israel to wear tassels with blue threads. Archaeology has discovered that in the ancient world this was a symbol of being an ordained priest.

 

2.) There are Psalms written in the feminine indicating that they were to have been lead by a female priest.

 

3.) About 200 years before Jesus there was a push in Judaism to STOP having female priests and Rabbis. And that only Men should wear the tassel with the blue thread, thus the traditions of may were changing the law of God.

 

4.) The topic of women's ordination was a debated topic in Jesus' day. Despite 200 years of trying to get rid of them there were still some women Rabbis with in Judaism.

 

5.) The culture of Jesus' day was that when a Rabbi sat to teach, his (and some cases her) ORDAINED disciples sat at his (and in some cases her) feet. About 12 who were the same sex as the Rabbi due to the 24 hour access and privileged to late night talks as they were going to sleep, then about 70. Among the conservative Rabbis in Jesus day the 70 tended to have both men and women. Among the liberal Rabbis of Jesus' day the 70 would be all men. The lay members would stand. Again if it was a conservative Rabbi it would be both men and women standing. If it was a liberal Rabbi the lay men would stand. The women had to do hospitality tasks. We find in the Bible that Martha was doing what the liberal Rabbis said a woman should do and Protested that Mary was in the position not of a layman but as an ordained Rabbinical Student. She SAT at Jesus' feet. A sign of being ordained. Jesus could have easily have said "Mary, while you don't need to do these hospitality tasks, women really should not be ordained. You are welcome to stand with the Laymen." Instead Jesus allowed her to be in the position of ordination and said that she choose good and it would not be taken away from her. Why should we say that Jesus is wrong and say that the Rabbis who opposed women's ordination was right?

 

6.) Besides Mary there is evidence that Jesus ordained other women among the 70. On the road to Emmaus Jesus met two disciples. One is named, indicating that it was a husband and wife. Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas. The fact that they were both disciples indicated that they were both ordained. In John 19:25 we read about Mary the wife of Clopas being at the cross. This was probably the same name as Cleopas, so the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus were Cleopas and Mary, both ordained disciples. Not one disciple and his wife.

 

7.) In teams in both the culture at the time and in the Bible the leader's name would be mentioned first. If you were to read in your Bible about Aquilla and Priscilla; in all but one place when talking about them as man and wife it is Aquilla and Priscilla. However when talking about them as a ministerial team it is ALWAYS Priscilla and Aquilla. Thus the Bible says that Elder Priscilla was the head pastor with her husband Aquilla being her assistant.

 

8.) The letter to the Romans: Paul had not yet been to Rome. Yet he was aware of a number of women, not because he enjoyed their contribution to the pot luck after church, but because of their ministry. The terms applied to Phoebe are the words from which we get our concept of ordination. Until around 1300 AD Junia was unquestioned female. It was Catholic Priests who did not like the idea of a female apostle who around 1300 AD invented arguments to try to make her a male.

 

9.) The verses that we use against women's ordination were written to specific churches with specific problems. They make sense in their context. It is not that Paul was against women being ordained or that Paul was a victim of his culture etc. Paul (as indicated in Acts and Romans) supported women's ordination. But had some problems that he was addressing in Corinth and Ephesus that history has saved for us to know what he was talking about. To rip those texts out of the context and apply it to women' ordination is being unfair to the Bible. Also, those who oppose women's ordination are doing a tap-dance over the words. They say that the words don't mean what they actually say. They say that women are allowed to do everything those verses command them not to do just as long as we don't ordain them.

 

10.) In the first decade of the 1900s the New York Conference and Atlantic Union wanted to start ordaining women. A. G. Daniels was on a visit at the time. He agreed with them that they should start ordaining women. However he asked them to hold off for just a little bit. He pointed out to the leaders that there were uneducated people in the church who thought that women should not be ordained The church leadership did not want to hurt their faith but wanted to educate the church first. Since here there were women ready for ordination he was going to ask Mrs. White to write some articles about women in ministry that was to try to educate those uneducated members so that the church could ordain women. Mrs. White here had the chance to nip the problem in the bud. She was not afraid to tell us when we were doing something wrong. Here was her chance to correct Elder Daniels, the NY Conference and Atlantic Union and lay the issue to rest once and for all. Instead she wrote those articles that Elder Daniels promised NY and the Atlantic Union that she would write. The opponents of women's ordination need to act like lawyers looking for loopholes in these writings and explain them away as dealing with lay ministries and not ordained. However Mrs. White wrote them in a historical contexts of wanting to prepare the church to start to ordain women.

 

11.) Dr. Brian Strayer a church historian at Andrews has found other documents of our pioneers supporting women's ordination. The evidence looks like they felt like what Elder Daniels expressed to New York and the Atlantic Union that they felt that women's ordination was Biblical but that there were uneducated people who did not think it was and that they needed to work with these people to educate them. That they did not want to offend weaker breathern. Now people want to turn this kindness into enforcing the ignorance.

 I love this, thanks I knew some but not all. It makes sense because all of these women were mention by name and did great things and they were recorded.

 

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

[stinsonmarri]

It’s sad the diversions people will use in attempts to offset clear biblical instructions. “God is no respecter of persons,” (Acts 10:34), and He gives abilities and responsibilities to all; but we must follow the direct words given by Him in the Bible on how and by whom they are to be used.

“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.” “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him.” 1 Cor 12:4-6, 18.  

 

Miriam was a prophetess and led the women in singing (Exodus 15:20-21); but when she and Aaron later wanted to share the leadership position God gave to Moses, God was angry with both of them, but only caused Miriam to become a leper (Numbers 12:1-10). Obviously God considered her demand to be a greater wrong. 

 

Kevin wrote: “The verses that we use against women's ordination were written to specific churches with specific problems.” But that is not an accurate statement.

Paul left Titus in Crete to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in EVERY city” as he had appointed. And they were obviously to be men—“the husband of one wife.” Titus 1:4-6. 

 

I have concerns about The Adventist World March 2015 article titled “Ministry Is Ministry Changing views about women pastors” and I will give just one example:

Richard Davidson, professor of Old Testament interpretation, is said to state that the Hebrew word “Adam” doesn't mean male: it means human; and he used that to justify use of both genders as pastors. 

The word “Adam” first appears 6 times in Genesis 2:18-24 where God clearly calls “Adam” a man. If “Adam” just means human, then can an “Eve” be married to any human? “And Adam (any human?) called his (or 'her'?) wife's name Eve.” Genesis 3:20.

 

Jesus said, "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven." Luke 11:2. Why not just 'Supreme Being' of either gender? And why did Jesus come as a man instead of a human with neither gender? He is our heavenly High Priest (Hebrews 3:1). 

 

We are told to follow the heavenly pattern: "In the beginning, the head of each family was considered ruler and priest of his own household. Afterward, as the race multiplied upon the earth, men of divine appointment performed this solemn worship of sacrifice for the people." 1SP 53-54.

"In God’s sight, a man is just what he is in his family. The life of Abraham, the friend of God, was signalized by a strict regard for the word of the Lord. He cultivated home religion. The fear of God pervaded his household. He was the priest of his home. He looked upon his family as a sacred trust. His household numbered more than a thousand souls, and he directed them all, parents and children, to the divine Sovereign." OFC 173. 

 

Keep in mind that there will be changes in heaven: "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Mark 12:25.  

 

May God help us to follow His plan instead of our own based on personal interests and social norms.

 

jsm

YAHWEH selected Moses do lead the Children of Israel, but I have not read that Miriam wanted take Moses position. Both Aaron and Miriam complained, Miriam started it and she felt the wrath of ELOHIM. When you are giving facts they must be correct. Miriam was already ordain as a prophet and she too was a leader with both Aaron and Moses. The other point is Adam which does mean both men and women and it is right in the Bible.

 

Adam: ruddy, that is, a human being. Strong Hebrew Dictionary

 

 

And ELOHIM said, let US make man in OUR IMAGE, according to OUR LIKENESS; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And ELOHIM created the man in THEIR OWN IMAGE; in THE IMAGE of ELOHIM THEY created them. THEY created them male and female.  And ELOHIM blessed them; and ELOHIM said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the seas, and over birds of the heavens, and over all beasts creeping on the earth. Gen 1:26-28 

 

After sin, the male man took on the human name of Adam and the female was given the name Eve. Gen 4:1 Before this Eve was woman which mean she came from his rib. I urge you to learn what words mean and realize that words were also changed in the Bible, EGW stated this very clearly from ELOHIM! EW p. 220 

The Hebrew word ’ishshah, “woman,” is formed of the word ’ish, “man,” with the feminine ending. The English word “woman” (Anglo-Saxon, wife-man) is similarly related to the word “man.” The same is true in various other languages.  The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 1 p. 227

 

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

[Gail]

Perhaps Miriam got into trouble for speaking out so against the Lord's anointed, something David refused to do to Saul even though Saul merited the criticism more than Moses.

[jsm]

"Adam" consistently refers to a man (and not just "a person") in this LITERAL translation:  

 

Genesis 2:18-24Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

18 And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'

19 And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.

20 And the man calleth names to all the cattle, and to fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; and to man hath not been found an helper -- as his counterpart.

21 And Jehovah God causeth a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he sleepeth, and He taketh one of his ribs, and closeth up flesh in its stead.

22 And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man;

23 and the man saith, `This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken;

24 therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.

And this in the NT

 

1 Timothy 2:13-14Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

13 for Adam was first formed, then Eve,

14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman...

[Johann]

Bereshis 2:18-24 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

¹⁸ And Hashem Elohim said, It is not tov that the adam should be alone; I will make him an ezer (a helper) suitable for him.

¹⁹ And out of the adamah Hashem Elohim formed every beast of the sadeh, and every oph HaShomayim; and brought them unto the adam to see what he would name them; and whatsoever the adam named kol nefesh chayyah, that was shmo.

²⁰ And the adam gave shemot to all behemah, and to the oph HaShomayim, and to every beast of the sadeh; but for Adam there was not found an ezer for him.

²¹ And Hashem Elohim caused a tardemah (deep sleep) to fall upon the adam, and he slept; and He took from one of his tzalelot (sides, ribs), and closed up the basar in the place thereof;

²² And the tzela (rib), which Hashem Elohim had taken from the adam, made He an isha, and brought her unto the adam.

²³ And the adam said, This is now etzem of my etzem, and basar of my basar; she shall be called Isha, because she was taken out of Ish.

²⁴ Therefore shall an ish leave his av and his em, and shall cleave unto his isha: and they shall be basar echad.

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2008, 2010, 2011 by Artists for Israel International

 

 

[Ron Lambert]

Ellen G. White makes an important issue out of the fact that Eve was made of a bone taken from Adam's side, rather than from his head or foot:

 

“Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him.” Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 47

 

This is God's original ideal. It is sin that has introduced domination/submission into the relationship. We should seek to reform as far as possible all the consequences of sin. In the same statement where God predicted that the woman would submit to the man, God also said that the pain and sorrow of childbirth would be multiplied for the woman. But we today do not count it as defying God's will to administer anesthetic when needed to ease the pain of childbirth. It is good to seek to ameliorate all the effects of sin, as far as possible.

[stinsonmarri]

Perhaps Miriam got into trouble for speaking out so against the Lord's anointed, something David refused to do to Saul even though Saul merited the criticism more than Moses.

She was anointed as well, but Moses wife was she spoke out against. She was a racist and that was not going to happen in ELOHIM'S camp.

 

Blessings!

[jsm]

It is not spiritually safe to use scattered indirect references in an effort to avoid clear and direct biblical teachings.   

 

"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife." 1 Timothy 3:1-2.    

 

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God." Titus 1:5-7. 

 

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for OUR learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15:4.   

 

"There is a decided work to be done in our churches. Those chosen as elders of the churches are to be men of experience, who have a knowledge of the truth and are sound in the faith.... The qualifications of an elder are plainly stated by the apostle Paul: 'If any be blameless, the husband of one wife....'" 5MR 449.   

[Tom Wetmore]

The supposed "husband of one wife" qualification of the bishops and elders was also stated with regard to deacons, diakonos, by Paul. Yet Paul, in Romans 16 also called Phoebe a "diakonos" of the church at Cenchrea. If it was a designation that created a male only role/office in the church Paul is speaking inconsistently with himself. A better interpretive perspective is to take a close look at the phrase in question in the original Greek. A literal translation is "one woman man". A very similar phrase is used by Paul in describing the necessary qualification for the older widows that were to teach and serve in the church, that they should have been a "one man woman". This appears to bea Greek idiomatic phrase that simply means monogamous. (Word origin of "monogamous" is quite similar). With that understanding Paul is not speaking inconsistently about Phoebe or the widows to say they as well as others leading and serving the church should be faithful in all things, including their marriage.

I would urge you to read the article reference in the thread about Phoebe.

[Gregory Matthews]

JimTN said in post # !2:

 

The bottom line to this entire subject for me is that if GOD wanted this denomination to have lots of women ordained as pastors, He would've made sure that this happened before Sister White passed away -- and it didn't happen -- so I really don't see it as being "necessary" down here at the End of Time to enable SDAs to receive the Later Rain.

 

Well you are partially correct.  During the life of Ellen White there were many licensed females doing exactly the same work as the licensed males--going from place to place and raising up new congregations of Adventists.

 

God is demonstrating today in China that he is suing females as congregational pastors, evangelists and supervisors over congregations and males.  They are ordained.

 

The fundamental Biblical issue is NOT ordination, it is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture to include the congregational level.  Ordination only is a public statement that the organization recognizes that God has called a person to ministry.  It is nothing more in SDA theology.  We already give women that role.  So, why do we limit God by saying that we will only acknowledge that God has called males.

[jsm]

We use Phoebe, a "diakonos" of the church, to reasonably justify female deaconesses; but it seems too much of a stretch to use that as a justification for having women serve as either deacons or elders when we have clear statements that only men are to serve in those positions. 1 Timothy 3:1-12. 

 

As shown in my last post, Ellen White clearly said an elder is to be a man, and uses Paul’s “husband of one wife” phrase in support of that. Is her clear inspiration to be cast aside? 

 

Consider the following from the Apologetics Press on the importance of the phrase, "the “husband of one wife,” and note that it is always a man based on any understanding of the Greek.   

 

What does the statement that a bishop/elder/pastor must be the “husband of one wife” mean? In Greek, the phrase is mias gunaikos andra. Vincent, in his word study, translates it as “the husband of one wife” (1886, 4:228). R.H. Lenski translates the phrase as “one wife’s husband” (1998, pp. 579-580). William D. Mounce renders the words “‘one-woman’ man” (2000, 46:156). And C. Michael Moss translates it as the “‘husband of but one wife’ (literally ‘one woman’s man’)” (1994, pp. 69-70). What we see, then, is that the original language does not elucidate the phrase as much as we might like. In essence, it leaves us with the same ambiguities as the simple English renderings of the term. Thus, in order to gain a firmer grasp on the concept, we must think through the available options.

 

The ambiguities relate to the “one wife” portion of the phrase; but all agree that the elder must be a man, and reach the following conclusion:

Paul states that an elder must be “the husband of one wife.” There are some aspects of this statement that are clearer than others. It can be determined that the phrase necessarily means that only men are to be considered for the office. The exclusion of women from the office of elder does not imply that men are of more value, or that women are less capable. It simply accords with the biblical teaching that men and women have different roles, not different status as Christians.

[jsm]

The difficult conditions in China should not be used as a general justification for ordaining women as elders; and note below—from Adventist Today—that government restrictions make it impossible for them to be a part of the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Bible is our guide book, and not the Chinese as they courageously adjust to very difficult restrictions.

Seventh-day Adventist Believers in China Today

In short, there are 416,939 Adventist believers spread throughout 4571 congregations. But, technically, there is no Seventh-day Adventist Church. Protestantism in China is post-denominational. What does that mean?

In the Constitution of China freedom of religious belief is a basic right enjoyed by all citizens. Although the “guarantee” and the “practice of organized religion” seemed out of synch with each other for many years, yet after the "opening up" of the 1980s, many freedoms were expanded.  The government of China has various organizations to monitor, and to some extent control…. 

Chinese Union Mission has coined the term, “unorganized territories” to refer to China because the church in China operates without any interference or control from the organized world church.…  The 4571 Adventist congregations are “congregational” meaning that they take care of their own local needs.  This reflects the overall culture of China, which shies from organizing large coordinated groups…..

Chinese Adventism has splintered into group rivalries.  There are the Traditional Adventists, the Old Adventists, the Wilderness Adventists, the New Adventists, the New New Adventists, and an extreme group called The Light of Life.  Chinese Union Mission deals with all groups except the latter one. 

Summary: China is definitely the unorganized territory.  Even though the world church cannot be directly involved and has no authority in China, and even though the state of Chinese Adventism is very complicated, yet God leads on. 

[Tom Wetmore]

Diakonos is most frequently translated in the NT as "minister", particularly in reference to men. Yes, it is the Greek word that is transliterated into English as "deacon". ("Deaconess", or a Greek feminine equivalent, is not used in the NT, but is a modern invention.) But it has been historically a ministerial or clergy position, and still is in some denominations.

Before you discuss this further please read the article from Ministry Magazine regarding Phoebe - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader Phoebe has been discussed at length here in other topics. There is much about Phoebe in those two verses in Romans 16 that affirm women in ministry and leadership. Lest anyone is tempted to dismiss the scholarship of the article as some modern notion, understand that this understanding of the original Greek was understood by the founders of Adventism. An article about Phoebe as a minister and NT church leader was published in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald in the mid 1800's. Uriah Smith, the editor at that time introduced it as affirmation for the women in ministry in the early Adventism.

Please take the time to look through the many topics here with ample resources noted and linked.