Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[Woody]

Southeastern California Conference responds to Dkoug Batchelor:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29820169/Southeastern-California-Conference-Responds-to-Doug-Batchelor

Yes Gregory. I think they hit the nail on the head. As did Fortin and Davidson.

DB needed to be rebuked for doing a sermon on his own philosophy regarding this issue. This is not wise use of the pulpit ... not to mention ... the church. The sermon had so many holes in it. He needs to be more responsible.

[WayneV]

MEMO

DATE: April 14, 2010

TO: ALL

FROM: The Comittee of One

Our regularly scheduled thread has been preempted by a new thread on the same topic. We may or may not return to our regularly scheduled thread. If we do not return, it shall fade into the black hole known as "the archives", where it may bee viewed through the "search function" telescope. Otherwise, we shall not come this way again.

Thank you,

The Comittee of One

[John317]

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: Southeastern California Conference responds to Dkoug Batchelor:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29820169/Southeastern-California-Conference-Responds-to-Doug-Batchelor

I've read the entire statement, and am glad you posted it. I think everyone needs to read and carefully and prayerfully study both sides of the question.

It seems to me that the statement does the same things it accuses Pastor Batchelor of doing: it doesn't show the evidence that contradicts the viewpoint of the committee, and it says some things that don't have the support of the Bible.

Let's take just two examples:

1) On Romans 16: 1-2, they say, "Phoebe is called a deacon, for deacons, along with elders, were ministers who met the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3." Also, they say that Paul expects the saints in Rome to assist Phoebe, "presumably in her ministry to prepare for Paul's trip to Spain." Is all this true?

Yes, deacons were a type of minister, but the the word "minister" has a very wide meaning in both the NT and in the writings of Ellen White. The truth is that the deacons did not have to meet all of the same qualifications as the elders. Elders, or overseers, had 15 qualification they needed to pass; deacons had to pass 9. A key difference, which the article ignores, is that deacons are not required to be able to teach. The name of deacon itself-- which means "servant"--- shows a clear difference between it and the overseers [Gk. episkopos].

One other major distinction between the elders/overseers and the deacons is that the NT says the overseers are to "rule" or "govern" the churches, but the NT never applies this description to the deacons.

I agree that Phoebe was a deacon or deaconess. The evidence indicates that she was probably a wealthy woman who helped Paul and other believers, and she probably carred Paul's letter to the church at Rome. Many good translations as well as lexicons also show in verse 2 that Phoebe was a defender or benefactor/patroness. "Deacon/deaconess" is the translation of the word diakonos given in all the standard Greek-English lexicons, and they specifically apply it to Romans 16: 1.

There's absolutely no evidence that Phoebe was "preparing for Paul's trip to Spain." That is simply conjecture. She may have been but no one knows this and there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

2) On Romans 16: 7, the article says, "Paul calls Andronicus and Junia apostles. In fact, he claims that they are outstanding among the apostles. It is clear that Junia is a female name. Therefore the office of apostle was open to women contrary to Pastor Batchelor's assertion."

Is this true? Is it clear that Romans 16: 7 refers to a female name?

Let the reader decide after examining the following evidence:

I submit the evidence proves there is no certainty that "Junia" is "clearly a female name," as the article asserts. Notice these 6 translations of Romans 16: 7:

1) "Andronicus and Junias... are outstanding men among the messengers..." Phillips

2) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of note among the Apostles..." Twentieth-Century NT

3) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of note among the apostles..." James Moffatt

4) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of esteem among the apostles..." Letters From Paul

5) "Andronicus and Junias... are noted men among the missionaries..." Goodspeed

6) "Andronicus and Junias... are men held in high estteem among the apostles..." Amplified

Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament lists the name as a male name and goes on to say, "The name has not been found elsewhere than in Romans 16: 7, but is probably a contracted form of Iounianus, which is common in the inscriptions..." This source also shows that Souter and the KJV treat the name as feminine.

There's also the fact that the earliest commentary on the book of Romans, written by Origen (d. 252 A.D.) believed that the name was Junias, a male.

Also, Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he includes this line: "Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria" (Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase 'of whom' is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) showing that Epiphanius thought Iounias was a man.

The evidence, therefore, is actually inconclusive as to whether the name Iounian is male or female. Out of 16 printed Greek texts of the NT, 7 give a female's name and 9 give a male's name. By far, most English translations of Romans 16: 7 give the name "Junias," a man's name.

Of my 67 translations, the best translations have "Junias," although some excellent translations show a woman's name in the main body of the text.

Yet the point I would make here is that almost all of the translations put the alternate reading in the margin, indicating that the translators are not certain of the correct reading. I have not read a single Bible commentary which claims there is certainty about the name, and our own SDA Bible Commentary concludes that it could be either Junia or Junias.

Robert Young, the author of Young's Comprehensive Concordance of the Bible, and translator of Young's Literal Translation, translated the name Iounian as "Junian," a male name. The Voice, a very recent translation of the NT by 21 noted Bible scholars, also translates it as a male name.

No lexicon or grammar says that Iounias in Romans 16: 7 could not be a shortened form of the man's name Junianus, and all who comment on it (Robertson, BDF, BAGD, Thayer, and Moulton & Milligan) say not only that it could be but that it probably or possibly is a man's name.

After studying the above evidence, can any reasonable person honestly and sincerely conclude that Romans 16: 7 is clearly referring to a female name and that Doug Batchelor has no biblical or scholarly grounds for believing it's a male name?

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: I think they hit the nail on the head. As did Fortin and Davidson.

DB needed to be rebuked for doing a sermon on his own philosophy regarding this issue. This is not wise use of the pulpit ... not to mention ... the church. The sermon had so many holes in it. He needs to be more responsible.

I haven't seen you discuss it or show evidence for what you are saying. All you've done so far is draw conclusions and make statements without any kind of argumentation on the basis of logic and evidence.

Look carefully at the evidence in the previous post. Can you honestly say that there's no evidence in support of Doug Batchelor's views on Romans 16: 1,2 and 7?

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): .... External evidence from writings of early church leaders testify that Junias was a woman apostle.

If Junias (a man's name!) was a woman, why do the following good translations read as they do?

1) "Andronicus and Junias... are outstanding men among the messengers..." Phillips

2) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of note among the Apostles..." Twentieth-Century NT

3) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of note among the apostles..." James Moffatt

4) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of esteem among the apostles..." Letters From Paul

5) "Andronicus and Junias... are noted men among the missionaries..." Goodspeed

6) "Andronicus and Junias... are men held in high esteem among the apostles..." Amplified

Can you show in your own words that these translations by some of the world's best translators are wrong?

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): Current scholars provide additional insight. Commenting on the gender of Junia, Leonard Swidler states, "To the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine."

The most ancient witnesses, such as Epiphanius (AD 315-403), and Origen (d.252 AD), believed that the name was of a man, Junias. Notice that these two early Church Fathers lived before any of the people you've named who thought Iounian was a woman. What's more, Epiphanius wrote that Junias was a man who became a bishop. In other words, he wrote about Junias in a way that shows he knew more information about Junias than other, later writers knew.

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): Douglas Moo agrees that commentators before that 13th century were unanimous in favor of a female rendering.21 Stanley Grenz maintains that "the gender of Junia was not an issue in the patristic era ... Origen assumed that Paul's friend was a women...

Please give reference for Origen's "assuming" that Paul's friend was a woman. In what work did Origen write this?

Origen, who died in 252 A.D., wrote in his commentary on Romans, "Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow captives (Andronicus, et Junias, et Herodion, quos omnes et cognatos suos, et concaptivos appellat)." This is from Origen's commentary on Romans, preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus, c. 345-c. 410 A.D., in J. P. Migne, Patrolgoia Graeca, vol. 14, col. 1289). The name Junias here is a Latin masculine singular nominative, implying that Origen thought Junias was a man.

There's actually no way to be dogmatic about what the form of the name signifies. It could be feminine or it could be masculine. As I've show above, also, there are other parts of the verse which indicate that Andronicus and Junias are two men.

My point is that there is plenty of evidence to show that Doug Batchelor had good reason to tell the church in his sermon that Junias was a man.

[karl]

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): .... External evidence from writings of early church leaders testify that Junias was a woman apostle.

If Junias was a woman, why do the following good translates read as they do?

1) "Andronicus and Junias... are outstanding men among the messengers..." Phillips

The very fact that there is a discussion about whether Junias might be female is evidence that WO advocates are grasping at straws. If their case were as ironclad as they claim it to be, there should be abundant evidence of women apostles all over the place.

[John317]

I agree.

I think at the very least people have to wonder why there's no unmistakble mention of female apostles or women elders and church pastors in the NT. This one is very problematic and thoroughly debatable. We don't even know for sure if Iounias is a female, but once that's been proved, we have to prove what kind of apostle she was, or whether she was instead known by the apostles. Nothing is simple about the verse-- it has at least 3 major translation problems. Was this person an apostle in the same sense as Paul and James and Peter or was he/she an apostle in the general sense of having been sent out as a missionary or evangelist? It all makes a big difference, and there's no certainty in any of it.

It makes no sense to criticise Doug Batchelor for saying Iounias is a man but then for the conference to claim that Iounias is clearly a woman when the truth is that no one really knows for sure. Doug certainly has support among many translations and Greek-English Lexicons.

From the way they jumped all over him, you'd think he'd made up something completely out of the blue.

[SivartM]

What ever happened to Phoebe?

[John317]

Phoebe's no doubt asleep in Jesus, awaiting the resurrection of the saints. I can't wait to meet her and ask her some questions. How surprised she'll be to find out about the big debate her work caused.

I believe the evidence shows she was a deacon (a kind of minister) in the church at Cencherea, about 6 miles from Corinth. She was probably wealthy and had helped Paul and many other believers. Paul knew he could trust her, and so she was probably the one who carried the Epistle of Romans to the Christians of that city. Paul expected the Romans to help Phoebe just as she herself had been a help to many others.

[SivartM]

If women can be deacons, why can't they be pastors or elders?

[John317]

OK, I'll post one more. lol I was almost ready to turn out the light.

The qualifications of Deacons/Deaconess' is found in 1 Tim. 3: 8-12. 1 Tim. 3: 2-7 describes the qualifications to be a bishop/elder/pastor. The NT shows that the elders/pastors are to govern or rule or manage the church as well as teach the people in the church. Deacons don't have the responsibility of either ruling the church or of teaching or of judging doctrine.

[SivartM]

What time zone do you live in? Or do you just go to sleep early in the morning?

[Woody]

Quote:

I haven't seen you discuss it or show evidence for what you are saying. All you've done so far is draw conclusions and make statements without any kind of argumentation on the basis of logic and evidence.

Look carefully at the evidence in the previous post. Can you honestly say that there's no evidence in support of Doug Batchelor's views on Romans 16: 1,2 and 7?

I don't do 'diversions'.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Something I neglected to mention when I spoke with Doug Batchelor's personal secretary: she told me that the sermon in question contained the SDA standards as of now on ordaining women and how they were decided upon. It was not a diatribe by Doug Batchelor on his own views..

So stop with the Doug Batchelor bashing.

[Woody]

Great. I'll just let the conference and theologians do that. :)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

You just did it again - with sarcasm.

Who'd want a pastor who's spouse is like that?

[Woody]

Hmmm. I dunno. But they ain't got no choice as to who the spouse is. :)

[John317]

What time zone do you live in? Or do you just go to sleep early in the morning?

I live out in the wild wild wild west. And it's getting wilder by the day.

I've always been a "night owl," and my night job for the last 22 years didn't help. When regular peeps are going to bed, I'm feeling like the day is just beginning.

[John317]

Here's a portion of the first part of Doug Batchelor's sermon. Let's read it and discuss section by section and then later we can look carefully at the various responses that have been given to Pastor Batchelor's sermon:

Both man and woman are made in the image of God. But you see in

the beginning, right after the temptation and sin entered our world that trouble began, when woman wandered from man’s side and then, she instead of listening to the clear instructions she had received from the Lord and from her husband not to take from that forbidden tree, she independently made a

different decision. A new freedom, new power, was being offered to her by the devil; he said, “Don’t listen to what God said. Don’t listen to what your husband said. They’re hiding something from you. You listen to what I say

and you will have enhanced experience.” And so she did. Then she brings it to her husband and offers it to him and man now [defers] to his wife; instead of leading, he submits. And he takes her advice and all the problems that you see in the world today, both in our relationships and in the world, spring from this interruption of God’s design for the relationship between God and man and woman. And as a result of this—you can read about this by the way in the book Patriarchs and Prophets, page 53 and 54; “The angels had cautioned

Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden. With him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task sheunconsciously wandered from his side. Sin came into our world as a result of

man neglecting and women disregarding the husband’s leadership role.”

==========================

I'd like to read as many people's responses as possible. Do you beleive Pastor Batchelor has made any errors in this section of his sermon? If so, what is the Bible or SOP evidence?

[John317]

Thanks, Lazarus, for posting this. I haven't read the entire sermon, but I have read some of the main responses to him, such as by Mike Tucker and by Southeastern Ca. Conference. I doubt if I agree with everything Doug said in his sermon, but I think it would be a good idea if we took the time to look at all of them and talk about what they say.

Here's the second section of the sermon:

And then a curse was pronounced. And you read this in Genesis chapter 3 verse 16, I'll probably also add verse 17—it said, “To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception. In pain you’ll bring forth children.” And it goes on to say “Your desire shall be to your husband. He will rule over thee.” Now through the ages, people—mostly those who have a moral liberal bias have tried to find some other way of saying that. But that word there means just what it says. It’s from the word “mashal” in Hebrew and it means, definition: according to Strong; to rule, to have

dominion, to govern, to reign, to have power. God had to establish in the very beginning because the devil was going to be trying to destroy the family that there needed to be authority in the family. And so the Lord went back to his

original design; man was created first. So things have changed. Oh by the way, you read on here in Genesis chapter 3 verse 17 “And then to Adam he says, because you have heeded the voice of your wife,” as opposed to the voice of God, “and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you saying you shall not eat of it. Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.”

And so we have seen the result of that now over time. Now all of history has been altered in the last 60, 50 years. Up until the feminist movement became very prominent for the first 1900 years, 2000 years of church history, it was understood that sort of the final authority within the church was to rest solely with husbands and the men pastors. But things have changed. Because there was a lot of abuse of that authority, wherever there is power it will be misused. Men are naturally, anatomically bigger. They’re more muscular. That’s why you find divisions in the men and women Olympic events. You

don’t ever see the women weight lifters competing against the men weight lifters. And a number of other events you’ll notice the same thing. Because of that added strength there, that has often been abused. And certain rights women should have had, they have been denied. And so any movement that may begin with certain just principles, as it pushes towards reaching the right position, the pendulum often swings too far. Sometimes its like trying to stop a battleship on a dime. It’s very difficult to do. It often overshoots its mark. And this happened with the feminist movement, where it went way beyond

just and what I support which was of course voting rights, equal pay for equal work and protection against discrimination. And sexual intimidation in the work place.

==============================

Does anyone see anything they strongly disagree with or believe that it doesn't represent what SDAs believe?

[John317]

Part III of Doug Batchelor's sermon:

I grew up just

immersed in the thinking of the feminist movement. My mother was a leader

in that movement in New York City. And she finally left and in her words,

this is what she said, my mom was for equal pay and equal rights and some of

the discrimination issues and many just things. But she came home

exasperated, she said, “I can’t be part of this anymore.” I still remember I was

only about twelve years old but I remember her saying, she said, “Most of

them are angry lesbians that want to be men.” [You] can take whatever you

want - I’m just telling what my mother said. And she was part of it. And so

there has been a lot of pushing that’s gone on in that movement that has other

agendas.

Part of it is to de-masculate the men in our culture. And you can see

that reflected in a lot of the advertising and the programming and it has not

been without effect. I believe that men should be men and I believe that God

has called men to lead. And I think what you’re seeing in the church has been

a reflection of what’s been happening in our culture. Where because there has

been a vacuum of leadership among the men both in society and in the

church. That wherever there is a vacuum of leadership something will flow in

and take its place. And women have been flowing in to fill the vacuum. Now

that has led beyond what the Bible, I believe, teaches us what’s appropriate. I

believe that there’s a broad spectrum, there is a kaleidoscope of different

ways that all men and women can minister.

The thing we are really

addressing our attention to today is the issue of women being ordained as

pastors and elders. And what does the Bible say about that specific issue.

Well as it’s said in that Virginia Slim’s slogan, “The times they are a

changing, you’ve come a long way baby.”

For instance in 1978, 19% of

seminary students, you know seminary is where people study for ministry,

where they study theology - they were women.

By the way, the word

seminary comes from the same word as semen. So it’s interesting that you’ve

got so many women in the seminary studying for – that’s just where the root

of the word is.

19 percent in 1978 were women. In 1994 slightly over 30

percent, so it went from 19 to 30 percent. Today a little over 50 percent, 51

percent of those that are in seminary studying for full-time ministry are

women. And that’s among the protestant denominations. Of course the

Catholics and some of the Orthodox churches have taken a very hard stance

on that so it’s not that big an issue there.

The big question is— this trend—is

it because the church suddenly woke up after 1900 years and said, ‘you know

we have been holding women back. And women really should have been

pastors all along the way, right alongside of men, pastoring

congregations?’ And the light finally dawned because people started studying

the Bible and they said ‘how have we missed all these scriptures for the last

1900 years?’ Or is it the pressure of culture, people’s fear of being accused of

being chauvinistic and rigid and unbending and socially backwards and

primitive.

Matter of fact if you were to say what percentage is it new

revelation from the Bible and what percentage is social cultural pressure; I

would tell you, I’d submit 100% of it—of that change has been driven by

everything other than a new epiphany, other than what the scripture has to

say. I believe that we have been badgered and intimidated so that we are not

really going by what does the Bible say.

Matter of fact in the Seventh-day

Adventist Church if you trace the history a little bit, I am sorry to say a lot of

those changes and of course in North America, not so much in other parts of

the world now, women are being ordained. They call it commissioned but it’s

really the same thing as being ordained as pastors. And it’s… you know you

can call it commissioned but in every other way it’s the same as ordination

with all the rights, privileges. It’s like Abraham Lincoln used to say, ‘you can

call a dog’s tail a leg, but it’s still a tail.’ And so just changing the label of

something doesn’t change the definition of it.

And what they have done is

they have tried to pacify people who read the Bible and say only men should

be ordained as pastors and say well we’re not ordaining women pastors -

were commissioning them as pastors. That’s the same thing. And in every

other way—the authority, they’re baptizing, they’re leading out in

communion services, they’re fulfilling all the sacred offices that God

originally said should be reserved for the man.

And this is a dangerous

subject for me to share. But you know I just figure someone's gotta say

something and if I perish, I perish. I’ve been here a long time anyway. And I

know it’s not very popular in our culture to say these things. Kind of like

wearing a mink coat to a PETA convention. But someone needs to say it.

First of all men and women are different. And I'm not just talking about the

obvious outward plumbing, it’s the inner wiring. And I'm not saying that I

know and understand what all those differences are. And even if we do

understand the differences and don’t understand the differences that’s not the

reason to obey the Word of God. Even if we don’t understand, the Word of

God is the Word of God. Amen?

Men and women are different in many

ways. One, we are different in the way that we relate and understand

relationships. Women tend to communicate more effectively then men. And

part of that is because the left hemisphere of their brain and the right

hemisphere are connected with four times as many neurons as with men. So

they’ve got their logical and task oriented part communicating with their

relational and emotional part as they process information. And which often

causes problems in marriages because men will want to address a specific

problem in a discussion and all of a sudden in the discussion there’s this

quantum leap to something that happened three weeks ago. And you know

you’re talking about changing the oil and all of a sudden she’s talking about

the children’s education and you’re going wait a second how’d we get on that

subject. And so all the wires go back and forth.

But men have more neurons

in their brain, and some of that is because we have more mass and that may

mean more nerve endings. But you know, you should also know…and I

know this isn’t gonna get me reelected. According to the British Journal of

Psychology, why women’s brains communicate better right to left, men on an

average score five points higher on an IQ test. Argue with the people at the

British Journal of Psychology that came up with that. Obviously women have

less muscle mass than men do. Some of the other differences are the reaction

to stress. Men tend to have a fight or flight response. Women often look for

strategies in dealing with these kinds of stresses. And they want to tend and

befriend.

Now that’s good in relationships. You know if you’re in a board

meeting it’s nice to have someone say let talk through this. If you’re on a

battlefield, you don’t want the tend and befriend attitude. You want the either

attack or retreat, fight or flight attitude. And that’s why I think on combat

men are better suited for that.

Language - the two sections of the brain

women excel. I don’t have time to read all these or I won’t have time for

anything else.

Pain—men and women perceive pain differently. Men will

deny their pain longer than women will. In their spatial ability, men typically

have stronger spatial abilities in being able to mentally represent a shape and

its dynamics, where women typically struggle in this area. Medical experts

have discovered that women have a thicker parietal region of the brain which

hinders the ability to mentally rotate objects in their brain in the aspect of

spatial abilities. So men can think better in 3D. These are generalizations you

realize as they go through this.

Susceptibility to disorders: Because of the

way that men and women use the two hemispheres of their brain there are

some different disorders they are more exposed to. Men are more apt to have

dyslexia and other language problems. Women on the other hand are more

susceptible to mood disorders such as depression and anxiety. And it goes on.

There’s quite a few differences. No we are not exactly the same. We’re

different creatures in many respects. And it’s important to recognize that as

we approach this subject that those who are clamoring and campaigning to

say that there shouldn’t be any difference in the roles of men and women in

the church - we are different. We are gifted differently and God has said there

should be a different.

What about the verse, Pastor Doug, that said, “We are all one in Christ.” I

believe that. Paul said this… Galatians chapter 3 verse 28, and those who

campaign in favor of ordaining women, as pastors love to quote this verse,

but they want to choke and muzzle Paul in everything else he says. So you’ve

got to read all of it. But this I believe is often used, and I believe it entirely. In

Christ, Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave

nor free; there is neither male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

And that’s just saying economically, ethnically… in the genders these

distinctions have no bearing on salvation.

You know amongst some of the

pagans, they thought only the men would be saved and the women would

only be saved by virtue of being linked with a man. But with Christ men and

women had equal access, slave or free, didn’t matter what your gender or

your ethnicity was - everybody could approach Christ directly. You didn’t

need to go through a priest anymore. That’s what Paul is telling us. So you’ve

got to mitigate this statement of Paul with everything else he says and you

see what you think.

So now as we dive into this, I’m going to have a lot of scriptures on the

screen. By what criteria will we decide if women should be ordained as

pastors and elders. Should we say, can women preach? Well first of all can

they? Very effectively. My mother, oh bless her heart, if she could have ever

been converted, she would have been a great communicator in that area. Can

women teach? Sure they can. Can they chair a board meeting? Can they give

you a Bible study? Can they do evangelism? Yes, absolutely. Can they be

prophets? Spirit filled? Prophets of God?

So are we gonna ask ourselves what

is increasingly popular? Is that going to be the determining argument? Or,

what does the Bible say?

I believe it is easier to support the truth—that God

has designed only men should be ordained as pastors and elders from the

New Testament, than to support the Sabbath. And it’s easy to support the

Sabbath. It’s even easier to support this principle. I will not be able to share

with you today all of the scriptures. Those who come to the conclusion that

there is not a distinction made in the Bible all the way from Adam to

Revelation in the roles of men and women in the church have to go through

the most phenomenal mind bending gymnastic to escape the plain truth, that

it’s incomprehensible to me.

But you know if you tell people a lie often

enough they’ll believe just about anything. And so this is a truth that is being

sidelined and ignored. And frankly we’re ridiculed by some of our other

protestant friends that want to take a more biblical approach to this and I’m

embarrassed. That’s one reason I feel passionate about this today.

I’ve got

friends in other churches. I’ve got friends who are in the Southern Baptist

church and others, and they say you know Pastor Doug, you know you guys

have a pretty strong argument on the Sabbath, but I can’t understand why in

the Adventist Church you are now ordaining women as pastors. And you

know I have to hang my head and say I can’t understand it either.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Part III of Doug Batchelor's sermon:

For instance in 1978, 19% of

seminary students, you know seminary is where people study for ministry,

where they study theology - they were women.

By the way, the word

seminary comes from the same word as semen. So it's interesting that you've

got so many women in the seminary studying for that's just where the root

of the word is.

I saw today a response to this part of pastor Batchelor's sermon in whcih it was said that Doug is wrong about the meaning of "seminary." But is he wrong?

Here's what the dictionary says:

noun pl. seminaries

Now Rare a place where something develops, grows, or is bred

Old-fashioned a school, esp. a private school for young women

a school or college where persons are trained to become priests, ministers, or rabbis

Etymology: ME, seed plot < L seminarium, seed plot, nursery, neut. of seminarius, of seed < semen, a seed

[John317]

Part IV of Doug Batchelor's Sermon:

Lets looks at some of the verses.

First of all, God establishes, and I’m using

mostly New Testament because you know what the argument is: people say -

Old Testament has old tradition. New Testament is what we need to go by

now.

[To] understand this order in the family, turn to Colossians 3 verse 18 to

begin with. Colossians 3 verse 18 to 20. I will have it on the screen but I do

appreciate hearing the rustle of the Bible pages, you might want to mark

some of these. “Wives submit to your own husbands.” [Role playing] Well

obviously that’s a bad translation. Well that’s what people say! And you

wouldn’t believe [the] incredible lengths people go to, they try to carve up

the language every way they can and twist these words in the original, say it

couldn’t possibly mean that.

“Wives submit to your own husbands as fitting

in the lord. Husbands love your wives do not be bitter toward them. Children

obey your parents in all things for this well pleasing to the Lord.” And so

he’s alluding to the Ten Commandments in this very simple passage—that

wives were to submit to their husbands.

You know where it says honor your

father and mother, it always starts with the father first—gives deference to

the father first. In the Hebrew mind, the father was the sun in the family the

mother was the moon. That was reflecting the light of the father. The father

was the priest leader in the family, that God communicated through the

priest, to the family. He communicates through the mother too, but she was

supposed to be reflecting that light. And if you want a scripture on that,

remember when Joseph had a dream? And the dream was that the sun and the

moon and the twelve stars were bowing down to him. Later his father

interpreted that dream. He says “what are you saying that your mother and I

and your brothers?” So the father was the sun and the mother was the moon.

See what I’m saying? So you’ll see there is this order.

1 Corinthians 11:13 - I’m just jumping from one to the other. By the way, it

says that this is well pleasing to the Lord. That would stand or reason that

when we don’t obey that it is not pleasing to the Lord. Is that simple logic? 1

Corinthians 11:3, “But I would have you know that the head of every man is

Christ.” Any problems with that so far? “And the head of every woman is the

man.” Obviously it must say something else in the Greek. These are really

plain statements. And the head of Christ is God!

You know not only are we

understanding from these verses that there is an order of authority in the

family but there is an order of authority with God! And so for us to really

dispute this truth is saying that we think that we deserve a better relationship

or a different relationship than the Father, the Son and the Spirit. That we’re

somehow [saying]—oh Jesus we realize you might submit to the authority of

God the Father, but not down here on earth. Don’t ask us to do that. You can

be God up to a point. But in the trinity, God the father, the Son and the Spirit,

you see an order of authority.

I had a lot of verses on that. I’ve got a whole

book on the trinity where you can read about. And we approach this subject

reverently because you know when you talk about God you are on holy

ground.

1 Corinthians 3: 23 says, “And you are Christ and Christ is God’s.”

This is a short verse for you. While you’re turning to Titus next, go to Titus

chapter 2:4, we will read verse 5 also. [it’s] still talking about order in the

Christian family. “And that they admonish the young women to love their

husbands.” And so we have a command for husbands to love their wives and

we’ve got a command for women to love their husbands.

By the way, there’s

more commands in the Bible for husbands to love their wives and I think this

is the only commandment for wives to love their husbands because it’s easier

for women to love, than men. That’s how I understand that. [reading the

verse] “That you admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love

their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their

own husbands, that the Word of God may not be blasphemed.” I don’t know

if any of you remember the old wedding vows, I haven’t heard one, I don’t

know if I've ever heard one since I've been a pastor but you read them from

about 50 years ago and it said something like… the women would say “to

love, honor and obey” in their vows to the husband. Because they sprang

from this Christian truth that was 1900 years old.

Jump with me now to Ephesians 5: 22 - this is Paul. This is the one who said

we are all one in Christ, same guy. Some will say well he was off his

medication those days. That just doesn’t really matter. Paul was being

influenced by the traditions of the culture. So we’re not supposed to take

these verses seriously. What’s gonna happen to your Bible? How are you

gonna chop up your scriptures if you start picking and choosing what

passages and commands you think the writers were under some imbalanced

influence of the cultures of the day.

Ephesians 5:22-25: “Wives submit

yourselves to your own husbands as unto the Lord.” Now I cleared

permission to preach all this with Karen before I got up here, I just want you

to know that. “Submit yourselves unto your husbands as unto the lord. For

the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.”

That comes out the same way doesn’t matter what translation you pick up.

“The husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church.

And he is the savior of the body. Christ the savior of the body of Christ,

which is the church. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the

wives be to their husbands in everything.” Somebody snuck this into the

Bible, is that really in the New Testament? Well explain what that really

means Pastor Doug. I think it means what it says!

If you spend too long in

plainly reading the Bible, pretty soon it’s not going to mean what it says

anymore. That means there ought to be.. Now, how much does Jesus love the

church? How patient and kind and gentle is he with the church? That’s how

husbands should love their wives. It’s a lot easier for wives to submit to a

husband like that. And just because husbands aren’t loving their wives the

way that Christ loves the church doesn’t mean that wives then throw out the

scripture. Because when you look at any kind of wrong or inconsistency in

the church or in the culture, don’t ever use that as an excuse to justify some

other bad behavior. I’ve heard people say there’s nothing wrong with

Christians decking themselves with jewelry, I’ve seen the hubcaps on those

Christian cars. Well maybe their hubcaps are a little too flamboyant. You

don’t use that to justify the other! You know I hear all these really bizarre

arguments, well they’re doing this, so this must be okay. You’re right, the

men are not acting like men, the husbands are not loving the way they ought

to love and the wives are not submitting the way the Bible says the should.

We ought to all be doing all that God commands us to do. Makes it a lot

easier on the families.

Notice though, it says here that Jesus is making a

comparison between the family relationship, now don’t miss this because I’m

going to make a jump here. Jump with me - I've been talking about the order

in the family, now we are going to transition to the church. Because the

church is an extension of the family. You can’t have God being one person in

the family with a certain order where men are the priest leaders in the family,

then once they walk into the church, now the woman is the priest leader. His

wife is now fulfilling that role. The church is an extension of the family.

Abraham was the priest leader in his family, is that right? How many were in

his family. Well it starts with 300 soldiers. 318. He had probably over a

thousand in his family. That’s bigger than our church isn't it? And he was the

patriarch, he was the priest. He would intercede, he offered the sacrifices.

This is a role that is purely, absolutely, 100 percent a male role all through

the Bible. Why did God make a distinction in the offering? Sometimes he

said this is ones to be a male lamb and this ones to be a female goat. And why

would he even specify genders of these creatures that were types, if gender

didn't mean anything? It does mean something. Why does he trace the

genealogy of Jesus both on Mary's side and on Joseph's side through the

men? There’s a reason for that. That’s because that’s the culture back then.

They were patriarchal, they were primitive. I mean after all they had too

many wives. God didn't support that. God did not support this dominant

picture of men. They had slaves back then too. So I mean if you’re going to

support slavery then…and they lumped this truth in the New Testament with

the inconsistencies, you see, it was never part of God’s plan that a man had

more than one wife. Never. Did he wink at those time of ignorance?

Absolutely. Was it ever part of God’s plan that one man should own another

man? Slavery? No. God made laws about those things to protect the people,

he winked at their ignorance because of the hardness of their hearts, he made

certain provisions. But you don’t find the relationship with the roles in family

falling into that category. It goes back to the garden of Eden. And that’s

where Paul references it when he uses these truths.

Go to 1 Peter chapter 3,

verse 1 and I'll read verse 2. “Wives likewise, be submissive to your own

husbands. That even if some do not obey the word they may without the word

be won by the conduct, behavior, the conversation of the wives. When they

observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.” I’m going to jump to

verse 5. “For in this manner in former times, the holy women who trusted in

God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands.” As

Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord. Now I'm not going to ask Karen to

call me Lord on the way home. But Peter is just using it—he is not

commanding that the wives all call their husbands Lord. And husbands don’t,

now, abuse this sermon. It’s the worst thing you could do. You think you got

it bad now, just wait. But Peter’s using this as an example of how she

respected her husband. Whose daughters you are—you are the daughters of

Sara, who called her husband Lord. “If you do what is good and you are not

afraid with any terror.” And he goes on and notice this, I didn't want to stop

early…“husbands likewise dwell with them with understanding.” That’s a

miracle right there, when we can understand them. But it says “dwell with

them with understanding giving honor to the wife as the weaker vessel.” It’s

a lot easier to submit when you are honored. You know the Bible says honor

your Lord. The Bible says honor your father and mother. The Bible says

husbands honor your wives.

And so husbands are to protect their families and

honor and cherish their wives…as the weaker vessel, and being heirs together

of the grace of life. Where are we one? Men and women, slave and free,

Greek and Jew. We are heirs together of salvation. So you notice that Peter

helps explain what Paul meant because he says ‘oh yeah that oneness that

Paul was talking about? That means we’re heirs together. But Peter says it

right after he says ‘wives should be submissive to their husbands.’ You with

me? Is this still making sense so far?

[Neil D]

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): Douglas Moo agrees that commentators before that 13th century were unanimous in favor of a female rendering.21 Stanley Grenz maintains that "the gender of Junia was not an issue in the patristic era ... Origen assumed that Paul's friend was a women...

Please give reference for Origen's "assuming" that Paul's friend was a woman. In what work did Origen write this?

Origen, who died in 252 A.D., wrote in his commentary on Romans, "Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow captives (Andronicus, et Junias, et Herodion, quos omnes et cognatos suos, et concaptivos appellat)." This is from Origen's commentary on Romans, preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus, c. 345-c. 410 A.D., in J. P. Migne, Patrolgoia Graeca, vol. 14, col. 1289). The name Junias here is a Latin masculine singular nominative, implying that Origen thought Junias was a man.

There's actually no way to be dogmatic about what the form of the name signifies. It could be feminine or it could be masculine. As I've show above, also, there are other parts of the verse which indicate that Andronicus and Junias are two men.

My point is that there is plenty of evidence to show that Doug Batchelor had good reason to tell the church in his sermon that Junias was a man.

The current scholars are working from thier current understanding from sources that not only include working from the biblical sources, but also from the extra biblical sources. Thier conclusions show, [and you would have to argue with them since they are your peers], THEY have chosen to name Junia as a female.

Here is what Dianne McDonnell says-

Dr. Leonard Swidler states, "To the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine."5 So until the late 13th century, historical references all agreed that Junia was female, as did the men below.

Origen, of Alexandria who lived toward the end of the second century (c. 185-253).

See Do early commentators record that Junia was a female apostle?

John Chrysostrom, 4th century, (337-497) wrote, "Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!" (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).

Chrysostrom is also a male chauvinistic person as he is down on women in general, but he is truthful enought to give evidence that Junia is a full fledged FEMALE apostle.

Jerome (340-419) wrote that Junia was a female. (Liver Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72, 15.) Also Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108), and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) 6 ad Romanos Commentariorum 10, 23; 29.

Your source names Origen as refering to Junia as a MALE. Mine says that Origen says that Junia is a female...Who do we believe? Your source or mine?

The question begs an answer.

I have pointed out below that Swindler [yeah, what a name!], after reviewing the church fathers, shows that Epiphanius as NOT credible. The reason is that he refers to Prisca as a man, when the biblical text clearly shows that the name is female. Therefore, when Swindler states that "To the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome" he's talking about CREDIBLE evidence...

Without going into a wealth of detail, it should be noted that the early church fathers treated it as feminine.The one exception is Epiphanius, the 4th.c. Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, but since he thought Prisca was a man too, his evidence may be discounted! Although John Chrysostom, another 4thc. Bishop and writer was generally against women's leadership, he is fulsome in his praise of Junia, "How great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle." (Epistle to the Romans 31.2) Robert Cervin closes the discussion in his article "A note regarding the name Junia/s in Romans 16:7"(New Testament Studies 40 1996 466-470) "A proper examination of the lnguistic evidence regarding the name "Junia" show that the name is feminine not masculine."

Here are sources scholars who choose to endorse the idea that Junia is female. And I will attest that there is plenty more evidence in my internet search. The only thing that prevents women from being ordained is the prejudice of men and the blindness of thier old sources...

Now, one of the credible objections that you have brought up, is that these sources might be manipulating the evidence....However, if you look at the source of these people, they are coming from different perspectives [ie different churches, Literature of greek and latin, ect] their love of the ancient literature is a 'cross reference' to mistakes made.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:14:

Please give reference for Origen's "assuming" that Paul's friend was a woman. In what work did Origen write this?

Origen, who died in 252 A.D., wrote in his commentary on Romans, "Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow captives (Andronicus, et Junias, et Herodion, quos omnes et cognatos suos, et concaptivos appellat)." This is from Origen's commentary on Romans, preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus, c. 345-c. 410 A.D., in J. P. Migne, Patrolgoia Graeca, vol. 14, col. 1289). The name Junias here is a Latin masculine singular nominative, implying that Origen thought Junias was a man.

Quote:

Neil: ...Origen, of Alexandria who lived toward the end of the second century (c. 185-253).

....Your source names Origen as refering to Junia as a MALE. Mine says that Origen says that Junia is a female...Who do we believe? Your source or mine?

I gave not only a source but the words which Origen used to express his viewpoint that Iounian (Junias) was a man.

Do you know the work in which Origen says Iounian is a female name? What did he Origen actually say? Does your source give a title of a work or quote him?

It's entirely possible Origen said in one place that the name was a woman's and in another place it was a man's. But it would be good to know what he said in order to verify if this is what occurred.