The Authority of the General Conference in Session

[CoAspen]

TW=Don Quixote

 

[Naomi]

​Yes, according to the Bible. Not evil intentions, but misplaced intentions. There are always exceptions, but a generalization-Yes, it is immodest and ungodly because it i in opposition to the plain meaning and wisdom of scripture.

​Supporting scriptures .... please

[brotherly love]

​Supporting scriptures .... please

​Titus 1:5-9

⁵ The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint^[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. ⁶ An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe^[b] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. ⁷ Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. ⁸ Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. ⁹ He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Notice that the message of the church is related to a household. The context is clearly specifying a man. This is main and plain. If someone is going to obscure this clear passage, then in what other area do they do the same

Edited June 5, 2015 by brotherly love

[Pickle]

 

However, around the time of his writing of the book, archaeologists, linguists and historians were learning more about the Biblical passages. Scholars were beginning to realize that we were interpreting Paul via the church-synagogue split of around 135 AD, St. Augustine and the reformers, especially Luther. While we have been reading Paul's words, they have been filtered through all those other ideas (the Desmond Ford issue was because of this.) And scholars have been trying to re-read Paul without those filters and starting to read him in his culture and time in history. They came to the conclusion that church tradition has been wrong on Paul's view towards the law and towards women. They are coming to see Paul as a faithful Jew and faithful Sabbathkeeper and eating kosher, but also supporting women's leadership. There were discoveries that showed that the texts used against women's ordination were addressing specific problems that we find in the specific churches that Paul wrote them to. That these verses were not his attitude towards women or women's leadership, but that they were dealing with specific problems and that we are wrong when we try to read more into his words than what he was dealing with. And that there were other texts that shows a different attitude towards women and women leaders. We have been taking the texts about specific problems and setting them as the standard and we read over his practices that contradict those verses and make them submissive to our proof texts. But now realizing that these proof texts were not saying what we thought they were saying, then these other verses thus become the proof texts of Paul's view of women and leadership and they are pro-women leadership.

I would like to hear more about these discoveries, particularly ones that document specific problems. One thing I have difficulty swallowing is that Paul would use creation-based arguments in dealing with such problems if the solution he was advocating was not still applicable today.

[Pickle]

Did you even read what I posted and actually spend any time studying carefully what both verses in total says about Phoebe!?!?! You missed the point entirely.

It is really quite simple if you read carefully, understanding the meaning of the original Greek.  The language of introduction and commendation of Phoebe to the believers, the instruction to them to do whatever she asked of them and the two key terms Paul, chose to identify her roles speak volumes of what is happening.  Tradition also holds that Paul,entrusted the letter to Phoebe to deliver to them.  That was not a simple letter carrier delivery like a mail carrier.  The person delivering a letter of this sort in those days was to read it to them (many likely illiterate and there was only one copy) and to teach and explain it to them.

As for the husband of one woman idiom ( literally "one woman man") the point is that Paul calls Phoebe a diakonos of a church. In another letter Paul includes that phrase to describe qualification for being a diakonos of the church.  If it is a man only qualification, how can Paul say here that Phoebe, a woman is a diakonos of the church? It is because it is not a phrase that is gender specific only to men but is a Greek idiom that simply means monogamy which covers both the man and woman.  The number "one" applies to both the man and the woman, just one of each.

Read this - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader 

​Tom,

I do not see where you cited anything in Rom. 16 or elsewhere that establishes that Paul was commissioning Phoebe to lead the believers in Rome. That's how you put it. I took your words to mean that Paul was commissioning Phoebe to pastor the church at Rome, and I don't see anything in Rom. 16 that we can use to make that conclusion.

The Ministry article is interesting, but it fails to discuss whether or not Phoebe could have been a defender of "the underprivileged in court." Why couldn't prostatis refer to a civil function? But assume for a moment that she wasn't a civil official. The idea that she was a prostatis of many and of Paul would suggest that she would have been the one who would have been commissioning Paul, not vice versa, if Paul's use of the word denotes some sort of leadership position. I think, therefore, that it would make more sense to say that Paul at Corinth was helped out in legal matters by Phoebe, if the word denotes a position.

And that brings up another question as to why Paul would tell the women in Corinth what he did if Greek culture at the time permitted women to fill positions of leadership in civil society. Paul arrived in Corinth in Acts 18:1, and Acts 17:4, 12 mention "chief women" and "honorable women." Women thus had some sort of positions of influence in that culture at that time.

I take it from your discussion of "one woman man" that you acknowledge that we have no other biblical examples of aner referring to a woman and gune referring to a man. Do you have any evidence that it is an idiom? We have "one woman man" twice, and "one woman men" once. Is this phrase ever used in classical Greek to refer to a woman who only has one husband?

NPU Gleaner 12-4-07 says that Phoebe was one of several "women who were laborers with [Paul] in the gospel." 6T 344 gives us the following detail: "Phebe entertained the apostle, and she was in a marked manner an entertainer of strangers who needed care. Her example should be followed by the churches of today." Sounds like an important work.

[Tom Wetmore]

Bob, your spin is far more conjecture and speculation that you seem to be accusing me of.  I am not making this up.  You do seem to be  just making things up to avoid accepting the truth of what is being conveyed in these two verses. I am relying on the serious research and study  of real Greek scholars.  The word "prostatis" is used only once in the NT. however it is a common term in its verb form and masculine form in the NT and throughout the Septuagint. And its meaning in other Greek literature of that period is undisputed as referring to someone in a leadership position - rulers governors, civic and governmental officials.  The verb form consistently is used  to describe the action of governance, leadership, ruling over others. The role you describe is really not inconsistent with that. The role of an advocate, a lawyer or judge acting to render justice for ordinary people or those with no standing.  

You also seem to be avoiding the full context of those two verses. Read carefully. The high praise and affirmation Paul gives regarding Phoebe is like no other person mentioned in the whole chapter. He introduces her to the believers with accolades and commendations of her standing and qualifications for the role.  And he specifications instructs them to heed her direction as one would do in introducing a new leader.  One does not have read anything into those two verses to get that.  The build up and instruction to the believers is inconsistent with the notion that she was merely just a nice helpful rich lady servant.  The most consistent reading of the whole context confirms the intended meaning of both prostatis and diakonos as used together.  In fact it contains the clearest example of the concept of a servant leader.  

Understand that a servant of the church, and as it is often stated by Paul as a servant of Christ are complimentary ideas. The Church is the body of Christ. To be a servant of the Church is to be a servant of Christ.  A servant of the King is no ordinary household slave.  In those days, such a servant although having no personal authority carried the authority of the master.  It was well understood if the servant of the King asked for or commanded someone on behalf of the King the person was duty bound to obey as if the words came direct from the King.  Yes a servant still said it.  But it carried the weight of a higher authority.  Here we see Paul confer that same idea in his written introdcution of Phoebe.

This is not a new understanding of these two verses.  The founders of the Adventist Church were familiar with it. An article explaining this understanding about these two verses was published in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Uriah Smith introduced the article with the editorial note that it was a strong defense of the woman in the early Advent movement that they could preach.  

Edited June 5, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[Kevin H]

I would like to hear more about these discoveries, particularly ones that document specific problems. One thing I have difficulty swallowing is that Paul would use creation-based arguments in dealing with such problems if the solution he was advocating was not still applicable today.

​I've been recommending this book. I wish that they were still selling the recording of the lectures that go along with it. But this book gives a good overview, very Biblical, and has a good bibliography.  http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58

[Tom Wetmore]

​Titus 1:5-9

⁵ The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint^[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. ⁶ An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe^[b] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. ⁷ Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. ⁸ Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. ⁹ He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Notice that the message of the church is related to a household. The context is clearly specifying a man. This is main and plain. If someone is going to obscure this clear passage, then in what other area do they do the same

You do realize  that in many languages, including The original Biblical languages and the English translation you are quoting, that the masculine forms of words and pronouns are inclusive of both male and female.  Read the Ten Commandments or any number of doctrinal passages in Scripture and using your flawed reasoning, they do not apply to women, since only male forms of words are used with no specific directives to women and/or about women.

The context of only male that you claim is eroded substantially by the mere existence in the NT of any female described as an elder or diakonos since the virtually identical language describes the qualifications of a diakonos of the church.  See what I have already posted about Phoebe, a female diakonos.  And to you point, Paul refers to the women elders of the Church of Ephesus in his instructions to Timothy.  Paul speaks of the body of elders of that church that laid hands on Timothy and goes on to tell Timothy how he should relate to the individuals of that body of elders.  He tells Timothy that he should relate to the male elders of the group as he would to his own father and brothers and to the female elders as he would his own mother and sisters.  There were clearly female elders in that body of elders.

 

[brotherly love]

You do realize  that in many languages, including The original Biblical languages and the English translation you are quoting, that the masculine forms of words and pronouns are inclusive of both male and female.  Read the Ten Commandments or any number of doctrinal passages in Scripture and using your flawed reasoning, they do not apply to women, since only male forms of words are used with no specific directives to women and/or about women.

The context of only male that you claim is eroded substantially by the mere existence in the NT of any female described as an elder or diakonos since the virtually identical language describes the qualifications of a diakonos of the church.  See what I have already posted about Phoebe, a female diakonos.  And to you point, Paul refers to the women elders of the Church of Ephesus in his instructions to Timothy.  Paul speaks of the body of elders of that church that laid hands on Timothy and goes on to tell Timothy how he should relate to the individuals of that body of elders.  He tells Timothy that he should relate to the male elders of the group as he would to his own father and brothers and to the female elders as he would his own mother and sisters.  There were clearly female elders in that body of elders.

 

​So, the word wife is not feminine in titus 1

Edited June 5, 2015 by brotherly love

[Tom Wetmore]

Missing the point...  Mixing and confusing points, etc...

You are placing too much emphasis on the extended English wording of the translation that obscures the simple phrase in Greek.  The phrase in Greek is literally "one woman man".  (See it in the literal interlinear Bible - http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/tit1.pdf )  Read it as a compound word.  The word "one"  effectively applies to both "woman" and "man".  The same essential phrase with the inversion of woman and man - "one man woman" is very similarly applied to what some have concluded was the office of widow, those virtuous widows that devoted themselves to the church, mentoring the young women, etc.   It really just means one woman and one man together or as we  would say in English -  monogamous.   Can you tell me the difference in meaning between saying "I am the husband of one wife" and "I am monogamous"?   It conveys the very same concept.

But the  point you are missing is that in 1Timothy 3:12 he says deacons (diakonos)  of the church are to be the husband of one wife.  And in Romans 16:1 he refers to Phoebe, a woman, as a deacon (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea.  If "husband of one wife" in 1 Timothy 3:12 is to be taken as restricting the office of diakonos to men only, how can Phoebe be identified as a diakonos?  Is Paul contradicting himself?  Or is the idea of deacons being men only because of that "on woman man" phrase a misunderstanding of its meaning?  The reasonable explanation that reconciles and harmonizes these passages to avoid conflicting meaning is that it is not intended as a male exclusive phrase as those opposed to WO would have us believe.

And least you be tempted to go down the path that what Paul's really calling Phoebe was a "deaconess", let me emphasize that the word diakonos that he used in Romans 16:1 is the masculine form of the word.  That further reinforces the point that the masculine form of a word is gender inclusive of both male and female.  

[brotherly love]

Missing the point...  Mixing and confusing points, etc...

You are placing too much emphasis on the extended English wording of the translation that obscures the simple phrase in Greek.  The phrase in Greek is literally "one woman man".  (See it in the literal interlinear Bible - http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/tit1.pdf )  Read it as a compound word.  The word "one"  effectively applies to both "woman" and "man".  The same essential phrase with the inversion of woman and man - "one man woman" is very similarly applied to what some have concluded was the office of widow, those virtuous widows that devoted themselves to the church, mentoring the young women, etc.   It really just means one woman and one man together or as we  would say in English -  monogamous.   Can you tell me the difference in meaning between saying "I am the husband of one wife" and "I am monogamous"?   It conveys the very same concept.

The Bible is a whole, and must be read with the sum of its parts. The parts cant hold the whole as hostage. This is what you have accomplished

Lets go to a similar passage in 1 Timothy 3 with deals with the qualifications

1 Timothy 3

Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. ² Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴ He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full^[a] respect. ⁵ (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) ⁶ He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ⁷ He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

⁸ In the same way, deacons^[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. ⁹ They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. ¹⁰ They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

¹¹ In the same way, the women^[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

¹² A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. ¹³ Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

This shows a mans role again, and the women would be the wives of them.

You will probably state that this is also a passage that goes both ways even though it singles out the "women"

The problem with this is chapters and verses were a later addition to enhance reading the bible. The subject of 1 timothy 2 and 3 go hand in hand and is not another subject. The ending of 1 timothy 2 leads into 1 Timothy 3

¹¹ A woman^[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[b] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women^[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Paul is very specific here, and the word is not silence, there is another word for silence Paul could have used. This does not contradict 1 Corinthians 11 where a woman prays and prophesies. It does compliment it since a women could not do so on her own authority, but the authority of her head-man/husband.

1 timothy 2:11-15 is very specific, and gives the context for chapter 3. A woman is not to usurp a mans or his role in the church-as in the home. Paul gives an example that is not cultural, or even about the fall, it is pre-fall and God's design for the sexes. The bible gives the remedy for the fall, and this is one of many.

Women were to be saved from deception by not unsurping a man, but glorifying her own role-having children and raising them faithfully. This is in context to the verses that precede it. You and others will be offended, but this offence would be due to a cultural offence, and where our treasure lies. It is about love, a giving and life nurturing love. This is repeated in chapter 5.

1 Timothy chapter 5

Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. ⁴ But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

¹⁴ So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. ¹⁵ Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

The situation of Phoebe would be along the same, the word can be minister or servant, whether masculine or feminine. Women and men can serve, and not hold to the office of deacon. Feeding the poor, taking care of widows etc.,

Anyway, when we love God, we will have victory.

The Old Testament gives an example of Judah, his family was assimilating into pagan culture quickly. They were letting the Canaanites influence them in thought and deed. His sons were abusing Tamar for their own financial gain and pleasure, they had no love of family. The Covenant family was going to be wiped out. God prepared a place for them in isolation apart from the cultural influence. The covenant families grew until they rocked an empire in numbers, even though they were slaves and servants.

In the same manner, the wisdom and guidance of God taught through Paul rocked the Roman Empire to its knees in a short time. do you want to follow Gods wisdom, or cultural wisdom-this has been played out many times before you.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2015 by brotherly love

[Tom Wetmore]

If Paul considered Phoebe to merely be a servant or helper and not one sent to lead the believers, explain why he would instruct the people to help her with whatever she has need of? If she was merely a servant wouldn't the instruction of Paul have been to her to go help those people with whatever they had need of?  Isn't his instruction to them much more consistent with someone sent to be in charge of the group?   Why restrict her then to mere helper/servant status?  You are twisting the Scripture and adding things too it that are simply not there. (The translation you have quoted is not a literal translation. May be if you would use or look at the original or the most literal translation you might better understand what I am saying.)

I am not inclined to continue discussing this with you since you really consistently seem to miss the point and just bring up extraneous things not under discussion. It seems to me that perhaps you have come here just to be argumentative, to pick a fight and not to really learn.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[brotherly love]

If Paul considered Phoebe to merely be a servant or helper and not one sent to lead the believers, explain why he would instruct the people to help her with whatever she has need of? If she was merely a servant wouldn't the instruction of Paul have been to her to go help those people with whatever they had need of?  Isn't his instruction to them much more consistent with someone sent to be in charge of the group?   Why restrict her then to mere helper/servant status?  You are twisting the Scripture and adding things too it that are simply not there. (The translation you have quoted is not a literal translation. May be if you would use or look at the original or the most literal translation you might better understand what I am saying.)

I am not inclined to continue discussing this with you since you really consistently seem to miss the point and just bring up extraneous things not under discussion. It seems to me that perhaps you have come here just to be argumentative, to pick a fight and not to really learn.

​Romans 1:1-2

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a ^[a]servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; ² that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the ^[b]saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, ^[c]and of myself as well.

Paul does consider her a helper of people. The epistle of romans was probably delivered by herself, and that is why would be addressing her in the opening remarks first. Cenchrea was located in Corinth, which is probably where Paul was located when it was written.

Paul does not tell people to listen to her commands, he tells them to help her out with her needs. She was a long way from home, and would have needs. She helped many people including Paul, and would need help herself.

[Tom Wetmore]

The word mistranslated as "helper" in verse 2 is prostatis.  Only in a very broad sense would it mean someone who helps.  It is the feminine form of the word for governor or ruler or leader.  It literally means one who stands before, as in the one up front leading out.  Instead of just making things up to suit your own preconceived ideas, read this and learn - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader .   

[brotherly love]

The word mistranslated as "helper" in verse 2 is prostatis.  Only in a very broad sense would it mean someone who helps.  It is the feminine form of the word for governor or ruler or leader.  It literally means one who stands before, as in the one up front leading out.  Instead of just making things up to suit your own preconceived ideas, read this and learn - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader .   

​You are straining the text in order to create your desired result. I gave clear verses in 1 timothy, but you want to interpret the bible by the unclear. This is not an approach that is trustworthy. We are to interpret the unclear in light of the clear. This is why you find yourself trying to go to the Greek and pick and choose your meaning.

Your interpretation does not make sense in context-lets take a close look. I will highlight and enlarge the apparent problem. I will

Romans 16:1-2

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a ^[a]servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; ² that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the ^[b]saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, ^[c]and of myself as well.

Helper here is translated from the Greek word prostatis. You say it is ruler, governor or leader. here is the problem you would have to overcome: this would put her as a ruler, leader, governor over Paul himself. The apostle Paul was chosen by Jesus Himself to carry the Gospel and wrote most of the New Testament. This is hardly credible.

Helper is better suited in context.

Now lets go to a few clear passages

 A woman^[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[b] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women^[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

³ But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,^[a] and the head of Christ is God.

We have finally come down to the wire of scripture, this is the best place to form our opinion. I hope you can make the choice to study it apart from websites that form your opinion.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2015 by Tom Wetmore
typo correction...

[Tom Wetmore]

Once again you insert the headship heresy into your thinking and interpretation of even the context.  Your interpretation is based on the long male biased headship tradition of the Catholic church that gave us the flawed translation you keep insisting overrides the real original meaning of the Greek.  Scholars of the Greek of the first century are very clear that "prostatis" does not mean "helper", but very much the opposite.  It is that tradition that terribly strains the original meaning of the text as Paul wrote it in Greek. Your worry about Paul seeing her as a leader even of himself greatly misunderstands the reality of servant leadership.  He is the one who admonished the believers to not see themselves as better than others.  He also proclaim that we should be of the same attitude as Christ, explaining that Jesus set aside his rightful kingly robes and humbled himself to be a servant.   Paul was in service of the One who proclaimed that the last shall be first and the first last and the greatest among you will be your servant.  You do remember that, don't you?  A servant leader has no problem recognizing someone among their fellow servants of the King as being a servant leader to themselves.  

That just highlights a huge obstacle of those who cling to the headship heresy as the foundation of their whole thinking on this issue of who should be a pastor or minister of the Church.  It is plainly a hierarchical way of viewing the whole structure and relationships of people in the church.  It introduced centuries of distinction between the laity and the clergy classes in the Church that has greatly clouded the reality of the the NT Church.  If there is one thing that we as a Church have resisted is kingly power (very much a headship idea) and being a hierarchical Church.  If you are a Seventh-day Adventist you should understand what I am talking about. The whole notion of why we go to huge expense (millions of dollars) to put on a world session of the General Conference is precisely because we are not driven by an elitist class of of those at the very top dictating to us what we should believe and do. The delegates are chose from the wide cross section of those in the church at least 50% have to be from the lowest levels of the Church.  The last shall be first...  

This explains it a bit - http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story2776-discovering-the-delegates-of-gc-session .

Read the article that I linked for you.  If you did read it, read it again.  Go to our resources (pinned at the top of the topic menu of this subform) and read more.  Then we can talk. 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

Now lets go to a few clear passages

 A woman^[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[b] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women^[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

​Clear passage, eh?   If the "clear" verse 15 is read at face value, then the only women who will be saved are those who have borne children.  

That's ridiculous.

[brotherly love]

​Clear passage, eh?   If the "clear" verse 15 is read at face value, then the only women who will be saved are those who have borne children.  

That's ridiculous.

​You are misrepresenting what I said, but you gotta do what you feel you gotta do. Lets recap.....

¹¹ A woman^[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[b] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women^[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Some read the last part of this passage in isolation, but the "saved' is in relation to what is being addressed previous to this. The message is a women assuming a mans role. Childbearing is a short generalization of  a womens natural God given role and function,  Paul addresses this a few chapters later in chapter 5.

⁴ But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

⁰ and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

¹⁴ So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. ¹⁵ Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Paul is teaching that we are to embrace our roles with love and faithfulness, and this will save us from the trappings of our fallen nature in a fallen world.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2015 by brotherly love

[Tom Wetmore]

Apparently neither Ellen White nor the Church leaders in her day understood that passage as you seem to.  She at one point suggested that it would be well for a woman doing ministry to put her children in the care of another (as she herself did) to enable her to focus on her call to ministry.  And the early Adventist Church leaders answered and explained this very passage about women being silent in church as not forbidding women from preaching and teaching, more specifically Ellen White herself.  This occurred more than once and one time written about it happened just before Ellen White got up to speak from the pulpit in Church.  The contender for women being silent had written a little note questioning whether she should speak.  One of the leading men of the day got up and refuted that idea to everyone's satisfaction and she spoke.  The E. G. White Estate reports that in her lifetime Ellen White preached more than 10,000 sermons!  She was not very silent in church and it is hard to deny that she taught men authoritatively.  (And shall we go into the fact that she was recognized as an ordained minister of the SDA Church for more than 30 years by the General Conference... That authority is what this topic is actually about...)

[Tom Wetmore]

​OK, let's consider the meaning of the words "minister" and "pastor," as used by Ellen White. The ministers, two by two, were the ones who largely were to spend their time raising up new churches, while the laity kept the services going in the existing churches. A 1927 book and a 1940 book about various denominations both described the Adventist church operating that way. The 1940 book said that in the case of large congregations, particularly in cities, ministers were sometimes assigned as pastors.

It seems to me that we have been diverting the sacred tithe to pay people to do the work of local elders. And I think that if we went back to operating the way the Spirit of Prophecy says to operate, this whole WO debate would become somewhat irrelevant.

I would like to circle back to this attempt to draw a distinction between the terms pastor and minister as used by EGW.  This is not a new idea to try to explain away her statements that clearly say that a woman can be a pastor.  The idea is to drive a wedge between these two terms to say that a pastor is different and that all she was talking about regarding women being able to be prepared to be pastors of the flock was just personal or welfare ministries, visiting the sick, tending the poor and aged, etc.,  or as Pickle seems to be trying to do, the role of local elders or even the deacons. The opposers of WO will then say that what we are talking about now is different.  Ministers/pastors of today are different than they were in her time.  So the role and function of a minister/pastor of today is quite different than it was in her day or that when she was talking about pastors it was some lesser role and function than what we would consider to be the role and function of a pastor of today.

That is simply a false dichotomy. A distinction without a difference. The meaning of those two words mean the same today as they did in the 19th Century  Ellen White used the term pastor and minister interchangeably.  They were as much synonyms in her day as they are today.

Just a few examples of her speaking of the same person with the same position in the church using both terms interchangeably in the same paragraph:

A pastor should mingle freely with the people for whom he labors, that by becoming acquainted with them he may know how to adapt his teaching to their needs. When a minister has preached a sermon, his work has but just begun. There is personal work for him to do. He should visit the people in their homes, talking and praying with them in earnestness and humility. There are families who will never be reached by the truths of God’s word unless the stewards of His grace enter their homes and point them to the higher way. But the hearts of those who do this work must throb in unison with the heart of Christ. – {AA 363.2}

The duties of a pastor are often shamelessly neglected because the minister lacks strength to sacrifice his personal inclinations for seclusion and study. The pastor should visit from house to house among his flock, teaching, conversing, and praying with each family, and looking out for the welfare of their souls. Those who have manifested a desire to become acquainted with the principles of our faith should not be neglected, but thoroughly instructed in the truth.—Evangelism, 350. – {PaM 223.2}

The flock of God have a right to expect to be visited by their pastor, to be instructed, advised, counseled, in their own homes. And if a man fails to do this part of the work, he can not be a minister after God’s order. The churches that have such labor are disorganized, weak, and sickly, and ready to die. The sermons are not vitalized by the Spirit of God, because the blessing of God will not rest upon any man who is neglecting the flock of God.—Appeal and Suggestions to Conference Officers (Ph 2)17, 18. – {PaM 223.3}

Edited June 7, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[brotherly love]

Once again you insert the headship heresy into your thinking and interpretation of even the context.  Your interpretation is based on the long male biased headship tradition of the Catholic church that gave us the flawed translation you keep insisting overrides the real original meaning of the Greek.  Scholars of the Greek of the first century are very clear that "prostatis" does not mean "helper", but very much the opposite.  It is that tradition that terribly strains the original meaning of the text as Paul wrote it in Greek. Your worry about Paul seeing her as a leader even of himself greatly misunderstands the reality of servant leadership.  He is the one who admonished the believers to not see themselves as better than others.  He also proclaim that we should be of the same attitude as Christ, explaining that Jesus set aside his rightful kingly robes and humbled himself to be a servant.   Paul was in service of the One who proclaimed that the last shall be first and the first last and the greatest among you will be your servant.  You do remember that, don't you?  A servant leader has no problem recognizing someone among their fellow servants of the King as being a servant leader to themselves.  

​You resort to Catholic conspiracy theories, and use the word heresy fast and loose. We already went through this, if anything what you embrace is heresy. In all of Christendom (except Quakers as they dont have pastors)women pastors were not allowed-even those who vehemently opposed Catholicism: like Luther. You just make an emotional appeal with no facts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. A heretic is a proponent of such claims or beliefs.^[1] Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one's religion, principles or cause,^[2] and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion.^[3]

The general conference has met a couple times with this issue on the table. Why is on the table? Because it was not permitted.

All of your opinions fall short of the roles we were created for before the fall-that is why Paul kept referring to this. The problem with your agenda is that it is percieves that a women's role is inferior-so to use your own words-the last shall be first from a servant leader viewpoint.

Phoebe would be a servant in the service of the church as Paul described it in 1 timothy 5

³ Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. ⁴ But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. ⁵ The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. ⁶ But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. ⁷ Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. ⁸ Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

¹⁰ and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

¹⁴ So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. ¹⁵ Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Phoebes situation would have to interpreted around this. Obviously she had no children,or family to take care of or she would be guilty of Pauls instructions.

Here is the problem, you find yourself born in the middle of great social change, that is why you have to defend it. This is what you know.

 

[brotherly love]

Did you even read what I posted and actually spend any time studying carefully what both verses in total says about Phoebe!?!?! You missed the point entirely.

It is really quite simple if you read carefully, understanding the meaning of the original Greek.  The language of introduction and commendation of Phoebe to the believers, the instruction to them to do whatever she asked of them and the two key terms Paul, chose to identify her roles speak volumes of what is happening.  Tradition also holds that Paul,entrusted the letter to Phoebe to deliver to them.  That was not a simple letter carrier delivery like a mail carrier.  The person delivering a letter of this sort in those days was to read it to them (many likely illiterate and there was only one copy) and to teach and explain it to them.

​Here is where you are going off the text, and into imagination. Where does it say she was to teach them, or to read to them? Where does it say she was literate or illiterate?  Common sense would tell you that she would have needs coming from a city close to Corinth and travelling far to Rome.

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant^[a] of the church at Cenchreae, ² that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.

It is quite simple if you are to remain in the verse.

1. Paul is writing to the believers of God in Rome to welcome her as a fellow believer in God.

2.Paul is not telling the believers in Rome to listen to her teaching or reading, he is asking them to support her in Rome, because she helped many in Cenchreae-including Paul himself

 

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by brotherly love

[brotherly love]

 

As for the husband of one woman idiom ( literally "one woman man") the point is that Paul calls Phoebe a diakonos of a church. In another letter Paul includes that phrase to describe qualification for being a diakonos of the church.  If it is a man only qualification, how can Paul say here that Phoebe, a woman is a diakonos of the church? It is because it is not a phrase that is gender specific only to men but is a Greek idiom that simply means monogamy which covers both the man and woman.  The number "one" applies to both the man and the woman, just one of each.

Read this - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader 

​ ^2 [b]An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not addicted to wine ^[c]or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.

Husband

Aner

Masculine noun

-It can be used to describe a generic group of men and women (like mankind). The context does not allow this, it is specifically referring to a husband and wife. Wife (gyne) is specific to a women of any age, in context, this would be a married woman. The word "he" can mean "whoever" but in the context it is the husband, so it is rendered "he"

In your translation it would say husband of one wife, mankind of one wife, or wife of one wife.

diakonos has different meanings, not just an office of a deacon. 1 timothy 3 gives the qualifications of a deacon. In 1 timothy 2, Paul instructs the church order.

⁹ Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, ^[g]modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, ¹⁰ but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. ¹¹ A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. ¹² But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. ¹³ For it was Adam who was first ^[h]created, and then Eve. ¹⁴ And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, ^[i]fell into transgression. ¹⁵ But women will be ^[j]preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with ^[k]self-restraint.

There were no chapters or verses in the Greek, chapter 2 carries into chapter 3. Did Paul contradict himself in the matter of a sentence or paragraph?

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by brotherly love

[Pickle]

I am relying on the serious research and study  of real Greek scholars.

​But it is always possible that these real Greek scholars have an agenda. Note that you didn't comment on my pointing out that the article failed to discuss the possibility that prostatis was referring to a civil position. I think that failure may suggest that the author has an agenda.

The word "prostatis" is used only once in the NT. however it is a common term in its verb form and masculine form in the NT and throughout the Septuagint.

​A common term. I find this claim a bit strange. Proistemi is found 8 times in the NT, and 5 times in the LXX. Prostates is found 4 times in the LXX. A word found only 8 times in the NT is a common term? Two words found only 9 times in the LXX, one of which is found only in 1 and 2 Chronicles, makes a related word a common term throughout the LXX?

And its meaning in other Greek literature of that period is undisputed as referring to someone in a leadership position - rulers governors, civic and governmental officials.

​Somehow this sort of meaning does not seem to fit in Titus 3:8, 14 where Paul speaks of "maintaining" good works, using the word proistemi. It seems, therefore, that Thayer's definition # c is more appropriate in these two verses, and that sort of meaning coincides with how Ellen White described Phoebe's ministry. Thayer's # c is "to care for, give attention to."

You also seem to be avoiding the full context of those two verses. Read carefully. The high praise and affirmation Paul gives regarding Phoebe is like no other person mentioned in the whole chapter. He introduces her to the believers with accolades and commendations of her standing and qualifications for the role.  And he specifications instructs them to heed her direction as one would do in introducing a new leader.  One does not have read anything into those two verses to get that.  The build up and instruction to the believers is inconsistent with the notion that she was merely just a nice helpful rich lady servant.  The most consistent reading of the whole context confirms the intended meaning of both prostatis and diakonos as used together.  In fact it contains the clearest example of the concept of a servant leader.  

Understand that a servant of the church, and as it is often stated by Paul as a servant of Christ are complimentary ideas. The Church is the body of Christ. To be a servant of the Church is to be a servant of Christ.  A servant of the King is no ordinary household slave.  In those days, such a servant although having no personal authority carried the authority of the master.  It was well understood if the servant of the King asked for or commanded someone on behalf of the King the person was duty bound to obey as if the words came direct from the King.  Yes a servant still said it.  But it carried the weight of a higher authority.  Here we see Paul confer that same idea in his written introdcution of Phoebe.

​When you say that Paul was commissioning Phoebe to lead the believers in Rome, as if he was appointing her to be their pastor, which is how I understood your words, I think you're reading more into Paul's few words than is really there.

This is not a new understanding of these two verses.  The founders of the Adventist Church were familiar with it. An article explaining this understanding about these two verses was published in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Uriah Smith introduced the article with the editorial note that it was a strong defense of the woman in the early Advent movement that they could preach.  

Could you please give a reference? I would like to see if Uriah Smith really did contradict himself on this topic.

[Pickle]

​I've been recommending this book. I wish that they were still selling the recording of the lectures that go along with it. But this book gives a good overview, very Biblical, and has a good bibliography.  http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58

​From the description: "Learn of the First Women Apostles written about in the Gospels. Go from Mary, the mother of Jesus, through the Women and the Resurrection."

Sounds a bit odd. I don't know anywhere in the gospels where a woman is called an apostolos.