Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Kevin H]

Well I would not call it "New" evidence since 30 years ago I've had professors mention that there were female priests in the Old Testament system. and while I never heard most of their arguments for their comment, however they have been EXTREAMLY Biblically focused. You can tell from people who are those who are grounded in scripture and those with other sources.

The arguments I have heard has been based on my weak point, the languages. I have yet to read this paper which is new to me by the Adventist Theological Society, so I may be able to have more to say here after I read that paper.

However the 2 sources that I know is that the language surrounding the story of Jael and Sisera apparently places Jael as a female Priest and that Sisera went there appealing for "Sanctuary" but that since she was a priest of Yahweh, instead of giving him Sanctuary, she destroyed Yahweh's enemy.

The other is that there are a number of Psalms written in the famine with indications for it to be a female priest at the temple who was to lead out in that portion of worship.

Of course we still have the fact that Jesus ordained women apostles, and that in the first decade of the 20th century the unions and conferences wanted to ordain women. General Conference President A. G. Daniels agreed with them that they should ordain women. However he requested them to wait a little bit because there were members who thought that it was not Biblical and he wanted a little bit of time to teach them that the ordination of women was indeed Biblical.

Soon after this Mrs. White wrote articles about women in ministry. The critics of women's ordination read through them like a lawyer grabbing every loophole they can find. They are embarrassed that she wrote these articles so close to when the conferences wanted to ordain women and so close to when A. G. Daniels just asked for a little bit of time to teach the members that women can be ordained. But they shoot down the historical context by pointing out that while we have Elder Daniels' views, we do not know whether or nor Elder Daniels discussed this with Mrs. White. There is the assumption thus that Mrs. White was ignorant of what the conferences wanted to do and that she just wrote those articles with unfortunate timing, and that if she had known what was happening in the church at that time instead of writing those articles on women in ministry, she would have instead written to Elder Daniels and the conference and union presidents telling them that they were wrong. (It's strange how the Holy Spirit could have Mrs. White write letters long before they are needed, but how he goofed and had Mrs. White write about women in ministry at a time that the conferences and unions wanted to ordain women and when the General Conference President promised they could after our members were educated. And it's funny how the anti-ordination people need to have a Mrs. White quote as it should have been instead of what it was.)

[LadyRachelLynn]

Didn't Huldah advise King Josiah on spiritual matters?

[Kevin H]

Yes, but the anti-ordination people like to speak in circles like a lawyer to try to put down the testimony in the Bible that supports women's ordination.

But also looking in our own church. God's highest authority is the Lord Jesus Christ. Second come the Apostles (and yes there were women apostles evidence that they were among the 70). Then Prophets.

The Testimony of these have been recorded in the Bible and records of the prophet's ministry. then come the teachers and pastors and others.

The male headship people are willing to change this authority for their tradition of man placing Mrs. White lower in the chain that the Bible places her just because she was willing to work with the other leaders of the church and not force.

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin:  Can you tell us how we can access the paper by the ATS.

NOTE:  The ATS represents the conservative element in SDA theology.  If they are promoting a paper that proposes such, that is surprising and suggests that the evidence is very strong.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

On June 19, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rossw said:

Please remember, all. There were no female priests of Israel interceding for sins. Women do have their spiritual place but were never in leadership.

Christ's death on the the cross ended the OT priestly role.  Recall the NT statement regarding the "priesthood of ALL believers" ?  The role of pastors/ministers is one of servant leadership and not as priestly intercessors.  Recall Jesus' statement about leadership, not to lord it over others as the pagan rulers do.  

But the most compelling NT statement about women in leadership is Paul's endorsement of Phoebe.  He instructs the believers in Rome to follower her direction, as one who he was appointing to lead them.  And he specifically states that she was a leader of many, including himself.  The key Greek word is prostatis, a word that without question means leader, a "governess".  In its verb form it is consistently throughout Scripture translated as "to rule, lead or govern". In its masculine noun form in reference to men, it is translated as "ruler".  

[Stan]

So is this statement true?

 

We still have the priest hood in place from the OT?

 

That is not my understanding, we have One High Priest, and that is Christ.

[Kevin H]

5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Kevin:  Can you tell us how we can access the paper by the ATS.

NOTE:  The ATS represents the conservative element in SDA theology.  If they are promoting a paper that proposes such, that is surprising and suggests that the evidence is very strong.

 

I have not opened it yet but Dr. Richard Davidson sent it to me.

[Kevin H]

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Christ's death on the the cross ended the OT priestly role.  Recall the NT statement regarding the "priesthood of ALL believers" ?  The role of pastors/ministers is one of servant leadership and not as priestly intercessors.  Recall Jesus' statement about leadership, not to lord it over others as the pagan rulers do.  

But the most compelling NT statement about women in leadership is Paul's endorsement of Phoebe.  He instructs the believers in Rome to follower her direction, as one who he was appointing to lead them.  And he specifically states that she was a leader of many, including himself.  The key Greek word is prostatis, a word that without question means leader, a "governess".  In its. Era form it is consistently throughout Scripture translated as "to rule, lead or govern". In its masculine noun form in reference to men, it is translated as "ruler".  

Also compelling is how in all but one time as a husband and wife it is Aquila and Priscilla, however each and every time as a ministry team it is Priscilla and Aquila. When we look at Acts (as well as the outside of the Bible)  we find that the prominent name is first. We had Barnabas and Saul, then they changed positions and we had Paul and Barnabas. So it indicates that Priscilla was the head elder and Aquila was her assistant pastor.

Also, while we have lost the culture and conflict, a first century Jew would have seen the story of Mary and Martha as dealing with the debate over women Rabbis and Jesus telling quite blatantly where he stood on the issue. 

[Kevin H]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Kevin:  Can you tell us how we can access the paper by the ATS.

NOTE:  The ATS represents the conservative element in SDA theology.  If they are promoting a paper that proposes such, that is surprising and suggests that the evidence if very strong.

 

Actually not surprising because the ATS has had a number of supporters of women's ordination over the years. With some members who went from supporting to opposing to returning to supporting. This is a topic where you can find ATS members on both sides.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, I am aware that some ATS members support the ordination of women.

[Kevin H]

Opening the attachment from Dr. Davidson I am only finding a study on Hebrews attached. I will ask about the other information he said he attached including the parts on women's ministry.

[Rossw]

Kevin, I'm a interested in the evidence you've received or are still to receive.

In Acts 18 there is nothing tying Priscilla to any official capacity in the church. Only that they came from Rome and were tent makers. If there is any other Biblical references to her I've missed I'm sure members here will let us know.

There seems no Biblical reason to assume Jael was a priestess either.

Right now your connection is only because these women are in Scripture they must be priestesses. I don't see that connection at this time but of course I'd like to see the scolastic evidence. 

[LifeHiscost]

8 hours ago, Stan said:

 

 

That is not my understanding, we have One High Priest, and that is Christ.

 

Not to mention we have the freedom to accept this promise He offers.

2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.....Hebrews 12

And since faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, Who is addressed as "He" on occasion, it sheds some light on the role of masculine order in the Priesthood, even delineated in the human family order.

Although this gives added responsibility to the male figure.

…24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her 26to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,…Ephesians 5

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw:

Let us look at Priscila, in Acts 18: 

Read verses 24 - 16.

Here we see a Jew, Apollos, who was converted to Christianity (vs 25).   He is described as a mighty preacher (vs. 24).  He worked very hard to convert others to Christianity (vs 25 & 26).

But, Apollos had not advanced in his understanding of Christianity beyond what John the Baptist had taught (vs 25).

So, two people took him under their wing and began to instruct him in the advanced learning that he needed (vs. 26).  Those two people were Aquila and Priscilla (vs 26).

As a result of his advanced learning he went forth to proclaim more advanced teachings of the work and ministry of Christ (vs. 28).

In this passage Priscilla is presented as much more than a tentmaker.

See also Romans 16:3  where Priscilla and Aquila mentioned in their ministry to the Gentiles (vs 4).

See also I Cor. 16;19 where Priscila and Aquila are presented as being leaders of a house church.

NOTE:  The names Prisca and Priscila are the same person as Prisca is a shortened form of the word Priscila.

 

 

 

 

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Rossw said:

Kevin, I'm a interested in the evidence you've received or are still to receive.

In Acts 18 there is nothing tying Priscilla to any official capacity in the church. Only that they came from Rome and were tent makers. If there is any other Biblical references to her I've missed I'm sure members here will let us know.

There seems no Biblical reason to assume Jael was a priestess either.

Right now your connection is only because these women are in Scripture they must be priestesses. I don't see that connection at this time but of course I'd like to see the scolastic evidence. 

Greg has pointed out some of the other references to her. Through out the New Testament she and her husband are seen as leaders in the church. And when the Bible talks about ministerial teams the senior leader is named first. In the culture for husband and wife you name the husband first and sometimes the Mrs. is implied, other times it names the Mrs. And as ministerial teams the senior leader is named first. If you were to take a commentary you would find that all but one of the times they are mentioned as husband and wife it calls them Aquila and Priscilla. But each and every time as a ministerial team it is Priscilla and Aquila. The New Testament writers were constant in their referring to them as a ministry team as Priscilla was the senior leader.

As for Jael, here you are I are both at a disadvantage since we don't know Hebrew. I don't know if Greg or others who have more familiarity with the language could point out, but if I understand the linguists correctly there is some technical language indicating that she was a priest.

Also, there is a point I see but not in a clear enough place to describe, but there are differences between the Prophets from the family of Moses, the family of Aaron and prophets from neither family. But from these differences Isaiah's wife translated into English as "The Prophetess" would have been a priest.

But we do have the Psalms that are structured and noted for female priests to lead out. (which we don't notice in our English translations).

We also have the discovery of the issue of the role of women during the time of Jesus. About 200 years before he was born the liberal Rabbis started teaching that Jews should STOP having women priests and STOP having women Rabbis. They did stop the women priests and designed the temple to have an addition that the Sanctuary and Solomon's temple did not have, the court of women. thus making women stop before the laymen could stop, preventing women from going farther and to serve as priests. However they still had women rabbis which was debated.

If we were living in Jesus' day if we were to start walking with Rabbis, if the Rabbi stopped and sat down there was a protocol; the approximately 82 disciples would sit at the Rabbi's feet. the 82 were in two groups, the 12 and the 70. Now the numbers were approximate depending on how many students the Rabbi had. The difference between the 12 and the 70 was the time spent with the rabbi. When traveling the 12 would share the room with their teacher and have privy to the late night discussions. The 70 depended on what room was left and often needed different sleeping arrangements.

Among the liberal rabbis, like the school of Hillel the Rabbi would most likely have been a male with all approximately 82 at his feet being male. If they were of a conservative school, such as the school of Shammai, the Rabbi was probably a male but could have been a female. The 12 would be the same sex as the Rabbi (due to sleeping arrangements), but among the 70 you would find both male and female. Those who were ordained were allowed to sit at the Rabbi's feet.

Laymen would stand and listen. At the feeding of the 5,000 after Jesus was done speaking the laymen standing would sit down for the food. Again we would notice a difference. Among the conservative Rabbis all laymen, both men and women were allowed to stand and listen. Among the liberal Rabbis only the male laymen would stand. The women had to busy themselves with hospitality tasks. Now among the conservative Rabbis some of the women refused to stand and listen but would do the hospitality tasks as a protest for the conservative rabbis being supportive of women rabbis.

When people say that Jesus did not ordain any female apostles they show they don't know what they are talking about. The New Testament requirements to be an apostle was to be familiar with Jesus' earthly teaching and are eye witnesses to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Paul tells us that there were over 500 people who saw him, thus there are potentially over 500 apostles. To say that there were no women Apostles they need to prove or give evidence that the over 500 were all male. Or at least show that all 82 of the immediate disciples/rabbinical students (the 70 as well as the 12). The 12 would naturally be men due to sleeping conditions, so the 12 being all men is not an argument. But you need to prove or give evidence that supports the idea that NONE of the 70  were women. You need to prove or give evidence that when ever Jesus sat and taught that only men sat at his feet and that all women who heard him were at least standing if not being busy with hospitality tasks.

[Rossw]

7 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw:

Let us look at Priscila, in Acts 18: 

Read verses 24 - 16.

Here we see a Jew, Apollos, who was converted to Christianity (vs 25).   He is described as a mighty preacher (vs. 24).  He worked very hard to convert others to Christianity (vs 25 & 26).

But, Apollos had not advanced in his understanding of Christianity beyond what John the Baptist had taught (vs 25).

So, two people took him under their wing and began to instruct him in the advanced learning that he needed (vs. 26).  Those two people were Aquila and Priscilla (vs 26).

As a result of his advanced learning he went forth to proclaim more advanced teachings of the work and ministry of Christ (vs. 28).

In this passage Priscilla is presented as much more than a tentmaker.

See also Romans 16:3  where Priscilla and Aquila mentioned in their ministry to the Gentiles (vs 4).

See also I Cor. 16;19 where Priscila and Aquila are presented as being leaders of a house church.

NOTE:  The names Prisca and Priscila are the same person as Prisca is a shortened form of the word Priscila.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry Greg but none of those verses present Priscilla as an "ordained" female priestess. My wife is well versed in Scriptures but if just because we had a home church does not make her necessarily the headship leader of the church or an ordained priestess.  

Of course I'm not a theologian but to me those verses can, at most, only prove Priscilla was an effective Bible worker.

[Gregory Matthews]

If you read closely what I posted, you would see that I never referenced her as an "ordained female priestess."

In your post you came across to me as dismissing her as simply a "tentmaker."  My purpose was to show you that she was  presented in the Bible as an active leader in the spiritual life of others, much more than just a tentmaker.

So, you have suggested that she may have been simply a "Bible Worker."    Would you say the same for how that Biblical verse presents her husband?  The Biblical verse that I cited presents both she and her husband on the same level of spiritual leadership.  You might (?) have some rational basis for saying that both of them were simply "Bible Workers" as presented in the Biblical text.  But to suggest, if you do, that the text presents her as a Bible worker and her husband something else is to read into the text our present organizational theology as it pertains to Bible Workers.  You and I need to take the text as it reads.  That text presents them both on the same level.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

How you and your wife relate is beyond my knowledge.  Yes, it might be that you were the head of the church, and your wife was simply the one who washed the dishes after the potluck.

But, the text that I cited did not clearly state that either person was a priest.  This could be understood that in the NT times the priesthood had been done away with by the ministry of Christ.  In any case, the Biblical text that I cited presented both she and her husband on the same spiritual level.

Quote

My wife is well versed in Scriptures but if just because we had a home church does not make her necessarily the headship leader of the church or an ordained priestess.

[Tom Wetmore]

Curious minimizing  role distinctions every time a women is in the picture. That has been an insidious practice through much of the history of the church since around the 3rd or 4th Centuries.  It has adversely effected the translation and interpretation of Scripture and consequently modern church practices.  The example I already noted about Phoebe resulting from mistranslation of two key descriptive Greek words about her position and role with the NT church demonstrate that most clearly.  Diakonos when used in reference to a man is translated as "minister" or "deacon".  For Phoebe it is the most minimizing literal translation as merely a "servant".  And the Greek word most clearly about leadership is always translated as such in reference to men, either in noun or verb form.  But the one time it is referring specifically and only to a women, it gets translated as "helper", further reinforcing the idea that she was just an ordinary servant. This mistranslation really contradicts the context and meaning of everything else that Paul said of her.  As I noted already, he quite clearly instructs the Roman believers to follower her instruction. That makes sense if she was sent by Paul to lead them, not to just deliver a letter and wait tables or other servant/helper tasks.  There would have been no question on this if Paul had sent Phillip instead of Phoebe.

Never any thought that Paul himself was merely a tent maker, or that Peter was just a fisherman or that Barnabas was just a Bible worker, or that Jesus was just a carpenter.  

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

How you and your wife relate is beyond my knowledge.  Yes, it might be that you were the head of the church, and your wife was simply the one who washed the dishes after the potluck.

But, the text that I cited did not clearly state that either person was a priest.  This could be understood that in the NT times the priesthood had been done away with by the ministry of Christ.  In any case, the Biblical text that I cited presented both she and her husband on the same spiritual level.

I did use the word priest or priestess but my intent was the new Testament meaning of an ordained pastor or chosen leader of the church.

So far the evidence given for woman's ordination is circumstantial at best. No one is arguing women aren't a useful spiritual tool. If we have to go extraBiblical to make the argument then just kiss your argument good bye.

 

 

[Rossw]

Was Jesus a typical rabbi in his day? Would he have followed all the rabbinical rules and traditions? Would he have turned anybody away who choose to follow Him? Did following Him at that time automatically make them ordained leaders, man or female, members of their Church?

[Gregory Matthews]

The language, culture and much more is helpful in understanding what the Bible teaches and taking this into consideration does not minimize the fact that the Bible is the determinative authority.

E.G. Understanding the phrase "three days and three nights" is helped by understanding the language and culture of the time of Christ.

 

If we have to go extraBiblical to make the argument . . .

[Gregory Matthews]

Your question is interesting:

The question as to rabbinical rules and traditions clearly requires an answer that rests on extra-Biblical sources.

The part related to ordained spiritual leaders suggests, perhaps this is wrong, that you have a view of ordination that developed during the early years of Christianity and primarily within what became the Catholic Church.

In any case, as you continue to argue your positon, you relay more on extra-Biblical elements of your argument.  I am not suggesting that you are wrong in doing so.  You may even be correct.  I simply find it interesting that you do so in view of your objections to others whom you perceive of doing so.

As a non-SDA Commander of mine once said to those he commanded:  "If you talk the talk, you must walk the walk."

Was Jesus a typical rabbi in his day? Would he have followed all the rabbinical rules and traditions? Would he have turned anybody away who choose to follow Him? Did following Him at that time automatically make them ordained leaders, man or female, members of their Church?

[Gregory Matthews]

I question whether or not you even know what a "typical rabbi" would teach and practice in the time of Christ.

Are you aware of the various schools of thought that existed in the time of Christ?  Many of us commonly acknowledge two rabbinical schools that existed, which the Bible mentions.  But, the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls have clearly identified another school of rabbinical thought.    But, these three do not exhaust the number of rabbinical schools of thought.  Others exist.  In the culture of the time of Christ the term "rabbi" was simply applied to one who was recognized as a teacher (no, I am not saying a teacher of quantum physics).  The application of that title did not presuppose any specific doctrinal position

It may be that you can tell us that a rabbi of a specified tradition certain specific teachings.  But, I do not have a sense that you can identify in a general sense what would be taught by one you call a "typical rabbi."  Perhaps you could in very limited specifics?

In any case, to respond to your question you would have to rely on extra-Biblical sources.

 

Was Jesus a typical rabbi in his day?

[Kevin H]

3 hours ago, Rossw said:

Was Jesus a typical rabbi in his day? Would he have followed all the rabbinical rules and traditions? Would he have turned anybody away who choose to follow Him? Did following Him at that time automatically make them ordained leaders, man or female, members of their Church?

The lay members would stand when he sat to teach. Only those who wanted to be ordained to be trained rabbis would sit at his feet.