Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[Woody]

While we're attacking the messenger rather than the message ... what about a pastor who eats meat?

[Tom Wetmore]

...I'm going to do research on this and see exactly what James White said, but do you remember if James White took the position that Phoebe was the pastor of the church? Or did White believe that she was a deaconess? ...

To assist you in that regard here is the reference, It was in the July 30, 1861 issue of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Here is a link to an online copy from the GC archives - http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18610730-V18-09__B.pdf#view=fit

Upon reading it again, I see that while James white was the editor, it appears from the not at the begining that Uriah Smith introduced the article. It also addresses a number of other verses and arguments against women being preachers.

As for James White's views, it seems quite clear that he was a strong advocate for women in ministry Here is a link to a 2005 Andrews University Seminary Studies article, "YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY": JAMES WHITE, URIAH SMITH, AND THE "TRIUMPHANT VINDICATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE SISTERS" TO PREACH, that addresses some of the historical views of the founders of the Adventist Church - http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1092&journal=1&type=pdf

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Woody

JOHN3:17: It seems to me you are using the old trick of attacking the man, or attacking the messenger, instead of attacking the message

Quote:

Woody: So then ... tell me what your thoughts are about a gay minister who preaches all the 28 Fundamentals yet fails in his personal life. Are you going to listen to his true message or to the man's sins in his personal life?

What do you mean by "gay minister"? Are you talking about an SDA minister who is practicing homosexuality? Or are you talking about a man who used to practice homosexuality but who has overcome those sins by God's grace?

I am gay myself but I don't practice those sins any more. Obviously I would listen to a person who used to practice homosexuality, but if you are asking me if I would listen to someone who's currently a practicing homosexual, the answer is no. Nor would I listen to someone who claims to be a pastor, who is living in an adulterous relationship or who is a drug dealer or a whoremonger. The SDA church doesn't need or want those kinds of "pastors." I deliberately made the decision to leave the SDA ministry in the late 1970s because I didn't want to be working in the ministry at the same time that I was practicing homosexuality. I met others who were doing it, but I didn't want to join them. It was very hard for me to give up living that way of life. I wanted both Christ and homosexuality, and it was only about 2004 that I stopped fence-sitting and gave my homosexual practices over to Jesus Christ. So with His power I stopped the practices, something that I thought could NEVER happen. I know Jesus did it because if it had just been up to me, I would never have stopped. But Christ could do it only because after 35 wasted years I finally surrended my whole life to Him and gave Him permission to do what He had wanted to do all those years.

I agree with your post John.

pk

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: While we're attacking the messenger rather than the message ... what about a pastor who eats meat?

The question is not on topic, Woody. It's a foolish question anyway. Why would you ask such a question on this thread?

If you asked that of anyone else on this thread, I would delete it because it is totally irrelevent.

You didn't even answer my previous question: What do you mean by "gay pastor"-- currently practicing homosexuality or one who used to practice but who stopped because of God's grace in his life?

[John317]

Thanks, and welcome to this discussion, pk.

[Tom Wetmore]

...God CREATED the patriarchal order. Ordained it the Garden. Recorded it in His Word. Underlined it in the theocracy. Highlighted it in the lineage and incarnation of Christ. Appointed it in the twelve apostles. Embossed it in Revelation. It is start to finish.

Needless to say, I have to disagree with those conclusions. Show us the evidence of such a creation and such an "ordination" (?) in Eden. If patriarchy is highlighted in the lineage of Christ who are those women identified in his lineage recorded in the gospels?

Here is a place for you to begin your patriarchy of God's creation - Genesis 1:26-28

Quote:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

It seems rather egalitarian to me, co-rulership of man and women over the earth.

Originally Posted By: karl

It is an observation of what God did. Females leading out, throughout all these passages, are the exception, not the rule.

And as I said, any exception tends to disprove a supposed rule. But the problem is that you are arguing the facts as if they are the rule. Show us an actual stated rule upon which the facts are based. Facts are not rules. They are just facts.

[phkrause]

Thanks, and welcome to this discussion, pk.

Thanks. This might be off topic, I think it is. We had a real good friend that was an elder if I'm not mistaken. We like him so much that we had him dedicate our daughter. We found out months later that he was a homosexual. He never let on. After we moved away from NY and moved to Mass we found out. He evenually moved to Pennsylvania and started a clinic for other SDAs that were homosexuals. He was on the old Mike Douglas show once talking about his situation and how this is a sin and that God can help. Back to topic!

pk

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

As for James White's views, it seems quite clear that he was a strong advocate for women in ministry ...

OK, thanks.

I'm also a strong advocate for women in ministry. I think it's one thing to be supportive of women in Christian ministires and another for one to want women to be made pastors and elders of local congregations.

I certainly encourage women to be involved in all kinds of ministries. Here are ministries women can work in without violating the instructions in the NT:

Evangelism, Bible instructors, counseling to women, music ministry, canvassing, children's ministries, deaconess, Sabbath School work, prophetess (when called by God, of course), cooking ministry, various health ministires, prayer ministries, welfare ministries, etc.

Can you see why it's not enough merely to say someone is a strong advocate for women in ministry? It's necessary to go on and define what that means.

For instance, as regards James White, did he personaly ever ordain or give credentials or licenses to women to work as pastors and elders in local congregations? Did he ever direct others to do so?

Also, what was James White's view of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2? In other words, did he believe and show that he had Bible support for putting women in positions where they would govern and rule in the local churches and have authority over men?

Those are the important questions from my viewpoint. (I'm not expecting you to answer these questions. I'll do research and find the answers myself, but I am only telling you what questions I believe are essential to know the answers to when we study this topic.)

[John317]

Great to hear that. That's a real ministry in itself. God definitely calls people to that kind of work, but one has to be very careful, because it is like putting someone addicted to chocolate in a room full of chocolate and requiring them not to touch or eat any. Many have worked in those sorts of ministries, only to fall back. I'm not ready yet to do that work. Maybe some day.

OK, now back to topic.

[John317]

Tom, I notice that you like to talk about Ellen White as a prophet among us and as a great example of women in ministry, yet you dismiss or reject outright many of her counsels and her statements. You have done the same with different parts of the Bible. I find that a bit peculiar, to say the least.

For example, do you accept Ellen White's statements about Adam and Eve in the garden and about God's design for them there and afterwards?

I have a hard time getting a handle on exactly what your position is vis-a-vis Ellen White.

As for myself, after 30+ years of studying her life and writings, and seeing the influence of that study on my own life, I've no doubt whatsoever that this woman was a true prophet of God and was as inspired as were the prophets of the Bible.

[Woody]

Just because someone might disagree with an interpretation of EGW's that a person holds ... does not mean that said person does not believe Ellen White to be a true prophet.

I to agree with this as it is true in my life:

"As for myself, after 30+ years of studying her life and writings, and seeing the influence of that study on my own life, I've no doubt whatsoever that this woman was a true prophet of God and was as inspired as were the prophets of the Bible."

[Woody]

Quote:

Woody: While we're attacking the messenger rather than the message ... what about a pastor who eats meat?

The question is not on topic, Woody. It's a foolish question anyway. Why would you ask such a question on this thread?

If you asked that of anyone else on this thread, I would delete it because it is totally irrelevent.

You didn't even answer my previous question: What do you mean by "gay pastor"-- currently practicing homosexuality or one who used to practice but who stopped because of God's grace in his life?

I pray it stays for those who ARE able to open their eyes and SEE it. I won't attempt to change your mind since you obviously can't see it. :)

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: Just because someone might disagree with an interpretation of EGW's that a person holds ... does not mean that said person does not believe Ellen White to be a true prophet.

I'm not talking about "interpretation." I'm talking about people outright rejecting what she says. Also outright rejecting what Jude says.

For instance, Ellen White says that Adam and Eve were not together at the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. She says that Eve had been told not to wander away from her husband. But at the tree she was alone. Later, after she ate of the tree, she "became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband." PP 53, 54, 56.

Ellen White also says that if Eve had sinned but Adam had stayed faithul, God would have made another companion for Adam, but Adam would not have perished. Sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve. PP 56: par. 2.

This doesn't have to do with interpretation. This has to do with direct, clear statements by Ellen White which require no interpretation. One either believes the statements or he does not. Either one accepts them or rejects them.

This is related to the discussion, because it has to do with what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2: 11-14.

(1) Woman is not to have authority over the male (Gk "andros"); (2) BECAUSE Adam was created first; (3) And BECAUSE Adam was not deceived but the woman was.

Question: doesn't this show that there's a relationship between Paul's instructions about women's role in the church and what happened in Eden? What's the connection?

Notice that Paul says in 1 Cor. 14: 34 that the woman is to be "submissive," and he then accounts for what he says by referencing "the law."

In the next few verses, Paul goes on to add that if anyone is really spiritual or a prophet, he will acknowledge that Paul is writing the commandments of the Lord. He ends by saying, "If ANYONE does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Can you explain this? What are your thoughts?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: You didn't even answer my previous question: What do you mean by "gay pastor"-- currently practicing homosexuality or one who used to practice but who stopped because of God's grace in his life?

Quote:

Woody: I pray it stays for those who ARE able to open their eyes and SEE it. I won't attempt to change your mind since you obviously can't see it.

Would you answer the question?

[Gerr]

Quote:

So then ... tell me what your thoughts are about a gay minister who preaches all the 28 Fundamentals yet fails in his personal life. Are you going to listen to his true message or to the man's sins in his personal life?

Listening to the message of someone whose message and life-style are at extreme dissonance would be extremely difficult. Years ago, we were members of a church where they had an obese doctor for temperance leader. I had an extremely difficult time listening to him. Even the manner of delivering the message can be very distracting, how much more so then when the message and the life are at odds?

[teresaq]

If you asked that of anyone else on this thread, I would delete it because it is totally irrelevent.

are you the moderator on this particular subforum?

[teresaq]

For example, do you accept Ellen White's statements about Adam and Eve in the garden and about God's design for them there and afterwards?

which is?, according to your understanding. no "sermons" please. :)

[teresaq]

For instance, Ellen White says that Adam and Eve were not together at the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. She says that Eve had been told not to wander away from her husband. But at the tree she was alone. Later, after she ate of the tree, she "became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband." PP 53, 54, 56.

Ellen White also says that if Eve had sinned but Adam had stayed faithul, God would have made another companion for Adam, but Adam would not have perished. Sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve. PP 56: par. 2.

This doesn't have to do with interpretation. This has to do with direct, clear statements by Ellen White which require no interpretation. One either believes the statements or he does not. Either one accepts them or rejects them.

This is related to the discussion, because it has to do with what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2: 11-14.

(1) Woman is not to have authority over the male (Gk "andros"); (2) BECAUSE Adam was created first; (3) And BECAUSE Adam was not deceived but the woman was.

Question: doesn't this show that there's a relationship between Paul's instructions about women's role in the church and what happened in Eden? What's the connection?

Notice that Paul says in 1 Cor. 14: 34 that the woman is to be "submissive," and he then accounts for what he says by referencing "the law."

In the next few verses, Paul goes on to add that if anyone is really spiritual or a prophet, he will acknowledge that Paul is writing the commandments of the Lord. He ends by saying, "If ANYONE does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Can you explain this? What are your thoughts?

it might help if you read our pioneers arguments and understanding instead of the more literal calvinist understanding. just a suggestion. :)

[John317]

Quote:

karl: ...God CREATED the patriarchal order. Ordained it the Garden. Recorded it in His Word. Underlined it in the theocracy. Highlighted it in the lineage and incarnation of Christ. Appointed it in the twelve apostles. Embossed it in Revelation. It is start to finish.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Needless to say, I have to disagree with those conclusions. Show us the evidence of such a creation and such an "ordination" (?) in Eden.

Here is a place for you to begin your patriarchy of God's creation - Genesis 1:26-28

Here are some of the things that show God created the patriarchal order:

1) God created the male first. 1 Tim. 2: 13

2) God had Adam name all the animals.

3) God made Eve from Adam-- not Adam from Eve.

4) Sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve, even tho' Eve sinned first.

5) God made the man high priest and representative of the human race & head of family.

6) God's word says the woman is to submit to the husband. It does not say anywhere that the husband is to submit to the wife. It says the man is to love his wife but he is not commanded to submit to her or obey her. See 1 Peter 3: 1-6.

7) God's word refers to woman as the "weaker partner," and says man is to give honor to her.

8) God's word holds Sarah up as a model woman who obeyed Abraham & called him her master.

9) God called only males to be priests.

10) God called only males to be the head of the tribes of Israel.

11) God called only kings, never queens, to be leaders of Israel.

12) There's a clear pattern of male prophets in the Bible.

13) There's a clear pattern of male leadership all through the Bible, including judges.

14) God sent the Word into the world as a male.

15) All the primary leaders of the NT church, including the 12 disciples, were male

16) The names and birth-rights of families were passed down through the male heir. The females in the first chapters of the Bible are not even named.

Note: This fact of the male's leadership in God's overall plan does not mean that God either loves males more than females or that females are not equal to men before God or in the plan of salvation. He made the woman equal to the man, but as the Son is equal to the Father but has different roles, so the man and the woman, because of sin, have different roles in the family, society, and in the church. These differences shouldn't be interpreted as a reason to treat or view the woman as in any way inferior.

[wayfinder]

Genesis 3:6 (NASV) When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate ; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Genesis3:6 (Siptuagint) And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate, and she gave to her husband also with her, and they ate.

It would appear that they were together and ate at the at approx. the same time. Eve took a bite then handed it to Adam.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

For instance, Ellen White says that Adam and Eve were not together at the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. She says that Eve had been told not to wander away from her husband. But at the tree she was alone. Later, after she ate of the tree, she "became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband." PP 53, 54, 56.

Ellen White also says that if Eve had sinned but Adam had stayed faithul, God would have made another companion for Adam, but Adam would not have perished. Sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve. PP 56: par. 2.

JOHN3:17: This doesn't have to do with interpretation. This has to do with direct, clear statements by Ellen White which require no interpretation. One either believes the statements or he does not. Either one accepts them or rejects them.

This is related to the discussion, because it has to do with what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2: 11-14.

(1) Woman is not to have authority over the male (Gk "andros"); (2) BECAUSE Adam was created first; (3) And BECAUSE Adam was not deceived but the woman was.

Question: doesn't this show that there's a relationship between Paul's instructions about women's role in the church and what happened in Eden? What's the connection?

Notice that Paul says in 1 Cor. 14: 34 that the woman is to be "submissive," and he then accounts for what he says by referencing "the law."

In the next few verses, Paul goes on to add that if anyone is really spiritual or a prophet, he will acknowledge that Paul is writing the commandments of the Lord. He ends by saying, "If ANYONE does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Can you explain this? What are your thoughts?

Quote:

teresaq(sda)]: it might help if you read our pioneers arguments and understanding instead of the more literal calvinist understanding. just a suggestion.

Here's a suggestion: why don't you tell here what you believe our pioneers' arguments and understanding was about this topic, and give some evidence for what you say?

I have been reading our pioneers all my life. What specifically do you refer to?

Why not begin by speaking to the issue of what Ellen White says in PP 53-58?

By the way, where do you get anything "Calvinistic" in what I wrote? Show it and contrast it with what Ellen White and our pioneers wrote on the topic.

[olger]

This is a paper that I wrote in early 2003.

Ministry or Leadership?

• What does the Bible say?

• Women are called to minister

• Women are not called to leadership.

• My deepest anxiety in all this is that women will take it personally, dismissing it as another chauvinist put- down. I recognize that there are festering wounds among us among us and possibly unjust suppression in some homes. I can only say, it is not in my heart to add to those hurts. To do so unnecessarily would sit heavily on my conscience. So why raise the issue? First I happen to believe in Bible truth. I base my convictions on the revealed mind of God rather than the concealed motives of man.

• Second, departure from truth carries serious danger in both belief and behavior. I confess that when I began this study in 1994, I did not realize how much was at stake.

• It is only when we find something difficult or disagreeable in the Bible that we discover our real understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

The Godhead

What looks like a simple difference over the interpretation of Scripture easily slips into a subtle debate about it’s authority. And behind it all, the very nature of the Godhead is being questioned. To man and woman have been given the answer to a mystery. As in Ephesians 5, the sacrificial love of the husband, and the submission of the wife illustrate to a watching world what God is like. It is a mystery made known to all. Any disruption in these roles & relations result in a witness lost and a mystery stolen from those who would benefit by it.

Creation

• Genesis 1 represents a vertical line. Both man and woman are responsible to God. Vertical equality (spiritual) in God’s sight. They are the same in the economy of salvation.

• Genesis 2 is a horizontal line (a Co-ordination). Here is the basis of inequality of role and responsibility. Man directs the partnership, and woman defers to his leadership. Here, man is linked to God and woman to man (an association that follows throughout the Bible).

Role Distinctions

Are there Biblical role distinctions between man & women?

• Notice the times that God speaks to men and women separately. Genesis 3, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3.

• The Bible’s assertion that Adam was the first sinner recognizes his position as the federal head of the human race (Romans 5:12).

• After the Fall, God walks through the Garden and calls out to Adam. Why not both of them, or why not to Eve? Because Adam was the head, also implied in His warning to Adam to not eat of the tree (no record of God ever telling Eve exists. It is thus assumed that as Adam was the head of the family, he was responsible to tell her).

Teaching (didasko)

• The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

• The same scriptures call for women to didasko younger women (Titus 2).

• Paul calls on Timothy to commit the gospel truths to other men so that they might didasko others (2 Timothy 2:2).

• The church of Thyatira is signally rebuked for allowing a “woman Jezebel” to didasko and seduce God’s servants (Revelation 2:20).

• A Bishop must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2).

• Peter and the apostles continually didasko’d in the temple and in every home (Acts 5:42).

Meek & Quiet spirit

The Scriptures place a high regard on quietness in the woman. Why is this? Could it be that God has invested the woman with a special power of external witness? Her long hair covering for instance reveals the silent power of her submission in symbol. God has ordained that the woman represents the church (Ephesians 5 / 1 Corinthians 11:1-16). A woman who demonstrates these Godly qualities is preaching a powerful sermon by her life. It is a supreme irony when a woman rejects this heavenly calling and demands a pulpit like men.

• “Meek & gentle” may not summarize contemporary ideals of womanhood, but that does not invalidate their Scriptural relevance.

• Peter, like Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, but never tells husbands to submit to their wives. Both lay other responsibilities on the husband.

Cultural

• Was the Biblical counsel regarding tongues in 1 Corinthians a localized cultural condition or is the counsel applicable for Christians nowadays? If it is relevant to our world, why then do some say that the Lord’s direction regarding male leadership is only cultural? Both are scriptural mandates found in the same book. In addition, the laws regarding male leadership are sounded several times in the New Testament and constantly throughout the Bible by example, while the issue regarding tongues is only mentioned once. My point is that when we begin choosing which parts of the Bible are applicable to us, we have destroyed it as the definitive voice of God’ will. The written will of God must by necessity be all or none. If doubt can be cast on one part of the Bible, then the rest will fail. If the Bible is to be modified by humans, whom shall we appoint to speak for us? Who is worthy to alter that which the Lord said HE would not alter Himself? (Psalm 89:33, Malachi 3:6).

• Anyone who dismisses these passages (1 Corinthians 11, 14; 1 Timothy 2-3; 1 Peter 3:1; Ephesians 5) as only cultural has a troublesome task ahead of them—namely deciding when it was that God stopped speaking in His Word.

Heaven’s calling to motherhood

It was suggested during our pastoral interview of 8-26 that women were perhaps qualified to preach because of their innate compassion and motherly characteristics. The Bible & Spirit of prophecy both suggest that these characteristics are the foundation of a much higher calling, that of motherhood. The Bible instructs older women to teach younger women, while restricting them from exercising authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

This history has placed a spirit of competition in our local church, instead of the Biblical model of submission and cooperation. And competition is the legacy of Satan, not Jesus Christ.

Deborah:

• Passing on a message from God (as He has given it, without expansion, explanation, or application) is not seen as exercising leadership authority.

• Judges were raised up to deal with national defense Judges (2:16), but they had a moral as well as a military function, namely to preserve internal holiness that prevented external attack (2-17-19). The latter role was more prophetic than judicial. They were not agents of a centralized government (Gideon refused to found a royal dynasty, on the ground of divine rule (Judges 8:22-23). Among them is Deborah who thus judged Israel. Three facts about her are stated:

• She was a wife of Lapidoth, she was a prophetess, and she settled disputes. She was able to bring an inspired word of wisdom or knowledge to bear on each case.

• Unlike other judges, she did not lead when invasion threatened, but delegated (or more accurately, the Lord delegated through her) this task to the man Barak. He, with less than masculine courage or chivalry, insisted on taking her into battle, ensuring his forfeiture of the honor of victory (Judges 4:6-9).

• Her triumphal song praised the Lord that the princes (ruling men) took “the lead,” showing that her attitude was maternal rather than matriarchal. She was no Joan of Arc, in spite of the apparent shortage of strong men.

• The entire book of judges is the sad portrayal of confused nation with each person doing that which is right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:24).

Ellen White

• It is often claimed that the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White authorizes women to exercise leadership over men. Not only is this notion wholly unBiblical, it threatens to make the rare and precious gift of prophecy common and irrelevant. It would be equally unBiblical to conclude that all men are suited for leadership roles because Moses was a man. The Word clearly indicates that leadership is male, and given only to those who meet the Biblical requirements. Godly men are called to serve rather than to rule. So the Bible excludes all women and most men from church leadership roles—requiring all ecclesiastical leaders to meet a unique list of Scriptural requirements.

• Said that the Bible is clear on the roles and relations of women: I saw that God's order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded, by those who adopt the American costume. I was referred to Deuteronomy 22:5: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." God would not have His people adopt the so-called reform dress. It is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ. {1T 421.2}

• There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:9. {1T 421.3}

• Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.

• According to Arthur White (Grandson) Grandmother would speak only after James did if he was present.

Aquila & Priscilla The ministry of this married couple to Apollos is occasionally produced as an Apostolic example of women preaching. Does the Scriptural text support this? In assessing the significance of this occasion we should note that the word teach (didasko) is not used on this occasion. Husband and wife did it together, and it was a private context in their home, not a public one in church (Acts 18:25-28).

Jesus’ acceptance of women

• His attitude towards women was in stark contrast to the existing rabbinic customs of the day. Over forty references to women in the Gospels demand attention and analysis.

• Jesus ministered to women. More common in Luke, but a feature of all four Gospels. He included them in His public teaching. He gave them private instruction (Mary of Bethany) and the woman at the well in Samaria.

• He performed miracles for them (Peter’s mother-in-law, to the widow of Nain). He was compassionate with particular feminine diseases (issue of blood). He permitted them into His inner circle of followers. All this was contrary to Jewish tradition and convention. No one treated women with more respect, even those whom others despised (“Simon do you se this women as she really is?” Luke 7:44).

• He received ministry from women.

• We need to understand His increasing disassociation from His mother after His public ministry began. Her contribution to the world’s redemption has been grotesquely overestimated by Catholics.

• He asked the Samaritan woman for a drink (though He never got it).

• It was the woman’s task to anoint corpses. However, Jesus chose to appear first to a woman and to trust her to communicate the incredible news to the men. The men’s cowardice and unbelief is honestly reported in Scripture, though it is true that women ran far less risk than the male followers of an accused insurrectionist.

Jesus preference for male leadership

• The Gospels record Jesus’ negative reaction to women who tell Him what to do. It happens first at Cana, when His mother hints that a miracle would be in order. His rebuke is a Hebrew colloquiasm for “Don’t interfere”; and his addressing her as Woman” could either be a reminder of her gender, or more likely a repudiation of her maternal authority, to which he had hitherto been subject. There were also times when Jesus dealt similarly with men who sought His assistance Luke 12:14).

• The transfiguration was shared only with men (three of them).

• The Last Supper was limited to men only, even though women had followed Jesus into Jerusalem. Thus the New Covenant was inaugurated in a totally male context. It must be noted that this original was not seen as a precedent for the young church.

• Only men were present in Gethsemane, and Luke’s language implies that only men witnessed the Ascension (Acts 1:11). But what about church leadership?

• The term disciple is never specifically used of women, even of those who followed Him. Discipleship is spelled out in male terms: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate…his wife” (Luke 14:26; no mention of “her husband”).

• The seventy apostles sent out in Luke 10:1-24 are men. Acts 2:15 speaks of all the disciples and their wives and children. But we must be careful not to read too much into this. Let’s go on.

• The one indisputable fact is that Jesus chose twelve-men to be His apostles. No specific reason is given. The obvious meaning is that Jesus would not put women in a position of directing men. However offensive this may be in our day, it is most consistent with the Scriptures (Old Testament) in which Jesus believed and those writings of the Apostles later recognized as Scripture (New Testament). The foundation of the church was male.

• Jesus announced no basic change in the roles of men and women. Jesus own attitudes and actions are totally consistent with His original creation.

Man is first:

• Woman was made for man; the reverse is not true (1 Cor 11:9). Her primary function is in relation to him; his was already established without reference to her (Genesis 2:15).

• Woman was made after man. His priority in time has other implications. The firstborn carries responsibility for and authority over later arrivals as Paul indicates in 1 Timothy 2:13).

• Woman was made from man. This might be thought to indicate the incompleteness of the man (and the reason he seeks union with her rather than parents; see Genesis 2:24); but Paul uses this to support the headship of the man (1 Corinthians 11:8), possibly recalling that she came from his side.

• Adam names Eve. A legacy of His action is to be found in a wife taking her husband’s surname after marriage.

The Fall

• Order gives way to opposition, accord to alienation. The Fall introduces struggle into their respective spheres.

• After the Fall, God restates the role distinctions (Genesis 3). Note that there are different spheres of activity as man and woman are already differentiated—Adam will be affected in his daily work, Eve in her family relationships. The Fall did not introduced this differentiation; it merely damaged it (Genesis 2:15, 18).

• Having led her husband into sin, she must now live with a continuing urge to subordinate him to her wish and will. His reaction will be to use his greater strength to rule her. In Genesis 3:16 lies the real explanation for the centuries of exploitation and suppression of women, against which feminism is protesting. Incidentally, it also means that a husband who is henpecked has chosen to capitulate, usually for the sake of domestic peace.

• Sin introduced distortion of God’s creation order into an intolerable competition between the sexes. Man seeks to dominate and woman defies him though the outcome is usually in man’s favor because he is the stronger sex. Sin drives this line.

• Correction. Redemption. It is the purpose of redemption to restore creation to its pre-Fall conditions. It is important to note that in the Church, the analogy of male/divine and female/human is still valid and needed. The New Testament sets before us a consistent pattern of the Godly role differentiations that began at creation and continue in re-creation.

Galatians 3:28

• This whole letter deals with two dangers in Galatia: Building faith on the Law of Moses rather than the promise of Abraham. Second, interpreting liberty of the Spirit as license for the flesh.

• The immediate context of chapter 3 has no reference to the roles or relationships of men and women (nor are they mentioned anywhere else in the whole letter).

• The theme is the inheritance of the blessing promised to Abraham and his “seed.” It could not be inherited by a slave or a girl or a Gentile.

• Jesus fulfills the conditions and is the obvious son and “heir.” How then can anyone else share in this inheritance and blessing? The answer is simple.

• By total identification with Christ anyone can claim the inheritance !! Through faith in Jesus a person is baptized into Him, crucified with him (2:20) is clothed with Him, is in Him, and belongs to Him (verse 29).

• Literal translation is “There cannot be male and female for all of you are one male in Christ” (Compare with the “one new man” in Ephesians 2:15).

• So identification with Christ takes on His identity as that one free Jewish male descendant of Abraham—which qualifies us to inherit the promised blessing which comes to us through Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:11, 2:6, 19; 3:6)

• So all believers are sons in Christ. This could explain why the early church was addressed collectively as brothers never as brothers and sisters (an individual believer was sometimes referred to as “sister”).

• Because all are sons, all are heirs, which daughters could never be (3:29). So in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, only Jew; neither slave nor free, only free’ not male and female, only male.

• If this verse is taken out of it’s inheritance context and taken to abolish all sexual differences (neutered in Christ), it would contradict Paul’s teachings on homosexual relations (Romans 1-24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9), on the duties of husbands and wives (Colossians 3:18-19; (Ephesians 5:22-23), on slaves’ attitude to their masters 9Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:23—4:1) and in particular his qualifications of women’s ministry in the church (1 Corinthians 11:3-16; 14:33-38; 1 Timothy 2:11-14). To accuse Paul of such inconsistency is a grave charge, with implications for the inspiration of the whole Scripture as well as his personal Christian integrity. To enlarge one verse of Scripture into a social or ecclesiastical manifesto is unwarranted and misleading, particularly in view of Paul’s specific teaching on the subject. Christian Feminists have hailed this statement in Galatians as the epitome of their inspiration—and hated him for almost everything else he said on the subject!

Ordination

To focus on the ordination of women is misleading unless the ordination of men is also questioned. There is no New Testament warrant for limiting priesthood to one gender. The real issue is whether any ordination puts woman in a position “over a man”.

• It is in the very context of Gender relationships that we are warned not to malign the word of God (Titus 2:5) and not to imagine that the word of God originated with us (1 Corinthians 14:36).

• The Bible calls for the ordination of male elders in every city and clearly outlines their qualifications (Titus 1:5-9).

• The real issue is whether at any level the relationship between sexes is as God intended it to be.

• The conclusion drawn is that the paradox of gender in creation (horizontal inequality & vertical equality) remains a feature of life in this present world and is consistently maintained throughout the Old and New Testaments.

• To be true to the Bible we must stop putting women in positions of leadership over men.

Unequal Yokes

• When a woman is spiritually ahead of her husband, it is increasingly difficult for her to regard him as the head.

• The church has created many unequal yokes in this way, making possible the breakdown of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:15).

• Without intending or even realizing it, Christians have often encouraged wives to become spiritual leaders to their husbands.

• The best way for a wife to convert her husband is to change herself (1 Peter 3:1-6).

• The marrying of believers with unbelievers is a grave error that the church should avoid. At least let there be extensive premarital counseling prior to marriage of young adults.

Priesthood of all believers

• This is a quote from the preface of the giving of the Law on Sinai. Throughout the history of Israel, the roles and relations between men & women were clear and observed. These roles are also clearly maintained under the New Covenant.

• For Men, more training needs to be given. The answer to the present imbalance is not to weaken the woman’s contribution but to strengthen the men’s. Local churches must give top priority to evangelizing and discipling men as Jesus did.

• It is better to teach a man to lead his wife and family than to provide women’s meetings and youth clubs to compensate for a godless father. It would be utterly wrong to deny leadership to women and do little or nothing about training men for this responsibility. The Word tells us where to go. Godly wisdom tells us how to get there.

• The church has need of spiritual mothers as well as fathers.

• Many Christian women who accept that biblical leadership is male rightly complain that avenues of ministry have been unnecessarily inhibited by male monopoly. There are avenues of ministry that do not in any way involve the direction of men.

• The public ministries of praying and prophesying are effective when exercised by women of spiritual insight and sensitivity.

“The issue of so-called equality of men and women touches the very foundation of Christian faith, for it goes deep into the nature of God and the great mystery of which the apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians. For years I have watched with increasing dismay the destruction that the feminist movement has wrought in the world, in the church, in Christian homes and marriages, and in personalities. I have studied the torturous arguments of those who would persuade us that Galatians 3:28 cancels out everything the author says elsewhere in his epistles about the vital distinctions between men and women. I have listened to the endless discussions of Paul’s rabbinic prejudice and cultural insularity. I have delved into the meaning of the Greek word hupotasso (“to arrange under,” “to be under obedience,” “to put under,” “to subdue unto,” “to subject to,” “to be in subjection to,” to submit self unto”) and have on a few occasions been asked to debate those who would rewrite history, literature, psychology, and the BIBLE itself to make them palatable to the woman of the late twentieth century.

I have done practically everything but jump up and down and scream about it. The subject is not a clerical issue, nor is it hierarchical, situational, historical, or experimental; it is biblical! It is a theological mystery representing Christ and the church, bigger than exegesis, and deeper than our deepest understanding” (Elisabeth Elliot, August-1989).

olger

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: Genesis 3:6 (NASV) When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate ; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Genesis3:6 (Siptuagint) And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate, and she gave to her husband also with her, and they ate.

It would appear that they were together and ate at the at approx. the same time. Eve took a bite then handed it to Adam.

But that isn't what the text says.

Of course he was with her when she handed the fruit to him. He couldn't very well have been anywhere else but near her, because her arm was very short, and she had no way of giving it to him while he was more than an arm's length away. Gen. 3: 6 does not make it necessary to understand that Adam was with Eve at the time she was tempted and took her first bite from the fruit.

It actually shows that the verse doesn't mean she gave the fruit to her husband while he was with her at the time of the tempation. It is saying that she gave some of the fruit to the one whom God made to be her companion in the garden. She ate of the fruit while alone at the tree talking to Satan, and then afterwards she found Adam and gave some of the forbidden fruit to him also.

Another reason Adam could not have been with Eve at the time of the temptation is that it would mean Adam stood completely dumb beside Eve and listened to her conversation with Satan and yet never uttered a word, even though he was wise to Satan's temptation. So your senario calls for us to believe that Adam knew Eve was basically committing suicide but he said absolutely nothing to warn.

Yet despite that, Eve never blamed Adam. She never said, "Adam, how come you stood there like a dumb dog and let me fall for Satan's lies, even though you knew he was tricking me?"

And Adam didn't blame Satan or the serpent. How come Adam only blamed Eve? Because Adam didn't hear Satan and the serpent. They didn't tempt him--- Eve tempted Adam.

Now that's strange if Adam was standing near the tree the whole time. One would have expected Adam to say something to the serpent or for the serpent to say something to Adam. Yet here we have complete and utter silence, all the while Eve is being tricked into her death.

Anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Does it make sense that Adam was standing only a few feet from Eve all the while she was falling to her death, as it were? If he did that, can we honestly say that Adam loved Eve? Why didn't he protect her? Did he forget how to talk?

Can you explain these things, Wayfinder?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: For example, do you accept Ellen White's statements about Adam and Eve in the garden and about God's design for them there and afterwards?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): which is?, according to your understanding.

Ellen White says that Adam and Eve were not together at the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. this is a very unpopular teaching today, even-- as I found out on this forum-- among those who claim to accept Ellen White's prophetic gift.

Ellen White wrote that Eve had been told not to seperate herself from her husband. But she did separate from Adam, so that she was alone at the tree when she was tempted. She put her trust in her own reasoning and in her senses more than in the words of God. She reasoned with the devil, which was her first mistake. Later, after she ate of the tree, she "became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband." She went out looking for him in order to give some of the forbidden fruit to him. PP 53, 54, 56.

Ellen White also says that if Eve had sinned and Adam had stayed faithul, God would have made another companion for Adam.

Adam would not have perished if only Eve had sinned. Sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve. PP 56: par. 2.

[wayfinder]

John317, Adam and Eve were the only ones in the garden, there was no one else, so I find the fact that in the verse it says who was with her. If Adam was somewhere else in the garden, I think that it would say and she took some of the fruit and found Adam and offered him some. The fact that the text says "with her" I believe it means just that. Adam does not seem to be a strong personality, he probably watch with interest and listened to the serpent talking with Eve. When Eve ate and nothing happened to her, he was intrigued and when she offered him some he took it and ate. The fact that they both played the blame game say alot. Adam blamed Eve, the inference being, it was her fault. Adam did not say he did it because he loved her so much that he did not want to be without her. Adam blamed Eve in the same way, and for the same reasons, that Eve blamed the serpent. The reason that Eve didn't blame Adam would be because he was a taken by the serpent as she was. In other words they were both deceived by the serpent, Eve just took the fruit first. There is no record that Adam protested at any time concerning Eve. Adam only says the woman gave me some and I ate it, like what else was he supposed to do.

Paul uses this to emphesize that fact that women are weak and easily deceived. He emphesizes the point that Adam was not the one deceived, but Eve was deceived, this is why he implies, they shouldn't think for themselves, but just have babies.

1 Timothy 2:12 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 created, and then Eve.

14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.